Sins of the fathers??

[Johnney]

I hope you've had yourself sterilized. You drag the whole gene-pool down.

why is that bully? because he doesnt fall into line with your views? a place where queers indulge in that type of deviant behavior isnt a place for children.

 

[Shattered]

I hope you've had yourself sterilized. You drag the whole gene-pool down.

Is that what you're left resorting to? Tsktsk... Insults such as those ruin your whole argument, and make you look simply infantile.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I understand that 100%, I was more curious about the WHY. I originally posted:
I'd like to hear your justification for saying this.
in response to:
Homosexual 'couples' want kids because it makes THEM feel better

I can't answer for =d= but I am sure that most homosexuals have many of the same reasons as straights for raising children. Most people want to love and be loved, raise a family, pass on their values to the next generation, and so forth. What I think =d= might have meant is that since gay couples can't produce their own children, raising an adopted/donor-made family would make the homosexual couple feel more like a normal couple. Homosexuals are now moving from the cities to the suburbs in the pursuit of normalcy. But they will never be "normal", much as they want to feel that way or act that way or appear that way. Two people of the same sex cannot mate and produce children. It's not nature's way.

and I also posted
Why can't we do the same (accept their choice to raise children) to homosexual couples?
in response to:
I think the point is that homosexuals shouldn't be raising kids in the first place.

which are questions of WHY. I never said that you can't form any society the majority chooses. This is a discussion forum and I'm naturally curious to understand the reasoning behind people's opinions.

There are many reasons people do not want homosexuals to raise children and not all reasons are based in religion. But it seems a basic reason is that homosexuality is considered by most to be deviant and not healthy. This is the primary reason why children should not be raised by them. If a deviant lifestyle is not considered healthy, why would their raising children be healthy for the children? (This is not to say that homosexuals can't be basically good people) Another basic reason for not allowing this to become an acceptable "family unit" is that it destroys the historical, political, and biological family unit that has worked successfully for centuries in our western society. To change it is to change our culture and take a step backwards in social development.

Anyway those are a couple thoughts on the matter. Maybe =d= or somebody else would like to add to them.

 

[Comrade]

There is no evidence supporting claims that children raised by same gender couples suffer any harm for the experience. Most such children that I have met have been as well adjusted, or better, than their peers raised by traditional couples.

There's no evidence beyond anectdotal on this experience at all, because it's a new phenomena and very few cases exist overall.

I'd welcome a study of how many children raised by gay couples develope bisexual or homosexual tenancies. It would finally put to rest the environment/genetic argument surrounding the question of gay origins.

While only four states permit same gender couples to legally adopt children, most states turn a blind eye to those individuals who adopt children and are in a relationship with someone of the same gender. And, there is the option of artificial insemination for lesbian couples.

The state should either enforce the law or not, and stop experimenting on the side with a 'wink wink'.

That's one of the reasons Bush won the election! Especially when the Democratic governor in S.F. opposed the state court ruling. It's counter-productive for the gay agenda.

The sad fact of the matter is that all these good Christian folks who are so outraged by the idea of same-gender couples adopting children don't seem to be rushing out to adopt any.

That's factually incorrect. Christian couples adopt far more children per capita than the gays, and adoptions are a PREMIUM for herero-sexual American couples with costs running upwards into $30,000.

By permitting same gender couples the opportunity to adopt children, those children are able to experience a warm and loving family life that they nmight not have otherwise had.

Bullycrap! The market sets the price for adoption at a premium.

 

[Avatar4321]

There's no evidence beyond anectdotal on this experience at all, because it's a new phenomena and very few cases exist overall.

I'd welcome a study of how many children raised by gay couples develope bisexual or homosexual tenancies. It would finally put to rest the environment/genetic argument surrounding the question of gay origins.

See im not so sure it would put to rest the environment versus genetics argument. I see a few problems with it.

Its nature for men and women to be attracted to the opposite sex. It might make people more open to accept homosexuality but i dont think even if they were indoctrinated with it that it would necessary overcome the natural insticts to mate with the opposite sex. But there likely would be higher amounts of homosexuals among adopted children of homosexuals because they would accept it more and quite likely would rather be like their parents...

Its a complicated measure. it might provide some evidence one way or another but i dont think it would settle it.

 

[Comrade]

See im not so sure it would put to rest the environment versus genetics argument. I see a few problems with it.

Its nature for men and women to be attracted to the opposite sex. It might make people more open to accept homosexuality but i dont think even if they were indoctrinated with it that it would necessary overcome the natural insticts to mate with the opposite sex. But there likely would be higher amounts of homosexuals among adopted children of homosexuals because they would accept it more and quite likely would rather be like their parents...

Its a complicated measure. it might provide some evidence one way or another but i dont think it would settle it.

I realize your objections, but such a study could stastically rule out one part of this debate if you think about it.

If children of a homosexual couple are statistically (within a 5% margin of error) more likely to be gay than their counterparts among heterosexual couples, then environment has a role in determining ones' sexuality.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Is that what you're left resorting to? Tsktsk... Insults such as those ruin your whole argument, and make you look simply infantile.

He deserves no better. Should he offered anything resembling an argument on the issue I would gladly debate him. As it is, he offers nothing more than puerile invective and pseudo-religious excreta.

 

[Bullypulpit]

why is that bully? because he doesnt fall into line with your views? a place where queers indulge in that type of deviant behavior isnt a place for children.

No, not at all. No child deserves a parent so ignorant.

By your reasoning, straight couples who are into any sexual practices beyond the missionary position should be prohibited from having children. After all the great moral compasses of our time... Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al tell us sex for anything other than procreation is "deviant behavior".

So, grasp your ears firmly...Give 'em a good tug...And pop yer head outta yer rectum.

 

[Avatar4321]

By your reasoning, straight couples who are into any sexual practices beyond the missionary position should be prohibited from having children. After all the great moral compasses of our time... Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al tell us sex for anything other than procreation is "deviant behavior".

And on what planet do you think we accept Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson as the greatest moral compasses of our time or anything other than men seeking power in the name of God (I honestly have no idea who Swaggart is).

You are missing the point anyway like usual.

Nature tell us that homosexuals should not have children. Hence why those of the same gender cannot procreate with another.

Also using the same reasoning nature would also dictate that those encouraging no sex beyond the missionary position will not as likely have as many children because of their monotonous sex life.

Nature also dictates that the pro life movement will win. Because the pro choice movement practices what they preach and culls their own belief system out of existance.

Amazing how God arranged a way to promote morality throughout the generation by creating the family and making it so those who to not follow the most optimal moral choices dont have as great a chance at their posterity following in their footsteps dont you think?

BTW even if you dont believe in God the homosexual movement has been arguing for years we should listen to nature. Nature says they cant have children so why change their argument now?

 

[MissileMan]

BTW even if you dont believe in God the homosexual movement has been arguing for years we should listen to nature. Nature says they cant have children so why change their argument now?

Sorry Av....that argument is a holey bucket. There are hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples who can not get pregnant naturally. Are you saying they aren't supposed to have children either?

 

[Johnney]

No, not at all. No child deserves a parent so ignorant.

so teaching your child that a queer lifestyle is a bad thing? and who are you to tell anyone how anad what to teach their children? you were a catholic priest in a past lifetime werent you

By your reasoning, straight couples who are into any sexual practices beyond the missionary position should be prohibited from having children. After all the great moral compasses of our time... Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al tell us sex for anything other than procreation is "deviant behavior".

and how is this by my reasoning? and for those of us who are against queers for reasons that dont involve the bible, we could care less what those people think. ill take my sex with a <b>female</b> anyway she wants it.

So, grasp your ears firmly...Give 'em a good tug...And pop yer head outta yer rectum.

i can see you still have a high standard of posting. i think your gene pool could use a little chlorine and a good scrubbin yourself.

 

[Merlin1047]

Adopting and raising a child or children is one of the ultimate acts of charity. In most cases, it is an act of great sacrifice. I can't believe the pompous, sanctimonious assholes in this forum who would sully such an act because they don't like the adoptive parents lifestyle. Ask the kids if they'd rather be in an orphanage...I'll wager NOT!

You are jumping to several unwarranted and unsupported conclusions. First, you cannot determine what motivated this couple to adopt children. It could have been and "act of charity" as you suggest or it could have been ego, or an attempt to score political points. I have no way of knowing what motivated these people and neither do you, so this part of your argument is out the window. Second, you cannot state that the choice these children faced was either adoption by a homosexual couple or continued residency in an orphanage. Quite likely these children could have been adopted by a heterosexual couple. Again, I cannot state that unequivocally, but the facts support my view, otherwise there would be no waiting lists for adoptions.

What's really pissing you off is these acts of self-sacrifice fly in the face of your arguments that all homosexuals are self-serving; that these acts are being performed by those who you consider unredeemable.

Again, you're making suppositions without having a factual basis to support them. As far as my personal view, I do not believe that homosexuals are bad people, nor do I believe that they necessarily have hidden agendas, although undoubtedly some do (same as any other group of people). What I do believe is that homosexuality is an aberrant and deviant behavior which should not be legitimized by such things as allowing marriage or adopting children. I believe that having children raised in a homosexual household is highly problematic.

I don't consider homosexuals "unredeemable", but I do consider them to be perverts. As such, they should not be allowed to influence children.

Why is it that you jump to the conclusion that the parents have some hidden agenda? Why is it not possible that the kids were adopted from a Catholic- run orphanage and they are trying to keep the kids in a school environment they are accustomed to? Is it the Christian way to always think the worst of people?

First, it is HIGHLY unlikely that these children were adopted through any Catholic agency. The Catholic church frowns on homosexuality and would not permit children to be placed in such an environment.

But to get back to the basic theme of the original article, I find it extremely hypocritical and un-Christian of those parents who are attempting to have these children ejected from Catholic school. The lifestyle of the parent has no bearing on the status of the children in regard to the school. Matter of fact, it seems to me that attendance at a religious school would tend to minimize the possibility that the children will adopt their parent's lifestyle.

 

[MissileMan]

You are jumping to several unwarranted and unsupported conclusions. First, you cannot determine what motivated this couple to adopt children. It could have been and "act of charity" as you suggest or it could have been ego, or an attempt to score political points. I have no way of knowing what motivated these people and neither do you, so this part of your argument is out the window. Second, you cannot state that the choice these children faced was either adoption by a homosexual couple or continued residency in an orphanage. Quite likely these children could have been adopted by a heterosexual couple. Again, I cannot state that unequivocally, but the facts support my view, otherwise there would be no waiting lists for adoptions.

My conclusion was no more a leap than any of the others posted about the motives of the adoptive parents. And the fact that there are children in orphanages waiting to be adopted counters your argument. The waiting lists are mostly filled with people with very specific criteria pertaining to age, race, sex, etc.

Again, you're making suppositions without having a factual basis to support them. As far as my personal view, I do not believe that homosexuals are bad people, nor do I believe that they necessarily have hidden agendas, although undoubtedly some do (same as any other group of people). What I do believe is that homosexuality is an aberrant and deviant behavior which should not be legitimized by such things as allowing marriage or adopting children. I believe that having children raised in a homosexual household is highly problematic.

I don't consider homosexuals "unredeemable", but I do consider them to be perverts. As such, they should not be allowed to influence children.

The basis for my statement is the NUMEROUS posts made on this board that all homosexuals are quintessentially selfish and self-serving. And speaking of suppositions, there is no evidence one way or the other that children raised in a homosexual household turn out any differently than those raised in a heterosexual one.
I can think of worse people who are allowed to influence children...racists come to mind.

But to get back to the basic theme of the original article, I find it extremely hypocritical and un-Christian of those parents who are attempting to have these children ejected from Catholic school. The lifestyle of the parent has no bearing on the status of the children in regard to the school. Matter of fact, it seems to me that attendance at a religious school would tend to minimize the possibility that the children will adopt their parent's lifestyle.

I won't speak to whether they are being hypocritical or un-Christian, but I do agree with you that they are wrong. My shot was aimed at those who blew right past the real problem, which is they are trying to exclude those kids from a Catholic school, to start bashing the adoptive parents for no other reason than they are homosexuals.

 

[Merlin1047]

My And speaking of suppositions, there is no evidence one way or the other that children raised in a homosexual household turn out any differently than those raised in a heterosexual one.
I can think of worse people who are allowed to influence children...racists come to mind.

Aside from the issue of exclusion from school, your assertion listed above bears discussion. There does appear to be some evidence to support the claim that children raised by homosexuals have more than their share of problems.
==============================================
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0321-124.html
Response By Dr. Paul Cameron To Attack On His Work By ABC's
Primetime; Children of Homosexuals Say Their Lives Are Difficult
To: National Desk
Contact: Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute,
303-681-3113
Web site: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., March 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The
following was released today by the Family Research Institute:

Dr. Paul Cameron states:

57 children who had homosexual parents were interviewed by
lesbian researchers, who published the testimonies. Scientists at
the Family Research Institute subjected these testimonies to
content analysis and have just reported their findings in the
peer-reviewed journal

Psychological Reports. Children with homosexual parents reported
many problems. More than half of the kids complained of instability
of parent's lovers, and emotional distress. About a third of the
older children engaged in homosexuality.

Most (92 percent) of the testimonies mentioned one or more
problems: of 213 problems, 201 (94 percent) were attributed to the
homosexual parent. The excerpted testimonies can be read at
www.familyresearchinst.org. Dr. Paul Cameron said "no one who reads
these testimonies could possibly consider homosexual adoption a
good idea. Indeed, just about all the investigators who have
interviewed homosexuals' children have come to the same conclusion
-- homosexuals make their kids bear a heavy burden. In addition,
due to the examples of their parents and the association with other
homosexuals a large proportion of them end up in homosexuality
themselves. Homosexual adoption is a bad idea."

The report is available at
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html



http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html
Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.


http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/childrend.asp
Homosexual Agenda
TARGETING CHILDREN
Part four: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation
E-mail this page to a friend
Ed Vitagliano
News Editor, AFA Journal
AFA Journal, June, 2001How the homosexual agenda is targeting children

If there is one area of the debate over homosexuality that seems to make pro-family groups squeamish and homosexuals indignant, it is the issue of molestation. Do homosexuals pose a direct danger to children?

It is probably safe to say that, for most of this century most Americans intuitively saw homosexuals as a threat to their children. After all, homosexuality was by definition a sexual perversion, and where there was one perversion (homosexuality) there would likely be another (molestation).

But by the mid-1990s homosexual activists had succeded is hijacking the public debate on sexual orientation issues, and a new creed had replaced the old: homosexuals posed no danger to children.

Is this true? Are children safe in the presence of homosexuals, or are they in danger of sexual abuse that may, in fact, lead them into the homosexual lifestyle?

Homosexuality and pedophila
It should be said from the outset that a homosexual orientation does not automatically lead to pedophilia, and most homosexuals do not abuse children. Moreover, most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce pedophilia.

But that is not the end of the story. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book Homosexuality and the Politicis of Truth that there is a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia."

One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, "The only standard for moral sex… is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved."

From that sexual ethic to one which includes intergenerational sex is but a short leap. Andriette said, "There is no question that blacks, whites, women, men, children, and adolescents can consent to sex … . If we want really to respect the authenticity of individuals we have to let people take risks, explore different values, and recognize that we will be challenged and threatened by what they discover." (Emphasis added.)

This homosexual perspective was in full view nearly three decades ago, with the release of the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Activists in Chicago, representing the fledgling homosexual movement, demanded the "[r]epeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons," and the "[r]epeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."

Such homosexuals see society’s disapproval of adult-child sex as the transgression, rather than the adult-child sex itself. In The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, lesbian author Pat Califia said, "Boy lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers … are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."

Moreover, for many homosexuals, this same-sex attraction to minors may stem from their own sexual experiences. Research shows that very often homosexuals had their own initial same-sex encounter with an adult while children. (See AFA Journal, May 1999.)

Writing in The Advocate, a magazine for homosexuals, Carl Maves agreed. "How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience – one that initiated them into their sexuality – if it weren’t for so-called molestation?" he said.

Perhaps the most notorious group advocating adult-child sex is the North American Man/Boy Association (NAMBLA). An unashamedly pedophile organization, NAMBLA wants society to appreciate, rather than deplore, intergenerational sex, and to abolish laws banning sex between adults and minors.

While most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce NAMBLA and its agenda, the pedophile group is still allowed to march in "gay" pride parades in New York, San Francisco and Boston under its own NAMBLA banner.

Furthermore, some suggest that public disavowal of NAMBLA by homosexual groups is a smokescreen. David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance, says homosexual activists have supressed pedophilia in order "to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream."

 

[MissileMan]

Aside from the issue of exclusion from school, your assertion listed above bears discussion. There does appear to be some evidence to support the claim that children raised by homosexuals have more than their share of problems.
==============================================

A lot of the problems listed in your link are similar to those in heterosexual households. It's not uncommon to hear "my mom's boyfriend drinks too much." Because it's "mom's girlfriend drinks too much", that is supposed to be evidence that all kids raised by homosexuals get damaged?

It's funny that this study also attributes the children being harassed and ridiculed to a problem with the parents and not a problem of those doing the harassing...talk about self-serving! Maybe they can go to the homes of these kids and hit them up-side-their heads so they can claim that kids raised in homosexual households are more likely to suffer from physical abuse.

How about an opposing viewpoint?
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles Apr02/Art_Apr02_10.html

 

[Merlin1047]

A lot of the problems listed in your link are similar to those in heterosexual households. It's not uncommon to hear "my mom's boyfriend drinks too much." Because it's "mom's girlfriend drinks too much", that is supposed to be evidence that all kids raised by homosexuals get damaged?

The article cites action by fmr Gov Gray Davis - believe he was the one thrown out on his ass wasn't he?

Okay, if you want to ignore the possible damage to children raised in same-sex households, let's explore some other possibilites which may arise if this practice becomes accepted nationwide.

What happens when two homosexual men want to have a biological child fathered by one or the other? Assume they hire a woman as a surrogate and she carries a baby to term and then gives it up.

How about when two lesbians want "their own" child? One or the other - or maybe they take turns - gets artificially inseminated and bears a child.

Will you refuse to admit that practices like these are highly likely in a future where homosexual unions are considered acceptable? And will you also continue to deny the adverse impact such practices have on the family as we see it today?

 

[MissileMan]

The article cites action by fmr Gov Gray Davis - believe he was the one thrown out on his ass wasn't he?

Okay, if you want to ignore the possible damage to children raised in same-sex households, let's explore some other possibilites which may arise if this practice becomes accepted nationwide.

What happens when two homosexual men want to have a biological child fathered by one or the other? Assume they hire a woman as a surrogate and she carries a baby to term and then gives it up.

How about when two lesbians want "their own" child? One or the other - or maybe they take turns - gets artificially inseminated and bears a child.

Will you refuse to admit that practices like these are highly likely in a future where homosexual unions are considered acceptable? And will you also continue to deny the adverse impact such practices have on the family as we see it today?

I'll admit that those practices are even occurring today. So what? You want to take away the rights of homosexuals to have kids of their own? What other rights would you deny them? I foresee an increase in that manner of acquiring a child and a decrease in adoption. Other than an increase in the number of kids who spend their entire childhood as a ward of the state, the impact of it is as yet unknown. I'd say that the impact would likely be less significant than the huge number of kids being raised in single parent households.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'll admit that those practices are even occurring today. So what? You want to take away the rights of homosexuals to have kids of their own? What other rights would you deny them?

Rights??? Why do those who support homosexual relationships always start citing "rights". Show me the passage in the Constitution that relates to homosexual rights and I'll cede the point. And don't try that business about "pursuit of happiness" because that won't wash. There is no "right" for homosexuals to adopt children. In your zeal to support homosexual unions you have gone out on a very shaky limb. I find your lack of regard for the conventional family and support for the twisted relationships of homosexuals and children appalling. The decline of the family is a certain precursor to the decline of a nation.
================================================
http://www.probe.org/docs/decline.html
The Decline of the Family
Nations most often fall from within, and this fall is usually due to a decline in the moral and spiritual values in the family. As families go, so goes a nation.

This has been the main premise of thinkers from British historian J. D. Unwin to Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin who have studied civilizations that have collapsed. In his book Our Dance Has Turned to Death, Carl Wilson identifies the common pattern of family decline in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Notice how these seven stages parallel what is happening in our nation today. In the first stage, men ceased to lead their families in worship. Spiritual and moral development became secondary. Their view of God became naturalistic, mathematical, and mechanical.

In the second stage, men selfishly neglected care of their wives and children to pursue material wealth, political and military power, and cultural development. Material values began to dominate thought, and the man began to exalt his own role as an individual. The third stage involved a change in men's sexual values. Men who were preoccupied with business or war either neglected their wives sexually or became involved with lower-class women or with homosexuality. Ultimately, a double standard of morality developed. The fourth stage affected women. The role of women at home and with children lost value and status. Women were neglected and their roles devalued. Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and also freedom for sex outside marriage. Women also began to minimize having sex relations to conceive children, and the emphasis became sex for pleasure. Marriage laws were changed to make divorce easy.

In the fifth stage, husbands and wives competed against each other for money, home leadership, and the affection of their children. This resulted in hostility and frustration and possible homosexuality in the children. Many marriages ended in separation and divorce.

Many children were unwanted, aborted, abandoned, molested, and undisciplined. The more undisciplined children became, the more social pressure there was not to have children. The breakdown of the home produced anarchy.

In the sixth stage, selfish individualism grew and carried over into society, fragmenting it into smaller and smaller group loyalties. The nation was thus weakened by internal conflict. (Brings to mind the current state of the left in general and the Democratic party in particular)The decrease in the birthrate produced an older population that had less ability to defend itself and less will to do so, making the nation more vulnerable to its enemies.

Finally, unbelief in God became more complete, parental authority diminished, and ethical and moral principles disappeared, affecting the economy and government.(Again, this sounds a lot like the philosophy of the average liberal) Thus, by internal weakness and fragmentation the societies came apart. There was no way to save them except by a dictator who arose from within or by barbarians who invaded from without.

Although this is an ancient pattern of decline found in Greece and Rome, it is relevant today. Families are the foundation of a nation. When the family crumbles, the nation falls because nations are built upon family units. They are the true driving social force. A nation will not be strong unless the family is strong. That was true in the ancient world and it is true today.

Social commentator Michael Novak, writing on the importance of the family, said:

One unforgettable law has been learned through all the disasters and injustices of the last thousand years: If things go well with the family, life is worth living; when the family falters, life falls apart.
=======================================================

I view homosexuals as a detriment to society. Historically, the downfall of nearly every great civilization was preceeded by an acceptance of homosexuality as a norm. I'm not claiming that homosexuality CAUSED the decline, but I am saying that acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" is symptomatic of a society in decline.

As I see it, homosexual relationships are perverse. While I do not support the notion of "bedroom police", neither do I support the notion that we should have to "accept" homosexuals simply because they demand it.

Further, I find the notion patently offensive that children should be raised in a house where the adult role models are a pair of deviates. Homosexuality is, by definition, a perversion. Those who suffer from such a personal defect should not be allowed to influence children.

I'm willing to live and let live as far as homosexuals are concerned so long as they conduct their lives in private and do not demand that I accept their perverted conduct as mainstream. But when they come out and start demanding "rights" which do not exist and never have, then I have a vested interest in the discussion.

 

[MissileMan]

Rights??? Why do those who support homosexual relationships always start citing "rights". Show me the passage in the Constitution that relates to homosexual rights and I'll cede the point. And don't try that business about "pursuit of happiness" because that won't wash. There is no "right" for homosexuals to adopt children. In your zeal to support homosexual unions you have gone out on a very shaky limb. I find your lack of regard for the conventional family and support for the twisted relationships of homosexuals and children appalling. The decline of the family is a certain precursor to the decline of a nation.

Now you're having trouble understanding what you yourself have written. You asked what will happen when homosexual men have their own biological children with surrogate mothers or lesbians have their own children by way of sperm donors. This is a totally separate issue from adoption, but you seem to want to prohibit it too.

You ask me where it says in the constitution that homosexuals have rights. I'll ask you where in the constitution is says homosexuals are to be denied rights.

 

[dmp]

Now you're having trouble understanding what you yourself have written. You asked what will happen when homosexual men have their own biological children with surrogate mothers or lesbians have their own children by way of sperm donors. This is a totally separate issue from adoption, but you seem to want to prohibit it too.

You ask me where it says in the constitution that homosexuals have rights. I'll ask you where in the constitution is says homosexuals are to be denied rights.

I think the underlying issue you are resisting to understand is:


People living a homosexual (or rapist, or any other sexually deviant lifestyle) should be kept as far away from kids as possible. It's inherent in those lifestyles to allow one's sexual desires to define who they are. Those lifestyles HARM the participants, sometimes irreparably...and can cause dramatic, catastrophic issues for children. Whether adoption, or thru surrogates, Homosexual-living adults should be forbidden to supervise the development of children.