BF2S Forums Should Homosexuals be allowed to have kids??

mKmalfunction wrote:

JimG wrote:

If it was normal for gays to have kids, it would not be considered abnormal being a child of two gay parents.

I don't have anything against homosexuals, but this quote says alot about this topic.

elaborate

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

i only read the starting post, so i missed this. in my opinion it is cruel to think about others right, to have children. so should disabled people get sterilized, to prevent them from getting disabled children? should minorities be hindered to get children, only because minorities get discriminated?
should sudanese people be allowed to get children - even if they die of starvation or get slaughtered in war?

it is not our right to take these decisions.

I agree. I do not feel either, that we just because we are the majority have the right to decide for homosexuals.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

JimG wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

i only read the starting post, so i missed this. in my opinion it is cruel to think about others right, to have children. so should disabled people get sterilized, to prevent them from getting disabled children? should minorities be hindered to get children, only because minorities get discriminated?
should sudanese people be allowed to get children - even if they die of starvation or get slaughtered in war?

it is not our right to take these decisions.

I agree. I do not feel either, that we just because we are the majority have the right to decide for homosexuals.

However thats the way society is so you can either accept it or go argue protest your point elsewhere. Go to bed or do your hmw Jim or ill come into your room and slap you.

That is not how society is actually. Capatalism is based on defending the rights of one person before the honour of the country. It is completly realistic to think that they should be able to and can be able to have their own children.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

JimG wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

However thats the way society is so you can either accept it or go argue protest your point elsewhere. Go to bed or do your hmw Jim or ill come into your room and slap you.

That is not how society is actually. Capatalism is based on defending the rights of one person before the honour of the country. It is completly realistic to think that they should be able to and can be able to have their own children.

Then if capitalism is like this then why arn't gay marriages and and IVFs,refering to gays, accepted??..

Obviously the wrong person is in charge.

Actually, that is exactly how society is.  If society says seat belts are required, then it becomes the law even if people oppose it.  If leaving your kids in the car becomes a crime because of popular opinion (and because it's dangerous), then it is so regardless of parents who think it's ok.

If the populous wants to impose laws on gay child bearing, then guess what...society does work that way.

IRONCHEF wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

the 7 pages of active, mature discussion disagrees with you.  this is an excellent discussion.

Sorry Ironchef you're wrong, a lot of the discussion in the previous 7 pages does agree with him - its only your own unfounded prejudiced preconceived notions about raising a child are what are in disagreement.

I'm sorry, I thought there were 7 pages of discussion on this topic which contradicted his statement that this was a bullshit discussion.  If it were a bullshit discussion, then there would be one side voiced, and there would have not been civil debating like there was.  I know you tried your best to derail the discussion, but in the end, mature debating won.  How bout keeping your shit to yourself.

my mistake, I thought you were disagreeing with the general thrust of the post rather than the "bullshit" assertion. Please accept my apology.

DesertFox423 wrote:

Sure, they can have kids as long as they don't use any adoption/science ways---old school. That'll fix their wagon.

What's wrong with gays adopting?

Takes strain off the state. May lead to lower taxes if enough of them start adopting. Surely living in a loving 'family' environment, no matter how gay, is better than living in a foster home/orphanage.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Actually, that is exactly how society is.  If society says seat belts are required, then it becomes the law even if people oppose it.  If leaving your kids in the car becomes a crime because of popular opinion (and because it's dangerous), then it is so regardless of parents who think it's ok.

If the populous wants to impose laws on gay child bearing, then guess what...society does work that way.

This is not actually completly true. Most societies know that there are too many people for everyone to have a say which is why we elect representatives to make those decisions for us. The representatives ideas and deicisions are not the voice of the people as it could easily be proven that there is not a populus majority in favour of this decision.

No way. That is so wrong. We human beings were put here to reproduce not have a lust for someone of the same sex. then to think that a gay couple is corrupting a kid with that same line of thinking that they have. Geeze whats the world coming to? Its wrong, beyond wrong.

Last edited by Drunken_Tankdriver (2006-11-21 13:38:10)

JimG wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Actually, that is exactly how society is.  If society says seat belts are required, then it becomes the law even if people oppose it.  If leaving your kids in the car becomes a crime because of popular opinion (and because it's dangerous), then it is so regardless of parents who think it's ok.

If the populous wants to impose laws on gay child bearing, then guess what...society does work that way.

This is not actually completly true. Most societies know that there are too many people for everyone to have a say which is why we elect representatives to make those decisions for us. The representatives ideas and deicisions are not the voice of the people as it could easily be proven that there is not a populus majority in favour of this decision.

No, elected representatives actually are bound to do what their constituents wish..which is why they're our representatives..and it's why we petition them.  Popular demand is what is supposed to be the choice of the representative.

In the context of allowing gays make children, it's already a legal permission.  Their lobbying work was how they succeeded.  But if I'm not mistaken, those laws are being challenged presently.  So in this case, it's 100% based on public opinion..as is gay marriage.  When the majority of americans are ok with it, then it will pass.

As to things that are not bound by laws, like most cultural topics..those are even moreso bound by popular opinion.

Pug wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Accepted, respectfully.

But to be honest, I'd say that in the previous pages, it's pretty evenly divided on the yes and no votes and I've seen excellent arguments for both sides supporting their opinions.  Many have strayed, which is normal, but in the end, I think the general consensus represents a good view of the general population.  I know in the USA, this topic is divided pretty equal with a slight majority saying no..as is the case with gay marriage which i think is like 66%no, 30% yes.

Is the missing 4% illegal immigrants?

haha, no.  goob.  it's the indecisive ones.  but i think you already knew that.

IRONCHEF wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'm sorry, I thought there were 7 pages of discussion on this topic which contradicted his statement that this was a bullshit discussion.  If it were a bullshit discussion, then there would be one side voiced, and there would have not been civil debating like there was.  I know you tried your best to derail the discussion, but in the end, mature debating won.  How bout keeping your shit to yourself.

my mistake, I thought you were disagreeing with the general thrust of the post rather than the "bullshit" assertion. Please accept my apology.

Accepted, respectfully.

But to be honest, I'd say that in the previous pages, it's pretty evenly divided on the yes and no votes and I've seen excellent arguments for both sides supporting their opinions.  Many have strayed, which is normal, but in the end, I think the general consensus represents a good view of the general population.  I know in the USA, this topic is divided pretty equal with a slight majority saying no..as is the case with gay marriage which i think is like 66%no, 30% yes.

Agreed - the last thing I will say on the matter is this. One of my best friends is now a man who since the age of 16 pretty much raised his 4 younger brother and sisters. This wouldn't be fair actually, they all raised each other due to the fact that his parents separated and his mother; awarded the children could only find any solace for life @ the bottom of a bottle. In fact when he was little over twenty he was awarded custody for his youngest siblings, the youngest who is now just finishing University.  Every one of them is University educated and successful professionally, and, well adjusted human beings in happy relationships.   They never had a mother and a father at all really, only each other.

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-21 13:50:33)