# What's your stance on same-sex marriage and adoption?



## Enryx25 (Oct 12, 2018)

Please discuss with respect.


----------



## lolboy (Oct 12, 2018)

Enryx25 said:


> Please discuss with respect.


Tell us your view first.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

I guess I am pro on both sides.

-Why would I care about anyone getting married? If they want to, let them. Doesn't affect me.
-Why would I care about anyone adopting a child? If they want to, let them. Doesn't affect me.


----------



## Enryx25 (Oct 12, 2018)

lolboy said:


> Tell us your view first.


I'm pro both.
People should do whatever they want unless they harm someone else.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

Don't care about marriage, against adoption. I believe children should have a female and a male role models. And it is important for them to learn with those two figures.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> I believe children should have a female and a male role models. And it is important for them to learn with those two figures.


why, tho? A lot of children grow up with only one of those figures (single-parents, half-orphan, etc.).


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> why, tho? A lot of children grow up with only one of those figures (single-parents, half.-orphan).



Yes they do, and it is not the best infancy for them. That people will survive and move forward, and some of those people work for and reach a good position does not mean that it is the wanted or best thing


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 12, 2018)

Yes and yes on both.

Firstly let people live happy, and if for that reason they can't procreate, adoption is definitely an option.
I'd rather have good gay parents, instead of shitty hetero ones, or no parents at all.


----------



## Langin (Oct 12, 2018)

I am pro both, I am quite a simple person is this regard, as long as you don't overdo it I am okay with everything.  (I mean that they can be who they are, as long as they don't bother me with it.)

I believe that people should be able to be happy, regardless of the children or sexuality.



Localhorst86 said:


> I guess I am pro on both sides.
> 
> -Why would I care about anyone getting married? If they want to, let them. Doesn't affect me.
> -Why would I care about anyone adopting a child? If they want to, let them. Doesn't affect me.



This is basically my stance.  Respect others and let them be happy!


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> Yes they do, and it is not the best infancy for them. That people will survive and move forward, and some of those people work for and reach a good position does not mean that it is the wanted or best thing



A bad infancy is not tied to the gender of the parents. I understand that being the child of a single parent is not something you'd want, but a child adopted by a gay couple still has two parents.
However, I do feel like I unintentionally set up a strawman here by bringing in single-parent-children in the first place, so let me apologize and try to rectify this:

If a child has two loving parents, why would their gender matter? What can a female/male couple offer a child that a male/male or female/female couple can't?


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Yes and yes.

It's not the government's right to judge people based on sexual orientation. Look at it this way; marriage is the unification of two individuals for taxation and legal purposes. Boring definition is boring, but why then would it remotely matter what gender said people are? In other words, they're attempting to bring religious definitions of marriage in, which is unacceptable.

As for adoption, you can adopt kids as a single parent, can't you? How would restricting adoption based on sexual orientation make sense? People adopt kids because they want to have kids and raise them as their own. A person's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with parental aptitude.

Fact of the day: The Epic of Gilgamesh implies a homoerotic relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the canonical interpretation of the texts. That's ancient mesopotamian literature written on stone tablets. It's older than dirt as well as the Bible for that matter.



Bullseye said:


> Don't care about marriage, against adoption. I believe children should have a female and a male role models. And it is important for them to learn with those two figures.



You'll have to explain why this is important then, because I can't say I understand why. Isn't the point of raising a child to teach them to stand on their two feet, to discover things for themselves (including what they want to do with their life) and to teach them to be a generally good person? You're supposed to set the child up for life and all that comes with it. I can't see how gender would affect any of that remotely. I don't think gender or sexual orientation has any effect on whether a person is bad at parenting.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 12, 2018)

Give me a second to check what year it is. Oh its 2018 for a second there I thought I had time travelled back to the 1970s. The very fact that people are still discussing this blows my mind. Every single person in this world is the same. We are all human and we all deserve the right to be treated the same as each other with the same rights as each other.

All I can say is thank god I live in Scotland where we treat each other the same and this discussion never happens.

And sorry for this incoherent ramble. The fact people still feel the need to even bring this topic up gets me very angry. And when I'm angry I ramble lol.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 12, 2018)

It shouldn't be called "gay" marriage.
It should just be called marriage.


----------



## mrdude (Oct 12, 2018)

Personally I find gays disgusting. Two dudes kissing each other turns my stomach. I would hate to think that any of my nephews or nieces for whatever reason if they needed to be adopted would end up in a household with two gays. As for lesbo's - they are just as bad as dudes.

I'm not a fan of either - it's not what nature intends and as a christian it's against my values.


----------



## linuxares (Oct 12, 2018)

I'm against all people, no such answer :<


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Personally I find gays disgusting. Two dudes kissing each other turns my stomach. I would hate to think that any of my nephews or nieces for whatever reason if they needed to be adopted would end up in a household with two gays. As for lesbo's - they are just as bad as dudes.
> 
> I'm not a fan of either - it's not what nature intends and as a christian it's against my values.


Oh I would love to hear what you think of me then. What with me being a bisexual transgender woman.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Personally I find gays disgusting. Two dudes kissing each other turns my stomach. I would hate to think that any of my nephews or nieces for whatever reason if they needed to be adopted would end up in a household with two gays. As for lesbo's - they are just as bad as dudes.
> 
> I'm not a fan of either - it's not what nature intends and as a christian it's against my values.



Personally, I find straight people disgusting.
A man and a woman kissing each other turns me stomach.
I would hate to think that any of me nephews or nieces for whatever reason if they needed to be adopted would end up in a household with two straighties. as for christians - they're just as bad as straight people.

Sounds just as dumb innit?


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Personally I find gays disgusting. Two dudes kissing each other turns my stomach. I would hate to think that any of my nephews or nieces for whatever reason if they needed to be adopted would end up in a household with two gays. As for lesbo's - they are just as bad as dudes.



I'm going to point out here that you never mentioned whether two girls kissing turns your stomach, just that you didn't like lesbians for some reason. I'm not sure I've ever met a guy who was bugged by that.



> I'm not a fan of either - it's not what nature intends and as a christian it's against my values.



"Not what nature intends" -- Okay buddy, you keep telling yourself that.


----------



## mrdude (Oct 12, 2018)

AmandaRose said:


> Oh I would love to hear what you think of me then. What with me being a bisexual transgender woman.



I'm going to be honest - I don't think you would like to hear that as you would find my views very upsetting.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> I'm going to be honest - I don't think you would like to hear that as you would find my views very upsetting.


No seriously go for it


----------



## Ritsuki (Oct 12, 2018)

Pro both, I don't think it has any effect on the child, I've been raised by my mother and sisters and I think I'm a pretty decent human being. For marriage, I really don't care. But even if it's stupid, I still respect the decision of religious groups to not accept religious same sex marriage. But for civil marriage, there are no reasons to refuse it IMHO.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> A bad infancy is not tied to the gender of the parents. I understand that being the child of a single parent is not something you'd want, but a child adopted by a gay couple still has two parents.
> However, I do feel like I unintentionally set up a strawman here by bringing in single-parent-children in the first place, so let me apologize and try to rectify this:
> 
> If a child has two loving parents, why would their gender matter? What can a female/male couple offer a child that a male/male or female/female couple can't



Their gender matters because reproduction in humans comes dictated by biology and nature, not by social choices. Two men cannot be your biological parents, same for two women. You come to this world based on that principle.

Men and women have two different roles and teach different things, both biologically and mentally. A woman would breastfeed, a man cannot. A man would focus on different things than a woman due to his physical traits and mental focus. The way you are dressed, what types of games you like. Obvious "boy and girl" distinctions. 

A person adopted by a gay couple has 2 figures. One of them could be their biological father/mother, while the other one would not. You could call it an incomplete infancy, not a bad infancy. Not every issue in life is solved by "love"


----------



## mrdude (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> I'm going to point out here that you never mentioned whether two girls kissing turns your stomach, just that you didn't like lesbians for some reason. I'm not sure I've ever met a guy who was bugged by that.
> 
> 
> 
> "Not what nature intends" -- Okay buddy, you keep telling yourself that.



Dude, two fat ugly butch looking dykes kissing each other is just as bad as two dudes - it in no way turns me on or probably most people - it's fucking disgusting. The OP asked for peoples views - if he/she/it didn't want to read those views, they shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Dude, two fat ugly butch looking dykes kissing each other is just as bad as two dudes - it in no way turns me on or probably most people - it's fucking disgusting. The OP asked for peoples views - if he/she/it didn't want to read those views, they shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.



So you're saying two fat ugly looking straighties kissing eachother is arousing?
Pretty sure that doesn't turn on anyone either.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Dude, two fat ugly butch looking dykes kissing each other is just as bad as two dudes - it in no way turns me on or probably most people - it's fucking disgusting. The OP asked for peoples views - if he/she/it didn't want to read those views, they shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.


So now you are also body shaming yep Christianity has turned you into a lovely human being.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> Their gender matters because reproduction in humans comes dictated by biology and nature, not by social choices. Two men cannot be your biological parents, same for two women. You come to this world based on that principle.



And? Family is who takes care of you. By that definition, adoption shouldn't exist since you're not being raised by your biological parents.



> Men and women have two different roles and teach different things, both biologically and mentally. A woman would breastfeed, a man cannot. A man would focus on different things than a woman due to his physical traits and mental focus. The way you are dressed, what types of games you like. Obvious "boy and girl" distinctions.



Ha, what? That's the first time in while I've seen that _utter drivel_.

For reference, I was never breastfed. I have a father and a mother. I'm perfectly healthy, thank you very much. I have met far more "mentally unfocused" men than women in my lifespan, so I'm convinced at this point you simply have those antiquated religious beliefs that are at odds with statistics.



> A person adopted by a gay couple has 2 figures. One of them could be their biological father/mother, while the other one would not. You could call it an incomplete infancy, not a bad infancy. Not every issue in life is solved by "love"



No, family has nothing to do with biology. Family is what you make of it. I bet you're the type of person who insists that "family" is defined in biological relations only. Also, what "issue"? You'll have to be more specific.



mrdude said:


> Dude, two fat ugly butch looking dykes kissing each other is just as bad as two dudes - it in no way turns me on or probably most people - it's fucking disgusting. The OP asked for peoples views - if he/she/it didn't want to read those views, they shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.



So what about attractive, hot lesbians? You're still evading the question. More to the point, called this response.


----------



## mrdude (Oct 12, 2018)

AmandaRose said:


> No seriously go for it



It would serve no purpose, you might not care what I think but some others might. I get that for trans people that life is difficult enough for you without some random internet person giving you their views.

As for gays - no I don't believe they should be allowed to be married the same as a woman & man, and I definitely think it's wrong for a child to be brought up in a household gays acting as parents.
Kids should ideally be brought up in a household with a Man and women and other kids + pets. That way they can fully develop as nature intended.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Dude, two fat ugly butch looking dykes kissing each other is just as bad as two dudes - it in no way turns me on or probably most people - it's fucking disgusting. The OP asked for peoples views - if he/she/it didn't want to read those views, they shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.


you're implying that every lesbian is a butch looking dyke and every gay man is a fruity little cupcake. That's not a good foundation for your argument, tbh.

Also: It's not supposed to turn you on. Two consent adults kissing, be it male-male, male-female or female-female is an intimate moment between those two people. It's not supposed to be arrousing to you.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> as nature intends



Please define "as nature intends" without using religion in any capacity.


----------



## mrdude (Oct 12, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> So you're saying two fat ugly looking straighties kissing eachother is arousing?
> Pretty sure that doesn't turn on anyone either.



Where did I say that? I never and you're trying to manipulate my replies to fit your own agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that I find gays disgusting - no matter if they are good looking or not. I've also said I don't believe kids should be brought up by gays - that's my personal opinion. You have yours - now have a good day!


----------



## osm70 (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Personally I find gays disgusting. Two dudes kissing each other turns my stomach. I would hate to think that any of my nephews or nieces for whatever reason if they needed to be adopted would end up in a household with two gays. As for lesbo's - they are just as bad as dudes.
> 
> I'm not a fan of either - it's not what *nature intends* and as a christian it's against my values.




I am not an expert at natural things, so I might be completely wrong here. But I think nature isn't a sentient being, so it cannot intend anything.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Where did I say that? I never and you're trying to manipulate my replies to fit your own agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that I find gays disgusting - no matter if they are good looking or not. I've also said I don't believe kids should be brought up by gays - that's my personal opinion. You have yours - now have a good day!


OP asked to discuss, not simply state your opinion.

You have every right to your opinion, but in order to discuss you need to bring up arguments other than "I don't like it".


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Where did I say that? I never and you're trying to manipulate my replies to fit your own agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that I find gays disgusting - no matter if they are good looking or not. I've also said I don't believe kids should be brought up by gays - that's my personal opinion. You have yours - now have a good day!


And there was me with the believe that Christianity was the religion that accepts all.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 12, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> It shouldn't be called "gay" marriage.
> It should just be called marriage.


This post right here. 
It really shouldn't be a controversial subject.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> And? Family is who takes care of you. By that definition, adoption shouldn't exist since you're not being raised by your biological parents.



There's biological family and political one. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Being raised by someone is not the same as being conceived.



> Ha, what? That's the first time in while I've seen that _utter drivel_.
> 
> For reference, I was never breastfed. I have a father and a mother. I'm perfectly healthy, thank you very much. I have met far more "mentally unfocused" men than women in my lifespan, so I'm convinced at this point you simply have those antiquated religious beliefs that are at odds with statistics.



You are asuming I am religious because of my opinions. I feel offended (lol). I do not practice any religion. However I see is common practice to attack religion as the creator of that line of thought. Coming from people who ask for tolerance you are not tolerating religion that much...

You speak about your own case, as if it were proof of something. There's millions of different cases out there, and there will be good and bad, you cannot focus only on a small number of it.



> No, family has nothing to do with biology. Family is what you make of it. I bet you're the type of person who insists that "family" is defined in biological relations only. Also, what "issue"? You'll have to be more specific.



Again, asking not to be judged but you are the first ones to judge. Very well done there.

Family is directly related with biology, DNA transfers and the social part of it all. When you are raised by a man and a woman, as nature intended, you are learning about their relationship, what interactions they make with each other, and how you should treat someone from the opposite gender and how they should treat you. If you don't see that at an early age you might not understand that relationship. That is one example of it.


----------



## Minox (Oct 12, 2018)

As long as the people marrying are consenting adults and not too closely related I couldn't care less who someone else marries.

As for adoption? Are there really arguments against it? So long as the people adopting are good towards the child that is all that should matter.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> There's biological family and political one. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Being raised by someone is not the same as being conceived.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So then if a trans woman and a man or a trans man and woman adopt would you say that was ok as they are fulfilling both roles you deem necessary for a child to have. Also isn't by your own argument having a child adopted by a same sex couple also teaching the kid acceptance of same sex relationships and teaching them how to treat people in general?


----------



## osm70 (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> There's biological family and political one. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Being raised by someone is not the same as being conceived.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't care what someone's gender is. I treat everyone the same.



Bullseye said:


> Their gender matters because reproduction in humans comes dictated by biology and nature, not by social choices. Two men cannot be your biological parents, same for two women. You come to this world based on that principle.
> 
> Men and women have two different roles and teach different things, both biologically and mentally. A woman would breastfeed, a man cannot. *A man would focus on different things than a woman due to his physical traits and mental focus. The way you are dressed, what types of games you like. Obvious "boy and girl" distinctions. *
> 
> A person adopted by a gay couple has 2 figures. One of them could be their biological father/mother, while the other one would not. You could call it an incomplete infancy, not a bad infancy. Not every issue in life is solved by "love"




I strongly disagree. I don't think your gender decides what you like. In fact, I know many people who like things they "shouldn't" if we go by your definition.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Where did I say that? I never and you're trying to manipulate my replies to fit your own agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that I find gays disgusting - no matter if they are good looking or not. I've also said I don't believe kids should be brought up by gays - that's my personal opinion. You have yours - now have a good day!



The point is that you evaded the question by only specifying a subset in your reply, and mistakenly attributed that to be "all" by extension. That's not good logic. The good news is that you now answered the question properly. You find all gays disgusting - that wasn't so hard to answer, huh? I have to wonder why you didn't answer with that in the first place, though.

I'll have a gay old day, thanks. And I'm straight, for reference. Mostly, anyways.



AmandaRose said:


> And there was me with the belive that Christianity was the religion that accepts all.



Religious texts have always been manipulated to fit the agenda of the ones reading it. It's the same thing as the law; someone is always going to interpret it in a way to create a loophole. In my opinion, religion has outstayed its welcome in the current age.



osm70 said:


> I am not an expert at natural things, so I might be completely wrong here. But I think nature isn't a sentient being, so it cannot intend anything.



I'll get a bit complex here. If by nature, one means the universe as whole, it depends on how quantum physics actually functions, since it's generally accepted that determinism is impossible without everything else making no sense. Either way, nature is not sentient and therefore lacks a will.



Bullseye said:


> There's biological family and political one. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Being raised by someone is not the same as being conceived.



You were the one who was using the word "biological" to describe adoptions, not me. I argued with what I read.



> You are asuming I am religious because of my opinions. I feel offended (lol). I do not practice any religion. However I see is common practice to attack religion as the creator of that line of thought. Coming from people who ask for tolerance you are not tolerating religion that much...



Considering how many recent scandals there have been, and how religion as of late seems to have been reduced to a mere political tool rather than a way to teach morals...yes, I am very biased against it as a whole. I think it's run it's course and no longer serves any purpose for the human race. Back in the 1600s, they started the education of of people and were the ones who propogated literature - they had a _role_ as it were. Nowadays, not so much.



> You speak about your own case, as if it were proof of something. There's millions of different cases out there, and there will be good and bad, you cannot focus only on a small number of it.



It's proof that having a role-reversed mother and father and a different upbringing from what you describe as "normal" changes absolutely nothing. I'm not going to dredge up statistics here, since you would likely claim them to be biased if they equally weighted minorities and majorities. You _can_ focus on a small number, because if the majority of the minority functions normally, it disproves your "this is bad" assertion.



> Family is directly related with biology, DNA transfers and the social part of it all. When you are raised by a man and a woman, as nature intended, you are learning about their relationship, what interactions they make with each other, and how you should treat someone from the opposite gender and how they should treat you. If you don't see that at an early age you might not understand that relationship. That is one example of it.



Again, define "as nature intends". This is not common sense. You can't make that argument without defining nature's intentions. Aside from that, the fact that you think you should treat people different based on any factor rather than as individuals so tells me that your upbringing was far more dysfunctional than mine.


----------



## lordelan (Oct 12, 2018)

Assuming they deal right with the child (you know there are even enough male/female mixed parents that are bad to their kids) I don't see why not.
People saying it's not good if a child is raised by male + male? Why? Just because both parents have the same gender doesn't mean that child is born into a *world without any women*. There will me female friends, aunts, TV shows and magazines giving them fairly enough female influence. The same would apply vice versa if the child is raised by two female parents.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

AmandaRose said:


> So then if a trans woman and a man or a trans man and woman adopt would you say that was ok as they are fulfilling both roles you deem necessary for a child to have. Also isn't by your own argument having a child adopted by a same sex couple also teaching the kid acceptance of same sex relationships and teaching them how to treat people in general?



A trans man or trans woman biologically do not correspond to the gender they see themselves as. No matter what procedures a trans person goes through, a trans woman will not be able to produce ovules and a trans man will not be able to produce sperm. 

A child being raised by two people of the same sex might think that is the norm at some point on their life. It is not like that and they might get confused. That does not mean that they will be a bad person or not. It is not directly related.


----------



## osm70 (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> A trans man or trans woman biologically do not correspond to the gender they see themselves as. No matter what procedures a trans person goes through, a trans woman will not be able to produce ovules and a trans man will not be able to produce sperm.
> 
> *A child being raised by two people of the same sex might think that is the norm at some point on their life. It is not like that and they might get confused.* That does not mean that they will be a bad person or not. It is not directly related.




"Having two parents of the opposite sex is the norm." Is that what you are saying?


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> A child being raised by two people of the same sex might think that is the norm at some point on their life. It is not like that and they might get confused. That does not mean that they will be a bad person or not. It is not directly related.


Expect it should be considered normal because there's nothing wrong with it. There's been plenty of studies that show children raised by LGBT parents grew up completely normal lives. The only real issue that most kids deal with is stupid people bullying them for having LGBT parents, which is really the fault of crappy society.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> A trans man or trans woman biologically do not correspond to the gender they see themselves as. No matter what procedures a trans person goes through, a trans woman will not be able to produce ovules and a trans man will not be able to produce sperm.



Except that someday it may be possible to convert iPS cells into sperm cells, so I can throw some of that out the window.



> A child being raised by two people of the same sex might think that is the norm at some point on their life. It is not like that and they might get confused. That does not mean that they will be a bad person or not. It is not directly related.



Kids aren't that stupid, you know. They're gonna realize something is different, and the parents are going to explain that. _sigh_


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> A child being raised by two people of the same sex might think that is the norm at some point on their life. It is not like that and they might get confused. That does not mean that they will be a bad person or not. It is not directly related.



It surprises me that it took so long to come up.

In essence: "Gay couples will make our children become gay."


----------



## osm70 (Oct 12, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> It surprises me that it took so long to come up.
> 
> In essence: "Gay couples will make our children become gay."



I never understood that argument. What makes me even more confused is people who list this as the only "downside".

Let's take a very close look:

The only bad thing about being gay is that it spreads. Which means it cannot possibly be a bad thing, because it spreads something that is bad only because it spreads. At this point, we have a self-referential paradox.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I never understood that argument. What makes me even more confused is people who list this as the only "downside".
> 
> Let's take a very close look:
> 
> The only bad thing about being gay is that it spreads. Which means it cannot possibly be a bad thing, because it spreads something that is bad only because it spreads. At this point, we have a self-referential paradox.


I would further question: If this really was a concern, why is "gay" in the first place? Wouldn't - by the same argument - heterosexual couples make heterosexual children?


----------



## jahrs (Oct 12, 2018)

I believe in live and let live. Since it doesnt directly affect me and it helps on all sides ie makes people happy and gets kids adopted and out of foster homes and adoption agencies to parents who will love them(hopefully) i see no issue with it.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that male !=XY and female != XX. There's quite a few other chromosomal layouts that can naturally occur, and it is in fact possible for XX males to exist and vice versa under natural conditions. So if someone here wants to argue genetics, don't.



osm70 said:


> The only bad thing about being gay is that it spreads. Which means it cannot possibly be a bad thing, because it spreads something that is bad only because it spreads. At this point, we have a self-referential paradox.



Aside from that, it's a mental/genetic thing based on brain development and hormonal chemistry, not something viral or memetic.



Localhorst86 said:


> I would further question: If this really was a concern, why is "gay" in the first place? Wouldn't - by the same argument - heterosexual couples make heterosexual children?



And there we have the root of why this argument is bad, folks. If being gay was "against nature" then it wouldn't exist.


----------



## AtsuNii (Oct 12, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> It shouldn't be called "gay" marriage.
> It should just be called marriage.



Exactly this, I don't see why it has to be called anything special, it is still 2 people loving eachother to death that want to stick with each other and want to make it offical. 

I don't care what people think if i would for example walk hand in hand with my boyfriend or give him a kiss in public or whatever. Nor do I care when other people straight or not would do that. It should just be that way in my opinion. Don't stick you nose in other peoples business and keep it to yourself.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 12, 2018)

I completely support gay marriage. What someone does in their personal life that does not impede on my rights and liberties, and also does not lead to a child being harmed, are none of my business.

I also support gay couples adopting children.

The thing is, so many young girls get pregnant by accident and don't want the baby. Many times the child gets aborted. Often an unwanted child gets raised in a shitty life. It takes almost no effort to get pregnant and be a shitty parent.

It takes many months and thousands upon thousands of dollars to adopt a child. I am willing to wager that a same sex couple that is going to go through that many months and thousands of dollars will be better parents than the average teenage dumpster hoe.

As with any adoption process, regardless if the parents are straight or gay, the parents need to have a criminal background check, and their whole history examined to make sure that they are fit to raise a child. The same should be done for everyone else before they can take off their chastity belt. Stupid people and criminals should not be producing babies, but would eliminate 95% of the worlds population.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

osm70 said:


> "Having two parents of the opposite sex is the norm." Is that what you are saying



Biological reproduction is the normal way for a species to continue. If reproduction cannot happen it is not as nature intended. You as a human being will come from that combination and you will therefore have what we call a father and a mother.

That trans, gay, whatever name you want to call it exist in nature, of course they exist. That is a fact. But at the same time the fact remains that they will not be able to reproduce between each other. 

You can make up whatever mumbo jumbo you want but that is how it works.

This conversation will go like you people seeing things that you don't like, you will twist them or you will put your own words in my mouth, as some of you are already doing.

In any case in regards to this thread my stance is clear.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> Biological reproduction is the normal way for a species to continue. If reproduction cannot happen it is not as nature intended. You as a human being will come from that combination and you will therefore have what we call a father and a mother.
> 
> That trans, gay, whatever name you want to call it exist in nature, of course they exist. That is a fact. But at the same time the fact remains that they will not be able to reproduce between each other.
> 
> ...



So in other words, the only thing that matters for the human race is reproduction in your opinion. If everyone thought like that, I can guarantee we'd go extinct.

EDIT: Let me be clear; I'd argue that the nature of the human race is propogation of knowledge, not genetic information. There's enough humans in the world that non-related people can inherit another's will and research as the case may be. That is how we as a species move forward. Genetic information does not drive the human race forwards towards a better future nor does it solve important problems at play today. If the only thing that mattered was reproduction, we might as well all be amoebae and reproduce through mitosis.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect it should be considered normal because there's nothing wrong with it. There's been plenty of studies that show children raised by LGBT parents grew up completely normal lives. The only real issue that most kids deal with is stupid people bullying them for having LGBT parents, which is really the fault of crappy society.



The issue is not the bullying those people receive. Children bully other children for any reason. Be it they are fat, ugly, have wider eyes, or shorter arms or whatever you can think of. The solution comes from what stance you take against that. 

Issue is that you always expect someone else to protect you and if they don't you cry or say this is not fair and blame others.

Well, welcome to the world. Fight for your own and move forward. Time will not stop for you so you'd better do something about it


----------



## AtsuNii (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> Biological reproduction is the normal way for a species to continue. If reproduction cannot happen it is not as nature intended. You as a human being will come from that combination and you will therefore have what we call a father and a mother.
> 
> That trans, gay, whatever name you want to call it exist in nature, of course they exist. That is a fact. But at the same time the fact remains that they will not be able to reproduce between each other.
> 
> ...



If the entire purpose of humanity is to reproduce, then we would have a big problem. That way we are gonna keep increasing the population on the planet and as it stands now already, there are problems of food and clean water already appearing. It will only make it worse to eventually a point that the entire system will collapse and taking humanity with it.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> The issue is not the bullying those people receive. Children bully other children for any reason. Be it they are fat, ugly, have wider eyes, or shorter arms or whatever you can think of. The solution comes from what stance you take against that.
> 
> Issue is that you always expect someone else to protect you and if they don't you cry or say this is not fair and blame others.
> 
> Well, welcome to the world. Fight for your own and move forward. Time will not stop for you so you'd better do something about it



Moshi-moshi, Brick wall-kun, is that you?

This is called "moving the goal posts." Try again.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> So in other words, the only thing that matters for the human race is reproduction in your opinion. If everyone thought like that, I can guarantee we'd go extinct.
> 
> EDIT: Let me be clear; I'd argue that the nature of the human race is propogation of knowledge, not genetic information. There's enough humans in the world that non-related people can inherit another's will and research as the case may be. That is how we as a species move forward. Genetic information does not drive the human race forwards towards a better future nor does it solve important problems at play today. If the only thing that mattered was reproduction, we might as well all be amoebae and reproduce through mitosis.



That is where you are wrong. When a species reproduces genetics have more chances to continue improving. When that combination happens there are chances that the best traits are passed to the next generation, and you get individuals with stronger muscles, more immunity towards sicknesses, more intelligence...

And as it is some people will get that others won't. Part of the cycle. No need to start saying "only people of certain physical strength and beauty standards can reproduce from now on...."


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that male !=XY and female != XX. There's quite a few other chromosomal layouts that can naturally occur, and it is in fact possible for XX males to exist and vice versa under natural conditions. So if someone here wants to argue genetics, don't.


Just playing devils advocate here but...

Many people have been born with extra digits on their hands and feet or other strange mutations, that does not make it normal.

Whenever I discus with people that there are 2 sexes and they want to argue about the oddball hermaphrodites and strange shit like that, I ask them "How many fingers do humans have on each hand"? The response is always "5 fingers" or more correctly "4 fingers and a thumb". See, and now that person proved my point. Even though MANY people are born with extra digits, we all know that what is normal is for a person to have 4 fingers and a thumb. What is normal is just male and female. Trying to ever say "Yeah, but this type of condition that extremely rarely occurs is still a thing that we need to account for". No, we are talking about generally how things are. Lets not muddy it up with talking about the freak genetic changes that rarely happen.

Shit. I think I am losing the point of my argument here. It's far too early in the morning for me.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 12, 2018)

Well, let's see.  I don't want to marry, same-sex or otherwise.  And I don't want children, adoption or otherwise.  So, am I anti both?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> That is where you are wrong. When a species reproduces genetics have more chances to continue improving. When that combination happens there are chances that the best traits are passed to the next generation, and you get individuals with stronger muscles, more immunity towards sicknesses, more intelligence...
> 
> And as it is some people will get that others won't. Part of the cycle. No need to start saying "only people of certain physical strength and beauty standards can reproduce from now on...."


That is not true at all. That is only if the parents are hand picked. If what you are saying was true then everyone would be perfect by now as humans have been reproducing for millions of years. Don't forget the laws of entropy. Anything unmanaged will go towards the direction of chaos.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Well, let's see.  I don't want to marry, same-sex or otherwise.  And I don't want children, adoption or otherwise.  So, am I anti both?


depends. Because you don't want it for yourself (which is fair), are you willing to deny that right to others?


----------



## spectral (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> So in other words, the only thing that matters for the human race is reproduction in your opinion. If everyone thought like that, I can guarantee we'd go extinct.
> 
> EDIT: Let me be clear; I'd argue that the nature of the human race is propogation of knowledge, not genetic information. There's enough humans in the world that non-related people can inherit another's will and research as the case may be. That is how we as a species move forward. Genetic information does not drive the human race forwards towards a better future nor does it solve important problems at play today. If the only thing that mattered was reproduction, we might as well all be amoebae and reproduce through mitosis.



This has to be one of the dumbest things I have read. Genetic's absolutely drives any species forward, it is literally how we evolved and continue to do so.


----------



## osm70 (Oct 12, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Just playing devils advocate here but...
> 
> Many people have been born with extra digits on their hands and feet or other strange mutations, that does not make it normal.
> 
> ...




OK, let's talk about fingers. Sure, you can say that having 8 fingers is not normal. But saying that people with 8 fingers deserve to have their human rights revoked makes you a bad person.

And this is exactly what some people say about people with other "abnormalities".


----------



## AtsuNii (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> That is where you are wrong. When a species reproduces genetics have more chances to continue improving. When that combination happens there are chances that the best traits are passed to the next generation, and you get individuals with stronger muscles, more immunity towards sicknesses, more intelligence...
> 
> And as it is some people will get that others won't. Part of the cycle. No need to start saying "only people of certain physical strength and beauty standards can reproduce from now on...."



Indeed our genetics keep improving, but it rather sounds like you're stuck in the savage ages instead of the civilized world we live in now. You also got a fair amount of people that don't even want to reproduce, including straight people. That is no reason however to prevent people from being happy together or trying to raise another persons child that was unwanted. Straight, gay or whatever they might be, they might very well raise the child better then several other people who reproduce naturally.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> That is where you are wrong. When a species reproduces genetics have more chances to continue improving. When that combination happens there are chances that the best traits are passed to the next generation, and you get individuals with stronger muscles, more immunity towards sicknesses, more intelligence...
> 
> And as it is some people will get that others won't. Part of the cycle. No need to start saying "only people of certain physical strength and beauty standards can reproduce from now on...."



Humanity is past the point where genetics make a huge difference, unless you think physics textbooks and code can be passed down by genetics. Arguably, the point of evolution is to increase survivability. Guess what? We happen to be sitting on a mountain at the top of the food pyramid, and the only obvious things that outlive us are trees and some species of birds. There's not much to improve here.



DeadlyFoez said:


> Just playing devils advocate here but...
> 
> Many people have been born with extra digits on their hands and feet or other strange mutations, that does not make it normal.
> 
> ...



That's alright, it's early. The point here is that it's silly to hate people with nine fingers and try to make their life impossible just because you hate people with nine fingers. Furthermore, I've never seen someone with nine fingers, so it's not my place to say anything on the subject.


----------



## BlastedGuy9905 (Oct 12, 2018)

If they are happy, it's all good. I honestly don't see how some people can be so blind and completely reject same gender marriage.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 12, 2018)

Bullseye said:


> The issue is not the bullying those people receive. Children bully other children for any reason. Be it they are fat, ugly, have wider eyes, or shorter arms or whatever you can think of. The solution comes from what stance you take against that.
> 
> Issue is that you always expect someone else to protect you and if they don't you cry or say this is not fair and blame others.
> 
> Well, welcome to the world. Fight for your own and move forward. Time will not stop for you so you'd better do something about it


Don't try to move the goalpost. You haven't refuted my comments, you simply moved around them. Studies have shown that children raised with same-sex parents end up just fine and without any of issues you purposed.
https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/ShelbyChamberlin.pdf
Equally studies have also shown that bullying LGBT kids and or kids of LGBT families have a negative effect on kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows
Please refute these studies.


----------



## AtsuNii (Oct 12, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Well, let's see.  I don't want to marry, same-sex or otherwise.  And I don't want children, adoption or otherwise.  So, am I anti both?



Depends if you just see this vision for yourself or you want others to follow suit. For just not wanting yourself doesnt have to mean you're anti-both. I myself don't want to any childeren either, but that doesnt change the fact that I could very well see proper childeren get a better chance at people who want to raise one then in an orphanage.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Don't try to move the goalpost. You haven't refuted my comments, you simply moved around them. Studies have shown that children raised with same-sex parents end up just fine and without any of issues you purposed.
> https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/ShelbyChamberlin.pdf
> Equally studies have also shown that bullying LGBT kids and or kids of LGBT families have a negative effect on kids.
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows
> Please refute these studies.



I really wish Logic/Reasoning 101 was a mandatory class. These kinds of topics would be far better if people avoided fallacies.


----------



## blackwrensniper (Oct 12, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Just playing devils advocate here but...
> 
> Many people have been born with extra digits on their hands and feet or other strange mutations, that does not make it normal.
> 
> ...



Yeah, no. You may personally want to boil things down to one thing or one other thing but the world, people and especially genetics are orders of magnitudes more complicated. Being reductive doesn't make you any more right by any means. Just because the people you ask your stupid question to don't try to be hyper specific doesn't mean there aren't people out there that can explain the millions of genetic variances people can have --- and importantly those people are more right than somebody that generalizes.

Same with sexuality, gender, marriage or partnership. 

Lastly if you are against gay marriage or adoption you are thankfully on the wrong side of history and you and your ilk are a dying breed.


----------



## YetoJesse (Oct 12, 2018)

All to make sure overpopulation comes to a halt.

Seriously though, I couldn't care less. as long as it's someone else's life, it's fine by me. 
I don't get why it needs to be a subject to begin with.

And in all honesty, if 2 guys or gals get married and love each other etcetc, than that's good for them. 
The fact that I don't see it the same as an opposite sex relationship is my issue.
The only thing I can't stand are people that are 'overly gay' and in your face about it, but can't handle a rude joke with a wink...
Honestly, get that thing out of your ass and laugh. 

But those are my two cents on the matter... 



Also read something about adoption and how same-sex couples shouldn't or something?
Yeah, no, I love how my dad left because of alcohol and seeing my mom struggle to get round. 
Those were the best years of my life, really.... 

All jokes aside, if she happened to be gay somewhere halfway and that woman could give me at least a quarter of what 'Dad' gave me.... well, 'Dad' took and promised more than he gave in the end...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And anything gender related, imho, comes down to either the gynaecologist or a prostate exam. 
I don't do special snowflaky shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lilith Valentine said:


> Don't try to move the goalpost. You haven't refuted my comments, you simply moved around them. Studies have shown that children raised with same-sex parents end up just fine and without any of issues you purposed.
> https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/ShelbyChamberlin.pdf
> Equally studies have also shown that bullying LGBT kids and or kids of LGBT families have a negative effect on kids.
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows
> Please refute these studies.




I giggled at: "Equally studies have also shown that bullying LGBT kids and or kids of LGBT families have a negative effect on kids."

The use of 'Bullying someone has a negative effect on them'. 

"Caaaaaaarl. People die when you kill them, Carl...."


----------



## erikas (Oct 12, 2018)

My views might seem strange. So i oppose marrige. Both gay and straigt. As far as i can see it's just a means to deprive men of their wealth. Why did homosexuals want it is beyond me. As for adoption, i support gay couples adopting, but oppose lesbian couples adopting. And while no study has been done that puts gays and lesbians in different groups, because how dare you say that men and women are different you mysoginist bigot, the fact is, there are things men can give that women can not. Almost every school shooter has been raised by a single mother. Another thing is, black people commit most of the crime, and they also have an epidemic of single mothers. To sum up, children should be raised by men.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 12, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> Because you don't want it for yourself (which is fair), are you willing to deny that right to others?



I think you're missing the point.  The question wasn't "What's your stand on [other people and] same-sex marriage and adoption?"  Now, I presume that was the actual intent, but if you actually believe that it is in fact a right to marry or adopt regardless of sexual orientation, then it's not really something for which you can be pro or anti meaningfully.  But just because you do or don't marry/adopt doesn't necessarily make you pro or anti either--the reason that marriage and child raising are considered rights is part of what makes a person irregardless of their willful desire or rational deduction.  It's sort of like asking if you're pro or anti breathing and eating.


----------



## Viri (Oct 12, 2018)

I don't care about either. But, if you have 2 dads/moms, you better not tell any students in school, or they're going to bully the fuck out of you.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2018)

Yeah, you really shouldn't be generalizing people and dictating their lives just simply base on what you do or don't find attractive. 

Also, genetic engineering, let alone transhumanism as a whole, is throwing in a monkey wrench when it comes to genetics.


mrdude said:


> Kids should ideally be brought up in a household with a Man and women and other kids + pets. That way they can fully develop as nature intended.


I didn't know having pets, is what nature intended.



chaoskagami said:


> While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that male !=XY and female != XX. There's quite a few other chromosomal layouts that can naturally occur, and it is in fact possible for XX males to exist and vice versa under natural conditions. So if someone here wants to argue genetics, don't.


Exceptions to the rules, doesn't mean XY and XX aren't typically tied to male and female. Of course, as said, we shouldn't be trying to make their lives harder, if they just happened to be the exception.


----------



## lolboy (Oct 12, 2018)

VinsCool said:


> ...I'd rather have good gay parents, instead of shitty hetero ones, or no parents at all.



This is wrong. This is said by many pro-gay people.  Trying to paint an picture in which gay never do bad and are perfect. I am sorry, but I know plenty gay people that are bad.


edit: I correct myself. I did not read "or no parents at all." part.  My mistake.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

erikas said:


> My views might seem strange. So i oppose marrige. Both gay and straigt. As far as i can see it's just a means to deprive men of their wealth. Why did homosexuals want it is beyond me. As for adoption, i support gay couples adopting, but oppose lesbian couples adopting. And while no study has been done that puts gays and lesbians in different groups, because how dare you say that men and women are different you mysoginist bigot, the fact is, there are things men can give that women can not. Almost every school shooter has been raised by a single mother. Another thing is, black people commit most of the crime, and they also have an epidemic of single mothers. To sum up, children should be raised by men.



To be honest, I can't find a single thing to argue, because there's so much wrong there I don't even want to open that can of worms up. Did you forget a /s?



lolboy said:


> This is wrong. This is said by many pro-gay people.  Trying to paint an picture in which gay never do bad and are perfect. I am sorry, I know plenty gay people that are pretty bad.



There's nothing wrong with what he said, though. It's a fact that shitty parents exist regardless of all other factors; he merely stated that having good gay parents would be better than having shitty heterosexual parents or none at all. He didn't exclude the possibility of shitty gay parents existing, nor good heterosexual parents.

EDIT:



KingVamp said:


> Exceptions to the rules, doesn't mean XY and XX aren't typically tied to male and female. Of course, as said, we shouldn't be trying to make their lives harder, if they just happened to be the exception.



Typically, but when someone tries the "men are men and women are women gentically" thing, it's not that damn simple if you define "male" and "female" by genetics. 1/1000 males are XYY, for example, and that's a statistically significant number.


----------



## lolboy (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> To be honest, I can't find a single thing to argue, because there's so much wrong there I don't even want to open that can of worms up. Did you forget a /s?
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with what he said, though. It's a fact that shitty parents exist regardless of all other factors; he merely stated that having good gay parents would be better than having shitty heterosexual parents or none at all. He didn't exclude the possibility of shitty gay parents existing, nor good heterosexual parents.



So it is not wrong if I said: I'd rather have good hetro parents instead  of shitty gay ones.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

lolboy said:


> So it is not wrong if I said: I'd rather have good hetro parents instead  of shitty gay ones.



Of course not. Who would want shitty parents? Again though, parenting aptitude has nothing to do with sexual orientation.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2018)

lolboy said:


> This is wrong. This is said by many pro-gay people.  Trying to paint an picture in which gay never do bad and are perfect. I am sorry, I know plenty gay people that are pretty bad.


That is not what he said. There wasn't any generalizing in that statement. 

If anything, it is the other way around that some people keep saying. That a straight couple is automatically better than any other family unit/configuration.


----------



## osm70 (Oct 12, 2018)

lolboy said:


> So it is not wrong if I said: I'd rather have good hetro parents instead  of shitty gay ones.



I agree.
Saying that is not wrong.


----------



## SkittleDash (Oct 12, 2018)

I'm cool with this. I have a few friends that are gay/lesbian and they are wonderful people. If marriage makes them happy then go for it. Love is love no matter what gender the couple are.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Oct 12, 2018)

Love is love. It’s all good. Marry the one you love. Makes sense to me. On adoption, not everyone has the ability (physically) to have/carry a child. So adoption is a great option for someone to become a parent. There a lot of kids all over the world that need homes/able parents.


----------



## lolboy (Oct 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> That is not what he said. There wasn't any generalizing in that statement.
> 
> If anything, it is the other way around that some people keep saying. That a straight couple is automatically better than any other family unit/configuration.




I correct myself. I did not read "or no parents at all." part.  My mistake.


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 12, 2018)

lolboy said:


> I correct myself. I did not read "or no parents at all." part.  My mistake.


If I could word it differently, I'd just say let people live their lives and be happy.
They're human beings, not objects that should necessarily be sorted by specific attributes.
As for the adoption, once again, I'd rather have good human beings as parents instead of shitty ones, regardless of their status, gender, identity, belief, etc.

If that makes a bit more sense


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 12, 2018)

People do what they're gonna do, what right do I have to stop them or try to stop them? If people want to be happy, let them.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 12, 2018)

Love is love and that's all that matters. It doesn't concern anybody else. 

And why shouldn't any loving couple be able to raise a kid? Who the fuck is anyone to say otherwise? Sorry, but I don't respect homophobes. It's only their fault that they're scared of gay people.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 12, 2018)

Pro on both. No argument against either makes sense or is in any way carried by valid data.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 12, 2018)

I support gay marriage and adoption.


----------



## spinal_cord (Oct 12, 2018)

mrdude said:


> I'm not a fan of either - it's not what nature intends and as a christian it's against my values.



Jesus had 2 dad's...


----------



## Localhorst86 (Oct 12, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> I think you're missing the point.  The question wasn't "What's your stand on [other people and] same-sex marriage and adoption?"  Now, I presume that was the actual intent, but if you actually believe that it is in fact a right to marry or adopt regardless of sexual orientation, then it's not really something for which you can be pro or anti meaningfully.  But just because you do or don't marry/adopt doesn't necessarily make you pro or anti either--the reason that marriage and child raising are considered rights is part of what makes a person irregardless of their willful desire or rational deduction.  It's sort of like asking if you're pro or anti breathing and eating.


but that's the issue, isn't it? Same sex couples are actively being denied the right to marry and adopt children because someone, somewhere is against it.


----------



## chaoskagami (Oct 12, 2018)

spinal_cord said:


> Jesus had 2 dad's...



Technically speaking, Jesus has one dad (God) that NTR'd the other. If the Bible is to be believed, anyways. What's that you, say? The bible forbids adultery? Uhhhh...apparently God is exempt from that one. Yeah. Let's go with that. 



Hanafuda said:


> My wife's a kindergarten teacher and nearly half of her class this year are fucked up by their parents' drug issues. Autism spectrum, behavioral/maturity problems, motor impairments, unable to speak normally or control bathroom functions, etc. One kid appears to probably be 'normal' but due to neglect talks like a 2 year old and had no idea how to use a spoon or fork and would only eat with his hands. Regardless of 'for or against,' this topic is waaaaaaaaaaay down the list of issues that should be on anyone's radar.



As someone on the Autism spectrum, please kindly fuck off with calling that a "problem." I mean this in the kindest way possible.

And no, civil rights issues should be on people's radar. The fact is, they're important to the entire country. If everyone were to look away like that, we'll be in a very bad state down the line.


----------



## Exannor (Oct 12, 2018)

I personally don't care for it if its a couple raising their adopted child normally with proper discipline, its actually probably better for the child to have a more sustainable family, same-sex or nuclear. Same goes for same-sex marriage, I don't care for it all that much.

The kid is bound to have the same or similar views as the parents when the kid gets older, but its when it's forced at an early age is where it crosses the line. Let the kid think for theirself and be a proper kid, playing house, batman, jump on the trampoline, etc. while they can and when the kid does get into trouble such as bullying, stealing, etc. then discipline should be introduced.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 12, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> but that's the issue, isn't it? Same sex couples are actively being denied the right to marry and adopt children because someone, somewhere is against it.



Actually, what you said is precisely the point.  People are being actively denied their rights.  Sometimes that comes in the form of denial of legal recognition of marriage and whatever privileges that entails.  Sometimes that comes in the form of illegal restraint in prison or even murder.  It's not a question of whether you're "pro" same-sex marriage or adoption.

It's really a question of whether you're one who conspires to illegally withhold the rights of others.  That it might take hundreds or thousands of years after your death for people to realize it was fundamentally illegal?  Yes, that's the sad state of human progress on most rights.  Too often people think it's the business of themselves to define rights merely as a basis to suppress them.


----------



## eherrera322 (Oct 12, 2018)

Pro on both sides. Put it this way, does a same sex marriage interfere with your day to day life? Does a same sex couple adopting a child interfere with your everyday life? Exactly, it doesn’t affect in any way. Heck, adopting is awesome but only do it if you have the right necessities and income to do so. And only get married if you are really sure about that individual. Sure people are gonna do whatever they want, but simply put, let people marry whomever they want, it’s their life, their choice, and I’m being nice here, their problem. Let everyone else worry about their life choices, it’s not affecting you in any way, shape or form.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 12, 2018)

Gay marriage. If the gays want to be as unhappy as every married cunt I have ever met then so be it. I would rather get rid of marriage as any kind of legal affair/status entirely but pending that day then in the modern world I see no reason why it should logically be denied to those looking to fumble matching genitals.

Adoption by the gays. There are arguments against it that I would say hold some water from a logical or scientific perspective, however they are all utterly obviated by "foster care sucks, being adopted by some gays is orders and orders of magnitude better than that and still produces good outcomes, oh look there are loads and loads in foster care".
The more interesting question is whether I would support the rights of various agencies to choose to consider it (there are race and religion based ones, the latter I have very serious misgivings with) or have it count as a negative in determining things, and to what extent it might count as one. There is also the one for courts in the case of familial or directed adoption and challenges or decisions there. I am not able to get to it being a complete non factor in decision making there, ultimately it would be a fairly minor one but still one. To go one further I would probably say while I happily support the job/school/housing/... parts of legal frameworks dealing with discrimination I would oppose, pending proper studies, a similar line for court adoption proceedings. In the case that the child is able to make a reasonably informed decision then non factor.



mrdude said:


> Kids should ideally be brought up in a household with a Man and women and other kids + pets. That way they can fully develop as nature intended.


That is a curious one.

If I look at all the other apes, no small number of primitive tribes and a fair few less primitive ones as well then there is a rather more communal aspect to things. The household unit as you describe is a rather more modern invention (as in quite some time after the industrial revolution and the move to cities). That is possibly a bit abstract though so a question that works here is "a kid you kind of know is crying, do you try to sort it yourself or try to find its parents? Same question if we remove the "kind of" part?". The answers I have had to that have been eye opening to me, and that is before we discuss the sex of the person in this hypothetical but that is a different topic again. In my case the mere fact it was a question that had different answers beyond "obviously I would help" was somewhat enlightening to me when it was posed, though it explained a lot.

If I have accidentally done the whole strawman bit there then I will walk it back but I would similarly call for a clarification/distinction on your part as the modern world has changed a few things.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 12, 2018)

chaoskagami said:


> Technically speaking, Jesus has one dad (God) that NTR'd the other.



That made me laugh


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 13, 2018)

I voted yes to both. 

Personally, I think marriage is an outdated ritual instilled by a cult that caused fear more harm than good in the world (despite its intentions), so I don't understand why anyone of any gender wants to do it. Nonetheless : I respect people's decision to disagree with me (heh... My own parents are married, so it's not all bad).
The topic is pretty much a non issue here in Belgium, as everyone's allowed to marry anyone (okay : 18+...but that's not the topic).

Adoption... Iirc that's not an issue here either. And frankly : it's pretty stupid to be against adoption as supply is larger than demand. As such  the question isn't about the backward issue of whether a child needs two be raised by two genders but whether it has someone raising him /her in the first place.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 13, 2018)

Yes to both. If a gay couple wants to ruin the rest of their life, they're free to do so. But I'm against "renting" someone's uterus to have a baby.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Yes to both. If a gay couple wants to ruin the rest of their life, they're free to do so. But I'm against "renting" someone's uterus to have a baby.


Why though? If a woman wants to carry a child for a same-sex couple, why would that be an issue? It's not like they are forced into it. Some couples want a biological child, just like everyone else and they should have that right to do so. If someone else is willing to carry that child for them and willing to put their own body through that, why would that be issue?


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 13, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Why though? If a woman wants to carry a child for a same-sex couple, why would that be an issue? It's not like they are forced into it.


There's a line in every person's humanity you don't cross. To me, that's renting your uterus to people. You start by letting people ask friends to do it and then you end with huge businesses to guarantee a "perfect baby" to any couple. Having this option can only lead to the harshest discriminations to people with the smallest genetic imperfections and, to me, it's not right. Note that I would be against this even if straight couples were doing it.

Sure, having this line of thought can lead to healthier generations of people, but what's stopping them from deciding to not have a baby with a person with a genetic predisposition to Huntington and one that's just bald? To me, letting people rent their uterus is the beginning of something catastrophic and I don't like it.

You're free to sell your body the way you want to, but please leave another living human being alone.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> There's a line in every person's humanity you don't cross. To me, that's renting your uterus to people. You start by letting people ask friends to do it and then you end with huge businesses to guarantee a "perfect baby" to any couple. Having this option can only lead to the harshest discriminations to people with the smallest genetic imperfections and, to me, it's not right. Note that I would be against this even if straight couples were doing it.
> 
> Sure, having this line of thought can lead to healthier generations of people, but what's stopping them from deciding to not have a baby with a person with a genetic predisposition to Huntington and one that's just bald? To me, letting people rent their uterus is the beginning of something catastrophic and I don't like it.
> 
> You're free to sell your body the way you want to, but please leave another living human being alone.


Expect that's a completely different topic on it's own and not what's happening here. No same-sex couple is going out of their way to make super soldiers, they are just trying to have a child of their own. Also what about heterosexual couples where they can't produce kids for a verity of reasons and need to use a surrogate, are you still applying the same logic there as well?


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 13, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect that's a completely different topic on it's own and not what's happening here. No same-sex couple is going out of their way to make super soldiers, they are just trying to have a child of their own. Also what about heterosexual couples where they can't produce kids for a verity of reasons, are you still applying the same logic there as well?


As I wrote in the post you just quoted, yes. You want a baby that you can't or don't want to make on your own? Adopt one that already exists. No matter if you're a gay couple, straight or even single. We're already seeing an increasingly number of abortions from people that wanted their kid to be a certain gender and no one talks about it, so I'm 100% sure that a scenario like the one I described will be possible if we allow people to rent uterus like they were nothing.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> As I wrote in the post you just quoted, yes. You want a baby that you can't or don't want to make on your own? Adopt one that already exists. No matter if you're a gay couple, straight or even single. We're already seeing an increasingly number of abortions from people that wanted their kid to be a certain gender and no one talks about it, so I'm 100% sure that a scenario like the one I described will be possible if we allow people to rent uterus like they were nothing.


You are talking about 3 different topics here and none of them are a reasonable argument against surrogacy. Equally what's stopping someone from adopting and having a surrogate child? Some people actually want to carry on their family's genetics and surrogacy is often the only way to do that. That doesn't mean that they can't also adopt a child too. This isn't some black and white situation.


----------



## Hoppy (Oct 13, 2018)

I think it is good. I don't have anything against it, but I don't really have anything to say about it, either...
As long as you're being yourself, I feel it is good.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> There's a line in every person's humanity you don't cross. To me, that's renting your uterus to people. You start by letting people ask friends to do it and then you end with huge businesses to guarantee a "perfect baby" to any couple. Having this option can only lead to the harshest discriminations to people with the smallest genetic imperfections and, to me, it's not right. Note that I would be against this even if straight couples were doing it.
> 
> Sure, having this line of thought can lead to healthier generations of people, but what's stopping them from deciding to not have a baby with a person with a genetic predisposition to Huntington and one that's just bald? To me, letting people rent their uterus is the beginning of something catastrophic and I don't like it.
> 
> You're free to sell your body the way you want to, but please leave another living human being alone.



That's OK, science has your back here if renting a womb or using donor eggs is a problem. It seems both human egg cells have been made from other human cells ( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...an-eggs-out-blood-cells-first-time-180970388/ ) and that complex mammalian life has been grown in a bag/artificial womb ( https://www.iflscience.com/health-a...ully-grow-premature-lamb-for-the-second-time/ ).


----------



## matthi321 (Oct 13, 2018)

dont care does that mean im pro or against it?


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 13, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You are talking about 3 different topics here and none of them are a reasonable argument against surrogacy. Equally what's stopping someone from adopting and having a surrogate child? Some people actually want to carry on their family's genetics and surrogacy is often the only way to do that. That doesn't mean that they can't also adopt a child too. This isn't some black and white situation.


Why do people choose to buy puppies from a breeder instead of a stray? Because they want it to be a certain way, a certain breed. The only reason people adopt strays is because it's morally right, there is no other reason. And if you think that this comparison is too superficial, well, that's just how many people see kids as: propriety. Again, many people decide to abort their baby for frivolous reasons, like the "wrong" gender.

I just don't feel comfortable with letting people have too much liberty of choice when it comes to human lives, that's all. Remember that, on average, half of the nation you live in is a lot more stupid than you. People that have sold their kids for drugs, or doing drugs themselves during pregnancy, or overall being an awful parent. Most of these things are thankfully illegal.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> That's OK, science has your back here if renting a womb or using donor eggs is a problem. It seems both human egg cells have been made from other human cells ( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...an-eggs-out-blood-cells-first-time-180970388/ ) and that complex mammalian life has been grown in a bag/artificial womb ( https://www.iflscience.com/health-a...ully-grow-premature-lamb-for-the-second-time/ ).


I feel the same way for "laboratory babies", really.


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Oct 13, 2018)

i doestn know how to say in english but in german we say : lieben und leben lassen 
 i like lesbian girls (who men doesnt like it xD)  and when she find the love why she or he doesnt mariage? 
in germany we have finish the same rights for gay and lesbian !!! i find this is a revolution !!! 

before 200-500 years it was Okey when you are gay .. but then in the 1900 it was bad.. so stupid people


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Why do people choose to buy puppies from a breeder instead of a stray? Because they want it to be a certain way, a certain breed. The only reason people adopt strays is because it's morally right, there is no other reason. And if you think that this comparison is too superficial, well, that's just how many people see kids as: propriety. Again, many people decide to abort their baby for frivolous reasons, like the "wrong" gender.
> 
> I just don't feel comfortable with letting people have too much liberty of choice when it comes to human lives, that's all. Remember that, on average, half of the nation you live in is a lot more stupid than you. People that have sold their kids for drugs, or doing drugs themselves during pregnancy, or overall being an awful parent. Most of these things are thankfully illegal.
> 
> ...


At this point in the debate you tend to get asked if you would fuck an ugly woman.

If no then you clearly support some measure of selection (while there are various beauty standards around the world most are a visible measure of health, fertility and such), just with a huge random component.

If yes it will typically still be considered a downside by the person asking it and need to be "offset" by something else, something probably also considered a desirable heritable trait or trait beneficial in raising kids.

Going further a favourite study was that concerning distance someone travels to find someone to marry. The advent of the bicycle then serving to rather increase this distance which still speaks to the nature of choice. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...pools-secret-history-of-19th-century-cyclists


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Why do people choose to buy puppies from a breeder instead of a stray? Because they want it to be a certain way, a certain breed. The only reason people adopt strays is because it's morally right, there is no other reason. And if you think that this comparison is too superficial, well, that's just how many people see kids as: propriety. Again, many people decide to abort their baby for frivolous reasons, like the "wrong" gender.
> 
> I just don't feel comfortable with letting people have too much liberty of choice when it comes to human lives, that's all. Remember that, on average, half of the nation you live in is a lot more stupid than you. People that have sold their kids for drugs, or doing drugs themselves during pregnancy, or overall being an awful parent. Most of these things are thankfully illegal..


Nice straw man, but still not the same thing as what I said. What you have been suggesting is not the same as surrogacy, what you are talking about is selective breeding. Equally your second notion of sex-based abortions also has nothing to do with surrogacy. You are moving the goal post and using straw man arguments.
And what does any of that have to do with surrogacy? How does other people being stupid have anything to do with someone having another consenting adult carry their child for them? Stop moving the goal post and actually make a cohesive argument. Nothing you've said has actually to do with surrogacy.


----------



## Bimmel (Oct 13, 2018)

No no no! They are evil and you know it! They are all genetically manipulated humans with only evil intent. Allowing marriage for them would be truly devastating for all the normal and good people out there.



DinohScene said:


> It shouldn't be called "gay" marriage.
> It should just be called marriage.


What about garriage?


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 13, 2018)

Bimmel said:


> What about garriage?



Kinda defeats the purpose of being treated like equals.
Something the LGBT community fought for.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 13, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Nice straw man, but still not the same thing as what I said. What you have been suggesting is not the same as surrogacy, what you are talking about is selective breeding. Equally your second notion of sex-based abortions also has nothing to do with surrogacy. You are moving the goal post and using straw man arguments.
> And what does any of that have to do with surrogacy? How does other people being stupid have anything to do with someone having another consenting adult carry their child for them? Stop moving the goal post and actually make a cohesive argument. Nothing you've said has actually to do with surrogacy.


What are you talking about?

"What's your stance on same-sex marriage and adoption?"
Me: "I approve both but no adoption from a rented uterus"
You: "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> At this point in the debate you tend to get asked if you would fuck an ugly woman.
> 
> If no then you clearly support some measure of selection (while there are various beauty standards around the world most are a visible measure of health, fertility and such), just with a huge random component.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't fuck an ugly woman but I would accept in my life and raise an ugly kid with non-serious genetic issues. They are two different things.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> "What's your stance on same-sex marriage and adoption?"
> Me: "I approve both but no adoption from a rented uterus"
> You: "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT"


Because your actual issues with surrogacy has actually nothing to do with surrogacy. You are clumping different topics into one topic and declaring them the same thing, when they simply aren't


----------



## Pachee (Oct 13, 2018)

I don't have anything against adoptions.
I don't have anything against gay marriage as long as they don't try to shoehorn it into some kind of law trying to force religions/temples to accept them against their will (nor ridicule/runs campaigns against them, which sadly seems to be what is happening in certain places).


----------



## LittleFlame (Oct 13, 2018)

Why is it that when people here give a slightly controversial opinion the LGBT community of the temp just jumps them, live and let live
I don't agree with most of the things said but why bitch about it, you're not gonna sway opinions with angry posts.
I personally feel like @Song of storms was very rational about his opinions and while I don't agree, and you don't HAVE TO AGREE it's why it's an opinion he wasn't a twat about it was he now?

Why the hell can't we ever have a discussion.


----------



## AceyBwoi (Oct 13, 2018)

I'm pro on both

But then again they say everyone is made for someone but for some reason I don't feel like that be true.. no one for me  sad


----------



## LittleFlame (Oct 13, 2018)

Oh right, I should give my opinion
Well that's a can of beans really
Do whatever makes ya happy man, as long as you're not bothering me with it.
You do you, Imma go do me


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 13, 2018)

There are shitty people everywhere. If a gay couple happens to be the better option for the child, go for it.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 13, 2018)

LittleFlame said:


> Why is it that when people here give a slightly controversial opinion the LGBT community of the temp just jumps them, live and let live
> I don't agree with most of the things said but why bitch about it, you're not gonna sway opinions with angry posts.
> I personally feel like @Song of storms was very rational about his opinions and while I don't agree, and you don't HAVE TO AGREE it's why it's an opinion he wasn't a twat about it was he now?
> 
> Why the hell can't we ever have a discussion.


The internet makes the younger generations as "nosy" as the oldest ones. Always pushing their agenda 100% in a "with or against me" kind of nosense war. And then they're surprised when someone like Trump won the elections.


----------



## Bimmel (Oct 13, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> Kinda defeats the purpose of being treated like equals.
> Something the LGBT community fought for.


It's just a matter of time. And soon, they will conquer the world!



AceyBwoi said:


> I'm pro on both
> 
> But then again they say everyone is made for someone but for some reason I don't feel like that be true.. no one for me  sad


You were just born into this world my friend. Your time will come.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 13, 2018)

I really don't have a problem with same sex marriage or adoption. The only problem I have is that homosexuals tend to be very liberal. Haha.


----------



## WhiteX (Oct 13, 2018)

Gay give me no money
Gay take me no money
Mischa no care


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 14, 2018)

Pachee said:


> I don't have anything against adoptions.
> I don't have anything against gay marriage as long as they don't try to shoehorn it into some kind of law trying to force religions/temples to accept them against their will (nor ridicule/runs campaigns against them, which sadly seems to be what is happening in certain places).



If the religion/temple wants to perform a legally binding marriage then you get to play by legal standards. If they want to perform their own rituals outside of that (I refer back to my earlier comment wherein I cared little for marriage as a legal concept) then they can be bigoted I guess, bit sad really but club business and all that. I see no reason why people can't discuss said silliness within a club though, and make others aware of it, even more so if said club purports to be the most morally upstanding way to live life.


----------



## Pachee (Oct 14, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> If the religion/temple wants to perform a legally binding marriage then you get to play by legal standards. If they want to perform their own rituals outside of that (I refer back to my earlier comment wherein I cared little for marriage as a legal concept) then they can be bigoted I guess, bit sad really but club business and all that. I see no reason why people can't discuss said silliness within a club though, and make others aware of it, even more so if said club purports to be the most morally upstanding way to live life.


Calling others you disagree with bigots seem to be a thing now. Weird thing is that this sort of criticism always come from people living in societies that were only possible because those bigots had some values, and are now heading to decadency because those values are being abandoned.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 14, 2018)

Pachee said:


> Calling others you disagree with bigots seem to be a thing now. Weird thing is that this sort of criticism always come from people living in societies that were only possible because those bigots had some values, and are now heading to decadency because those values are being abandoned.


Well..
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices  especially *: *one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I do think not accepting gay people would be considered bigoted.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Oct 14, 2018)

Well, as an LGBT person who'd like to both get married someday and adopt, I don't see why I'd be against either.

On top of that, with all the children in "the system" all around the world looking for good homes, I don't see how someone would be against the latter, especially pro-lifers who believe parents without means to care for a child should have to give birth if they're ever to conceive.

Children deserve a good life with a good family, regardless of that family's make-up. All families are different, but a good family can come in any shape or size.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 14, 2018)

Pachee said:


> Calling others you disagree with bigots seem to be a thing now. Weird thing is that this sort of criticism always come from people living in societies that were only possible because those bigots had some values, and are now heading to decadency because those values are being abandoned.



Casting aspersions is one thing however

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot


> Definition of bigot
> 
> : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance



That is pretty accurate for most of the major religions under discussion, whether you use their internal logic (telling an atheist to go to hell is a rather different concept to one that believes in such notions) or external ones.

Equally were they responsible for such things or did they hold back such changes? Given not everywhere abandoned religion at the same rate we have some nice points of comparison.

Similarly what is wrong with decadence?


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 14, 2018)

LittleFlame said:


> Why is it that when people here give a slightly controversial opinion the LGBT community of the temp just jumps them, live and let live
> I don't agree with most of the things said but why bitch about it, you're not gonna sway opinions with angry posts.
> I personally feel like @Song of storms was very rational about his opinions and while I don't agree, and you don't HAVE TO AGREE it's why it's an opinion he wasn't a twat about it was he now?
> 
> Why the hell can't we ever have a discussion.


It's not about agreeing, his reasoning doesn't make sense. He's against one issue for reasons that have nothing to do with that issue. I was interested in knowing more, but learning more only brought about confusion. His reason was because of selective breeding, which has nothing to do with surrogacy. I am not asking him to agree with surrogacy, but trying to explain that his reasons against it are unfounded and not even related to surrogacy. A simple example, it would be like saying, "I don't like hot dogs because cat food is also made of meat." Yeah, both are made out of meat, but why does cat food being meat effect anyone's reason for not liking hot dogs? Going back to this topic, his reason was, "I don't agree with surrogacy because of selective breeding." Why would selective breeding be an issue with surrogacy? They aren't the same thing and putting them together as if they were is nonsensical.
As for the opinion on the LGBT, honestly most people don't have a logical argument against the LGBT. It's often just the same "Mah holy book!" and "But sex were made for babies!" which have just become logical fallacies at this point. People are slowly realizing that the anti-LGBT stance isn't a stance that needs to be respected.


Song of storms said:


> The internet makes the younger generations as "nosy" as the oldest ones. Always pushing their agenda 100% in a "with or against me" kind of nosense war. And then they're surprised when someone like Trump won the elections.


I am actually pretty sure that I am older than you. Equally you made the comment, did you not expect anyone to question you? I never once said I was against you (even though I am obviously pro-surrogacy,) but I did explain the logical fallacies you were using and issues with your stance on the topic of surrogacy. Do note, you were the one who brought the topic up.


----------



## Pachee (Oct 14, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Casting aspersions is one thing however
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
> 
> ...


No, that is not very accurate. Religions are bound to a few beliefs, usually written on their sacred texts. You just don't go around calling people who believe/think they need to preserve those beliefs bigots, as that does not equal to hatred or intolerance like a lot of screaming people like to claim.
By that logic, everybody trying to change those beliefs could also be defined as bigots due to their obstinate and intolerant campaigns against them we have seen in the recent years.

I don't get the last question. Are you asking what is wrong with people abandoning the key beliefs that created our societies? That would be like taking the foundations of a building out, the smallest breeze could take it all down.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 14, 2018)

Pachee said:


> No, that is not very accurate. Religions are bound to a few beliefs, usually written on their sacred texts. You just don't go around calling people who believe/think they need to preserve those beliefs bigots, as that does not equal to hatred or intolerance like a lot of screaming people like to claim.
> By that logic, everybody trying to change those beliefs could also be defined as bigots due to their obstinate and intolerant campaigns against them we have seen in the recent years.
> 
> I don't get the last question. Are you asking what is wrong with people abandoning the key beliefs that created our societies? That would be like taking the foundations of a building out, the smallest breeze could take it all down.



Would that first part not be equivalent to "I was just following orders"? But yes I would judge those espousing such beliefs against my baseline for such things and such things have long come up wanting.

For the second part then one could ponder good bigotry and bad bigotry I guess, however I am not necessarily seeing the obstinate and intolerant part being front and centre. "You are free to believe what you want to believe, however in no way do you have the right to not be called on it" is in play and while most focus on the second the first is still of vital importance.

We may differ on what we consider key beliefs, and possibly the origins of them. For the latter then I often hear of Christian values (despite their massive variability at times) where there most values it espouses predate it (or are possibly even handed to us from biology and evolution) and many later ones postdate it (enlightenment thinking and all that). There is a current concern where I am seeing some depart from what I considered fundamental modes of operation in society, indeed I believe we have both in threads where such things were at the forefront of discussion but none of that was really an artefact of the religious era.


----------



## vinstage (Oct 14, 2018)

LittleFlame said:


> Why the hell can't we ever have a discussion.


bc ur on a community where most people like the try and shove their opinions down ur throat as well as over popularize it because it never gets the time of day irl


----------



## The Frenchman (Oct 14, 2018)

My dad is homosexual and I was raised in a lie between my dad and my mom, I suffered from that and kinda lacked a father's figure because he wasn't comfortable, I had to work on myself a lot as a teenager but I think that if your parents love themselves enough to have children they will be good parents, no matter their sex.

We now live in a whole different era than when I grew up and kids won't be as toxic to others for these reasons, seeing the poll's result is comforting.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 14, 2018)

I know that this is a rather complex topic, so many differences in opinions and so on, see, my brother is currently a partner with another man. He's engaged, and I'm glad that he finally found someone to share his life with. I want the best for him and I'm glad that he's happy


----------



## Nyannurs (Oct 18, 2018)

don't really care for either of them, but i am against both of them

same-sex marriage and adoption on top of that is just a recipe for a bad childhood


----------



## granville (Oct 21, 2018)

Both should be allowed.

I'm nearly 30 years old and have heard just about ever argument there is in opposition to same sex marriage. I have yet to hear a single good and rational one.

For adoption, in cases where the only two choices are a happy and loving same-sex couple or else remaining a ward of the state, who the hell would think the latter is preferable to the former?


----------



## MasterJ360 (Oct 21, 2018)

My mom isn't married to the same sex, but she has been dating women ever since I was a kid. I naturally got used to it overtime I was never really bothered or ashamed. Just felt like I had 2 mothers taking care of me


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

Nyannurs said:


> don't really care for either of them, but i am against both of them
> 
> same-sex marriage and adoption on top of that is just a recipe for a bad childhood


Expect research shows that same-sex parents don't have a negative effect on children and children of same-sex parents grow up just fine. It's often been shown that the only real issue is bullying, which is a cultural issue and not an issue actually caused by same-sex marriage/adoption.


----------



## Drak0rex (Oct 21, 2018)

I think same sex marriage is fine and dandy, but same sex divorce should be illegal. They fought for it, let them live with it.


----------



## Nyannurs (Oct 21, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect research shows that same-sex parents don't have a negative effect on children and children of same-sex parents grow up just fine. It's often been shown that the only real issue is bullying, which is a cultural issue and not an issue actually caused by same-sex marriage/adoption.


? wat

if a kid gets adopted by a same-sex couple and they get bullied for it, how is the cause NOT the fact that the kid has same-sex parents? the only real issue is bullying, and is a cultural issue, and is caused by same-sex adoption


----------



## MasterJ360 (Oct 21, 2018)

Teens get bullied for being homosexuals, but kids don't exactly understand same sex marriage, so its very rare to hear about getting bullied over that.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

Nyannurs said:


> ? wat
> 
> if a kid gets adopted by a same-sex couple and they get bullied for it, how is the cause NOT the fact that the kid has same-sex parents? the only real issue is bullying, and is a cultural issue, and is caused by same-sex adoption


Because the issue isn't same-sex couples, it's a culture that raises kids to bully other kids with different life styles. Homophobia is a cultural issue that is learned.


----------



## Enryx25 (Oct 21, 2018)

Nyannurs said:


> ? wat
> 
> if a kid gets adopted by a same-sex couple and they get bullied for it, how is the cause NOT the fact that the kid has same-sex parents? the only real issue is bullying, and is a cultural issue, and is caused by same-sex adoption


So if a kid gets bullied because its parents are poor, then by your reasoning poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 21, 2018)

Sorry about double posts. Dont know why I got double posts.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 21, 2018)

@Enryx25

It is better if you remove *"I'm against LGBT people"*. Dont want haters here and they don't know what they are talking about. They are NOT ABSOLUTELY HUMAN! NO FEELINGS. PLEASE REMOVE IT.

Only positive feedbacks here. Just suggest. Please ? Just getting tired of haters and they are monsters.

And I don't want to comment on it because don't want to have an arguments with homophobic people. They are SICK people with no love and understanding. Too complicate and waste time. No comments.

EDIT: Homophobia is a disease and incurable people! No love, caring and respect then they are not human being at all! None!


----------



## Nerdtendo (Oct 21, 2018)

Against both if I'm gonna be honest


----------



## depaul (Oct 21, 2018)

-When a man and a woman want to marry : NO ! Marriage is bad and outdated! It's just a piece of paper! it's better to stay single and have children without marriage! "Researches" show that staying single is best for you!

-Same sex marriage : YES! that's freedom of expression! "Researches" show that gay/lesbian marriage have no negative effect! We should encourage it !

Hypocritical society.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 21, 2018)

So I actually never looked into how same-sex marriage affects a child. I did some research on it and as long as the parents are loving people then the child will end up fine. A loving home produces good children who knew? As for the child being picked on for having two parents of the same gender, that is more of an issue with society than anything else.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

depaul said:


> -When a man and a woman want to marry : NO ! Marriage is bad and outdated! It's just a piece of paper! it's better to stay single and have children without marriage! "Researches" show that staying single is best for you!
> 
> -Same sex marriage : YES! that's freedom of expression! "Researches" show that gay/lesbian marriage have no negative effect! We should encourage it !
> 
> Hypocritical society.


Expect no one is saying that same-sex marriage doesn't fall under the former, but that it should be allowed to fall under the former. The same notion of marriage being a pointless piece of paper can still apply to same sex marriage, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. If your argument is that marriage is pointless, then all marriage should stop existing, period. Same-sex marriage shouldn't be the only thing removed, so should heterosexual marriage. If you are saying that same-sex marriage should be held to the same pointless standard as heterosexual marriage, than that's literally what people want. Same-sex marriage should be consider just as pointless heterosexual marriage or in other words it should just be called "Marriage."
Of course I am guessing you are saying that there's a double standard because no one cares about marriage, but people still support same-sex marriage. Which I shall reply, yeah and so? People don't have to care about marriage to support it. Equally research still backups that same-sex parents raise perfectly healthy kids and no one has refuted that research thus far.


----------



## Nyannurs (Oct 21, 2018)

Enryx25 said:


> So if a kid gets bullied because its parents are poor, then by your reasoning poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.


yes. absolutely that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 21, 2018)

Enryx25 said:


> So if a kid gets bullied because its parents are poor, then by your reasoning *poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.*




Ya gotta admit, sure would solve a lot of problems.


----------



## DarthDub (Oct 21, 2018)

There should be an option for less people should procreate so we wouldn't have this issue of too many kids in foster care.

On-topic: Pro Marriage and adoption? You shouldn't have to be married to adopt a child..


----------

