.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

I think what he is saying James, is that both pedophiles and homosexuals claim they have no control over their emotions/feelings/. Saying it is an ingrained difference from straight people, therefore if one has the right to adoption, because of this inborn trait, then both should have that right. Difference being of course, is that pedophiles harm children--that's what makes them pedophiles-and criminals.

Personally, I think gays should be allowed to adopt gay children. But I'm not so enthusiastic about gays adopting heterosexual children, because it could be uncomfortable for the children. The kids would be ostracized in school. And IMO, that could negatively affect their mental / emotional development.

The needs of the children come before the wants of the would-be parents.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Fixed it. Aus, pedophiles would never be allowed to adopt children, as they are considered child abusers. The childrens rights to not be abused would prevent this, so don't fear this happening.

John John John!!! Come on!!! just 50 years ago homosexuality was regarded as a perversion, and was illegal. Look around you now..see many homosexuals indulging in homosexuality, and even boasting about it? Parading their victory in public? Never ignore the Human Beings' propensity for descending deeper and deeper into the mire by allowing un-natural acts and desires to become legal There are even websites actually advocating allowing paedophilia. All it takes is a powerful and influential group of these foul people to actually make it acceptable, .Just as a large powerbase of homosexuals in British Politics and Showbusiness got a Bill passed in the UK Parliament to decriminalise the practice of homosexuality. BECAUSE IT WAS TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND INTEREST TO PASS IT.Despite a majority at the time who didn't agree. It only takes a vociferous minority, and an apathetic majority for it to happen. The reason homosexuality was decriminalised was because women did not find it as abnoxious, or feel as threatened by it, as straight men did. With paedophilia, it wouldn't sneak by so easily, because men AND women find it disgusting, immoral and indefensible, and would unite to defeat it being legalised.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 11-13-2008).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: New Bedford MA? You are a Yankee.

Now I really AM offended!

well, maybe a bit outragous, but - there is a fixall:

dont make unwanted kids. then there will be none to adopt. stop this silliness before it happens.

That would also solve the abortion issue. Too bad people are too dumb and/or lazy to do it.

OMG,

Birth control, what a concept!

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: That would also solve the abortion issue. Too bad people are too dumb and/or lazy to do it.

Taken from www.hrc.org
----------
On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in accordance with a landmark Massachusetts Superior Court ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. More than 600 couples applied for marriage licenses that day alone.

Marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples who are residents of the state will give couples all the state benefits of marriage, such as spousal rights to hospital visitation and the ability to file joint state tax returns. But due to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which declares that the federal government will not recognize the marriage of any same-sex couples, they are ineligible for the more than 1,100 federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security survivor benefits. It is also uncertain whether other states will recognize these marriages when couples travel or move to their state.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, was handed down Nov. 18, 2003. The court concluded that “the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection,” and marriage in Massachusetts means "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." It gave the Legislature six months to change state marriage statutes to comply with the decision, which is how the first marriage licenses came to be issued on May 17. Anti-gay advocates tried to have the ruling overturned, but in November 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and same-sex couples in Massachusetts continued to enjoy full marriage equality.

In July 2008, Massachusetts repealed the discriminatory and antiquated 1913 law, which had been used to bar most out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying in the Bay State. Now, out-of-state couples are free to marry in Massachusetts—although you should consult an attorney to determine whether your marriage will be recognized at home and please be extremely careful (and certainly consult an attorney before acting) if you live in states like Wisconsin and Delaware that provide criminal penalties for residents marrying out of state who would be prohibited from marrying at home.

On June 14, 2007, a joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature defeated, by a vote of 151-45, a proposed constitutional amendment that would have ended marriage equality in the Commonwealth. The Legislature’s vote eliminated any chances of the proposed amendment getting on the ballot in November 2008. Because fewer than 50 of the state’s 200 legislators supported the ban on marriage by same-sex couples, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot. This is a major victory for supporters of marriage equality.

Massachusetts was the first state to recognize marriage equality under state law, but has since been joined by California, in June 2008. Same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts continue to be denied federal rights and benefits, thanks to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

Opponents of marriage equality vowed to continue their fight, but any effort to begin a new ballot initiative faces high hurdles.

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 11-13-2008).]

The wording sure sounds bias.

(dons flame suit for the 1st time)

Well of course it will sound a little bias. Look at the website I got it from. I didn't take it from there for it to sound bias, though. It's the only article I could find referencing it, since it is now a 4 year old law. But I'm sure if I did enough searching I could find others.

I basically wanted to post it to show the part that is in bold: 'marriage in Massachusetts means "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." '

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 11-13-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: If ones parents cant raise them then one either they should have an abortion which I would rather my mother would have done.

Well, first of all, I’m really sorry to hear that you have such a negative view on your life. That’s very, very unfortunate.

However, I’m afraid with your outlook on life that your opinion on adoption can hardly be accepted as unbiased.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: Frankly yes I think that only people who have there own kids should be alloud to adopt. Sorry for those who cant have there own kids nature has decided other wise. I think that only experianced parents should be alloud to adopt.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: Or the child should be given to a family that has proven that they are responsible enough to raise them.

So, with your line of reasoning, it’s acceptable that a man and a woman with absolutely no parenting skills can have a child the old-fashioned way (have sex, get pregnant, give birth), but on the other hand, for a couple to adopt a child, they have to pass some kind of “experience” test. Okey dokey...

Don’t you think that might drastically cut down on the number of families who could qualify for adopting kids? Who the heck do you think the majority of couples are who adopt kids?. Ding, ding, ding... it’s couple’s who can’t have their own biological children! What a concept, eh?

Where would you plan on warehousing all the children who wouldn’t be adopted if your plan was implemented?

And please don’t again suggest that abortion is then the solution. I’m not necessarily anti-abortion, but it’s up to the individual woman involved, not you or I.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: Your comments are the ones that are ignorant as you have no expirance of what its like to be raised by someone else other then your own. I have not only been there but have several others in my own family that I know what they went thru after being adopted.

Do you know my family history? Do you know that I wasn’t adopted at birth? You don’t know squat about me.

As it turns out, I wasn’t adopted, but you make a huge presumption based simply on the fact that I find your comments disturbing.

I’ve had a LOT of experience with people who’ve been adopted. Two of my best friends, as well as my current girlfriend (of eight years) were all adopted at birth. In every case they were adopted into families where for whatever reason (probably medical), the parents weren’t able to have their own biological children. All three of these people are very appreciative of being brought into a loving family to be raised to adulthood.

Were the adoptive parents PERFECT in each of these families? No, to be honest they weren’t. However, it cannot be said that in all cases biological parents are perfect either. Far from it. Therefore, it’s quite unreasonable to hold adoptive parents up to some unobtainable measure of parenting when they’re only human just like the rest of us.

I’m sorry you feel the way you do about your life, honest I am. But just because you happen to have been adopted doesn’t mean that every child who’s been adopted is now living a life of hell.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: For those who don't believe being gay is a natural thing read this article.

A deviation of something that is 'normal' does not make it normal.
Is autism 'normal' or 'natural'?
Are two kids born with heads attached 'natural'?

Jaygee79......I read somewhere in all of this thread that you go to church or believe in God and everthing. You said that the Bible speaks of man laying with man and doesn't say anything about women. So in my own words, since God is against two men being together and does not recognize it or condone it then the gay preacher that married you would make your marriage null and void in the eye's of God would it not?

Paul

quote Originally posted by aconesa: So you say, give my proof that we choose to be this way. I would never choose to put up with crap like this.

I still question how many may be born with this 'condition' and how many turn to it because they are predisposed and influenced in some way (sexual abuse, friends, etc.)
For example, it has been proven over and over that many gay men have been abused as children. Would that not suggest that there is a connection with nurture, not nature?
On the other hand, if aconesa says she would never 'choose to put up with this crap', then I am more sympathetic to the cause.
To use a mediocre metaphor, it's like a person with Parkinson's asking for a cure: would we say 'no' to them - live with it and be happy because it's normal?

What I find issue with is that *if* some gay people are born with it (and I INSIST they are not ALL born with it based on many materials I have read), then why does the society accept this self-destructive behavior as normal? Should we not attempt to find a way 'cure' it?
No matter how many pride parades there are, no matter how many so-called scientists say this is normal, there is no way that a majority of the population will accept a lifestyle that has been shown to spread disease, promote self-destruction and generally disobey religious teachings, therefore would it not make sense that finding a 'cure' would make everyone (on both sides) gay? I mean happy?

It seems as though in the name of 'equality' everyone is forgetting about the rights of children.
(generally) The most well-rounded individuals come from unbroken families with a balanced male and female influence.
Enough studies have been shown to prove this, so where is the right of a child to have this type of home?

Some of you mention pedophiles.
If some gay men have been molested, they certainly have propensity to be the molestee.
Again, what about the rights of the children?

Edited to add:
I have no doubt that everyone on here has noticed that most gay people are 'different' from the rest (that's putting it mildly in some cases) both in looks and personality.
Eg. I always thought Jaygee was 'different' just from pics.
Would that not suggest that there is some abnormality (like Down's syndrome) that may be curable?

[This message has been edited by Voytek (edited 11-13-2008).]

I never stated that I was adopted. I spent my life in boys homes. I was put into them when I was 8 years old. I started life out with two parents. My mother was only 13 when I was born.
I had a sister that died at the age of 3 months of SIDS. My parents devorced when I was around 2 or 3 years old. My father eventualy got custody of me and he found someone else.
This woman hated my mom and took it out on me. I was abused in all the ways that she could find. When I was eight years old I finaly got enough of the abouse and threatened my Dad and Step mother.
In my Case Adoption was not an option with all the emotional scars that I had to deal with. However I went from home to home because instead of them finding what really had happend I had suppressed everything
until I was about 16 years old. By then I had developed many mental blocks and have no memory of alot of what happened to me. From time to time I will be reading some of my case files and will uncover some of those
memorys, However I do know how to deal with them now.
Most of the Kids I lived with which over they years has totaled in the hundreds all had about the same outlook on life. about 90 percent of those kids are in prison now and will be for the rest of there lives.
So adoption fails more then you know.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: I never stated that I was adopted. I spent my life in boys homes.

And yet you've stated that children would be better off to be aborted than to be adopted.

Your situation is rather unique and quite honestly, very sad.

I don't wish to debate this with you any longer. I can see it's only going to cause further discomfort (for both of us at this point), and that was never the goal of my involvement in this thread.

Knowing what I now know about your life, I apologize for stating my initial comments to you in the manner I did. I still believe you're way off base with your beliefs on adoption, but if I knew what I now know about you, I would've stated my comments to you differently. I'm sorry.

My hat is off to you Patrick..you have a PM
Nick

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: Jaygee79......I read somewhere in all of this thread that you go to church or believe in God and everthing. You said that the Bible speaks of man laying with man and doesn't say anything about women. So in my own words, since God is against two men being together and does not recognize it or condone it then the gay preacher that married you would make your marriage null and void in the eye's of God would it not? Paul

No it wouldn't. I don't even know how you can relate the two. Show me where it says that in the Bible.

Using your rationality, if a ceremony were performed by a Justice of the Peace, it would be consider void by God because it wasn't performed religiously.

I didn't get married for it to be recognized by God. If that were my only reasoning, I wouldn't need to get married at all.

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 11-13-2008).]

quote Is autism 'normal' or 'natural'? Are two kids born with heads attached 'natural'?

If it happens without mans intervention, I guess it is natural. You are talking about mutations. Evolution is a series of succesful and unsuccesful mutations. Maybe someday we will all have two heads, who knows?

quote nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl) adj. 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. 2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment. 3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death. 4. a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people. b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader. c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex. 5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive. 6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce. 7. Faithfully representing nature or life. 8. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" Duff Cooper. 9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights. 10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate. 11. a. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child. b. Born of unwed parents: a natural child. 12. Mathematics Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero. 13. Music a. Not sharped or flatted. b. Having no sharps or flats. n. 1. a. One having all the qualifications necessary for success: You are a natural for this job. b. One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function: She is a natural at mathematics. 2. Music a. The sign () placed before a note to cancel a preceding sharp or flat. b. A note so affected. 3. A yellowish gray to pale orange yellow. 4. Games A combination in certain card and dice games that wins immediately. 5. An Afro hairstyle.

Normal and natural are not the same thing.

quote nor·mal (nôrml) adj. 1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations. 2. Biology Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies. 3. Abbr. n or N Chemistry a. Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution. b. Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms. 4. Mathematics a. Being at right angles; perpendicular. b. Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface. 5. a. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development. b. Free from mental illness; sane. n. 1. Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal. 2. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree. 3. a. Correspondence to a norm. b. An average. 4. Mathematics A perpendicular, especially a perpendicular to a line tangent to a plane curve or to a plane tangent to a space curve.

To answer your question, autism would be natural but not normal.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-13-2008).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I think what he is saying James, is that both pedophiles and homosexuals claim they have no control over their emotions/feelings/. Saying it is an ingrained difference from straight people, therefore if one has the right to adoption, because of this inborn trait, then both should have that right. Difference being of course, is that pedophiles harm children--that's what makes them pedophiles-and criminals.

Yep, what Don said. I can see them wanting to stake their claim too if Gay couples get the right.

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: No it wouldn't. I don't even know how you can relate the two. Show me where it says that in the Bible. Using your rationality, if a ceremony were performed by a Justice of the Peace, it would be consider void by God because it wasn't performed religiously. I didn't get married for it to be recognized by God. If that were my only reasoning, I wouldn't need to get married at all.

Whoa, sister! Retract the claws .....just a question.

What I was getting at was that God speaks against man laying with man then he wouldn't allow a gay preacher.
Since you don't care if God cares, then it don't really matter then. Point taken.

Paul

[This message has been edited by kyunderdawg (edited 11-13-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: No it wouldn't. I don't even know how you can relate the two. Show me where it says that in the Bible. Using your rationality, if a ceremony were performed by a Justice of the Peace, it would be consider void by God because it wasn't performed religiously. I didn't get married for it to be recognized by God. If that were my only reasoning, I wouldn't need to get married at all.

Sorry but this sorta says you weren't born gay, Jaygee79...or you are a very good actor? You had me fooled back then anyway

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...-6-010609-2.html#p40

Nick

quote Originally posted by Voytek: For example, it has been proven over and over that many gay men have been abused as children. Would that not suggest that there is a connection with nurture, not nature?

Many straight men have been abused as children. Why doesn't that suggest the same connection?

quote Originally posted by Voytek: Some of you mention pedophiles. If some gay men have been molested, they certainly have propensity to be the molestee. Again, what about the rights of the children?

Are you not concerned about protecting children from straight pedophiles?

Gay or straight has nothing to do with pedophilia. There are both gay and straight pedophiles, as well as black, white, latino, asian, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Athiest, etc. None of these things has anything to do with pedophilia. Except maybe the Catholic church.

..

[This message has been edited by aconesa (edited 11-13-2008).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Sorry but this sorta says you weren't born gay, Jaygee79...or you are a very good actor? You had me fooled back then anyway https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...-6-010609-2.html#p40 Nick

I never said I was born gay. I've also publicly said on here that I've had heterosexual relationships before. And since when is my sexual history anyone else's concern anyways?

Us bisexuals really throw a monkey wrench into things, don't we?

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 11-14-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: And yet you've stated that children would be better off to be aborted than to be adopted. Your situation is rather unique and quite honestly, very sad. I don't wish to debate this with you any longer. I can see it's only going to cause further discomfort (for both of us at this point), and that was never the goal of my involvement in this thread. Knowing what I now know about your life, I apologize for stating my initial comments to you in the manner I did. I still believe you're way off base with your beliefs on adoption, but if I knew what I now know about you, I would've stated my comments to you differently. I'm sorry.

There is no problem here. I think that everyone is entitled have and share there opinions.

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: I never said I was born gay. I've also publicly said on here that I've had heterosexual relationships before. And since when is my sexual history anyone else's concern anyways? Us bisexuals really throw a monkey wrench into things, don't we?

When you post about your predilection on a public Forum, maybe?
Honestly, I am not attacking you. But I AM attacking your stand, and the false premise you are making it on.
I don't care HOW much homosexuals and their supporters deny it, I lived through the explosion of AIDS in London, as I have posted before. I saw the almost exclusive infection of homosexuals with the disease in the beginning. As time went by, I saw the Male bi-sexuals start to become infected. And then the straight population who were deceived by the bi-sexuals inexhorably falling prey to the disease too. And the recent catastrophic upsurge of AIDS amonget homosexual men in Europe, at least, confirms MY belief that AIDS was originally a disease suffered, and spread, by homosexuals. And if they continue to indulge in their CHOICE of sexual partners in the knowledge that this is true, then they have only themselves to blame, and I feel as much sympathy for them as I do hard drug users who end up killing themselves with their CHOICE. I will would never suffer from either CHOICE, because I am find them both to be unacceptable . However, when the bi-sexuals started to spread the disease amongst normal straight people, then I got angry. THEY are the ones for whom I have the greatest scorn, because they IMHO were the bridge that allowed this terrible disease to spread amongst normal heterosexual people. And THAT was when the disease became almost impossible to control. At least if it was to remain confined amongst the homosexual community, it would have been easier to control and contain.It was identifiable amongst a very small section of the population..probably .02%. But as soon as it crossed the line into the other 99.08% of the population, it could run wild. And it did.
Pro.homosexual lobbyists will twist and turn every possible way to justify their chosen way of life, and shout louder than anybody else. Political correctness, and the fear of being labelled a bigot, and also the feeling of security in their own, normal lifestyle preventing them from catching the disease, resulted in very few normally sexually-orientated people standing up and shouting back. And so it appeared that the pro-homosexual contingent were right, by default. That does not make them right.
And finally; maybe God knew what would happen if homosexuals continued to indulge their choice of sexual partners, and the instruction which he gave, as posted above, was a warning to abstain, or face the consequences of their lifestyle. You know..the bit about Man lying with Man was a sin, but those who lie with both are an abomination, and should perish?.
Ignore God's guidance at your peril

Now, all I have typed here is my own personal belief. I hold that belief strongly, because I have come to it by my own deductions, and life experiences.. Nobody will ever change it by argument, insult or threat, because I BELIEVE it. And therein lies my belief that homosexuals should never be allowed to nurture children. They live out a false and dangerous lifestyle.
As many others have said in the Forum over the years, during previous discussions about this topic: If you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, then that is your choice, and I have no problem with your choice. But when you want to boast about being abnormal, and demand the same 'Rights' as normal people, I will stand and shout as loud as you, to defend my beliefs, and the good of the World.
So I have shouted, made my point. I have spoken with Aconesa by PM, and we understand each other. I have no gripe with him, because he expressed an understanding of my viewpoint. Much as I have no gripe with the homosexual people with whom I have wonderful friendships. We have discussed this between ourselves at great length, and there is no bitterness either way: we remain close friends. They are happy to keep their sexual relationship, and details of it, where it belongs. In the privacy of their own home.AND, more importantly, they accept they have no RIGHT to involve children in their Lifestyle, because they gave up that right by adopting that lifestyle. They are behaving responsibly.Nice word that
Why do you think I have such a strong opinion? I can sum it up in a nutshell. The Entertainment Industry exposes the people in it to a much wider experience of how people live, than most any other type of work. And I have lived the life for more than 45 years. And the Industry has a LOT higher percentage of homosexuals involved in it, than most any other line of work too. I have met all types of 'homosexuals', including the ones to whom I DO apply the label 'Gay' .And that is the reason why I find the word so distasteful, and don't apply it to homosexuals. The ones who adopt the lifestyle for kicks, or for self-indulgence, or because they can't find a mate amongst normally sexually-orientated people. Or because it is fashionable. And that is the reason why I find the word so distasteful, and don't apply it to homosexuals.. What I term as 'plastic' homosexuals. And you know what? I find that the 'plastic' Gays are the ones who march, and scream and shout about their 'lifestyle', and wave banners and show off. And these are the very people that those who believe they are genuinely homosexual are embarassed by, by thrusting THEIR lifestyle into the media spotlight of the World. They hate them, because they make their wish to live their chosen lifestyle more and more difficult BECAUSE it is always being 'promoted' and highlighted by the 'plastic' and frivolous Gays.
Nick


------------------
You know that look women get when they want sex? No, me neither..

fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Then there was only one... 11.08.2007
Growing old is harder than growing up.
And losing loved ones is even harder

Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
Yahoo messenger:nickcannspain
MSN Messenger-nicholascann@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 11-14-2008).]

Nick--IMO, aids just happened to break out in the gay crowd. The rate of transmission to others was no higher than it was/is in promiscuous straight people. It could have just as easily 1st broke out in the 17-30 year old straight segment of the population and the transmission rate would have been just as high or higher.

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: God can allow anything He wants. We've already established that He gave man free will. And I highly doubt that He would forbid ANYONE to praise him, whether gay or not. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that I don't care if God cares. I said my main reasoning for getting married was for it to be legal.

Since you are a believer then you know that God's law, on Judgement Day, will be absolute. You as well as everyone will be judged, straght, gay, and bi. Obviously there is no convincing you that, according to the Bible that you believe in, you aren't doing any wrong in being gay. You have taken your own interpritation of it saying "it says man laying with man and nothing about women". When the Bible says " man laying with mankind" it means male and female wether you accept it or not. If you whole heartedly believe the Bible then you accept that Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins, right? Homosexuality is a sin.

Paul

[This message has been edited by kyunderdawg (edited 11-14-2008).]

Don, I respect you enormously, and also your right to hold that opinion. I don't know what you base your opinion on, but I base mine on 100% life experience. And I do NOT abhor homosexuals as the individuals that they are. I have even gone out of my way to understand the homosexuals I have met over the years, and listened to them and their explanations, as far as any of them actually HAVE one. Many of them are honest enough to say they don't know really WHY they prefer the lifestyle they have adopted. But they are as content as they can be with it. Otherwise I am sure they would reject it.
Many have been honest enough, too, to admit they had experienced a few failed affairs with the opposite sex, and didn't find it fulfilling. Some said they found it easier in the end to find a mate of the same sex , and accepted that, rather than be lonely. I find that totally understandable, and would not criticise that decision. We all have a right to live our lives with the support and comfort of another person. But, having found that comfort zone, and got used to it, their thoughts start to turn to something else..why can't we have a child? Well, nature has prevented that, with good reason, so far as I see. So then the mind turns to other options, and they start pushing to extend the boundaries. I find it wrong for them to demand the right to adopt a child which, inevitably, was created by normal people, as far as sexual orientation goes.
To bring up a child in an hetorosexual environment has enough inherent problems as it is, without projecting a fundementally, and basically, different and un-natural element. I refuse to believe a child will ALWAYS be able to accept having two Mummies or two Daddies. And even less, will their peers in their school lifetime. And THAT is the most formative and influential stage in anybody's life. So, to possibly subject any child to that ADDED difficulty in accepting life as it is for us all, is just unfair, and I don't believe anybody has the right to subject somebody else's child to that added difficulty, purely to satisfy their selfish desire to have a child or children which simply WEREN'T theirs from the start.
And that is why I feel so strongly. It doesn't affect me in any way, except that I think about it purely from a logical point of view. I try to put myself in the place of a child being put in that situation. And I really don't accept that there are not enough normal, straight childless couple to provide a good home for all the children IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, without having to resort to putting them in unsuitable households. Now that point I am prepared to admit I might be wrong.
Nick

------------------
You know that look women get when they want sex? No, me neither..

fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Then there was only one... 11.08.2007
Growing old is harder than growing up.
And losing loved ones is even harder

Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
Yahoo messenger:nickcannspain
MSN Messenger-nicholascann@hotmail.com

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It's still a basic "guilt by association" semantic ploy, Aus. You are using a word trick to link "homosexuality" and "pedophilia" together, even though they are completely unrelated concepts that have nothing to do with each other. Homosexuals are legitimate law-abiding citizens that are trying to obtain the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual law-abiding citizens have already. Pedophiles are child predator *criminals*, and it's ludicrous to state that granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals will somehow open the door for child predators to gain legal protection for their criminal behavior. It's a complete non-sequitor. One absolutely cannot lead to the other, in principle or in fact. Just to be clear, here's the wiki on the association fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy So, again, I assert that you are either inadvertently or deliberately attempting to use a semantic trick, guilt by association, that is beneath the Aus that I know. JazzMan

well - it is an easy link.
they are both sexual deviants.
and that is why this will NEVER be resolved.
reproduction is right up there with "survival" as the root of why we exist. homosexuality & pedophelia are both a mutation of this most basic backbone of life. and, I will add sterile men & women to this list. heck - has noone heard the term "breeders"? sorry - born with it - by choice - does not matter. your bloodline is over. it ends with you. your DNA has either by choice or by design been selected to not see the future. for better or worse. the dead branch on the family tree. all this quibbling about meaningless stuff is just silly. let them adopt - let them marry. let them have a little taste of what most people get to enjoy.

editted for last line

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 11-14-2008).]

Pyrthian!! you make a child sound like some kind of 'must-have' goods or chattels whose future and personal feelings need never be taken into consideration over and above the feelings of somebody who is NOT normal!! WHY should we be allowed to assume the child will not eventually resent being put in such a position? I thought we were all about putting a child's future WAYYYYY in front of fulfilling somebody's 'desire' or craving?, which isn't real anyway?? If it IS, it is a nebulous and vague instinct without the important connection..Birth. 'I want a child...ANY child, if that is what it comes down to..' there is a vital part missing. Adoption of children by couples who ARE normal are laden with risks and unpredictable reactions. We should not add another SERIOUS pitfall to the precarious road to be travelled by both child and adoptive parents.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Pyrthian!! you make a child sound like some kind of 'must-have' goods or chattels whose future and personal feelings need never be taken into consideration over and above the feelings of somebody who is NOT normal!! WHY should we be allowed to assume the child will not eventually resent being put in such a position? I thought we were all about putting a child's future WAYYYYY in front of fulfilling somebody's 'desire' or craving?, which isn't real anyway?? If it IS, it is a nebulous and vague instinct without the important connection..Birth. 'I want a child...ANY child, if that is what it comes down to..' there is a vital part missing. Adoption of children by couples who ARE normal are laden with risks and unpredictable reactions. We should not add another SERIOUS pitfall to the precarious road to be travelled by both child and adoptive parents.

well, look at the thread topic
and you can make it sound as crazy as you like - and reality will show you someone who went even crazier with it
there is nothing more important in the design of life. #1 creation of children #2 the protection of children
if you cant do #1 - at least you can attempt #2. and to deny someone this is as evil as denial any other basic right.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: they are both sexual deviants.

This phrase started with the far religious right. Keep it there, please.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: homosexuality & pedophelia are both a mutation

Grouping both homosexaulity and pedophelia together is also another attempt to discredit homosexuals. This is so far from the truth.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: all this quibbling about meaningless stuff is just silly. let them adopt - let them marry. let them have a little taste of what a real human gets to enjoy.

Now I am not even considered human! Where are you getting your facts from? I am just like every other citizen of this country. I go to school to educate myself, work long hours to be independent and love my family and friends, just like all of the other members on this forum. You post a comment stating that I am not human! Truly, what is wrong with you?