Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

May I ask you, should I remove my posts before the three reasons I said becase my earlier posts are a bit unclear and the three reasons sum my points wel enough?

Can you answer this question?

A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.

It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Can you answer this question?

A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?

They do not have a disease and they did well but they could have done better and have children.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.

It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point,

There's no point to agreeing or disagreeing, because in this instance, and many others, you are factually wrong.

but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Where is your evidence backing up this claim? Homosexual couples raise children all the time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Can you answer this question?

A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?

They do not have a disease and they did well but they could have done better and have children.

So people who don't have children are by default worse as human beings then? Why is this?

By extension, would those who are physically incapable of having children then be sub-human?

This thread is proof that sometimes not having children can be a good thing...

So why would a gay couple in the same situation (replace one of them with a member of the same sex as the other) have a disease, and have not just 'done well but could have done better'(which in and of itself is so wrong)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
This thread is proof that sometimes not having children can be a good thing...

So very true d..

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.

I would like to know how the gays have children?

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.

I would like to know how the gays have children?

Well, it typically involves a sperm fertilizing an egg, and then at some point down the line, a baby pops out of a vagina.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
That I think is quite positive, but there is still the problem that at the moment gays can't have children between themselves.

No, its not a problem. Theres nothing stopping a gay couple from adopting, or using sperm donation to have their own kids. If they [a lesbian couple] want their kids to be biologically related, then they could each carry a child using the sperm of the same father. That would make their kids half-siblings.

What IS a problem, is bigots calling homosexuality a disease to be researched and cured. You say that you don't want to force homosexuals to be cured, but should be encouraged to do so. By "encouraging" a cure, you are still denormalising homosexuals and ostracising them.

Homosexuality is NOT a disease, its a natural phenomenon. People are born that way, they don't choose to be gay, no more than a transexual chooses to be born with a gender misaligned with their sex [body]. To say that gay people should be cured of their homosexuality is straying into Eugenics,, and that is a very, VERY dangerous topic.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.

I would like to know how the gays have children?

You know how children are created right?

Well, it's like that. Just sometimes the males donate sperm and have a surrogate carry the baby to term.

Or there's this other wonderful option called "Adoption", which is kind of like shopping for a baby.*


*It's really not. It's a lengthy and in-depth process, when done correctly, that is a major financial and time consuming commitment which ideally results in a child being placed in a loving home whether the parents are gay or straight, religious or atheist.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.

It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point,

There's no point to agreeing or disagreeing, because in this instance, and many others, you are factually wrong.

Fine I can agree that homosexuality is not a disease but it is a limiting factor in producing children.

but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Where is your evidence backing up this claim? Homosexual couples raise children all the time.

Yes they grow children all the time but they don't produce them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Can you answer this question?

A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?

They do not have a disease and they did well but they could have done better and have children.

So people who don't have children are by default worse as human beings then? Why is this?

I believe it is so because when you have children you will have more tax payers and your population grows. Also (maybe not in america) why should the children of those people who have gone through the trouble of having children pay the pensions of people who have not gotten children?

By extension, would those who are physically incapable of having children then be sub-human?

I do not believe they are sub-human but of course it would be better if they would be cured and they could have children.

Mary mother, I'm out. Done. It's like arguing with a bigoted brick wall.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
That I think is quite positive, but there is still the problem that at the moment gays can't have children between themselves.

No, its not a problem. Theres nothing stopping a gay couple from adopting, or using sperm donation to have their own kids. If they [a lesbian couple] want their kids to be biologically related, then they could each carry a child using the sperm of the same father. That would make their kids half-siblings.

What IS a problem, is bigots calling homosexuality a disease to be researched and cured. You say that you don't want to force homosexuals to be cured, but should be encouraged to do so. By "encouraging" a cure, you are still denormalising homosexuals and ostracising them.

Homosexuality is NOT a disease, its a natural phenomenon. People are born that way, they don't choose to be gay, no more than a transexual chooses to be born with a gender misaligned with their sex [body]. To say that gay people should be cured of their homosexuality is straying into Eugenics,, and that is a very, VERY dangerous topic.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?

Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.

I would like to know how the gays have children?

You know how children are created right?

Well, it's like that. Just sometimes the males donate sperm and have a surrogate carry the baby to term.

Or there's this other wonderful option called "Adoption", which is kind of like shopping for a baby.*


*It's really not. It's a lengthy and in-depth process, when done correctly, that is a major financial and time consuming commitment which ideally results in a child being placed in a loving home whether the parents are gay or straight, religious or atheist.

Thanks for your answers. As I see so, there is no way the gays could produce children on complitely on their own so they always require some sort of help.

This way that you mentioned the sperm donation it kinda is the "cure" that I talked about by allowing gays to reproduce like straight people.

By that logic then heterosexuals cannot produce children "completely on their own".

It's a two person job. Whether that person is gay or straight is not really relevant.

Fine I can agree that homosexuality is not a disease but it is a limiting factor in producing children.

No it is not.

Yes they grow children all the time but they don't produce them.

Wrong again.

Gay couples CAN have children. Not with each other ,true, but why does that matter? Is DNA all you care about? And besides - medical research is actually being done to try to find a way to combine the DNA of gay couples (implanting DNA information into sperm/eggs etc). Who knows - perhaps one day it will be possible to combine the DNA of two gay men or two gay women to create a child (not that I think this would be a particularly good idea).

For gay men - sperm donation using surrogate mothers.
For gay women - they can carry their own children using a sperm donor. If they both use the same donor, their children will even be biologically related half siblings.

I do not believe they are sub-human but of course it would be better if they would be cured and they could have children.

Better for whom? Not for homosexuals, certainly. Very very few of them want to be cured, and most of the ones who do want to be cured are probably motivated by discriminatory social pressure and ostracisation.

Homosexuals CAN have children. Many of them DO Have children. Homosexuality is NOT a threat to the future of the human race.


I'm tempted to report you, but I think bigoted idiots should be allowed to draw attention to themselves so everyone can see them for what they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This way that you mentioned the sperm donation it kinda is the "cure" that I talked about by allowing gays to reproduce like straight people.

Then you're admitting that there is no problem, and hence no need for a cure? Homosexuals can have children, and many of them in fact do have children. This "problem" exists only in your mind.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

Fine I can agree that homosexuality is not a disease but it is a limiting factor in producing children.

Of course, it is worth noting that, as far as biological history is concerned, there is the theory that gay males had better avuncular qualities than straight siblings, leading to better maintenance of larger families. Similarly, its also been proposed that the same genes that cause homosexuality in men are also responsible for causing increased fecundity in women.

Yes they grow children all the time but they don't produce them.

All the same parts, all the same necessary fluids. They most certainly can produce them.

So people who don't have children are by default worse as human beings then? Why is this?

I believe it is so because when you have children you will have more tax payers and your population grows.

So, for example, Alan Turing, one of the greatest minds of our era, would be a lesser person than some trailer trash hick family contributing nothing to society outside of a number of bodies, simply by the virtue that they are popping out bodies. We can even assume that these parents will abuse their children, and ultimately that the majority of them grow up to be criminals that cause damage to society, but on the basis of your statement, they are still better people.

Also (maybe not in america) why should the children of those people who have gone through the trouble of having children pay the pensions of people who have not gotten children?

Because the taxes of those who don't have children end up going to pay for the education and medical care for those who do.

This will be the last post I will make to this thread.

I have receaved mostly negative answers in this thread but just to show there is research on my side I'll give you this link: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research .

This sides my reason 1.

You're using a group called "The Family Research Council" to support your argument on the basis of "research".

It's a Conservative Christian organization, not a scientific institution.
They don't do "research". They have paid puppets, like most organizations with the name "Family" or "Values" in them that weigh in on the subject of gay marriage and gay relationships.


Now, start actually doing some research on the organizations that you're pulling arguments from. You might be surprised at what you learn.

Wow Sienisoturi. I may say some stupid stuff, but atleast im lovable and huggable.
But you just come off as nothing more then a jerk.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wow Sienisoturi. I may say some stupid stuff, but atleast im lovable and huggable.
But you just come off as nothing more then a jerk.

You're really not.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This will be the last post I will make to this thread.

I have receaved mostly negative answers in this thread but just to show there is research on my side I'll give you this link: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research .

This sides my reason 1.

How about just making it your last post spewing all this debunked anti-gay rhetoric that has filled numerous pages of this thread?

James Dobson, the founder of the Family Research Council, which promotes what it considers to be traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography, who also founded Focus on the Family, an organization that promotes abstinence-only sexual education; adoption by married, opposite-sex parents; creationism; school prayer; and traditional gender roles also opposing abortion; divorce; gambling; LGBT rights, particularly LGBT adoption and same-sex marriage; pornography; pre-marital sex; and substance abuse, is a well known anti-homosexual evangelical leader so any [debunked] "study" to support his stance should be treated with suspicion.

Also this:
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/judge-orders-disclosure-of-documents-detailing-publication-of-regnerus-junk

I think this thread broke my brain. The bigotry is insane, and people that feel this way towards their fellow man are just about the lowest scum around. Thank god it's only one person on here pig-headed enough to believe the crap he's spewing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think this thread broke my brain. The bigotry is insane, and people that feel this way towards their fellow man are just about the lowest scum around. Thank god it's only one person on here pig-headed enough to believe the crap he's spewing.

There are more, they just don't often post in these threads, unless they're wanting to play the "I'm being persecuted" card that day.

Ok, only one saying it today on here. Either way, I've requested a mod to lock the thread. We don't all need vacations from the forum.