Wow...So much from just the short blurb I originally posted.

But that wasn't what I said. I said I have never seen a disappointed woman make a silly statement. And I clearly indicated I was being sarcastic. Your statement here isn't addressing what I actually. Liar.

Not really. Chinese parents want a boy for entirely different reasons than the repugnance a parent would feel finding out they have a gay child. Such strong feelings aren't specieswide as the feelings against homosexuality are. Your "analogy" is flawed.

But it seems you seized on the "daughter-in-law. That was only because we were talking about a boy in this case we are speaking of. In China, the reason girls are not wanted has nothing to do with daughters-in-law. Again, your premise is flawed and yet you continue to expand on it.
NBC: China begins to face sex-ratio imbalance - World news - MSNBC.com
Educate yourself on "why" Chinese people want a boy.

I sure have. Then you have a baby by your child and [insert whoever]. Just what a family wants. Infertility is devastating to many people too. IVF is hardly a viable substitute, especially when you add to the fact that your child is gay, you still end up with a devastated woman.

Not proving my prejudice. Just reading the news.

You do. The "when are you gonna have me a grandchild" is pretty constant until you have them. I think you are uninformed if you think that parents don't expect their children to start their own families complete with children.

And non conceived homosexually. There are kids being raised by all kinds of people, with all kinds of sexual deviances. Gays haven't discovered any closed market.

Actually the China "analogy" brought this to mind. And it again isn't the "anti-gay" side that brought it up. It's a fear shared by many homosexuals toward research in the causes of homosexuality. Do you doubt that many people wouldn't? I mean if you can kick out a child you have lived with for 14 or so years, how difficult would it be to remove a "mass of cells" that might be gay. Get real.

But that's not the point I was making. We are discussing the disappointment that the woman was feeling. And it is clear in her letter she was horribly disappointed. I have a son. And I would not kick him out if he turned out to be gay. Never have indicated such. You haven't trounced anything since I am not advocating for hatred of gay children. Only that I CAN understand how disappointed this woman might be.

I don't see where it's ignorance to consider there to be something the matter with a gay person. Even if attitudes change toward gay people, homosexuality will still be just as much an oddity as it always has been.

My wife, the woman I married, have a child that shares the bloodline of both of our families, making him a blood relative to me and the woman that I married. There is no gay couple in the world that cam make that statement. And while it may not be important to a gay person because that would be admitting the defect that is gay, to some people, that will always matter and will be important. So IMHO it's "stupid" for you to try and belittle that important characteristic of life not only to humans but every other species on this planet.

And again, your dwelling on "son-in-law" only shows you just don't "get it".

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Naa, he's gay. Or at the very least Bi. Too much explaining in his statement. If someone called me gay, I wouldn't be so ambiguous about it. Why would a het man try to explain the intricacies of homosexuality like that?

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

So the "/S" was short for "sarcasm"?
I assumed you had just screwed up some font tool of the web-site.


Gawd you can be thick.
And the analogy being that parents of a gay boy are against the "gay" thing "for entirely different reasons" than you tried to explain.
You're really not good at this "analogy" thing, are you...


"specieswide"?
Prejudice against blacks used to be "species wide" as well.
Your claim is specious, and easily disproven by looking at the reality of the world today.

Unless you want to try to gloss over the fact that most of the anti-gay prejudice holdouts exist in countries lacking education, or riddled with religious intolerance...


Again, THICK.
The point is that not only homosexuality, but also GENDER can change the possibilities of "daughter-in-law".
So why would a parent get upset at a gay boy child, but not a straight girl child?
Obviously, more to it involved.


It is completely boring how you either are too thick to address the point, or too dishonest to accurately address it.

Furthermore, IVF IS a viable substitute.
I realize some people may not like it for inanely arbitrary reasons, like their "morality", but it works for many.

Also, your last sentence seems to demonstrate the "devastated woman" has nothing to do with the kid and grand-children. Which was my point in the first place...


The really stupid part is that you JUST QUOTED ME an article on gay kids who are homeless cause the parents kicked them out.
And now you say "you do" when I point out that you do not see the same thing for "celibate" kids, whether they be celibate priests or uninterested in procreation.

So, to prove the "you do", you need to give another article showing the "i'm not going to have a kid, but I'm not gay" kids getting kicked out of their homes.
Otherwise, you clearly don't.


And the obfuscation increases.
You were just talking about gays getting kicked out of the homes and disowned.
And for the straight side, all you have is "nagging"? (Which, btw, I never even hinted doesn't exist)

Your very stance proves my point...


Yeah. I hear even interracial couples can adopt these days...
< end sarcasm >

The way the kid was conceived is irrelevant to most.
None were conceived by a blowjob, but there is no point in talking about that either...


Quite frankly, I don't mind talking about it at all.
It proves the depths of the prejudice of many in the anti-gay crowd.
The "die-hard" conservative stance is typically anti-gay and anti-abortion.
The fact that some don't mind performing abortions for gays proves the depths of their hatred.

And most don't try this absurd pretense that "not going to have kids" is anywhere near a big factor in the reasoning for their bigotry.


Of course it's not.
You want to hype on the EXISTENCE of the irrational prejudice against gays, refuse to accurately acknowledge where the REAL basis of the prejudice comes from, attempt to give it a pretense of non-moral basis, and then ignore counter arguments, even when they are found in YOUR OWN MATERIAL.

We both know that.


Again, THICK.
I have quoted the AMA, APA, AAA, AAP, ... at you and showed how the prejudice against gays (and the claims against them) are based on ignorance.
Yet, you "ignorantly" can't remember...

People can think there is "something the matter with" the shade of the sky as the sun hits it during a sun-rise if they like.
Now, they are entitled to that opinion, as pointless and absurd as it is.
But if they were to form multi-million organizations to discriminate against people who DO like the sun-rise shading, then that would be pretty bizarre.

But for gays, corporations that raise hundreds of millions of dollars to discriminate against gays DO exist (and they don't even hint any crap about "cause they don't have kids").

So while I'm sure you don't see the "ignorance", I will happily point it out to you.
And while you'll insist on not seeing it (in part because I think you're just desparate for somebody to talk to), it won't stop me from exposing the heart of your approach to those who are around.


The same can be said for race, creed, ethnicity, handicap, interracial couples, ...
Except gays make up about 5% of the population, a lot larger percentage than say "Jews" at 1%.

And I can't help but chuckle at your statement, because even if gays are seen as an "oddity" by some, the people who are PREJUDICED against gays will BECOME an oddity, and will remain that way to the end of time.

Kind of the difference between: "You've got a brother who is gay? That's interesting." and "You've got an uncle who is an anti-gay bigot? Whatta jerk!"


Actually, some gay couples ask the sister of one of the members to donate an egg (or the incubator included) for fertilization of the other member.

So, once again, your limited thinking ignores an obvious solution which declares your statement just plain false...


I "belittle" it realizing that for millions of couples out there, they have an adopted baby at home.
And quite frankly, they would join me in calling it "stupid" for anybody who tried to denigrate their child, or their "heritage" with their child, just cause of some non-shared blood-line.

1) I don't think anybody can mistake you for gay.
Gays usually have more class than you show capable of demonstrating ...

2) As is typical with your responses, you ignored the point.
The kid SAYS he is celibate and not gay.
By logic, if the issue were TRULY ABOUT what you want to obfuscate it about, the mother should turn her wrath towards "celibacy".

But we both know she won't.
And I'm the only one honest enough to address that.

3) There are more quotes which will just decimate your ridiculous approach. Exaggerating a potential non-realistic anti-hill road-block into a mountain...

The mother has responded to allegations that her son is gay.
Guess what? NO mention of "he won't bear me no grand-kids".
So when the MOTHER HERSELF does not substantiate your attempted innuendo, do you stop?
Never mind. Hypothetical question.
We both know truth doesn't matter in your tirades...

Yeah especially at "Gay Pride" parades. Nothing but class and decorum all over that. And congregating around rest stop and airport public restrooms. Oh yeah, that's what I'm talking about, C-L-A-S-S. Whatever.

Naa he can say anything he wants. He's gay.

So her not saying "no grandkids" affirms it to you huh. Your point is proven? You are a trip. Her disappointment was my original point, not grandkids. I wouldn't expect her to give a categorized list of reasons she's upset.
"Facing you have a gay child can be difficult and painful." It wasn't my innuendo. It not like some gay children aren't kicked out when they come out. It's not like some of those that aren't don't face harsh conditions at home. And it's not like there are those that are afraid to tell. Your denial of the obvious is absolutely hilarious to behold.
We are ridiculing a woman for making statements, someone comes in with the revelation that her son might be gay, a fact I didn't see you requiring much verification I might add, and now we need to scrutinize her every word. Bullshit I say. Even if her son is ambiguous about his sexuality, she can still be devastated that her son isn't "normal". She would just join the millions of other parents faced with the "difficult and painful" realization that something might be wrong with her son.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Don't worry about it, I won't call you names or demean you for that mistake.

For analogy to work, they have to be alike in a way that conforms to the line of discussion. A Chinese family aborting a female fetus or even abandoning a baby??? who they don't want for gender, is a bit different than disowning older child who you have loved for years. While they both do involve disowning, the Chinese example barely fits.

Prejudice against blacks used to be "species wide"? Really? Where did you get that information? I'd like to see where the human species specifically was prejudiced against Black people. And you say I make humdinger unsubstantiated statements.

Only if you gloss over the fact that until very recently there was NO gay marriage anywhere, and it's still in less than 10 countries and 80 still render sodomy illegal. You don't have to be smart to see something is f'd up, but it seems education also makes a nation able to rationalize anything.

No, you are thick. In the paragraph that led to the "in-law" in the first place, I was talking about a male. So I said daughter-in-law as I said. Your thickness continues to draw this out much longer than necessary. Like this quoted post. LOL.

IVF is a substitute if you have a "defect" that prevents you from having kids. Like the homosexual one. You seem to again be the thick one.

And my point in the first place was that this woman might just be devastated that her son is gay. The lady in the letter didn't say anything specifically about grandkids either...But she did convey that she was "Knocked for six".


This lady didn't kick her son out either from what I gather. She was just "knocked for six". I posted gay kids being kicked out to demonstrate the lengths that many parents go to when they find out they have a gay child.

You call me dense yet you use priests as an example of parents not kicking celibate kids out. Hilarious. When I originally wrote my post, the guy was gay and I merely pointed out that her comments may be made from her heart and not her head.

No I don't, that wasn't the point of my original post or this thread.

What is your point? It's one thing to decide to not have kids, quite another to be gay. The only similarity is the lack of kids. This is another one of those grossly f'd up analogies you like to use.

And they can also have their own kids by performing coitus. Gay couples miss the boat on that one.

Only to those with a medical malady that prevent normal conception. Most hetero couples don't forgo sex and head strait for the IVF clinic.

But "most" people do allow for abortion if they find a problem with the fetus. And to many people "gay" would be a problem.

The "not going to have kids" is something else you have seized on as a major point, for most people just being gay is bad enough. Kids ain't got nothing to do with it.

No one wants to hear any rationalistic bullshit when they find out they have a gay child. That's bull and we both know it. No one knows "why" a person is born gay. And until someone can do better than "just because" there's no reason to listen to that BS. I have never used morals to justify my opinion about gay people and you know it. It simply is a human mistake like the other directions that the human sexual drive can be twisted.

[quote]Again, THICK.
I have quoted the AMA, APA, AAA, AAP, ... at you and showed how the prejudice against gays (and the claims against them) are based on ignorance.
Yet, you "ignorantly" can't remember...[quote]
Funny thing is, I have read all that stuff. They all say that gay people aren't crazy, I agree with that. But not one of those resources explains "why" people would be born with an affliction that is so obviously disordered. I have yet to see a reason, purpose, or cause for homosexuality that satisfies the human body's physiology like eyes for sight, lungs for breathing, genitals for sex. Until that happens, I have no logical choice but to consider it f'd.

Just like this analogy. Bizarre.

Because just being gay is bad enough. You seem to be stuck on the having kids thing though. Amusing.

When are you gonna start with the exposing? Cause so far you have done nothing but seize on insignificant parts of my post and drug them out much longer than the couple of sentences that I started with. If anything you are showing just how ignorant you have made yourself trying to rationalize homosexuality to yourself.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

But there are more mentally retarded people than Jewish people too. Even after many people abort fetuses tested positive for it.
How's that for an analogy?

I doubt it. Even if you are comfortable around gays, most people still have at the back of their mind..."Gay". Like the study of the armed forces showed. 80% comfort but only 30% wanted to work with a gay person. Gay is as old as humanity itself, if it were that "normal" it wouldn't have taken on all over the whole world how deviant it was. It's just common sense.

It's not my limited thinking. It's just medical technology allowing the dysfunctional to achieve something even though they are disordered. I am acutely aware, sitting next to a dialysis machine. But I don't pretend that my dialysis machine is anywhere near the "same" as a working set of kidneys. Your "analogy" again shows just how f'd in the head you gotta make yourself to be gay.

Choosing to adopt is one thing and commendable. But just as I don't come to dialysis voluntarily because I don't want my kidneys to filter my blood, a gay couple, single person, or sterile couple don't adopt or go through IVF because they are too lazy to screw.
There you go with those "analogies" again.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Why is how they are conceived so important to you?

Millions of children benefit from gay couples. Pretty typically the children that straight people were so irresponsible to have. Perhaps they were born with a disease, or addicted to drugs... their parents are unsuitable, unavailable, perhaps just don't care.

You are correct, many parents will ask their child when they will be having grandkids... of course... they are also just as happy when their own child is happy... regardless of whether or not they have kids of their own, adopt, or go childless.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

So you pick a small minority of a minority to use as an example of an entire class of people?

Would you think it was a proper demonstration of straight people to point out Mardis Gras, Festival, or swingers clubs? Maybe white people can be explained away by the KKK, Nazis, or the Aryan Nation. Black people must all act like Black Panthers, Bloods and Crips, and the people on the WB. Let me guess, ALL Spanish people are just like the people in the Latin Kings, MS13, and the stereotypes seen in movies.

Is this how you judge people? By the vocal minority of their class?

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

[quote=fxashun;20366]
Prejudice against blacks used to be "species wide"? Really? Where did you get that information? I'd like to see where the human species specifically was prejudiced against Black people. And you say I make humdinger unsubstantiated statements.

Well, just look at our own constitution. Originally it said that black men were 3/5 a human(meaning white land owner)... making them subhuman. Wouldn't that be them considered a seperate species? All white people thought of blacks as less than whites... therefore making prejudice of blacks species wide

Only if you gloss over the fact that until very recently there was NO gay marriage anywhere, and it's still in less than 10 countries and 80 still render sodomy illegal. You don't have to be smart to see something is f'd up, but it seems education also makes a nation able to rationalize anything.

Until recently in history there was no interracial marriage either. Also, if you want to go into world history then prejudice against gays is pretty recent. Look at religion, letters from Paul to the Romans stating that "men were doing unnatural things with men" means that he was confused about what he saw. All of a sudden hundreds of years later a religion is formed, and then all of a sudden it was bad to be who you were.

This lady didn't kick her son out either from what I gather. She was just "knocked for six". I posted gay kids being kicked out to demonstrate the lengths that many parents go to when they find out they have a gay child.

Yes, and for many years parents would disown there children for being in biracial relationships... just because prejudice is alive doesn't make it right

What is your point? It's one thing to decide to not have kids, quite another to be gay. The only similarity is the lack of kids. This is another one of those grossly f'd up analogies you like to use.

And they can also have their own kids by performing coitus. Gay couples miss the boat on that one.

So? Are you ranting about the baility to have children or a mothers disappointment, because in an earlier statement you said that have kids was not what was important.

But "most" people do allow for abortion if they find a problem with the fetus. And to many people "gay" would be a problem.

Right, that is called prejudice. Prejudice is bred from ignorance.

The "not going to have kids" is something else you have seized on as a major point, for most people just being gay is bad enough. Kids ain't got nothing to do with it.
Really, I think you are stuck living in the 60's. Many parents today may have a problem with it at first, but that is normal. Any time you have a mental picture of something and it turns out to not be what you expected an emotional response is going to happen

No one wants to hear any rationalistic bullshit when they find out they have a gay child. That's bull and we both know it. No one knows "why" a person is born gay. And until someone can do better than "just because" there's no reason to listen to that BS. I have never used morals to justify my opinion about gay people and you know it. It simply is a human mistake like the other directions that the human sexual drive can be twisted.

Mistake? There is homosexuality in almost every species of mammal on earth... why is it a mistake in humans?

Funny thing is, I have read all that stuff. They all say that gay people aren't crazy, I agree with that. But not one of those resources explains "why" people would be born with an affliction that is so obviously disordered. I have yet to see a reason, purpose, or cause for homosexuality that satisfies the human body's physiology like eyes for sight, lungs for breathing, genitals for sex. Until that happens, I have no logical choice but to consider it f'd.

I have seen no predisposition for hatred and ignorance either, but they exist. Show me the genealogical reason for red hair and left handedness... otherwise I think those things are f'd

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects