...

__________________
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

That makes about as much sense as trying to describe blacks by solely looking at dead-beat dads who impregnate women and move on, higher drug use rates, lower mortality stats, more likely to be jailed, ...


Your tactics always reek of the same junk that other prejudiced people use to denigrate others.


My how quickly you try to re-paint the canvas when it is exposed as crap.
YOU TRIED to paint a picture of justifying her position by the issue of "no grandkids" because of gay.
Except that story was full of holes, and completely lacking in proof. (pure speculation)

It's funny how you insist I provide proof (which I did) for heterosexual transmission of a disease you want to toss on a label of "STD" for, and here you are making up a story about justifying this crack-pot's position based on "no grand-kids" when she said nothing of the sort.
And you denigrate me for taking significance out of the facts of the case?

You're unbelievable in your hypocrisy!
He STATES he is NOT GAY. If you can find a boy-friend, or a gay lover, then do so. Otherwise, it's your word against his, and you don't know squat about him.
The mother gave NO pretense about "gay is bad because no grand-kids", and the REAL reason you insist he has to be gay is because if he isn't, that's not convenient for you.


She gave a freakin' speech.
You can listen to all 23 minutes here.
For whose who think she was victim of unfair editing: Good As You

It's lame and dumb how you try to excuse the fact that she didn't give YOUR reason, by talking about she wouldn't give a "categorized list".
Your argument is SPECULATION to try and aim this conversation at your usual stupid attack point.


Your willingness to lie in the most idiotic ways is what is "difficult and painful".
I do not deny the prejudice that gays go through.
I DO deny that any significant portion of that prejudice is derived from some approach that "My kid won't give me grand-kids? Kick him to the curb!".

I challenged you to show me ANY OTHER NON-GRAND-KID producing crowd which is kicked out like gays.
And you think that means I am in denial that gay kids are kicked out?

Like I said, you're just arguing stupid.


Yes. You are saying bullsh!t.
I never said we needed to scrutinize her every word.
I'm looking for ANY segment of her words which includes ANY substantiation of your claim, and it's lacking.

I'm asking you to PROVE your approach, and you whine like a stuck pig.

And for the record, she should be ridiculed for making that statement.
If she had said "blacks are worse than terrorists", I can bet dollars to donuts you wouldn't think twice about ridiculing her.


"millions of other parents"?
You exaggerate grossly, but what else is new.

You claim "devastated" with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of your claim.
You claim the son is gay, despite his own statement to the contrary.
Your whole argument is one made-up piece-o-crap after another.

Cause for you, it's easier to make things up without giving any substantiation than to actually argue the truth.

Don't worry, i'll just respond that you're an "s" and let you figure out what I'm calling you...


Asked and answered.
The analogy is that the concern is NOT regarding the gender of the future "in-law".
A gay son will give the mother a "son-in-law" instead of a "daughter-in-law".
Since both can be a part of helping the mother have "grand-kids", the only thing left is gender.
And the point is that it is NOT the gender of the "in-law" which is the breaking point.


I say it has as much substantiation as your claim.
We can go down a list of cultures that have had no problems with gays. Indian tribes. Greek / Roman civilizations.
Even the Catholic church used to perform ceremonies.


Only a coward would think advancement is "f'd up" just based on the existence of change.
The countries that are legalizing it are the more civilized ones.
The countries that are not are the ones that are less civilized. Less advanced.

I'm not surprised which ones you are blindly siding with.


IVF is an alternative.
Once again, you ignore the point by simply deriding it with pointless classifications.
IFV CAN and DOES produce kids for gay couples.

Hopefully I won't have to remind you of that again, or else you'll be showing how truly dim-witted you truly are...


1) The son says he isn't gay, but it's not convenient for your argument, so you claim he's lying.
2) The mother has said NOTHING about being devastated because her son is gay.
But acknowledging the TRUE basis of her argument is inconvenient for you, so you ignore that you have no basis for your claim.

Your "point" is baseless.


I'll take it that means that you're unwilling to concede my point, but you're going to dance around it like an idiot anyways.

People DO NOT kick their kids out of the house JUST because their kid may / may not produce grand-kids.
If so, you could provide STATISTICS on EXACTLY THAT, going above and beyond just you claiming "gay kids".
The bigotry against gays that causes parents to kick their kid out of the home has little to nothing to do with "grand-kids"


Do Catholic priests have kids?
No?

So if a Catholic kid says "I want to be a priest/nun when I grow up", that means "no grand-kids", right?

The fact that I had to spell that out for you just SCREAMS OUT how dense you can be in these discussions.


Or rather, "No, you can't".
You want to CLAIM that "no grand-kids" is a significant portion of the bigotry towards gays, but you can IN NO WAY SUBSTANTIATE your claim.
Not ONE example of a mother saying "no grand-kids? hit the bricks!"

And of course, when proven wrong you will back-peddle like crazy...


ROFLMAO!
I just spit coffee all over my computer.
Hey NITWIT!
I was NOT the one who brought up "not have kids" into this discussion.
YOU DID.

For you to complain about it at this stage is PURELY hilarious.


Another meaningless comment.
Dad: "Little Jimmy? You'll always be second best cause even though you are my first born, you were born via IVF and Jenny was born with "coitus". That's just the birds and bees of favoritism. Now run along and play"


I would ask if you can show me ANY substantiation of mothers / fathers upset over a grand-kid being born without coitus, but we both know you can't honestly address that either...

You're just flailing, trying to imply superiority when there is none...


More meaningless comments.
Is the kid loved less by the grand-parents?
Is the "coitus kid" somehow superior to the IVF kid?



I wonder how many American couples would abort their child if they "discovered" he was going to be black...


Again, I am boggled by your thickness.
YOU were the one who brought in "not going to have kids" in the first place.
And now, you are BACK-PEDDLING like crazy cause you got no basis...


Of COURSE they don't want to hear about "morals" and the "reasons" when they are about to have an abortion.
Especially considering it's the small-minded religious right people who would be MORE LIKELY to want to "abort" their gay kid in the first place just because he's gay.

WHY would they want to hear about the hypocrisy of their stance?


When you're having the abortion, we'll talk about your limited rationals for attempting such an act.
When you talk about OTHERS performing the abortion because he's gay, we should talk about the reasons THEY are having the abortion.

Again, I realize that's not convenient for you, but that's the rational and logical way to approach it. May be tough for you to understand, but it make no sense to argue "Peggy's" justification for having an abortion, when it's actually "Susie" that is having the abortion for SUSIE's reasons.


See, that shoots a hole in your claim in the first place.
You refer to it as an "affliction", when they do not.
You have NO medical or scientific basis for declaring it an "affliction". That's your PERSONAL bias at work.


The reasons have been presented to you numerous times before.
People with a mate live longer.
Having gay people in society, helping society without unplanned pregnancies, HELPS society.

All of this has been documented with you before, but you ignore it out of convenience.

It's a pointless attempt.
Like many pseudo-arguments that you try to throw out there, all you did was try to put "retards" in the same group with gays.

I had a point with my reply.
The REASON most people find gays to be an "oddity" is based on BIGOTRY.

YOU have CREATEd your own "unique" explanation to fixate on homosexuality in a way that it has been proven time and time again that MOST PEOPLE DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT.

The REAL reason that most people get upset over gays is because of BIGOTRY. Mindless, unsubstantiated, irrational bigotry.

Your reply had no point in reply to that.
All you did was say "retards".

If we toss somebody with a 60 IQ out in society, barring electing him to some public office as "democrat" or "republican", he will not be able to sustain himself adequately.
Gays can.

YOU have this inane fixation on "procreation" and "procreative acts", to the extent that you harbor prejudice against NON-procreative sex acts.
But regardless of how you can't bring yourself to admit it, it just DOES NOT MATTER because our society is over-populated, and quite frankly fewer kids may be a better thing.

So, hate to say it, but your feeble attempt is predictable as always.
A feeble innuendo, while lacking any real reply to my point. Much like the majority of what you try to do...


Do I even need to bother pointing out that the "armed forces" is NOT an extrapolatable basis for a conclusion?
The armed forces is ridiculously conservative as compared to the general population.

I would expect that any statistics should be at least doubled for general population usage.


I swear. Terminally stupid.
Gays can and do procreate.
We have procreated LONG BEFORE IVF became a viable reality.

In your small mind, you keep confusing "can" with "want to".
If a man and a woman want to have a baby, they don't have oral sex. They have coitus.
Likewise, if a man and a man want to have a baby, they can ALSO engage in coitus with a third party woman.

It's just now, we don't even have to do that.

There is no "dysfunction" there. Any more than a straight guy who likes oral sex is "dysfunctional" because oral sex doesn't produce kids.

You think sex without procreative capability is "dysfunctional", and I'm sure your wife prefers it that way.
The rest of us enjoy it. We aren't limited to JUST coitus.
Quite frankly, we find YOUR type of thinking an "oddity"...


I am frequently amused at how you talk, and then just sprint yourself into a corner only to knock yourself out.

Yes. You're on a dialysis machine.
Should an employer be able to fire you because you're on a dialysis machine?
Should you be prohibited from adopting because you're on a dialysis machine?
How about if it caused you difficulties in procreation? Should your mother kick you out?

With you on dialysis, would a woman claiming "people on dialysis are worse than terrorists" have any arguable basis?
Any defense?
Or would "She's a f@%#ing loon" be the only intelligent response, instead of trying to expound on functionality of kidneys and give some semblance of justification about how parents hope that their kids have two kidneys, and they could very well abort if they knew their child would end up like that...

The problem here is that YOU KEEP BACK-peddling to the ONLY real stance you have.
The LAMEST stance there is, cause I've got no argument against it.

Being gay is NOT "the same as" being straight.
I never claimed it was.

But that doesn't make DISCRIMINATION against gays justified.

I realize that you are always going to be of the mind that gays are "weird, abnormal, dysfunctional, yadda, yadda, yadda..."
I get that.
I don't care.
I don't give a crap about your opinion, other than to expose it as the twisted b.s. piece of crap it is. You're welcome to keep it, and expound upon it, because it allows me to expose it.

No. Being gay is NOT "the same as" being straight.
But there is nothing wrong with being gay.
And nothing you can say can give an intelligible or coherent explanation as to why "being gay" is a LEGITIMATE and PERSUASIVE problem.

And that's why you'll always continue to lose...

It's not. But then there's usually not a question with any species other than humans. Why do gay people still want children if they are so normal? You would think the mistake that renders the sexual union would negate that drive too.

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

No, I picked that segment of gays because he claimed that gays were known for having "class". Considering "class" is one of the last words that I ever heard used to describe a "Gay Pride Parade" which is supposed to be about "Gay Pride" a=and occurs in MANY cities and states, I don't see that being a true statement. As for your comparisons, they aren't called "Straight Pride Parades" so I don't see the relation. He made the statement "gay people are known for having class". That's news to me.

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

No I mean specieswide all over the world. As in ALL humans. There are other humans outside of the U.S. 80 countries still consider sodomy illegal. And less than 10 allow any recognition of homosexual unions. That is what I meant.

Really? Not what I heard. It seemed at least in the U.S. there were interracial marriages BEFORE they outlawed them. As far as gay unions being considered the same as hetero ones, I don't see that being the case. Where exactly do you see where interracial unions were universally forbidden as gay ones. Hell, you can "marry" a child in some societies, including the early U.S..

Some people still will do that. But that is a choice. Is being gay a choice? A Jewish young lady deciding to date a Catholic young man is a lot different than a young man simply telling his mother that he's gay. There are plenty of reasons why a parent might not like the person that thier child decides to date. Class, race, religion, simple looks. But deciding that you don't want your child around because he/she is gay doesn't really compare.

All of the reason are interrelated.

What is there to be ignorant about? There is nothing about "gay" to be educated about. It happens. BFD. So do many other inborn birth defects. It's not ignorant to look at a same gender relationship and deem it aberrant. It's ignorant to pretend it's not.

I was born in late 69'. Many have a problem with it....period. If my son turn out to be gay, I would have problem with it, but I wouldn't kick him out. But I wouldn't pretend that he is "normal" either.

It's a mistake in animals too. Just like siamese, albinism, mental issues, and other chromosomal mistakes. It's just that in nature, many mistakes don't survive.

Just as in nature, homosexuals don't have as many alternatives for reproduction.

Red hair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Excuse the Wiki for red headedness.
Red hair appears in people with two copies of a recessive gene on chromosome 16 which causes a change in the MC1R protein. It is associated with fair skin color, freckles, and sensitivity to ultraviolet light, as the mutated MC1R protein is found in the skin and eyes instead of the darker melanin. Cultural reactions have varied from ridicule to admiration; many common stereotypes exist regarding redheads, and they are often portrayed as the “fiery-tempered redhead”.

And I don't see a reason why a person should use either hand as dominant. It's not something I would even notice. Homosexuality makes as little sense an zoophilia. It just happens that homosexuals have a human partner with the same affliction.

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

Whaaa...You are the one that said "gays were known for having class". In what alternative universe is that? Gays are known for being bitchy and drama queens.

No I painted a picture of the lady making a statement out of disappointment. The grandkids part wasn't the main point of my original post. When a person has a retarded child, they don't give reasons "why" they are disappointed. They are simply disappointed that they have a mentally challenged child.

There you go with those grandkids again. LOL. I'm gonna denigrade you for misrepresenting the original intent of my first post. Why aren't you harping on the whether a heterosexual couple would specifically want to have a homosexual offspring? Or debating the original point that she might just be very upset that her son might be gay? That was the information presented that brought the post.

I didn't present the information that he was gay. Yagmi and Chandon made the leap before I did based on the same post. What-evah.


No, my argument, based on the post that her son was gay, was that her statements may be based on her son being gay. But now I guess we should place everything posted from "gay news" sources with a grain of salt. Go figure.

What about "I don't want no damn gay kids, get the frack out". That's probably a better representation.


I have this story where this guy' father tried to kill him... I doubt they'll ever have kids.

I'm not whining. Just pointing out that "grandkids" wasn't the main point of my post. There were two other points given before that based on the Bgay link. You seem to be stuck on the grandkids thing. I guess if this had been a child born with no legs, you'd be harping on if I said she was disappointed in her child not being able to climb stairs. Rather than the simple fact of being disappointed her child had no legs.

Depends on her reasoning. I know I grew up in a neighborhood that would scare many people. My suburb spoiled a$$ included.

Every homosexual has parents. There are a few billion humans on the planet of which 2-5% are gay. There ARE millions of parents that have to grapple with this issue. Your small mindedness is typical for you.

I claimed he was gay based on the link provided. Your dismissal of the fact that there was a gay based source for that information is also typical.

What has no substantiation? My original statement was "Maybe she is just disappointed" and "I can understand the devastation.....". Based again on the previous link and the fact that most areas of the planet find that "gay" is at least a bit aberrant.

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

Saint? Why thank you Foundit. I think you are a nice person too. How kind of you.

But the real reason Chinese people want a boy has nothing to do with in-laws either. I provided a link a few posts ago. It also has nothing to do with the fact that thety think that there is something amiss about girls, it's quite a selfish reason actually. Whereas a parent not wanting a gay child can be equated to other species eating "marginal" offspring...Or maybe there is a genetic reason and it's a form of population control...

So you have named 3. Out of 197 current countries, and many many American Indian tribes. I can name a few cultures that practiced human sacrifice, pederasty, and zoophilia too.

Or maybe "advancement" makes it easier to rationalize your way back into the "dark ages" like the Romans and Greeks. LOL.
I'm not surprised at who you are siding with as well.

IVF provides children for single women too. That doesn't mean that a woman having an immaculate conception is normal. IVF can provide children for any woman that wants one. But it can't create a child for a gay couple that is a blood relative of both parents. And while that might be rationalized away for those with a disability that renders the normal way of conceiving kids impossible, for the rest of the world, that's a big consideration.

Actually that all came after my post. Your elongating your posts to several diverse topics has rendered that original post almost moot. But at the time I made that post, the information that her son was gay was an uncontested fact. Your point that my point is baseless is baseless. LOL.

[quote]
I'll take it that means that you're unwilling to concede my point, but you're going to dance around it like an idiot anyways.

People DO NOT kick their kids out of the house JUST because their kid may / may not produce grand-kids.
If so, you could provide STATISTICS on EXACTLY THAT, going above and beyond just you claiming "gay kids".
The bigotry against gays that causes parents to kick their kid out of the home has little to nothing to do with "grand-kids"[quote]
No you are the idiot that thinks that is my point. People kick their gay kids out because they are gay. You idiocy is that you are stuck on that one sentence in my post...still. Even though that was a minor part of the post.

Last I checked, children weren't born priests. That's a choice and one that people usually look up to. No one looks up to a person for being gay...except maybe a "bottom". LOL.

That fact that you use that example screams at how dense you are. Since it seems you are still making a long winded example of that one sentence. Why don't you make an example, using the other pedophilia, zoophilia and homosexualiy examples of which one a parent would like to hear that their offspring "is". I bet they all will have a percentage that will end up on the street. They all share the distinction of a degree of DADT in general society.

No that's your claim. I never said it was significant, it was the last sentece in my post. You seem to think it is though.

No I said it's one thing to choose not to have kids, another to render it naturally inpossible. And this whole line of discussion is yours, not mine. The grandkids thing isn't that important. But it seems that you think that is no concern...
"However, even though our love was unconditional, we were devastated...No Grandkids"

It happens.

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

Like this one about grandparents and adopted kids..
This can be especially difficult for those grandparents who don’t agree with their child’s decision to become a foster and/or adoptive parent.

And as for accepting a IVF baby in a gay relationship, if you can accept the gay relationship, IVF is a necessity. And again, the chances of IVF in a healthy hetero couple is slim to non. By the time IVF is needed, any baby beats no baby.

Naaaa, that's you. The worse thing about your posts is the length of them.

Depends on the point of view. If I had no alternative, I'd just be glad to have any child. But seeing characteristics of my wife and I in the way my son looks and acts does make him more important than if I had gotten him out of a fridge at a clinic.

I don't know. You got any statistics or will you admit that is probably the stupidest statement on this site. But...while you are joking here's a case where that might have been the case LOL.

I hope I've cleared that up. That wasn't a major part of my original post. You made it so. I'm boggled by your density thinking that you making a big deal of that minor point while totally glossing over the point that a hetero couple wouldn't want to have a homosexual baby. That screams of the usual denial and diversion that usually creates these long ass posts.