Uh, because it's normal for people to want children?

No, YOU would think that, because you love to oversimplify everything.

Think for just a moment.

How does the gender of the person you sleep with impact your interest/ability to parent a child?

How does parenting a child affect who you are sexually attracted to?

Likewise with straight people, the ability to conceive a child together does not automatically confer the ability or the desire to parent.

The two things are completely, totally unrelated.

Which is again putting teh emphasis on conception not on how the child is raised. In many other species in the world children are eaten as food...

So you are asking "why do normal people want children?"
That is the syntax of your question.

To answer your question I will ask another, why do sterile people want children?

You are mistaking sexual orientation with ability to raise children. Wait, you are actually being willfully ignorant.

__________________
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

Gay people are known for having class. They are known for having very good jobs, nice things, good manners, and being more than reasonably generous.

You took a small segment of that society and tried to label a whole class of people.

Also, they are RARELY called gay pride parades, just Pride parades. They are celebrating the steps forward that have been taken. Go to one, you will find alot of straight people celebrating too.

You don't see teh relation because you are closing your eyes.

__________________
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

No, that's not what I did. Your premise was that since there are more gay people than Jewish, making some bullshit point. But I don't base the way I feel on the population of gay people. I just pointed out the much more obvious human defect of "mental retardation" that people are born with, just like "gay" has around the same percentage of the population. Even if there became a some chronic condition that made a significant amount of the population gay, it would still be rather off to be gay.

"Retards" is disrespectful to people who can't defend themselves by the way.

"Most people" don't give a crap about the environment, other people's kids, the election, and many other things. Hell, "most scientists" didn't even vote when homosexuality was deemed "normal". Your standard is hardly one that I would consider valid.

I'm not "upset" about gays. I just don't thing that homosexual unions qualify to be a marriage. What's upset about that? I said much more than "retards", I said the mental retardation occurs in the population at a rate approaching the rate of the other human defect that is homosexuality. That statement is much more specific than "retards".

Never said gays were stupid. There is a doctor that molested 500 kids. He was a director of medicine at a hospital. Are pedophiles normal to based this presented logic.

Procreation is but one aspect of homosexuality that renders it aberrant. But it does share that aspect with the other sexually deviant urges. But they too are also deviant when judged by other criteria.

So your posts about Chinese people directly addressed my original post about a woman making outrageous claims when her feelings are hurt. Hi pot, I'm kettle.

Yet another off-the-cuff remark with no substantiation or anything. BOY do I wish I could just say stuff like that without the "prove it" police analyzing my posts.

A gay couple has never produced young as humans, mammals, complex life forms on this planet customarily do. You are being obtuse by avoiding the gist of what I am saying. Any individual human without a sexual defect can reproduce with an opposite gendered human that is also sexually healthy. We all know that. No gay man has ever created a child with another gay man....lesbians as well.
That again is concentrating on that one specific aspect of "gay".

And I CAN come to dialysis if I want to live. But my natural urge is to go to the restroom a take a pee like most normal humans. Human without sexual disfunction don't need a "third party" as humans without renal disfunction don't undergo dialysis.

From what I hear, being gay is much more involved than just "liking" sex with same gendered humans. Are you minimizing it to suit your argument now? Is gay just about liking anal sex or scissoring now? I mean if we are gonna fixate on individual aspects, we need to be clear. If I were gay, I would be offended by the comparison you just made.

I never said alternative methods of gratification were dysfunctional. Knock yourself out. The methods used are varied. But I would rather not witness a "Butt plug users pride parade" in every city. And I'd feel total left out at the "Golden Shower lover's" gathering at the park every year.

I'm here to entertain.

Actually I was retired. forbidden to re-enter the military, even though since I was an electronics tech, I could still do my job.

[/quote]Should you be prohibited from adopting because you're on a dialysis machine?[/quote]
Nope. But then again, neither should gay folk.

No. But then I never said it was right to kick a gay child out. Just that is is normal to be devastated. I know I would be devastated if my son turned up gay. But I would still love him. I haven't supported it, only acknowledged that those situation occur.

But there is no concrete justification for "gay" yet. That question is specious. Kidneys not working, man not pee, pretty simple. I'm broken, what else you want to know?
And yes parents do give up children deemed "marginal". It's a known fact that a good percentage of kids "in the system" are kids with "special needs". And to some people "gay" is a special need and they kick them out.
Considering the demographics of people with renal failure, that would be a hard one to imagine happening in the first place. Whereas I can see a woman that has a gay son feeling totally overwhelmed by the media telling her to considering him "normal" but giving no reason "why" she should ignore her common sense that "gay" is at the very least, a bit off.

If the solution were so clear, it wouldn't take these long ass posts to get it across. Obviously it takes a hell of a lot of bullshit to even convince yourself.

Never advocated anything but calling the gay union something other than "marriage".

For someone who doesn't give a crap, you sure talk/type a lot. Others do a much better job of not caring. You turn a 3 sentence post into a page of blabber. It seems YOU are the one hurting for attention.

You haven't exposed anything that I wouldn't readily tell anyone.

When did I lose? I perfectly happy in the answers I gave. I don't see any indication that anyone won or lost anything. You are the one bouncing over the place finding abstract bullshit to justify "gay" 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)

It's also "normal" to have sexual attraction to men to create them. Since that is how they are made.

When isolated, that one aspect can be rationalized as unrelated. But when you view it from a much wider scope, it loses its logic. Why would two men want kids when neither has the evolved physical system to support one? I doubt there was Similac in ancient Rome or among the "many species" that have homosexual acting members.

IMHO everything has a "full circle" aspect to it. From the water cycle of evaporation to rain. To the drinking of water to pee and all the uses the normal body has for the liquid.

Homosexuality does not satisfy that "full circle" the way everything else about human evolved systems and needs does.

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

Got any reading on the "why's"? Because I'm sure it's much more involved than just "eaten as food". Hard to get a defined motive when you don't speak da lingo of that lion eating all the offspring of the previous Alpha.

And in some cultures other humans were eaten as food. And I'm not even gonna say anything about this web site. I hope it's fake.

Sterility is a disorder.

No I'm saying homosexuality is a disorder like sterility. Your displayed your ignorance by comparing homosexuality to sterility which is an "approved" disorder.

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

That you ask such a question demonstrates a logical conclusion that there is a fundamental flaw in your assumptions / reasoning.
That you refuse to recognize such a fundamental flaw demonstrates a deficiency in your cognitive capabilities.

“Why do gay people still want children if they are so normal?”
Is that a question which is inherently designed to demonstrate your difficulty in intelligibly analyzing this situation?
Gay people want kids for the exact same reason that straight people want kids. Period.
Wanting kids has no inherent relation to sex drive, or the gender of the person you are attracted to.
People who don’t want kids still want to screw.
It should be readily understandable that some people want kids without the desire for sex.

What you claim is a “mistake” has no logical relationship to a desire for kids, yet you INSIST on thinking that there has to be.
Again, that should bring an intelligent person to question their underlying assumptions.
The fact that you do not is no surprise…


For somebody who attempts to use “analogies” frequently, you suck at it…
I named a few negative stereo-types, which are typically used by bigots.
The stereo-types are NOT representative of the entire group. They are representative of a small percentage of that group. And bigots try to extrapolate the negative onto the whole to suit their prejudiced purposes.

If you had ever gone to a gay pride parade, you would see that the vast majority are just like everybody else. There are those that go to parade pecs and prada shoes, but they are not the statistical “norm” of the crowd.


You throw out a bad attempt at an analogy response, and proclaim you can’t see the connection…
No. I am not surprise YOU do not.

By analogy, whites don’t parade around like Martin Luther King did. Does that point to an “abnormality” towards black people?
No.
The comparison fails to note the significantly different situations for whites and blacks, just like you fail to acknowledge the significantly different situations for gays and straights.
If straights were discriminated against as a standard of law, you can bet that they would protest and “parade”.
But they aren’t, so they don’t, and you can’t grasp that…


Such ignorance is a symptom of your prejudice, and not any actual significant societal view.
Ever hear of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”? It’s popularity was built off of the type of association I was talking about.
But of course, for somebody who only presumes the worst about a segment of society, you can’t see that.


I am amused by those who don’t recognize the issues that would presume to make us “leader of the free world” or “home of the free…”

You try to talk in terms of pure statistics, ignoring the specifics of the situation.
How many of those countries will behead a person for being Christian?
THAT is the type of backwards mentality which insists “sodomy” should be illegal.
The advanced and civilized world recognizes the difference.


< yawn >
Up until the late 80’s, early 90’s, there were MORE people in the U.S. who disapproved of interracial marriages than those who approved.
Like with interracial marriage, people recognized a potential they did not approve of, and legislated against it.
If some had “interracial marriage” and THEN outlawed it, that isn’t really significant. It doesn’t affect the point being made….


[quote=fxashun[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.[/quote]
You claim it is a “lot different”, but then you talk about the difference being “choice”.
I swear. Forest for the trees.

An obvious implication of the distinction is that those who do NOT have a “choice” get more leniency on the issue.
Like if a person CHOSE to be diabetic, as opposed to he had no choice in the matter.
If a person CHOSE to be diabetic, there would be less leniency towards things like insurance coverage, allowing for time off for treatment, etc.

The distinction you mention actually gives gays more of a moral high ground, as opposed to people who just “choose”…


On what basis doesn’t it compare?
By what non-arbitrary and universally applied rationale do you have by which you could come to a conclusion that gays have a lesser argument than the other categories?

You have tried for “non-procreational” in the past, but that is easily shown as just your personal standard, not generally shared by those against gays, and also not a consistently applied standard.


So you claim.
And absolutely no proof of your claim.
No real attempt at substantiation or explanation.
But yet you repeat your claim, despite being unable to show any reason to hold to it…


The “ignorance” is repeatedly pointed out.
The “ignorance” is shown by the TON when you make idiotic claims regarding gays not being able to procreate.

The “ignorance” is in claiming it’s a “birth defect” in the first place. The truth is that it does not fit in with your PERSONAL BELIEFS on how things should work, ergo it’s a “birth defect”.
Yet when pressed for any actual function we cannot perform, you flail but cannot show any.
All you have is that our sexual desires do not have a side-benefit of being able to procreate.

That’s not a “birth defect”. And the medical/scientific community refute your assertation.


As previously pointed out, when you lose SOOOO much of the argument, you typically back-peddle onto the meaningless stance of “not normal”.

BFD. Inter-racial marriage is often viewed as “not normal” as well…


As previously pointed out, procreation is not needed for INDIVIDUAL survival.

It is needed for SPECIES survival, and along those lines homosexuality has MULTIPLE benefits which DO enhance SPECIES survival.
Your approach is like insisting that every cell in the body be devoted to procreation, in order to not be a “mistake”.
But in reality, other bodily systems are needed to ensure adequate survival of the body.
For example, with gays, the species gets more flexibility in being able to maintain the species intelligently. Capable of added reproduction if necessary, or throttled reproduction if procreation is in excess.

Funny how you claim “a part of your original point”, yet you spend the majority of your time expounding upon it, with little else brought to the table…
Back-peddling…


1) I’m sure they don’t, at least not to your face…

2) Your approach is banal, fixating on the disappoiment while trying to ignore the fact that the MAJORITY of the sustained prejudice against gays is based on bigotry.
Plain and simple bigotry.

So I have no doubts that you do not want to talk about WHY the negative emotion exists, cause you know you can’t make it fit into a nice plausible story.


You can try, but I think people will just see through your obfuscation.
I would challenge you to show me what you ACTUALLY SAID that I am misrepresenting, but we both know you couldn’t do that…


Why should I talk about it in the first place?
There has been no real reason to branch off into that discussion.


That has already been addressed.
But of course, you ignored it.

Perhaps a better point would be for you to give evidence for such a claim, rather than just insist that we debate disproven hypotheticals with no evidence…


Again, you cower.
I am addressing YOU and YOUR claim that he is gay, despite his own statements to the contrary.
I realize you want to hide behind others, but it’s YOU that are currently on this board pressing the point.

If you lack the conviction to discuss it, just say so.
You running from a point is nothing new…


Is ya ‘tupid?
She is BASHING GAYS.
THAT is what makes it “gay news”, regardless of whether or not her son is gay.

So if a KKK member bashes blacks, it’s not a “black” subject unless the KKK member has a black kid?
You’re funny in your desparation to try and get out of being proven wrong…


As far as a representation of the depths of ignorant prejudice against gays, that’s perfect.
(I don’t know if you can get it or not, but the EXISTENCE of people who don’t like me doesn’t bother me. I just shine a spot-light on them, exposing them for what they are, and get on with my life…)

And along those lines, you provide an abundance of assistance.


1) Quote me any point you made which I did not address.
2) The REAL reason we started talking about grandkids, whether you want to admit it or not, is because YOU FOCUS on that angle. YOU focus on that, cause you use that as your primary excuse to fixate on gays along the “procreational” angle by you fixating on gay sex not being “procreational”.
3) Do I need to explicitly point out (yet again) that I do not argue that some parents have a problem with gay kids?
I think I brought up the whole “homeless gay kids” issue in the first place, which you provided me substantiation for. I have been talking about a level that warrants discussion, because it has non-trivial meaning.
4) Just talking about generic “disappointment” riff is mundane. Parents can be “disappointed” that their kid doesn’t want to follow in their foot-steps. A parent can be “disappointed” they got a gender they weren’t hoping for. A parent can be “disappointed” their kid can’t run as fast as they want, or is as smart as they want, or a lot of other things.
The good parents get over the fact that life doesn’t give them all they expect. The parent doesn’t run their kid’s life to that absurd of a level.


Just out of curiousity, have you even tried to figure out this woman’s “reasoning”?
Or did you automatically try to formulate it around an approach that didn’t demonstrate the anti-gay bigotry she actually represents?

Another question you won’t answer….


[quote=fxashun] 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.[//quote]
Every homosexual has parents, but not all gay parents are disappointed in their kids.
I had hoped you would be able to grasp that it was not only the “having parents” part, but also the DISAPPOINTED part which was relevant.
Silly me in over-estimating your capabilities.

Can you statistically substantiate the “disappointment” you claim, for “millions”?
Otherwise, cut the crap.


What link gave proof of his homosexuality?
You claimed he was gay, DESPITE the proof.


Again, you back-peddle like crazy.
It was a LOT more than just “maybe she is just disappointed”.

And considerations of “aberrant” are irrelevant. Up until late 80’s / early 90’s, most people considered interracial couples as wrong.
People evolve and change.
Some, like you, insist on ignorance.


As usual, very wrong.
And to borrow your earlier reply: “Don't worry about it, I won't call you names or demean you for that mistake.”


I swear, you are incredibly thick.
That point is PART OF MY ANALOGY.
Geez. TRY to keep up.


And I can name quite a few cultures that used to enslave blacks as well.
You’re missing the points.
1) The wide-spread existence of the prejudice does not lend credibility to the prejudice.
2) Lumping gays and other “-philias” together is not an argument..


It’s amusing when you get like this.
You haven’t a real point. You just start slip-sliding all over the place. Attempting sloppy generalizations and pointless associations.
Romans and the Greeks were two very successful civilizations, giving a significant contribution in the overall historical landscape.

The point was simply to refute your claim regarding the overall “civilization” opinions on gays, which was attempting a ridiculously loose and non-existent justification of the prejudice.

I realize you have no real counter to that, so you reply with the above, which is entirely pointless. No real argument present.


You are positively fixated on normal.
When will you get it through your head that “not normal” is “not” an argument.


Really?
So when a person marries another with step-kids, the step kids are somehow deficient in the eyes of “the rest of the world”?
If Johnny and Jane are married, and little Billy is only Jane’s son and not Johnny’s, does that mean the “rest of the world” has a negative view of the situation?

You repeatedly attempt lame and loose allegation, that fail simple scrutiny.
Do I need to sign-post the examples of “ignorance” that you demonstrate, like this one?

Quote any point you made in your original post that I should address.
Otherwise, stop being a bore with these lame lies.


“uncontested”? Maybe.
Fact? Definitely not.

And that last statement is just plain stupid.
Because the son not being gay wasn’t raised earlier, that somehow gives you credibility?
You attempt the most ridiculous credibility pretenses.



i.e. Back-peddling…

Yes. People kick their gay kids out because the kids are gay.
And the unspoken part you can’t bring yourself to honestly address is that “People kick their gay kids out because the kids are gay, and the parents are bigotted.”

Keep dancing around that point, if you will.
I can keep simply repeating it…


Again, you pick the most idiotic differences to fixate on.
The original attempt at lended credibility was that the parent was disappointed in not having grand-children.
I pointed out other groups where there are no grand-children possible.

Now you demur into arbitrary distinctions, like “choice”.
Can you elaborate why an evaluation of a parent’s “disappointment”, or the extreme of actual prejudice resulting in kicking the kid out of the home, is somehow mitigated if it’s the kid’s “choice” or not a “choice”?
It would be more logical that if the kid had NO choice, the kid’s situation would be more understandable and more tolerated, all things else equal.


That would be a more accurate assessment of you…
The reality of the situation is that most people realize that being gay, or being straight, is not a quality which warrants “looks up to” or “looks down upon”.
Does anybody “look up to you” because you’re black? No. It’s just a race, and everybody has one, and the characteristic is irrelevant to other attributes which actually make up a person’s character.

But I understand you’re trying for yet another anti-gay slur, and it’s lame, and it’s all you have. Flounder away…


And of course, he drags in that other garbage attempting innuendo cause he ain’t got anything left…
Do I really need to explain how two adults, engaging in consensual acts, is different from child rape?
Or animal rape?

I don’t use those as an example because sexual consent IS an actual societal standard.
Sex needing to be “procreational” in order to give credibility to it is not a real, significant societal standard.

That is why I didn’t bring those up, cause that’s your idiocy…


That has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever said.
Those acts are typically ILLEGAL.
When a cop asks, and the person tells, the individual winds up in jail.
There is no degree of “DADT” that is comparable.

But again, you’re just leaping with zeal to try to work the two in a comparison, so you allege similarity while ignoring the fact that it’s a dumb attempt.


Again, back-peddling. Trying to change the subject OFF of IVF, which was your original claim, and onto “adoption”.
So be it.

The complaint is hardly anything unique to gays. Gay or straight, this complaint exists.
And since I have already pointed out that gays DO have the potential to give the parents “grand-parent” status via IVF, this complaint is easily bypassed.

Next side-stepping response?


Tell you what.
Find me a gay couple who have the difficulty you have, then we’ll talk.
Until then, you’re talking about the COUPLE not being able to cope, or thinking less.


Wasn’t stupid at all.
Most married couples are white.
I am asking about the parents abortion potential if they were to discover the kid as black.
It’s just as relevant as your approach.


Funny, but my attempt to look at that link gave no statement of statistics analysis. Unless I missed something?
But otherwise, I was simply making a statement regarding the hypocrisy of aborting a kid based on homosexuality. Your challenge is idiotic, since I never made any claims regarding “defective”.

Moreover, your statistics are baseless unless you can show how many of these parents consider gay as a “defect” worthy of abortion.


I avoided nothing. And my response was dead-on.
You started talking about YOUR PERSONAL view-points, in a discussion on OTHER PEOPLE’S decisions on abortion.
YOUR PERSONAL view-point gives significance for whatever idiotic whim you decide in your life.
YOU having an opinion doesn’t mean OTHER people act in a certain way based on YOUR INDIVIDUAL position.

In fact, I think it is well established that your view-point is arcane and non-practiced. Most people just don’t look at things like you do with this idiotic “must be procreative potential” approach.
So your earlier statement is meaningless, unless we are just talking about YOUR prospective actions.


You are boring in your repetitive attempts to ignore intelligent approaches to situations.
1) QUOTE ME any “published literature before the APA” made its decision.
Or ignore this challenge and refuse to acknowledge that there is no scientific basis.
2) The APA did not vote anything regarding “normalcy”. It is boring how you insist on such idiotic misrepresentations.
Their concern is regarding MENTAL ILLNESS.
Your response is like criticizing the AMA for evaluating the color of a drug…
3) The truly stupid part of your complaint is considering the alternative.
Suppose the APA had a select committee of a dozen people who just decided for the rest of the group.
You would bitch up a storm over that too…
The “vote” demonstrates an intelligent approach, and I’m not surprised that you can’t comprehend it.
It demonstrates INDIVIDUAL psychologists who evaluated the evidence as to whether or not homosexuality was a “mental illness”, and they gave their conclusion.
“Science” isn’t decided by fiat. It’s decided by an overall objective analysis of the evidence.
You work off of prejudice, and this isn’t convenient for your prejudice, so you make idiotic complaints that are essentially meaningless.
4) I can simply challenge you, yet again, to prove any pretense that homosexuality is a “mental illness”.
You, of course, will reply that the sex drive doesn’t procreate, which provides an unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim that sex has to have “procreative potential” in order to be non-mentally ill.
And at that point your argument falls apart. You start changing to words like “aberrant”, “dysfunctional”, and “not normal”, and ignore the fact that you lost the scientific standard debate in favor of jumping back on your lame prejudice.
(Look how many words I saved th