Homosexuality and parenthood: your thoughts.

[Hathradic States]

I will cede that point to you.


There is nothing wrong with dying a sex sheep purple...and I agree.

There... might not be anything wrong with the purple sex sheep. I'm still not letting my kid play in that yard.

Does it honestly matter? It's not like the sheep is going to rape the kid.

[Sidhae]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

What a child needs is a loving home. Something a gay couple can give as well as a hetero one.

[Ifreann]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

Are you at least consistent enough to oppose single parent families on the same grounds?

[New Rogernomics]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

So [you] don't disagree with several homosexual relationships under one roof, with pseudo-partnerships with heterosexuals as a way to circumvent the archaic marriage and adoption laws, marvelous.

[Norstal]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

So [you] don't disagree with several homosexual relationships under one roof, with pseudo-partnerships with heterosexuals as a way to circumvent the archaic marriage and adoption laws, marvelous.

Frequent divorces are ok as long as they're both straight.

Divorces, after all, have no effect on childhood development. </sarcasm>

[Sidhae]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

Are you at least consistent enough to oppose single parent families on the same grounds?

Of course! It isn't normal for a parent to be single without a really legitimate reason, and the number of single parents in Western society just shows that there's something fundamentally wrong with our society. No wonder there are so many fucked-up people around if we can't get even basic things like family straight.

In the Islamic world, the very notion of a single mother (or father) is hardly imaginable. A woman will always have a man - if not husband, than her father or brother - take care of her and her children. Likewise, a man whose wife has died is expected to take another and carry on the obligation to care for the deceased spouse's children.

No wonder the towelheads seem to have more and more success, while we Westerners gradually sink deeper and deeper into the ocean of shit we've stirred (or more accurately, allowed a few to stir) over even such basic things like this.

[Grenartia]

I think that every child needs a male and female presence in life, which is my primary reason of opposing homosexual parenthood.

Ignoring the scientific evidence that makes you wrong, consider the following: Are two parents, even of the same sex, better than only one parent at all?

[Ceannairceach]

I don't even need to know what Sidhae wrote to know that it merits a response that denotes the fact that women need more equality in rights, not less, that western society is not doomed to fail because we refuse to emulate barbarism like that of Sharia, and that same-sex parents have not been shown to raise "defective" children.

Did I get it right, or did I miss something?

[Grenartia]

I don't even need to know what Sidhae wrote to know that it merits a response that denotes the fact that women need more equality in rights, not less, that western society is not doomed to fail because we refuse to emulate barbarism like that of Sharia, and that same-sex parents have not been shown to raise "defective" children.

Did I get it right, or did I miss something?

I found it to be dead-on...

[Sidhae]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships.

By that logic we should also discourage unions between infertile people and those who do not wish to have children.

A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

Don't see how that should affect gay, stable couples who wish to have a family and can provide for it. Especially those who wish to adopt. Committed and loving gay relationships do exist. So, why ban them from having children?

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Irrelevant to the question of homosexuality and parenthood.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Yes, since your options are, indeed, that of people living in a "happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses".

[Grenartia]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Or, option 4, we can hope for all of humanity to unite, and work towards that goal as best as we can, so that we don't have paranoid people saying things like what I've just quoted here.

Also, think about this. These people you consider to be our enemies are reproducing at a faster rate than us. Which means that if the trend continues, they will have more people than they can feed. Basically, they will starve themselves because they were unwise, and failed to maintain some sort of equilibrium. Anybody who has gotten at least a 10th grade education, in even the worst US states (I actually learned this in 4th grade in Louisiana, which is notorious for being one of the worst states in non-college education), should know that in an ecosystem, any group of organisms that reproduces too quickly will soon consume all available resources necessary for survival. Essentially, that group of organisms eats and reproduces and the offspring eat and reproduce so quickly that soon there is literally nothing left to eat.

As for your view of how society should be, think about this. I would rather DIE, than to live in a world where the only purpose of the individual is to serve society. The freer the individual, the freer the society.

Also, don't refer to the LGBT community as 'homos'.

[ICBM CITY]

This stuff never fails to make me angry.

What's worse is that the people who say "homosexuals shouldn't adopt" are almost always the same people you see standing outside abortion clinics ranting and raving.

There is no hope for humanity.

It is unfair, very unfair. And I feel sad for them and for the children that need the love and care.

But what do you do when your straight parents reject you for gay?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It is unfair, very unfair. And I feel sad for them and for the children that need the love and care.

But what do you do when your straight parents reject you for gay?

I'm not sure I am seeing your point. Sorry.

[Forsher]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Or, option 4, we can hope for all of humanity to unite, and work towards that goal as best as we can, so that we don't have paranoid people saying things like what I've just quoted here.

Also, think about this. These people you consider to be our enemies are reproducing at a faster rate than us. Which means that if the trend continues, they will have more people than they can feed. Basically, they will starve themselves because they were unwise, and failed to maintain some sort of equilibrium. Anybody who has gotten at least a 10th grade education, in even the worst US states (I actually learned this in 4th grade in Louisiana, which is notorious for being one of the worst states in non-college education), should know that in an ecosystem, any group of organisms that reproduces too quickly will soon consume all available resources necessary for survival. Essentially, that group of organisms eats and reproduces and the offspring eat and reproduce so quickly that soon there is literally nothing left to eat.

As for your view of how society should be, think about this. I would rather DIE, than to live in a world where the only purpose of the individual is to serve society. The freer the individual, the freer the society.

Also, don't refer to the LGBT community as 'homos'.

You left out the part where the population collapses and things return to normal. Nature is like a free market.

[Farnhamia]

It is unfair, very unfair. And I feel sad for them and for the children that need the love and care.

But what do you do when your straight parents reject you for gay?

You try not to hate them. If you're living in their house you may have to make compromises until you can live on your own. If you're lucky and have other sources of support, your parents may eventually come around to accepting you again.

[Distruzio]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Ahem... what, exactly, is there to "win"?

[Ceannairceach]

Ahem... what, exactly, is there to "win"?

Other than the approval of the less enlightened individuals, nothing, I would imagine.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Ahem... what, exactly, is there to "win"?

To enact IRL the plot of the movie "Idiocracy". *nod*

[Socialdemokraterne]

Unless someone can provide a definitive link between parents' status as homosexuals and poor parenting, I don't think there's any reason this conversation should last more than three sentences:

1. Is there a definitive link between homosexuality and bad parenting?
2. No.
3. Then let homosexuals raise children.

[Socialdemokraterne]

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Go tell your story to China. See how long you get into your narrative before they start pointing and laughing at you, shouting to each other in Mandarin:

"Oh, my God! Can you believe this guy? We've already tried this crap!"

Oh, and also tell it to Liechtenstein, which has been an independent state since 1866, has a total land area of 160.475 square kilometers, and sports a population under 40,000. They're influenced by external cultural sources, but find me a country that isn't. Somehow they've managed to avoid being relegated to reservations. Someone has their head up their hindquarters, but it sure isn't us Sidhae.

[Ceannairceach]

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Go tell your story to China. See how long you get into your narrative before they start pointing and laughing at you, shouting to each other in Mandarin:

"Oh, my God! Can you believe this guy? We've already tried this crap!"

噢，我的上帝！你能相信这家伙吗？我们已经尝试过这种废话！

只是说。

[Yuktova]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Do you support overpopulation? 7 billion people is enough. We don't need three kids per family or whatever the fuck your promoting. Look at it this way: if we allow gay marriage, we won't have overpopulation. Something, by the way, which is very good. And plus, even if the people can afford three extra kids for every flipping family across the us, doesn't mean the mother fucking planet Earth can! Use your fucking brain. My god, not that hard to figure out.

You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet, which is what your supporting. And plus, the nuclear family is so dysfunctional, it's so fucking hilarious to watch people support it. I'd like the ancient African family type, where the whole family looks out for each other, grand parents helping parents raise their kids, ect. The nuclear family is full of shit, compared to that.

[Yuktova]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Or, option 4, we can hope for all of humanity to unite, and work towards that goal as best as we can, so that we don't have paranoid people saying things like what I've just quoted here.

Also, think about this. These people you consider to be our enemies are reproducing at a faster rate than us. Which means that if the trend continues, they will have more people than they can feed. Basically, they will starve themselves because they were unwise, and failed to maintain some sort of equilibrium. Anybody who has gotten at least a 10th grade education, in even the worst US states (I actually learned this in 4th grade in Louisiana, which is notorious for being one of the worst states in non-college education), should know that in an ecosystem, any group of organisms that reproduces too quickly will soon consume all available resources necessary for survival. Essentially, that group of organisms eats and reproduces and the offspring eat and reproduce so quickly that soon there is literally nothing left to eat.

As for your view of how society should be, think about this. I would rather DIE, than to live in a world where the only purpose of the individual is to serve society. The freer the individual, the freer the society.

Also, don't refer to the LGBT community as 'homos'.

Wow, Gren, are we two of the same? I basically said the same exact thing as you. Weird.