[Ruckus Fox]

I think kids should have two parents, Male and Female. I mean it was ment that way. Thinnk about it, natural reproduction needs one male and one female, then a child is born. So it is obviously ment for there to be one Father, and one Mother. NATURAL reproduction won't work any other way. Thankfully science has given parents who can't have children invitro vertilazation. Bu tthink about it, invitro requires a Male (sperm) and a female (egg). So even trhough science it is obvouse that it was ment, either by evolution, or creation, that there was ment to be one Male and one Female.
Thank you,

Why do you people say that?... "It was meant to be this way."

Prove it.

You're not god. You're not mother nature. You can't prove it, hence, if anyone tried to sue a gay for being married to another gay, they'd lose. Because their point would be "It's not natural." You can't prove it. You have no evidence, you lose.

Nature has nothing to do with reproduction.

Nature makes the grass grow (Which is photosynthesis.) and the clouds move (Must I spell that one for you?)

Also...God didn't give people sex and say, "Here, this is called sex. Only use it for reproduction."

Pfft...No...If there is a god, he probably said. "Here ya go! This is sex! Feels good, doesn't it? Have fun with it. I'll be up here watching all of you go about your lives. *nod nod*"

^ If you disagree with that...You disagree with a professional.. I stole it from her.

---Ruckus the Rogue

[©allum]

I would rather have 2 parents than 1. Even if they were the same sex. If they love you and care for you, and you love them, what does it matter?

[Bodom]

Ruckus is right, Ive not heard some magical force say we can only have sex because of kids... things have changed from hundreds of years ago.

[Spikeout]

Thousands of years ago

[Ruckus Fox]

Thank you, Mr. Echli-san.

According to my science teacher...Billions of years ago, if you're looking for when man spawned. x.x; If you're talking about sterotyping the gays....Yeah....somewhere in the thousands range.

---Ruckus the Rogue

[Mobster101]

Well first off i'm looking from a different perspective, just like you guys wanted. And i was saying that reprodution requires male and female and reproduction is as natural as can be. So obvously if the way to make kids was meant to be male-female than obvously kids should have male-female parents. I was just proving that "gays, adopting or invitroing kids" is wrong. In my point of view kids were ment to have one male and one female parent, reproduction works no other way, it can't work any other way.

[Crescens]

It's a tad ironic (not to mention idiotic) that people bash those that have anti-gay beliefs for religious reasons and then hold pro-gay beliefs for some of the exact same religious reasons. Religion shouldn't be used as a backbone either way; get over it.

If humanity evolved (anyone that doesn't believe in evolution isn't worth talking to) to have sex with people of the same gender, then according to the laws of Natural Selection, such genetic influences and traits would be quickly removed from the gene pool.

As for parenting, I agree with whoever it was that said people need both a male and female role model in their early childhood. And assuming gays actually keep to their commitment in marriage and don't go sleeping around (great ethics there), they shouldn't have children anyway. However, for too many gay couples, they feel that commitment to their so-called love relationship stops when they want a child, and help on creating a child is gotten from an external source. Is such a lack of commitment (if you can call it "commitment" rather than just a hedonistic desire for easy sexual pleasure) the type of ethical value we want passed down to children?

[Ruckus Fox]

Bah. Just face the facts. Americans use sex for pleasure more than just for reproducing. Then again, some just want their genes to excel into the future.

As for this whole gene pool thing...It's a very picky genetics subject. We just covered this in science. Those that believed that evolution occured are claiming that we didn't get smarter just because of evolution (Brace yourselves vegitarians.) but because the prehistoric apes began to eat meat as well as fruits and veggies. Atleast..that's those doctor's theories...

My theory? My theory is screw it. I'd prefer looking into the future rather than looking into the past.

I was just proving that "gays, adopting or invitroing kids" is wrong.

You live a black and white sheltered life, my friend.

---Ruckus the Rogue

[Crescens]

Traits that make people appear more prominent to the opposite sex are more likely to be passed down to the next generation. This is why women constantly try to look young, healthy, and fertile, and men constantly try to appear wealthy and powerful. Clearly, the "genetic" traits of homosexuality should not appear appealing to members of the opposite sex. Facts of life.

Looking into the future rather than the past? Evidently you missed my points earlier that the acceptance of these ideas is the first step toward assimilation into them; see earlier posts for examples. Eventually, heterosexuals will be shunned and humanity will die out due to inability to produce more of its kind. Populations are growing rapidly in third world countries (and by immigration just about everywhere else) but not growing nearly as rapidly. When these ideologies reach the third world, the decrease in rate of population growth, and eventually population decay will most likely hit that area as well. Look into the past and the future when considering things like this...

[Ruckus Fox]

BUT! Regulus, you can't say that. You can't speak for people's preferences and opinions...Keep it in mind.

I missed your points on purpose...That IS after all why I said I'd rather look into the future rather than the past...Correct?

Past experience can never prove the future. So...Looking into the past (Unless it's something nice to remember) Is useless to me.

And...if this is about the black and white thing...Being sheltered and looking at life with rights and wrongs isn't genetic. It's personal thought. o.O

And about losing reign over the world...I'd say...Give it up!... Sounds like that idealogy is supporting the fact that you said about wanting Power and Wealth. You'll be dead by that time any way, what do you care?

---Ruckus the Rogue

[Sproogle]

And assuming gays actually keep to their commitment in marriage and don't go sleeping around (great ethics there), they shouldn't have children anyway.

Both straight and gay people have the same chances of sleeping around. Gay people just like those of the same sex. Thats it. They are stull human, but you seem to try and depict them as sex-crazed fiends, which they aren't. And yes, 2 gay men or women should be able to have a child. I like how lots of you use the population control issue as an anti-gay stance, when in fact our population is soaring, quite possibly more than the Earth can handle very soon.

[Bodom]

Yeah because a few guys who have decided they like other guys will destroy the worlds population..

[Mobster101]

It's a tad ironic (not to mention idiotic) that people bash those that have anti-gay beliefs for religious reasons and then hold pro-gay beliefs for some of the exact same religious reasons. Religion shouldn't be used as a backbone either way; get over it.

If humanity evolved (anyone that doesn't believe in evolution isn't worth talking to) to have sex with people of the same gender, then according to the laws of Natural Selection, such genetic influences and traits would be quickly removed from the gene pool.

As for parenting, I agree with whoever it was that said people need both a male and female role model in their early childhood. And assuming gays actually keep to their commitment in marriage and don't go sleeping around (great ethics there), they shouldn't have children anyway. However, for too many gay couples, they feel that commitment to their so-called love relationship stops when they want a child, and help on creating a child is gotten from an external source. Is such a lack of commitment (if you can call it "commitment" rather than just a hedonistic desire for easy sexual pleasure) the type of ethical value we want passed down to children?

one, get off religeon, we have all been warned allready. and two, if you belive anyone who doesen't belive ini evolution isn't worth talking to, well your kinda a hypocrit. I mean if you think anyone that blives what you belives is ok to talk to and not visa versa....

[Sproogle]

one, get off religeon, we have all been warned allready.

Uh, he was saying just that. In fact, he is more or less on your side of the debate. Just thought you might want to correct that.

This post has been edited by Sproogle: 17 April 2005 - 06:03 PM

[Mobster101]

I know, but he should get off religeon before this is closed.