Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should Danish lesbians have children?

103 replies to this topic
Harlem
  • Harlem

    The Renegades

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2005

#31

Posted 12 April 2005 - 12:24 AM

Children learn to live and accept their parentís orientation. In the end, it makes them much stronger than kids who were raised by a straight couple with no problems. I know some people/kids mind their own businesses without making a fuss about things like this.

JackredluM
  • JackredluM

    Saviour of the damned

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004

#32

Posted 12 April 2005 - 12:28 AM

since when is Homo a bad word? that sounds just as stupid as someone being offended by saying something is gay!

you bunch of homo's. homo sapiens i mean biggrin.gif

Harlem
  • Harlem

    The Renegades

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2005

#33

Posted 12 April 2005 - 12:56 AM

Since kids started using it as a derogatory term.

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#34

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:08 AM

QUOTE (Harlem @ Apr 11 2005, 23:11)
straight couples have anal sex as well.

I have no idea where you got that, nor do I want to know what you're doing. But just because you have some unique customized preference, don't make yourself a steriotype as I am straight and I never had butt sex.

@ Eviscero, I agree with you except about the part homosexuals should marry. If you don't like that, bitch to the president. Haha.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#35

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:22 AM

You don't think they should be allowed the same financial advantages as straight people? What are you, some kind of bigot?

Harlem
  • Harlem

    The Renegades

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2005

#36

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:25 AM

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 12 2005, 01:08)
QUOTE (Harlem @ Apr 11 2005, 23:11)
straight couples have anal sex as well.

I have no idea where you got that, nor do I want to know what you're doing. But just because you have some unique customized preference, don't make yourself a steriotype as I am straight and I never had butt sex.

*stereotype

When did I ever say I have anal sex? I was simply stating that straight couples do have anal sex and that is a fact.

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#37

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:28 AM

@ Eviscero - I think they're already better off than most heterosexuals. What with stealing straight people's jobs and all. And what with, straight people pretending to be gay so they could get employed.
And with suing the company when purposely getting fired for millions and all. I think they're good off as it is.

My opinion.

JackredluM
  • JackredluM

    Saviour of the damned

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004

#38

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:29 AM Edited by JackredluM, 12 April 2005 - 02:08 AM.

QUOTE
Since kids started using it as a derogatory term.
that is stupid.
then WTF are you supposed to call 'em?? Hetero-impaired? Hetero-disabled? same sex relations person? Homo and lesbian is a right term it doesn't offend them, i know plenty of "hetero-impaired" (i like that one tounge.gif ) that don't get offended.
i think that the only persons that get offended by the word homo are homophobes straight guys that are uncertain of their feelings and still need to come out of the closet.
i am not against homo's in any way but i don't like it when i hear most of them are married and leave their wife and kids for a dude! if they would think before they get married to a woman they could save them a lot of grief!

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#39

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:39 AM

QUOTE (Harlem)
Since kids started using it as a derogatory term.

I shall call you chick - repellent then. Happy?

Tongue of Colicab
  • Tongue of Colicab

    629>1506

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2005

#40

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:46 AM

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 11 2005, 20:28)
@ Eviscero - I think they're already better off than most heterosexuals. What with stealing straight people's jobs and all. And what with, straight people pretending to be gay so they could get employed.
And with suing the company when purposely getting fired for millions and all. I think they're good off as it is.

My opinion.

Oh, wow. Right now, if I was gay, I would be quite offended. Where do you come off at that? Are you suggesting that people take advantage of homosexuality? What the hell? Gay people are just like straight people. What you said implys that gays are evil, mean, and thieves. A gay person stealing someones job is just like ANYONE stealing a job. It isn't the gays' fault that people are greedy.

BrassKnuckles
  • BrassKnuckles

    Iconic

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2002

#41

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:56 AM

f*ckin' gay dudes. First they steal my sanctity, now they steal my job? whadahell.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#42

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:02 AM

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 11 2005, 20:28)
@ Eviscero - I think they're already better off than most heterosexuals. What with stealing straight people's jobs and all. And what with, straight people pretending to be gay so they could get employed.
And with suing the company when purposely getting fired for millions and all. I think they're good off as it is.

My opinion.

You are supremely ignorant. Who the hell are you to make generalizations about millions of people? Did some fag steal your bigot father's job or something?

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#43

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:07 AM

How can you flame my bigot dead father who you didn't even know?

I heard of some people who experienced such homosexual oppression. I never really met any, but neither did you meet my father and you pass judgment already.

BrassKnuckles
  • BrassKnuckles

    Iconic

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2002

#44

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:28 AM

Let's get this straight. You've never met a gay or lesbian person, but you can say on good authority that they steal jobs from straight people?

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#45

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:31 AM

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 11 2005, 21:07)
How can you flame my bigot dead father who you didn't even know?

I heard of some people who experienced such homosexual oppression. I never really met any, but neither did you meet my father and you pass judgment already.

It's widely agreed upon that most causes of "hate" (in this case extreme bigotry) start in the home. It's also widely known that father's have more influence over their sons than mothers. I put two and two together and formulate the idea that you're a bigot because your dad was. Maybe you're just a bigot because your dad is dead.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#46

Posted 12 April 2005 - 05:28 AM

Jobs, seriously, who's realy afraid of loosing jobs to homosexuals? And do you realy think they have an unfair advantage over you?

On toppic, who cares if lesbians from northern europe have kids.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#47

Posted 12 April 2005 - 10:53 AM

People who care about the welfare of today's youth?

russificator
  • russificator

    The Last of the Rasputins

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2004

#48

Posted 12 April 2005 - 01:56 PM

QUOTE (Leftcoast @ Apr 12 2005, 05:28)
On toppic, who cares if lesbians from northern europe have kids.

Probably, this is your unavoidable future. Norman Rockwell's America doesn't already exist, I guess.

Well. Learn by the mistakes of the 21-st century's agamic Vikings.




HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#49

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:06 PM

I watched a French movie in which the main character gets fired, and a gay person gets hired (I wonder why), so the main character pretends to be gay for the rest of the movie so the company re hires him as they didn't want him pressing charges he was fired due to homophobia. It wasn't science fiction.

And if you say one more thing about my dead father you didn't know, I'll pay a hacker to erase your hard drive. Haha.

BenMillard
  • BenMillard

    aka Cerbera

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2002
  • None

#50

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:07 PM Edited by Cerbera, 12 April 2005 - 03:51 PM.

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 11 2005, 21:27)
Cerebra, I am not suggesting homosexuals do stupid things. If you state I classify a stereotypical homosexual as giving children "stupid" names, you are wrong, as I used the term "probably", and I referred to it as "names like", instead of "stupid", or "weird", which you and alldoitthesame suggested I did. I have been lead to believe so as I have personally known a homosexual child who's parents were like that (not stupid, homosexual). Then saying I endorse violence against homosexuals, just because I remember most kids used to beat him up, is not your privilege. As I do not. What I was stating were facts. There might be contradicting facts in other cases, but as I am not aware of such I have based my opinion on what I know as was requested of me to post.

Then calling me homophobic due to the fact I addressed to homosexual people by the word "fags". Isn't that another word for homos anyway? As I know again from my own experience, other children used to, and many people I know today refer to and talk about hs people using term "fags".

For instance, let's assume you're not homosexual in this example, I couldn't call you a "fag" if I wanted to insult you, as you are not what defines the word "fag", being a homosexual person.

Now that I've made my point and gave my opinion, can we (you) please move on with the topic and continue giving your own, regardless of whether you consider mine to be wrong?
It appears your problem is not homophobia after all, it is naivety/ignorance. BTW, my name is "Cerbera" in reference to the British sportscar made by TVR, not Cerebra in reference to the section of the brain..

As has been pointed out by others, the term "fag" is a grossly derogatory (insulting) term, which is why the media aren't allowed to use it in daytime programming. Jerry Springer is a good show to watch to see which words are in that category, although I don't make a habit of it. The term "homo" is a contraction of the formal term "homosexual" and as such is an insult. It's like calling a pakistani a "paki" or a nigerian a "ni**er" and so on. I hope you can accept that your current understanding of these terms is wrong and will adjust your writing style accordingly.


The underlying argument against letting homosexuals do, well, just about anything, seems to be that they are somehow "immoral" or "wrong" in some way. My sister is a lesbian and has been for a number of years and I can assure you that she is a concientous and caring woman who loves her family. That is also the case with just about everyone else and those who do not care for others are not uniquely based in any particular demographic portion of society. From schoolyard bullies to elderly Nazis to rapists of all sexualities, there are a minority of what might be described "immoral" persons spread around throughout all parts of society. Stereotyping homosexuals as being a uniquely immoral part of society is extremely naive since their struggle to gain fair status within society and overcome the prejudices of people like you makes them far more considerate of other people's lifestyles than the average Joe.


The issue of homosexuality has been discussed in D&D before and there was an excellent topic about it earlier this year (2004). Inside that topic I made this post which puts forward an evidence-based support for homosexuality, addressing such issues as disease, history and population decrease. For your convieniance, I will quote the post here:

QUOTE (Cerbera @ Dec 15 2004, 13:55)
Historically, homosexuality was not taboo. Ancient Greek civilisation practised it for thousands of years and the ideas of Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, Hypocrates/Pythagoras/Euclid of Alexandria and many others are the ones which ALL western states use today. Democracy which is championed so much in western culture, rigourous mathematics which have not been bettered by modern mathematicians and even methods of presenting works of philosophy and acedemy are largly based on the formats used by the ancient Greek acedemics.

Homosexuality is not in any way harmful to society, as is proved by it being such a mainstay in the ancient society which invented all the fundamental principles used in western culture, law and science. By outlawing it, humans are taking a massive cultural reversal to before 1500BC.

Religion is not the best mechanism to create sense with. It is based on principles which although casually reasonable do not stand up to rigourous logic (logic as invented by those "degenerate Greek bum-chum sodomists" - some might find this remarkable) and as such, religion can neither be viewed as the primary source of factual study nor of logically complete argument.  Don't get me wrong on this; I'm a champion of the fantastic sucesses of the various religions thoughtout the ten thousand years of advanced human society. It takes a pretty special system to maintain the national and international populations which religioun has done and it also supplied humans with the institutions which gave rise to some remarkable science which holds true today (Isaac Newton) but it has been superceeded by contemporary science (Euclid of Alexandria, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, etc).


There are no facts which would recommend the criminalisation of homosexual relationships. Where homosexuality comes from is irrelevant, as it has done no harm to societies of the past. The risk of disease is not an issue due to "physical barrier" contraceptives such as condoms, which prevent bodily fluids from being transferred and thus lower the possiblity of disease being transmitted -the risk is equal to hetrosexual couples using the same precautions.  Even the population worry is unfounded. Homosexual partners who adopt children don't get thier new child delivered by a stork (lol) there is a hetrosexual family who supplies either the seaman, or a surrogate mother, or an already born child. Therefore the number of new children being created does not change, population collapse does not arise.

I've tried to construct arguments against homosexual relationships and monogamous unions within them (i.e. marriage) but it simply doesn't exist. If it does, then let's here it with conise foundation as I've tried to supply here for it's defence.
And so it turns out that homosexuality and sexual liberation is sympomatic of a progressive, educated society. Far from it being "wrong" or "detrimental to society" as some might claim.


Just a quick note about presentation: Use blank lines between parargraphs when writing for the web since there is no first-line indentation. A Guide to Presenting Arguments goes into more depth and is well worth a read for all those who visit D&D, although it isn't mandatory.

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#51

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:12 PM Edited by HoodyG, 12 April 2005 - 02:15 PM.

Cerebra, you cannot quote me saying homosexuals are "immoral", as I never said that.

What I said was "I don't think that's right what they're doing."

I stick by that as the topic requests my opinion.

Azazel
  • Azazel

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2003
  • None
  • Topic of the Year 2012 "GTA V Vehicle Database"
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#52

Posted 12 April 2005 - 02:34 PM Edited by azazel., 12 April 2005 - 02:37 PM.

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 12 2005, 15:12)
Cerebra, you cannot quote me saying homosexuals are "immoral", as I never said that.

What I said was "I don't think that's right what they're doing."

I stick by that as the topic requests my opinion.

So to put it in fewer words; your opinion sucks.

It seems to be highly based off of ignorance, fear, and lack of acceptance of people different from you. Much like racism. Noone is directly telling you to change your sight in this matter, but that it is obviously clashing with so many peoples' cultural norms and common sense, should act as some kind of wakeup call.

And of course we have our fair share of wrong doers and thinkers here in Denmark, though the far majority, especially when moving up the years, do share a common acceptance of people different from themselves. Me and Svip representing Denmark on GTAF, notthing substantial to base a general observersion on, well... it's no coincidence that neither of us have as strong opinions as you, HoodyG.

Oh, and could you ellaborate "I don't think that's right what they're doing." for me? Do you mean their sexual orientation, or are we back that the fictional job-stealing again?
~az

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#53

Posted 12 April 2005 - 03:09 PM

We disagree on whether Danish homosexuals should be allowed to marry. You cannot change my mind, nor I can change yours. Nor am I even trying to change your opinion. I wouldn't want my son living in a world where marrying same gender people is a right thing. They can still sleep with each other, or whatever, as far as I am concerned.

Period.

JackredluM
  • JackredluM

    Saviour of the damned

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004

#54

Posted 12 April 2005 - 03:22 PM

QUOTE
I wouldn't want my son living in a world where marrying same gender people is a right thing.
why are you against it? why does it bother you if they get married?
they are not hurting anybody and they are still human beings so why can't they get married, you said you weren't christian in another topic so why are you against same-sex marriage?? if a dude chooses to be with a dude and they both love eachother who are you to deny them to marry? or are you just affraid your kids might marry in that way?

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#55

Posted 12 April 2005 - 03:34 PM

QUOTE (JackredluM @ Apr 12 2005, 15:22)
QUOTE
I wouldn't want my son living in a world where marrying same gender people is a right thing.
why are you against it? why does it bother you if they get married?
they are not hurting anybody and they are still human beings so why can't they get married, you said you weren't christian in another topic so why are you against same-sex marriage?? if a dude chooses to be with a dude and they both love eachother who are you to deny them to marry? or are you just affraid your kids might marry in that way?

I am both against same sex marriage and an atheist because I am not close minded. I think about what is best for me and my children.

I would most certainly not be glad if my son was to chose equally between being straight or homosexual, let alone becoming one, as that is not the kind of son I am looking forward to raising with my hard earned money.

Contradict me, but don't flame me, as I do not flame any of you and respect your opinions. Not that you need to respect mine, and just because I do not share your opinions, doesn't allow you to turn this topic into a hoodygphobia. smile.gif

BenMillard
  • BenMillard

    aka Cerbera

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2002
  • None

#56

Posted 12 April 2005 - 03:40 PM Edited by Cerbera, 12 April 2005 - 03:48 PM.

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 12 2005, 15:12)
QUOTE (Cerbera @ Apr 12 2005, 15:07)
BTW, my name is "Cerbera" in reference to the British sportscar made by TVR, not Cerebra in reference to the section of the brain.

[...]

The underlying argument against letting homosexuals do, well, just about anything, seems to be that they are somehow "immoral" or "wrong" in some way.
Cerebra, you cannot quote me saying homosexuals are "immoral", as I never said that.

What I said was "I don't think that's right what they're doing."

I stick by that as the topic requests my opinion.
Read the topic and then you won't look so damn stupid. You might actually get my member name correct, too. You are saying they are "wrong" on moral grounds, hence you are saying both that they are "wrong" and that they are "immoral" too. Furthermore, my post states that those are the underlying arguments and not necessarily what you said anyway. The fact you felt it was a remark made purely about your own views and that your views were different to these when they are indentical highlights how poor your grasp of logical discussion is.

QUOTE (HoodyG @ Apr 12 2005, 16:09)
We disagree on whether Danish homosexuals should be allowed to marry. You cannot change my mind, nor I can change yours. Nor am I even trying to change your opinion. I wouldn't want my son living in a world where marrying same gender people is a right thing. They can still sleep with each other, or whatever, as far as I am concerned.

Period.
So, not only are you ignorant, not only can nobody challenge what you think, but everyone must accept what you think and you are never going to change your view no matter how baseless it turns out to me?! You have earlier stated that you support the laws preventing homosexuals from marrying yet you refuse to give any reason for this. You are forcing your unfounded, illogical and utterly repugnant beliefs onto other people without a care for what they think. If your ideas are irrational and you cannot find a way to prove otherwise then you must abandon them in favour of ideas which do actually make sense.


(EDIT) If you can demonstrate why homosexuality is damaging to society then please do. But read the topic first and in particular my earlier post explaining the historical benefits which have arisen from societies which openly endorsed and practised homosexuality. If you are not prepared to justify your position then you cannot expect anyone to take it seriously and you certainly cannot expect it to be forced onto people via legislation.

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#57

Posted 12 April 2005 - 03:44 PM

Well marrying same sex people doesn't make sense to me Cerbera, so I won't abandon what I think in favor of your "moral" opinion.

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#58

Posted 12 April 2005 - 04:02 PM

HoodyG, c'mon now, you are embarrasing yourself.

There are only two "valid" (I'm using the term very loosely) reasons to be against gay marriage, gay rights, or gays raising kids.

Reason #1: Literal interpretation of the Bible.

Reason #2: Homophobia.

Try as hard as I might, I can think of no other valid reasons for being against gays raising kids. You might try to claim that "gays can't raise kids as well as straight parents can", but the evidence is against you (strongly), thus your argument is invalid. You might try to claim that having gay parents will harm the child or impair their development in some way, but again, the evidence is against you, so your argument is invalid. You might claim that a child with gay parents will be teased, but this is circular reasoning, becuase the child wouldn't be teased if gay parents were acceptable, and thus again your argument is invalid.

Now, if your reason is simple homophobia, then whatever, just so long as you admit it and stop with the circular arguments (like, "I would not be glad if my son was gay, because I don't want to spend money raising a gay son", which is circular because if you did want to spend money raising a gay son, you would be glad if your son was gay) and unfounded intolerance.

You ARE closed-minded, and being an atheist or having an opinion on gay marriage has nothing to do with that. Even athiests can be closed-minded. Being closed-minded (or being a bigot, same thing), is a matter of refusing to see the merit of arguments in favour of an alternative position, and refusing to alter your views when your arguments are weaker. An open-minded person will argue something (hopefully, no-one likes blind followers of anything) as best as they can, then, if, and only if, their arguments are seen to be weaker than those of the opposition, they will adjust their positions accordingly. An argument is not strong because the person arguing it refuses to budge, an argument is strong when it can stand up against all logical attacks against it. And frankly, HoodyG, your arguments are ridiculously weak.

And if that didn't convince you that you are a bigot, just look at your own words, when you said: "You cannot change my mind, nor I can change yours." You are effectively saying that no argument or discussion is possible, becuase your head is so far up your ass that you couldn't possibly entertain the idea that you could be wrong. And until you can provide something resembling a logical argument, you are, most assuredly, wrong.

JackredluM
  • JackredluM

    Saviour of the damned

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004

#59

Posted 12 April 2005 - 04:11 PM

QUOTE
I would most certainly not be glad if my son was to chose equally between being straight or homosexual, let alone becoming one, as that is not the kind of son I am looking forward to raising with my hard earned money.
you would not support your kid? if it is the kids decision you should respect that, you can not force someone to be hetero sexual!
if they have feelings for someone of the same sex you should give them that right, what if your parent told you to stop seeing woman! you would hate that wouldn't you? so if you want your kids to start hating you raise them like that!

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#60

Posted 12 April 2005 - 04:33 PM

No matter what you say, homosexuals will always have anal sex with same gender members and pretend to be other gender, which I opose, like murdering for revenge etc.

Saying I am "homophobic" as Mortukai suggested would get me banned. I claim I do not support their actions, due to them not being the right ones. Right actions would be being what you are. Which they're not.

That is my argument.

@ JackredluM, I would raise my children no matter what they do, I just wouldn't like it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users