The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Actor wrote: »

A child is a gift from God. It is not a "right" as many pro-homosexual campaigners testify.

No. The process of fertilization involves a sperm fusing with an ovum—usually following ejaculation during copulation. It is possible, but less common, for fertilization to occur without copulation, artificial insemination, or In vitro fertilization.

If a child is a gift from God, how come people who do not believe in your God can have children as can people who believe in other Gods or people who have never heard of your God? Why would your God give them a gift?

Why does God deny this gift to some of his followers?

Can you provide me with evidence to support you statement that pro-homosexual campaigners have said having a child is a 'right'?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The process of fertilization involves a sperm fusing with an ovum—usually following ejaculation during copulation. It is possible, but less common, for fertilization to occur without copulation, artificial insemination, or In vitro fertilization.

You do realise that Science can't explain everything? The mystery of life is one of God's greatest gifts. To try and explain away this miracle using scientific jargon is very disingenuous.

If a child is a gift from God, how come people who do not believe in your God can have children as can people who believe in other Gods or people who have never heard of your God? Why would your God give them a gift?

Why does God deny this gift to some of his followers?

Can you provide me with evidence to support you statement that pro-homosexual campaigners have said having a child is a 'right'?

You should read the Independent's weekend supplement from two weekends ago. There was some homosexual chap complaining about his "right" to have a child being denied.

Gumbi

Haha. You're joking, right?

On what basis do you propose that science can't explain everything? Is it your claim that that which cannot be (currently?) explained is explained by God? This was tried in the Middle Ages; thankfully science (as persecuted as it was) managed to rise above it and explain many things that religion(s) claimed.

It has been observed how a child is conceived.

Regarding rights - a homosexual couple has as much a right to adopt a child as a heterosexual couple. Should a barren heterosexual couple be denied this right? Of course not, be consistent and apply the same reasoning to homosexuals; don't allow your religious prejudices to blob you from doing so. Who are you to deny homosexuals the right to raise a child (be it through adoption or IVF)?

Gumbi wrote: »

It has been observed how a child is conceived.

It has been observed using man-made tools at current levels of technology. How "life" is injected into the clump of cells is a mystery. Unless, of course, you know better than the world's greatest theologians and philosophers?

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

You do realise that Science can't explain everything? The mystery of life is one of God's greatest gifts. To try and explain away this miracle using scientific jargon is very disingenuous.

hahahahaha

Actor wrote: »

It has been observed using man-made tools at current levels of technology. How "life" is injected into the clump of cells is a mystery. Unless, of course, you know better than the world's greatest theologians and philosophers?

Yeah, funnily enough I'm willing to make a very large bet that a fully qualified and educated science has a better grasp of human biology than a theologian.

Once again.
Hah.

Gumbi wrote: »

Regarding rights - a homosexual couple has as much a right to adopt a child as a heterosexual couple. Should a barren heterosexual couple be denied this right? Of course not, be consistent and apply the same reasoning to homosexuals; don't allow your religious prejudices to blob you from doing so. Who are you to deny homosexuals the right to raise a child (be it through adoption or IVF)?

Adoption is a privilege, not a right. You are forgetting that most natural parents, when asked, will choose not to allow their offspring to be "adopted" by a homosexual pair. It goes against all natural instincts.

Sonics2k wrote: »

hahahahaha

Yeah, funnily enough I'm willing to make a very large bet that a fully qualified and educated science has a better grasp of human biology than a theologian.

Once again.
Hah.

You homosexuals are a funny sort alright. That's for sure.

Actor wrote: »

It has been observed using man-made tools at current levels of technology. How "life" is injected into the clump of cells is a mystery. Unless, of course, you know better than the world's greatest theologians and philosophers?

So babies born from in-vitro fertilisation aren't real? Don't have a soul? Or what?

King Mob wrote: »

So babies born from in-vitro fertilisation aren't real? Don't have a soul? Or what?

What are you on about???

Actor wrote: »

What are you on about???

If children are gifts from God, how are gay couples able to have them via "unnatural means"?
How is life magiced into a baby if they are conceived this way?

And why does God give these gifts to people who don't believe in your version of him?

Actor wrote: »

Adoption is a privilege, not a right. You are forgetting that most natural parents, when asked, will choose not to allow their offspring to be "adopted" by a homosexual pair. It goes against all natural instincts.

And if those same parents don't want their offspring to be adopted by a couple of a different race, that's not "natural instincts" it's bigotry and racism.
Should that be allowed?

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm willing to make a very large bet that a fully qualified and educated science has a better grasp of human biology than a theologian.

Well done.

And so it all wooshes over your head. Wooosh! Did you hear that?

FYI: Ensoulment and the processes of new life is not a biological question. It is primarily a philosophical and theological question - these questions are, however, informed by scientific understanding.

At the end of the day science is all about theorising natural phenomenon, observing said natural phenomenon, and reproducing the observations in a laboratory. There are much bigger questions which Science (your god) hasn't even figured out the answers to (let alone thought up the questions).

King Mob wrote: »

Should that be allowed?

Opinions that you don't like are allowed.

Many parents choose to adopt only white or only black children to match their own ethnicity.

Do you have a problem with that?

marienbad

Actor wrote: »

Opinions that you don't like are allowed.

Many parents choose to adopt only white or only black children to match their own ethnicity.

Do you have a problem with that?

That is not the question- do you think that people should forbid their child being adopted by a couple of a different race or religion - that is the question .

Actor wrote: »

Opinions that you don't like are allowed.

Many parents choose to adopt only white or only black children to match their own ethnicity.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, but I don't think it should be banned. Those people are making a judgement on race and that's not a good thing, but it's their choice.

However on the flip side and on the point I actually made not allowing some one to do something based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexuality or gender is discrimination.

Do you think that discrimination is acceptable?

And since you're using the oh so mature tactic of ignoring the question I'll just assume that you can't respond to my other questions as you realise that your point is utter crap.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, but I don't think it should be banned. Those people are making a judgement on race and that's not a good thing, but it's their choice.

However on the flip side and on the point I actually made not allowing some one to do something based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexuality or gender is discrimination.

Do you think that discrimination is acceptable?

And since you're using the oh so mature tactic of ignoring the question I'll just assume that you can't respond to my other questions as you realise that your point is utter crap.

"Discrimination" is such a loaded word.

FYI, in this country, we have:

- men only golf clubs (no problems there)
- active homosexuals barred from donating blood (I'd rather not take the risk myself)
- schools that require teachers of a certain religion (I'd rather not have my child indoctrinated by an atheist)
- a male dominated fire brigade (How does a woman expect to lift a man of my height and weight through a burning building?)
- only women or "effeminate men" (you know what I mean) selling beauty products in department stores
- Catholic adoption agencies

So, really, this idea of universal "equality" and "anti-discrimination" falls flat on it's face.

marienbad wrote: »

That is not the question- do you think that people should forbid their child being adopted by a couple of a different race or religion - that is the question .

Why should someone gift their child to people that they don't want to? It's irrelevant if they're the most PC couple on the planet or members of Stormfront. At the end of the day; it's their decision to have their child reared as they see fit.

Actor wrote: »

"Discrimination" is such a loaded word.

FYI, in this country, we have:

- men only golf clubs (no problems there)
- active homosexuals barred from donating blood (I'd rather not take the risk myself)
- schools that require teachers of a certain religion (I'd rather not have my child indoctrinated by an atheist)
- a male dominated fire brigade (How does a woman expect to lift a man of my height and weight through a burning building?)
- only women or "effeminate men" (you know what I mean) selling beauty products in department stores
- Catholic adoption agencies

So, really, this idea of universal "equality" and "anti-discrimination" falls flat on it's face.

And these are all bad things...
Though at least you are honest enough to admit that refusing to give gay couples children is discrimination.

At this point I'm not sure if you're genuine. Either way, it's a waste of time responding to you further.

doctoremma

Actor wrote: »

Why should someone gift their child to people that they don't want to? It's irrelevant if they're the most PC couple on the planet or members of Stormfront. At the end of the day; it's their decision to have their child reared as they see fit.

Really? Perhaps, if people feel THAT strongly about how their child is raised, they might give second thought to raising him or her themselves? I believe that if you give up a child for adoption, you sign away any right to have a say in that child's upbringing. And obviously, if your child is removed from you because you're deemed unfit, that argument becomes watertight.

marienbad

Actor wrote: »

"Discrimination" is such a loaded word.

FYI, in this country, we have:

- men only golf clubs (no problems there)
- active homosexuals barred from donating blood (I'd rather not take the risk myself)
- schools that require teachers of a certain religion (I'd rather not have my child indoctrinated by an atheist)
- a male dominated fire brigade (How does a woman expect to lift a man of my height and weight through a burning building?)
- only women or "effeminate men" (you know what I mean) selling beauty products in department stores
- Catholic adoption agencies

So, really, this idea of universal "equality" and "anti-discrimination" falls flat on it's face.

-men only golf clubs are wrong, no matter what the courts say and that is is only a matter of time.

-schools should have a secular choice anyway and in an proper system we would educate our children separately as to beliefs.

- a male dominated fire brigade is more a cultural thing - I know plent of women that would easily lift a man through a burning building. And just as a matter of interest do you advocate that those men than can no longer do so = should they be fired or what ?

- Your perfume selling point is just silly so I won't bother.

- on Catholic adoption agencies - seee my point below and the question I already asked you.

Actor could you answer my question in post 1155 please - thanks.

28064212

doctoremma wrote: »

And obviously, if your child is removed from you because you're deemed unfit, that argument becomes watertight.

Don't be ridiculous, you can't remove children from their biological parents, they are always the best for a child. Other familial types can't even begin to compare to biological parents. Even the unfit ones. And if you want to compare blatantly bad biological parents to other good parents, that's "stupid". Apparently

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

You homosexuals are a funny sort alright. That's for sure.

Just a shame I'm not gay then, isn't it?

King Mob wrote: »

And these are all bad things...
Though at least you are honest enough to admit that refusing to give gay couples children is discrimination.

At this point I'm not sure if you're genuine. Either way, it's a waste of time responding to you further.

Aww... "bad things". It's bloody well common sense. Something pro-homosexual activists such as yourself seem to be lacking.

On not responding to me further: off you go so. You'll be back on your hobby horse in no time.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just a shame I'm not gay then, isn't it?

It's ok... No need to be so defensive... We all have our vices.

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

It's ok... No need to be so defensive... We all have our vices.

Well, if we want to go over vices.

You seem to be a tad obsessed with sodomy. Want to chat about it buddy?

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well, if we want to go over vices.

You seem to be a tad obsessed with sodomy. Want to chat about it buddy?

Can he chat after he explains why his God gifts unbelievers, Lesbians, and people who never even heard of him the gift of a baby but denies that gift to some of his fervent believers? I did ask a while ago but he seems to have forgotten to answer it.

Seems strange behaviour not to reward the faithful but to reward those who deny your existence.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can he chat after he explains why his God gifts unbelievers, Lesbians, and people who never even heard of him the gift of a baby but denies that gift to some of his fervent believers? I did ask a while ago but he seems to have forgotten to answer it.

Seems strange behaviour not to reward the faithful but to reward those who deny your existence.

Even non-believers are created in the image and likeness of God. Jesus died for the whole of humanity.

Corkfeen

On phone and won't be on laptop for another week. But female fire fighters have been around for a centuries in most places, not sure about Ireland .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_firefighting
So they're well able....

Corkfeen wrote: »

On phone and won't be on laptop for another week. But female fire fighters have been around for a centuries in some places, not sure about Ireland.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_firefighting
So they're well able....

There are female fire fighters in Ireland. Have been since the late 90s.

doctoremma

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There are female fire fighters in Ireland. Have been since the late 90s.

Also, did anyone see the women's weightlifting during the Olympics? Some of those chicks could carry most men from a burning building, probably two, one over each shoulder.