steel's argument #1
shep refutes argument #1
steel's argument #2
shep refutes argument #2
steel's argument #3
shep refutes argument #3
steel's argument #4
shep refutes argument #4
steel's argument #5
shep refutes argument #5
steel's argument #6
shep refutes argument #6

that's how you work, you don't even try to make post directly answering my immediately previous post, you have to keep on going with new arguments. It is exactly as I described in that 9/11 topic.

but I'd answer your elaborative narrative.
first of all, there's no shepperd's law, I don't write laws.
second, that problem should be from the other side of the issue, reducing risk of losing parents (security and education), and not by trying to solve it by an easier, more pragmatic yet inhumane way. It is not easy and there will always be poverty.
besides that is forgetting those gays parents that rent an uterus to get kids.
If the orphanage argument tries to play the sympathy tactic, uterus renting doesn't.

christ of all the things you want to nitpick, you're seriously going to say I don't know how to argue? are you dense? are you retarded? jesus christ. this is the one thing you know I have actual objective proof of and that's what you're saying?

I'm not refuting you because you aren't saying anything

first of all, there's no shepperd's law, I don't write laws.

WELL CHRIST WHAT DO I TELL ORPHAN TIMMY WHO I LET USE MY COMPUTER. shut up

second, that problem should be from the other side of the issue, reducing risk of losing parents (security and education), and not by trying to solve it by an easier, more pragmatic yet inhumane way. It is not easy and there will always be poverty.

what problem? the fact that the foster care and orphanage systems are overcrowded? you're not going to be able to solve that, ever. there's always going to be kids without homes, and you're the one arguing in favor of denying them that because the parents are gay males and aren't maternal enough for you. yes. the orphan child with NO PARENTS AT ALL is going to be profoundly psychologically altered by his lack of a mother more than anything, good argument Shepperd. instead of even trying to fix the problem in the short term let's go ahead and ADMIT it's unfixable but let's be esoteric anyways, its not like there are parents and kids right now waiting to be adopted oooooh wait. oh and for someone who is refuting you ignored this part of the argument, the clearest rebuttal of what you were saying.

thank god you didn't end up kind of sad that you didn't have a mom and two dads instead though as an orphan I'm sure that effect wasn't going to take place anyways.

whoops, look who is terrible at debate.

besides that is forgetting those gays parents that rent an uterus to get kids.
If the orphanage argument tries to play the sympathy tactic, uterus renting doesn't.

it does if you want a child from your ancestry. many surrogates are related to the people they carry the children for and take the opposite partner's sperm. also surrogating is something many women who don't have money do, sooooo I think there's still a sympathy argument. and this is completely irrelevant because the number of people doing this as opposed to adoption is pretty negligible in the terms we're talking about.

the best part is all of this shit was the fucking detritus of the argument. you didn't actually address the real point (that you're advocating denying children who DON'T HAVE MOMS TO BEGIN WITH a home because they won't have moms) and then accused me of dancing away.

you're not saying anything I need to address, you nitpicky little homophobe (hey guess what, you are one. backpedal all you want but you said I was being POMPOUS because you were spewing hateslurs everywhere, and nothing's gonna change that), and you've spent this topic needlessly trolling over moot points that I'm pretty sure inanimate objects would have grasped by now. anyone else would have turned back and slunk away but no, I'm Shepperd, here's my poorly founded opinion based on the fact I got hit by a book of Camus when I was 12.

I'm not a homophobe, not the first or second time I'm clarifying this, thanks for understanding.

HMMM!

let's take a look:

"unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality"
from dictionary.com

when you see the word UNREASONING, chances are the person in question doesn't realize they're a homophobe because they lack the necessary cognitive abilities to GENUINELY REASON.

but let's see......antipathy??? let's look further into this

This is not about dem fags touching my kids, it is about dem fags having their own kids, thanks for understanding.

oh ok! i'm sure you have some perfectly logical explanation for this, right? i mean you wouldn't just throw this at us without justif

go to the zoo and learn how animals get to reproduce themselves and how mothers take care of their babies and the father doesnt give a shit

the zoo. the fucking zoo. you're fucking kidding me. the zoo.

maybe you've been living under a rock but in civilized parts of the world we've grown PAST THIS. we don't breed like this anymore. we haven't done it in a very long time. i shouldn't need to explain the VAST DIFFERENCES in the development and growth of a human being and that of a wild animal.

But where's the mother in a gay couple?

there is nothing about human development that ABSOLUTELY NEEDS A VAGINA when you get past the actual birth. you act like there is this irreplaceable role that females WILL FILL when raising a child.

the reality that your stupid, barely-literate mind cannot get around is that the CRITICAL FACTOR in raising a child is LOVE FOR THE CHILD. the desire to bring this person into your life and share with them your experiences, your life, who you are. and vice versa. but no. that's not enough for you. the DESIRE and UNDERSTANDING isn't enough. need to be born with a vagina, need to be natural. can't let them fags experience the most wonderful thing that a human can ever do. nope. don't care about their DESIRE TO DO SOMETHING WONDERFUL. those are the rules, no dick+pussy, no child. yep. i'd call that antipathy.

what separates us from THE ANIMALS is our ability to get past these stupid fucking natural definitions, especially when you learn that they don't mean a fucking thing. they're placed there by absurd traditionalists whose definitions hold back the practicality of contemporary life. invariably they seem to be oblivious of the fact that human development is a perpetual process. you aren't who you are at day 1. yet, you've got no problem giving a baby to two racist, hate-mongering sociopaths who happen to be equipped with a dick and a vagina, and deny one to two brilliant, caring intellectuals who happen to be homosexual.

it's easy to just jump on the OH ITS JUST STEEL bandwagon, but it's just dumb luck that he's the one exclaiming the loudest, because this is some of the dumbest shit i've ever fucking seen and you should be ashamed of yourself.


lastly, your INSISTING that you aren't a homophobe means absolutely nothing to any of us when you're making openly discriminatory claims like this and frequently using CLEARLY derogatory remarks. i've encountered many people in my time who spoke badly of blacks on an almost hourly basis, and tossed around the word NIGGER in a way that isn't meant to be funny or playful. funny thing is that EVERY SINGLE ONE will tell you that they aren't a racist. if you have to continually say BUT I'M NOT A BIGOT, then it's pretty clear that you aren't fucking fooling anybody.

you're a narrow-minded, hateful person whose completely unjustified ego prevents you from understanding what ANYBODY ELSE thinks or feels. i would go as far as saying that people like YOU are not natural, because you lack any essential link to humanity to ever make you a productive member of my race. you're out for your own idiotic interests and say and do things to make yourself feel good, or to fortify your belief systems, regardless of their wide ramifications and how they make other people feel. you call that natural?

a lion would eat john frusciante in a zoo before he could even lift a single needlemarked arm to strum a G chord.

ya speaking of animals i saw a polar bear on animal planet that ate starving and sick cubs in order to survive. i can't believe the zoo is being suggested as a model for how we should form social structures.

I feel bad for Niitaka because he's a cool guy and he's the only other person who talks about Rice Boy but this is seriously one of the worst GW topics.

Inri Cheetos at least trolls the shit out of everything, but Shepperd just holds some loathsome opinions and I'm wondering if his earlier trend of incomprehensible gibberish was him just trying to get all the stuff out of the way so he could finally say "TWO FAGGOTS CANT HAVE KIDS".

i think gay dudes make better maternal parents than lesbian women since gay dudes have the mindset of females while lesbians have the mindset of ANGRY MISUNDERSTOOD MALES

Hey there, wanna go shoe shopping with me and my girfriends?

oh for the love of

lars DON'T COME BACK

Back to the op, immediately following this the state senates of Arizona and North Carolina have tried to pass legislation banning gay marriage in their state constitutions.

This is one of many reasons this election is important, with Stevens, Ginsburg, and possibly Kennedy retiring soon the balance of power in the court, and the deciding factor on whether it is constitutional for states to make this illegal is going to rest in the hands of whoever gets to appoint their successors.

We can't let that be Mccain

shep your argument might carry more weight (especially your argument that you aren't homophobic) if you stopped calling them QUEERS and HOMOS i seriously think that is disgusting

i see that this has been covered tho

I dont agree with the reasons of what shep gave for his arguement, but  this said the answer is not black and white. I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree to homosexuals having children. There are reasons on both sides that sway me.

Equal human rights, two responsible adults etc. Why shoudn't they be able to raise a child?

On the other hand it's unfortunate that in todays society, it is pretty resonable to assume that the child would be ridiculed in school etc for having two gay parents. As much as this is horrible and not fair, it needs to be considered. Is it best for the child?

I don't agree with the maternal/paternal thing though. I know people who have been raised by single parents before and i don't think there is any evidence to say they are fucked up.  My only real concern is the treatmeant the child would recieve later in life for having two gay parents.

Also, shep, you should stop using words like faggot and queer in the same sentence as IM NOT A HOMOPHOBE

The first thing I'd like to point out is that your list is not correct. Some things are improperly worded and other things are missing. While it's true that some these things are considered to be the prerequisites for life, the correct definition would be:

• Homeostasis
• Organization
• Metabolism
• Growth
• Adaptation
• Responsiveness to stimuli
• Ability to reproduce

Which brings me to my second point: see how I changed the wording from "reproduction" to "ability to reproduce"? Most animals will reproduce at some point, but some don't. There can be many reasons for this, one of them being homosexuality (yes, it occurs). By your definition, some of these organisms "aren't living" because they "aren't reproducing". Two things are wrong with this approach: it ignores the fact they can reproduce—it's just that they don't—and even if reproduction would be physically impossible, this would only imply that there's something wrong with just one or a few specimen.

Another good point would be the fact that some of these "life requirements" aren't really requirements at all. There is, in fact, no real consensus on this definition, and there are some very good points to be made against it, one example being that some animals are born without the ability to reproduce (for instance, most mules cannot) and yet we still say that they're alive.

If people actually took the requirements of life 100% literally, then we would have to start classifying paraplegics as non-living organisms since they are using un-natural means (WHEELCHAIRS) to move around, and we would have to all agree that people in full-out comatose states are biologically dead since they do not respond to stimuli. Obviously, most conservatives will disagree with both of those statements, not wanting to sound evil or declare that people in deep comas have no hope (although past two years the recovery rate is almost non-existent).

Here's a great article about animal homosexuality: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?position=&ei=5007&en=25655dedbc29ffd6&ex=1391490000

Man, it's really fun reading Christian websites that try to give full-out proofs of why homosexuality is un-natural and all the scientists are wrong. (http://www.carm.org/issues/homosexuality.htm) or (http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000058.cfm)

I especially like the last paragraph of the latter article:

[blockquote]Theologian and psychiatrist Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse quotes an incident in which an American mentioned homosexuality to a group of doctors at the Canton Hospital in the People’s Republic of China, and only one member of the medical staff understood what homosexuality was.2 I asked two missionaries to Africa about homosexuality on that continent, and both related that they had been told that it was unknown until the Westerners arrived. Anecdotes don’t provide certainty, but in the absence of hard numbers, ask people from Asia and Africa this yourself.[/blockquote]

homos aren't natural.... just ask some africans




I was going to lock this topic over a page ago but then realized that it wasn't in General. Thank goodness I didn't because Dada and Hundley came in and made everything much more fun. Now we can go back to talking about the Supreme Court ruling, I would hope. Very interesting turn of events to see an apparently conservative state-government make such a decision. I would have expected somewhere in the Northeast to next!


edit: I just had a divine epiphany: Adam Sandler's "Big Daddy" and our very own Ice_Puppet show a connection between single father parenting and homosexuality: the kids will have a desire to unnaturally urinate in public flowering pots

carpet bombing Scandanavia is something I came up with after meeting Lars.

now that Lars of all people has tried his hand at trolling the topic I reiterate it should be locked.

On the other hand it's unfortunate that in todays society, it is pretty resonable to assume that the child would be ridiculed in school etc for having two gay parents. As much as this is horrible and not fair, it needs to be considered. Is it best for the child?

I think you underestimate the strength of kids. you try and diss the kid and how they are dressed and everything and they just kind of slouch away sadly. but diss their parents, and I'm pretty sure the bully will get laid out. something like gay parentage is something they would certainly have a degree of pride instilled in, and I'm sure bullying would be less of an issue for them.

I also hate to say this but it really strikes me as a moot issue, sort of like people saying blacks couldn't integrate in schools because they would get bullied. they were, but they still went to school, you know? it was the right thing to do.