or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rosie O'Donnell & Gay Adoptions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rosie O'Donnell & Gay Adoptions - Page 2

post #41 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>Until homosexuality is more widely accepted in society I feel that it's unfair for the children to have to put up with the funny looks and the "my two Dads" taunts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just ask <a href="http://www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/primetime/pt1106.php" target="_blank">Nicole</a>. And her two dads were heterosexual!
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #42 of 76
For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.

Yes and some animals are monogamous. All it proves is that every species is sexually different. For example even among felines, the South American Ocelot mates for life (monogamy). But Lions, Jaguars, and other similar big cats, very close genetically, are very promiscuous.

WARNING: I watch the DISCOVERY channel!
post #43 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.

Yes and some animals are monogamous. All it proves is that every species is sexually different. For example even among felines, the South American Ocelot mates for life (monogamy). But Lions, Jaguars, and other similar big cats, very close genetically, are very promiscuous.

WARNING: I watch the DISCOVERY channel!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Touché. All that proves is that it would be perfectly natural for homo sapiens to be "sexually different," as you put it.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #44 of 76
[quote]For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.<hr></blockquote>Exactly what does that mean?
Seriously.
Define tendencies.
You mean that even though animals mate with the opposite sex, that once in a while they like to "experiment"?
I've heard about "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom but the only time I've heard about it is when there is a disproportionate amount of one gender than the other or complete lack thereof. (wow, re-reading that sentance, I believe that it is the worst sentance I've ever written. But you get my meaning, right? )

So, dear Bradley, please clarify. I ask out of ignorance because I am ignorant. Tear down the veil and allow me to enter into the holiest of holies, that which can only be described as the vast and all encompassing light of your knowledge of the animal kingdom.
&lt;/dripping sarcasm&gt;

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: kaboom ]</p>
post #45 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Just ask <a href="http://www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/primetime/pt1106.php" target="_blank">Nicole</a>. And her two dads were heterosexual! </strong><hr></blockquote>

I thought someone would pick up on that, but you Belle! I credited you with a bit more intelligence <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

J :cool:
post #46 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
The thing that gets me is that other people think that they have the right to judge other people that are different in some way from them. They think they are so much better, that they get to judge other people. Baloney. We're all people, and we should all have the same rights.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Be careful with this " we're all people, and we should have the same rights" .If we open the debate that gays should not be seen for their sexual preference, then will this "equal" right be applied to pedophiles due to their "sexual preference" ? I am playing devil's advocate here to stress a point. Some see gays as morally depraved people just as we view pedophiles. If you open the door of rights for one sexual orientation then close it on another because you judge it as wrong, then who becomes the judge?
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #47 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>

Be careful with this " we're all people, and we should have the same rights" .If we open the debate that gays should not be seen for their sexual preference, then will this "equal" right be applied to pedophiles due to their "sexual preference" ? I am playing devil's advocate here to stress a point. Some see gays as morally depraved people just as we view pedophiles. If you open the door of rights for one sexual orientation then close it on another because you judge it as wrong, then who becomes the judge?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Paedophiles should loose their right to adopt because they broke the law.

J
post #48 of 76
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>

Paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Paedophiles should loose their right to adopt because they broke the law.

J</strong>[/QUOTE
Tell that to NAMBLA..North American Man Boy Love Association..they believe that man/boy consentual love relationships are right and are trying to legalize this choice. Yes these are boys of all ages (up to 18 I would assume due to the "boy" part)who feel they should have this homosexual right without fear of legal or moral reprisal. My point was to state that discrimination of one sexual orientation but acceptance of another makes one a ...what is the favored word here right now?? yeah , a bigot. Just want all here to see that we ALL have the tendency to judge when we think something is wrong so let's not get on this soapbox of people being judgemental of this issue. We all have a belief system that will not always be agreed upon by others, no matter how much to the extreme.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #49 of 76
I appreciate your attempt at playing devils advocate. The following is an answer to your question.

The main difference is that we as a society do not believe that a boy can consent to any sex. We believe that it is the responsibility of the law to say that if you haven't reached sexual or emotional maturity, you aren't informed enough to make the decision to have sex. One aspect of man-boy love is that it is always the man who decides to have and what the rules of the relationship are. This is essentially an increddibly more extreme version of your professor telling you to sleep with them, it is not seen as totally consentual because of the power that one has over the other.

pi
post #50 of 76
I just think it's completely inappropriate to compare paedophiles to homosexuals. There is clearly an argument for adoption by homosexual parents, these people have done nothing wrong but it would be ludicrous to argue in favour of paedophiles adopting children.

J
post #51 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>I just think it's completely inappropriate to compare paedophiles to homosexuals. There is clearly an argument for adoption by homosexual parents, these people have done nothing wrong but it would be ludicrous to argue in favour of paedophiles adopting children.

J</strong><hr></blockquote>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual"..I am well aware of the differences but my attempt was to simply open the mind here to the extreme nature of the topic. If we are to allow one sector of so called :sexual deviancy" to adopt then we are opening the door for others as well. My point is this, at what point do we say "whens" enough? Do we then have to recognize those who are sexually attracted to the same younger sex because as a society we find this wrong? (as some feel about homosexuality). Jamie I would never begin to insult you or anyone's intelligence here by saying that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same...only to point out that both are being biased against due to their sexual orientation. My sincere apology if I offended you in any way.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #52 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual"..</strong><hr></blockquote>Come on, you have to know that this is a time-honored tactic - bringing up pedophiles when you're talking about gays.

And why do you think that pedophilia is not heterosexual? Either heterosexuals or homosexuals can be child molesters.
post #53 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Come on, you have to know that this is a time-honored tactic - bringing up pedophiles when you're talking about gays.

And why do you think that pedophilia is not heterosexual? Either heterosexuals or homosexuals can be child molesters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No BRussell I was not aware that this was a time honored tactic as you have stated, since I am not a gay basher. And yes peds(or child molesters as you put it) can be either hetero or homo, that was not my issue nor intent. Again my intent was to bring to light the point that opening the door for one is cause to open the door for others. Please understand that my point here is not to say gay adoptions are right or wrong..there are good cases for arguments on both sides of the fence. I have gay friends who are split down the middle on this adoption issue, some for, some strongly oppose it. And by the way BRussell, NAMBLA is riding on the coat tails of practically every gay coalition that they can, so blame someone else for "lumping the two together".

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #54 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual".</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about sex between an adult and a child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two persons of the same sex. Its simply two different things. Even if you consider homosexuality to be as "unnatural" as sex between an adult and a child the big difference is that the latter isn´t between two equal partners.

I don´t know how the laws are in US but here we have a sexual minimum age of 15 years. Its not because its unnatural to have sex between two persons on each side of that line but because we have to protect the minor partner. So if a 14 year old and a 16 year old agree on having sex and nothing is forced (physically or psychologically) then of course the elder partner isn´t convicted for it.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #55 of 76
This has been mentioned earlier, but it seems like I should reiterate that pedophilia isn't sexual deviancy. It's a crime.

Allowing gays to adopt children won't suddenly make pedophila legal, or socially acceptable.

[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
I have gay friends who are split down the middle on this adoption issue, some for, some strongly oppose it. <hr></blockquote>

Why do your gay friends oppose it?
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #56 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about sex between an adult and a child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two persons of the same sex. Its simply two different things. Even if you consider homosexuality to be as "unnatural" as sex between an adult and a child the big difference is that the latter isn´t between two equal partners.

I don´t know how the laws are in US but here we have a sexual minimum age of 15 years. Its not because its unnatural to have sex between two persons on each side of that line but because we have to protect the minor partner. So if a 14 year old and a 16 year old agree on having sex and nothing is forced (physically or psychologically) then of course the elder partner isn´t convicted for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a good one for BRussell..15 years old and ok to have sex? Here in the states that would get you a charge of statutory rape and a jail sentence to match. The line is not so clear obviously..sex in one country with one age is a crime in another. Interesting....
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #57 of 76
Anders, I hope you don't mind if I add to this:

[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about forced sex between an adult and a non-consenting child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two consenting persons of the same sex.</strong><hr></blockquote>

(My additions in italics.)

J

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
post #58 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by jesperas:
<strong>This has been mentioned earlier, but it seems like I should reiterate that pedophilia isn't sexual deviancy. It's a crime.

Allowing gays to adopt children won't suddenly make pedophila legal, or socially acceptable.



Why do your gay friends oppose it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it is a crime and it is a deviancy. No I do not feel pedophilia should be socially acceptable either. My friends who are opposed are so because they feel their sexual orientation will bias the child's choice. Just as some feel certain religious beliefs put forth on a child give him or her no real choice since it will be their only exposure.I guess they have a right to think this just as much as my friends who are for it based upon the concept that a marriage does not need a woman and a man to be called a marriage.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #59 of 76
DP

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
post #60 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>

My friends who are opposed are so because they feel their sexual orientation will bias the child's choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I must be an exception to the rule then. My parents were both straight yet I turned out gay.

J
post #61 of 76
Open recto-cranial pathway:

Ah, but your parents called you Jamie. With a unisex name, it's no wonder you turned out gay. They cut your chances of turning out hetero in half just by signing your birth certificate!

I think it's Germany where at one time you weren't allowed to give your child an ambiguous legal name, no boys names for girls and vice versa.

It's as good a theory as any. Then again, I always thought they should call unisex hair salons bisexual hair salons.

:brain fart over now.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #62 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>I thought someone would pick up on that, but you Belle! I credited you with a bit more intelligence</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you suggesting that My Two Dads wasn't highly intellectual viewing? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Or just that I'm the dumb in "dumbed down"?
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #63 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Open recto-cranial pathway:

Ah, but your parents called you Jamie. With a unisex name, it's no wonder you turned out gay. They cut your chances of turning out hetero in half just by signing your birth certificate!

&lt;snip&gt;

:brain fart over now.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh that must be it!!! It's because of my name!! Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh and for a brain fart you gotta have a brain in the first place

J
post #64 of 76
I for one think there ought to be more gay people out there, struggling, sorting out their sexual identity, full of fear, anxious about acceptance, miserable about rejection, etc etc...

We need a large pool of sexually conflicted people so that the rest of us don't have to feel so bad. OTOH, gays can at least blame an often unfriendly environment, what's my excuse?
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #65 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>what's my excuse?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Aren't you Canadian Matsu?

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
post #66 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>

Or just that I'm the dumb in "dumbed down"? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yay! You win the chocolate medal Belle!!

J :cool:
post #67 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>Yay! You win the chocolate medal Belle!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, somehow I don't feel glorious in this victory.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #68 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Hmm, somehow I don't feel glorious in this victory. </strong><hr></blockquote>

No no, you should! It's the biggest chocolate medal you've ever seen! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

(Sorry to go off topic here, it was all getting a bit queer anyway)

J :cool:
post #69 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>Exactly what does that mean?</strong><hr></blockquote>

That means that there is published research from credible zoologists and animal research organizations that documents sex-based relationships in animals of myriad species that would be considered "homosexual" in nature if they were compared to human relationships, meaning between members of the same gender.

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>Seriously.
Define tendencies. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You asked for it...

Main Entrytten·den·cy
Pronunciationt'ten-d&n(t)-sE
Functiontnoun
Inflected Form(s)tplural -cies
EtymologytMedieval Latin tendentia, from Latin tendent-, tendens, present participle of tendere
Datet1628
1 a : direction or approach toward a place, object, effect, or limit b : a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action
2 a : the purposeful trend of something written or said : AIM b : deliberate but indirect advocacy
synonyms TENDENCY, TREND, DRIFT, TENOR, CURRENT mean movement in a particular direction. TENDENCY implies an inclination sometimes amounting to an impelling force &lt;a general tendency toward inflation&gt;. TREND applies to the general direction maintained by a winding or irregular course &lt;the long-term trend of the stock market is upward&gt;. DRIFT may apply to a tendency determined by external forces &lt;the drift of the population away from large cities&gt; or it may apply to an underlying or obscure trend of meaning or discourse &lt;got the drift of her argument&gt;. TENOR stresses a clearly perceptible direction and a continuous, undeviating course &lt;the tenor of the times&gt;. CURRENT implies a clearly defined but not necessarily unalterable course &lt;an encounter that changed the current of my life&gt;.

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>You mean that even though animals mate with the opposite sex, that once in a while they like to "experiment"? I've heard about "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom but the only time I've heard about it is when there is a disproportionate amount of one gender than the other or complete lack thereof. (wow, re-reading that sentance, I believe that it is the worst sentance I've ever written. But you get my meaning, right? ) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't say that I know that all of the documented research on the sexual tendencies/preferences/"relations" of animals are verifiably correct, nor can I say I've read every piece of research in order to begin to do so, but observations have been made of animals attempting to reproduce with the same sex. Not in all circumstances was it due to overpopulation of a particular sex in a species within a certain area, but surely in a few it could be given that explanation.

In any case, it seems that you're trying to make excuses to negate a truth that may well prove that there is nothing inherently "unnatural" about homosexual relations from a reproductive/scientific point of view. Granted, humans and animals have a distinction, our intelligence and civilization, but the point which cannot be denied is that humans didn't make up homosexuality.

Whether it's physical or psychological, a defect or just another preference, it's nothing but a load of bull when someone's argument boils down to homosexuality being "unnatural." I could go on about for how long homosexuality has been a part of society, how long ago ancient civilizations had relations you would call "gay," but thought little of it. I could talk about many other walks of life and ways of living that are far less widespread today than homosexuality. Hell, look at computers, and how many goddamn teenage computer geeks just sit on their ass these days, staring at monitors and pounding on their keyboards all day long, stuffing ho-hos and mountain dew in their face. Did so many people do this 10 years ago? 20? What about 50 or 100 years ago? Not too many, if any at all. But is that so "unnatural" that you're going to disallow a computer junkie to adopt a child? That would be beyond ridiculous.

Now pretty soon we're going to get on the "But in the Bible it says..." bandwagon, and people are going to pull up all kinds of stupid quotes from the bible that could in some way be taken as sleeping with your own gender being sinful, but besides the usual reasons why that is stupid (the authenticity of bible text, the legitimacy of the bible itself, translations of the bible, and the numerous ways in which the metaphors in the bible can be taken, plus the US separation of church and state negating any bible arguments), I would say that I would bet my life that there passages in that old book which I could take and apply to my little analogy of computer geeks, and suddenly we'd be seeing roadside displays of "God HATES Geeks" and "Geeks will burn in Hell!"

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>So, dear Bradley, please clarify. I ask out of ignorance because I am ignorant. Tear down the veil and allow me to enter into the holiest of holies, that which can only be described as the vast and all encompassing light of your knowledge of the animal kingdom. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Come on now, don't be jealous kaboomer.. Leave the flames at OI.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #70 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>

Aren't you Canadian Matsu?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure, kick a guy when he's down.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #71 of 76
You know, Brad and Samantha, those are some long posts. Longer than I want to read. But as long as we're looking at nature for answers, did you know that studies have shown gay men to have, on average, larger penises, than straight men: God does have a sense of humor! So should we.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #72 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>studies have shown gay men to have, on average, larger penises, than straight men: God does have a sense of humor! So should we.</strong><hr></blockquote>

True. True.

J :cool:
post #73 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong> But as long as we're looking at nature for answers, did you know that studies have shown gay men to have, on average, larger penises, than straight men: God does have a sense of humor! So should we.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No wonder why I always find myself strangly attracted to Jamie! I always read his posts and think, "Damn that guy is funny, I'd like to meet him in person". Now I know why!


Wait...you are saying large penis = homosexuality, right?

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #74 of 76
That CAN'T be true! I'm not gay...
post #75 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>

No wonder why I always find myself strangly attracted to Jamie! I always read his posts and think, "Damn that guy is funny, I'd like to meet him in person". Now I know why!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Aww thanks Willoughby. I'll send you a pic if you like! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Wait...you are saying large penis = homosexuality, right?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it's on average. I'm sure there are a few straight men with large penises (or is it penii?).

J :cool:
post #76 of 76
Hehe. Oh you guys.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rosie O'Donnell & Gay Adoptions