Rosie O'donnell is Gay

[Guynemer]

I can kinda see where you're coming from, but...

Perhaps what you aren't aware of is a movement in this country to outlaw homosexuals from adopting children. In some states, such as Florida, it's already de facto law.

I'm arguing that homosexuals have the right to be given equal consideration in adoption... does that make more sense?

[Lung]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I can kinda see where you're coming from, but...

Perhaps what you aren't aware of is a movement in this country to outlaw homosexuals from adopting children. In some states, such as Florida, it's already de facto law.

I'm arguing that homosexuals have the right to be given equal consideration in adoption... does that make more sense?

Yes, i know what you're talking about. It just doesn't seem right to me, but there are grey areas which make it difficult to argue against. As far as the "right" goes, they can have children, but it involves committing a heterosexual act. For some reason they seem to object to this, but of course if they did, would that make it okay? I won't delve too deeply into this argument because it quickly becomes bogged down in grey areas, and i won't lose sleep over it because it doesn't affect me, and besides, there are more important issues to worry about.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lung


Yes, i know what you're talking about. It just doesn't seem right to me, but there are grey areas which make it difficult to argue against. As far as the "right" goes, they can have children, but it involves committing a heterosexual act. For some reason they seem to object to this, but of course if they did, would that make it okay? I won't delve too deeply into this argument because it quickly becomes bogged down in grey areas, and i won't lose sleep over it because it doesn't affect me, and besides, there are more important issues to worry about.

Ever hear of sperm banks?
Ever hear of surrogate mothers?
Ever hear of adoption?
Ever hear of test tube fetuses?

For the last time -- direct, actual sex between two people of opposite gender is no longer the only way to conceive. Not even with surrogate mothers -- they can receive the sperm without sex.

And this is definitely an important issue -- just not in your opinion.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by MrFun
Well Faded, now I know that the extent of your argumentation skills is that you use insults against people.

Thanks -- at least I know not to waste anymore time with you in any future discussions or arguments.

Nice Bloated Toad actually.

But no where close. Acually I dont 8 hours of spare time a day to argue these things. I had to go. So...whatever.

I disengage from this. For the same reason as Lungster. It doesnt concern me, and my opinion on this issue doesnt make a whole lot of difference. I didnt like Chubb's before. I dont like her now.....even moreso.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by faded glory
Dont "ignorant" me or anybody else.

Why not? You're consistently one of the most ignorant posters here, gas pumper.

Dont let your mouth write checks your fat ass cant cash.

You do all the time - or maybe it is true that it's your ass which cashes those checks - you leave it hangin' out in the breeze often enough.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Why not? You're consistently one of the most ignorant posters here, gas pumper.



You do all the time - or maybe it is true that it's your ass which cashes those checks - you leave it hangin' out in the breeze often enough.

I do not understand this strange phenomena -- this is the SECOND time MTG has agreed with me on something!!

[Lung]

Originally posted by MrFun


Ever hear of sperm banks?
Ever hear of surrogate mothers?
Ever hear of adoption?
Ever hear of test tube fetuses?

For the last time -- direct, actual sex between two people of opposite gender is no longer the only way to conceive. Not even with surrogate mothers -- they can receive the sperm without sex.

And this is definitely an important issue -- just not in your opinion.

What i was saying that you can exercise your right to procreate any time you want You don't want to, but you still want children, hence my original statement about arseholes

And yes, i have heard of those things I simply don't see it as a "right" to have access to such things, as the most important right is that of the child. The only reason i won't take to the streets against homosexual adoption, etcetera, is that i don't have to look far to see parents who do not deserve to bring up children, regardless of their ability to rear them naturally or not.

And no, this is not an important issue to anyone except those with a vested self-interest in it. Don't pretend that it is your god-given right when what it really comes down to is "i have cash, and loads of it. Let me adopt children because i can".

Don't kid yourself that it is a right, when it is more political than moral

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lung


What i was saying that you can exercise your right to procreate any time you want You don't want to, but you still want children, hence my original statement about arseholes

And yes, i have heard of those things I simply don't see it as a "right" to have access to such things, as the most important right is that of the child. The only reason i won't take to the streets against homosexual adoption, etcetera, is that i don't have to look far to see parents who do not deserve to bring up children, regardless of their ability to rear them naturally or not.

And no, this is not an important issue to anyone except those with a vested self-interest in it. Don't pretend that it is your god-given right when what it really comes down to is "i have cash, and loads of it. Let me adopt children because i can".

Don't kid yourself that it is a right, when it is more political than moral

Homosexuals do not have the inherent attraction towards the opposite gender that heterosexuals have. So therefore, the conceivement methods that I listed above should be perfectly legal (and they are for heterosexuals) to have a child of their own.

Since homosexuals do not have any inherent attraction towards the opposite gender, how do you propose that homosexual couples obtain a child??

[Lung]

Originally posted by MrFun


Homosexuals do not have the inherent attraction towards the opposite gender that heterosexuals have. So therefore, the conceivement methods that I listed above should be perfectly legal (and they are for heterosexuals) to have a child of their own.

Since homosexuals do not have any inherent attraction towards the opposite gender, how do you propose that homosexual couples obtain a child??

Do i have to spell it out?

Hey, i don't really expect you to - i just wanted to hear you cringe at the thought

Your first paragraph is one of the "grey areas" i was talking about earlier, and i refuse to lose any sleep over it

[MrFun]

Sorry, but there is no grey area in terms of sexual attraction.

Heterosexuals -- attracted to the opposite gender

Homosexuals -- attracted to the same gender

Bisexuals -- attracted to both genders

Do not try to tell me that you can change what gender one is inherently attracted to. But if that's your opinion, no one is perfect.

[Lung]

Originally posted by MrFun
Sorry, but there is no grey area in terms of sexual attraction.

Heterosexuals -- attracted to the opposite gender

Homosexuals -- attracted to the same gender

Bisexuals -- attracted to both genders

Do not try to tell me that you can change what gender one is inherently attracted to. But if that's your opinion, no one is perfect.

What drugs are you on?

I was referring to the artifical conceivement methods that grey the distinction between heterosexual couples who otherwise could have children and homosexual couples who otherwise couldn't.

Of course, you would have to include asexual couples in this, although i haven't actually met anyone who was asexual

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lung


What drugs are you on?

I was referring to the artifical conceivement methods that grey the distinction between heterosexual couples who otherwise could have children and homosexual couples who otherwise couldn't.

Of course, you would have to include asexual couples in this, although i haven't actually met anyone who was asexual

But it's legal to conceive children through artificial methods for heterosexuals, so I do not see anything wrong with heterosexual couples who do the same thing.

Unless, you're advocating a double standard?? If so, then you're argument is not even ethical.

And no drugs here.

[Lung]

Originally posted by MrFun


But it's legal to conceive children through artificial methods for heterosexuals, so I do not see anything wrong with heterosexual couples who do the same thing.

Unless, you're advocating a double standard?? If so, then you're argument is not even ethical.

As i said, the first paragraph is the grey area i originally talked about. And no, it's not cut and dried, as it's not natural for a homosexual couple to bear children, but with artificial methods available for heterosexual couples to have children, the case for homosexual couples is enhanced.

In any case, i no longer care anymore

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Coming a little late to this thread -- burden of being GMT +2 -- but just a quick observation:

Yesterday Brittany Spears' "people" held yet another press conference "clarifying" here current romantic status and her relationship with Justin Timberlake. I am embarrassed that I don't know my sister's phone number, my father-in-law's birthday, or most of my students' last names, but I know this. I'll bet a lot of you know it, too (and, btw, here's a fine cartoon on the topic). I also know that Brittany Spears is, or claims to be, a virgin. I'll bet a lot of you knew that, too.

My point is that way-too-much information is the very stock-in-trade of celebrity. Yet no one here rants about Brittany's disclosures, or the strange domestic world of Angela and Billy Bob, or so on, with anything like the sheer, unmitigated hatred that's on display here. It makes me wonder exactly what button the Rosie disclosure is pushing, and what that says about those whose buttons are being pushed.

[Jac de Molay]

It makes me wonder exactly what button the Rosie disclosure is pushing, and what that says about those whose buttons are being pushed.

My buttons are pushed because she's taking something that seems integral to the gay identity like "coming out"*, and using it in a backhanded way to push herself back into the spotlight, pure and simple. Celebrity gossip is one thing, but ole Rosie has a way of using the bully pulpit to shove her issue du jour in our faces. She needs to do us a favor and get over herself.

Dave

*im straight