Why Homosexual Couples Shouldn't Have Children (or, Only In America)

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by SociableMartian
Don't you think they will blame all the problems that might come out of their disability, all the advantages of hearing that they may long for and will never have?

They migh or they might not. Who knows? I live a limited life because of my rheumatism, can't do sports or any exhausting activity. That's why I'm always here. Should I blame my parents because they choose to have me allthough they knew my granparents from both father's and mother's side had rheumatism? And my mother has rheumatism.

Remember they live a more limited and dangerous life without an important sense. You can't say that being able to hear speech, listen to music, and generally hear the world around you is not worth it.

One of my best friends is deaf. She does not live a limited life. For excample: she can go to clubs and dance to the music(!). You could never tell that she is deaf. She "feels" the beat though her body. She has lots of friends, both deaf and us "normal".
I can't understand bulgarian speech, am I missing a important part of life? Deaf have their own language. They do not have a life without communication. I can only sign the basic of deaf "talk", but I can "talk" with my deaf friend without any problems. Notepad and a pen are a must.
Because of my deaf friend, and the "culture" she showed me I can not see deafness as a disability.

Also, you can't say they couldn't give a child with hearing just as full a life.

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that it doesn't make a difference.

Deaf parents have children with perfect hearing all the time. I'd love to know what their reason for having a deaf child is. To perpertuate 'deaf culture' perhaps??

I can't answer that.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-


People like this will, with great propability, give that child a good childhood full of love and care. That is a bad thing? I've seen enough of "normal" healthy children growing in disease, poverty and pain. Why is it such a bad thing to give birth to a child with a good chance for happy life?

Instead of giving the child a chance at being able to hear(by choosing a father without genetic deafness), they are ensuring that the child will be deaf (by choosing a father with genetic deafness). You dont see a problem with this? How can you call this "loving"???

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Instead of giving the child a chance at being able to hear(by choosing a father without genetic deafness), they are ensuring that the child will be deaf (by choosing a father with genetic deafness). You dont see a problem with this? How can you call this "loving"???

First, as I explained above I don't see deafness as a disability.
Second, the two woman in question have a good chance of giving that child a good life. Deafness does not prevent a good and happy life. Or does it?

[Oldenbarnevelt]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
"They should be imprisoned."

Why?

Probably because it's a sacred British tradition to put innocent people behind bars.

[Az]

Originally posted by boann
bod , you need to go retake reading 1 again.
this has nothing to do with their sexuality.
its because they are both DEAF also.

I fully agree. The fact they're stupid has nothing to do with their homosexuality.


and also , I don't think the government should pay any welfare. Sadly , we can't do anything else about it. At the moment, that is.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Thats exactly the reason why. Many deaf people dont see being deaf as a disability, and in todays politically correct society anything that has the word "culture" attached to it will be fawned over by dewy-eyed liberals.

Intentionally having a child that is deaf, or refusing a deaf chiild the chance to hear is child abuse IMO.

So you're making a generalization about liberals based on stereotypes?

I'm a moderate liberal, the extreme liberalism of places like Berkley scare me.

As for deliberately having deaf babies -- I do not see that as something that should be supported, regardless of sexual orientation.

Boddington is implying that everything that goes wrong with conceiving children, or adoption is the fault of only homosexual couples, and not heterosexual couples.

His ignorant, and unfair, distorted claims are getting old.

[Solly]

Originally posted by MrFun


So you're making a generalization about liberals based on stereotypes?

I'm a moderate liberal, the extreme liberalism of places like Berkley scare me.

As for deliberately having deaf babies -- I do not see that as something that should be supported, regardless of sexual orientation.

Boddington is implying that everything that goes wrong with conceiving children, or adoption is the fault of only homosexual couples, and not heterosexual couples.

His ignorant, and unfair, distorted claims are getting old.

What a surprise, MrFun tried to defend child-abusing bastards just because they happen to be homosexual.

[Aeson]

It definitely has nothing to do with their sexuality. There have been several stories about heterosexual couples choosing to have children "against the genetic odds", knowing their children will be at high risk, or even guaranteed, to have a a genetic disorder.

I personally have struggled with depression all my life. It is a hereditary trait in both sides of my family. I would never bring a child into the world knowing they had an increased risk of suffering from the same genetic problems. I can't understand how any parent would do so knowingly, whatever the disorder may be. To actually request such a thing is horrific.

Being deaf isn't the end of the world, but it certainly isn't something people are choosing to become on a regular basis.

[Guynemer]

2.3/10

But you did get Mr. Fun to respond, so I suppose your troll was successful.

[Az]

The problem is that they want to have a deaf baby, not to "try against the odds"!

and Boddington's ... MrFun was not defending them, simply saying that it has nothing to do with them being gay.

[red_jon]

I certainly do not condone doing this to children, I read the article in the paper today. Deliberately giving a child a disability is wrong - it would be different if the man with the disability was part of a relationship with the mother, but he's essentially a doner - and one who was rejected by sperm banks .

The people who did this did it because they are deaf, not because they are gay. This should not reflect on gay couples adopting (and the parents seem pretty selfish - this would also harm gay rights movements )

Infat is just bitter because no girl in her right mind would ever go out with the sexist homophobe

[Solly]

Originally posted by red_jon
I certainly do not condone doing this to children, I read the article in the paper today. Deliberately giving a child a disability is wrong - it would be different if the man with the disability was part of a relationship with the mother, but he's essentially a doner - and one who was rejected by sperm banks .

The people who did this did it because they are deaf, not because they are gay. This should not reflect on gay couples adopting (and the parents seem pretty selfish - this would also harm gay rights movements )

Infat is just bitter because no girl in her right mind would ever go out with the sexist homophobe

Ha ha. Proved wrong again.

No guy in their right mind would go out with the sexist heterophobes that are you and MrFun.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boddington's


Ha ha. Proved wrong again.

No guy in their right mind would go out with the sexist heterophobes that are you and MrFun.

And how exactly am I a heterophobe? And sexist? That's a laugh.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
The problem is that they want to have a deaf baby, not to "try against the odds"!

and Boddington's ... MrFun was not defending them, simply saying that it has nothing to do with them being gay.

Thanks for reading and understanding my claim and argument.

Boddington apparently did not understand what I said. What a big surprise.

No one should deliberately conceive a child with a disability. READ my posts more carefully, Boddington.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Boddington's


Ha ha. Proved wrong again.

Yes you were. -ottok

No guy in their right mind would go out with the sexist heterophobes that are you and MrFun.

I'm a heterophobe, all who have hurt me were heteros. Most of the murderers are heterosexuals and dare I point out that most of the republicans are heterosexuals (gasp!). Maybe that's why I'm engaged to a slightly bi, must mostly hetero girl.