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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Admit it, this was your aim when you started this thread.

Good troll, indeed!

[MrFun]

Imran, and you notice how Boddington has not responded to me after I told him to reread my argument??

Clearly he twisted my argument around, when he in fact, knew what I meant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He got you upset... so he succeeded very nicely.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He got you upset... so he succeeded very nicely.

Yeah, I guess I'm a person with feelings.

But I was surprised with the last argument he made -- he managed to produce an argument that was not overtly offensive, as I stated in my counter-argument.

imagine

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said he was a troll, not that he was bright .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I said he was a troll, not that he was bright .

When we find something to agree on, it comes down to this??

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes... now be go and be happy

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Caligastia


What do you see it as? A "culture"?

If you think thats all it is then why dont you expand your cultural horizons by puncturing your eardrums?

Hard to find the right word for it, but I see it as a "way of life".
I hope some one can discuss this matter in a civilized manner.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Let's agree that what they did is wrong.
So, in order to prevent things like this from happening in the future you need a legislation to prevent certain people from having offspring. I.E. no sex without condom for you, freek!
Why do I think about Nazi Germany

[Provost Harrison]

No Vagrant, that 'no sex without a condom' is totally unenforceable. It's forced sterilisation that would be used.



You can tell some people haven't thought this out very thoroughly. All for rights of the individual, and then deal in concepts such as forced sterilisation, which is probably one of the greatest breaches of civil liberties you could imagine.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

You can tell some people haven't thought this out very thoroughly. All for rights of the individual, and then deal in concepts such as forced sterilisation, which is probably one of the greatest breaches of civil liberties you could imagine.

I'm not saying that what they did was right. However I am conserned about how things like this are gonna be prevented. If they should be prevented...

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

[Provost Harrison]

Perhaps a more mature form of 'designer babies' in the future will be the norm where you can select a large proportion of the genetic makeup of your child, but applied in terms of removing deleterious genes.

[Az]

yes! like in 'What happened in Gataka'!

*looks at himself*



but yes, I think that this is the right way to go. PH

[Kropotkin]

So you are smart, good-looking and have a bad heart Dalgetti? Three suprises at once!

[SociableMartian]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-


Hard to find the right word for it, but I see it as a "way of life".
I hope some one can discuss this matter in a civilized manner.

A way of life it may be, but that does not mean that it's not at all disadvantageous. I still say it's cruel to deliberately bring a disabled baby into the world.

And to all you saying that some parents attempt to bring children into the world despite the fact they have a high chance of inheriting genetic disabilities: It's not the same, these people CHOSE the baby BECAUSE it would be deaf, straight parents HOPE their baby will NOT be disable. This couple chose their baby for it's disability, and for no other reason. They don't care weather it will be male or female, tall or short, fat or thin, no, they want it to be deaf. This baby is just a political statement and no human should be brought down to that level.