The Gay Marriage/Parade Thread

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:53 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I am all for them being able to marry, but in the sense that they can every fully enjoy childbirth, the rigors of raising offspring, and watching them blossom into the wonderful individuals all children become is something that will never be afforded to them through natural means-aside from a proxy such as adoption.

Because straight people never have difficulties conceiving and adopted children are less loved having been adopted :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I'm talking about as whole of a species.

Yeah but queers aren't the whole of our species so you aren't talking about the "whole of a species".

Semantics, and don't try to misconstrue the broader context of my point.

You're assuming that everyone wants to or even should have children. And that isn't correct.

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe shouldn't have children?

One example: drug addicts. I have no large social group in mind but some people never mature enough and never become selfless enough to care for another life besides their own. Is that fine with you?

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I never said they shouldn't have children, I said by virtue of biological fact (no brainer I know), that they could never enjoying the rearing of them biologically, without a proxy as adoption.

And how is that a problem? I think they know the stakes prior to going all-in.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:57 pm

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I am all for them being able to marry, but in the sense that they can every fully enjoy childbirth, the rigors of raising offspring, and watching them blossom into the wonderful individuals all children become is something that will never be afforded to them through natural means-aside from a proxy such as adoption.

Because straight people never have difficulties conceiving and adopted children are less loved having been adopted :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I'm talking about as whole of a species.

Yeah but queers aren't the whole of our species so you aren't talking about the "whole of a species".

Semantics, and don't try to misconstrue the broader context of my point.

You're assuming that everyone wants to or even should have children. And that isn't correct.

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe shouldn't have children?

One example: drug addicts. It's no large social group but some people never mature enough and never become selfless enough to care for another life besides their own. Is that fine with you?

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I never said they shouldn't have children, I said by virtue of biological fact (no brainer I know), that they could never enjoying the rearing of them biologically, without a proxy as adoption.

And how is that a problem? I think they know the stakes prior to going all-in.

Oh, I don't care, I was just wondering. No need to get yer panties all bunched up. That woud include a lot of inner city folk, obviously.
Interesting.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:13 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I am all for them being able to marry, but in the sense that they can every fully enjoy childbirth, the rigors of raising offspring, and watching them blossom into the wonderful individuals all children become is something that will never be afforded to them through natural means-aside from a proxy such as adoption.

Because straight people never have difficulties conceiving and adopted children are less loved having been adopted :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I'm talking about as whole of a species.

Yeah but queers aren't the whole of our species so you aren't talking about the "whole of a species".

Semantics, and don't try to misconstrue the broader context of my point.

You're assuming that everyone wants to or even should have children. And that isn't correct.

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe shouldn't have children?

One example: drug addicts. It's no large social group but some people never mature enough and never become selfless enough to care for another life besides their own. Is that fine with you?

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I never said they shouldn't have children, I said by virtue of biological fact (no brainer I know), that they could never enjoying the rearing of them biologically, without a proxy as adoption.

And how is that a problem? I think they know the stakes prior to going all-in.

Oh, I don't care, I was just wondering. No need to get yer panties all bunched up. That woud include a lot of inner city folk, obviously.
Interesting.

It would include a lot of inner city folk, yes. It would include a lot of rural folk too. Don't forget about crystal. What it would ultimately include is just a lot of poor folk. But it's only one example of a form of selfishness. The extremely, wealthy materialistic folk who have kids and pawn them off on nannies shouldn't have children just because they can afford them.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:17 pm

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I am all for them being able to marry, but in the sense that they can every fully enjoy childbirth, the rigors of raising offspring, and watching them blossom into the wonderful individuals all children become is something that will never be afforded to them through natural means-aside from a proxy such as adoption.

Because straight people never have difficulties conceiving and adopted children are less loved having been adopted :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I'm talking about as whole of a species.

Yeah but queers aren't the whole of our species so you aren't talking about the "whole of a species".

Semantics, and don't try to misconstrue the broader context of my point.

You're assuming that everyone wants to or even should have children. And that isn't correct.

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe shouldn't have children?

One example: drug addicts. It's no large social group but some people never mature enough and never become selfless enough to care for another life besides their own. Is that fine with you?

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

I never said they shouldn't have children, I said by virtue of biological fact (no brainer I know), that they could never enjoying the rearing of them biologically, without a proxy as adoption.

And how is that a problem? I think they know the stakes prior to going all-in.

Oh, I don't care, I was just wondering. No need to get yer panties all bunched up. That woud include a lot of inner city folk, obviously.
Interesting.

It would include a lot of inner city folk, yes. It would include a lot of rural folk too. Don't forget about crystal. What it would ultimately include is just a lot of poor folk. But it's only one example of a form of selfishness. The extremely, wealthy materialistic folk who have kids and pawn them off on nannies shouldn't have children just because they can afford them.

So now we are deciding who should and should not have children, are we?

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:41 pm

Deciding only from my own personal opinion. I wouldn't ever advocate it as policy. I know people personally that are shitty parents for no apparent reason, they just are and I don't think they should have kids. All I'm saying.

Metal Reviews

The Gay Marriage/Parade Thread

Who is online