My experiences were QUITE the opposite. They're some of the most smug, self-righteous, misandric people ever. Of course, they use fundraisers for violence against women and lesbian rights as fronts to appear legitimate humanitarians, but the reality is quite different. Lesbians, with their ideological entwinement with feminism, continually scapegoat men for their problems and perpetuate misandry to ultimately advance their cause for a one-world matriarchal government.

I'm too lazy to go in to long, drawn out Sontagian method of counseling you on my worldview; either you agree with it, or you don't. If you don't see it, I'll understand why. But don't dismiss my intellectual capabilities. When push comes to shove, I'll fight tooth and nail.

The writer's name is Jim Goad (for whatever reason, he chose a pseudonym that time). If you want to debate him, feel free.

Other reads relevant to your interests:
http://www.jimgoad.net/am4pdf/intro.pdf

And you call yourself crusthead?!

Well, crustpunk rules, no doubt... I enjoy it for its musical style but Id rather put myself before the music. If its really all about thinking for ones self, then thats all doing.

Typically crust is strongly anti-bigotry, that's all.

Anywho, I think your point about the children of homosexual parents is rather unfounded. The only reason the child would be worse off would be because of bigots.

I think that openly being homosexual in public (e.g. kissing another man) is wrong. Not because I am a Christian, for I certainly am not, but because it is offensive to so many people. Being homosexual or bisexual in private is fine, it is absolutely none of my business. However, I hate it when men like myself are bashed for hugging another man as a friend, or saying I love you to another man. I would never kiss another man.

To the fans of Satanic Black Metal, did you know that your idol Gaahl of Gorgoroth is actually gay?

Firstly, why should they not be allowed to kiss in public when straights are?

Secondly, yes, everyone knows Gaahl is gay. Jesus Christ people, give it a rest!

@beast in black

Its not just because of bigots.
Even if the kid grew up in a world without bigots, he would see that his peers have a mom and dad and that he is in the awkward position of having 2 gay men for 'parents'. Gay parents are a complete parody of the real meaning of the word.
A mother and father play a very important role in a childs upbringing and no one should fool themselves into thinking that they can simply be substituded by gay couples who decide to adopt a kid because society allows them to. Sure, they can love a child and raise him, perhaps even better than some 'normal' parents... but it still will not solve the kids dilemma.

The kid would basically get used to add an extra dimension to the gay relationship... like a fancy accessory in their pretend game of 'marraige'.
Its not the real thing, so why should they fool themselves into thinking it is? And just when did society get fooled into accepting this as 'normal' behaviour?

All Im saying, is that if they want to be gay and use their bodies as they please, they can go ahead as they are not living in Nazi Germany and they dont have any pink triangles to fear. But their demand to marry and adopt is tantamount to a microscopic minority manipulating the rest of society, rewriting rules, redefining social institutions like marraige to get what they want.

Straights kissing in public is normal. Everyone sees it. But most people are disgusted by gays kissing in public. It disgusts me for one.

I'll agree it is annoying, but in all fairness, if society impose restrictions for one, it'll have to apply it to all lest its hypocrisy become apparent and activists pitch a fit.

I've learned to ignore public kissing for the most part. If I pay any attention to public displays of affection, hetero or homo, I'd regard it with aloof derision.

By your logic there, Single parents should also not be allowed. You're saying the kid sees people with a mother and father, and that's why it's wrong. Children to single parents also see kids with an extra parent to them...

If the kid needed a role model of the opposite sex, they could always turn to their grandparents and uncle/aunties.

I still cannot see what you have against marriage though.

The single parent is usually the biological parent of the child. So at least one biological parent is far better than 2 gays adopting an unrelated kid.
Some kind of a legitimate bond, no matter how feeble, exists.

The gay couple may love their adopted kid to death, but its still Superficial..and 'parenthood' arises as a mere add-on to their lifestyle.

But when gays try raising a kid who isnt even the biological offspring of one partner, thats bound to make things messy, because of the reason I stated earlier.

Its hardly about role models...its about the immediate family the kid needs. And there is simply no way, a gay couple can replace the role of a mother and father, or even a single biological parent. No matter, how mainstream media portrays it or promotes it.

Liberal society can only go so far as to allow gays to co-exist...enjoy rights to work, vote etc. Thats about it. Handing them every thing that they fancy like marraige and adoption rights(traditionally reserved for straight couples) is pushing it...and furthermore, makes a mockery out of the very concepts and institutions of marraige and families...Concepts and institutions that have remained unchanged for millenia across cultures.

And by no criteria does catering to gay demands here in the 21st century, read as being "progressive".

Not really. The child would suffer mass amount of bullying by regular kids in grade school possibly going into early high school, after which then the only people who continue the behavior would be bigots. I'd imagine that there'd be a substantial increase in youth suicide rates if homosexuals were allowed to adopt.


Nonetheless, I think the option of homosexual parentage is better than an orphanage. Or continually being cycled through pedophile-infested foster homes.

So its adopted parents you're against?



Maybe I just live in a good neighborhood, but I have never known kids to be bullied for reasons such as that. there may be jokes, but I've always found people in schools to be very accepting of people.

What do you guys and gals think about people that define themselves by their orientation? There is a lady at my school who calls herself a lesbian, and calls constant attention to it by wearing shirts with such clever slogans as "I (heart) Pussy" and other less tastefull cunnilingus euphemisms.

She sports the classic short and spiked butch cut hair-do and frequently cat-calls girls passing in the hall. This is just a taste of what she does to draw attention to her professed sexuality. I haven't met a straight man this obnoxious in with his sexuality.

I know other gay people who are pretty realistic about it, if asked they don't shy away from telling you straight up that they are homosexual. But they are at least classy about it.

No. Just against gays adopting kids.

Well, I cannot contest your personal experiences. However, personal experiences are put together from two parts: the observed reality, and your individual perspective on it, which need not be a perspective that other people share.


That, to me, comes across as merely pathetically paranoid.


Thank you. I think I don't need counseling on my worldview from you.


Can't dismiss what I can't see... Not interested in fighting either. An extreme activity like fighting has got to be worth whatever's spent on it.


Though a little obnoxious, I think that type of behavior is understandable in people who have just discovered they are homosexual. They perceive themselves to be different from (the majority of) people around them, which puts them in an isolated and somewhat awkward position, sometimes aggrieved by idiots who make fun of them or otherwise express their dislike of a personality trait that they can do nothing about. In such an exposed situation, you can either sink back into the fold in shame and become a closet homosexual, or go with the other extreme and stress your outsider role, by the usual method of "attack is the best defense".

This is typically only a brief phase in someone who has just come out, but it can be prolonged in people who tend to low self-esteem. It's really a way of acquiring that self-esteem in the face of unspoken opposition, or what is perceived as such; being different can be sufficient in its own to interpret anything on the other side as opposition. This feeling isolated, seeking out kindred souls, and being defensive or aggressive about one's sexuality may also account for some of the experiences Muhammadabbadabba seems to have had, but normally it's just a sort of passing pride and becoming aware of one's own special position, a position that, to put it in Manowarese, you can either defend honorably or wimp out on.

You don't explain why homosexuals shouldn't adopt, as opposed to a straight couple.

I can't honestly understand the disdain for homosexuality. Why the hell should it even be an issue?

Yet a lot of you're argument seems to say how bad adoption is, not how bad gay parenting is.

EDIT: Yeah, Grynfisher sums what I meant up. Except I know why you think gays shouldn't adopt, it is just that your argument talks of the negative effects of adoption, not so much gay adoption specifically.

If that is the sole reason you think heterosexuality is more "legitimate" than homosexuality, does that mean you would also class a hetero couple who stays childless out of choice as less legitimate? What about heteros who are only interested in sex for purley personal pleasure? Or a man being with a woman who cannot bear children, would you class that as less legitimate as well? If not, then there must be other reasons you class homosexuality as less legitimate.



I think the traditional "hetero mother and father" setup plays a far less important role in a child's upbringing than some would like to believe. The vast majority of gay people were raised in that setup, but it didn't stop them from becoming gay, did it? And saying that gays "pretend at marriage" is your opinion, it's not a statement of fact. Likewise, saying the adopted kid in question would be just a "fashion accessory". While I'm not saying there aren't a small amount of gays who would do that, it doesnt mean that a gay person is any less capable of showing love and care to a child than a heterosexual person. And also, plenty of straight people have kids just because it's seen as "the done thing", or for other frivolous reasons. Those traits are not exclusive to homosexuality, and you're kidding yourself if you think that.

And again, just because TO YOU it's not normal behaviour, doesn't mean it isn't. An opinion doesn't make it a statement of fact. If people are born gay, which i and lots of other people believe as well, then how can it not be normal behaviour?

And straight couples are hardly a shining example of marriage, and morality either. Most marriages end in divorce, so i think heteros are wrecking the "institution" of marriage quite well enough on their own. And i don't think gays are a "microscopic" minority at all.

The sole issue i have with gays adopting kids, is the bullying some of the kids would suffer because of that. However, i see that as more a damning verdict on prejudice in our society, than any direct problem with gay parents.

And the lesser of two evils, its much better a child be with loving gay parents, than hetero ones who would abuse them, and not show them love.



I personally find that very distasteful, but i also think greysnow has a point as well. But yep, anyone who is publicly overt in their sexuality, gay or straight, i find very offputting.

I'd love to see your psychological credential some time, crusty...

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

It was.

Non-sarcastic way of putting it would be "didn't stop them from being gay".

Um, how many kids with homosexual parents do you know exactly?


I wasn't going on how many cases like that I know (which is zero), just the general nature of children.

^True, I know none, I've always found kids to be pretty accepting though.

My answer is yes to all three of your questions.

I concur, besides, given the track record that the government has fucking up kids who stay in the system, a loving home is preferable to being stuck in some crappy orphanage for your entire childhood, regardless to what orientation we're talking about.

a lot of how a child learns he gets from his parental units.If he's a male then he is supposed to act like a normal m an when he reaches adulthood. If the parents are gay then he has no role models to try to copy when dealing with the rites of maturing and puberty, meeting women , dating and social mores, et al. it might sound like a good idea but overall its not. the child usually ends up trying to emulate the parents.

"Normal" is a pretty relative term. I see what you're saying and I can definitely agree that it won't happen well 100% of the time, but gays aren't stupid, they can teach the kids how to act "like a normal man." And if not, the kid can still grow up in a loving environment with all of the necessary elements except a mother/father figure. There are ways around it.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying there's any guarantee.

Well, a gay man would have gone through nearly everything a child will, the only thing a gay would have trouble helping a kid with would be dating women.

And what do you mean like normal male?

Please tidy your typing when using the Symposium, yogibear.

You know perfectly well what he means. Homosexuality is unusual conduct. It might be that in any given population, 2% do it, but it's still abnormal. It's also plain that they can't have children. Part of the child-rearing process is the commitment to raising one of your own, ie your own flesh and blood. When it gets tough, I would probably be more prone to say, hey why bother? its not like i have any relation to this kid, and just take off.

OK, let's make adoption illegal too then.

There are plenty of people who abandon their own kids whom they are the biological parents of.

Adoption by a MARRIED COUPLE is in no way comparable to homosexual adoption. Stop making silly arguments

How so? You argued that if a child is not brought up by it's biological parents, the parents are more likely to not care.

And of course, all married couples are happy and good...

Homosexual couples adopting kids is just currently a bad idea. Various "they'll get teased at school" arguments aside, it seems logical that the best way for a kid to get raised is with a male/female couple. I wanted to avoid this word but gay couples raising kids is just plain unnatural. It may not be harmful to the kid but as far as I know there's not a lot of research into it, and it should just be assumed that a kid growing up needs the right mix of masculine/feminine influence; seeing as it's the way that it's been done over the last few millenia or so.

I'm sure someone will bring up (or has already brought up) "But the biological parents might be abusive". So? This would also apply to gay couples; it's a moot point to say the least.

Random note: I'm not really opposed to any other area of gay rights re: marriage, age of consent etc. I don't really care either way, as it does not affect me in the slightest. Adoption, however, is clearly not a good idea until we know more about how living with same sex parents will effect the kid.

How exactly will we learn that though? There really is no other way to learn it then to see it happen. I'm not against gays adopting, but if I was, it would be sadistic of me to put a kid into something I'm opposed of just to see the results.

I'm sure you were thinking of something else though.

Well yeah, that's the problem. Not really sure how you'd be able to find it out.

But by the "must have male and female influence" argument, you could say single parents are unnatural.

And I would agree with that statement. The ideal family unit would involve a mother and a father.

Of course, removing a kid from his mother/father and putting him with some foster parents because of a divorce or death or whatever would likely be worse for the kid then if he had just a single carer.

Well, life isn't ideal, unfortunately. Unless an unusual family is specifically harming a child, I don't think we should all be striving for those perfect setups.