• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can gay people have babies

M

mee

Gay people can not have babies. The reason that gay marriages need to be banned is because if we all become gay there will be no more humans. Two women or two men can not produce a child its not possible. There is no reason to influence kids that being Gay is ok becuase like I said there would be no way of reproduction.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
How does legalizing gay marriage lead to everyone becoming gay? Can you reference any studies that demonstrate that the legalization of gay marriage has led to a flood of people deciding to be gay? Are you of the opinion that the vast majority of people harbor attraction to the same sex, but are just waiting for gay marriage before they unleash their desires?
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
135
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Thoygh gay couples can't physically have babies, they can still have loving families with chidren. I gay couple at my church has a little boy whom they clearly love very much.

It's sad that some people feel the only kind of family that is legitimate is Mom, Pop, Suzie, Joey, and Spark the dog.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I agree, I think a gay couple like most straight couples would make great parents. And I think they would respect their child's straightness, only 1 in 10 people are gay or have gay tendicies I think and it's always been like that. Civilisation has no become gayer, its just that gay people can "come out" now without being threatened. There has always been homosexuality in humans I believe, there always will be.

My only concern is will these children of gay parents, get bullied in school? I think it's likely, my most homophobic time was in high school, I'm sad to say I was disgusted by gays.

Thankfully I'm cured of this homophobia. Funny how the homophobic like homoerotism (wrestling is a prime example), two men, half naked rolling on top of each other. Hmm yet they get freaked at two men holding hands lol.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, I for one am eternally grateful that 2 men cannot produce a baby!


However, if sexuality was so easily influenced there would be no gay men or lesbians. People would have "decided" to be straight through the ages and there would have been no gay movement.

I believe that with regard to parenthood, we are just like straight people. Most would make good parents and some (like me) would make bad parents.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
GarzaUK said:
Civilisation has no become gayer, its just that gay people can "come out" now without being threatened.
If that were only true. Wasn't too long ago that a gay man in the state of Wyoming was beaten, tied to a fence in the middle of winter and left for dead. Where he indeed did die. I'd say that's more than just being threatened.
 

grlnxtdoor1982

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
mee said:
Gay people can not have babies. The reason that gay marriages need to be banned is because if we all become gay there will be no more humans. Two women or two men can not produce a child its not possible. There is no reason to influence kids that being Gay is ok becuase like I said there would be no way of reproduction.

Become Gay? How funny is that! it's not a disease it doesn't spread. People are still going to be straight if they're straight. There's no reason to influence kids to be gay. Last I saw people were born with thier own minds and free will. So, it's not ok to influence being gay but it is ok to influence hate.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If gay people had children, I think their kids would accept diversity better. Even having a gay section for politics is pitiful, we shouldn't worry about anyone but ourselves. Try and worry and fix you faulst instead of dictating what others should do.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
grlnxtdoor1982 said:
Become Gay? How funny is that! it's not a disease it doesn't spread. People are still going to be straight if they're straight. There's no reason to influence kids to be gay. Last I saw people were born with thier own minds and free will. So, it's not ok to influence being gay but it is ok to influence hate.
So, people can't be turned gay? Oh, thank-you so much for letting me know that. I can finally sleep. Ever since I saw James Dobson on Fox News the other day talking about Sponge Bob being able to turn people gay, well I've just been racked with fear. See, I saw "Sponge Bob the Movie" last month with my wife. I figured with both of us seeing it, at the same time even, the odds were in the little guys favor to snare one of us. Not sure what would have happen to our marriage then. Finally a nights sleep.
 

grlnxtdoor1982

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Pacridge said:
So, people can't be turned gay? Oh, thank-you so much for letting me know that. I can finally sleep. Ever since I saw James Dobson on Fox News the other day talking about Sponge Bob being able to turn people gay, well I've just been racked with fear. See, I saw "Sponge Bob the Movie" last month with my wife. I figured with both of us seeing it, at the same time even, the odds were in the little guys favor to snare one of us. Not sure what would have happen to our marriage then. Finally a nights sleep.

RIGHT! OK! Good cause I sure can't tell you know the difference.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pacridge said:
Ever since I saw James Dobson on Fox News the other day talking about Sponge Bob being able to turn people gay, well I've just been racked with fear.
Ah the ever so credible fox news, I heard about this spongebob thing. Is it just me or is fox news just getting more pathetic. I think it is trying to top the "freedom fries" - jesus that was the most pathetic, immature, juvenile think a NATION has ever done.

Anyway I've learned that the job of probably all American news channels is to spread fear. Now kids cant watch spongebob without being corrupted, oh my lordy heaven! You guys should be more like us - easy going "If it happens, who gives a f**k." lol
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
grlnxtdoor1982 said:
RIGHT! OK! Good cause I sure can't tell you know the difference.
You can't tell I know the difference between what? I'm kind of lost here. You realize my post was entirely in jest, right?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mee said:
Gay people can not have babies.
Yes they can. Your debate starts off with a fallacy.

mee said:
The reason that gay marriages need to be banned is because if we all become gay there will be no more humans.
Syllogistic logic. Gay marriages do not increase or decrease population of humans and/or gays. If you believe that it does, please prove that statement.

mee said:
Two women or two men can not produce a child its not possible.
Yes it is. Please get yourself updated on facts before making these statements.

mee said:
There is no reason to influence kids that being Gay is ok becuase like I said there would be no way of reproduction.
So, gay ISN'T ok because there is no reproduction. Is that what you're REALLY saying? But a straight couple, a man and a woman, is OK? What about when the woman is infertile or the man is impotent and one or the other CAN'T reproduce? Should they still be allowed to marry even though their marriage produces no offspring? Is that your basis for allowance of marriage, if the marriage can produce children? Please elucidate your opinion in case I'm misconstruing it, otherwise, it's complete mararky.
 

AmongstTheFallen

New member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Virginia
Hmmmm....So being gay automatically means you can't be a good parent? Please explain how this is true. I personally am not gay, but I know people who are gay and they're not any different than the rest of us save for their sexual preference. I've never met a gay person who had something against a heterosexual or tried to force homosexuality onto another person either. Most homosexuals are respectful of others and would not try to force their sexual preference on a child. In fact, I have 2 good friends who are perfectly straight, yet their parents are lesbians.

As for homosexuals having babies, you are definitely wrong. In todays world homosexuals have the option to adopt, or artificial insemination. (If state law allows it.) Both of these are legitimate ways of obtaining a child so IMO they should be counted as a way of "having babies".

Face it, the world is changing. I am willing to put money on a bet that 50 years from now people will look back on us and laugh at how stupid we are in our prejudices. Just like we do now when we look back at segregation and the civil rights movement.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
:
Originally Posted by mee
Two women or two men can not produce a child its not possible.

"Yes it is. Please get yourself updated on facts before making these statements"

I think you will admit that two men certainly can't. The last woman who had a child without the involvement of a man was Mary, and not everyone believes that.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
"Yes it is. Please get yourself updated on facts before making these statements"

I think you will admit that two men certainly can't. The last woman who had a child without the involvement of a man was Mary, and not everyone believes that.
No I won't. If you would've followed my link you would've seen that point elucidated. Here's the relevant info from the New Scientist link:
As reported in the journal Science and explained in The Washington Post, scientists have used mouse embryonic stem cells to create mouse eggs in the laboratory. Interestingly, the mouse eggs were created from both male and female cells -- indicating that males have the biological capacity to produce eggs, the Post said.
It's propensity is indeed evident.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
As reported in the journal Science and explained in The Washington Post, scientists have used mouse embryonic stem cells to create mouse eggs in the laboratory. Interestingly, the mouse eggs were created from both male and female cells -- indicating that males have the biological capacity to produce eggs, the Post said.
And you take this to mean that two men may produce babies?
You might similarly take it to mean that ONE man or, for that matter, woman, can produce a baby. :rolleyes:
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
And you take this to mean that two men may produce babies?
You might similarly take it to mean that ONE man or, for that matter, woman, can produce a baby. :rolleyes:
One or two. Eggs need to get fertilized still.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
AmongstTheFallen said:
Hmmmm....So being gay automatically means you can't be a good parent? Please explain how this is true. I personally am not gay, but I know people who are gay and they're not any different than the rest of us save for their sexual preference. I've never met a gay person who had something against a heterosexual or tried to force homosexuality onto another person either. Most homosexuals are respectful of others and would not try to force their sexual preference on a child. In fact, I have 2 good friends who are perfectly straight, yet their parents are lesbians.

As for homosexuals having babies, you are definitely wrong. In todays world homosexuals have the option to adopt, or artificial insemination. (If state law allows it.) Both of these are legitimate ways of obtaining a child so IMO they should be counted as a way of "having babies".

Face it, the world is changing. I am willing to put money on a bet that 50 years from now people will look back on us and laugh at how stupid we are in our prejudices. Just like we do now when we look back at segregation and the civil rights movement.
Honestly, I have nothing to add to that except for one thing...sexual orientation should not be the precursor to anything political.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't see how letting gay people get married will lead to everybody becoming gay and hence leading to extinction. And this whole test tube babies from two dudes... It makes the brows furrow if you get my drift. They can certainly adopt and I think that's as far as we should go. Scientifically making a man get pregnant I think is tampering with nature.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

This is an incredibly touchy subject, because it involves not just the rights of homosexuals, but also the ultimate well being of a child. On one hand, I feel strongly that the absolute very best situation for a child to grow up in is one where he or she has a set of loving and happily married heterosexual parents. I think that the role of a father and a mother are simply irreplaceable to a child, because both sexes offer something that the other cannot through parenthood. But, I certainly do not think that homosexual parenthood would be any different than a single parent household, other than that their are essentially two caretakers. I guess I just really would want to endorse the necessity for anyone who is planning on having a child to be incredibly sure that the person you are planning on marrying and having this child with is someone that would be a wonderful parent to that child and a wonderful spouse to you. Otherwise, do not risk having a child. Now, all of that is all personal view from my own personal family, from the argument my fiance (who grew up in a single parent home) and from my own experiences dealing with children from homes of happy, loving heterosexual parents, not very good heterosexual parents, single parent households, homoesexual parent households etc.
But the real question is should there be a law against it? As amuch as I am concerned with a household that falls outside of what I honestly believe to be God's will for a family, I simply cannot come up with a legal reason why I think that it ought to be the government's call. On a private level, I think it ought to be the right of an adoption organization to deny to allow a child in to any home they might consider questionable, for instance if it is (and it often is) a religious organization. However, that being said, there is not a logical reason for their to be a legal ban or initiative for it either way.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Blue Hobgoblin said:
Thoygh gay couples can't physically have babies, they can still have loving families with chidren. I gay couple at my church has a little boy whom they clearly love very much.

It's sad that some people feel the only kind of family that is legitimate is Mom, Pop, Suzie, Joey, and Spark the dog.
I believe that gays can be loving and caring people, and even more loving than a lot of others. What kind of church do you go to?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
sebastiansdreams said:
This is an incredibly touchy subject, because it involves not just the rights of homosexuals, but also the ultimate well being of a child. On one hand, I feel strongly that the absolute very best situation for a child to grow up in is one where he or she has a set of loving and happily married heterosexual parents. I think that the role of a father and a mother are simply irreplaceable to a child, because both sexes offer something that the other cannot through parenthood. But, I certainly do not think that homosexual parenthood would be any different than a single parent household, other than that their are essentially two caretakers. I guess I just really would want to endorse the necessity for anyone who is planning on having a child to be incredibly sure that the person you are planning on marrying and having this child with is someone that would be a wonderful parent to that child and a wonderful spouse to you. Otherwise, do not risk having a child. Now, all of that is all personal view from my own personal family, from the argument my fiance (who grew up in a single parent home) and from my own experiences dealing with children from homes of happy, loving heterosexual parents, not very good heterosexual parents, single parent households, homoesexual parent households etc.
But the real question is should there be a law against it? As amuch as I am concerned with a household that falls outside of what I honestly believe to be God's will for a family, I simply cannot come up with a legal reason why I think that it ought to be the government's call. On a private level, I think it ought to be the right of an adoption organization to deny to allow a child in to any home they might consider questionable, for instance if it is (and it often is) a religious organization. However, that being said, there is not a logical reason for their to be a legal ban or initiative for it either way.
Seems logical.
 

Cinnamon

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
sebastiansdreams said:
This is an incredibly touchy subject, because it involves not just the rights of homosexuals, but also the ultimate well being of a child. On one hand, I feel strongly that the absolute very best situation for a child to grow up in is one where he or she has a set of loving and happily married heterosexual parents. I think that the role of a father and a mother are simply irreplaceable to a child, because both sexes offer something that the other cannot through parenthood. But, I certainly do not think that homosexual parenthood would be any different than a single parent household, other than that their are essentially two caretakers.
Agreed!
Gay unions with kids are just as bad for the children as single parent households or households where one or the other gender parent is not there enough to be an effective parent. The issue goes beyond gay vs straight. It involves the welfare of the children.

Nevertheless, a good case can be made for getting government out of the role of overseeing the welfare of children. Instead just leave it up to the parents or parent. If gays and lesbians want government out of that role then they should defend getting government out of the role of overseeing the welfare of children in all respects. If a single parent wants to raise a child in the company of wolves, as a barefoot, hide-clothed, child of nature -- the government should leave them alone. Is there any line beyond which government should get involved? Oops, that question begs for more discussion threads.
 
Top Bottom