Social Debate 2016: If you could prevent your child from being ? , would you?

MsSouthern wrote: »

Plutarch wrote: »

MsSouthern wrote: »

I wouldn't care if my child was ?


I care if they are happy and living the life they want

I don't get this "happiness" talk. Haven't you guys considered that being ? might make them unhappy? Many ? have said that they wish that they were straight and that they hate being ? .

Anyway, I wouldn't do a damn thing. I won't play ? . Bad things happen when you play ? . Let nature run its course, for better or worse.

Many ? ?

I don't believe that

There are alot of "refined" ? in church...

2 stepz posted magic son, this ? is wildin

8 or so dudes said no, all i can say is social conditioning is real. They keep pushing to u that ? is okay, and whether consciously or subconsciously its affecting you.

StoneColdMikey wrote: »

stormfront thread.

You are at a prenatal visit, tests come back that they have recognized dark skin gene in the fetus.

They have a one dose drug, that has been proven to not have any side effects. The drug will 100% guarantee that your child will NOT be tan

Would you want the drug taken?

Edit: Wait , 8 people gave that ? 'ether'

Ol Jay's wrote: »

2stepz_ahead wrote: »

what does a ? son have to do with you and your happiness...

how is it stopping you from being you....

ask magic...the guy with aids AND a ? son.

dont seem like either of them give a fukk

an he a gigantic ? motherfukka too..

? is like a flaming planet


Magic Johnson net worth: Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. is a retired American basketball player and entrepreneur who has a net worth of $500 million.

Magic is ashamed of that ? , think about it, how many times have you seen Magic in pictures with that ?

Most people I know, including me, say they never knew Magic had a son until the big jolly ? started prancing around in the spotlight a few years ago

damobb2deep wrote: »

Rahlow wrote: »

I cant imagine wanting to walk my son down the ailse and give him away to another man in a wedding. I guess some of you are made for this

lol funny this is a reason why I said I was against ? marriage... but not against civil unions... I have no problem with you "loving who you want" and honestly getting benefits for that.. but if marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman... let that religious aspect stay..

but that should not stop a person from receiving "union" benefits...



im sure if the government said "churches don't have to marry you under the fact that it's a religious institution... but court houses do because it's not... and marriage is between a man and a woman but civil unions are between whoever and under law they are equal" who should have a problem with that?

(I got so many negative reactions for that lol)

lol don't know who "no signed this" @vibe @likewater I'm on my phone but what is the problem with that?

VIBE wrote: »

Religion has no business in marriage, they aren't even the reason for it. They're absolutely, individually entitled to disagree with it, but not to implement it.

wtf you mean! if two people want to get married under their ? in a church then they have the right to call it marriage.... most people who believe in any union whether it be marriage... polygamy.. what ever is usually done under religious pretenses.. now all you changing between the institution "marriage" and "civil union" is a damn word... if people so caught up on a ? word than what it represents then you are just being ? at that point. ..


I know you are an extremely left wing dude and atheist and all but if you are that close minded to accept the fact that we have the right to believe what we want... religious institutions should be able to practice their religious beliefs the way they want.. and that has NO EFFECT on the government because technically marriage is a "civil union" and they would be equal just called different things... you just want to be "happy" that religion has "less and less power" (which means you have a crooked thought process to think religion is a bad thing and must be "stopped")

jono wrote: »

? hating themselves comes from persecution not the fact they are ? .

You can make anyone hate themselves through constant mistreatment. You mention societies where homosexuals are harrassed and beaten for no reason.

What if I said your child would be female in China where they have been known to throw female babies away, would you change the gender of your kid?

I agree and disagree. I know, understand, and agree with what you're talking about, but that doesn't change my original point. You're talking about something else.

But even still, ? hating themselves =/= ? hating being ? . ? can still hate being ? without hating themselves. Being ? doesn't or shouldn't define one's identity. And ? hating being ? doesn't always come from persecution.

Trillaaaaaa wrote: »

Plutarch wrote: »

^^^ What? You really find it hard to believe that many ? wish that they were straight and hate being ? ? You should get out more. Don't you think that being ? in America might lead one to live a difficult and depressing life? How about being ? in Jamaica? Or Saudi Arabia? What do you think I mean by "many?" "Many" just means "a lot." ? , many ? can mean 50 ? .

But you might be missing my point. Even if "few" was a more accurate term, the point is that there are ? who wish that they were straight and hate being ? . And if you want your children to go about being "happy and living the life they want," then them being ? might the very thing that you don't want.

They probably want to be straight because of the way society treats them, not because they don't like being ?

See my post above. But yes, i agree. But it's also probable that they want to straight because they intrinsically don't like being ? .

damobb2deep wrote: »

MsSouthern wrote: »

Plutarch wrote: »

MsSouthern wrote: »

I wouldn't care if my child was ?


I care if they are happy and living the life they want

I don't get this "happiness" talk. Haven't you guys considered that being ? might make them unhappy? Many ? have said that they wish that they were straight and that they hate being ? .

Anyway, I wouldn't do a damn thing. I won't play ? . Bad things happen when you play ? . Let nature run its course, for better or worse.

Many ? ?

I don't believe that

There are alot of "refined" ? in church...

Yeah...

damobb2deep wrote: »

Trillaaaaaa wrote: »

Plutarch wrote: »

^^^ What? You really find it hard to believe that many ? wish that they were straight and hate being ? ? You should get out more. Don't you think that being ? in America might lead one to live a difficult and depressing life? How about being ? in Jamaica? Or Saudi Arabia? What do you think I mean by "many?" "Many" just means "a lot." ? , many ? can mean 50 ? .

But you might be missing my point. Even if "few" was a more accurate term, the point is that there are ? who wish that they were straight and hate being ? . And if you want your children to go about being "happy and living the life they want," then them being ? might the very thing that you don't want.

They probably want to be straight because of the way society treats them, not because they don't like being ?

not true.... I know a few ? people who dont like the fact they have those feelings... it usually stems from molestation...

Yes. I think that a lot of people (and I was one of them) think that all or most ? are "born ? ." I've heard that research actually says that it's a 50/50 split between nature and nurture. And you'd be crazy to think that what happens during one's childhood isn't a major influence. A boy who gets repeatedly molested by men isn't probably going to reach adulthood with a clear sense of his sexuality.

VIBE wrote: »

damobb2deep wrote: »

VIBE wrote: »

Religion has no business in marriage, they aren't even the reason for it. They're absolutely, individually entitled to disagree with it, but not to implement it.

wtf you mean! if two people want to get married under their ? in a church then they have the right to call it marriage.... most people who believe in any union whether it be marriage... polygamy.. what ever is usually done under religious pretenses.. now all you changing between the institution "marriage" and "civil union" is a damn word... if people so caught up on a ? word than what it represents then you are just being ? at that point. ..

Anyone should be able to get MARRIED period. The word 'marriage' doesn't only mean 'man and woman' but between 'two people who love each other'. Although, the original idea of marriage was selling off your daughter and the man owning her as property, it had nothing to do with actual love and family. I'm not even up in arms about the wording either, that's for the religious folks.

I know you are an extremely left wing dude and atheist and all but if you are that close minded to accept the fact that we have the right to believe what we want... religious institutions should be able to practice their religious beliefs the way they want.. and that has NO EFFECT on the government because technically marriage is a "civil union" and they would be equal just called different things... you just want to be "happy" that religion has "less and less power" (which means you have a crooked thought process to think religion is a bad thing and must be "stopped")

Where do you get all this from? Did I not just say that the individual has the absolute right to disagree with homosexuality? Yeah, I did. My problem w religion is they are hateful towards homosexuals and are against them having the right to be married; they refuse to even marry them. Why? Because of biblical tradition. Have it their way and they would absolutely want same-sex marriage to be against the law. They speak against it as if it should be against the law anyways.

That's my gripe, not their belief, but how they speak against something with such hate and bigotry.

It's all hilarious, anyways.

But you're right, religion needs less power in our society. Keep your churches, bibles and beliefs but stay out of politics, law and society. It's that simple.

lol the same bigotry you say "they do" you are doing so how is that right?

btw you can say "they" have hatred.. because I consider myself a Christian and when have you ever saw me right anything outside of "I don't agree but I tolerant of it".... their are plenty Christian people out there like that... there are plenty of churches that accept ? ... im not saying there are not people out there that dont accept them.. but their religion has nothing to do with that... and if they try to use that as an excuse then that's actually an issue they have to deal with ? with..

and I see you are caught up on the word not the meaning... which is dumb imo but hey it is what it is..


? wanted equal rights... so I'm sure if a ? person had the choice to be able to see their spouse in the hospital or not... be able to be on their will or not or have any other benefit of being in a union with who they love legally or not.. a damn word does not matter... the rights do..

I'm also sure the people who were against ? marriage were not against them having rights.. and again if some did then you are right they are bigots but guess what they still living *shrugs* and those ? have rights..


again I feel when you are too far left or right in politics you actually show your ignorance in obvious ways... there is no absolute one way or the other... you have to be close to the middle..

yes, and if I could prevent them from being an english major I'd do that too. There's real ? out here to worry about without making ? choices.

VIBE wrote: »

damobb2deep wrote: »

VIBE wrote: »

damobb2deep wrote: »

VIBE wrote: »

Religion has no business in marriage, they aren't even the reason for it. They're absolutely, individually entitled to disagree with it, but not to implement it.

wtf you mean! if two people want to get married under their ? in a church then they have the right to call it marriage.... most people who believe in any union whether it be marriage... polygamy.. what ever is usually done under religious pretenses.. now all you changing between the institution "marriage" and "civil union" is a damn word... if people so caught up on a ? word than what it represents then you are just being ? at that point. ..

Anyone should be able to get MARRIED period. The word 'marriage' doesn't only mean 'man and woman' but between 'two people who love each other'. Although, the original idea of marriage was selling off your daughter and the man owning her as property, it had nothing to do with actual love and family. I'm not even up in arms about the wording either, that's for the religious folks.

I know you are an extremely left wing dude and atheist and all but if you are that close minded to accept the fact that we have the right to believe what we want... religious institutions should be able to practice their religious beliefs the way they want.. and that has NO EFFECT on the government because technically marriage is a "civil union" and they would be equal just called different things... you just want to be "happy" that religion has "less and less power" (which means you have a crooked thought process to think religion is a bad thing and must be "stopped")

Where do you get all this from? Did I not just say that the individual has the absolute right to disagree with homosexuality? Yeah, I did. My problem w religion is they are hateful towards homosexuals and are against them having the right to be married; they refuse to even marry them. Why? Because of biblical tradition. Have it their way and they would absolutely want same-sex marriage to be against the law. They speak against it as if it should be against the law anyways.

That's my gripe, not their belief, but how they speak against something with such hate and bigotry.

It's all hilarious, anyways.

But you're right, religion needs less power in our society. Keep your churches, bibles and beliefs but stay out of politics, law and society. It's that simple.

lol the same bigotry you say "they do" you are doing so how is that right?

btw you can say "they" have hatred.. because I consider myself a Christian and when have you ever saw me right anything outside of "I don't agree but I tolerant of it".... their are plenty Christian people out there like that... there are plenty of churches that accept ? ... im not saying there are not people out there that dont accept them.. but their religion has nothing to do with that... and if they try to use that as an excuse then that's actually an issue they have to deal with ? with..

and I see you are caught up on the word not the meaning... which is dumb imo but hey it is what it is..


? wanted equal rights... so I'm sure if a ? person had the choice to be able to see their spouse in the hospital or not... be able to be on their will or not or have any other benefit of being in a union with who they love legally or not.. a damn word does not matter... the rights do..

I'm also sure the people who were against ? marriage were not against them having rights.. and again if some did then you are right they are bigots but guess what they still living *shrugs* and those ? have rights..


again I feel when you are too far left or right in politics you actually show your ignorance in obvious ways... there is no absolute one way or the other... you have to be close to the middle..

Bigotry from me? I may dislike and disagree with their beliefs but I would never hatefully attack them. I do not think they have any say so in politics/society. And they do, just look at the presidents with their beliefs. Especially the republicans.

The majority of Christians are against it because of their belief in ? /the bible. In that belief they believe that "marriage" is only between a man and woman and that ? can have a "union". Although, it's said "they do have the same rights", it's only at the state level. They do not receive the same benefits or recognition as married couples do.

Funny you say that I'm tied up on a word/meaning but you keep saying "oh they don't have to be 'married', they can have a union, same ? " - the same ? other Christians say. Well, let them have that union then, right? Let's see them squirm about being attacked.

You may be different than most Christians, but, you are not most Christians, whom the majority of America hears and sees in politics, media and Hollywod, who are mouthpieces and speak on behalf of the church. That Kim Davis woman is their idol. She's how most Christians feel.

I'm done, though, not going back and forth. We are saying nothing.

you are looking for affirmation about this subject... honestly I am too.. me going to church and me seeing how people accepting the people with homosexuality tendencies shows me that we are tolerant of them... you seeing people on tv or read articles of people voicing their opinion against them gives you that view point.. hey it is what it is... but to tell you the truth I'm not stuck on the word.. ? the government can say "hey from this point forward every person comes together legally at a court house has a civil union... every person comes together under religious pretenses are under a religious union... they are both equal under law... the word "marriage" will not be used legally" guess what I would not give a ? .. my point was the benefits of being with the person you love is more important than a ? word... ? "marriage" is an English word... they call it different ? in different languages... but guess what it means the same thing and the benefits are the same...

MsSouthern wrote: »

I wouldn't care if my child was ?


I care if they are happy and living the life they want

People keep saying this but are forgetting that if the "? gene" was taken out hypothetically than they would be living the lie they want because they would no longer have the ? gene. How would they not be happy when their instinct would be that of a heterosexual?