You'd have to ask the medical professionals who removed homosexuality from the disease list.skip89 said:A disease is any factor which affects the body's normal condition. The reproductive organs are for reproduction. Therefore if a chemical imbalance entices behaviour to the contrary, then why isn't that a disease, seeing as it impairs normal function?
Sure, but not in any way acting on it, you admitted it yourself in your first sentence.kami said:Highlighting negative exceptions does not create grounds for permitting further negative exceptions, this is true, however outlining negative exceptions does permit one to challenge your definition of marriage as a concept surrounding nothing but procreation.
It would cost money if you actually want to enforce such a statutory declaration, why bother writing in laws if we're not going to even bother trying to enforce them? Lets save some trees eh?I'd also outline what I stated earlier, that the state could introduce regulations which would enforce procreation (such as statutory declaration of intent to reproduce and non-issue of marriage licences to the aged) which would not tax our resources whatsoever to practice. This would make marriage a procreative process in reality, and create further incentive to reproduce and have children within the nuclear model - things that you believe promote economic growth and correct values. However there is no legislation for this in any country, nor any move for anything resembling such legislation. Therefore it is logical to assume that no governmental authority considers these as negative exceptions to marriage itself, in spite of the introduction of incentives for reproduction which are enacted irrespective of one's own married status.
Well there's a difference between my opinion and the way I'm trying to argue this, although I admit one does commonly slip into the other from time to time, but no it doesen't really matter, enough taxpayer money goes down the drain on useless programs as it is, thusfar the marriage institution yields the needed results in terms of children, and if it aint broke, dont fix it.So you do not care if people marry who can't reproduce so long as they're straight? Doesn't that defeat the point of most of your argument?
Yeah because freezing sperm cells, that are meant to pass between bodies in a few seconds, in liquid nitrogen vats for weeks, months and years isn't going to lead to gene damage and quality reduction ... rightdagwoman said:Artificial insemination is no less safe than sexual intercourse.
No such thing as "gay parents" , unless you can show me an instance when a woman got another woman pregnant, or when a man got another man pregnant LOLGay parents are just as capable of raising children as straight people.
Straight people are the best at parenting, since they are the only ones actually capable of it, there is absolutely no better parenting structure than the nuclear family, becuase thats what nature intended, even children with separated parents have both a mom and dad.It's obvious straight people aren't any better at parenting, and children of gay parents are just as well adjusted and happy as children of straight parents. And they're more likely to be accepting of other people for who they are and respecting that, a quality you clearly don't have.
Never rule out agenda opinion, I know for a fact many of the medical organisations have been or are infiltrated by gays, and thus their agenda.gerhard said:not a mental disease because theres no convergent validity with other diseases.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
Lol. That's a good one.bshoc said:Never rule out agenda opinion, I know for a fact many of the medical organisations have been or are infiltrated by gays, and thus their agenda.
Kerryn Phelps was in charge of the AMA not too long ago ..._dhj_ said:Lol. That's a good one.
The way you put it was rather amusing.bshoc said:Kerryn Phelps was in charge of the AMA not too long ago ...
I agree, but I disagree that its incurable, if the US's top psychologists are to be believed .._dhj_ said:The way you put it was rather amusing.
"I'm actually of the view that homosexuality is probably a "disease", albeit an incureable one. That does not mean that we should treat them as second-class citizens however, just as we shouldn't treat people born with any disease any differently.
That shit doesn't cut it any more. Do most humans live only directly as nature intended, given that nature has intentions?bshoc said:As many people pointed out in this thread already, if nature intended gays to have children, they would be granted the necessary biological features.
I'm only expressing my views and if they happen to be similar with that of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so be it.gerhard said:omg dhj why side with bshoc for jesus christ
So if my wife's infertile except via IVF, it's best that I knock up the next door neighbour then take the baby?bshoc said:Well if I could and wanted to get pregnant, I would at least take the step of concieving the child in the safest way, if you're not willing to do that, you're not really ready to have a child.
I'm by no means suggesting that it be done, gays shouldn't have children period, and if they do, the state should intervene and take them away, and possibly send the gays to prison for a few years for legal violations.
Stop defending yourself, what you did was wrong._dhj_ said:I'm only expressing my views and if they happen to be similar with that of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so be it.
Who the fuck do you think you are?dieburndie said:Stop defending yourself, what you did was wrong.
If there is not other choice, then IVF is the last resort, afterall the child will have a proper father since IVF is just out of the womb fertilisationwithoutaface said:So if my wife's infertile except via IVF, it's best that I knock up the next door neighbour then take the baby?