Anyone against Transgender (sex change )?

[Parça do Neymar]

It is. It's absolutely unnecessary, but again, like you said, it's their body. Therefore it's their choice. By the way, and I do realize that I am changing the subject, that sentiment does not project to the act of abortion. Once a baby is conceived, it is no longer only the mother's body; therefore, she has no right, whatsoever, to deprive the life growing inside of her of an existence.

I just needed to put that out there. Seems there are too many people in favor of murdering innocent children nowadays, and mostly for the sake of satisfying some slut's poor decisions. Little abortion occurs due to sexual assault, incest, etc.

It's an appropriate commment, I agree with you. Condoms, after-morning-pills and an earnest prayer to God are all you need.

And I only hope this doesn't come back to bite me someday.

[barnumandbailey]

It's an appropriate commment, I agree with you. Condoms, after-morning-pills and an earnest prayer to God are all you need.

And I only hope this doesn't come back to bite me someday.

If it does, I still have complete faith that you'd make a wonderful parent. Just going off of what you believe. Those who are pro-life are generally ten times more enjoyable, respectable, and responsible than their counterparts; I recognize that that's a broad blanket statement, but I've almost always found it to be true. After all, four years ago I was a bitter, unpleasant "pro-choice" supporter; I have firsthand experience.

[zebruh]

It seems harmful

[Mopi Licinius Crassus]

these people need psychiatric help, not their genitals changed + hormone treatment

it's a form of mental illness and should be treated as such

[Parça do Neymar]

If it does, I still have complete faith that you'd make a wonderful parent. Just going off of what you believe. Those who are pro-life are generally ten times more enjoyable, respectable, and responsible than their counterparts; I recognize that that's a broad blanket statement, but I've almost always found it to be true. After all, four years ago I was a bitter, unpleasant "pro-choice" supporter; I have firsthand experience.

You're putting way too much faith on me.

The idea of becoming a father doesn't scare me, but the thought of becoming an inadequate father does. I don't want to see a child suffering because of my flaws as a parent, I would try my best, but I'm sure I'm not up the task.

[Hasien]

these people need psychiatric help, not their genitals changed + hormone treatment

it's a form of mental illness and should be treated as such

IQ 130-50 , must people don't see It the way unfortunately .

[renaissance12]

That's a difficult argument to dispute, because I happen to subscribe mostly to that same ideal. However, don't you think two loving fathers, or two loving mothers, are better than a father and mother, one of whom is abusive towards the children. Do you believe in exceptions, or are all homosexuals incapable of rearing children?

As usual .. a wrong comparison... Regard adoptions it makes no sense compare a crazy mother/father with everyone else...or taking the examples of families with unworthy or violent father and mother.... This family will never adopt a child in the civil society... and 2 gay fathers ( maybe in the future 3 fathers and 1 lesbian mother ?) are unworthy to adopt any baby... because the child has the right to have a mother and a father..
A child and a baby are not like a cat or dog you spent your time with..

[barnumandbailey]

As usual .. a wrong comparison... Regard adoptions it makes no sense compare a crazy mother/father with everyone else...or taking the examples of families with unworthy or violent father and mother.... This family will never adopt a child in the civil society… and 2 gay fathers ( maybe in the future 3 fathers and 1 lesbian mother ?) are unworthy to adopt any baby... because the child has the right to have a mother and a father..
A child and a baby are not like a cat or dog you spent your time with..

1. Yes, you're right in that unworthy heterosexual families will never be able to adopt in a civil society (due to all of the implied pre-requisites set forth by their country of residence, etc.), but unworthy heterosexual families are able to biologically reproduce, which renders your argument somewhat of a strawman. Homosexual couplings, obviously, are not able to naturally reproduce, and must either turn towards adoption or surrogacy, either of which require at least some form of vetting (especially the former).



2. I'm against this idea, too, but the fact that you're even bringing this up exemplifies the notion that you're simply grasping for straws with this argument, as this is highly unlikely to occur in reality. In theory, obviously, it's a wrong idea, but I doubt that this will ever be legalized in the future. The outrage would be too loud, justifiably, and whatever reforms which would have been made would almost instantly be repealed.



3. Yes, a child should, ideally, have a mother and father. However, your saying that two qualified men (or women) are unworthy of adoption is, quite frankly, a disgusting, outdated view. From personal experience, I myself can safely make the assertion that I'd make a better parent than you (I have a ton of experience in childcare). If my partner were similar in his capability to care for a child, why do you still view homosexual parenting as an improper, harmful concept? What can a woman teach that a man is incapable of? Genuinely curious.





Lastly, where did I ever imply that raising children is similar to owning a cat or a dog? If I did make that implication upthread, I apologize for the confusion, but you must realize that I genuinely want a large family to care for. How is that, in any way, comparable to what you suggested? Most people, in the first place, have children out of the "selfish" desire to propagate and continue their bloodline. That, to me, seems worse than your comparison, because at that point the act of procreation and starting a family comes down to pure, biological greed, rather than the desire to care for something.

I'm quite passionate about this issue, and although I realize that you don't mean for this to be a personal attack, it certainly feels that way. You have little clue just how phenomenal a parent I'd make; therefore, you're absolutely in the wrong with your claim that people such as myself should not be able to raise children with the partner of their choice. A couple's ability to raise a child properly and effectively is entirely situational, therefore varying from every homosexual and heterosexual couple. Just because a couple is heterosexual does not ensure that the child will be raised properly, nor does it ensure that the child will grow up in a competent household. Being a "good parent" is not limited to any particular sexuality; as I said earlier, it's entirely situational, and dependent on the character and ability of the parents.



I did not make a wrong comparison, at all; rather, it seems that you're attempting to exploit any angle of my argument to prove your point. I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.





*I added the italicized and highlighted text in the second-to-last paragraph, as I feel that it adds clarity to my argument*

[Gota_type_]

It's honestly a shame that you believe this. Some of us are regular people, who are not attracted to little, pre-teen, or pubescent boys. Sweeping generalizations benefit no one.



Just so you know, I personally don't seek to destroy the concept of the nuclear family, heterosexual coupling, etc. I just want to be able to have a family with my partner, all while being left alone. Not all of us yearn for you heterosexuals to bow down and kiss our feet. Just treat me with the kindness and respect every human deserves, unless I prove to you otherwise (I won't, because I'm a very pleasant, agreeable individual). Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

It is not what you want, it is other human life what he/she needs. A baby NEEDS a MAN and a WOMAN. Not allowing them to have a man and a woman is extremely egoistic from you gays.

Nature did not concede you the right to have children, so you have to accept it with your condition of gay, as a consequence of it. Before your supossed rights to "have a family" there is the NATURAL right of the boy to have a WOMAN as a mother and you don´t want him to have it and this is what the conflict arises.

And don´t put extreme examples of women with 45 years old that is using many procedures to try to have a baby. It is just medical help for that woman but she is going to have it in her womb. So, if 2 men are not capable to reproduce it is a consequence of your condition. I would say the same about 2 woman or a man alone or a woman alone. It is about the rights of the boys to have a FATHER and a MOTHER, which you don´t want. And you are winning in this again with all the victimism that your multiple NGO´s do. You invent some "rights" and then victimism, and the stupid politician concedes it. You claim about the "right" to have a family? Yes,you can have a family: you and your partner. That is all what nature concedes to gays. Or will you say to your mother that she was prescindible? Because that is what you want for your "son".

And I have nothing against you in particular as I am also saying that I am against only man or only woman to allow them having children. Then we blame on society for the future problems of many children that were born without a figure.

[barnumandbailey]

It is not what you want, it is other human life what he/she needs. A baby NEEDS a MAN and a WOMAN. Not allowing them to have a man and a woman is extremely egoistic from you gays.

Nature did not concede you the right to have children, so you have to accept it with your condition of gay, as a consequence of it. Before your supposed rights to "have a family" there is the NATURAL right of the boy to have a WOMAN as a mother and you don't want him to have it and this is what the conflict arises.

And don't put extreme examples of women with 45 years old that is using many procedures to try to have a baby. It is just medical help for that woman but she is going to have it in her womb. So, if 2 men are not capable to reproduce it is a consequence of your condition. I would say the same about 2 woman or a man alone or a woman alone. It is about the rights of the boys to have a FATHER and a MOTHER, which you don't want. And you are winning in this again with all the victimization that your multiple NGO's do. You invent some "rights" and then victimize, and the stupid politician concedes it. You claim about the "right" to have a family? Yes, you can have a family: you and your partner. That is all what nature concedes to gays. Or will you say to your mother that she was prescindible? Because that is what you want for your "son".

And I have nothing against you in particular as I am also saying that I am against only man or only woman to allow them having children. Then we blame on society for the future problems of many children that were born without a figure.

Fair enough; I really don't have anything to say as a valid response beyond personal attacks, which aren't really a response at all. You've been reasonable through this discussion (I'd like to think that I've been, too, but that's entirely up to you), and have provided some rational, yet unfortunate, ideas to consider.

It sucks being homosexual when you'd like to have children. What do you suggest, being that I want a family to the degree that I do? Sucking it up and marrying a woman, whom I likely wouldn't even be able to get it up for (without the aid of Viagra, at least). I'm perfectly capable of loving a woman, and making her feel needed, but sexual attraction is absolutely out of the question.



Also, what do you have to say when confronted with the fact that many women of my generation (I'm twenty one years old) are promiscuous sluts? If I were to have a family, I'd want to breed with a "high-quality" woman, per se; that is, a woman of a sound genetic background (this relates to the idea that physical beauty is directly correlated to one's health, and genetic fitness). However, these women, unless you manage to locate one in a society where the idea of "feminism" is discouraged, feel "empowered" to the point that they believe they deserve multiple partners, a hedonistic lifestyle, etc. Essentially, all of the best are prone to this degeneracy, while the genetic "trash" comprises the leftovers (although this, too, is a toss up, given that makeup exists and men's standards have lowered).

The motions of starting a high-quality family seem impossible to overcome, nowadays. Again, I'm all ears to any advice that you'd be willing to share.