The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Iraqi army gay love story

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Harold98
He does exist. You're just denying it to support your life of sin!


No he doesn't, and no freedom-loving individual would want him to exist, because no freedom-loving individual would want a permanent, immovable, celestial dictator controlling their every thought, every word, every action, and damning them to hellfire for not following a few stupid rules.
Original post by biglad2k16
I wish I could be happy at this but it's just plain wrong. Relationships are between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. What's the point of that relationship? They cant even have children and it's not the right environment in which to adopt children- where's the mother figure?


So every time the woman in a marriage hits the manopause she should get a divorce then?
Original post by Ciel.
You were raised by a 'normal' family I presume, and you're still messed up. So having a mother figure doesn't always help.


Savage
Original post by fayeztheman
Being gay is a choice and it does offend God. So if someone kills someone else, and it doesn't impact you, is that fine then?


The difference between murder and homosexuality is pretty obvious. Murder causes someone to get hurt and die. Homosexuality does not.

You're right that whether something affects you personally has no bearing on whether it's moral. The point was that homosexuality has no impact on anyone outside of the relationship.
Reply 44
Avatar for 2384911
2384911
3
Original post by Harold98
He does exist. You're just denying it to support your life of sin!


"Life of Sin"
I guess we should all have sexual relationships with little girls instead, mhm?

(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by biglad2k16
They cant even have children


Really? Gay people can't produce sperm?

and it's not the right environment in which to adopt children- where's the mother figure?


So you're saying that when a man's wife dies, from cancer or something like that, he's a bad parent and it's a terrible environment to raise children?
Reply 46
Avatar for 2384911
2384911
3
Original post by AlexanderHam
Really? Gay people can't produce sperm?



So you're saying that when a man's wife dies, from cancer or something like that, he's a bad parent and it's a terrible environment to raise children?


Why are people homophobic? :frown:
Original post by fayeztheman
It's not 'love', it's hatred for the Almighty.


Original post by fayeztheman
Being gay is a choice and it does offend God. So if someone kills someone else, and it doesn't impact you, is that fine then?


Original post by Harold98
He does exist. You're just denying it to support your life of sin!

Could u not??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????:colonhash:
Yeeee Boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii das so nice to hear. Bless dem yaas.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Really? Gay people can't produce sperm?



So you're saying that when a man's wife dies, from cancer or something like that, he's a bad parent and it's a terrible environment to raise children?


No and no
Original post by biglad2k16
No


They can't? That will come as a surprise given a gay friend of mine recently used his to successfully fertilise an egg.

and no


But that would be the consistent interpretation. If you don't believe that a widower father is an inferior parent then you are not being consistent, and thus you expose your hypocrisy
Original post by biglad2k16
I wish I could be happy at this but it's just plain wrong. Relationships are between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. What's the point of that relationship? They cant even have children and it's not the right environment in which to adopt children- where's the mother figure?





Original post by biglad2k16
No and no


Gay men can produce sperm you plonker. They can also get a woman pregnant. So all you need is a woman to agree to carry the child or donate an egg and bam, you got a child made by a gay man :colone:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly


Dang, those lads are so hot :sexface:

Gay men can produce sperm you plonker.


:lol: Brilliant. I don't know why but it just seems so funny when you called him a plonker, perfect word for him.

They can also get a woman pregnant. So all you need is a woman to agree to carry the child or donate an egg and bam, you got a child made by a gay man :colone:


Indeed. A friend of mine used his sperm to fertilise an egg donated by his partner's sister, implanted into a surrogate who will carry the child to term. Thus, the child will be genetically related to both of his parents, and the "mother" will not be one as such insofar as genetics go.

Several conservatives I've described this to are absolutely infuriated by it; the idea that a gay couple can have a child who is related to both of them. It makes them very angry that gay people could aspire to and achieve the sort of biological legitimacy they wished to restrict to heterosexuals.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam


Indeed. A friend of mine used his sperm to fertilise an egg donated by his sister, implanted into a surrogate who will carry the child to term. Thus, the child will be genetically related to both of his parents, and the "mother" will not be one as such insofar as genetics go.

Several conservatives I've described this to are absolutely infuriated by it; the idea that a gay couple can have a child who is related to both of them. It makes them very angry that gay people could aspire to and achieve the sort of biological legitimacy they wished to restrict to heterosexuals.


You have also got the insesctual angle to that to freak out conservatives even more :tongue:

With regard to the plonker comment. I have noticed on this forum that there is a big overlap between not having a great grasp of human biology and homophobia.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
X


Oops, I meant to say an egg donated by his partner's sister :lol: Obviously not from his sister. I think you got it anyway, though.

His sperm with his partner's sister's egg means the child has half the dad's genes through the sperm, and the other's dad's genes through the sister's egg (and because siblings are so close genetically, this is an excellent biological workaround)

That's why it infuriates conservatives, they don't want gay people to be able to have children that are related to both parents, they prefer there to be some issue, some limitation, something that prevents them from procreating in a way that passes on the genes of both partners and brings in the sort of genetic/biological admixture that heterosexual couples make when they procreate

With regard to the plonker comment. I have noticed on this forum that there is a big overlap between not having a great grasp of human biology and homophobia.


Totally. It's almost unbelievable how clueless these people are
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
Oops, I meant to say an egg donated by his partner's sister :lol: Obviously not from his sister. I think you got it anyway, though.



:rofl:
Original post by AlexanderHam
Oops, I meant to say an egg donated by his partner's sister :lol: Obviously not from his sister. I think you got it anyway, though.

His sperm with his partner's sister's egg means the child has half the dad's genes through the sperm, and the other's dad's genes through the sister's egg (and because siblings are so close genetically, this is an excellent biological workaround)

That's why it infuriates conservatives, they don't want gay people to be able to have children that are related to both parents, they prefer there to be some issue, some limitation, something that prevents them from procreating in a way that passes on the genes of both partners and brings in the sort of genetic/biological admixture that heterosexual couples make when they procreate



Totally. It's almost unbelievable how clueless these people are


Whilst this is good I do think adoption would be a better idea for people who can't concieve naturally.Although to be fair I think the same thing about straight couples who can't have children.There are a lot of unwanted kids and adoption seems to be the more practical solution.
Original post by Robby2312
Whilst this is good I do think adoption would be a better idea for people who can't concieve naturally.Although to be fair I think the same thing about straight couples who can't have children.There are a lot of unwanted kids and adoption seems to be the more practical solution.


What a patronising position. Thanks but we don't need your permission or your approval; your opinion on gay people's reproductive decisions is absolutely worthless and of no consequence to anyone but yourself.

It sounds like you don't like the idea of gay people having what heterosexual people can have; children who are the genetic product of both parents' families. Gay people also can have the entirely natural desire to procreate and have children to carry on their family line, in name and in genetic patrimony. And with modern technology we can do it too.

So no, I don't have any moral obligation to care for other people's children. You adopt if you want to, but I'm quite happy to have my own.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
Oops, I meant to say an egg donated by his partner's sister :lol: Obviously not from his sister. I think you got it anyway, though.

His sperm with his partner's sister's egg means the child has half the dad's genes through the sperm, and the other's dad's genes through the sister's egg (and because siblings are so close genetically, this is an excellent biological workaround)

That's why it infuriates conservatives, they don't want gay people to be able to have children that are related to both parents, they prefer there to be some issue, some limitation, something that prevents them from procreating in a way that passes on the genes of both partners and brings in the sort of genetic/biological admixture that heterosexual couples make when they procreate



Totally. It's almost unbelievable how clueless these people are


No it annoys conservatives because it's clearly something that's unnatural. If you want to have children, marry someone of the opposite sex. That's how it should be.
Original post by Ladbants
No it annoys conservatives because it's clearly something that's unnatural.


Unnatural? I have no idea what you could possibly mean (without being hypocritical or inconsistent, on which I give you the benefit of the doubt... for now). Please define "unnatural".

If you want to have children, marry someone of the opposite sex


Forgive me if your impotent command that I marry a woman seems worthless and laughable to me.

I will marry a man, thank you. We will have children who are both our genetic progeny, thank you. Your permission or approval means nothing to me, I neither require nor desire it.

That's how it should be.


According to who? Are you claiming to speak for the sky dictator or just for yourself?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you