Spinster Tax

[johnklepac]

Myeah, I have to kind of agree. It is possible to explain intentions over the internet, by explaining them, and expressing oneself in such a way that they become clear to a semi-literate person (a lot of people who read the internet are, I honestly think, functionally illiterate and unable to understand the point of what they read no matter how well it's formulated, so no point trying to make yourself clear for those people. But here on Unilang we're mostly reasonably literate.). Sure, you're not obligated to, but if people misunderstanding you is something you (jonklepac) find unfortunate then being more clear is one solution.

That's what I tried to do with linguoboy. I just meant that I can't prove it beyond doubt.

[Aenye]

Your gay bother chose to deny the fact of nature that it takes male and female to make a child

How do you know he's really denying that fact? As for me as a gay person (hi), I already know how mammalian biology works, so no need to tell me or anyone that. Ever. We're not stupid.

No, no, no, I am as entitled as anyone else to complain about having issues getting a kid or two whether you like it or not. My sexuality or "lifestyle" are purely irrelevant. It is not a choice to me at all to have a female partner because seriously, it would be a very fake and unhappy relationship. Why should I do that to myself? Why should I do that to the lady? Why should I do that to the child(ren) born out of that relationship? That's not a healthy family structure, really. Do you really think that I get a male partner just because I find it so much thrilling to have so much stupid, old crap from people who couldn't mind their bloody business about my "unusual, unnatural relationship"? What a twisted, wishful-thinking mind you've got, apparently.

haha, the greatest issue you have is the one you created for yourself in the first place.

This part of your post completely contradicts your alleged knowledge of facts of nature. Or is it that you are saying that children shouldn't be with their own parents?
This is where we differ.

that they - male and female- as child's parents make that child's family.

There are no damning evidences that having male-male parents or female-female parents makes any difference for the child. You're just parroting the arguments made by very misguided supporters of the traditional-family model.

Children should be with their biological parent and I haven't yet met (or heard of) an adopted child that did not want to know its biological parents (and brothers/sisters). Again: nature.

It's not about your relationship, but children. The way children are born and the way they seek out their parents is not about social constructs.

Oh, yes, by law you are entitled to complain, but it has no natural - logical or realistic grounds. (Explanation above)

Of course, not only that your bedroom isn't any of my business; I don't care at all. However, when a bunch of people want to go about changing constitution and my society, I speak up. Freedom of speech 'n' stuff. Besides, I don't see how does a non-hostile forum discussion pry into your business. Your ego and hedonism perhaps, but your business, no.

I hope you have better...actual arguments, other than labeling me

Aenye, if you say that a woman renting her womb is being degraded and made into a breeding machine, I think you are the one who does the degrading. How about not judging other women for what they want to do with their reproductive system -- as long as its informed, concensual, and safety and everything like that is taken care of. Some women choose to have babies for others because they want to help, or because they like being pregnant, even (I saw a documentary about one woman like that). Sure, there are possible ethical concerns if women want to do it out of economical necessity, but that does not mean all cases are like that.

From an ethical perspective, society that leads its people to the point where they have to sell their body and children( and on the top of it all regards it as plausible and acceptable) is vile .
Women as vending machines - insert money and babies comes out.

One woman in how many? One in thousands? Have you seen the documentary about hundreds of poor women in India that are voluntarily used as incubators in order to feed their children? They actually need support of psychologists because, naturally, they grow attached to the child they carry.

Give them an actual choice of human dignity, a choice better than being vessels for human seed and then let us see how many will go that way. I am ready to wager: very few.

Your gay brother? Your gay bother chose to deny the fact of nature that it takes male and female to make a child and that they - male and female- as child's parents make that child's family.
He denied it and chose a male partner so he really isn't entitled to complain.

Congratulations, some internet person succeeded to make me feel bad again.

You know, the only reason why children of gay parents have a harder life than children of hetero parents is because of opinions like yours, because of people who make them believe that their parents aren't their parents and are just unnatural and wrong.

You know what happened when I tried to denied the fact that I weren't heterosexual? I forced myself in a relationship, crossed all the boundaries I had, with the result that a few years later I just couldn't eat anymore, I had to throw up several times a day, even when/though I hadn't eaten anything. I was too weak to walk, too weak to talk, too weak to do anything. And then you go tell me that that's what nature's wanting me to do?

As you see I'm labeled as stupid just for not conforming to public opinion here. Does it bother me? No.
What can I say except: Welcome to the world. Better get ready.

Well, they aren't they biological parents and I explained before how adopted children (of hetero and homo couples both) seek out their biological (natural) parents, so it's no wonder it comes across as unnatural and therefore also wrong.

It's not about denying your sexuality, but the denial of natural facts.
If you want a child you need opposite sex. There's no liking it or not.

Then again: if you are sexually attracted only to the same sex is one thing, BUT
if your love stems exclusively from your sexual drive and
if you are unable to love another being, a man, the father of your children even if he cares for you deeply, unable to love him just because he has male genitalia is indeed a matter to be concerned about imo. Oh, yes it is.

Not sure if troll or just stupid.

You mean: thinking differently than you? Aye.

[linguoboy]

Children should be with their biological parent and I haven't yet met (or heard of) an adopted child that did not want to know its biological parent.

I haven't either--if by "know" you mean "know the identity of". But I haven't yet met an adoptee who indicated a desire to have been raised by their birth parent(s) rather than their adoptive parents.

So am I misreading the implications of your argument are you also saying that biological parents shouldn't be allowed to divorce, no matter how abusive and dysfunction their relationship is? Because I honestly can't see any significant difference between having a same-sex stepparent and an opposite-sex one.

[Aenye]

So am I misreading the implications of your argument are you also saying that biological parents shouldn't be allowed to divorce, no matter how abusive and dysfunction their relationship is? Because I honestly can't see any significant difference between having a same-sex stepparent and an opposite-sex one.

If they don't get along, they should not marry at all or make children together in the first place.

A parent of opposite sex is closer to nature as he steps in the role of the previous father (never the same, but closer to nature). Also, it's safe to assume that step-parent and the biological one will one to make more children together (that child's brothers, sisters) which makes the new-made even more sensible and natural.

[linguoboy]

If they don't get along, they should not marry at all or make children together in the first place.

Fortunately, Nature endowed all human beings with clairvoyance, so they can look ahead far into their own futures and foresee any possible future challenges which could make life difficult for their children.

A parent of opposite sex is closer to nature as he steps in the role of the previous father (never the same, but closer to nature).

Where do you get this underlying assumption that "closer to nature" is inherent superior? Dying of measles is also "closer to nature" than being immunised against it with a lab-grown culture. Are you enough of an "independent thinker" to suggest that we should jettison modern medicine and just leave it to "nature" to sort out who lives and who dies?

Also, it's safe to assume that step-parent and the biological one will one to make more children together

Really?

My father remarried when both he and his new wife were over 50. I think it's fairly safe to assume they'll never be begetting any children together ever. (I guess this means they shouldn't've gotten married?)

Not sure if troll or just stupid.

You mean: thinking differently than you?

No; you can think differently without presenting your views in such an aggressive and absolutist manner. It all looks more like contrarianism for its own sake, less a sincerely held belief than a deliberate provocation.

[Varislintu]

Nature? I'm curous, why do you, Aenye, think the nuclear family of one mother an one father caring for only their biological children in relative isolation is the family form closest to nature in humans?

[Johanna]

Nature? I'm curous, why do you, Aenye, think the nuclear family of one mother an one father caring for only their biological children in relative isolation is the family form closest to nature in humans?

To me it's the least natural way...

Traditionally it's the extended family model that's the most common one, with grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, and even close friends of the parents. And a parent dying wasn't that uncommon.

[johnklepac]

A parent of opposite sex is closer to nature as he steps in the role of the previous father (never the same, but closer to nature). Also, it's safe to assume that step-parent and the biological one will one to make more children together (that child's brothers, sisters) which makes the new-made even more sensible and natural.

Why is that natural? A female having children with multiple males and all of those children then living with her isn't a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom, as far as I know, certainly not compared to her having children with one male and then no more.

[mōdgethanc]

Here are some links I suggest Aenye read (though I doubt he will) before I engage in the very tedious task of addressing all of his stupid arguments one by one. Hint: they're not stupid because I disagree with his conclusions. They're stupid because they're illogical and ill-formed, and anyone with the equivalent of a first-year introductory course in logic could refute them.

For the argument that childbearing needs (or rather, should need) two parents of both sexes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_ought_problem

For the argument that (all) adopted children want to meet their real parents (as linguoboy pointed out, not the same as wanting to be raised by them, and unfalsifiable either way):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

For attacking the sexual orientation of other members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

And on the scientific side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

And again, if he's so insistent on the superiority of nature, I suggest he get off his unnatural computer and swallow some all-natural arsenic.

[Aenye]

Fortunately, Nature endowed all human beings with clairvoyance, so they can look ahead far into their own futures and foresee any possible future challenges which could make life difficult for their children.

They can take time and effort to get to know their partner well before engaging in such activities. It's not uncommon that after few weeks of a relationships it happens (by a miracle, nobody's responsible, they couldn't have guessed it could happen ) sb gets pregnant and it's time to think about future and take in all the crappy aspects of the crappy partner one is in love with.
(not just this, but all sorts of scenarios)

Where do you get this underlying assumption that "closer to nature" is inherent superior? Dying of measles is also "closer to nature" than being immunised against it with a lab-grown culture. Are you enough of an "independent thinker" to suggest that we should jettison modern medicine and just leave it to "nature" to sort out who lives and who dies?

It's more natural, as I explained before: children seek out their biological parents on their own. So obviously there's something there that matters.
That's rather far-fetched. Why do you introduce question of murder here?
We do not speak about eugenics, no one forbids you to make a child with your partner.

My father remarried when both he and his new wife were over 50. I think it's fairly safe to assume they'll never be begetting any children together ever. (I guess this means they shouldn't've gotten married?)

Men tend to marry younger women and often they want children, because that's what partial, but essential basis of marriage is: reproduction, responsibility and family. Partners making and taking care of their children.

No; you can think differently without presenting your views in such an aggressive and absolutist manner. It all looks more like contrarianism for its own sake, less a sincerely held belief than a deliberate provocation.

Oh, why, an over-sensitive soul? Did I say I'd hang you or something? The fact that you perceive simple argumented disagreement as hurtful and aggressive is your problem.

Nature? I'm curous, why do you, Aenye, think the nuclear family of one mother an one father caring for only their biological children in relative isolation is the family form closest to nature in humans?

I think that an irresponsible man should not be allowed to reproduce in the first place (who would abandon or harm their partner or progeny). Closer to nature, than having a violent scum ruin their lives. They should get all the possible support of the state and welfare system. Also a chance to remarry to a worthy man.

Traditionally it's the extended family model that's the most common one, with grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, and even close friends of the parents. And a parent dying wasn't that uncommon.

Families of all the single mothers I know have joined to help them out. Nuclear family doesn't mean absolute abandonment of the rest of the siblings, just that a man and a woman having major responsibility, independence and their privacy, so to speak.

Why is that natural? A female having children with multiple males and all of those children then living with her isn't a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom, as far as I know, certainly not compared to her having children with one male and then no more.

Except that people are allegedly renowned for not being animals.

For the argument that childbearing needs (or rather, should need) two parents of both sexes:

Should need? Are you saying a man can give birth to another man's child? It's a fact he cannot.

I did bother to check out all these links...and I'm losing you... really. You offer me philosophy and guilt-tripping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

It takes a male and female to make a child. Deal with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_ought_problem
Children ought to (yes, ethics, worldview) be raised by people who make them, because if you won't take care of your own children, don't make them.

For the argument that (all) adopted children want to meet their real parents (as linguoboy pointed out, not the same as wanting to be raised by them, and unfalsifiable either way):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Yup, they want to spend some time with them if they can stand each other.[/quote]

Also (nature) I've seen countless documentaries about people seeking their brothers and sisters, mothers, fathers, despite having little or no memory of them at all. I met an adopted guy. Every once a while he expressed desire to meet his biological mother and spend time with her.
(tv shows and documentaries, interviews)

As for 'anecdotal' evidence it's common knowledge so I thought you must have noticed it. People tend to gather information, experience and insight as they live.

But there's also this:

Adoption Type Breakdown Percent
Percent of adopted children that lived with their birth family before adoption 43 %
Percent of adopted children adopted by relatives 41 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/adoption-statistics/

For attacking the sexual orientation of other members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So basically, whenever I disagree with sb's argument or proposed action it will count as attacking them. Oh, my.

And on the scientific side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

When you can fertilize sperm with sperm and egg with egg, do let me know!!! Preferably, when you also find a way of not taking advantage of poor people and using them as incubators (vending machines).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Again, it's not about sexual attraction (orientation) but natural facts. If you like same sex, fine.

But the point where one denies the natural necessity of male and female, one's own reproductive potential (sex - reproductive organs) and go about hunting for other people's children because one wants a child, it is both senseless and unnatural.

To add a bit of personal touch here, if I wanted a child, I would chose the partner of the opposite sex, regardless of my orientation. Additionally, because I find that affection is not dictated by sexual orientation (does not steam from it), there would be no problem as we would care for each other.
And as I gather people here incline that their sexual attraction can be product of love only if the partner is of opposite sex.

Also, no child of me (or my partner) and a stranger can substitute or match the one which would be unison of the two of us, the physical manifestation of our togetherness, responsibility and affection.

And again, if he's so insistent on the superiority of nature, I suggest he get off his unnatural computer and swallow some all-natural arsenic.

This far more likely constitutes for an attack (incitement to suicide) than my statements and arguments.

I most certainly will not. Computer is just a tool. Far more advanced than a stone or pick-axe, but a tool still. It's not about dismissing nature (as you do and suggest me to), but to live in harmony with it.

[IpseDixit]

Paraphrasing Oolon Colluphid: "Who is this nature person anyway?"

It's not about dismissing nature (as you do and suggest me to), but to live in harmony with it.

You must have a very strange idea of harmony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mj4Wd_rmvM

[Aenye]

This is result of bad management and consumerism. And yes we have to reduce pollution.


I don't see how does making the child one wants with opposite gender compares to destroying whole planet. Unless one's ego matches the size of the Earth.

A gay couple complaining about not having children is like a starving man that refuses to eat because he dislikes eating and food - wants to eat rocks instead, but complains and blames others that they are not edible.

[Hoogstwaarschijnlijk]

What can I say except: Welcome to the world. Better get ready.

A gay couple complaining about not having children is like a starving man that refuses to eat because he dislikes eating and food - wants to eat rocks instead, but complains and blames others that they are not edible.

In my world (meaning: in my country & in my environment: parents, friends) everyone is okay with homosexual people raising children.

And that statement is just insulting.

I'm quite thankful there are people who are willing to debate with you because I feel emotionally unable to do this. A gay couple with a child wish is the same to me as the child wish of a couple that is unable to get children.

[linguoboy]

Fortunately, Nature endowed all human beings with clairvoyance, so they can look ahead far into their own futures and foresee any possible future challenges which could make life difficult for their children.

They can take time and effort to get to know their partner well before engaging in such activities.

How long do you recommend? My parents were together for nearly twenty years before they decided to separate.

So, if you don't mind me asking, what's your track record with long-term relationships? Because you sound very naïve about how they form and what makes them work out.

Where do you get this underlying assumption that "closer to nature" is inherent superior? Dying of measles is also "closer to nature" than being immunised against it with a lab-grown culture. Are you enough of an "independent thinker" to suggest that we should jettison modern medicine and just leave it to "nature" to sort out who lives and who dies?

It's more natural, as I explained before: children seek out their biological parents on their own. So obviously there's something there that matters.

But it's a huge leap from "something that matters" to "should only be raised by their biological parents". You haven't made any real attempt to explain or justify that leap.

That's rather far-fetched. Why do you introduce question of murder here?

Nobody mentioned murder. Murder would be giving an unimmunised child measles with the intention of killing them. Letting one die of it is just nature taking its course, right? So if that's not the kind of "harmony with nature" you have in mind, what is?

My father remarried when both he and his new wife were over 50. I think it's fairly safe to assume they'll never be begetting any children together ever. (I guess this means they shouldn't've gotten married?)

Men tend to marry younger women and often they want children

And often they marry women their own age or older. And often they don't want children. Nu?

because that's what partial, but essential basis of marriage is: reproduction, responsibility and family. Partners making and taking care of their children.

The essential basis of marriage in modern society is control of property. If it were reproduction, we wouldn't allow infertile couples to marry, yet we do routinely.

No; you can think differently without presenting your views in such an aggressive and absolutist manner. It all looks more like contrarianism for its own sake, less a sincerely held belief than a deliberate provocation.

Oh, why, an over-sensitive soul? Did I say I'd hang you or something? The fact that you perceive simple argumented disagreement as hurtful and aggressive is your problem.

Wow, way to completely miss the point of what I was saying. I guess that's what "independent thinking" leads to. Trust me, you ain't hurt my fee-fees. You've just further convinced me that all you really know how to or care about doing is getting adverse reactions from people.

[IpseDixit]

This is result of bad management and consumerism. And yes we have to reduce pollution.

I don't see how does making the child one wants with opposite gender compares to destroying whole planet. Unless one's ego matches the size of the Earth.

It's you who talked about computers and harmony.

A gay couple sterile woman complaining about not having children is like a starving man that refuses to eat because he dislikes eating and food - wants to eat rocks instead, but complains and blames others that they are not edible.

Would you blame sterile straight couples that want to have children even though nature wouldn't allow them to?

[mōdgethanc]

Men tend to marry younger women and often they want children, because that's what partial, but essential basis of marriage is: reproduction, responsibility and family. Partners making and taking care of their children.

So the childfree shouldn't be allowed to marry? How about the infertile? And hell, how about gays and lesbians?

I don't think you understand the implications of the is-ought problem. It means that just because something is the case does not mean it should be. Saying that marriage is about child-bearing (and historically, perhaps it was) does not mean it need be so.

I think that an irresponsible man should not be allowed to reproduce in the first place (who would abandon or harm their partner or progeny). Closer to nature, than having a violent scum ruin their lives. They should get all the possible support of the state and welfare system. Also a chance to remarry to a worthy man.

Nature is full of species where the males are terrible fathers. Just look at cats and bears. So what's so great about being closer to nature?

Families of all the single mothers I know have joined to help them out.

Anecdotal evidence again, which is useless to me. How do I know you're telling the truth? I don't.

Except that people are allegedly renowned for not being animals.

Humans are animals, despite what some religious figures and philosophers have said. Homo sapiens sapiens, Kingdom Animalia, class Mammalia, order Primates, family Hominidae. We're apes, whether we like it or not. Smart apes (well, some of us, at least) but nevertheless apes.

Should need? Are you saying a man can give birth to another man's child? It's a fact he cannot.

I said two parents. Parents are the ones who raise the children. A surrogate is not a parent, and in fact children don't even need two parents. One is often just fine.

I did bother to check out all these links...and I'm losing you... really. You offer me philosophy and guilt-tripping.

I offered you the chance to see why your arguments are flawed. It's not my fault if these very accessible explanations are beyond your grasp.

As for guilt-tripping, you're the one telling other users they shouldn't be allowed to have children on account of their sexual orientation.

It takes a male and female to make a child. Deal with it.

Yeah, that's what a surrogate is for. It's a very different proposition to say that these same males and females should have to raise their progeny themselves.

Children ought to (yes, ethics, worldview) be raised by people who make them, because if you won't take care of your own children, don't make them.

This is begging the question. (Begging the question, in case you don't know, which you probably don't, means assuming your premise is correct without offering any evidence why it is so.) So tell me, why should children be raised by the people who made them? Should an abusive, alcoholic parent be preferred to a loving, responsible one simply because they're the biological parent?

Yup, they want to spend some time with them if they can stand each other.

Question-begging again. Where is your evidence of that?

Also (nature) I've seen countless documentaries about people seeking their brothers and sisters, mothers, fathers, despite having little or no memory of them at all. I met an adopted guy. Every once a while he expressed desire to meet his biological mother and spend time with her.
(tv shows and documentaries, interviews)

More anecdotes. Totally worthless.

As for 'anecdotal' evidence it's common knowledge so I thought you must have noticed it. People tend to gather information, experience and insight as they live.

"Common knowledge" is not convincing. At one point, it was common knowledge that the sun revolved around the Earth.

But there's also this:

Adoption Type Breakdown Percent
Percent of adopted children that lived with their birth family before adoption 43 %
Percent of adopted children adopted by relatives 41 %

This doesn't show that, as you claim, adopted children want to live with their biological parents.

When you can fertilize sperm with sperm and egg with egg, do let me know!!

When did anyone ever claim that? You're attacking arguments nobody has even made. This is called "strawmanning".

Preferably, when you also find a way of not taking advantage of poor people and using them as incubators (vending machines).

Now you're begging the question again by assuming that in-vitro fertilization is exploitative, and that it involves poor people. Where do those assumptions come from? Have you considered that a woman may choose to be a surrogate of her own free will, not economic need?

Again, it's not about sexual attraction (orientation) but natural facts. If you like same sex, fine.

By saying children should be raised by their biological parents, you're effectively denying same-sex couples the right to have children, since at least one of them cannot be the biological parent.

But the point where one denies the natural necessity of male and female, one's own reproductive potential (sex - reproductive organs) and go about hunting for other people's children because one wants a child, it is both senseless and unnatural.

As I've tried to tell you many, many times, there is nothing superior about nature. Nobody is denying that a male and female gamete are needed - what I am denying is that the male and female who contributed these gametes must necessarily raise the child.

To add a bit of personal touch here, if I wanted a child, I would chose the partner of the opposite sex, regardless of my orientation. Additionally, because I find that affection is not dictated by sexual orientation (does not steam from it), there would be no problem as we would care for each other.
And as I gather people here incline that their sexual attraction can be product of love only if the partner is of opposite sex.

Also, no child of me (or my partner) and a stranger can substitute or match the one which would be unison of the two of us, the physical manifestation of our togetherness, responsibility and affection.

What you want is not necessarily what other people want. Deal with it.

I most certainly will not. Computer is just a tool. Far more advanced than a stone or pick-axe, but a tool still. It's not about dismissing nature (as you do and suggest me to), but to live in harmony with it.

So computers are okay, but in-vitro fertilization is not, because your arbitrary moral values say so. Got it.

[JackFrost]

Bin câlisse.

haha, the greatest issue you have is the one you created for yourself in the first place.

By free will? Yes. Because it's not worth mentally destroying myself over.

This part of your post completely contradicts your alleged knowledge of facts of nature.

So far, I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of nature than you.

Or is it that you are saying that children shouldn't be with their own parents?

They don't deserve having a parent who is forced to have some sort of family that he or she doesn't really dream of having.

I haven't yet met (or heard of) an adopted child that did not want to know its biological parents (and brothers/sisters).

I don't imagine it very common to abandon the adoptive parents to go back to their biological parents.

Again: nature.

OKAY, I already heard you for the eighty-seventh time.

It's not about your relationship, but children. The way children are born and the way they seek out their parents is not about social constructs.

I don't understand you anymore because you're rather straying away from the point.

but it has no natural - logical or realistic grounds.

You keep saying "natural" as if you actually know what it means.

You do not really know what it means.

Besides, I don't see how does a non-hostile forum discussion pry into your business.

You're also failing to see your arguments are just plain dangerous and harmful. You even made Hoogstwaarschijnlijk feel bad about herself for what? For no valid reason. How about apologize to her for a start?

Your ego and hedonism perhaps, but your business, no.

Hedonism? LOL

It's hilarious how you call it. I can't deny it to a certain degree, but that doesn't sum up the whole picture. It's not all about seeking maximum sensual pleasures or being able to do whatever I want to do in my bedroom, but also justice and tolerance for all.

I hope you have better...actual arguments, other than labeling me

Oh really, what label(s) did I slap on you? I'm rather oblivious that I did such a thing.

What can I say except: Welcome to the world. Better get ready.

What do you mean by that? Overall, I was already ready for the world upon seeing the light at the end of a tunnel called Mom's Vagina.

It's not about denying your sexuality, but the denial of natural facts.

Why, why, why some people always have the need to tell us that. I told you, we already know how the puzzle fits, often ever since we discovered porn.

if you are unable to love another being, a man, the father of your children even if he cares for you deeply, unable to love him just because he has male genitalia is indeed a matter to be concerned about imo. Oh, yes it is.

It takes a village to raise children, not just two persons. Humans are very social animals because, I quote you, nature.

A gay couple complaining about not having children is like a starving man that refuses to eat because he dislikes eating and food - wants to eat rocks instead, but complains and blames others that they are not edible.

So, you'd rather leave children in orphanages, even if there are a bunch of gay couples who are rather fit to adopt them and raise them like other kids? It sounds like you're implying it. And it'd be rather mean of you if that's the case.

ego

So, disagreeing with you means I have an ego? Eh, be it. I don't blame you not being able to see how thick is my skin.

Oh, why, an over-sensitive soul? Did I say I'd hang you or something? The fact that you perceive simple argumented disagreement as hurtful and aggressive is your problem.

Don't pretend your arguments will never incite some others to cause mental and physical harm on others. Such as bullying LGBT* people. What makes them do that? Your arguments. Their family's arguments. The society's arguments. It is not only my or linguoboy's problem, but theirs as well, and it must be neutralized and eradicated for sake of one's well-being or in other words, in name of justice and tolerance for all.

You must be really proud of yourself, being part of the group that seeks to hurt, whether physically or not, certain groups who have the mere audacity to not conform to your idealistic and arbitrary model of nature and society. Finally, I'm not sorry to break this to you: nature really doesn't care. If it does, why am I around? After all, I am the product of nature's doing and theoretically, the laws of nature cannot be violated or be subjectively defined by us.

[IpseDixit]

Wow, I'm really astounded by the patience with which some of you guys are meticulously refuting his words. I'd never be able to do such a job.

[JackFrost]

Oh mon ami italien, please don't feel useless because you're just as awesome as I am anyways.

Maybe Aenye is really right about me having an ego as big as the planet that we live on.

[mōdgethanc]

Maybe Aenye is really right about me having an ego as big as the planet that we live on.

If that's so, I think his is as big as the moons of Pandora.

Wow, I'm really astounded by the patience with which some of you guys are meticulously refuting his words. I'd never be able to do such a job.

I can't help it. Trying to reason with ignorant people is just in my nature.