That is hardly a basis for discrimiation.Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: Fausto
Uhuh......and now you're making things up to support your position. I can't say I've ever seen someone "afraid to post for fear of being labeled a homophobe" here.Originally posted by: damiano
and just as a thought I had PMs from a few people that say they agree with me but are too affraid of posting in this thread because of their fear of the general opinion and of being labeled as homophobes
i will not say who they are... (btw I think it's sad to be affraid of what you think)
I am just glad to see some at least believe the same things I do
He was not making anything up. I was one of the people that PM'ed him. The reason I did not post my comments here is not that I was afraid to be labeled as a homophobe, but more that I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this right now. I lurk normally because I want the distraction from my work sometimes.
What I wrote to damiano was for him to just bring up the single argument that noone really could argue with and that is that people in gay relationships aren't able to have kids on their own. This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.
That is all I have to say and I will read responses but will likely not reply. There is no reason to believe people in gay relationships aren't able to raise a child perfectly fine. etc.
Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: Fausto
You should continue lurking.Originally posted by: damiano
He was not making anything up. I was one of the people that PM'ed him. The reason I did not post my comments here is not that I was afraid to be labeled as a homophobe, but more that I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this right now. I lurk normally because I want the distraction from my work sometimes.
What I wrote to damiano was for him to just bring up the single argument that noone really could argue with and that is that people in gay relationships aren't able to have kids on their own. This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.
That is all I have to say and I will read responses but will likely not reply. There is no reason to believe people in gay relationships aren't able to raise a child perfectly fine. etc.
Many hetro couples cannot have children "of their own" - I guess, according to your "rule", they should be barred from adopting since they are "defficient". Your "argument" is pretty stupid.
Alrighty then.Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: Fausto
Uhuh......and now you're making things up to support your position. I can't say I've ever seen someone "afraid to post for fear of being labeled a homophobe" here.Originally posted by: damiano
and just as a thought I had PMs from a few people that say they agree with me but are too affraid of posting in this thread because of their fear of the general opinion and of being labeled as homophobes
i will not say who they are... (btw I think it's sad to be affraid of what you think)
I am just glad to see some at least believe the same things I do
He was not making anything up. I was one of the people that PM'ed him. The reason I did not post my comments here is not that I was afraid to be labeled as a homophobe, but more that I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this right now. I lurk normally because I want the distraction from my work sometimes.
Oh man....you obviously haven't lurked carefully if you're going to try this argument.What I wrote to damiano was for him to just bring up the single argument that noone really could argue with and that is that people in gay relationships aren't able to have kids on their own. This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.
So.....you basically don't have a point?That is all I have to say and I will read responses but will likely not reply. There is no reason to believe people in gay relationships aren't able to raise a child perfectly fine. etc.
Originally posted by: Fausto
Alrighty then.Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: Fausto
Uhuh......and now you're making things up to support your position. I can't say I've ever seen someone "afraid to post for fear of being labeled a homophobe" here.Originally posted by: damiano
and just as a thought I had PMs from a few people that say they agree with me but are too affraid of posting in this thread because of their fear of the general opinion and of being labeled as homophobes
i will not say who they are... (btw I think it's sad to be affraid of what you think)
I am just glad to see some at least believe the same things I do
He was not making anything up. I was one of the people that PM'ed him. The reason I did not post my comments here is not that I was afraid to be labeled as a homophobe, but more that I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this right now. I lurk normally because I want the distraction from my work sometimes.
Oh man....you obviously haven't lurked carefully if you're going to try this argument.What I wrote to damiano was for him to just bring up the single argument that noone really could argue with and that is that people in gay relationships aren't able to have kids on their own. This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.
1) You're forgetting that there are gay women in the world. All they need is a willing man and a turkey baster and you're got a kid on the way.
2) Gay people have been around presumably as long as people have been around. Surely evolution would have taken care of them by now if being gay were so contrary to nature.
3) Another problem with the evolution thing: where do gay people come from 99% of the time? Answer: straight parents. [sarcasm] Oops.....polluting their own gene pool with more gay people....how embarassing. [/sarcasm]
So.....you basically don't have a point?That is all I have to say and I will read responses but will likely not reply. There is no reason to believe people in gay relationships aren't able to raise a child perfectly fine. etc.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Many hetro couples cannot have children "of their own" - I guess, according to your "rule", they should be barred from adopting since they are "defficient". Your "argument" is pretty stupid.
The survey does NOT conclude that at all. Kindly go back and re-read more carefully, or if you are too busy/lazy I quoted the relevant passage to this very thread.But as the survey pointed out, the gay parents where more likely to get gay kids (how can you even call it a survey if you only have 25 of each study subjects?)
Sure they can. Anyone can get a child naturally, gay or straigh, by "jumping through the hoop" as you put it. But we're talking about ADOPTION which assumes that a child has already been born by some means, and the ability of any set of people, single, couple, gay or straight, to properly raise the child that has already been created.Except that they aren't able to get a child by themselves naturally. That's my only point.
Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: Fausto
Not "directly"? They say what you are "really" saying and don't make us guess.Originally posted by: damiano
Originally posted by: apoppin
Many hetro couples cannot have children "of their own" - I guess, according to your "rule", they should be barred from adopting since they are "defficient". Your "argument" is pretty stupid.
I'm not directly saying gay couples should be barred from adopting. I'm not saying hetro couples should be able to adopt either. What I am saying is there's obviously something that is making us not be able to have children.
It's only in the last century that there have become more ways for couples to get pregnant through artificial insemination, sperm donation , egg donation etc. Prior to that people would just not have been able to get any kids and that would have been the end of the family tree there.
So what you appear to be saying is that the human family has been largely hetro . . . what you are ignoring is that HETRO couples are producing or raising 99.9999% of the gay children. Could homo couples do "worse"?
(It is already proven that homo couples raise str8 kids in about the same % that hetros do.)
And do you PREFER that children remain UNadopted - in an orphanage or in foster care - RATHER then be adopted by a homo couple?
Your "logic" is deficient.
Who needs google? I took an entire tract of psychology and sociology classes in university. Oh wait, you agree with me.Look them up . . . google is helpful.
ALL the latest SCIENTIFIC studies and opinion support gay parents adopting children with no harm to the children (period).
Only bigots support the opposite view. Forming an argument based soley on your own opinion is way beyond "fairly foolish".
Perhaps you should take an "entire tract" that the jehovah's witnesses pass out.Originally posted by: SammySon
Who needs google? I took an entire tract of psychology and sociology classes in university. Oh wait, you agree with me.Look them up . . . google is helpful.
ALL the latest SCIENTIFIC studies and opinion support gay parents adopting children with no harm to the children (period).
Only bigots support the opposite view. Forming an argument based soley on your own opinion is way beyond "fairly foolish".
Originally posted by: apoppin
Not "directly"? They say what you are "really" saying and don't make us guess.
So what you appear to be saying is that the human family has been largely hetro . . . what you are ignoring is that HETRO couples are producing or raising 99.9999% of the gay children. Could homo couples do "worse"?
(It is already proven that homo couples raise str8 kids in about the same % that hetros do.)
And do you PREFER that children remain UNadopted - in an orphanage or in foster care - RATHER then be adopted by a homo couple?
Your "logic" is deficient.
Your "logic" is based on personal bias.Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: apoppin
Not "directly"? They say what you are "really" saying and don't make us guess.
So what you appear to be saying is that the human family has been largely hetro . . . what you are ignoring is that HETRO couples are producing or raising 99.9999% of the gay children. Could homo couples do "worse"?
Hetro couples might be producing 99.9999%+more of children that eventually will be gay, but that is out of 6 billion people. What is the real rate of gay kids to hetro kids? less than 10%? 5%? 1%? I don't know the number, but what I think needs to be researched is wheter a hetro couple would be more likely (statistically) to have a kid that would turn out gay than a gay couple. There are far less gay couples so you stating that 99.9999% of gay children are from hetro couples don't make a difference in the discussion.
(It is already proven that homo couples raise str8 kids in about the same % that hetros do.)
Is it? Is there really large studies out there that proves this? Or disapproves it? I seriously doubt that there were any long lasting studies with a large enough pool of people to make a real claim to either side.
And do you PREFER that children remain UNadopted - in an orphanage or in foster care - RATHER then be adopted by a homo couple?
NO. I do not prefer that situation. But you do realize even "straight" couples have to go through a lot to be able to adopt a child?
Your "logic" is deficient.
Your 99.9999% logic isn't exactly bulletproof either
:beer:
I support gay marriages. Mabey my ideal got lost in the sarcasm.Perhaps you should take an "entire tract" that the jehovah's witnesses pass out.
They have lots to say about "sexual perversion" . . .
(and are even more "logically" than you since it is 'bible-based' )
Oh wait, you agree with them.
[sarcasm] But they're not raising "bigots"! They're raising good kids with wholesome traditional family values! [/sarcasm]Originally posted by: apoppin
Your "logic" is based on personal bias.Originally posted by: Rias
Originally posted by: apoppin
Not "directly"? They say what you are "really" saying and don't make us guess.
So what you appear to be saying is that the human family has been largely hetro . . . what you are ignoring is that HETRO couples are producing or raising 99.9999% of the gay children. Could homo couples do "worse"?
Hetro couples might be producing 99.9999%+more of children that eventually will be gay, but that is out of 6 billion people. What is the real rate of gay kids to hetro kids? less than 10%? 5%? 1%? I don't know the number, but what I think needs to be researched is wheter a hetro couple would be more likely (statistically) to have a kid that would turn out gay than a gay couple. There are far less gay couples so you stating that 99.9999% of gay children are from hetro couples don't make a difference in the discussion.
(It is already proven that homo couples raise str8 kids in about the same % that hetros do.)
Is it? Is there really large studies out there that proves this? Or disapproves it? I seriously doubt that there were any long lasting studies with a large enough pool of people to make a real claim to either side.
And do you PREFER that children remain UNadopted - in an orphanage or in foster care - RATHER then be adopted by a homo couple?
NO. I do not prefer that situation. But you do realize even "straight" couples have to go through a lot to be able to adopt a child?
Your "logic" is deficient.
Your 99.9999% logic isn't exactly bulletproof either
:beer:
"Even" str8 couples should have to "go through a lot" to be able to adopt a child! That is for the benefit of the child. Gay couples should also be able to show that their adopted children will be raised well in a loving home.
It is just that "gayness' shouldn't be the sole bar to adopting anymore then athiesm or non-mainstream beliefs of the adopting parents.
Raising children that are tolerent of alternative lifestyles is no big deal in my book. Raising bigots is.
Mine too . . . the sarcasm is pretty thick with all the bigotry and ignorance prevalent here.Originally posted by: SammySon
I support gay marriages. Mabey my ideal got lost in the sarcasm.Perhaps you should take an "entire tract" that the jehovah's witnesses pass out.
They have lots to say about "sexual perversion" . . .
(and are even more "logically" than you since it is 'bible-based' )
Oh wait, you agree with them.
Perhaps the religious 'moral majority' should be barred from producing OR adopting children.[sarcasm] But they're not raising "bigots"! They're raising good kids with wholesome traditional family values! [/sarcasm]
ok
my time now.
Did you guys ever read Freud and the all the basics of our modern psychology?
specially during early stages of growth the parents' figure (father and mother) are very important:
So . . . your point (re: this discussion) is?Originally posted by: vi_edit
ok
my time now.
Did you guys ever read Freud and the all the basics of our modern psychology?
specially during early stages of growth the parents' figure (father and mother) are very important:
Freud was a flipping whack job and anybody that takes his stuff remotely serious is immediately discredited in my mind.
His psychoanalysis is a joke. Using psychoanalysis you can pretty much coach any response you want out of someone that is in an emotionally unstable state.
Frued is interesting to read...just like science fiction. But leave it at that.
Ah, gotcha. Yea, lynching is wholesome in the south.uote
Originally posted by: SammySon
Quote
Perhaps you should take an "entire tract" that the jehovah's witnesses pass out.
They have lots to say about "sexual perversion" . . .
(and are even more "logically" than you since it is 'bible-based' )
Oh wait, you agree with them.
I support gay marriages. Mabey my ideal got lost in the sarcasm.
Mine too . . . the sarcasm is pretty thick with all the bigotry and ignorance prevalent here.
Quote
[sarcasm] But they're not raising "bigots"! They're raising good kids with wholesome traditional family values! [/sarcasm]
Perhaps the religious 'moral majority' should be barred from producing OR adopting children.
Agreed (no sarcasm) . . . a very sick and dangerous joke. If they were really in charge of our laws we would still have lynchings in the South and a return to the Dark Ages.Originally posted by: SammySon
Ah, gotcha. Yea, lynching is wholesome in the south.uote
Originally posted by: SammySon
Quote
Perhaps you should take an "entire tract" that the jehovah's witnesses pass out.
They have lots to say about "sexual perversion" . . .
(and are even more "logically" than you since it is 'bible-based' )
Oh wait, you agree with them.
I support gay marriages. Mabey my ideal got lost in the sarcasm.
Mine too . . . the sarcasm is pretty thick with all the bigotry and ignorance prevalent here.
Quote
[sarcasm] But they're not raising "bigots"! They're raising good kids with wholesome traditional family values! [/sarcasm]
Perhaps the religious 'moral majority' should be barred from producing OR adopting children.
The moral majority is a joke, along with the people who believe in it.
This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
explain baldness, color blindness, and left handedness? shoulda been weeded out long ago.
Okay, it's an interesting article and raises interesting notions, but it's SUCH a preliminary study it's not funny. No independant research was done on their own part, it was all piggybacked on what others did. The other problem is that all the sizes specified are EXTREMELY small. 25 lesbians and 20 hetro? 22 lesbian and 18 hetro? For a prelim study to see if a theory has any basis those are no bad sizes, but anything definitive would require a sample size of 100X and preferably 1000X larger. The smaller the sample base, the more likely you'll get skewed results. Give me something that tests a MUCH larger population base (more people than cited here probably live on the adjacent floors of my appartment building) that backs this up and I'll conceed.Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a study for you I just found.... not backing it one way or another.Originally posted by: Jzero
Apparently it's better to be brainwashed by "modern gayism" than "archaic Freudianism."you people have been brainwashed by the modern gayism of our society.
Gays getting married doesn't affect me one bit, so why would it bother me?i cannot believe that no one here is a little bit more traditional in that sense
or most probably too affraid to express their thoughts about it because of the fear of not fitting with the rest...
And until someone can provide actual case studies where a child raised by gay parents is any more or less fvcked up than any kid raised by straight or single parents, I'm not buying it. I'm an intelligent, educated, thinking, reasoning person. I don't form my beliefs and ideas on unfounded, unproven fears and superstitions.
Gay Parents = gay kids
shut up.What I find wrong is for gays to adopt children...and it is the next step after gay marriage.
there is no way this can be healthy for a child...
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Okay, it's an interesting article and raises interesting notions, but it's SUCH a preliminary study it's not funny. No independant research was done on their own part, it was all piggybacked on what others did. The other problem is that all the sizes specified are EXTREMELY small. 25 lesbians and 20 hetro? 22 lesbian and 18 hetro? For a prelim study to see if a theory has any basis those are no bad sizes, but anything definitive would require a sample size of 100X and preferably 1000X larger. The smaller the sample base, the more likely you'll get skewed results. Give me something that tests a MUCH larger population base (more people than cited here probably live on the adjacent floors of my appartment building) that backs this up and I'll conceed.Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a study for you I just found.... not backing it one way or another.
Gay Parents = gay kids
But if the worst thing that the study can say about kids raised by gays is that they'll turn out gay like they're parents, I got no problem with that! And I still don't see how adoption is a bad thing. Considering both the burdon on the child adoption system in north america (and probably globally) as it is, and the fact that a lot of couples are quite capable of getting a child by some artifical method even if they don't have one or more left over from previous hetro relationships, denying adoption seems quite silly.
-- Jack
It's like they said in that movie. You need a licence to drive a car. You need a licence to catch a fvcking fish. But any dumb motherfvcker can be a parent.
-- 2, the Ranting Gryphen
That'd be messed Considering only like 1 percentile or something of all women have any problems with baldness.Originally posted by: Rias
Except none of those mentioned attributes interferes with the ability to get pregnant. Could be cool though if you could only get pregnant if you were bald! :QOriginally posted by: 0roo0roo
explain baldness, color blindness, and left handedness? shoulda been weeded out long ago.
That's the other thing. It's a good PRELIM study, to see if there's ANY evidence to support a theory, but it's no where near large enough to be called definitive.Originally posted by: conjur
That study only goes off of 21 psychological cases. 21!!
How can that be indicative of society in general?
Yeah, well, if you noticed the source I used, it wasn't the original. He misquoted it, too. What movie is that from, anyway?And...the quote is:
"You need a license to go fishing, you need a license to drive--but any butt-reaming a**hole can be a father."