[quote]Beowolf wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
definately not. should mentally retarded people be allowed to adopt children too?
I bet more people than we realize are borderline retarded.
I personally was SHOCKED when I learned that Peter from family Guy was just under the line of retardation…and he got to keep his kids.
gays raising kids doesnt make sense to me. im all for peoples rights but why compromise the rights of children for the rights of gays…people who CHOOSE not to have children. yes there are plenty of people who are not fit for raising kids, ill totally agree and thats why we have DSS. the difference is that these parents actually created their children. if you make the personal choice to not have children via being with your own sex then why the hell should you be allowed to raise them?
Er… so you’re against adoption in general? SO people who marry barren women/men… they can’t raise children either can they.
Though luck for all those guys who had there nads blown off for whatever reason =([/quote]
dude did you read what i said and not understand what i was saying or just skim it? a man with a woman whether barren or not has the assumed potential to concieve due to compatable genetalia. a man and a man do not have this potential whether one or both is barren or if both are fertile due to incompatable genatalia.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
definately not. should mentally retarded people be allowed to adopt children too?
I bet more people than we realize are borderline retarded.
I personally was SHOCKED when I learned that Peter from family Guy was just under the line of retardation…and he got to keep his kids.
gays raising kids doesnt make sense to me. im all for peoples rights but why compromise the rights of children for the rights of gays…people who CHOOSE not to have children. yes there are plenty of people who are not fit for raising kids, ill totally agree and thats why we have DSS. the difference is that these parents actually created their children. if you make the personal choice to not have children via being with your own sex then why the hell should you be allowed to raise them?
Er… so you’re against adoption in general? SO people who marry barren women/men… they can’t raise children either can they.
Though luck for all those guys who had there nads blown off for whatever reason =(
dude did you read what i said and not understand what i was saying or just skim it? a man with a woman whether barren or not has the assumed potential to concieve due to compatable genetalia. a man and a man do not have this potential whether one or both is barren or if both are fertile due to incompatable genatalia.
[/quote]
Err… no. If I decide to marry someone who I KNOW is barren, should I be allowed to adopt a kid? Despite their being NO potential to conceive?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.
I can’t wait to see what he has to say about snails, clams and whiptail lizards.
And seahorses!
I actually wrote seahorses, but changed it to whiptail lizards because I figured a couple of lesbian female lizards writhing around impregnating each other sounded more salacious than a pregnant male seahorse.[/quote]
That’s where you and I differ I suppose. Blame it on gender. I thought a male being impregnated by a female would go further against the laws of ‘nature’, and apply to the situation at hand in a more provocative way.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
definately not. should mentally retarded people be allowed to adopt children too?
I bet more people than we realize are borderline retarded.
I personally was SHOCKED when I learned that Peter from family Guy was just under the line of retardation…and he got to keep his kids.
gays raising kids doesnt make sense to me. im all for peoples rights but why compromise the rights of children for the rights of gays…people who CHOOSE not to have children. yes there are plenty of people who are not fit for raising kids, ill totally agree and thats why we have DSS. the difference is that these parents actually created their children. if you make the personal choice to not have children via being with your own sex then why the hell should you be allowed to raise them?
Er… so you’re against adoption in general? SO people who marry barren women/men… they can’t raise children either can they.
Though luck for all those guys who had there nads blown off for whatever reason =(
dude did you read what i said and not understand what i was saying or just skim it? a man with a woman whether barren or not has the assumed potential to concieve due to compatable genetalia. a man and a man do not have this potential whether one or both is barren or if both are fertile due to incompatable genatalia.
Err… no. If I decide to marry someone who I KNOW is barren, should I be allowed to adopt a kid? Despite their being NO potential to conceive?
[/quote]
i dont know how you dont understand this, its not complicated. the potential is in the fact that they have compatible gentalia, they are opposite sex and opposite sexes can reproduce therefore they could adopt. gay couples cant do that therefore they shouldnt adopt.
I personally think that mother nature already thought it all out for us:
Gays Cant breed.
There has got to be some meaning with the fact that there has to be two different sexes to make children that also carries over to raising children. Love isnt enough.
You could always argue that you know homosexuals that have nice kids. But are they really balanced and healthy individuals seen through the eyes of nature?
I am convinced that there are things that we are yet to learn about the advantages of both a man and a woman raising a child.
Personally it makes me sick to see two dikes raising a child. It just strikes me as so egoistical…
[quote]Deus vult wrote:
And why does every one in here keep using the fact that some heterosexuals are bad parents to justify the right of homosexuals to raise kids ??
Arent some homosexuals bad parents too ??
Lets limit the debate to discussing whether a child should be robbed of the chance to have both a mother and father ![/quote]
I assume the children being raised by gay couples have already lost that opportunity.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Deus vult wrote:
And why does every one in here keep using the fact that some heterosexuals are bad parents to justify the right of homosexuals to raise kids ??
Arent some homosexuals bad parents too ??
Lets limit the debate to discussing whether a child should be robbed of the chance to have both a mother and father !
I assume the children being raised by gay couples have already lost that opportunity.[/quote]
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.
I can’t wait to see what he has to say about snails, clams and whiptail lizards.
And seahorses!
I actually wrote seahorses, but changed it to whiptail lizards because I figured a couple of lesbian female lizards writhing around impregnating each other sounded more salacious than a pregnant male seahorse.
That’s where you and I differ I suppose. Blame it on gender. I thought a male being impregnated by a female would go further against the laws of ‘nature’, and apply to the situation at hand in a more provocative way.
[/quote]
Well, it would be pretty boring if we all had the same kinks.
Let me rephrase. Lesbian lizards would seem more salacious to the puritan sensibilities of LiveFromThe781, and in my estimation would be more applicable to the topic of same-sex parents.
And anyway, I’m of the opinion that homosexuality is an innate trait in some humans and other animals, and is therefore well within the laws of nature.
some of you guys write as if the issue has some kind of biological drive behind it…natures way of population control, or other such thing.
The issue is a moral one. Being gay is a choice. Raising kids is a choice. And like any dysfunctional family, (gay, alcoholism, sexual addiction, drugs or other lazy undisciplined life styles)a child may grow up to exhibit a negative repercussion, and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s fair that a child grow up in any of the above circumstances.
[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
some of you guys write as if the issue has some kind of biological drive behind it…natures way of population control, or other such thing.
The issue is a moral one. Being gay is a choice. Raising kids is a choice. And like any dysfunctional family, (gay, alcoholism, sexual addiction, drugs or other lazy undisciplined life styles)a child may grow up to exhibit a negative repercussion, and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s fair that a child grow up in any of the above circumstances. [/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
some of you guys write as if the issue has some kind of biological drive behind it…natures way of population control, or other such thing.
The issue is a moral one. Being gay is a choice. Raising kids is a choice. And like any dysfunctional family, (gay, alcoholism, sexual addiction, drugs or other lazy undisciplined life styles)a child may grow up to exhibit a negative repercussion, and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s fair that a child grow up in any of the above circumstances.
Do bonobo chimps make a moral choice?[/quote]
No. Do clown fish?
After I posted…I saw it was right below you V, and though…crap.
[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
some of you guys write as if the issue has some kind of biological drive behind it…natures way of population control, or other such thing.
The issue is a moral one. Being gay is a choice. Raising kids is a choice. And like any dysfunctional family, (gay, alcoholism, sexual addiction, drugs or other lazy undisciplined life styles)a child may grow up to exhibit a negative repercussion, and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s fair that a child grow up in any of the above circumstances. [/quote]
i dont think children should group in any of those conditions either. the difference is with banning homosexuals from adopting youre actively preventing some kind of dysfunction. as everyone knows theres groups such as DSS which look to keep children out of unfit homes, its just harder because these people who are seemingly unfit to raise children can produce children. id say you should have to qualify to have children, get a license or something but thats just way too right wing for me and everyone at the RMV is an asshole…but anyway.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
some of you guys write as if the issue has some kind of biological drive behind it…natures way of population control, or other such thing.
The issue is a moral one. Being gay is a choice. Raising kids is a choice. And like any dysfunctional family, (gay, alcoholism, sexual addiction, drugs or other lazy undisciplined life styles)a child may grow up to exhibit a negative repercussion, and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s fair that a child grow up in any of the above circumstances.
i dont think children should group in any of those conditions either. the difference is with banning homosexuals from adopting youre actively preventing some kind of dysfunction. as everyone knows theres groups such as DSS which look to keep children out of unfit homes, its just harder because these people who are seemingly unfit to raise children can produce children. id say you should have to qualify to have children, get a license or something but thats just way too right wing for me and everyone at the RMV is an asshole…but anyway.[/quote]
I’m not for banning a gay couple from raising a child. I have a bigger hope, that society would come to recognize the moral implications of allowing homosexuality/alcoholism/pornography etc in to the our mainstream.
If it ever does come to licensing, I hope they allow a do-over on the photo. My drivers license photo looks like crap.
