Orphanage or gay parents

[Dirty Penguin]

Homosexuality is pretty common in Nature, so your point is non-existent.

I don't think that these people truly understand that or maybe they're in denial.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't think that these people truly understand that or maybe they're in denial.

I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I won't argue that point, I agree with it. But that just further proves the point that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt.

:yes: It is the best thing for the kids.

 

[connermt]

ok, a slight change in direction.

if two couples want to adopt, one same sex, the other hetero , but there is only one child available - who gets the kid?

let's assume both couples are the same in every other way except gender.

Now, I would say that the hetero couple should have first refusal because they are more normal.

any objections?

Anyone can be a good parent.
Any couple can be a good set of parents.
Thus, the question is simply there to bait.

 

[nnmartin]

I disagree.
It is a complete dead end for your argument.

though I do find it most comical that you seem to think that your debunked "Natural Order" claim is some sort of ace in the hole.
Especially given that you are the one who debunked it.

oh really, how did I debunk it then pray tell?

as for the homosexuality in nature tripe, that is pure hogwash.

The homosexual animals are malfunctions of DNA the same way that humans are and as far as I'm aware , most animals do not try to marry each other.

many animals eat their own babies and feces - yet this would not be programmed into human DNA. We may be animals biologically speaking but clearly have different ways of intended behaviour.

do you eat your own feces?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

oh really, how did I debunk it then pray tell?

as for the homosexuality in nature tripe, that is pure hogwash.

The homosexual animals are malfunctions of DNA the same way that humans are and as far as I'm aware , most animals do not try to marry each other.

many animals eat their own babies and feces - yet this would not be programmed into human DNA. We may be animals biologically speaking but clearly have different ways of intended behaviour.

do you eat your own feces?

You've got to be kidding me. Do you even read science books, or just come up with your own out-there theories while sleeping? Do you even pay attention to the world around you? And, do you even read what you post, or do you just let your fingers fall where they may, then click submit? That's some bubble you live in there. This is nonsense. I don't see any reason to continue this.

 

[no-body]

oh really, how did I debunk it then pray tell?

as for the homosexuality in nature tripe, that is pure hogwash.

The homosexual animals are malfunctions of DNA the same way that humans are and as far as I'm aware , most animals do not try to marry each other.

many animals eat their own babies and feces - yet this would not be programmed into human DNA. We may be animals biologically speaking but clearly have different ways of intended behaviour.

do you eat your own feces?

Where are you pulling this scientific data from? "My ***, PHD"?

 

[McBell]

oh really, how did I debunk it then pray tell?

as for the homosexuality in nature tripe, that is pure hogwash.

The homosexual animals are malfunctions of DNA the same way that humans are and as far as I'm aware , most animals do not try to marry each other.

many animals eat their own babies and feces - yet this would not be programmed into human DNA. We may be animals biologically speaking but clearly have different ways of intended behaviour.

do you eat your own feces?

tell me, did you actually think about this before you posted it or are you merely posting from the seat of your pants?

 

[connermt]

oh really, how did I debunk it then pray tell?

1) as for the homosexuality in nature tripe, that is pure hogwash.

2) The homosexual animals are malfunctions of DNA the same way that humans are and as far as I'm aware , most animals do not try to marry each other.

3) many animals eat their own babies and feces - yet this would not be programmed into human DNA. We may be animals biologically speaking but clearly have different ways of intended behaviour.

do you eat your own feces?

1) If it happens in nature, it's natural. You even admit it in your "point" # 2
2) That's funny - DNA malfunction...but at least you said "as far as I'm aware". Not that this makes it any less of an ignorant statement, but at least you admit you're poorly educated
3) That points to the fact that there's no intelligent designer. Behavior is just that, nothing more. Equating it with homosexuality shows you know less than nothing about the issue.

But please continue - it's quite funny.

 

[nnmartin]

I am saying that just because sheep have a high incidence of homosexuality it does not make it normal behaviour in mankind, in the same way that eating feces or babies would not be either.

now, is homosexuality a malfunction, a sacrifice to create an improved woman, an intended consequence or something else?

this is quite important to the debate as it could be the key to unlocking the door to the answer to the same sex marriage and adoption idea.

 

[McBell]

this is quite important to the debate as it could be the key to unlocking the door to the answer to the same sex marriage and adoption idea.

Since when did it become so important for deciding if a certain group of people should have equal rights?

Sounds more like you are desperately clinging to this straw because you realize that all your other "arguments" have been shown to be nothing more than lame weak arse excuses to justify bigotry.

 

[connermt]

I am saying that just because sheep have a high incidence of homosexuality it does not make it normal behaviour in mankind, in the same way that eating feces or babies would not be either.

now, is homosexuality a malfunction, a sacrifice to create an improved woman, an intended consequence or something else?

this is quite important to the debate as it could be the key to unlocking the door to the answer to the same sex marriage and adoption idea.

"Normal" or "natural"? Those are two totally different concepts.
It's important to debate why homosexuality comes from when speaking about marraige and adoption? Only to people who can't think for themselves and can't seem to function in a society that has people different than themselve (fortunately).
Besides, why do you care? Are you planning on putting yourself up for adoption?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I am saying that just because sheep have a high incidence of homosexuality it does not make it normal behaviour in mankind, in the same way that eating feces or babies would not be either.

now, is homosexuality a malfunction, a sacrifice to create an improved woman, an intended consequence or something else?

this is quite important to the debate as it could be the key to unlocking the door to the answer to the same sex marriage and adoption idea.

I think the best interests of the children should be the focus here. Does anyone think that children are better off with no parents at all?

Same sex couples may just end up being superior parents. Why not give them a chance and see what the results are?

 

[nnmartin]

Besides, why do you care? Are you planning on putting yourself up for adoption?

sure, why not?

sounds like it might be a good idea.

anyone fancy adopting me?)(

 

[connermt]

sure, why not?

sounds like it might be a good idea.

anyone fancy adopting me?)(

I sincerley doubt it. :sarcastic
But you never answered the question, why do you care?

 

[Kerr]

so you don't think that a hetero couple is better than a homo couple?

surely mum and dad is better than mum and mum or dad and dad - doesn't Nature mean anything here?

Nature doesnt care. If it did, then no, its opinion would not matter at all.

 

[Kerr]

I am saying that just because sheep have a high incidence of homosexuality it does not make it normal behaviour in mankind, in the same way that eating feces or babies would not be either.

now, is homosexuality a malfunction, a sacrifice to create an improved woman, an intended consequence or something else?

this is quite important to the debate as it could be the key to unlocking the door to the answer to the same sex marriage and adoption idea.

The cause for homosexuality is completely irrelevant to same sex marriage and adoption. Why should it?

 

[nnmartin]

well, if homo was meant to be according to Nature then it would give the marriage argument much more strength.

do you agree that Nature intended for man and woman to be together?

 

[Kerr]

well, if homo was meant to be according to Nature then it would give the marriage argument much more strength.

Only if your morality cares about what nature thinks. Mine doesnt.

do you agree that Nature intended for man and woman to be together?

No. I dont think nature even has an intent for anything.

 

[nnmartin]

so why did it create Man and Woman separately then?

why not just some form of asexual reproduction.