The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Quagmire]

That has to be the best thread title ever.

I'm going to be really disappointed if they don't use it as the title for the next Star Wars movie. :yes:

 

[9Westy9]

This is bordering on dishonesty by constantly making blanket statements that the studies are "all from the 80s ". You admitted to spend about two minutes on that article. You've probably spent a similar amount of time on everything else I've posted.

I've also had a look at the sources you gave me (the three from earlier) and found them lacking.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I've also had a look at the sources you gave me (the three from earlier) and found them lacking.

The concept of demonstating HOW and WHY is lacking

 

[9Westy9]

Keep in mind folks that our great "debunker" of arguments is the same person that brought us this wonderful insight into the history of parenthood:biglaugh:

and I agree with him. I find it funny that you just laugh it off rather than take what he says more seriously

 

[9Westy9]

The concept of demonstating HOW and WHY is lacking

One wasn't trying to collect data on how long homosexual relations last it was about HIV in homosexual relationships, one wasn't a study at all and the last one is unfindable (unless you can find it for me).

 

[-Peacemaker-]

One wasn't trying to collect data on how long homosexual relations last it was about HIV in homosexual relationships, one wasn't a study at all and the last one is unfindable (unless you can find it for me).

You're really going to argue with the findings of a GAY NEWSPAPER? You suspect they're lying?.................about themselves?:biglaugh:

 

[9Westy9]

You're really going to argue with the findings of a GAY NEWSPAPER? You suspect they're lying?.................about themselves?:biglaugh:

I'm going to assume that your article misquoted them rather than they were lying. If you find me the source that your article references I'll happily take a look at it. Unfortunately I can't find it on their website

 

[9Westy9]

Jungle - The bottom line is that you've posted a biased article that has several different references, yet seemingly have little to no knowledge about the references whatsoever. You've seen this article agrees with your standpoint and have posted it as complete fact. When you're ready to post a link to a study to defend your view rather than a biased article I'll be more than happy to have a conversation. All I'm seeing at the moment is your poor attempt at defending a biased article

P.S. You've also failed to address a point that would knock down your argument completely http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2790132-post342.html

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Me Myself has refuted all these 'studies' you've posted. Even if your studies were correct there are still some monogamous homosexual couples. Should these be denied the right to adopt a child just because most homosexual couples aren't? Also what about children with divorced parents? Should they have their children taken away because both mother and father aren't able to take care of the child?

You mean this "smoking gun?" Except under one circumstance, I think divorce is wrong too. I've already touched upon the gay definition of "monogamy", not to mention the fact that the issue about "monogomy" was just one of several concerns.

 

[9Westy9]

You mean this "smoking gun?" Except under one circumstance, I think divorce is wrong too. I've already touched upon the gay definition of "monogamy", not to mention the fact that the issue about "monogomy" was just one of several concerns.

I thought we were discussing homosexual adoption? Also you seem to miss the point. If we have a loving monogamous homosexual couple, why should they be disallowed from adopting? Also you believe divorce is wrong. So would you try and make it illegal for people to divorce once married?

 

[Nakosis]

The kids feeling comfortable with the parents is one of the things taken into consideration when adoption is in place.

It's ok with me. I think kids are as likely to get screwed up with heterosexual couples as homosexual couples.

I kind of figured that bi-sexual people were the only sane ones. I was raised in a culture which was very prudish about sex. So I'm kind of stuck with it.

I don't care what other people do in that regard, just don't tell me about it.

 

[Draka]

I'm beginning to think Jungle has me on ignore.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'm beginning to think Jungle has me on ignore.

Nonsense. There's just a lot to respond to and I have only so much mental energy. Let's tackle this now. Here's your questions:

"I believe I have asked before, if you are so against adoption by homosexuals because you believe them to be substandard parents, then what of those who have biological children? Should their children be removed from them? Should their reproductive rights be squelched entirely? And what of bisexuals? Should they be allowed to have children? What if they have children while in an opposite sex relationship and then later have a relationship with someone of the same sex? Should bisexuals not be allowed to have or adopt children because of the chance that they may someday be in a same sex relationship?"

Obviously we can't stop people from having biological children. Children born outside of marriage have much higher rates of drug abuse, suicide, and criminal behavior but that's the world we live in. While irresponsibility may not be moral, it's usually legal. It's just un-American for the government to tell us when we can have sex. Also, I see no reason why we should deny adoption based on circumstances that could theoretically arise in the future.

 

[McBell]

Don't flatter yourself. People who just make blanket statements without actually supporting them with evidence don't carry much clout.

Except your sources, right?

I posted more secular/medical studies than I can count. If you want to impress us, illustrate through examples HOW and WHY some 80 studies used provide absolutely no insight whatsoever into the subject. I have at the very least illustrated through numerous so called experts that studies supporting your assertion, that gays just as wonderful parents as heteros, are considered to be wrought with errors by many credible scientists

Still grandstanding I see.

Or perhaps it was in a different thread you did these things?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Except your sources, right?


Still grandstanding I see.

Or perhaps it was in a different thread you did these things?

It's a pretty simple process we're talking about. You go over the things I've posted and then you explain how each one doesn't hold up under your weighty opinion. That's been pretty tough to find in general in this thread.

 

[Quagmire]

It's a pretty simple process we're talking about. You go over the things I've posted and then you explain how each one doesn't hold up under your weighty opinion.

...and then you ignore it and go on as you were: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2789287-post280.html

 

[-Peacemaker-]

...and then you ignore it and go on as you were: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2789287-post280.html

"If you're talking about the one-of-each parent family, uh uh, that's actually a pretty recent cultural development.

For most of our existence, dating back well into pre-history, children were raised by entire, multi-generational, clans and tribes. Since homosexuality has been with us for as long as we've been us, having a few homosexual clan/tribe members take a hand in the raising of any given child was probably the norm."



I thought the insight in this quote was so powerful that it spoke for itself

 

[Draka]

Nonsense. There's just a lot to respond to and I have only so much mental energy. Let's tackle this now. Here's your questions:

"I believe I have asked before, if you are so against adoption by homosexuals because you believe them to be substandard parents, then what of those who have biological children? Should their children be removed from them? Should their reproductive rights be squelched entirely? And what of bisexuals? Should they be allowed to have children? What if they have children while in an opposite sex relationship and then later have a relationship with someone of the same sex? Should bisexuals not be allowed to have or adopt children because of the chance that they may someday be in a same sex relationship?"

Obviously we can't stop people from having biological children. Children born outside of marriage have much higher rates of drug abuse, suicide, and criminal behavior but that's the world we live in. While irresponsibility may not be moral, it's usually legal. It's just un-American for the government to tell us when we can have sex. Also, I see no reason why we should deny adoption based on circumstances that could theoretically arise in the future.

Aside from that bit about being born outside of marriage being bullocks (there are plenty of couples who remain in loving, committed relationships that never marry and single parents can do fine as well...it's not a marriage thing, it's a poverty and support thing), who's to say that they didn't have children within a marriage? So, what makes it okie dokie for homosexuals to have biological children and not have adoptive children? If they are such bad parents why not treat them like drug abusers and criminals when they give birth and just take their babies away the moment they are born? Why do you only have this "concern" for adopted children and not for biological children? If you want to prevent homosexuals from adopting children, then why do you not want to ensure that they don't have children at all? If your stance is valid, should it not be across the board?

 

[Quagmire]

"If you're talking about the one-of-each parent family, uh uh, that's actually a pretty recent cultural development.

For most of our existence, dating back well into pre-history, children were raised by entire, multi-generational, clans and tribes. Since homosexuality has been with us for as long as we've been us, having a few homosexual clan/tribe members take a hand in the raising of any given child was probably the norm."



I thought the insight in this quote was so powerful that it spoke for itself

Thing is, I was trying to show you that one of the legs your position is standing on is a little shaky, but you didn't give any indication that you noticed the wobble.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Thing is, I was trying to show you that one of the legs your position is standing on is a little shaky, but you didn't give any indication that you noticed the wobble.

I saw little reason to revist the days of barbarism