The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Quagmire]

I saw little reason to revist the days of barbarism

I wouldn't call them that. We're talking about the same conditions the Patriarchs were living under (anyway, remember: Cain built the first city).

In most ways, in any way that has anything to do with what we usually recognize as morality especially, pre-civilized man was much less barbaric in his behaviors than his city-dwelling descendants.

Anyway, we don't have to go anywhere near that far back to find the multi-generational family schematic that I was talking about: it was still the norm in most of Western civilization up until (and in many places after) the turn of the 20th century.

It's still being practiced by many immigrant populations in the U.S. today.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

If you put any stock in the biblical account, the nations that surrounded the Israelites were not considered models of healthy behavior. Half the time, the Israelites were just as bad

I wouldn't call them that. We're talking about the same conditions the Patriarchs were living under (anyway, remember: Cain built the first city).

In most ways, in any way that has anything to do with what we usually recognize as morality especially, pre-civilized man was much less barbaric in his behaviors than his city-dwelling descendants.

Anyway, we don't have to go anywhere near that far back to find the multi-generational family schematic that I was talking about: it was still the norm in most of Western civilization up until (and in many places after) the turn of the 20th century.

It's still being practiced by many immigrant populations in the U.S. today.

 

[Quagmire]

If you put any stock in the biblical account, the nations that surrounded the Israelites were not considered models of healthy behavior.

Those nations were "civilized". The Canaanites were city dwellers. So were the Philistines. Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon were highly civilized empires.

The whole reason the Israelites wanted a King in the first place was because during the time of the Judges they were still a loose confederation of tribes constantly at war against civilized Kingdoms. They wanted a centralized government (a civilzation) for the inherent security it offered: an organized, professional, standing army; a centralized leadership with the means and authority to negotiate alliances or make and conduct war with or against other nations and kingdoms; pre-prepared strongholds for the civilian populations to flee to in times of attack.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'll give you that. Maybe it's time were return to the days of the ancient Egyptians

Those nations were "civilized". The Canaanites were city dwellers. So were the Philistines. Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon were highly civilized empires.

The whole reason the Israelites wanted a King in the first place was because during the time of the Judges they were still a loose confederation of tribes constantly at war against civilized Kingdoms. They wanted a centralized government (a civilzation) for the inherent security it offered: an organized, professional, standing army; a centralized leadership with the means and authority to negotiate alliances or make and conduct war with or against other nations and kingdoms; pre-prepared strongholds for the civilian populations to flee to in times of attack.

 

[Quagmire]

Those nations were "civilized". The Canaanites were city dwellers. So were the Philistines. Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon were highly civilized empires.

The whole reason the Israelites wanted a King in the first place was because during the time of the Judges they were still a loose confederation of tribes constantly at war against civilized Kingdoms. They wanted a centralized government (a civilzation) for the inherent security it offered: an organized, professional, standing army; a centralized leadership with the means and authority to negotiate alliances or make and conduct war with or against other nations and kingdoms; pre-prepared strongholds for the civilian populations to flee to in times of attack.

Anyway, point being this: you can't dismiss the legitimacy of the multi-generational family schematic as the norm (if you want to use duration and consistency to establish normalcy) by dismissing it as "barbaric". It's the system humans have been living under for almost all of our existence. And again: if an entire clan or tribe typically participated in the upbringing of all of it's young, it goes without saying that would include homosexual clan and tribe members. In other words, for almost all of our history, homosexuals have been participating in the raising of children.

In the big picture, it's the norm. :yes:

 

[Quagmire]

I'll give you that. Maybe it's time were return to the days of the ancient Egyptians

You're missing the point entirely. You seemed to be under the impression that a multi-generational family system was a discarded relic of the stone age. As I've already pointed out, it was the norm almost everywhere up until the beginning of the previous century.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You're missing the point entirely. You seemed to be under the impression that a multi-generational family system was a discarded relic of the stone age. As I've already pointed out, it was the norm almost everywhere up until the beginning of the previous century.

I think i'm starting to understand. You're drawing a comparison between clan style family units and gay households?

 

[Quagmire]

I think i'm starting to understand. You're drawing a comparison between clan style family units and gay households?

What I'm trying to show you is that the 2 parent family that you referred to as "traditional", isn't as traditional as you think. It's a recent phenomenon. It isn't, and never has been, the norm in human societies from a historical (or even a Biblical) perspective.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What I'm trying to show you is that the 2 parent family that you referred to as "traditional", isn't as traditional as you think. It's a recent phenomenon. It isn't, and never has been, the norm in human societies from a historical (or even a Biblical) perspective.

I can agree that our individualistic Western version of family is a recent phenomenom.

 

[Quagmire]

I can agree that our individualistic Western version of family is a recent phenomenom.

And if that's the case, IMO it weakens the "Intended by God and nature and established by tradition" argument often used in reference to the one-of-each-sex-family-unit by the opponents of gay parenting.

It is, unarguably traditional in Western society now, but it's a very recent tradition.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And if that's the case, IMO it weakens the "Intended by God and nature and established by tradition" argument often used in reference to the one-of-each-sex-family-unit by the opponents of gay parenting.

It is, unarguably traditional in Western society now, but it's a very recent tradition.

That's something to think about I guess

 

[Antiochian]

If you think it's appropriate for her guardian to make his exploits at bathhouses dinnertime conversation in addition to hosting regular visits in his home from new sexual partners then that doesn't say much about your judgement... IMO of course. The point has been that studies have shown that these types of behaviors occur much more frequently in gay households.

That woman's father was extremely inappropriate in talking about his sex life in front of her and taking her to a sex shop. That particular gay man--judging from the info we're given--was an immature person and a lousy parent.

In a small town near where I grew up, the heterosexual mayor who happened to be a church deacon was having a party in his fenced in backyard... in town. Everyone there was naked. His daughter happened to be friends with my niece, and they were teenagers at the time. They walked in on the party and saw the heterosexual mayor-deacon and his pals romping around bare-ace nekked. These sort of parties were a regular thing for him, so no doubt his own kids and probably other people's kids were exposed to that sort of thing more than once.

For every example of a bad gay parent you can toss out at us, there are more examples of good ones. And for every example of a good church-going "normal" heterosexual nuclear family you can give us, there are plenty of examples of such households rearing neglected, abused, unhappy children.

You haven't proven anything.

 

[Drolefille]

. Just we wouldn't be having any sleep-overs at their house.

Why?

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

The concept of demonstating HOW and WHY is lacking

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.

You ignored the fully rationalized and explained responses you've gotten previously in favor of character assassination. As long as you wish to remain willfully ignorant you will remain so.

 

[Antiochian]

It's just un-American for the government to tell us when we can have sex.

Kind of amazing to think that until very recently, a number of states made sodomy between consenting adults illegal.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Why?






You ignored the fully rationalized and explained responses you've gotten previously in favor of character assassination. As long as you wish to remain willfully ignorant you will remain so.

If we're being honest, character and integrity are a huge component of this discussion. Like it or not, or deny it altogether, the realms of science and of morality have clashed in this debate. That's why this discussion differs from scientific discussions on geology, or chemistry. In many cases, people's sex lives, their hopes and their dreams, even their very identities are riding on the findings of the "scientific" community. The fact that the "scientific" community is giving us alot of contradicting reports is no doubt proof of this clash. In fairness to me, I absolutely responded to some of the "scientific" studies with pro-gay adoption findings through quotes from so-called experts, regarded as credible in their field.

 

[Antiochian]

I often wonder why it is that those against same sex couples adopting never seem to understand that it is the breeders putting all those children in the system to begin with.

How is it that the fact that there are children needing adopted in the first place is never something that is brought up against heterosexuals?

This is beautiful and bears repeating. :clap

 

[Me Myself]

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

The fact that I am no great debunker is a shame to those who couldn´t find blame on the sources themselves.

To date you have not put up a single reliable source that says why children don´t diserve to be loved by people instead of "the governments".

I propose gays are throughly examined so they can determine if they will be fit parents or not before giving them the children, exactly as they do/should-do with anyone applying to adopt.

You are going by a hunch that none parent that is gay could ever be a better parent than an orphanage.

You have no studies to back it up, and would prefer children around the world to grow up unloved because of a completely unfounded hunch.

 

[Drolefille]

If we're being honest, character and integrity are a huge component of this discussion. Like it or not, or deny it altogether, the realms of science and of morality have clashed in this debate. That's why this discussion differs from scientific discussions on geology, or chemistry. In many cases, people's sex lives, their hopes and their dreams, even their very identities are riding on the findings of the "scientific" community. The fact that the "scientific" community is giving us alot of contradicting "evidence" is no doubt proof of this clash.

No, your morality clashes with the science that's not the same thing as saying that morality itself clashes; and the only studies that contradict what everyone else is telling you are performed by anti-gay hate groups. If you think the KKK is an acceptable source of information on african-americans, then at least you're consistent.
Multiple christian denominations have zero problems with gay couples, multiple other religions have zero problem with homosexuality, and yet you think laws should be made by your morality because that's how it has 'always' been. Lets let the Episcopalians run things rather than you, or the Native American tribes mentioned throughout this thread and ignored by you. It is not black and white, immoral atheist vs godly believer, it is believer vs believer too.

Keep the bigotry if you are so willing to fight for it but stop trying to legislate it on other people. I sincerely wish people who want their religion's rules to run things should have to live in a country under some other religion's rules.

Regardless, no science doesn't require any sort of character other than the ability to follow the rules of it. Resorting to character assassination is the refuge of hate.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The fact that I am no great debunker is a shame to those who couldn´t find blame on the sources themselves.

To date you have not put up a single reliable source that says why children don´t diserve to be loved by people instead of "the governments".

I propose gays are throughly examined so they can determine if they will be fit parents or not before giving them the children, exactly as they do/should-do with anyone applying to adopt.

You are going by a hunch that none parent that is gay could ever be a better parent than an orphanage.

You have no studies to back it up, and would prefer children around the world to grow up unloved because of a completely unfounded hunch.

And why shouldn't we value your opinion on the subject considering how much effort you put into making sure it's informed?

Translation: "I read about 10-15% of the whole article".

I estimated that you'd actually read maybe 10-15% of what I'd posted. In response to that charge you responded with this gem:

Yeah, the part that mattered.

The argument was:

homosexual parents are harmful. The studies saying this is false were inadequately done, and here are studies telling me that they are harmful. Here are studies of heterosexual couples being compared to the studies of the homosexual ones bing harmful and you see heterosexual couples being better.

Now, what I´ve found out is:

Homosexual parents are harmful. The studies saying this is false are inadequately done, and my studies saying that this is true are also inadequately done. This results of the studies of heterosexual couples that may be as false as those of homosexual couples I provided to you prove to you that they are better than the homosexuals when you compare them with my untrustable homosexual studies.

Is that trustable to you?

After your admirable show of honesty in admitting that you'd put basically no effort at all into reading what I posted, to no surprise, you follow it with a convoluted rant that doesn't even come close to touching upon specific main points in the argument you were attempting to critic.

 

[Me Myself]

And why shouldn't we value your opinion on the subject considering how much effort you put into making sure it's informed

Because if I can debunk the argument with such petty efforts, then you know you didn´t even made the same pathetic effort to see how reliable your source is. So your postures deny the right to children to be happy because you belief, so blindly and carelesly on your posture, with a scrutiny much smaller than mine which you yourself just said was worthless.

If you made at least my same effort to corroborate your sources I would then have to put more effort into it, until then, it hasn´t even been necessary.

Can you understand this?

After your admirable show of honesty in admitting that you'd put basically no effort at all into reading what I posted, to no surprise, you follow it with a convoluted rant that doesn't even come close to touching upon specific main points in the argument you were attempting to critic.

You have yet to show any of this point. You tell me "here is the tree you are looking for" and show me a forest.

Put only the trees that you actually want me to look, because so far all that I´ve found has been worthless. So if I am mistaken, by al means show me that and correct me, cause when I "ranted" I explained to you where was it wrong. You simply taqke what I say and say "oh you haven´t looked well enough".

Well, point me at the tree.