-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
And what's average the longevity of those "commited" relationships compared to actual marriages? Admittingly, the average longevity of marriage is nothing to write home about at the moment.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
And what's average the longevity of those "commited" relationships compared to actual marriages? Admittingly, the average longevity of marriage is nothing to write home about at the moment.
what strawman are you attacking now?
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
The reality is actual monogamous marriage is the most stable environment we have for a child. When it's done right, it's the only stable environment to raise a child it...IMO. If you have no problem with sex outside of marriage, I believe you've shown to be just a little more commited to the pursuit for pleasure than you are creating stability for a child. I commend you then for at least being consistent and support gay "marriage" and adoption. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.
When was the drug abusers my thing? Also you clearly missed the point of the drug abusers comment. It was meant to say that if homosexuals can't raise children then we should also take their children away. Although I feel this thread has gone completely off track. Any chance of bringing this back to reasons homosexuals can't adopt rather than comments about how long a relationship lasts in relation to a marriage.
kthnx
Yet you've not shown this to be factual
An opinion that you've only shown to be an opinion
I've made it crystal clear twice already that I'm against cheating. I also believe that marriage is the best environment to raise a child in. If you think my view on sex outside of marriage relates to raising children then you're sorely mistaken
Thanks. I try to be as consistent as possible
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Ah, so your claim is that anyone that has read the Bible is qualified to say who is and who isn't a Christian?
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
The intention is to show how credible the opinion is of those who show more concern for sexual gratification than for dealing with the consequences of sex responsibly. Oh, And just paying child support isn't enough.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Since we are going to point fingers....
I have yet to see anything from you except your usual empty claims and piles of utter bull ****.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Yes, we are all well aware of your personal hangups.
the problem is that you seem to think that your bull **** should carry some sort of weight beyond being called for the bull **** it is.
So basically you're using your own, biased criteria, to decide who has a valid opinion or not based on their other beliefs? We've hit a new low people! Also Ad hominem argument. Just because I believe that sex before marriage is acceptable, doesn't negate my views, arguments or opinions on homosexual adoption.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You have no idea the volumes that quote says about you.That is complete garbage and you know it!
It is your fabricated conclusion which is quite simply the most erroneous and inane one I've seen on this entire thread.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
What is the specific OP here anyway, the thread seems to meander according to it's own will.
How about bringing it back in line with a few clear questions?
Yet you can't name the fallacies I've employed? When you can name them, and show I've used them I'll start taking you seriously.
The thread is related to homosexuality. yet we seem to be dabbling in abortion, sex before marriage and a few other topics.
Question: What evidence is there that homosexual can't raise children?
I want actual research not just an article that agrees with you point of view.
Me Myself
Back to my username
That´s around the stupidest thing I´ve heard so far in this thread. For starters, very few people think that sex outside marriage is okay, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
If sex outside marriage is not even a far away respectable indicator of how good of a parent you are going to be. Most people have had sex outside marriage and very few sexualy repressed people think differently. Ity hasd nothing to do with the discussion anyways.
And for most people in general actually, so yeah, it is a pretty safe bet. Almost everyone asnwers affirmatively all those questions. Did you just travel here from 1980? that would explain the validity some of the studies you posted seem to have in your head.
That would be the secular and legal world in which we live in wouldn´t stand a chance to be swayed by this arguments. By all means, go on.
That´s a master piece of a pathetic reasponse. You outdid yourself. :clap:
Now how about some evidence that homosexual parents damage the child? Just ONE that is RELIABLE. Do remember you come from the past, so you might wanna look at your calendar before puting up what´s in reality today. You might correct me if I am wrong though, maybe you have lived in a cage/cave? where you homeschooled? I am honestly curious.
in any case. One reliable source. NONE yet. Not a single one. not one.
You haven´t put one single reliable source.
So you are denying the right of kids to have parents that love them because you have a hunch that all of them would be bad for them.
I trust that it is a big hunch, I have little doubt of that. You are probably on denial, I don´t know. You sure have been incredibly direct on dodging every time I asked you for a concrete source that doesn´t come with a hundred unreliable sources to hide in. I checkked around 11 of them of the thing you gave me, if I check in 15 will I find a reliable source? 1 in 15? would that be trustable?
Nah, you better give me the good ones, because being hidden in that article descredits them already. So give me one. Each one that you have pointed at from it I have shown you why it was bad.
So give me one I can´t prove wrong. It should be easy. There are millions right? So for this one google it BEFORE you send it to me (then you´ll be doing more than just copy pasting) so you don´t have to pretend I am the lazy one when I show you how wrong it was with even a QUICK search (and that it was quick doesn´t do you any favors, quite to the contrary actualy)
One. Come on boy!. are you gonna dodge the ball again, or are you gonna shoot?
Last edited:
Draka
Wonder Woman
nnmartin, let's just clear this up.
Jungle has stated that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they, in essence, are a danger to the children they raise. I asked if they are such a danger to kids then why stop at not allowing them to adopt, why not take their children at birth? He said that the government can regulate adoption, but not sex and procreation. My point to him was that a woman who abuses drugs will have her baby taken from her the moment it is born because she is declared a danger to the child. If someone is considered a danger to a child then the child will be taken away. So why, if homosexuals are such a danger that they should be forbidden to adopt children, are their children not taken away when they have biological children just like a drug abuser's or anyone else considered bad to have a child?
It was never a comparison on my part between homosexuals and drug abusers. It was a point to prove to him that the government does indeed step in and remove children, even babies, from parents considered to be dangerous to them. I was looking for consistency on his part. Just how dangerous as parents does he really feel homosexuals to be? Dangerous enough to keep them from adopting and raising kids because they will assuredly harm them in some way, but not dangerous enough to remove biological children from their care even though he still believes they will harm them in some way. Where's the consistency? Either they're dangerous parents as a whole or they're not. Which is it?
Jungle has stated that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they, in essence, are a danger to the children they raise. I asked if they are such a danger to kids then why stop at not allowing them to adopt, why not take their children at birth? He said that the government can regulate adoption, but not sex and procreation. My point to him was that a woman who abuses drugs will have her baby taken from her the moment it is born because she is declared a danger to the child. If someone is considered a danger to a child then the child will be taken away. So why, if homosexuals are such a danger that they should be forbidden to adopt children, are their children not taken away when they have biological children just like a drug abuser's or anyone else considered bad to have a child?
It was never a comparison on my part between homosexuals and drug abusers. It was a point to prove to him that the government does indeed step in and remove children, even babies, from parents considered to be dangerous to them. I was looking for consistency on his part. Just how dangerous as parents does he really feel homosexuals to be? Dangerous enough to keep them from adopting and raising kids because they will assuredly harm them in some way, but not dangerous enough to remove biological children from their care even though he still believes they will harm them in some way. Where's the consistency? Either they're dangerous parents as a whole or they're not. Which is it?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's quite sad our society is so brainwashed that there are still those who believe love is an abomination. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then yes you too think love is an abomination.
I am very much in love with another woman, and who is anyone to tell me it is wrong, especially when she is one of the very few things that brings me any happiness in life. We will be parents one day, and with confidence I know the children will turn out just fine.
If you think this is wrong, then your views are very flawed, bigoted, and the fact is you do not have any right or say so o decide who I can marry and have children with.
I am very much in love with another woman, and who is anyone to tell me it is wrong, especially when she is one of the very few things that brings me any happiness in life. We will be parents one day, and with confidence I know the children will turn out just fine.
If you think this is wrong, then your views are very flawed, bigoted, and the fact is you do not have any right or say so o decide who I can marry and have children with.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
No need for a clear up - I'm perfectly aware of this false dichotomy that is being made.
And that is what it is - a false dichotomy; or in RF parlance 'a logical fallacy'.
It is really quite simple.
The fact that a drug abuser may have her child taken away is a separate issue to homosexual adoption.
It is most certainly not a logical follow on to say that this should then be the case for a homosexual even though you and others are trying to form some kind of unrealistic linkage.
Because A happens B happens.
This does not mean that because C happens B must also happen.
So a homosexual having a child by natural means does not mean the child must be taken away.
The drug abuser is just a total red herring analogy.