The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Heathen Hammer]

How about the Bible.....ever read it?

Cover to cover several times. You realize st Paul was gay, right?

 

[nnmartin]

no, I didn't actually.

where did you get that info from?

 

[nnmartin]

new thread from MeMyself in the General Debates section seems to have appeared:

(about the adoption issue)

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2791787-post1.html

 

[Heathen Hammer]

From his writings. Textbook case of closeted, self-loathing gay man hiding in an anti-gay society.

 

[nnmartin]

do you have any Biblical quotes or messages that support this idea , or is it just your personal theory?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I do, and I don't particularly want to list them here. Read his stuff. Then consider human nature.

 

[nnmartin]

well, I'm hardly likely to just go off and read half of the New Testament in my lunch break.

but I would like to see these quotes though as it sounds interesting.

Perhaps a new thread topic?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

New topic, perhaps. But it won't be pretty.

 

[nnmartin]

do you want to start it or shall I?

 

[nnmartin]

From his writings. Textbook case of closeted, self-loathing gay man hiding in an anti-gay society.

Hi, HH - I've posted a thread with a similar title to this in the main Religious Debates section.

Hope to see you there

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2791896-post1.html

 

[9Westy9]

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.

I think you're missing a few assumptions. 1) Homosexuals can't raise children. This appears to be what jungle is claiming. 2) Drug Abusers can't raise children (due to their addiction). 3) Drug Abusers aren't allowed to raise children. Either adopted or children they've had via birth. C) Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

edit: Forgot to mention that the reason they can't raise is, apparently, due to their raising of a child having a negative impact. Therefore it's best for the child to be taken away than raised by these groups. Obviously I disagree with number 1

 

[Duck]

Nice taking the easiest question. Care to explain how two consenting adults having sex is "evil" ?

It is not so much two consenting adults having sex that is "evil" in this person's eyes. It is the mere existence of homosexuals that is "evil" and worthy of the death penalty in this person's eyes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do, and I don't particularly want to list them here. Read his stuff. Then consider human nature.

Just because someone is a homophobe doesn't make them gay. While it is considered a defensive mechanism against internal feelings of homosexuality, it is not always the case. I don't see any homosexuality from Paul, but he most definitely portrayed as a womanizing, homophobic bigot.

 

[Draka]

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.

Obviously there was, and still is, a need for a clear up because you obviously still don't understand what I was getting at.

I asked Jungle if homosexuals are such a danger to children that they shouldn't be able to adopt then why aren't biological children removed from them. He essentially said that the government doesn't do that kind of thing. I pointed out that they do by giving the example of someone who was considered a danger to their child enough that social services does indeed step in and take biological children away. So, obviously, if the government, via social services, can determine someone is a danger to their child enough to warrant taking the child away, even at the moment of birth, then the government does indeed have that capability to remove babies and biological children in general for their own safety.

All this leading to the point of why, if he feels they're so dangerous to children that they shouldn't be able to adopt them, is he not advocating for removing their biological children from them to protect them as well? If they're automatically such dangerous parents just for the fact of being gay, then why is he not pushing for taking their babies away the moment they are born?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

why is he not pushing for taking their babies away the moment they are born?

Because fascism has to be inserted into society in small doses. First make it illegal to adopt, then later come back and use that law to take children away from their parents. If you ask for too much at one time you wont get anything. Baby steps must be taken.

(I know you already know this but it seems others might benefit from the above information. )

 

[Drolefille]

Just because someone is a homophobe doesn't make them gay. While it is considered a defensive mechanism against internal feelings of homosexuality, it is not always the case. I don't see any homosexuality from Paul, but he most definitely portrayed as a womanizing, homophobic bigot.

It strikes me as an interesting "what-if" if you read the other thread on it, but nothing more.

Interesting note, much of homophobia is tied up with misogyny...

 

[nnmartin]

All this leading to the point of why, if he feels they're so dangerous to children that they shouldn't be able to adopt them, is he not advocating for removing their biological children from them to protect them as well? If they're automatically such dangerous parents just for the fact of being gay, then why is he not pushing for taking their babies away the moment they are born?

Well I can't really speak for Jungle so you'd have to ask him.

but my view, as already stated is the fact that these two issues are separate topics (ie: drug abusing mother and adoption) so there is no need to link them together.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well I can't really speak for Jungle so you'd have to ask him.

but my view, as already stated is the fact that these two issues are separate topics (ie: drug abusing mother and adoption) so there is no need to link them together.

The link is the ability to raise a child. A drug-using mother is considered an unfit parent and her child is taken from her. Jungle considers homosexuals as unfit to be parents so they're simply asking him if he thinks homosexuals' children should be taken from them.

 

[Me Myself]

Obviously there was, and still is, a need for a clear up because you obviously still don't understand what I was getting at.

You may be expecting too much form him.

 

[nnmartin]

not at all - I've made the point perfectly clear.

Just because a drug abuser has her child taken away does not mean that a homosexual should have as well.

A biological parent has the right to look after their child unless an authority decides otherwise.

but someone does not have the right to adopt a child unless the authority agrees.


You seem to think that by creating some kind of inverted link here you are proving that homosexual adoption should not be an issue.

and note of course that now this mini-debate has steered away from the main topic and just moved into the realm of how one issue does or does not affect another.