The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[nnmartin]

It is not the same though because this topic tends to revolve around reproduction - and we know that a same-sex couple cannot do that together.

And as far as studies go, I have seen Jungle provide many examples which seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

But I'm happy to let you two discuss that one - I prefer debating by opinion.

 

[Me Myself]

It is not the same though because this topic tends to revolve around reproduction - and we know that a same-sex couple cannot do that together.

Similarities are enough still. A single woman can be given some kid in adoption, and she wouldn´t be able to reproduce alone.

Couples that are unfertile are also not excluded from the posibility of adopting. (actually, if it was based in that, almost no one wouild adopt)

And as far as studies go, I have seen Jungle provide many examples which seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

That´s cause you didn´t corroborate them at all.

But I'm happy to let you two discuss that one - I prefer debating by opinion.

Oki doky. May you be well

 

[nnmartin]

ok, well I seem to have now put 2 very similar posts up.

One here and one on the other thread in the General Debates section.

I am going to move down there now to avoid discussing the same thing twice.

so any questions like the one above I'm happy to deal with on the other thread.

 

[darkendless]

It is not the same though because this topic tends to revolve around reproduction - and we know that a same-sex couple cannot do that together.

And as far as studies go, I have seen Jungle provide many examples which seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

Same tired old arguements that are still as stupid as they were when they first came out

 

[nnmartin]

but don't you see , that is just your personal opinion - so why should it hold any more value than mine?

 

[darkendless]

but don't you see , that is just your personal opinion - so why should it hold any more value than mine?

Because your opinion is conservative and uses a draconic set of ideals to decide for others how they should live if you were to vote.

You have a right to an opinion, but I do not respect it, and it disgusts me to the core that Christians (and others but mainly Christians) have the nerve to tell others how to live when it has absolutely no affect on them.

Hetrosexuals are the worst people on the planet for creating unwanted children they can't support. Yet people have the nerve and the arrogance to try and tell two gays that they're unfit parents because of their sexual preference. It is rigid dogma like this that completely ruins any respect any person on the planet should have for religious stance on the issue.

 

[nnmartin]

it is not just Christians or religious people that have this stance though.

I think there are far more atheists that believe this too.

I may seem like a bigot on the board but that is all it is - the board is not real life.

Do you really think that if you were to go around all the local bars, football grounds, factories , workshops and farms of the country you would get so much support for this issue.

It is hardly likely.

 

[darkendless]

it is not just Christians or religious people that have this stance though.

I think there are far more atheists that believe this too.

I may seem like a bigot on the board but that is all it is - the board is not real life.

Do you really think that if you were to go around all the local bars, football grounds, factories , workshops and farms of the country you would get so much support for this issue.

It is hardly likely.

The atheists are just as bigoted, but, from experience, at least they don't hide behind a book. They are just narrow minded.

However, it is generally the religious who are intolerant and aggressive with their bigotry. They feel it is their right to deny the same rights they enjoy to others. This to me is just shocking, especially in this day and age.

It wouldn't be hard to find support i'm sure. But then again humans are generally stupid and stubborn. I have no faith in humanity and no faith in the faithful to ever be more than a herd of sheep.

 

[nnmartin]

The atheists are just as bigoted, but, from experience, at least they don't hide behind a book. They are just narrow minded.

in your opinion of course.

However, it is generally the religious who are intolerant and aggressive with their bigotry.

you appear to be the aggressive one here.

They feel it is their right to deny the same rights they enjoy to others. This to me is just shocking, especially in this day and age.

personal opinion again - what makes yours the right one?

It wouldn't be hard to find support i'm sure. But then again humans are generally stupid and stubborn. I have no faith in humanity and no faith in the faithful to ever be more than a herd of sheep.

a touch of arrogance here perhaps?

 

[darkendless]

in your opinion of course.

Yes, but lets not fools ourselves.

you appear to be the aggressive one here.

No, i've just been here long enough to be sick and tired of religious arguements with no substance. Maybe I could take a leaf out of certain Christians books and try and find a way to deny them rights to see how they feel about enforcing their draconic beliefs on others?

personal opinion again - what makes yours the right one?

If not for denying rights, what does the religious stance hope to achieve?

a touch of arrogance here perhaps?

No, realism. I have better things to do with my time than rally for gay rights, its commonly known that major organisations will stand up to deny others the rights they enjoy. I'm hetrosexual, it just bothers me how self absorbed some people (and organisations are). I say live and let live. Christians don't hold the keys to marriage, it existed long before them. Let gay couples enjoy the same rights everyone else does because put simply, their life is not our business. The arrogance I see is particularly christian organisations making it their business.

 

[nnmartin]

well, ok - that is a reasonable post.

anyway, I'm leaving this thread now as I think it's run out of steam and I've no real desire to dive into the same old debate again - time for new pastures

 

[9Westy9]

of course it's not just me that says it is a perceived risk - many others also share this opinion and have also put forward studies which they believe prove it.

However, as with other threads in the forum I fail to see how subjective reasoning is not considered a viable method.

Because we're talking about rights, not beliefs. If I believe that Christians can't raise children, it doesn't mean that I have the right to tell them not to.

Outside of the debate forum world, subjective reasoning is used all the time.

but not when deciding rights

think about the Job interview, the date, the new friend, the business etc...

doesn't deal with rights

It is an essential deciding principle in life.

but not as good as objective reasoning or reasoning that aims for something higher i.e. eudaemonism (for all)

Can you convince a judge that subjective factors have no value? - highly unlikely.

Because a judge usually deals with cases where subjective perceptions become the best evidence. Sometimes all you have are eye witnesses.

 

[Draka]

ok, well I will say it straight up then:

1. Homosexual has the right to look after their own child - because it is theirs biologically.

2. Homosexual cannot adopt because of the perceived risk.

So it is the biological right here which supersedes the perceived risk.

In the case of the drug abuser it can be proved far more objectively that the parent would be a risk to the child.

The same-sex situation is far more subjective.

That is the long and short of it.

1. If there was any real risk they would lose custody of their biological children like anyone else who honestly demonstrated a dangerous risk to their children.

2. Homosexuals CAN adopt because there is no real risk to speak of. It's that some people THINK they shouldn't not really because of any real risk, but because of imagined risk stemming from their own prejudice.

 

[nnmartin]

It is a highly subjective issue I will admit for sure.

But this is why, in this case we need an argument based on subjectivity because in the end this will be the issue that decides whether adoption or marriage will be legalised or not.

We have seen on this thread, how little use scientific studies actually are, as the argument just goes back and forth, claim then counter-claim and refutation from both sides of the debate.

somehow it must be proven that same-sex adoption and marriage is viable.

How you do that, I'm not sure.

Perhaps one day it will be considered as normal as hetero but perhaps not.

 

[McBell]

It is a highly subjective issue I will admit for sure.

But this is why, in this case we need an argument based on subjectivity because in the end this will be the issue that decides whether adoption or marriage will be legalised or not.

No.
In order to ban same sex marriage and same sex adoption, those looking for them to remain banned need to present a legitimate legal reason to ban it.

That has not been done.

We have seen on this thread, how little use scientific studies actually are, as the argument just goes back and forth, claim then counter-claim and refutation from both sides of the debate.

Except your side has not presented any scientific studies...

Perhaps some day you will start?

somehow it must be proven that same-sex adoption and marriage is viable.

Actually, in order to ban it, your side needs to present a legitimate legal reason to ban it.

"it is yucky" is not a legitimate legal reason.
"the Bible says" is not a legitimate legal reason.
"it is immoral" is not a legitimate legal reason.

 

[Draka]

It is a highly subjective issue I will admit for sure.

But this is why, in this case we need an argument based on subjectivity because in the end this will be the issue that decides whether adoption or marriage will be legalised or not.

In that case, already done because both are legal. It is just some places are holding out for whatever reason even though the practices are legal and working just dandy in a lot of more advanced places and societies.

We have seen on this thread, how little use scientific studies actually are, as the argument just goes back and forth, claim then counter-claim and refutation from both sides of the debate.

somehow it must be proven that same-sex adoption and marriage is viable.

How you do that, I'm not sure.

We don't have to, it's already been done as I've said. They are obviously viable because they are in legal practice in many places right now and there are no real problems that have arisen because of them. They are going along just fine and dandy just like their hetero counterparts. So at this point it is on the people opposing them to explain how they are not supposedly viable.

Perhaps one day it will be considered as normal as hetero but perhaps not.

In many places they already are. Other places just have some catching up to do.

 

[9Westy9]

It is a highly subjective issue I will admit for sure.

But this is why, in this case we need an argument based on subjectivity because in the end this will be the issue that decides whether adoption or marriage will be legalised or not.

We have seen on this thread, how little use scientific studies actually are, as the argument just goes back and forth, claim then counter-claim and refutation from both sides of the debate.

somehow it must be proven that same-sex adoption and marriage is viable.

How you do that, I'm not sure.

Perhaps one day it will be considered as normal as hetero but perhaps not.

Judging all homosexuals based on studies is a form of discrimination. Until you can objectively show that homosexuals CANNOT raise children then banning them from adopting is discrimination.

 

[nnmartin]

No.
In order to ban same sex marriage and same sex adoption, those looking for them to remain banned need to present a legitimate legal reason to ban it.

That has not been done.

But same sex marriage is already banned in many places and I would say that the legal angle needs to be looked at the other way round.

ie: those wishing to legalise it need to come up with the reasons.

right, wrong?

 

[nnmartin]

Except your side has not presented any scientific studies...
Perhaps some day you will start?

Not from me , no.

I am not too interested in the claim v. counter claim game as it's all really just an exercise who is the best at searching online.

Actually, in order to ban it, your side needs to present a legitimate legal reason to ban it.

like I said, it is already banned in most places anyway.

it is yucky" is not a legitimate legal reason.
"the Bible says" is not a legitimate legal reason.
"it is immoral" is not a legitimate legal reason.

I agree that those examples are not valid legal reasons and are only factors in the overall debate.

 

[nnmartin]

Until you can objectively show that homosexuals CANNOT raise children then banning them from adopting is discrimination.

Isn't banning single people or those with low incomes a form of discrimination too though?