| Yes | 67% | 67% - 112 | ||||
| No | 27% | 27% - 45 | ||||
| I don't know | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Plead the fifth | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Other? (Please State) | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 165 | ||||||
i'm sure we could, i was talking about issues specific to "non-traditional" families.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I could list any number of undesirable personality deformations in children growing up in "normal," heterosexual households. And so can you!
so what issues are specific? please tell.Shahter wrote:
i'm sure we could, i was talking about issues specific to "non-traditional" families.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I could list any number of undesirable personality deformations in children growing up in "normal," heterosexual households. And so can you!
"I don't want gays to raise kids because it would make more gays."Shahter wrote:
i dunno. the issue, as i said, haven't been sufficiently researched. what would be logical to presume, given the nature of sexuality, is that allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children. that would be undesirable, imo.
no. it's based of logical supposition and scientific data available. which is not, as i mentioned earlier, conclusive yet, so i'm open to new input in that regard. unlike some others here.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"I don't want gays to raise kids because it would make more gays."Shahter wrote:
i dunno. the issue, as i said, haven't been sufficiently researched. what would be logical to presume, given the nature of sexuality, is that allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children. that would be undesirable, imo.
Your reservations seem to be based on pure supposition and personal bias.
i'm not here to convince your brainwashed self, man. i'm simply expressing an opinion. for those who would listen.That's not enough to convince me that a gay couple shouldn't adopt, foster, or provide genetic material with which to have their own children.
"objective consensus"? in the "enlightened west", dominated by liberal ideologies? not funny, sorry.And it's certainly not enough to overcome the significant, objective consensus from actual pediatric and social science groups in support of gay rights. Find another bogeyman.
Last edited by Shahter (2015-09-22 22:35:09)
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Well actually no, many people campaigned against the Iraq war, campaign for refugee rights, campaign for general civil liberties, to name three examples, not everyone is wholly self-interested.DesertFox- wrote:
I think you've just pointed out something true of groups in general, not limited to minorities or even fringe groups.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have the impression that the LGBT crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
As a general rule I don't think people who are biologically incapable or mentally disinclined to have children by normal means should be having them - messing with nature in this way is wrong.globefish23 wrote:
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain, affected by the influence of hormones during certain stages in the embryonic brain development.
If anything, you could blame it on the mother's hormone status.
Besides, these gay couples are a child's parents.
They're not prison inmates who turn prison gay.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-09-23 03:11:49)
Why are gay people 'undesirable'?Shahter wrote:
i dunno. the issue, as i said, haven't been sufficiently researched. what would be logical to presume, given the nature of sexuality, is that allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children. that would be undesirable, imo.
Had to google her. Came across this. Funny character.SuperJail Warden wrote:
So they released her from jail. Two presidental candidates and a crowd was there to welcome her while playing eye of the tiger.
[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMO2KkI1OBY[/url]
But if their isn't enough hate and vitriol against the gays then some of the closeted ones may come out. We can't have that.globefish23 wrote:
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain, affected by the influence of hormones during certain stages in the embryonic brain development.
If anything, you could blame it on the mother's hormone status.
Besides, these gay couples are a child's parents.
They're not prison inmates who turn prison gay.
You make it sound like a birth defect.globefish23 wrote:
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain, affected by the influence of hormones during certain stages in the embryonic brain development.
If anything, you could blame it on the mother's hormone status.
thought she was put in remand for contempt.DrunkFace wrote:
But if their isn't enough hate and vitriol against the gays then some of the closeted ones may come out. We can't have that.globefish23 wrote:
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain, affected by the influence of hormones during certain stages in the embryonic brain development.
If anything, you could blame it on the mother's hormone status.
Besides, these gay couples are a child's parents.
They're not prison inmates who turn prison gay.
Also have they put kim davies back in prison? She's still refusing to do her job, which was a condition of her release.
There is nothing defective, but it is by birth.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You make it sound like a birth defect.globefish23 wrote:
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain, affected by the influence of hormones during certain stages in the embryonic brain development.
If anything, you could blame it on the mother's hormone status.
she fathered twins eh? Is she a hermaphrodite?Ultrafunkula wrote:
Had to google her. Came across this. Funny character.SuperJail Warden wrote:
So they released her from jail. Two presidental candidates and a crowd was there to welcome her while playing eye of the tiger.
[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMO2KkI1OBY[/url]
no, it's not just that.globefish23 wrote:
And this is completely wrong.Shahter wrote:
allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children.
Homosexuality is hardwired in the brain, affected by the influence of hormones during certain stages in the embryonic brain development.
If anything, you could blame it on the mother's hormone status.
yeah. i never said that gays should not be allowed to have and raise children, assisted or in other way available. i only said that social care and state support should not, imo, be fully extended to gay families, because they, knowingly, try to partake in civil activities for which they know they are not well suited. a color blind person can, with some difficulty, drive a train. a person with flat feet can, with some difficulty, serve in army. but they are not allowed to for obvious reasons. gays can have children, but there are good reasons to believe that they are not well suited for that.Besides, these gay couples are a child's parents.
They're not prison inmates who turn prison gay.
they have one of their important biological functions severely impaired by their condition.Dauntless wrote:
Why are gay people 'undesirable'?Shahter wrote:
i dunno. the issue, as i said, haven't been sufficiently researched. what would be logical to presume, given the nature of sexuality, is that allowing openly gay people to handle children could result in more gays among those children. that would be undesirable, imo.
By the looks of her, I wouldn't be surprised.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
she fathered twins eh? Is she a hermaphrodite?Ultrafunkula wrote:
Had to google her. Came across this. Funny character.SuperJail Warden wrote:
So they released her from jail. Two presidental candidates and a crowd was there to welcome her while playing eye of the tiger.
[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMO2KkI1OBY[/url]
Are you ... actually talking about reproduction? There are so many possible retorts to that, I don't even know where to begin.Shahter wrote:
they have one of their important biological functions severely impaired by their condition.
I could actually argue with you seriously if your opinion if it didn't pulsate with some magical mystery combination of homophobic/anti-gay, anti-Western, anti-scientific, quasi-scientific, wholly-subjective repressionist whimsy. I think I could respect your opinion if was about something like your favorite brand of socks or the palatability of pineapple pizza. Maybe we can try one of those threads, where my having been brainwashed into enjoying fruit on pizza pies is more pertinent than my having been brainwashed into believing in silly little things like the moon's influence on tides--or trusting the opinions of licensed professionals with doctorates over rants I'd normally have to tune into late-night conspiracy radio (or buy the newest Call of Duty) to hear to their fullest, unadulterated extent.Shahter wrote:
no. it's based of logical supposition and scientific data available. which is not, as i mentioned earlier, conclusive yet, so i'm open to new input in that regard. unlike some others here. [ ... ] i'm not here to convince your brainwashed self, man. i'm simply expressing an opinion. for those who would listen. [ ... ] "objective consensus"? in the "enlightened west", dominated by liberal ideologies? not funny, sorry.
Why are you bothering to argue with the Orthodox church?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Are you ... actually talking about reproduction? There are so many possible retorts to that, I don't even know where to begin.Shahter wrote:
they have one of their important biological functions severely impaired by their condition.I could actually argue with you seriously if your opinion if it didn't pulsate with some magical mystery combination of homophobic/anti-gay, anti-Western, anti-scientific, quasi-scientific, wholly-subjective repressionist whimsy. I think I could respect your opinion if was about something like your favorite brand of socks or the palatability of pineapple pizza. Maybe we can try one of those threads, where my having been brainwashed into enjoying fruit on pizza pies is more pertinent than my having been brainwashed into believing in silly little things like the moon's influence on tides--or trusting the opinions of licensed professionals with doctorates over rants I'd normally have to tune into late-night conspiracy radio (or buy the newest Call of Duty) to hear to their fullest, unadulterated extent.Shahter wrote:
no. it's based of logical supposition and scientific data available. which is not, as i mentioned earlier, conclusive yet, so i'm open to new input in that regard. unlike some others here. [ ... ] i'm not here to convince your brainwashed self, man. i'm simply expressing an opinion. for those who would listen. [ ... ] "objective consensus"? in the "enlightened west", dominated by liberal ideologies? not funny, sorry.
Those people have an actual organic defect.Shahter wrote:
a color blind person can, with some difficulty, drive a train. a person with flat feet can, with some difficulty, serve in army. but they are not allowed to for obvious reasons.
Homosexuals can still very naturally and traditionally create their own offspring.Shahter wrote:
gays can have children, but there are good reasons to believe that they are not well suited for that.
then don't.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Are you ... actually talking about reproduction? There are so many possible retorts to that, I don't even know where to begin.Shahter wrote:
they have one of their important biological functions severely impaired by their condition.
what makes you think i want you to argue with me? based on what you posted on the matter so far, i think it's pretty clear that you have no argument at all, just some unsubstantiated crap drilled into you by gay propaganda.I could actually argue with you seriously if... [blah...blah...blah]
where? O_oJay wrote:
Orthodox church?
