Florida Ban on Gay Adoptions Ruled Unconstitutional

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I merely used them as an example that not everything associated with Nazis is pure evil. I think eugenics looks good on paper, but almost impossible to put into practice. Moreover, nowhere did I claim I supported genocide.

You may not have meant it that way, but your post did come across that you meant it.

I agree with you that most people should not reproduce. I think you'd be interested in the eugenics movement that was popular a few decades back. Their goal was to prevent children being born to unfit parents, and as result make mankind better.

Read that again and then tell us what impression we are supposed to have.

It was a tongue-in-cheek way of telling that poster that his views on homosexual adoption and his disdain for natural reproduction were in line with the eugenics movement and the notions of bigotry associated with it. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultra laser
No, I was merely pointing out a historical movement they may be of some interest to the poster I quoted. Stop trying to demonize me.

The Nazi's and the KKK were the main proponents of this pseudo-science so why would you point out complete crap? You deserve every bit of criticism you are getting on this thread by posting this nonsensical garbage.

Yes, and the Nazis were also the main proponents behind Volkswagen and the Autobahn, things which millions of people use everyday. What's your point?

Well, the Nazis did indeed commission the VW, Mercedes and BMW. The Autobahn? No (the name is the same but hardly the idea, that is like saying that some mass murdering scumbag thought it was good to travel on a "road" so everyone who thinks that "roads" is a good thing support him, it's just a word)

Does this make your jump from that to that eugenics and genocide was a good thing valid? Of course not.

I merely used them as an example that not everything associated with Nazis is pure evil. I think eugenics looks good on paper, but almost impossible to put into practice. Moreover, nowhere did I claim I supported genocide.

I tried to give you a response that wouldn't involve the words "you retarded piece of shit" but i failed.

Do you have any idea WHY there was a genocide? Has it crossed your mind that the "but almost impossible to put into practice" was the reason Hilter facilitated the genocide?

Eugenics doesn't work because first of all, you would have to go, your kind is something humanity has had more than enough of and can't afford the spread of yet again and when we were done doing away with the likes of you, no one would want the experiment repeated ever again.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
It was a tongue-in-cheek way of telling that poster that his views on homosexual adoption and his disdain for natural reproduction were in line with the eugenics movement and the notions of bigotry associated with it. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.

No, it was not tongue in cheek and you meant it. If it was tongue in cheek, you would have stated that after the first post criticizing it.

 

[ultra laser]

In response to John:

Yes, I have considered these things - that's why I don't think eugenics is feasible; but the idea of taking the chaos of human reproduction and forming it into a kind of order is appealing to me. However, putting this order into place would in most cases involve immoral behavior, which is why I don't support it.

I don't understand why you abhor me so.

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultra laser
It was a tongue-in-cheek way of telling that poster that his views on homosexual adoption and his disdain for natural reproduction were in line with the eugenics movement and the notions of bigotry associated with it. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.

No, it was not tongue in cheek and you meant it. If it was tongue in cheek, you would have stated that after the first post criticizing it.

I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly did I mean - that I was aware of the eugenics movement? Yeah, I guess I did mean that, as I am aware of it. However, if you read the post you'll notice that nowhere do I endorse the movement.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly did I mean - that I was aware of the eugenics movement? Yeah, I guess I did mean that, as I am aware of it. However, if you read the post you'll notice that nowhere do I endorse the movement.

I agree with you that most people should not reproduce. I think you'd be interested in the eugenics movement that was popular a few decades back. Their goal was to prevent children being born to unfit parents, and as result make mankind better.

Looks like you endorsed it to me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
In response to John:

Yes, I have considered these things - that's why I don't think eugenics is feasible; but the idea of taking the chaos of human reproduction and forming it into a kind of order is appealing to me. However, putting this order into place would in most cases involve immoral behavior, which is why I don't support it.

I don't understand why you abhor me so.

I simply don't like Nazists.

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ultra laser
In response to John:

Yes, I have considered these things - that's why I don't think eugenics is feasible; but the idea of taking the chaos of human reproduction and forming it into a kind of order is appealing to me. However, putting this order into place would in most cases involve immoral behavior, which is why I don't support it.

I don't understand why you abhor me so.

I simply don't like Nazists.

What's a Nazist and why don't you like them?

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly did I mean - that I was aware of the eugenics movement? Yeah, I guess I did mean that, as I am aware of it. However, if you read the post you'll notice that nowhere do I endorse the movement.

I agree with you that most people should not reproduce. I think you'd be interested in the eugenics movement that was popular a few decades back. Their goal was to prevent children being born to unfit parents, and as result make mankind better.

Looks like you endorsed it to me.

Then you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

I'll address the sections you put in bold.

"I agree with you that most people should not reproduce." - This is merely an opinion, not a call for mass sterilization or genocide.

"and as a result make mankind better" - This was the goal of the eugenics movement. Note that I begin the sentence with "their."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
In response to Craig:
1. Not being able to conceive due to medical problems is not the same as not being able to conceive due to strange male+male or female+female couplings. I think heterosexuals with medical problems should be able to adopt.

You have renounced your own position that 'if nature wanted them to raise children, they'd be able to bear children'. If it doesn't apply to straights, it doesn't apply to gays.

2. Having religious, vegetarian, or flat-earth parents does not inhibit the child from seeing normal male+female interaction, and how a mother+father relationship works.

Further, kids need to see their mother and father interact, mainly so they will have some kind of basis for their behavior when they (the children) become parents themselves in the future.

You have arbitraily selected on way people are unusual, and said it is a problem for children while not saying that about countless other ways people are different. So your 'because they're different' is out the window as well. Now you get to prove why gay deserves to get special discrimination - prove how children are hurt.

We both know why you really say gay matters - no rational reason, but rather bigotry.

That bigotry leads you to search for some defensible excuse - and as they're torn down you search for new ones - currently you have settled on the 'role models' argument.

The problem you have is that study after study has been done and they show that the children are *just as well off* in every measured way with gay parents.

Your ASSUMPTION based on yout BIGOTED desire to hate gays is shown wrong, and you could care less, because you don't care about the children you care about hating gays.

Also, statistically, gays are grossly abnormal, making up 1-3% of any given population.

So? If blacks were 0.1%, 1%, 10% or 100% of the population, would that make them unfit as parents? I don't care if there's one gay couple, a million or 10 million.

Please post some of these studies that show that kids growing up in a gay household see healthy mother+father interactions on a daily basis.

Try unloading your question to somethign about what's demonstrably good for the kids.

Here are some pointers to studies.

3. No, you hold certain opinions and anyone else who doesn't share them is the boogyman. Instead of discussing the issue like an adult, you call names like a child.

Wrong. You make any valid point and it's fine. You display bigotry and I'll call it bigotry. You can say what you like, it doesn't change what you are and do.

That's not like 'a child', which is merely an attack for you to try to hide from the fact of your own behavior.

You're the one spouting things without any logic or facts to back them up, and you are called on it for what you do.

4. Nature excludes a lot of people from a lot of things. In my youth I strongly desired to be a concert pianist, but my hands are too small. While I can easily play Bach, I'm physically unable to play Liszt. Life isn't fair - that's just how it is. We shouldn't punish children by putting them in strange living environments just to appease a very small portion of the population.

The only reason you have to restrict the rights of gay people are lies you make up because you are bigoted against them.

You can't be a pianist - but if you had the hands, and played the piano beautifully, and 100 classical music experts were asked for an opinion and said you were a good pianist, but you were denied the right to play the piano because some ass was making up lies about why you should not be allowed to, then that would be like what you are doing to good gay parents.

You make all kinds of claims about 'punishing' children that you can't back up.

5. I don't hate gays. I just don't think they make suitable parents. There's a difference.

Like most bigots, you are not aware of your own bigotry, and you believe that.

But it's not true. You don't believe gays can be good parents because you are bigoted, which is a hatred of them that blinds you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly did I mean - that I was aware of the eugenics movement? Yeah, I guess I did mean that, as I am aware of it. However, if you read the post you'll notice that nowhere do I endorse the movement.

I agree with you that most people should not reproduce. I think you'd be interested in the eugenics movement that was popular a few decades back. Their goal was to prevent children being born to unfit parents, and as result make mankind better.

Looks like you endorsed it to me.

Then you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

I'll address the sections you put in bold.

"I agree with you that most people should not reproduce." - This is merely an opinion, not a call for mass sterilization or genocide.

"and as a result make mankind better" - This was the goal of the eugenics movement. Note that I begin the sentence with "their."

You really would not like the result if we took a forum vote on how to make the human race better when it comes to you, Ultra Laser. You might only be neutered, if lucky.

I think 80%+ would vote that children are far more at risk being raised by you with your bigotry you would expose them to, than by gay parents.

It's a lot of fun getting to play the game like you have the good genes while you call for sanctions on all the inferior people, but not so fun when you are the target, eh?

 

[ultra laser]

To Craig:

These stats show that children who grow up fatherless are significantly more likely to have shitty lives. I think it's safe to assume that children who grow up motherless will be similarly affected (but the stats don't exist because mothers almost always receive child custody).


http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml

"# 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
# 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
# 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
# 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
# 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
# 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)"

So, given this information, why is it a good idea to put children into fatherless or motherless homes instead of homes that contain both a father and a mother?

Also, according to dictionary.com, a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion," which I think describes you very well. Please try to limit your name calling in your response, as it's really annoying.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
To Craig:

These stats show that children who grow up fatherless are significantly more likely to have shitty lives. I think it's safe to assume that children who grow up motherless will be similarly affected (but the stats don't exist because mothers almost always receive child custody).


http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml

"# 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
# 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
# 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
# 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
# 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
# 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)"

The deal is, the anti-gay groups cite studies comparing male-female homes with *single parent* homes, that show children do worse with one parent, as their 'proof'.

Without even looking, I can tell you almost certainly that not one study you cited is comparing male-female homes and two parent gay-couple homes.

How can I say that? Because every study I've heard of which does compare two parent gay-couple homes shows that the kids do every bit as good.

So, given this information, why is it a good idea to put children into fatherless or motherless homes instead of homes that contain both a father and a mother?

I'll agree with you that two-parent homes do better than one-parent. But it's nothing but bigotry upon which you claim that two gay parents are worse.

Also, according to dictionary.com, a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion," which I think describes you very well. Please try to limit your name calling in your response, as it's really annoying.

That's one definition, not the only one, and it does not describe me at all.

I have views based on rational opinions. If the studies showed that kids did terrible in gay parent homes, I'd change my position, because my position is based on rational opinion.

As for your being annoyed by your bigotry being attacked, that's the normal reaction someone who is bigoted has when that happens. Of course you don't like it.

But the bigotry demands to be challenged, not politely ignored and allowed to continute as if it were ok.

The solution is not for it to get swept under the rug but for you to recognize and fix it. And you'll keep hearing that bigotry is bigotry until you do.

It's not name-calling, it's an objective description of the condition.