FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,069
- 2,701
- 126
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
You missed my sarcasm, probably cause I'm not all that good at it. Reread his second paragraph. He stated that it should be monogamous. My point is that if you are going to "tolerate" gay couples adopting then why not swingers. Isn't this being hipocrytical?
It used to be one woman, one man. Now its, one woman, one man OR two men OR two women. 10 years down the road do we add one man, two women? Shouldn't we tolerate it?
Where is the line from one group to the next? Who is the judge of what is ok for the psychology of the children. College psychologists? Please! Frued may be looked on as a fraud now, but he wasn't 50 years ago.
How about some politically correct terms here.
I voted yes. With the surplus of children in foster care/orphanages, why not let them go to a loving home, reguardless of the sexual orientation.
I voted yes. With the surplus of children in foster care/orphanages, why not let them go to a loving home, reguardless of the sexual orientation.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Please explain to me how you make the jump from a monogamous homosexual relationship to a "swinger" heterosexual couple?
You really must have no clue of many homosexual lifestyles. MANY of them are in committed, and long standing monogamous relationships. Not allowing civil unions or marriages for homosexuals just inhibits that even more.
That would be nice to have some correct terminology in this thread. But unfortunetly the author is convinced that "homoadoption" is a real word.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
There is no jump. I am not equating one to the other in terms of lifestyle. Sure they are totally different. My whole essence of my argument was against the use of the word "tolerance". Where is the line drawn? Wouldn't you agree it has to be somewhere? Actually, yes you do, because you stated that it must be with a monogamous relationship (irregardless of gender). Well, someone will eventually push that line and say "no wait, you have to tolerate my lifestyle" (it makes no difference what it is, I used swingers as an example). Do we continue to extend the line for society's sake, for the sake of being "tolerant"?
Am I not being clear enough?
Could you please show me where I stated that? And BTW the swedish media frequently uses the term "homoadoption" in the discussion so maybe it's the english language that hasn't caught up since we're so liberal over here
If these swingers are going to be good parents why the hell shoulnd't they adopt? and if someone chooses to be a swinger, who are you to judge them?
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
I am a part of society. That is my job. I do not tolerate everything, that would lead to chaos. Everyone is judged, whether you like it or not, rather you know it or not. If you took that argument, then I go back to my previous and I say let pediophiles adopt. Who are you to judge them?
whereas there have been no reputable studies to show that homosexual parents have an adverse effect on children, and numerous well-respected child care and pediatric organizations have given it their blessing, i think just about any child care / pediatric / psychiatric professional would recommend against placing a child in a situation in which the parents are not monogamous.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Honestly, I still can't tell what you are getting at, and whether or not your comments are for the better intentions of a child in a foster home, or whether or not they are persuaded by your personal feelings twords homosexuality.
I never once preached tolerance. That was someone else. What I did say was that there should be(and there is) some criteria that is met outside of sexual orientation that would qualify a parent as a suitable adoption candidate.
If you feel that a homosexual couple would make bad parents because of their sexual orientation, for the sake of this thread, just come out and say it.
Originally posted by: nihil
That would be nice to have some correct terminology in this thread. But unfortunetly the author is convinced that "homoadoption" is a real word.
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: nihil
That would be nice to have some correct terminology in this thread. But unfortunetly the author is convinced that "homoadoption" is a real word.
everything has to be PC these days eh?
Not even. It's just that using "homo" instead of homosexual is considered derogatory, and there is no reason to do that.
Originally posted by: nihil
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: nihil
That would be nice to have some correct terminology in this thread. But unfortunetly the author is convinced that "homoadoption" is a real word.
everything has to be PC these days eh?
Not even. It's just that using "homo" instead of homosexual is considered derogatory, and there is no reason to do that.
that's the embodiment of political correctness, some people find a term derogatory and all of the sudden legitimate usage is frowned upon.
maybe those that consider it derogatory are being overly sensitive, and should examine the origins of the term.
well, i think what he was getting at was the reason why that reason would lead to them not being allowed to adopt.
Butt-sex doesn't produce children. Fuzz-bumping doesn't produce children. It's not natural, and that's what the gentleman is trying to get across. It ain't natural. The human mind wasn't made to be raised with an anti-heterosexual view. Gay folks are broken hetero's.
nik
If the potential parents are otherwise suitable for the job of parenting: sure, go right ahead! And that applies for both heteros and gays. If the are suitable, I see no problem with it. And their sexual orientation does not matter.
They can't raise the child in to a homosexual. If they could, then why do we have gays, since they were born in to heterosexual families and they were exposed to heterosexual lifestyle. If people could just raise their child in to hetero or gay, we wouldn't have gays in the first place, since all children these days are raised according to the hetero values. Since children living in hetero families can still turn gay, then what makes you think that children in gay families would automatically turn gay?
What they could raise the child in to, is to be a more open-minded person.
They can't raise the child in to a homosexual. If they could, then why do we have gays, since they were born in to heterosexual families and they were exposed to heterosexual lifestyle. If people could just raise their child in to hetero or gay, we wouldn't have gays in the first place, since all children these days are raised according to the hetero values. Since children living in hetero families can still turn gay, then what makes you think that children in gay families would automatically turn gay?
What they could raise the child in to, is to be a more open-minded person.
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
So they have sex different. Whoopdeefuggindoo. How does that prevent them from being good parents if they meet all the critera (once again, outside of sexual orientation) that a heterosexual couple does?
I can't believe that you can honestly look a child in the eye that is in a foster home against their will, or in a ward of the state, and tell them that they are better off there than they are in a loving home of two homosexual people.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter