Wow! France...Wow.....France Gets It Right?

[Bullypulpit]

I know the feeling. But keep trying, because who knows, maybe you will plant a seed of logic into just one liberal head out there. Remember, your'e doing God's work, Dillo. :halo:

And which god might that be?

 

[dilloduck]

What problem has this leniency caused? The ability of people to be able to be who they are and not what society dictates? That sounds more rational than the traditional male and female.

And it's not abuse to have two "lesbos" as mothers. Would you rather a child live with an abusive father just to learn to be a man, or would you rather him be adopted by two kind-hearted lesbians? I'd go with the latter of the two any day. The boy will figure out who he is as time progresses.

but it's the liberal society who is trying to dictate how men should act. I reject your scenario that a child only has 2 choices. Time wounds all heels.

 

[Abbey Normal]

And which god might that be?

 

[dilloduck]

ya--it's back----it'll go away soon when it's discovered it has lost it's way again. :gross2:

 

[liberalogic]

but it's the liberal society who is trying to dictate how men should act. I reject your scenario that a child only has 2 choices. Time wounds all heels.

You've completely lost me here...

How is the liberal society telling men how to behave? I'm just saying that society used to be more rigid in its perception of the role of the man and the woman. We have been blurring the line that separates gender in order to assert our individuality first and foremost. And I don't mean that we're all transexuals, but that we can now afford opportunities that may not have been compatible with our genders 40 years ago. Learning who you are, how you feel, and what you are capable of achieving, is much more important than conforming to traditional gender standards.

And of course a child doesn't only have two choices; I'm using that as an example to show that if a gay couple can provide a safe and nurturing home for a child who has been abused, there is no rational excuse to say that that is wrong. Perhaps you should eliminate your prejudices in order to facilitate the safety of a child.

 

[dilloduck]

You've completely lost me here...

How is the liberal society telling men how to behave? I'm just saying that society used to be more rigid in its perception of the role of the man and the woman. We have been blurring the line that separates gender in order to assert our individuality first and foremost. And I don't mean that we're all transexuals, but that we can now afford opportunities that may not have been compatible with our genders 40 years ago. Learning who you are, how you feel, and what you are capable of achieving, is much more important than conforming to traditional gender standards.

And of course a child doesn't only have two choices; I'm using that as an example to show that if a gay couple can provide a safe and nurturing home for a child who has been abused, there is no rational excuse to say that that is wrong. Perhaps you should eliminate your prejudices in order to facilitate the safety of a child.

you were lost before you got here-If you are unable to see how society has been castrating the white american male I can't help you.

A child is BEST served by a male and a female parent. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other for a reason for a reason. It would be nice if congenital blind people could see but they can't. Understand?

 

[liberalogic]

you were lost before you got here-If you are unable to see how society has been castrating the white american male I can't help you.

A child is BEST served by a male and a female parent. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other for a reason for a reason. It would be nice if congenital blind people could see but they can't. Understand?

No, you are wrong and of course blinded by your prejudice views so much so that you will compromise the safety of children in exchange for the continuity of tradition. Trust me-- Time doesn't heal everything. The best parenting is NOT determined by sexual preference; it is determined by the act of parenting itself. If you are that concerned with how children are being raised, then maybe you should focus on abusive parents rather than who they screw. You are applying an abstract principle to a problem that is deeply rooted in society-- attack the problem itself, not those who are trying to relieve it.

 

[dilloduck]

No, you are wrong and of course blinded by your prejudice views so much so that you will compromise the safety of children in exchange for the continuity of tradition. Trust me-- Time doesn't heal everything. The best parenting is NOT determined by sexual preference; it is determined by the act of parenting itself. If you are that concerned with how children are being raised, then maybe you should focus on abusive parents rather than who they screw. You are applying an abstract principle to a problem that is deeply rooted in society-- attack the problem itself, not those who are trying to relieve it.

I oppose child abuse whenever confronted with it so lose the insinuation that I somehow think it's a neat thing. The issue here is gay parents adopting. All other things being equal, a child has the BEST chance growing up mentally healthy with a loving mother and father. I'm for giving them the best chance. Parenting isn't a frickin tradition---it's nature.

 

[liberalogic]

I oppose child abuse whenever confronted with it so lose the insinuation that I somehow think it's a neat thing. The issue here is gay parents adopting. All other things being equal, a child has the BEST chance growing up mentally healthy with a loving mother and father. I'm for giving them the best chance. Parenting isn't a frickin tradition---it's nature.

It's a fantasy, though, to think that there are not gay people who can provide better homes than many straight people. If you want to believe that the optimal situation would be a mother and father, I won't even argue with you about that. In reality, though, there are many instances where gay adoption would be much more beneficial than the homes in which many children are raised. Therefore, eliminating their right to adopt would essentially be denying many children a better environment.

 

[dilloduck]

It's a fantasy, though, to think that there are not gay people who can provide better homes than many straight people. If you want to believe that the optimal situation would be a mother and father, I won't even argue with you about that. In reality, though, there are many instances where gay adoption would be much more beneficial than the homes in which many children are raised. Therefore, eliminating their right to adopt would essentially be denying many children a better environment.

So you say---maybe we should ask the kids if they want gay or straight parents.

 

[liberalogic]

So you say---maybe we should ask the kids if they want gay or straight parents.

What the hell is a four year old gonna know about gay people? For those who are older, I'll agree with you. But for a young kid, the decision is best left in the hands of those who have the power to protect him. And also, if those kids who are being adopted have a choice of denying a couple, then they should also be allowed to deny any straight couple.

Agree or disagree?

 

[dilloduck]

What the hell is a four year old gonna know about gay people? For those who are older, I'll agree with you. But for a young kid, the decision is best left in the hands of those who have the power to protect him. And also, if those kids who are being adopted have a choice of denying a couple, then they should also be allowed to deny any straight couple.

Agree or disagree?

Liberal abortionists who would kill a child are now going to try to tell me that putting a child with homosexual parents is really a good thing?? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Let's give em all the right to be born and THEN talk about who should be raising them.

 

[liberalogic]

Liberal abortionists who would kill a child are now going to try to tell me that putting a child with homosexual parents is really a good thing?? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Let's give em all the right to be born and THEN talk about who should be raising them.

Way to respond to any sort of compromise.

If the baby's not born, there is nothing to talk about. I'm sorry, but a fetus (NOT A BABY) that has not yet developed and is completely dependent on the body of the mother is essentially part of the mother's body. Up until the third trimester, which is when it has almost reached maturity, it's her choice.

You can continue to feel as you do and quite frankly I can't argue this anymore since you refuse to deal in reality and sacrifice any piece of your argument en route to the greater concept of compromise.

 

[dilloduck]

Way to respond to any sort of compromise.

If the baby's not born, there is nothing to talk about. I'm sorry, but a fetus (NOT A BABY) that has not yet developed and is completely dependent on the body of the mother is essentially part of the mother's body. Up until the third trimester, which is when it has almost reached maturity, it's her choice.

You can continue to feel as you do and quite frankly I can't argue this anymore since you refuse to deal in reality and sacrifice any piece of your argument en route to the greater concept of compromise.

if a plan or idea has been compromised it's not necessarily "greater"

Get off it. People will do or say anything to try to "normalize" homosexuality and this argument is no different. Marriage won't make homosexuals normal and neither will the right to adopt. Quit using kids for your gay agenda.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Liberal abortionists who would kill a child are now going to try to tell me that putting a child with homosexual parents is really a good thing?? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Let's give em all the right to be born and THEN talk about who should be raising them.

Dillo, you are awesome.

 

[liberalogic]

if a plan or idea has been compromised it's not necessarily "greater"

Get off it. People will do or say anything to try to "normalize" homosexuality and this argument is no different. Marriage won't make homosexuals normal and neither will the right to adopt. Quit using kids for your gay agenda.

I wasn't attempting to normalize it in this discussion. What I was hoping I could get you to agree with was that it would be better for a child to live with a gay couple that provides a safe environment, than with a pair of straight parents who beat the shit out of him. If you refuse to even agree to that, then YOU are using the kids to push your anti-gay agenda. Because in a situation like that there is no rational explanation to rectify your claim except for complete intolerance.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So...what I'm gettin' here is that is better for a child to be adopted by srtaight parents regardless of the fact that the adoptive parents have a meth-lab in the basement or lock the kids up in cages at night rather than having them adopted by a gay couple committed to giving the child a healthy and happy environment to grow up in. Talk about a hosed up moral compass.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So...what I'm gettin' here is that is better for a child to be adopted by srtaight parents regardless of the fact that the adoptive parents have a meth-lab in the basement or lock the kids up in cages at night rather than having them adopted by a gay couple committed to giving the child a healthy and happy environment to grow up in. Talk about a hosed up moral compass.

You're an idiot.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Way to respond to any sort of compromise.

If the baby's not born, there is nothing to talk about. I'm sorry, but a fetus (NOT A BABY) that has not yet developed and is completely dependent on the body of the mother is essentially part of the mother's body. Up until the third trimester, which is when it has almost reached maturity, it's her choice.

You can continue to feel as you do and quite frankly I can't argue this anymore since you refuse to deal in reality and sacrifice any piece of your argument en route to the greater concept of compromise.

Some people don't compromise on baby killing.

 

[5stringJeff]

I wasn't attempting to normalize it in this discussion. What I was hoping I could get you to agree with was that it would be better for a child to live with a gay couple that provides a safe environment, than with a pair of straight parents who beat the shit out of him. If you refuse to even agree to that, then YOU are using the kids to push your anti-gay agenda. Because in a situation like that there is no rational explanation to rectify your claim except for complete intolerance.

False dichotomy.

The vast majority of straight couples who seek to adopt are loving people who want to raise their kids right. Meanwhile, all homosexual couples who seek to adopt are, by definition, seeking to instill in those children the false idea that homosexuality is normal and natural.