Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Moghul wrote:All right, bigots and bigotresses. If a child who has two mothers or two fathers, rather than parents of mixed gender descent - if such a child can be said to be denied the right to a parent of whatever gender - does that mean that a child with heterosexual parents are similarly denied the right to either a second father or a second mother (which is a privelege of children of homosexual parents)? If not, why not?

That's not the way nature's designed us

UNNATURAL

You still have to explain what you mean by unnatural. Do you think it's unnatural to cure sick people? Or to wear clothes? Because I'd say homosexuality is much, much more natural than that.

None of the things you mention infringe on people's rights however, homosexuality does infringe upon a child's right to a natural upbringing. Even you must see that some things are unnatural and immoral, others artificial ut overalll beneficial.

you could probably /thread now if you wanted to.

It could go on ad infinimum about nappy aruging its unnatural vs everyone else aruging theres nothing that says its unnatural.

but it doesnt need to.

Napoleon Ier wrote:None of the things you mention infringe on people's rights however, homosexuality does infringe upon a child's right to a natural upbringing. Even you must see that some things are unnatural and immoral, others artificial ut overalll beneficial.

There you go with the natural again!?! Is being raised by you sister or grandmother natural? Just asking because it does happen.

As far as the Immoral is concerned, everyone has their own morals. What gives you the right to force your own morals on others? Your the one infringing on others people's rights.

While I agree that there should be a masculine and a feminine influence in a child's life, I feel that there should be no discrimination against those who don't have the option.

Being raised by two gay men is unnatural! It also tramples the rights of children!
Morality IS NOT PERSONAL, I dont know what Nietzschien hole you emerged from but I very much doubt you seriously believe in moral relativism.

I would prefer for a child to be adopted by a one-father/one-mother home. I think that's the most stable environment for a kid.

CoffeeCream wrote:I would prefer for a child to be adopted by a one-father/one-mother home. I think that's the most stable environment for a kid.

Bravo, bravo.

Being raised by one man and one woman
Is probably more 'unnatural'! Through
Generations of cultural learning mankind has
Oppressed his instinctive behaviours and
Thereby formed 'monogamous' procreational
Relationships. This was to secure paternity,
Yet also interlinked with the concept of property

Napoleon Ier wrote:As I've said, I hink it is clear that huge impact will be had on a child's development if he is raised bu gays. This is unnatural, and the effect will e negative. Simply because gays want rights doesnt mean they should be allowed to trample the fundamental rights of others : namely a child to have a father and a mother

As I've said, I think it is clear that a huge impact will be had on a child's development if he is raised by christians. This is unnatural, and the effect will be negative. Simply because christians want rights doesn't mean they should be allowed to trample the fundamental rights of others: namely a child to be raised without a cult influence.

So, besides all this: Do you people really want to FORCE your OPINIONS on other people? Do you really want to BLOCK homosexuals from bringing a child, whose original parents did not want, or could not raise, a good home and a loving environment? Sounds pretty SELFISH to me.

I say, if a coupel wishes to adabt a child, and they can supply a loving environment, food, shelter, education (either public or private), medical care and everything else for a child's well being... they should be able to adapt!

Who is it to say that the upbringing of a child is wrong? In 20 years, will this child be a rapist? Will they be a murderer? Will they commit crimes in general? How do you know that they will?? You don't, and cannot know.

Backglass wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:As I've said, I hink it is clear that huge impact will be had on a child's development if he is raised bu gays. This is unnatural, and the effect will e negative. Simply because gays want rights doesnt mean they should be allowed to trample the fundamental rights of others : namely a child to have a father and a mother

As I've said, I think it is clear that a huge impact will be had on a child's development if he is raised by christians. This is unnatural, and the effect will be negative. Simply because christians want rights doesn't mean they should be allowed to trample the fundamental rights of others: namely a child to be raised without a cult influence.

That's an interesting point. Of course I'm sure that Christians would find it either "unnatural" or "immoral" for atheists or perhaps even agnostics to raise children.

Since Napolean is unwilling to define immoral I'll do it.

Immoral: A subjective idea of that makes the skin crawl. Usually associated with the words "nasty", "gross", and "barf".

And why can't these polls have a clear answer?

Should Gays have the right to adopt?

Yes or no.

because he has shamelessly weighted the question to get the result he wanted due to his bigotry. ... at least that's the way it looks to me

jiminski wrote:because he has shamelessly weighted the question to get the result he wanted due to his bigotry. ... at least that's the way it looks to me

That accusation is entirely unfair

Heimdall wrote:And why can't these polls have a clear answer?

Should Gays have the right to adopt?

Yes or no.

Because then the poll would be vastly one-sided towards Yes. This question is basically saying "If there are two equally valid choices for an adopting family but one is a homosexual family and the other is heterosexual should the heterosexual couple take preference?"

Napoleon Ier wrote:Being raised by two gay men is unnatural!

So is wearing a suit and getting the bus every morningaspposed to living up a tree and eating it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It also tramples the rights of children!

How?

Heck, how are "rights" natural at all in a world shaped by survival of the fittest?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:because he has shamelessly weighted the question to get the result he wanted due to his bigotry. ... at least that's the way it looks to me

That accusation is entirely unfair

I think not .. you may even beleive that it was fair and balanced as it was a subconscious choice.
But you even made me double take.


Yes, in all circumstances, treated just as heterosexual couples are in applications

Yes in all circumstances conjures up our prejudice to Gay men in particular and the drip-feed from the conservative media which labels Gay men as paedophiles.

So you ask us to make the choice in the first few words... you are saying "are you willing to risk" (no matter how small...)"the child's exposure to abuse from perverted homosexuals when they could be safe with a 'normal' couple?"

Asked like this who would risk it? you have used a tried and tested trick to manipulate the result you want.

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:because he has shamelessly weighted the question to get the result he wanted due to his bigotry. ... at least that's the way it looks to me

That accusation is entirely unfair

I think not .. you may even beleive that it was fair and balanced as it was a subconscious choice.
But you even made me double take.


Yes, in all circumstances, treated just as heterosexual couples are in applications

Yes in all circumstances conjures up our prejudice to Gay men in particular and the drip-feed from the conservative media which labels Gay men as paedophiles.

So you ask us to make the choice in the first few words... you are saying "are you willing to risk" (no matter how small.. you soften it to appear reasonable in second half of the question) "the child's exposure to abuse from perverted homosexuals?"

Asked like this who would risk it? you have used a tried and tested trick to manipulate the result you want.

I dont understand a word of what you're driving at

Ok, sorry: you weight the question to get the answer you want.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:because he has shamelessly weighted the question to get the result he wanted due to his bigotry. ... at least that's the way it looks to me

That accusation is entirely unfair

No its absolutely true and you know so !

jiminski wrote:Ok, sorry: you weight the question to get the answer you want.

how?

1. Homosexual = Hetero
2.Hetero>Homo
3.No Opinion

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:Ok, sorry: you weight the question to get the answer you want.

how?

1. Homosexual = Hetero
2.Hetero>Homo
3.No Opinion

All you have to do is ask yourself why you used the phrase 'In all circumstances'

What was at its root?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:Ok, sorry: you weight the question to get the answer you want.

how?

1. Homosexual = Hetero
2.Hetero>Homo
3.No Opinion

No what you fail to see is that option 2 can be read 2 ways. Either you think being brought up by 2 heterosexual parents is a little better than 2 gay parents, or that gays addopting shouldn't be allowed whatsoever.

Why wasn't the poll made less elaborate?
Why not simply, yes/no/no opinion on the issue on whether to allow gays adopting?

no, This is coming from a kid that was adopted in RL. If my parents were gay I probly would be not be able to live in the house with them.