Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

Ah, I see, so your attempt to get me to remove myself from the discussion over the assertion that someone else already 'won the argument' isn't valid since I can also respond to whomever I want, when I want, just like you.

It seems that the 'right' to do something, such as post on a public message board, only exists if all parties agree...

As far as I'm concerned, advocating discrimination based on the opinion of 'just because' in a forum where people usually have facts behind their reasoning...is trolling. You look around anywhere in the political forum and you will find logical intelligent debate. Debate between Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Debate that goes beyond the line of thinking of 'because I said so.'

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but upping the level of intelligence will get you a little more respect.

[Marx]

Ah, I see, so your attempt to get me to remove myself from the discussion over the assertion that someone else already 'won the argument' isn't valid since I can also respond to whomever I want, when I want, just like you.

It seems that the 'right' to do something, such as post on a public message board, only exists if all parties agree...

As far as I'm concerned, advocating discrimination based on the opinion of 'just because' in a forum where people usually have facts behind their reasoning...is trolling. You look around anywhere in the political forum and you will find logical intelligent debate. Debate between Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Debate that goes beyond the line of thinking of 'because I said so.'

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but upping the level of intelligence will get you a little more respect.

[BlackLantern]

Wrong. My position is that we should not discriminate against children who have the right to be raised in a hetero family for the sake of ensuring someone else's 'desire' to raise children just "Cuz."

Do I think it's great that gay people care about children just as much as hetero children? Yes. But that does not mean that I agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children when hetero couples are available.

What about the couple best suited for the job....what if it comes to a decision between a hetero couple who is living paycheck to paycheck as opposed to a gay couple who is doing very well??

[BlackLantern]

Wrong. My position is that we should not discriminate against children who have the right to be raised in a hetero family for the sake of ensuring someone else's 'desire' to raise children just "Cuz."

Do I think it's great that gay people care about children just as much as hetero children? Yes. But that does not mean that I agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children when hetero couples are available.

What about the couple best suited for the job....what if it comes to a decision between a hetero couple who is living paycheck to paycheck as opposed to a gay couple who is doing very well??

[BlackLantern]

Wrong. My position is that we should not discriminate against children who have the right to be raised in a hetero family for the sake of ensuring someone else's 'desire' to raise children just "Cuz."

Do I think it's great that gay people care about children just as much as hetero children? Yes. But that does not mean that I agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children when hetero couples are available.

What about the couple best suited for the job....what if it comes to a decision between a hetero couple who is living paycheck to paycheck as opposed to a gay couple who is doing very well??

[lazur]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

[lazur]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

[lazur]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

[jaguarr]

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

Mmmm....I see. But government intervention where parents, including adoptive ones, are gay, would be okay (gays can have kids through other avenues besides adoption, you know)? Interesting.

jag

[jaguarr]

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

Mmmm....I see. But government intervention where parents, including adoptive ones, are gay, would be okay (gays can have kids through other avenues besides adoption, you know)? Interesting.

jag

[jaguarr]

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

Mmmm....I see. But government intervention where parents, including adoptive ones, are gay, would be okay (gays can have kids through other avenues besides adoption, you know)? Interesting.

jag

[lazur]

What about the couple best suited for the job....what if it comes to a decision between a hetero couple who is living paycheck to paycheck as opposed to a gay couple who is doing very well??

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

[lazur]

What about the couple best suited for the job....what if it comes to a decision between a hetero couple who is living paycheck to paycheck as opposed to a gay couple who is doing very well??

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

[lazur]

What about the couple best suited for the job....what if it comes to a decision between a hetero couple who is living paycheck to paycheck as opposed to a gay couple who is doing very well??

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

[Gilpesh]

Children don't have rights. Because they can't comprehend and then agree to social contract.


I mean, if we're going overboard with generalizations in this thread. Children don't have rights.

[Gilpesh]

Children don't have rights. Because they can't comprehend and then agree to social contract.


I mean, if we're going overboard with generalizations in this thread. Children don't have rights.

[Gilpesh]

Children don't have rights. Because they can't comprehend and then agree to social contract.


I mean, if we're going overboard with generalizations in this thread. Children don't have rights.

[The Senator]

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

But you don't believe that a child should be raised without both a male and female influence. If a mother is raising her children by herself, then shouldn't she not be able to have custody of that child? Shouldn't it be taken out of the mother's custody and put into the adoption process, considering it is only being raised by a member of one sex? :huh:

[The Senator]

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

But you don't believe that a child should be raised without both a male and female influence. If a mother is raising her children by herself, then shouldn't she not be able to have custody of that child? Shouldn't it be taken out of the mother's custody and put into the adoption process, considering it is only being raised by a member of one sex? :huh:

[The Senator]

Wrong. The government cannot forcibly remove children from single parent homes unless a single parent proves incapable or unfit.

So you're essentially advocating the removal of children from their natural parents if gays don't have the right to adopt.

I'm not seeing the logic in that at all...

But you don't believe that a child should be raised without both a male and female influence. If a mother is raising her children by herself, then shouldn't she not be able to have custody of that child? Shouldn't it be taken out of the mother's custody and put into the adoption process, considering it is only being raised by a member of one sex? :huh:

[lazur]

Mmmm....I see. But government intervention where parents, including adoptive ones, are gay, would be okay? Interesting.

jag

Negative. It's the government's job to ensure the rights of its citizens, including babies.

[lazur]

Mmmm....I see. But government intervention where parents, including adoptive ones, are gay, would be okay? Interesting.

jag

Negative. It's the government's job to ensure the rights of its citizens, including babies.

[lazur]

Mmmm....I see. But government intervention where parents, including adoptive ones, are gay, would be okay? Interesting.

jag

Negative. It's the government's job to ensure the rights of its citizens, including babies.

[jaguarr]

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

Then single parents shouldn't be allowed to have their kids anymore. They should be placed with a loving family in which there will be a mother AND a father. It's their RIGHT to have both, after all.

jag

[jaguarr]

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

Then single parents shouldn't be allowed to have their kids anymore. They should be placed with a loving family in which there will be a mother AND a father. It's their RIGHT to have both, after all.

jag

[jaguarr]

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

Then single parents shouldn't be allowed to have their kids anymore. They should be placed with a loving family in which there will be a mother AND a father. It's their RIGHT to have both, after all.

jag

[JLBats]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

[JLBats]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

[JLBats]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

[jaguarr]

Negative. It's the government's job to ensure the rights of its citizens, including babies.

Oh, I get it. So, you're saying that gays don't have the right to have babies. Got it.

jag

[jaguarr]

Negative. It's the government's job to ensure the rights of its citizens, including babies.

Oh, I get it. So, you're saying that gays don't have the right to have babies. Got it.

jag

[jaguarr]

Negative. It's the government's job to ensure the rights of its citizens, including babies.

Oh, I get it. So, you're saying that gays don't have the right to have babies. Got it.

jag

[lazur]

Children don't have rights. Because they can't comprehend and then agree to social contract.


I mean, if we're going overboard with generalizations in this thread. Children don't have rights.

Rights are not something you or I can just declare null and void whenever it's convenient.

Children are human beings; thus children have rights. For example, a child has a right to a healthy lifestyle. But by your definition, a parent could starve a child to death and there would be no consequences ... since children don't have rights.

[lazur]

Children don't have rights. Because they can't comprehend and then agree to social contract.


I mean, if we're going overboard with generalizations in this thread. Children don't have rights.

Rights are not something you or I can just declare null and void whenever it's convenient.

Children are human beings; thus children have rights. For example, a child has a right to a healthy lifestyle. But by your definition, a parent could starve a child to death and there would be no consequences ... since children don't have rights.

[lazur]

Children don't have rights. Because they can't comprehend and then agree to social contract.


I mean, if we're going overboard with generalizations in this thread. Children don't have rights.

Rights are not something you or I can just declare null and void whenever it's convenient.

Children are human beings; thus children have rights. For example, a child has a right to a healthy lifestyle. But by your definition, a parent could starve a child to death and there would be no consequences ... since children don't have rights.

[The Senator]

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

That right is non-existent. It has been made up by the Christofascist ideology you seem to cater to on a semi-regular basis here. According to the laws of this country, they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- nothing says they have a right to be raised by a mother and a father.

[The Senator]

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

That right is non-existent. It has been made up by the Christofascist ideology you seem to cater to on a semi-regular basis here. According to the laws of this country, they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- nothing says they have a right to be raised by a mother and a father.

[The Senator]

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a crime, nor should it even be a consideration since about 90% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck...

This isn't about who's able to throw more money at the kid. This is about a child's right to EQUAL access to a mother and a father.

That right is non-existent. It has been made up by the Christofascist ideology you seem to cater to on a semi-regular basis here. According to the laws of this country, they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- nothing says they have a right to be raised by a mother and a father.

[Marx]

But you don't believe that a child should be raised without both a male and female influence. If a mother is raising her children by herself, then shouldn't she not be able to have custody of that child? Shouldn't it be taken out of the mother's custody and put into the adoption process, considering it is only being raised by a member of one sex? :huh:

Apparently, that is somehow different. :huh:

[Marx]

But you don't believe that a child should be raised without both a male and female influence. If a mother is raising her children by herself, then shouldn't she not be able to have custody of that child? Shouldn't it be taken out of the mother's custody and put into the adoption process, considering it is only being raised by a member of one sex? :huh:

Apparently, that is somehow different. :huh:

[Marx]

But you don't believe that a child should be raised without both a male and female influence. If a mother is raising her children by herself, then shouldn't she not be able to have custody of that child? Shouldn't it be taken out of the mother's custody and put into the adoption process, considering it is only being raised by a member of one sex? :huh:

Apparently, that is somehow different. :huh:

[amazingfantasy15]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag

That's a good point, I think everyone opposed to same sex parents should go around and collect every child from a single family home and keep those kids until that mother or father is able to find another man or woman that will help raise their child. It's only right, as Lazur said this child was conceived by TWO heterosexual people not one.

[amazingfantasy15]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag

That's a good point, I think everyone opposed to same sex parents should go around and collect every child from a single family home and keep those kids until that mother or father is able to find another man or woman that will help raise their child. It's only right, as Lazur said this child was conceived by TWO heterosexual people not one.

[amazingfantasy15]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag

That's a good point, I think everyone opposed to same sex parents should go around and collect every child from a single family home and keep those kids until that mother or father is able to find another man or woman that will help raise their child. It's only right, as Lazur said this child was conceived by TWO heterosexual people not one.

[The Senator]

If you want to know where my opinion extends on this issue... I believe gays should pursue surrogate parents. Nothing says that a mother who is impregnated by a gay man cannot give full custody to the father. The only tricky part in that scenario is giving the other partner adoption rights, but beyond that, I think surrogates are the way to go in order to avoid the whole adoption mess.

[The Senator]

If you want to know where my opinion extends on this issue... I believe gays should pursue surrogate parents. Nothing says that a mother who is impregnated by a gay man cannot give full custody to the father. The only tricky part in that scenario is giving the other partner adoption rights, but beyond that, I think surrogates are the way to go in order to avoid the whole adoption mess.

[The Senator]

If you want to know where my opinion extends on this issue... I believe gays should pursue surrogate parents. Nothing says that a mother who is impregnated by a gay man cannot give full custody to the father. The only tricky part in that scenario is giving the other partner adoption rights, but beyond that, I think surrogates are the way to go in order to avoid the whole adoption mess.

[lazur]

Oh, I get it. So, you're saying that gays don't have the right to have babies. Got it.

jag

Yeap, that's exactly what I said alright...

Dude, we're talking about ADOPTION here - not natural birth to a parent. Having a biological baby carries with it its own set of 'rights' to the parent or parents.

[lazur]

Oh, I get it. So, you're saying that gays don't have the right to have babies. Got it.

jag

Yeap, that's exactly what I said alright...

Dude, we're talking about ADOPTION here - not natural birth to a parent. Having a biological baby carries with it its own set of 'rights' to the parent or parents.

[lazur]

Oh, I get it. So, you're saying that gays don't have the right to have babies. Got it.

jag

Yeap, that's exactly what I said alright...

Dude, we're talking about ADOPTION here - not natural birth to a parent. Having a biological baby carries with it its own set of 'rights' to the parent or parents.

[lazur]

That's a good point, I think everyone opposed to same sex parents should go around and collect every child from a single family home and keep those kids until that mother or father is able to find another man or woman that will help raise their child. It's only right, as Lazur said this child was conceived by TWO heterosexual people not one.

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

[lazur]

That's a good point, I think everyone opposed to same sex parents should go around and collect every child from a single family home and keep those kids until that mother or father is able to find another man or woman that will help raise their child. It's only right, as Lazur said this child was conceived by TWO heterosexual people not one.

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

[lazur]

That's a good point, I think everyone opposed to same sex parents should go around and collect every child from a single family home and keep those kids until that mother or father is able to find another man or woman that will help raise their child. It's only right, as Lazur said this child was conceived by TWO heterosexual people not one.

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

[jaguarr]

Yeap, that's exactly what I said alright...

Dude, we're talking about ADOPTION here - not natural birth to a parent. Having a biological baby carries with it its own set of 'rights' to the parent or parents.

Oh, so you ARE advocating discriminatory practices in adoption regulations based on people's sexuality. I see.

jag

[jaguarr]

Yeap, that's exactly what I said alright...

Dude, we're talking about ADOPTION here - not natural birth to a parent. Having a biological baby carries with it its own set of 'rights' to the parent or parents.

Oh, so you ARE advocating discriminatory practices in adoption regulations based on people's sexuality. I see.

jag

[jaguarr]

Yeap, that's exactly what I said alright...

Dude, we're talking about ADOPTION here - not natural birth to a parent. Having a biological baby carries with it its own set of 'rights' to the parent or parents.

Oh, so you ARE advocating discriminatory practices in adoption regulations based on people's sexuality. I see.

jag

[Gilpesh]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

But but.... it's fun to take his argument further and prove the silliness factor...

[Gilpesh]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

But but.... it's fun to take his argument further and prove the silliness factor...

[Gilpesh]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

But but.... it's fun to take his argument further and prove the silliness factor...

[lazur]

Oh, so you ARE advocating discriminatory practices in adoption regulations based on people's sexuality. I see.

jag

What you see as 'discrimination' I see as upholding the rights of another human being.

We should be advocating the best environment for the adopted baby - not the desires of gay couples. So sure, I guess one human being's 'right' would be greater than the 'right' of a gay couple.

[lazur]

Oh, so you ARE advocating discriminatory practices in adoption regulations based on people's sexuality. I see.

jag

What you see as 'discrimination' I see as upholding the rights of another human being.

We should be advocating the best environment for the adopted baby - not the desires of gay couples. So sure, I guess one human being's 'right' would be greater than the 'right' of a gay couple.

[lazur]

Oh, so you ARE advocating discriminatory practices in adoption regulations based on people's sexuality. I see.

jag

What you see as 'discrimination' I see as upholding the rights of another human being.

We should be advocating the best environment for the adopted baby - not the desires of gay couples. So sure, I guess one human being's 'right' would be greater than the 'right' of a gay couple.

[The Senator]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

Well he is certainly failing to get that point across considering gay men and women have raised successful children on their own, who have grown up to lead 'normal' lives. So his definition of 'optimal' only conforms to his own views, which simply cannot be taken seriously considering the plethora of double-standards and inconsistencies which befuddle his beliefs.

[The Senator]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

Well he is certainly failing to get that point across considering gay men and women have raised successful children on their own, who have grown up to lead 'normal' lives. So his definition of 'optimal' only conforms to his own views, which simply cannot be taken seriously considering the plethora of double-standards and inconsistencies which befuddle his beliefs.

[The Senator]

I think what lazur is saying is that in terms of ADOPTION we should go for the optimal situation for the adopted child. Not that in general a child should be removed from any non-balanced parental situation.

I think?:dry:

Well he is certainly failing to get that point across considering gay men and women have raised successful children on their own, who have grown up to lead 'normal' lives. So his definition of 'optimal' only conforms to his own views, which simply cannot be taken seriously considering the plethora of double-standards and inconsistencies which befuddle his beliefs.

[The Senator]

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

Um, but there are fathers who abandon the mothers and never return home. Not just through divorce, but through illegitimate fathering.

So, again, does that mean the mother should have her child taken away, since there isn't a father there to help raise the kid? :huh:

[The Senator]

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

Um, but there are fathers who abandon the mothers and never return home. Not just through divorce, but through illegitimate fathering.

So, again, does that mean the mother should have her child taken away, since there isn't a father there to help raise the kid? :huh:

[The Senator]

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

Um, but there are fathers who abandon the mothers and never return home. Not just through divorce, but through illegitimate fathering.

So, again, does that mean the mother should have her child taken away, since there isn't a father there to help raise the kid? :huh:

[lazur]

Well he is certainly failing to get that point across considering gay men and women have raised successful children on their own, who have grown up to lead 'normal' lives. So his definition of 'optimal' only conforms to his own views, which simply cannot be taken seriously considering the plethora of double-standards and inconsistencies which befuddle his beliefs.

Actually, no, I'm not. That was the original point I made in my first post, which I had assumed was understood in the continuing discussion.

I did not realize that, for some posters such as yourself, I had to qualify and/or repeat that in every single post I've made in response...

[lazur]

Well he is certainly failing to get that point across considering gay men and women have raised successful children on their own, who have grown up to lead 'normal' lives. So his definition of 'optimal' only conforms to his own views, which simply cannot be taken seriously considering the plethora of double-standards and inconsistencies which befuddle his beliefs.

Actually, no, I'm not. That was the original point I made in my first post, which I had assumed was understood in the continuing discussion.

I did not realize that, for some posters such as yourself, I had to qualify and/or repeat that in every single post I've made in response...

[lazur]

Well he is certainly failing to get that point across considering gay men and women have raised successful children on their own, who have grown up to lead 'normal' lives. So his definition of 'optimal' only conforms to his own views, which simply cannot be taken seriously considering the plethora of double-standards and inconsistencies which befuddle his beliefs.

Actually, no, I'm not. That was the original point I made in my first post, which I had assumed was understood in the continuing discussion.

I did not realize that, for some posters such as yourself, I had to qualify and/or repeat that in every single post I've made in response...

[Gilpesh]

Rights are not something you or I can just declare null and void whenever it's convenient.

Children are human beings; thus children have rights. For example, a child has a right to a healthy lifestyle. But by your definition, a parent could starve a child to death and there would consquences ... be no conseqsince children don't have rights.

Oh wait... is that supposed to make me shut up?

Where in your body are Rights? Where were they since your birth?

No... we shouldn't go off into a full on debate about rights and just if they are as universal as people say they are...

But by the fact you can randomly make up rights for children to have when it is convenient for you... means rights can be given and taken away at will.

[Gilpesh]

Rights are not something you or I can just declare null and void whenever it's convenient.

Children are human beings; thus children have rights. For example, a child has a right to a healthy lifestyle. But by your definition, a parent could starve a child to death and there would consquences ... be no conseqsince children don't have rights.

Oh wait... is that supposed to make me shut up?

Where in your body are Rights? Where were they since your birth?

No... we shouldn't go off into a full on debate about rights and just if they are as universal as people say they are...

But by the fact you can randomly make up rights for children to have when it is convenient for you... means rights can be given and taken away at will.

[Gilpesh]

Rights are not something you or I can just declare null and void whenever it's convenient.

Children are human beings; thus children have rights. For example, a child has a right to a healthy lifestyle. But by your definition, a parent could starve a child to death and there would consquences ... be no conseqsince children don't have rights.

Oh wait... is that supposed to make me shut up?

Where in your body are Rights? Where were they since your birth?

No... we shouldn't go off into a full on debate about rights and just if they are as universal as people say they are...

But by the fact you can randomly make up rights for children to have when it is convenient for you... means rights can be given and taken away at will.

[lazur]

Um, but there are fathers who abandon the mothers and never return home. Not just through divorce, but through illegitimate fathering.

So, again, does that mean the mother should have her child taken away, since there isn't a father there to help raise the kid? :huh:

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

[lazur]

Um, but there are fathers who abandon the mothers and never return home. Not just through divorce, but through illegitimate fathering.

So, again, does that mean the mother should have her child taken away, since there isn't a father there to help raise the kid? :huh:

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

[lazur]

Um, but there are fathers who abandon the mothers and never return home. Not just through divorce, but through illegitimate fathering.

So, again, does that mean the mother should have her child taken away, since there isn't a father there to help raise the kid? :huh:

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

[jaguarr]

What you see as 'discrimination' I see as upholding the rights of another human being.

It's discrimination against gay people. Period. No matter how you try to paint it, including the perrenial "What about the children!?" emotional argument.


We should be advocating the best environment for the adopted baby - not the desires of gay couples. So sure, I guess one human being's 'right' would be greater than the 'right' of a gay couple.

So, who gets to decide what the best environment for an adopted baby is? You? Fundamentalist Christians? People who believe that a man and a woman are required in a marriage to provide a child with a proper home and environment in which to be raised in? People with different ideas on the subject need not apply? And does this stance mean that, across the board, gay couples are incapable of raising children to be happy, healthy, productive members of society and therefore don't have rights in this area? That gay couples should ALWAYS be looked over in favor of a heterosexual couple when it comes to adoption? Because that's the message such a policy sends. A policy you are advocating government dollars be spent on to regulate and enforce. Go Big Government!

jag

[jaguarr]

What you see as 'discrimination' I see as upholding the rights of another human being.

It's discrimination against gay people. Period. No matter how you try to paint it, including the perrenial "What about the children!?" emotional argument.


We should be advocating the best environment for the adopted baby - not the desires of gay couples. So sure, I guess one human being's 'right' would be greater than the 'right' of a gay couple.

So, who gets to decide what the best environment for an adopted baby is? You? Fundamentalist Christians? People who believe that a man and a woman are required in a marriage to provide a child with a proper home and environment in which to be raised in? People with different ideas on the subject need not apply? And does this stance mean that, across the board, gay couples are incapable of raising children to be happy, healthy, productive members of society and therefore don't have rights in this area? That gay couples should ALWAYS be looked over in favor of a heterosexual couple when it comes to adoption? Because that's the message such a policy sends. A policy you are advocating government dollars be spent on to regulate and enforce. Go Big Government!

jag

[jaguarr]

What you see as 'discrimination' I see as upholding the rights of another human being.

It's discrimination against gay people. Period. No matter how you try to paint it, including the perrenial "What about the children!?" emotional argument.


We should be advocating the best environment for the adopted baby - not the desires of gay couples. So sure, I guess one human being's 'right' would be greater than the 'right' of a gay couple.

So, who gets to decide what the best environment for an adopted baby is? You? Fundamentalist Christians? People who believe that a man and a woman are required in a marriage to provide a child with a proper home and environment in which to be raised in? People with different ideas on the subject need not apply? And does this stance mean that, across the board, gay couples are incapable of raising children to be happy, healthy, productive members of society and therefore don't have rights in this area? That gay couples should ALWAYS be looked over in favor of a heterosexual couple when it comes to adoption? Because that's the message such a policy sends. A policy you are advocating government dollars be spent on to regulate and enforce. Go Big Government!

jag

[lazur]

Oh wait... is that supposed to make me shut up?

Where in your body are Rights? Where were they since your birth?

No... we shouldn't go off into a full on debate about rights and just if they are as universal as people say they are...

But by the fact you can randomly make up rights for children to have when it is convenient for you... means rights can be given and taken away at will.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that children have the RIGHT to be raised in the best environment available to a given society.

I'm not opposed to gay rights, or even gay couple adoption. But I am opposed to a child forfeiting rights in order to fulfill the 'parenting desires' of people who cannot 'naturally' produce children of their own due to gender incompatibility...

[lazur]

Oh wait... is that supposed to make me shut up?

Where in your body are Rights? Where were they since your birth?

No... we shouldn't go off into a full on debate about rights and just if they are as universal as people say they are...

But by the fact you can randomly make up rights for children to have when it is convenient for you... means rights can be given and taken away at will.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that children have the RIGHT to be raised in the best environment available to a given society.

I'm not opposed to gay rights, or even gay couple adoption. But I am opposed to a child forfeiting rights in order to fulfill the 'parenting desires' of people who cannot 'naturally' produce children of their own due to gender incompatibility...

[lazur]

Oh wait... is that supposed to make me shut up?

Where in your body are Rights? Where were they since your birth?

No... we shouldn't go off into a full on debate about rights and just if they are as universal as people say they are...

But by the fact you can randomly make up rights for children to have when it is convenient for you... means rights can be given and taken away at will.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that children have the RIGHT to be raised in the best environment available to a given society.

I'm not opposed to gay rights, or even gay couple adoption. But I am opposed to a child forfeiting rights in order to fulfill the 'parenting desires' of people who cannot 'naturally' produce children of their own due to gender incompatibility...

[The Senator]

Actually, no, I'm not. That was the original point I made in my first post, which I had assumed was understood in the continuing discussion.

I did not realize that, for some posters such as yourself, I had to qualify and/or repeat that in every single post I've made in response...

Well you're doing a damn fine job repeating your double-standards and making most of your posts inconsistent with the previous ones, so I don't see why it couldn't hurt.

I mean, seriously, you don't think two men can successfully raise a child... then what makes you think a single mother who has been abandoned by her child's father is qualified to raise a child on her own?

Basically, this is about sexual orientation with you, not at all about having a "traditional" family. It is your way to hold discriminatory views while hiding behind a shield you call an "optimal" argument.

Bull. ****.

You demonstrated quite nicely that you have no problem discriminating against same-sex couples, because you believe that single parents who represent the same qualities you are against in raising a child by same-sex couples is perfectly fine.

So, where do you stand? Does a child need a mother and a father to be raised successfully? And if that is your answer, doesn't that mean that a mother on her own is not capable of raising her child by herself, and should therefore have it taken away from her by the state so it can be raised in an environment with a mother and a father?

You're being utterly inconsistent on this issue, and your inconsistencies point out how discriminatory your views truly are. I often hesitate to accuse others of bigotry, usually it's just ignorance-- but this is an obvious case of bigotry you yourself have highlighted through your own inconsistent views on this issue.

Good job :huh:

[The Senator]

Actually, no, I'm not. That was the original point I made in my first post, which I had assumed was understood in the continuing discussion.

I did not realize that, for some posters such as yourself, I had to qualify and/or repeat that in every single post I've made in response...

Well you're doing a damn fine job repeating your double-standards and making most of your posts inconsistent with the previous ones, so I don't see why it couldn't hurt.

I mean, seriously, you don't think two men can successfully raise a child... then what makes you think a single mother who has been abandoned by her child's father is qualified to raise a child on her own?

Basically, this is about sexual orientation with you, not at all about having a "traditional" family. It is your way to hold discriminatory views while hiding behind a shield you call an "optimal" argument.

Bull. ****.

You demonstrated quite nicely that you have no problem discriminating against same-sex couples, because you believe that single parents who represent the same qualities you are against in raising a child by same-sex couples is perfectly fine.

So, where do you stand? Does a child need a mother and a father to be raised successfully? And if that is your answer, doesn't that mean that a mother on her own is not capable of raising her child by herself, and should therefore have it taken away from her by the state so it can be raised in an environment with a mother and a father?

You're being utterly inconsistent on this issue, and your inconsistencies point out how discriminatory your views truly are. I often hesitate to accuse others of bigotry, usually it's just ignorance-- but this is an obvious case of bigotry you yourself have highlighted through your own inconsistent views on this issue.

Good job :huh:

[The Senator]

Actually, no, I'm not. That was the original point I made in my first post, which I had assumed was understood in the continuing discussion.

I did not realize that, for some posters such as yourself, I had to qualify and/or repeat that in every single post I've made in response...

Well you're doing a damn fine job repeating your double-standards and making most of your posts inconsistent with the previous ones, so I don't see why it couldn't hurt.

I mean, seriously, you don't think two men can successfully raise a child... then what makes you think a single mother who has been abandoned by her child's father is qualified to raise a child on her own?

Basically, this is about sexual orientation with you, not at all about having a "traditional" family. It is your way to hold discriminatory views while hiding behind a shield you call an "optimal" argument.

Bull. ****.

You demonstrated quite nicely that you have no problem discriminating against same-sex couples, because you believe that single parents who represent the same qualities you are against in raising a child by same-sex couples is perfectly fine.

So, where do you stand? Does a child need a mother and a father to be raised successfully? And if that is your answer, doesn't that mean that a mother on her own is not capable of raising her child by herself, and should therefore have it taken away from her by the state so it can be raised in an environment with a mother and a father?

You're being utterly inconsistent on this issue, and your inconsistencies point out how discriminatory your views truly are. I often hesitate to accuse others of bigotry, usually it's just ignorance-- but this is an obvious case of bigotry you yourself have highlighted through your own inconsistent views on this issue.

Good job :huh:

[SentinelMind]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag.

<Devil's Prosecutor>The government shouldn't have the right to take a child away from a parent who passess the test of being responsible, copetent, and capable because the parent is divorced, separated...etc....etc... However, I think the bar should be raised beyond the minimum in who the government allows to adopt and take custody of a child. The government should work to place a child in the most optimal of living conditions when possible. Even though single parents should be allowed to keep their child, single man who's never had a child or been married shouldn't be given priority to adopt a child. I do agree with lazur the optimal model for raising a child should be two parent home, one man and oen woman and should be given priority over others</Devil's Prosecutor>

[SentinelMind]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag.

<Devil's Prosecutor>The government shouldn't have the right to take a child away from a parent who passess the test of being responsible, copetent, and capable because the parent is divorced, separated...etc....etc... However, I think the bar should be raised beyond the minimum in who the government allows to adopt and take custody of a child. The government should work to place a child in the most optimal of living conditions when possible. Even though single parents should be allowed to keep their child, single man who's never had a child or been married shouldn't be given priority to adopt a child. I do agree with lazur the optimal model for raising a child should be two parent home, one man and oen woman and should be given priority over others</Devil's Prosecutor>

[SentinelMind]

<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>

jag.

<Devil's Prosecutor>The government shouldn't have the right to take a child away from a parent who passess the test of being responsible, copetent, and capable because the parent is divorced, separated...etc....etc... However, I think the bar should be raised beyond the minimum in who the government allows to adopt and take custody of a child. The government should work to place a child in the most optimal of living conditions when possible. Even though single parents should be allowed to keep their child, single man who's never had a child or been married shouldn't be given priority to adopt a child. I do agree with lazur the optimal model for raising a child should be two parent home, one man and oen woman and should be given priority over others</Devil's Prosecutor>

[Marx]

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

Talking about single parent homes has a great deal of weight on gay adoption considering you were the one who suggested that "gays shouldn't be parents because of the single sex influence in the home."

You continually ignore that question posed to you.

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe gay couples have no family or friends that aren't of the opposite sex.

[Marx]

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

Talking about single parent homes has a great deal of weight on gay adoption considering you were the one who suggested that "gays shouldn't be parents because of the single sex influence in the home."

You continually ignore that question posed to you.

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe gay couples have no family or friends that aren't of the opposite sex.

[Marx]

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

Talking about single parent homes has a great deal of weight on gay adoption considering you were the one who suggested that "gays shouldn't be parents because of the single sex influence in the home."

You continually ignore that question posed to you.

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe gay couples have no family or friends that aren't of the opposite sex.

[lazur]

It's discrimination against gay people. Period. No matter how you try to paint it, including the perrenial "What about the children!?" emotional argument.

You can paint it that way if you wish, but I don't see it that way at all. We're not talking about a gay couple's 'rights' - we're talking about a child's rights, which should not be compromised just because a gay couple wants a child to raise.

But if you're comfortable forfeiting a child's rights in favor of a gay couple's rights, I guess it's your right to have that opinion...

So, who gets to decide what the best environment for an adopted baby is? You? Fundamentalist Christians? People who believe that a man and a woman are required in a marriage to provide a child with a proper home and environment in which to be raised in? People with different ideas on the subject need not apply? And does this stance mean that, across the board, gay couples are incapable of raising children to be happy, healthy, productive members of society and therefore don't have rights in this area? That gay couples should ALWAYS be looked over in favor of a heterosexual couple when it comes to adoption? Because that's the message such a policy sends. A policy you are advocating government dollars be spent on to regulate and enforce. Go Big Government!

jag

I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

[lazur]

It's discrimination against gay people. Period. No matter how you try to paint it, including the perrenial "What about the children!?" emotional argument.

You can paint it that way if you wish, but I don't see it that way at all. We're not talking about a gay couple's 'rights' - we're talking about a child's rights, which should not be compromised just because a gay couple wants a child to raise.

But if you're comfortable forfeiting a child's rights in favor of a gay couple's rights, I guess it's your right to have that opinion...

So, who gets to decide what the best environment for an adopted baby is? You? Fundamentalist Christians? People who believe that a man and a woman are required in a marriage to provide a child with a proper home and environment in which to be raised in? People with different ideas on the subject need not apply? And does this stance mean that, across the board, gay couples are incapable of raising children to be happy, healthy, productive members of society and therefore don't have rights in this area? That gay couples should ALWAYS be looked over in favor of a heterosexual couple when it comes to adoption? Because that's the message such a policy sends. A policy you are advocating government dollars be spent on to regulate and enforce. Go Big Government!

jag

I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

[lazur]

It's discrimination against gay people. Period. No matter how you try to paint it, including the perrenial "What about the children!?" emotional argument.

You can paint it that way if you wish, but I don't see it that way at all. We're not talking about a gay couple's 'rights' - we're talking about a child's rights, which should not be compromised just because a gay couple wants a child to raise.

But if you're comfortable forfeiting a child's rights in favor of a gay couple's rights, I guess it's your right to have that opinion...

So, who gets to decide what the best environment for an adopted baby is? You? Fundamentalist Christians? People who believe that a man and a woman are required in a marriage to provide a child with a proper home and environment in which to be raised in? People with different ideas on the subject need not apply? And does this stance mean that, across the board, gay couples are incapable of raising children to be happy, healthy, productive members of society and therefore don't have rights in this area? That gay couples should ALWAYS be looked over in favor of a heterosexual couple when it comes to adoption? Because that's the message such a policy sends. A policy you are advocating government dollars be spent on to regulate and enforce. Go Big Government!

jag

I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

[ForestAflame]

AND FINALLY... Same sex marriage is not based on intercourse, whatever made you think that proves to me that you need to get your ass off of this superhero message board and RESEARCH this topic. My relationships have NEVER been based on intercourse, many other gay people I know do not base their relationships on intercourse. It is based on LOVE, and mutual compassion for one another. Not sex. If you truly think that, you need to open up your eyes, and I would kindly ask that you stop posting here until you get your FACTS straight. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/superrolleyesua2.gif

Why do you NEED to marry somebody you love? :o

[ForestAflame]

AND FINALLY... Same sex marriage is not based on intercourse, whatever made you think that proves to me that you need to get your ass off of this superhero message board and RESEARCH this topic. My relationships have NEVER been based on intercourse, many other gay people I know do not base their relationships on intercourse. It is based on LOVE, and mutual compassion for one another. Not sex. If you truly think that, you need to open up your eyes, and I would kindly ask that you stop posting here until you get your FACTS straight. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/superrolleyesua2.gif

Why do you NEED to marry somebody you love? :o

[ForestAflame]

AND FINALLY... Same sex marriage is not based on intercourse, whatever made you think that proves to me that you need to get your ass off of this superhero message board and RESEARCH this topic. My relationships have NEVER been based on intercourse, many other gay people I know do not base their relationships on intercourse. It is based on LOVE, and mutual compassion for one another. Not sex. If you truly think that, you need to open up your eyes, and I would kindly ask that you stop posting here until you get your FACTS straight. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/superrolleyesua2.gif

Why do you NEED to marry somebody you love? :o

[Gilpesh]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that children have the RIGHT to be raised in the best environment available to a given society.

I'm not opposed to gay rights, or even gay couple adoption. But I am opposed to a child forfeiting rights in order to fulfill the 'parenting desires' of people who cannot 'naturally' produce children of their own due to gender incompatibility...

BAM. There it is... you hate gay people and kids is the last refuge to make straight people the 'right' and 'natural' thing to live as.

[Gilpesh]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that children have the RIGHT to be raised in the best environment available to a given society.

I'm not opposed to gay rights, or even gay couple adoption. But I am opposed to a child forfeiting rights in order to fulfill the 'parenting desires' of people who cannot 'naturally' produce children of their own due to gender incompatibility...

BAM. There it is... you hate gay people and kids is the last refuge to make straight people the 'right' and 'natural' thing to live as.

[Gilpesh]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that children have the RIGHT to be raised in the best environment available to a given society.

I'm not opposed to gay rights, or even gay couple adoption. But I am opposed to a child forfeiting rights in order to fulfill the 'parenting desires' of people who cannot 'naturally' produce children of their own due to gender incompatibility...

BAM. There it is... you hate gay people and kids is the last refuge to make straight people the 'right' and 'natural' thing to live as.

[The Senator]

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

Oh, I see.

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

Think carefully about how you answer this.

[The Senator]

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

Oh, I see.

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

Think carefully about how you answer this.

[The Senator]

This is about ADOPTION...

Let me repeat that: This is about ADOPTION. This is not about the rights of biological parents for their flesh and blood children.

Oh, I see.

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

Think carefully about how you answer this.

[lazur]

Talking about single parent homes has a great deal of weight on gay adoption considering you were the one who suggested that "gays shouldn't be parents because of the single sex influence in the home."

You continually ignore that question posed to you.

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe gay couples have no family or friends that aren't of the opposite sex.

You seem confused. I don't know how many times I've stated that my opinion deals ONLY with ADOPTION. Natural biological parents are not in the same category.

And I also believe that single parents should not be able to adopt children - that it should be reserved for stable, married couples - and that's how it is NOW in most states.

[lazur]

Talking about single parent homes has a great deal of weight on gay adoption considering you were the one who suggested that "gays shouldn't be parents because of the single sex influence in the home."

You continually ignore that question posed to you.

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe gay couples have no family or friends that aren't of the opposite sex.

You seem confused. I don't know how many times I've stated that my opinion deals ONLY with ADOPTION. Natural biological parents are not in the same category.

And I also believe that single parents should not be able to adopt children - that it should be reserved for stable, married couples - and that's how it is NOW in most states.

[lazur]

Talking about single parent homes has a great deal of weight on gay adoption considering you were the one who suggested that "gays shouldn't be parents because of the single sex influence in the home."

You continually ignore that question posed to you.

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe gay couples have no family or friends that aren't of the opposite sex.

You seem confused. I don't know how many times I've stated that my opinion deals ONLY with ADOPTION. Natural biological parents are not in the same category.

And I also believe that single parents should not be able to adopt children - that it should be reserved for stable, married couples - and that's how it is NOW in most states.

[jaguarr]

<Devil's Prosecutor>The government shouldn't have the right to take a child away from a parent who passess the test of being responsible, copetent, and capable because the parent is divorced, separated...etc....etc... However, I think the bar should be raised beyond the minimum in who the government allows to adopt and take custody of a child. The government should work to place a child in the most optimal of living conditions when possible. Even though single parents should be allowed to keep their child, single man who's never had a child or been married shouldn't be given priority to adopt a child. I do agree with lazur the optimal model for raising a child should be two parent home, one man and oen woman and should be given priority over others</Devil's Prosecutor>

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

[jaguarr]

<Devil's Prosecutor>The government shouldn't have the right to take a child away from a parent who passess the test of being responsible, copetent, and capable because the parent is divorced, separated...etc....etc... However, I think the bar should be raised beyond the minimum in who the government allows to adopt and take custody of a child. The government should work to place a child in the most optimal of living conditions when possible. Even though single parents should be allowed to keep their child, single man who's never had a child or been married shouldn't be given priority to adopt a child. I do agree with lazur the optimal model for raising a child should be two parent home, one man and oen woman and should be given priority over others</Devil's Prosecutor>

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

[jaguarr]

<Devil's Prosecutor>The government shouldn't have the right to take a child away from a parent who passess the test of being responsible, copetent, and capable because the parent is divorced, separated...etc....etc... However, I think the bar should be raised beyond the minimum in who the government allows to adopt and take custody of a child. The government should work to place a child in the most optimal of living conditions when possible. Even though single parents should be allowed to keep their child, single man who's never had a child or been married shouldn't be given priority to adopt a child. I do agree with lazur the optimal model for raising a child should be two parent home, one man and oen woman and should be given priority over others</Devil's Prosecutor>

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

[ForestAflame]

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?



It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

[ForestAflame]

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?



It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

[ForestAflame]

So let me be blunt - Why is it ok for a single parent (mother or father) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home? But it is not ok for a gay couple (female or male) to raise a child in what would be considered a single sex home?



It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

[amazingfantasy15]

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

Yeah, it doesn't absolutely mean the other parent is out of the picture, but there are many cases where the other parent is out of the picture. A friend of mine's mom died while he was in high school, his sister was in 8th grade. By your logic, they were deprived of a proper upbringing, especially his sister, a girl without a mother, only a father.

Another (male) friend was rasied by his mother his entire life, he never even met his father and his mother really only started dating after he was out of college, was he deprived of a proper upbringing as well? His mother didn't even try to give him a proper upbrinigng, she should have been hitting the singles bars trying to get a man in that house, this was a boy she wasn't "equiped" to raise him.

I know you're thinking in terms of divorce where both parents are involved, but what about parents who want nothing to do with their children when they get divorced. My dad remarried after my mom passed away, his new wife was divorced, her ex-husband want(s)(ed) nothing to do with the children. Hell, in the divorce he took the college fund my step-mom set up for her children.

You're talking about the best case scenario, which is rare. There way too many children in orphanages right now that could use good homes, whether that home has two men in it, two women or a man and a woman shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

[amazingfantasy15]

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

Yeah, it doesn't absolutely mean the other parent is out of the picture, but there are many cases where the other parent is out of the picture. A friend of mine's mom died while he was in high school, his sister was in 8th grade. By your logic, they were deprived of a proper upbringing, especially his sister, a girl without a mother, only a father.

Another (male) friend was rasied by his mother his entire life, he never even met his father and his mother really only started dating after he was out of college, was he deprived of a proper upbringing as well? His mother didn't even try to give him a proper upbrinigng, she should have been hitting the singles bars trying to get a man in that house, this was a boy she wasn't "equiped" to raise him.

I know you're thinking in terms of divorce where both parents are involved, but what about parents who want nothing to do with their children when they get divorced. My dad remarried after my mom passed away, his new wife was divorced, her ex-husband want(s)(ed) nothing to do with the children. Hell, in the divorce he took the college fund my step-mom set up for her children.

You're talking about the best case scenario, which is rare. There way too many children in orphanages right now that could use good homes, whether that home has two men in it, two women or a man and a woman shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

[amazingfantasy15]

Yeah, and you're assuming that all single parents raise their kids without any influence whatsoever from the OTHER parent. Divorce does not mean that the parents die.

And since when did I say that I advocate the forcible removal of children from the homes of capable parents? I didn't.

Yeah, it doesn't absolutely mean the other parent is out of the picture, but there are many cases where the other parent is out of the picture. A friend of mine's mom died while he was in high school, his sister was in 8th grade. By your logic, they were deprived of a proper upbringing, especially his sister, a girl without a mother, only a father.

Another (male) friend was rasied by his mother his entire life, he never even met his father and his mother really only started dating after he was out of college, was he deprived of a proper upbringing as well? His mother didn't even try to give him a proper upbrinigng, she should have been hitting the singles bars trying to get a man in that house, this was a boy she wasn't "equiped" to raise him.

I know you're thinking in terms of divorce where both parents are involved, but what about parents who want nothing to do with their children when they get divorced. My dad remarried after my mom passed away, his new wife was divorced, her ex-husband want(s)(ed) nothing to do with the children. Hell, in the divorce he took the college fund my step-mom set up for her children.

You're talking about the best case scenario, which is rare. There way too many children in orphanages right now that could use good homes, whether that home has two men in it, two women or a man and a woman shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

[jaguarr]

You can paint it that way if you wish, but I don't see it that way at all. We're not talking about a gay couple's 'rights' - we're talking about a child's rights, which should not be compromised just because a gay couple wants a child to raise.

But if you're comfortable forfeiting a child's rights in favor of a gay couple's rights, I guess it's your right to have that opinion...


See, I don't see it as a compromise or a forfeit of rights at all if a child is adopted by loving, caring parents who will give them every advantage, teach them to be a good person and set them up for success in life, regardless of whether those parents are gay or straight.


I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

I have a feeling that the definition of "common sense" isn't so common, else we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;)

jag

[jaguarr]

You can paint it that way if you wish, but I don't see it that way at all. We're not talking about a gay couple's 'rights' - we're talking about a child's rights, which should not be compromised just because a gay couple wants a child to raise.

But if you're comfortable forfeiting a child's rights in favor of a gay couple's rights, I guess it's your right to have that opinion...


See, I don't see it as a compromise or a forfeit of rights at all if a child is adopted by loving, caring parents who will give them every advantage, teach them to be a good person and set them up for success in life, regardless of whether those parents are gay or straight.


I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

I have a feeling that the definition of "common sense" isn't so common, else we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;)

jag

[jaguarr]

You can paint it that way if you wish, but I don't see it that way at all. We're not talking about a gay couple's 'rights' - we're talking about a child's rights, which should not be compromised just because a gay couple wants a child to raise.

But if you're comfortable forfeiting a child's rights in favor of a gay couple's rights, I guess it's your right to have that opinion...


See, I don't see it as a compromise or a forfeit of rights at all if a child is adopted by loving, caring parents who will give them every advantage, teach them to be a good person and set them up for success in life, regardless of whether those parents are gay or straight.


I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

I have a feeling that the definition of "common sense" isn't so common, else we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;)

jag

[lazur]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

Jag, this discussion has nothing at ALL to do with your paranoid belief that those who make this argument are somehow against gays. People are born gay, so how could someone 'turn gay' as a result of being raised by gays?

Yes, that's silly, just as you are for posing that question in what has been so far a decent and intelligent debate.

That said:

Bill and Tina live in a nice neighborhood. Together, they make $140,000 a year. They've tried having kids, and did get pregnant once, but they lost the baby.

Ted and Harold live next door to Bill and Tina, in the same nice neighborhood. Together, they also make $140,000 a year. They want kids.

Both couples head to the adoption agency at the same time, spot the same little girl they'd like to adopt, and both couples apply.

Assuming that both couples are comprised of decent, hard-working, ethical people, which couple would you say should be able to adopt the baby girl?

[lazur]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

Jag, this discussion has nothing at ALL to do with your paranoid belief that those who make this argument are somehow against gays. People are born gay, so how could someone 'turn gay' as a result of being raised by gays?

Yes, that's silly, just as you are for posing that question in what has been so far a decent and intelligent debate.

That said:

Bill and Tina live in a nice neighborhood. Together, they make $140,000 a year. They've tried having kids, and did get pregnant once, but they lost the baby.

Ted and Harold live next door to Bill and Tina, in the same nice neighborhood. Together, they also make $140,000 a year. They want kids.

Both couples head to the adoption agency at the same time, spot the same little girl they'd like to adopt, and both couples apply.

Assuming that both couples are comprised of decent, hard-working, ethical people, which couple would you say should be able to adopt the baby girl?

[lazur]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

Jag, this discussion has nothing at ALL to do with your paranoid belief that those who make this argument are somehow against gays. People are born gay, so how could someone 'turn gay' as a result of being raised by gays?

Yes, that's silly, just as you are for posing that question in what has been so far a decent and intelligent debate.

That said:

Bill and Tina live in a nice neighborhood. Together, they make $140,000 a year. They've tried having kids, and did get pregnant once, but they lost the baby.

Ted and Harold live next door to Bill and Tina, in the same nice neighborhood. Together, they also make $140,000 a year. They want kids.

Both couples head to the adoption agency at the same time, spot the same little girl they'd like to adopt, and both couples apply.

Assuming that both couples are comprised of decent, hard-working, ethical people, which couple would you say should be able to adopt the baby girl?

[The Senator]

I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

Common sense is subjective to each individual person. I would say that common sense dictates children should be raised by parents who care for their children and will be able to raise them in a stable, loving environment-- and that common sense would be against placing children with parents solely based on gender or sexual identity.

[The Senator]

I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

Common sense is subjective to each individual person. I would say that common sense dictates children should be raised by parents who care for their children and will be able to raise them in a stable, loving environment-- and that common sense would be against placing children with parents solely based on gender or sexual identity.

[The Senator]

I would say that COMMON SENSE should rule the day.

Common sense is subjective to each individual person. I would say that common sense dictates children should be raised by parents who care for their children and will be able to raise them in a stable, loving environment-- and that common sense would be against placing children with parents solely based on gender or sexual identity.

[The Senator]

Why do you NEED to marry somebody you love? :o

No one needs to get married.

However, if the option is available, people should be able to pursue it. Considering gay marriage is legal in two states and three other states are currently considering it, I believe that option should be expanded nationwide so that members of the GLBT community are granted equal rights regardless of their geographical location.

[The Senator]

Why do you NEED to marry somebody you love? :o

No one needs to get married.

However, if the option is available, people should be able to pursue it. Considering gay marriage is legal in two states and three other states are currently considering it, I believe that option should be expanded nationwide so that members of the GLBT community are granted equal rights regardless of their geographical location.

[The Senator]

Why do you NEED to marry somebody you love? :o

No one needs to get married.

However, if the option is available, people should be able to pursue it. Considering gay marriage is legal in two states and three other states are currently considering it, I believe that option should be expanded nationwide so that members of the GLBT community are granted equal rights regardless of their geographical location.

[Marx]

You seem confused. I don't know how many times I've stated that my opinion deals ONLY with ADOPTION. Natural biological parents are not in the same category.

And I also believe that single parents should not be able to adopt children - that it should be reserved for stable, married couples - and that's how it is NOW in most states.

You're not that dense Lazur. Answer the question.

You brought up the notion that gays should not be parents because of a single sex influence in the home. You brought it up! Raising a child in a single parent home, makes that a home with a single sexed environment. Yet you have no problem with that. You have no leg to stand on but discrimination. You cannot say it's ok for single parents, and not gay couples when the 'influence' on the child would be the same.

[Marx]

You seem confused. I don't know how many times I've stated that my opinion deals ONLY with ADOPTION. Natural biological parents are not in the same category.

And I also believe that single parents should not be able to adopt children - that it should be reserved for stable, married couples - and that's how it is NOW in most states.

You're not that dense Lazur. Answer the question.

You brought up the notion that gays should not be parents because of a single sex influence in the home. You brought it up! Raising a child in a single parent home, makes that a home with a single sexed environment. Yet you have no problem with that. You have no leg to stand on but discrimination. You cannot say it's ok for single parents, and not gay couples when the 'influence' on the child would be the same.

[Marx]

You seem confused. I don't know how many times I've stated that my opinion deals ONLY with ADOPTION. Natural biological parents are not in the same category.

And I also believe that single parents should not be able to adopt children - that it should be reserved for stable, married couples - and that's how it is NOW in most states.

You're not that dense Lazur. Answer the question.

You brought up the notion that gays should not be parents because of a single sex influence in the home. You brought it up! Raising a child in a single parent home, makes that a home with a single sexed environment. Yet you have no problem with that. You have no leg to stand on but discrimination. You cannot say it's ok for single parents, and not gay couples when the 'influence' on the child would be the same.

[lazur]

Yeah, it doesn't absolutely mean the other parent is out of the picture, but there are many cases where the other parent is out of the picture. A friend of mine's mom died while he was in high school, his sister was in 8th grade. By your logic, they were deprived of a proper upbringing, especially his sister, a girl without a mother, only a father.

Another (male) friend was rasied by his mother his entire life, he never even met his father and his mother really only started dating after he was out of college, was he deprived of a proper upbringing as well? His mother didn't even try to give him a proper upbrinigng, she should have been hitting the singles bars trying to get a man in that house, this was a boy she wasn't "equiped" to raise him.

I know you're thinking in terms of divorce where both parents are involved, but what about parents who want nothing to do with their children when they get divorced. My dad remarried after my mom passed away, his new wife was divorced, her ex-husband want(s)(ed) nothing to do with the children. Hell, in the divorce he took the college fund my step-mom set up for her children.

You're talking about the best case scenario, which is rare. There way too many children in orphanages right now that could use good homes, whether that home has two men in it, two women or a man and a woman shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

We're not talking about anecdotal evidence.

And I'm not even talking 'best case' - I'm talking optimal circumstance. Which means that our government should choose the most OPTIMAL environment possible for adoption.

[lazur]

Yeah, it doesn't absolutely mean the other parent is out of the picture, but there are many cases where the other parent is out of the picture. A friend of mine's mom died while he was in high school, his sister was in 8th grade. By your logic, they were deprived of a proper upbringing, especially his sister, a girl without a mother, only a father.

Another (male) friend was rasied by his mother his entire life, he never even met his father and his mother really only started dating after he was out of college, was he deprived of a proper upbringing as well? His mother didn't even try to give him a proper upbrinigng, she should have been hitting the singles bars trying to get a man in that house, this was a boy she wasn't "equiped" to raise him.

I know you're thinking in terms of divorce where both parents are involved, but what about parents who want nothing to do with their children when they get divorced. My dad remarried after my mom passed away, his new wife was divorced, her ex-husband want(s)(ed) nothing to do with the children. Hell, in the divorce he took the college fund my step-mom set up for her children.

You're talking about the best case scenario, which is rare. There way too many children in orphanages right now that could use good homes, whether that home has two men in it, two women or a man and a woman shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

We're not talking about anecdotal evidence.

And I'm not even talking 'best case' - I'm talking optimal circumstance. Which means that our government should choose the most OPTIMAL environment possible for adoption.

[lazur]

Yeah, it doesn't absolutely mean the other parent is out of the picture, but there are many cases where the other parent is out of the picture. A friend of mine's mom died while he was in high school, his sister was in 8th grade. By your logic, they were deprived of a proper upbringing, especially his sister, a girl without a mother, only a father.

Another (male) friend was rasied by his mother his entire life, he never even met his father and his mother really only started dating after he was out of college, was he deprived of a proper upbringing as well? His mother didn't even try to give him a proper upbrinigng, she should have been hitting the singles bars trying to get a man in that house, this was a boy she wasn't "equiped" to raise him.

I know you're thinking in terms of divorce where both parents are involved, but what about parents who want nothing to do with their children when they get divorced. My dad remarried after my mom passed away, his new wife was divorced, her ex-husband want(s)(ed) nothing to do with the children. Hell, in the divorce he took the college fund my step-mom set up for her children.

You're talking about the best case scenario, which is rare. There way too many children in orphanages right now that could use good homes, whether that home has two men in it, two women or a man and a woman shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

We're not talking about anecdotal evidence.

And I'm not even talking 'best case' - I'm talking optimal circumstance. Which means that our government should choose the most OPTIMAL environment possible for adoption.

[Marx]

It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

........

[Marx]

It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

........

[Marx]

It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

........

[lazur]

You're not that dense Lazur. Answer the question.

You brought up the notion that gays should not be parents because of a single sex influence in the home. You brought it up! Raising a child in a single parent home, makes that a home with a single sexed environment. Yet you have no problem with that. You have no leg to stand on but discrimination. You cannot say it's ok for single parents, and not gay couples when the 'influence' on the child would be the same.

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

[lazur]

You're not that dense Lazur. Answer the question.

You brought up the notion that gays should not be parents because of a single sex influence in the home. You brought it up! Raising a child in a single parent home, makes that a home with a single sexed environment. Yet you have no problem with that. You have no leg to stand on but discrimination. You cannot say it's ok for single parents, and not gay couples when the 'influence' on the child would be the same.

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

[lazur]

You're not that dense Lazur. Answer the question.

You brought up the notion that gays should not be parents because of a single sex influence in the home. You brought it up! Raising a child in a single parent home, makes that a home with a single sexed environment. Yet you have no problem with that. You have no leg to stand on but discrimination. You cannot say it's ok for single parents, and not gay couples when the 'influence' on the child would be the same.

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

[The Senator]

It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

You have a record of having discriminatory, bigoted views so from this point forward I am putting you on "ignore."

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay. I don't value the opinions of posters who have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, who have a history of narrow-mindedness and seem to revel in the ignorance they spew on a constant basis.

[The Senator]

It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

You have a record of having discriminatory, bigoted views so from this point forward I am putting you on "ignore."

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay. I don't value the opinions of posters who have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, who have a history of narrow-mindedness and seem to revel in the ignorance they spew on a constant basis.

[The Senator]

It's not ok...and it should be prevented whenever possible. But there's little you can do when it's their biological child and they're a responsible parent. Trying to restrict that would be heinous and unethical.

However children being raised by two people of the same sex is heinous and unethical.

You have a record of having discriminatory, bigoted views so from this point forward I am putting you on "ignore."

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay. I don't value the opinions of posters who have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, who have a history of narrow-mindedness and seem to revel in the ignorance they spew on a constant basis.

[The Senator]

But again, lazur, if a gay couple is not suitable to adopt a child because that child isn't being raised by a mother and a father, then why should a child be allowed to live with a single mother considering there isn't a father figure to raise that child as well?

And, you still didn't answer my question about the lesbians.


So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

I don't really care if you answer the top part... but I would really like an answer on this.

[The Senator]

But again, lazur, if a gay couple is not suitable to adopt a child because that child isn't being raised by a mother and a father, then why should a child be allowed to live with a single mother considering there isn't a father figure to raise that child as well?

And, you still didn't answer my question about the lesbians.


So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

I don't really care if you answer the top part... but I would really like an answer on this.

[The Senator]

But again, lazur, if a gay couple is not suitable to adopt a child because that child isn't being raised by a mother and a father, then why should a child be allowed to live with a single mother considering there isn't a father figure to raise that child as well?

And, you still didn't answer my question about the lesbians.


So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

I don't really care if you answer the top part... but I would really like an answer on this.

[amazingfantasy15]

We're not talking about anecdotal evidence.

And I'm not even talking 'best case' - I'm talking optimal circumstance. Which means that our government should choose the most OPTIMAL environment possible for adoption.

Let's take my second example, what would be the most optimal enviroment for my friend. Let's say he's just been born, he mother states I will not date until he's out of school. There's a couple (man and woman) that would love to adopt him, the most optimal enviroment for him would to be adopted by your reasoning. Especially since he's a boy that will be raised by a single mother, she's not equiped to deal with his girl troubles, long "bathroom breaks" as a teen, she can't teach him how to shave his face or throw a baseball like a boy.

[amazingfantasy15]

We're not talking about anecdotal evidence.

And I'm not even talking 'best case' - I'm talking optimal circumstance. Which means that our government should choose the most OPTIMAL environment possible for adoption.

Let's take my second example, what would be the most optimal enviroment for my friend. Let's say he's just been born, he mother states I will not date until he's out of school. There's a couple (man and woman) that would love to adopt him, the most optimal enviroment for him would to be adopted by your reasoning. Especially since he's a boy that will be raised by a single mother, she's not equiped to deal with his girl troubles, long "bathroom breaks" as a teen, she can't teach him how to shave his face or throw a baseball like a boy.

[amazingfantasy15]

We're not talking about anecdotal evidence.

And I'm not even talking 'best case' - I'm talking optimal circumstance. Which means that our government should choose the most OPTIMAL environment possible for adoption.

Let's take my second example, what would be the most optimal enviroment for my friend. Let's say he's just been born, he mother states I will not date until he's out of school. There's a couple (man and woman) that would love to adopt him, the most optimal enviroment for him would to be adopted by your reasoning. Especially since he's a boy that will be raised by a single mother, she's not equiped to deal with his girl troubles, long "bathroom breaks" as a teen, she can't teach him how to shave his face or throw a baseball like a boy.

[Marx]

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Ok Lazur.

So you're saying that gay parents are then OK in what circumstance?



Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

The BEST ENVIRONMENT is not something you advocate.

[Marx]

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Ok Lazur.

So you're saying that gay parents are then OK in what circumstance?



Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

The BEST ENVIRONMENT is not something you advocate.

[Marx]

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Ok Lazur.

So you're saying that gay parents are then OK in what circumstance?



Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

The BEST ENVIRONMENT is not something you advocate.

[jaguarr]

Jag, this discussion has nothing at ALL to do with your paranoid belief that those who make this argument are somehow against gays. People are born gay, so how could someone 'turn gay' as a result of being raised by gays?

Yes, that's silly, just as you are for posing that question in what has been so far a decent and intelligent debate.

Hey, you're the one who said that the optimal environment for a child to be raised in had man and a woman as parents, not me (and I find that position rather silly, personally, by the way). I'm trying to understand why that would be the optimal environment. If people are born gay (which I do agree with you about) then there should be no problem with them being raised in a two parent household where those two parents are of the same sex. There are tons of examples where gay parents raised very normal kids in every sense of the word. The optimal environment has everything to do with what kind of a parent or parents a kid has, whether they are adopted or not. Is that kid loved? Are the parent(s) involved in that kids lives? Are they taught right from wrong? Are they given a good education? Fed and clothed well? Taught personal responsibility and respect? THAT is the optimal environment. How many parents they have or what sexual orientation they are is completely irrelevant altogether.


That said:

Bill and Tina live in a nice neighborhood. Together, they make $140,000 a year. They've tried having kids, and did get pregnant once, but they lost the baby.

Ted and Harold live next door to Bill and Tina, in the same nice neighborhood. Together, they also make $140,000 a year. They want kids.

Both couples head to the adoption agency at the same time, spot the same little girl they'd like to adopt, and both couples apply.

Assuming that both couples are comprised of decent, hard-working, ethical people, which couple would you say should be able to adopt the baby girl?

Whoever got their application signed, completed and approved first. I know, I know....you'll come back with the highly improbably "No, they applied at exactly the same time and their applications were completed and approved at exactly the same time". In that case, we could add to it, whoever doesn't have a criminal record. Whoever doesn't have a horrible credit rating and a ton of debt that they can't hope to pay their way out of in a reasonable amount of time. Whoever wins the coin toss. Their sexuality is irrelevant if they are pretty much identical in every aspect, including how they would raise the child, except one couple is gay and the other is straight.

jag

[jaguarr]

Jag, this discussion has nothing at ALL to do with your paranoid belief that those who make this argument are somehow against gays. People are born gay, so how could someone 'turn gay' as a result of being raised by gays?

Yes, that's silly, just as you are for posing that question in what has been so far a decent and intelligent debate.

Hey, you're the one who said that the optimal environment for a child to be raised in had man and a woman as parents, not me (and I find that position rather silly, personally, by the way). I'm trying to understand why that would be the optimal environment. If people are born gay (which I do agree with you about) then there should be no problem with them being raised in a two parent household where those two parents are of the same sex. There are tons of examples where gay parents raised very normal kids in every sense of the word. The optimal environment has everything to do with what kind of a parent or parents a kid has, whether they are adopted or not. Is that kid loved? Are the parent(s) involved in that kids lives? Are they taught right from wrong? Are they given a good education? Fed and clothed well? Taught personal responsibility and respect? THAT is the optimal environment. How many parents they have or what sexual orientation they are is completely irrelevant altogether.


That said:

Bill and Tina live in a nice neighborhood. Together, they make $140,000 a year. They've tried having kids, and did get pregnant once, but they lost the baby.

Ted and Harold live next door to Bill and Tina, in the same nice neighborhood. Together, they also make $140,000 a year. They want kids.

Both couples head to the adoption agency at the same time, spot the same little girl they'd like to adopt, and both couples apply.

Assuming that both couples are comprised of decent, hard-working, ethical people, which couple would you say should be able to adopt the baby girl?

Whoever got their application signed, completed and approved first. I know, I know....you'll come back with the highly improbably "No, they applied at exactly the same time and their applications were completed and approved at exactly the same time". In that case, we could add to it, whoever doesn't have a criminal record. Whoever doesn't have a horrible credit rating and a ton of debt that they can't hope to pay their way out of in a reasonable amount of time. Whoever wins the coin toss. Their sexuality is irrelevant if they are pretty much identical in every aspect, including how they would raise the child, except one couple is gay and the other is straight.

jag

[jaguarr]

Jag, this discussion has nothing at ALL to do with your paranoid belief that those who make this argument are somehow against gays. People are born gay, so how could someone 'turn gay' as a result of being raised by gays?

Yes, that's silly, just as you are for posing that question in what has been so far a decent and intelligent debate.

Hey, you're the one who said that the optimal environment for a child to be raised in had man and a woman as parents, not me (and I find that position rather silly, personally, by the way). I'm trying to understand why that would be the optimal environment. If people are born gay (which I do agree with you about) then there should be no problem with them being raised in a two parent household where those two parents are of the same sex. There are tons of examples where gay parents raised very normal kids in every sense of the word. The optimal environment has everything to do with what kind of a parent or parents a kid has, whether they are adopted or not. Is that kid loved? Are the parent(s) involved in that kids lives? Are they taught right from wrong? Are they given a good education? Fed and clothed well? Taught personal responsibility and respect? THAT is the optimal environment. How many parents they have or what sexual orientation they are is completely irrelevant altogether.


That said:

Bill and Tina live in a nice neighborhood. Together, they make $140,000 a year. They've tried having kids, and did get pregnant once, but they lost the baby.

Ted and Harold live next door to Bill and Tina, in the same nice neighborhood. Together, they also make $140,000 a year. They want kids.

Both couples head to the adoption agency at the same time, spot the same little girl they'd like to adopt, and both couples apply.

Assuming that both couples are comprised of decent, hard-working, ethical people, which couple would you say should be able to adopt the baby girl?

Whoever got their application signed, completed and approved first. I know, I know....you'll come back with the highly improbably "No, they applied at exactly the same time and their applications were completed and approved at exactly the same time". In that case, we could add to it, whoever doesn't have a criminal record. Whoever doesn't have a horrible credit rating and a ton of debt that they can't hope to pay their way out of in a reasonable amount of time. Whoever wins the coin toss. Their sexuality is irrelevant if they are pretty much identical in every aspect, including how they would raise the child, except one couple is gay and the other is straight.

jag

[lazur]

But again, lazur, if a gay couple is not suitable to adopt a child because that child isn't being raised by a mother and a father, then why should a child be allowed to live with a single mother considering there isn't a father figure to raise that child as well?

Again, this part of the discussion is not about kids born to their natural, biological parents. If a parent becomes a single parent through circumstance, that circumstance does not remove that parent's right to raise his or her OWN children. Thus, my answer to your question is no.

And, you still didn't answer my question about the lesbians.

What question? Dude, I have five people (at least) asking me questions and demanding answers. My argument doesn't distinguish between gay men and gay women. It distinguishes between gay COUPLES and straight COUPLES in ADOPTION.


I don't really care if you answer the top part... but I would really like an answer on this.

Ask it again so I don't have to read through pages and pages...

[lazur]

But again, lazur, if a gay couple is not suitable to adopt a child because that child isn't being raised by a mother and a father, then why should a child be allowed to live with a single mother considering there isn't a father figure to raise that child as well?

Again, this part of the discussion is not about kids born to their natural, biological parents. If a parent becomes a single parent through circumstance, that circumstance does not remove that parent's right to raise his or her OWN children. Thus, my answer to your question is no.

And, you still didn't answer my question about the lesbians.

What question? Dude, I have five people (at least) asking me questions and demanding answers. My argument doesn't distinguish between gay men and gay women. It distinguishes between gay COUPLES and straight COUPLES in ADOPTION.


I don't really care if you answer the top part... but I would really like an answer on this.

Ask it again so I don't have to read through pages and pages...

[lazur]

But again, lazur, if a gay couple is not suitable to adopt a child because that child isn't being raised by a mother and a father, then why should a child be allowed to live with a single mother considering there isn't a father figure to raise that child as well?

Again, this part of the discussion is not about kids born to their natural, biological parents. If a parent becomes a single parent through circumstance, that circumstance does not remove that parent's right to raise his or her OWN children. Thus, my answer to your question is no.

And, you still didn't answer my question about the lesbians.

What question? Dude, I have five people (at least) asking me questions and demanding answers. My argument doesn't distinguish between gay men and gay women. It distinguishes between gay COUPLES and straight COUPLES in ADOPTION.


I don't really care if you answer the top part... but I would really like an answer on this.

Ask it again so I don't have to read through pages and pages...

[lazur]

Hey, you're the one who said that the optimal environment for a child to be raised in had man and a woman as parents, not me (and I find that position rather silly, personally, by the way). I'm trying to understand why that would be the optimal environment. If people are born gay (which I do agree with you about) then there should be no problem with them being raised in a two parent household where those two parents are of the same sex. There are tons of examples where gay parents raised very normal kids in every sense of the word. The optimal environment has everything to do with what kind of a parent or parents a kid has, whether they are adopted or not. Is that kid loved? Are the parent(s) involved in that kids lives? Are they taught right from wrong? Are they given a good education? Fed and clothed well? Taught personal responsibility and respect? THAT is the optimal environment. How many parents they have or what sexual orientation they are is completely irrelevant altogether.



Whoever got their application signed, completed and approved first. I know, I know....you'll come back with the highly improbably "No, they applied at exactly the same time and their applications were completed and approved at exactly the same time". In that case, we could add to it, whoever doesn't have a criminal record. Whoever doesn't have a horrible credit rating and a ton of debt that they can't hope to pay their way out of in a reasonable amount of time. Whoever wins the coin toss. Their sexuality is irrelevant if they are pretty much identical in every aspect, including how they would raise the child, except one couple is gay and the other is straight.

jag

Then I disagree. The hetero couple should be given precedence, in my opinion.

[lazur]

Hey, you're the one who said that the optimal environment for a child to be raised in had man and a woman as parents, not me (and I find that position rather silly, personally, by the way). I'm trying to understand why that would be the optimal environment. If people are born gay (which I do agree with you about) then there should be no problem with them being raised in a two parent household where those two parents are of the same sex. There are tons of examples where gay parents raised very normal kids in every sense of the word. The optimal environment has everything to do with what kind of a parent or parents a kid has, whether they are adopted or not. Is that kid loved? Are the parent(s) involved in that kids lives? Are they taught right from wrong? Are they given a good education? Fed and clothed well? Taught personal responsibility and respect? THAT is the optimal environment. How many parents they have or what sexual orientation they are is completely irrelevant altogether.



Whoever got their application signed, completed and approved first. I know, I know....you'll come back with the highly improbably "No, they applied at exactly the same time and their applications were completed and approved at exactly the same time". In that case, we could add to it, whoever doesn't have a criminal record. Whoever doesn't have a horrible credit rating and a ton of debt that they can't hope to pay their way out of in a reasonable amount of time. Whoever wins the coin toss. Their sexuality is irrelevant if they are pretty much identical in every aspect, including how they would raise the child, except one couple is gay and the other is straight.

jag

Then I disagree. The hetero couple should be given precedence, in my opinion.

[lazur]

Hey, you're the one who said that the optimal environment for a child to be raised in had man and a woman as parents, not me (and I find that position rather silly, personally, by the way). I'm trying to understand why that would be the optimal environment. If people are born gay (which I do agree with you about) then there should be no problem with them being raised in a two parent household where those two parents are of the same sex. There are tons of examples where gay parents raised very normal kids in every sense of the word. The optimal environment has everything to do with what kind of a parent or parents a kid has, whether they are adopted or not. Is that kid loved? Are the parent(s) involved in that kids lives? Are they taught right from wrong? Are they given a good education? Fed and clothed well? Taught personal responsibility and respect? THAT is the optimal environment. How many parents they have or what sexual orientation they are is completely irrelevant altogether.



Whoever got their application signed, completed and approved first. I know, I know....you'll come back with the highly improbably "No, they applied at exactly the same time and their applications were completed and approved at exactly the same time". In that case, we could add to it, whoever doesn't have a criminal record. Whoever doesn't have a horrible credit rating and a ton of debt that they can't hope to pay their way out of in a reasonable amount of time. Whoever wins the coin toss. Their sexuality is irrelevant if they are pretty much identical in every aspect, including how they would raise the child, except one couple is gay and the other is straight.

jag

Then I disagree. The hetero couple should be given precedence, in my opinion.

[The Senator]

The definition of an "optimal" environment is also subjective to individual opinion. Some folks' definition of such an environment would be a family with a mother and father, who live in the suburbs, are Christian, and would send their children to a private schools during their childhood. My definition of an "optimal" environment is a stable, loving environment where religion or location doesn't matter, as long as the parents are mentally and financially secure.

Having come from a 'traditional' family myself, I personally cannot say it was the best experience of my life. My mother was an alcoholic, my father practically allowed her to get away with everything she did, and I was pretty much ignored by my mother until I left home and moved 400 miles south. I don't believe that is an optimal environment, really, especially when I look at that family I mentioned, and how their oldest son has grown up to be like almost every other 'normal' person I have ever met.

So again, just because a child is being raised by a mother and father, that doesn't mean he or she will have normal, fulfilling lives.

[The Senator]

The definition of an "optimal" environment is also subjective to individual opinion. Some folks' definition of such an environment would be a family with a mother and father, who live in the suburbs, are Christian, and would send their children to a private schools during their childhood. My definition of an "optimal" environment is a stable, loving environment where religion or location doesn't matter, as long as the parents are mentally and financially secure.

Having come from a 'traditional' family myself, I personally cannot say it was the best experience of my life. My mother was an alcoholic, my father practically allowed her to get away with everything she did, and I was pretty much ignored by my mother until I left home and moved 400 miles south. I don't believe that is an optimal environment, really, especially when I look at that family I mentioned, and how their oldest son has grown up to be like almost every other 'normal' person I have ever met.

So again, just because a child is being raised by a mother and father, that doesn't mean he or she will have normal, fulfilling lives.

[The Senator]

The definition of an "optimal" environment is also subjective to individual opinion. Some folks' definition of such an environment would be a family with a mother and father, who live in the suburbs, are Christian, and would send their children to a private schools during their childhood. My definition of an "optimal" environment is a stable, loving environment where religion or location doesn't matter, as long as the parents are mentally and financially secure.

Having come from a 'traditional' family myself, I personally cannot say it was the best experience of my life. My mother was an alcoholic, my father practically allowed her to get away with everything she did, and I was pretty much ignored by my mother until I left home and moved 400 miles south. I don't believe that is an optimal environment, really, especially when I look at that family I mentioned, and how their oldest son has grown up to be like almost every other 'normal' person I have ever met.

So again, just because a child is being raised by a mother and father, that doesn't mean he or she will have normal, fulfilling lives.

[lazur]

Let's take my second example, what would be the most optimal enviroment for my friend. Let's say he's just been born, he mother states I will not date until he's out of school. There's a couple (man and woman) that would love to adopt him, the most optimal enviroment for him would to be adopted by your reasoning. Especially since he's a boy that will be raised by a single mother, she's not equiped to deal with his girl troubles, long "bathroom breaks" as a teen, she can't teach him how to shave his face or throw a baseball like a boy.

A biological parent's right to raise his or her own children is an inalienable right. A gay couple (or straight for that matter) does not have the 'right' to remove a child from its natural parent.

[lazur]

Let's take my second example, what would be the most optimal enviroment for my friend. Let's say he's just been born, he mother states I will not date until he's out of school. There's a couple (man and woman) that would love to adopt him, the most optimal enviroment for him would to be adopted by your reasoning. Especially since he's a boy that will be raised by a single mother, she's not equiped to deal with his girl troubles, long "bathroom breaks" as a teen, she can't teach him how to shave his face or throw a baseball like a boy.

A biological parent's right to raise his or her own children is an inalienable right. A gay couple (or straight for that matter) does not have the 'right' to remove a child from its natural parent.

[lazur]

Let's take my second example, what would be the most optimal enviroment for my friend. Let's say he's just been born, he mother states I will not date until he's out of school. There's a couple (man and woman) that would love to adopt him, the most optimal enviroment for him would to be adopted by your reasoning. Especially since he's a boy that will be raised by a single mother, she's not equiped to deal with his girl troubles, long "bathroom breaks" as a teen, she can't teach him how to shave his face or throw a baseball like a boy.

A biological parent's right to raise his or her own children is an inalienable right. A gay couple (or straight for that matter) does not have the 'right' to remove a child from its natural parent.

[jaguarr]

Then I disagree. The hetero couple should be given precedence, in my opinion.

Why?

jag

[jaguarr]

Then I disagree. The hetero couple should be given precedence, in my opinion.

Why?

jag

[jaguarr]

Then I disagree. The hetero couple should be given precedence, in my opinion.

Why?

jag

[lazur]

Why?

jag

I've already stated why about a dozen times. All we're doing now is going around in circles. I think it's safe to say that you and I will not agree on this subject.

[lazur]

Why?

jag

I've already stated why about a dozen times. All we're doing now is going around in circles. I think it's safe to say that you and I will not agree on this subject.

[lazur]

Why?

jag

I've already stated why about a dozen times. All we're doing now is going around in circles. I think it's safe to say that you and I will not agree on this subject.

[jaguarr]

I've already stated why about a dozen times. All we're doing now is going around in circles. I think it's safe to say that you and I will not agree on this subject.

I really haven't heard exactly why a man and a woman automatically make better parents, actually. All I've heard is that is the optimal scenario. Unless the argument that children don't learn gender-appropriate behaviors unless they have a Mom and a Dad is the basis for this, which will lead us right back to the topic of single parents.

jag

[jaguarr]

I've already stated why about a dozen times. All we're doing now is going around in circles. I think it's safe to say that you and I will not agree on this subject.

I really haven't heard exactly why a man and a woman automatically make better parents, actually. All I've heard is that is the optimal scenario. Unless the argument that children don't learn gender-appropriate behaviors unless they have a Mom and a Dad is the basis for this, which will lead us right back to the topic of single parents.

jag

[jaguarr]

I've already stated why about a dozen times. All we're doing now is going around in circles. I think it's safe to say that you and I will not agree on this subject.

I really haven't heard exactly why a man and a woman automatically make better parents, actually. All I've heard is that is the optimal scenario. Unless the argument that children don't learn gender-appropriate behaviors unless they have a Mom and a Dad is the basis for this, which will lead us right back to the topic of single parents.

jag

[BlackLantern]

I remember reading a story about a lesbian couple...one of the women had a child from her previous marriage and was living with her partner....the mother of the child died in a car accident and her parents, who she had been estranged from for almost a decade, swooped in and took the child because of a good ol' boy judge who ran the custody hearing through.....eventually the partner regained custody due to going to the state supreme court

[BlackLantern]

I remember reading a story about a lesbian couple...one of the women had a child from her previous marriage and was living with her partner....the mother of the child died in a car accident and her parents, who she had been estranged from for almost a decade, swooped in and took the child because of a good ol' boy judge who ran the custody hearing through.....eventually the partner regained custody due to going to the state supreme court

[BlackLantern]

I remember reading a story about a lesbian couple...one of the women had a child from her previous marriage and was living with her partner....the mother of the child died in a car accident and her parents, who she had been estranged from for almost a decade, swooped in and took the child because of a good ol' boy judge who ran the custody hearing through.....eventually the partner regained custody due to going to the state supreme court

[The Senator]

Again, this part of the discussion is not about kids born to their natural, biological parents. If a parent becomes a single parent through circumstance, that circumstance does not remove that parent's right to raise his or her OWN children. Thus, my answer to your question is no.



What question? Dude, I have five people (at least) asking me questions and demanding answers. My argument doesn't distinguish between gay men and gay women. It distinguishes between gay COUPLES and straight COUPLES in ADOPTION.




Ask it again so I don't have to read through pages and pages...

I quoted in my response, you obviously managed to ignore it considering you answered what I wrote below it.

So here it is, in quote tags:


So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

And here it is, without quote tags:

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

And here it is en espanol:


¿Tan si una lesbiana tiene a un niño, significa eso que el niño crece en un ambiente decente si ella fue de otorgar a la custodia doble a su socio? ¿O no debe otorgar el le estado la custodia a su socio porque el niño no son levantados por un padre?

Français


Est-ce qu'ainsi si une lesbienne a un enfant, cela signifie l'enfant grandit dans un environnement décent si elle devait accorder à la garde duelle à son associé ? Ou devrait-elle la garde de concession d'état pas à son associé parce que l'enfant isn' ; t augmenté par un père ?

Русско

Так если лесбиянка имеет ребенка, то, то значит ребенка растет вверх в пристойной окружающей среде если она была даровать к двойному опёка к ее соучастнику? Или опёка дара положения не к ее соучастнику потому что ребенок isn' t будучи подниманным отцом?

Maybe you'll see it this time? :huh:

[The Senator]

Again, this part of the discussion is not about kids born to their natural, biological parents. If a parent becomes a single parent through circumstance, that circumstance does not remove that parent's right to raise his or her OWN children. Thus, my answer to your question is no.



What question? Dude, I have five people (at least) asking me questions and demanding answers. My argument doesn't distinguish between gay men and gay women. It distinguishes between gay COUPLES and straight COUPLES in ADOPTION.




Ask it again so I don't have to read through pages and pages...

I quoted in my response, you obviously managed to ignore it considering you answered what I wrote below it.

So here it is, in quote tags:


So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

And here it is, without quote tags:

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

And here it is en espanol:


¿Tan si una lesbiana tiene a un niño, significa eso que el niño crece en un ambiente decente si ella fue de otorgar a la custodia doble a su socio? ¿O no debe otorgar el le estado la custodia a su socio porque el niño no son levantados por un padre?

Français


Est-ce qu'ainsi si une lesbienne a un enfant, cela signifie l'enfant grandit dans un environnement décent si elle devait accorder à la garde duelle à son associé ? Ou devrait-elle la garde de concession d'état pas à son associé parce que l'enfant isn' ; t augmenté par un père ?

Русско

Так если лесбиянка имеет ребенка, то, то значит ребенка растет вверх в пристойной окружающей среде если она была даровать к двойному опёка к ее соучастнику? Или опёка дара положения не к ее соучастнику потому что ребенок isn' t будучи подниманным отцом?

Maybe you'll see it this time? :huh:

[The Senator]

Again, this part of the discussion is not about kids born to their natural, biological parents. If a parent becomes a single parent through circumstance, that circumstance does not remove that parent's right to raise his or her OWN children. Thus, my answer to your question is no.



What question? Dude, I have five people (at least) asking me questions and demanding answers. My argument doesn't distinguish between gay men and gay women. It distinguishes between gay COUPLES and straight COUPLES in ADOPTION.




Ask it again so I don't have to read through pages and pages...

I quoted in my response, you obviously managed to ignore it considering you answered what I wrote below it.

So here it is, in quote tags:


So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

And here it is, without quote tags:

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

And here it is en espanol:


¿Tan si una lesbiana tiene a un niño, significa eso que el niño crece en un ambiente decente si ella fue de otorgar a la custodia doble a su socio? ¿O no debe otorgar el le estado la custodia a su socio porque el niño no son levantados por un padre?

Français


Est-ce qu'ainsi si une lesbienne a un enfant, cela signifie l'enfant grandit dans un environnement décent si elle devait accorder à la garde duelle à son associé ? Ou devrait-elle la garde de concession d'état pas à son associé parce que l'enfant isn' ; t augmenté par un père ?

Русско

Так если лесбиянка имеет ребенка, то, то значит ребенка растет вверх в пристойной окружающей среде если она была даровать к двойному опёка к ее соучастнику? Или опёка дара положения не к ее соучастнику потому что ребенок isn' t будучи подниманным отцом?

Maybe you'll see it this time? :huh:

[amazingfantasy15]

A biological parent's right to raise his or her own children is an inalienable right. A gay couple (or straight for that matter) does not have the 'right' to remove a child from its natural parent.

Yeah, but the parent is denying the child's right to an optimal upbringing by a mother and father. Why is it okay to infringe on this child's rights, just because the mother had sex with a guy she never wants to see again.

[amazingfantasy15]

A biological parent's right to raise his or her own children is an inalienable right. A gay couple (or straight for that matter) does not have the 'right' to remove a child from its natural parent.

Yeah, but the parent is denying the child's right to an optimal upbringing by a mother and father. Why is it okay to infringe on this child's rights, just because the mother had sex with a guy she never wants to see again.

[amazingfantasy15]

A biological parent's right to raise his or her own children is an inalienable right. A gay couple (or straight for that matter) does not have the 'right' to remove a child from its natural parent.

Yeah, but the parent is denying the child's right to an optimal upbringing by a mother and father. Why is it okay to infringe on this child's rights, just because the mother had sex with a guy she never wants to see again.

[Marx]

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

Ok Lazur.

So you're saying that gay parents are OK in what circumstance?


I'm still waiting on the answer Lazur.

[Marx]

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

Ok Lazur.

So you're saying that gay parents are OK in what circumstance?


I'm still waiting on the answer Lazur.

[Marx]

No, Marx, you misread, and now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that 'gays should not be parents.' What I said was that gay COUPLES should not be able to ADOPT kids if hetero couples are available.

Let me remind you ... again ... this is not about gay, straight or anything else. This is about ADOPTION and what the BEST ENVIRONMENT is for adopted children.

Ok Lazur.

So you're saying that gay parents are OK in what circumstance?


I'm still waiting on the answer Lazur.

[The Senator]

To Lazur:

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

[The Senator]

To Lazur:

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

[The Senator]

To Lazur:

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

[BlackLantern]

jman just owned...multi-lingual style

[BlackLantern]

jman just owned...multi-lingual style

[BlackLantern]

jman just owned...multi-lingual style

[The Senator]

jman just owned...multi-lingual style

I used Babel Fish, hence why the word "isn't" isn't translated.

Oh well. Semi-owned, I guess.

[The Senator]

jman just owned...multi-lingual style

I used Babel Fish, hence why the word "isn't" isn't translated.

Oh well. Semi-owned, I guess.

[The Senator]

jman just owned...multi-lingual style

I used Babel Fish, hence why the word "isn't" isn't translated.

Oh well. Semi-owned, I guess.

[lazur]

I quoted in my response, you obviously managed to ignore it considering you answered what I wrote below it.

I did not ignore it. I simply didn't see it. I'd offer an apology, except that I don't think you'd accept it given how irritated you seem to be, and how big a spectacle you've attempted to make out of it apparently in an attempt to, what, /slapface?

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

No, it's not optimal, but the mother's rights outweigh any right of the government to swoop in and take her child from her. Also, that child's right to its mother outweighs any right of the government to swoop in.

That being said, the 'optimal' environment is a loving home comprised of natural, biological parents. However, where the government CAN exercise power or influence, it should make sure that adopted kids are raised in the most optimal environment available. If that optimal environment is with a gay couple, that's fine by me, as long as a hetero couple isn't available...

[lazur]

I quoted in my response, you obviously managed to ignore it considering you answered what I wrote below it.

I did not ignore it. I simply didn't see it. I'd offer an apology, except that I don't think you'd accept it given how irritated you seem to be, and how big a spectacle you've attempted to make out of it apparently in an attempt to, what, /slapface?

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

No, it's not optimal, but the mother's rights outweigh any right of the government to swoop in and take her child from her. Also, that child's right to its mother outweighs any right of the government to swoop in.

That being said, the 'optimal' environment is a loving home comprised of natural, biological parents. However, where the government CAN exercise power or influence, it should make sure that adopted kids are raised in the most optimal environment available. If that optimal environment is with a gay couple, that's fine by me, as long as a hetero couple isn't available...

[lazur]

I quoted in my response, you obviously managed to ignore it considering you answered what I wrote below it.

I did not ignore it. I simply didn't see it. I'd offer an apology, except that I don't think you'd accept it given how irritated you seem to be, and how big a spectacle you've attempted to make out of it apparently in an attempt to, what, /slapface?

So if a lesbian has a child, does that mean the child is growing up in a decent environment if she was to grant to dual custody to her partner? Or should the state not grant custody to her partner because the child isn't being raised by a father?

No, it's not optimal, but the mother's rights outweigh any right of the government to swoop in and take her child from her. Also, that child's right to its mother outweighs any right of the government to swoop in.

That being said, the 'optimal' environment is a loving home comprised of natural, biological parents. However, where the government CAN exercise power or influence, it should make sure that adopted kids are raised in the most optimal environment available. If that optimal environment is with a gay couple, that's fine by me, as long as a hetero couple isn't available...

[The Senator]

I did not ignore it. I simply didn't see it. I'd offer an apology, except that I don't think you'd accept it given how irritated you seem to be below...

Oh, it was only in the center of my post when I said it. See, I like to read posts before I answer them. I don't just quote people at random (see, when you quote someone, the quoted text disappears-- for future reference, anyway :o).


No, it's not optimal, but the mother's rights outweigh any right of the government to swoop in and take her child from her. Also, that child's right to its mother outweighs any right of the government to swoop in.

Good.

[The Senator]

I did not ignore it. I simply didn't see it. I'd offer an apology, except that I don't think you'd accept it given how irritated you seem to be below...

Oh, it was only in the center of my post when I said it. See, I like to read posts before I answer them. I don't just quote people at random (see, when you quote someone, the quoted text disappears-- for future reference, anyway :o).


No, it's not optimal, but the mother's rights outweigh any right of the government to swoop in and take her child from her. Also, that child's right to its mother outweighs any right of the government to swoop in.

Good.

[The Senator]

I did not ignore it. I simply didn't see it. I'd offer an apology, except that I don't think you'd accept it given how irritated you seem to be below...

Oh, it was only in the center of my post when I said it. See, I like to read posts before I answer them. I don't just quote people at random (see, when you quote someone, the quoted text disappears-- for future reference, anyway :o).


No, it's not optimal, but the mother's rights outweigh any right of the government to swoop in and take her child from her. Also, that child's right to its mother outweighs any right of the government to swoop in.

Good.

[lazur]

I'm still waiting on the answer Lazur.

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

[lazur]

I'm still waiting on the answer Lazur.

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

[lazur]

I'm still waiting on the answer Lazur.

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

[BlackLantern]

I don't think we're talking about homosexuals swooping into random homes and snatching children...I think the crux of the argument is that homosexual couples should be considered the same as hetero couples in an adoption or foster situation

[BlackLantern]

I don't think we're talking about homosexuals swooping into random homes and snatching children...I think the crux of the argument is that homosexual couples should be considered the same as hetero couples in an adoption or foster situation

[BlackLantern]

I don't think we're talking about homosexuals swooping into random homes and snatching children...I think the crux of the argument is that homosexual couples should be considered the same as hetero couples in an adoption or foster situation

[The Senator]

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

I think people should be required to be friendly and respectful to you when you respect the FACT that children can be raised by homosexual parents, and live normal, fulfilling lives as a result.

[The Senator]

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

I think people should be required to be friendly and respectful to you when you respect the FACT that children can be raised by homosexual parents, and live normal, fulfilling lives as a result.

[The Senator]

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

I think people should be required to be friendly and respectful to you when you respect the FACT that children can be raised by homosexual parents, and live normal, fulfilling lives as a result.

[lazur]

I don't think we're talking about homosexuals swooping into random homes and snatching children...I think the crux of the argument is that homosexual couples should be considered the same as hetero couples in an adoption or foster situation

And I disagree. Hetero couples should be given precedence.

[lazur]

I don't think we're talking about homosexuals swooping into random homes and snatching children...I think the crux of the argument is that homosexual couples should be considered the same as hetero couples in an adoption or foster situation

And I disagree. Hetero couples should be given precedence.

[lazur]

I don't think we're talking about homosexuals swooping into random homes and snatching children...I think the crux of the argument is that homosexual couples should be considered the same as hetero couples in an adoption or foster situation

And I disagree. Hetero couples should be given precedence.

[lazur]

I think people should be required to be friendly and respectful to you when you respect the FACT that children can be raised by homosexual parents, and live normal, fulfilling lives as a result.

So what you're saying is that people should only be respectful if I agree with their opinions.

Interesting.

I never said children couldn't be raised by homosexual parents and turn out normal. What I said was that they shouldn't HAVE to if hetero couples are available.

[lazur]

I think people should be required to be friendly and respectful to you when you respect the FACT that children can be raised by homosexual parents, and live normal, fulfilling lives as a result.

So what you're saying is that people should only be respectful if I agree with their opinions.

Interesting.

I never said children couldn't be raised by homosexual parents and turn out normal. What I said was that they shouldn't HAVE to if hetero couples are available.

[lazur]

I think people should be required to be friendly and respectful to you when you respect the FACT that children can be raised by homosexual parents, and live normal, fulfilling lives as a result.

So what you're saying is that people should only be respectful if I agree with their opinions.

Interesting.

I never said children couldn't be raised by homosexual parents and turn out normal. What I said was that they shouldn't HAVE to if hetero couples are available.

[Marx]

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

Take your own advice Lazur. I tried having an intelligent conversation. It didn't seem to work out with you very well. You don't have to answer my question, I'll let you off the hook. Everyone in this thread knows what is really behind your 'reasoning.' It's quite obvious that it isn't logic.

Take care Lazur, I'm done with this conversation.

[Marx]

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

Take your own advice Lazur. I tried having an intelligent conversation. It didn't seem to work out with you very well. You don't have to answer my question, I'll let you off the hook. Everyone in this thread knows what is really behind your 'reasoning.' It's quite obvious that it isn't logic.

Take care Lazur, I'm done with this conversation.

[Marx]

Keep waiting.

I'm really trying to have an intelligent discussion here, but you and a few others are making it increasingly difficult to do so. There are five people talking at me, so how you can expect to receive my focus 100% of the time seemingly because of some need you have to poke at the guy who disagrees with you is beyond understanding, and quite unreasonable.

If you want me to answer your questions, be respectful and keep the discussion friendly.

Take your own advice Lazur. I tried having an intelligent conversation. It didn't seem to work out with you very well. You don't have to answer my question, I'll let you off the hook. Everyone in this thread knows what is really behind your 'reasoning.' It's quite obvious that it isn't logic.

Take care Lazur, I'm done with this conversation.

[lazur]

Take your own advice Lazur. I tried having an intelligent conversation. It didn't seem to work out with you very well. You don't have to answer my question, I'll let you off the hook. Everyone in this thread knows what is really behind your 'reasoning.' It's quite obvious that it isn't logic.

Take care Lazur.

Heh. And what, exactly, is behind my 'reasoning' in your opinion?

And thanks for letting me off the hook. I was worried about that.

Or how about this? Instead of being confrontational about your question, why not just ask it again? Ever consider that maybe I don't recall your question since there are something like five other people talking at me at the same time?

You take care as well.

[lazur]

Take your own advice Lazur. I tried having an intelligent conversation. It didn't seem to work out with you very well. You don't have to answer my question, I'll let you off the hook. Everyone in this thread knows what is really behind your 'reasoning.' It's quite obvious that it isn't logic.

Take care Lazur.

Heh. And what, exactly, is behind my 'reasoning' in your opinion?

And thanks for letting me off the hook. I was worried about that.

Or how about this? Instead of being confrontational about your question, why not just ask it again? Ever consider that maybe I don't recall your question since there are something like five other people talking at me at the same time?

You take care as well.

[lazur]

Take your own advice Lazur. I tried having an intelligent conversation. It didn't seem to work out with you very well. You don't have to answer my question, I'll let you off the hook. Everyone in this thread knows what is really behind your 'reasoning.' It's quite obvious that it isn't logic.

Take care Lazur.

Heh. And what, exactly, is behind my 'reasoning' in your opinion?

And thanks for letting me off the hook. I was worried about that.

Or how about this? Instead of being confrontational about your question, why not just ask it again? Ever consider that maybe I don't recall your question since there are something like five other people talking at me at the same time?

You take care as well.

[BlackLantern]

And I disagree. Hetero couples should be given precedence.

...and why is that?

[BlackLantern]

And I disagree. Hetero couples should be given precedence.

...and why is that?

[BlackLantern]

And I disagree. Hetero couples should be given precedence.

...and why is that?

[The Senator]

So what you're saying is that people should only be respectful if I agree with their opinions.

Interesting.

I never said children couldn't be raised by homosexual parents and turn out normal. What I said was that they shouldn't HAVE to if hetero couples are available.

That's not what I said at all.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the argument that children can be raised to lead fulfilling, 'normal' lives by homosexual and trans couples. In fact, you dismiss any and all discussion on that situation as "anecdotal evidence," and instead promote your pompous assertion that a child should only be raised by heterosexual couples because it's "what nature intended."

And since you conveniently ignore that argument, and most of your arguments are filled with several inconsistencies and double-standards, it isn't hard to see why other posters would consider most of what you say to be a steaming pile of smoldering balderdash.

[The Senator]

So what you're saying is that people should only be respectful if I agree with their opinions.

Interesting.

I never said children couldn't be raised by homosexual parents and turn out normal. What I said was that they shouldn't HAVE to if hetero couples are available.

That's not what I said at all.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the argument that children can be raised to lead fulfilling, 'normal' lives by homosexual and trans couples. In fact, you dismiss any and all discussion on that situation as "anecdotal evidence," and instead promote your pompous assertion that a child should only be raised by heterosexual couples because it's "what nature intended."

And since you conveniently ignore that argument, and most of your arguments are filled with several inconsistencies and double-standards, it isn't hard to see why other posters would consider most of what you say to be a steaming pile of smoldering balderdash.

[The Senator]

So what you're saying is that people should only be respectful if I agree with their opinions.

Interesting.

I never said children couldn't be raised by homosexual parents and turn out normal. What I said was that they shouldn't HAVE to if hetero couples are available.

That's not what I said at all.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the argument that children can be raised to lead fulfilling, 'normal' lives by homosexual and trans couples. In fact, you dismiss any and all discussion on that situation as "anecdotal evidence," and instead promote your pompous assertion that a child should only be raised by heterosexual couples because it's "what nature intended."

And since you conveniently ignore that argument, and most of your arguments are filled with several inconsistencies and double-standards, it isn't hard to see why other posters would consider most of what you say to be a steaming pile of smoldering balderdash.

[lazur]

That's not what I said at all.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the argument that children can be raised to lead fulfilling, 'normal' lives by homosexual and trans couples. In fact, you dismiss any and all discussion on that situation as "anecdotal evidence," and instead promote your pompous assertion that a child should only be raised by heterosexual couples because it's "what nature intended."

I'm not sure how you can qualify my having 'ignored' the argument when I have admitted myself in this very thread that children can be successfully raised by gay adoptive parents. All I've done in addition to that is to state that my own opinion dictates to me that they should NOT be IF there's an option for hetero parents.

But I also understand that you take personal offense to this. Well, pardon me, but your taking this personally will not change my opinion.

And since you conveniently ignore that argument, and most of your arguments are filled with several inconsistencies and double-standards, it isn't hard to see why other posters would consider most of what you say to be a steaming pile of smoldering balderdash.

Several inconsistencies, such as? If you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent, at least do me the honor of telling me how. Otherwise, you're baiting and flaming.

[lazur]

That's not what I said at all.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the argument that children can be raised to lead fulfilling, 'normal' lives by homosexual and trans couples. In fact, you dismiss any and all discussion on that situation as "anecdotal evidence," and instead promote your pompous assertion that a child should only be raised by heterosexual couples because it's "what nature intended."

I'm not sure how you can qualify my having 'ignored' the argument when I have admitted myself in this very thread that children can be successfully raised by gay adoptive parents. All I've done in addition to that is to state that my own opinion dictates to me that they should NOT be IF there's an option for hetero parents.

But I also understand that you take personal offense to this. Well, pardon me, but your taking this personally will not change my opinion.

And since you conveniently ignore that argument, and most of your arguments are filled with several inconsistencies and double-standards, it isn't hard to see why other posters would consider most of what you say to be a steaming pile of smoldering balderdash.

Several inconsistencies, such as? If you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent, at least do me the honor of telling me how. Otherwise, you're baiting and flaming.

[lazur]

That's not what I said at all.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the argument that children can be raised to lead fulfilling, 'normal' lives by homosexual and trans couples. In fact, you dismiss any and all discussion on that situation as "anecdotal evidence," and instead promote your pompous assertion that a child should only be raised by heterosexual couples because it's "what nature intended."

I'm not sure how you can qualify my having 'ignored' the argument when I have admitted myself in this very thread that children can be successfully raised by gay adoptive parents. All I've done in addition to that is to state that my own opinion dictates to me that they should NOT be IF there's an option for hetero parents.

But I also understand that you take personal offense to this. Well, pardon me, but your taking this personally will not change my opinion.

And since you conveniently ignore that argument, and most of your arguments are filled with several inconsistencies and double-standards, it isn't hard to see why other posters would consider most of what you say to be a steaming pile of smoldering balderdash.

Several inconsistencies, such as? If you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent, at least do me the honor of telling me how. Otherwise, you're baiting and flaming.

[ForestAflame]

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay.

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

[ForestAflame]

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay.

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

[ForestAflame]

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay.

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

[Tron5000]

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

[Tron5000]

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

[Tron5000]

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

[The Senator]

Several inconsistencies, such as? If you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent, at least do me the honor of telling me how. Otherwise, you're baiting and flaming.

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

[The Senator]

Several inconsistencies, such as? If you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent, at least do me the honor of telling me how. Otherwise, you're baiting and flaming.

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

[The Senator]

Several inconsistencies, such as? If you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent, at least do me the honor of telling me how. Otherwise, you're baiting and flaming.

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

[Tron5000]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

[Tron5000]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

[Tron5000]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

[lazur]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

Good to see I'm not the only one. It's easy on this board to fall into the minority opinion even when in the world, our opinion is commonplace.

[lazur]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

Good to see I'm not the only one. It's easy on this board to fall into the minority opinion even when in the world, our opinion is commonplace.

[lazur]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

Good to see I'm not the only one. It's easy on this board to fall into the minority opinion even when in the world, our opinion is commonplace.

[Marx]

You have a record of having discriminatory, bigoted views so from this point forward I am putting you on "ignore."

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay. I don't value the opinions of posters who have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, who have a history of narrow-mindedness and seem to revel in the ignorance they spew on a constant basis.

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

Actually, yes you did. :nono:

The problem is you're gay.

This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

[Marx]

You have a record of having discriminatory, bigoted views so from this point forward I am putting you on "ignore."

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay. I don't value the opinions of posters who have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, who have a history of narrow-mindedness and seem to revel in the ignorance they spew on a constant basis.

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

Actually, yes you did. :nono:

The problem is you're gay.

This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?