| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
   |
Posted - 2008.05.07 19:31:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
im very skeptical to this social experiment
I wouldn't put it in those terms. To me, it seems like the law catching up with something long overdue. I see it as 'why shouldn't' homosexuals have equal rights rather than 'why should' they.
My stance is that *** people getting married doesn't affect straight people one way or the other - it is, in fact, none of their business. (the adoptive element seems to be a qualifier to a lot of people though.)
Quote:
Testing if over time children in homosexual couples has the same quality of life and the same good upbringing as they were in a straight couple.
A study approached with those definitions would be immediately biased as it presupposes a difference in quality of life and upbringing between homosexual and heterosexual couples. As if their choice of sexuality would affect their parenting skills one way or another. (i.e the parenting would depend on the person, and a person is not defined by their sexuality)
Quote:
they shouldnt be able to adopt as that adds a whole bunch of problems for the child.
Again, that's presupposing. Who's to say the child will automatically be in a worse situation than any other child? (a child with a set of caring same-sex parents is in a better position than a child with a set of abusive seperate-sex parents, regardless of what happens at school) And if they do suffer a unique set of problems, who's to say that won't make them a stronger and more enlightened invididual because of it?
Quote:
How could someone with distorted values raise children? ...I don't mind what they do until they start to raise children that will be part of a future society.
Not really sure how a sexual preference dictates an entire value system, or distortion thereof, or which value system you are referring to.
Why do you see *** rights as something to be tolerated, given it doesn't affect you personally? Your utopian future society seems entirely exclusive to me. Different != Bad
Quote:
let's not give such people the chance to affect the minds of younglings.
Every parent affects the minds of their child - even those who intentionally raise a child to think freely. While I agree that any kind of 'brainwashing' of children is wrong, religious indoctrination of children for example, there's nothing to suggest that same sex parents would 'brain wash' children anymore than fundementalists or anyone else.
Being *** parents is not the same as saying 'when you grow up you should be *** too.' (and many *** people revile the idea of sexuality being a 'choice', so even if that was suggested it wouldn't work)
Quote:
Homosexual people basically got everything they wanted - in western countries - and look what the outcome is: they want others' children now.
That's what adoption is, isn't it? Wanting other peoples children?
Regardless what sexual orientation you have.
Quote:
You just basically called fascists all people in such countries in the world that don't allow homosexual individuals to adpot children.
I wouldn't say fascist. But at worst fundamentalist and at best old fashioned.
Quote:
You *TRY* to make me look as if I would be against homosexual people when I'm only against their child adoption rights.
Not sure what the difference is. If you're denying them child adoptation rights, you're suggesting they'd be worse adoptive parents than straight people, which is against homosexual people.
Quote:
1. Stop flaming my thread with nonsense.
2. Its not a human right to have children.
Odd that you'd call points of view nonsense as the OP specifically requested
"other people opinions." Additionally, in a discussion about a) *** rights and b) parenthood and adoption, debates about what is and isn't a human right is inevitable.
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored  - Xorus
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:26:00 -
[2]
Quote:
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity.
Surely it could only lead to the end of humanity if the majority became *** rather than the minority? From a biological/scientific point of view couldn't homosexuality also be seen as a partial solution to overpopulation?
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:38:00 -
[3]
Quote:
i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
From a psychological view...well, you probably know the rest 
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.15 00:29:00 -
[4]
Quote:
I mean really - why are they so persistent to be married in this specific church, if they know it's against them and what they do?
Sexual preference doesn't define a person.
Therefore, it's perfectly possible to be *** and in all other respects follow christian values and beliefs. I think it would be important to someone (as opposed to a registry office, which would be my personal choice if I ever got married  ) to get married in their own church of their own religion.
Quote:
but I think its really childish if its used as a tool to attack other groups
Well that's my point, *** and christian aren't binary oppositions - it's not neccesarily an 'other' group.
Aren't there *** vicars, for example? (confounded censor messing up my link, you can guess what the starred word is )
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:16:00 -
[5]
good.
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
| |
|