My other post did address this point, that the possible 'gay gene' would have survived this long when homosexuals couldn't have their own biological children - only bisexuals would have had sex with women. So why would the people who used to not be able to have children choosing to adopt rather than have children cause a decline in their genetics? There will still be more homosexuals having children now than there were back when the technology didn't exist, so compared to the past the 'gay gene' should be increasing. More gay people adopting will just slow this increase, rather than cause a decrease.
Gay people can have children. Theyd just need to think of david hasselhoff or whoever. According to dawkins they did for one reason or another.
Research shows that having two parents of the same sex does not affect the development of the child, that they develop the same as children of mixed-sex parents.
Given that you state children must have a 'normal family circle' with both a mother and a father, presumably you are also opposed to single parent families?
Gay people can have children. Theyd just need to think of david hasselhoff or whoever. According to dawkins they did for one reason or another.
According to Dawkins they may have. I still don't see what your point is. People - gay and straight - will have children still, still a lot. But some of them will also adopt children. There's not even strong evidence that this 'gay gene' definitely exists. And because homosexuality is not 100% genetic a decline in or even eridcation of the 'gay gene' will not mean no gay people anymore.
A) I have been on this thread the entire time, you don't need to patronise me B) That question was not directed at you C) You are in no position to tell somebody they are returning to the same points, seeing as that is all you do.
Stephen fry gets on my nerves. Qi = sthephen fry imparting useless knowledge with the highly cerebral humour of johnathan creek getting a question wrong AGAIN!! hahahaha. not.
Mastermind with fart jokes watched by dim wits who want to think of themselves as highbrow.
Gervais ftw!!!
Whether or not you like Stephen Fry has nothing to with whether he, as a gay man, would make a good parent.
So anyone with a trait that you find annoying shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child?
The question was who id rather have as my parents. Id rather have the mccans. As a kid i used to play on cliff edges. Behave fearlessly in very rough seas. Ride my bike with no hands down he centre of busy roads on big long hills waving s i overtook cars. I think i could handle being in a hotel room.
The question was who id rather have as my parents. Id rather have the mccans. As a kid i used to play on cliff edges. Behave fearlessly in very rough seas. Ride my bike with no hands down he centre of busy roads on big long hills waving s i overtook cars. I think i could handle being in a hotel room.
Yeah, you'd have been fine at the age of 3 if someone tried to abduct you... I think the point that pshewitt1 was trying to make is that straight couples don't automatically make good parents, and there are some gay people who would probably make very good parents.
Yeah, you'd have been fine at the age of 3 if someone tried to abduct you... I think the point that pshewitt1 was trying to make is that straight couples don't automatically make good parents, and there are some gay people who would probably make very good parents.
Id have just stabbed them.
My point is that parents that kept an eye on me all the time would have ruined the buzz i got from dangerous stuff.
And you wonder why people call you a moron... This still isn't about whether or not you'd have been safe if it was you in Maddie's situation, its about the fact that the McCanns are not brilliant parents (I'm being conservative here, because I don't 100% know the details of how far away they were etc.) and they're a straight couple. So obviously being straight doesn't instantly mean you're a good parent or that your kid will be safe or any of that stuff.
And you wonder why people call you a moron... This still isn't about whether or not you'd have been safe if it was you in Maddie's situation, its about the fact that the McCanns are not brilliant parents (I'm being conservative here, because I don't 100% know the details of how far away they were etc.) and they're a straight couple. So obviously being straight doesn't instantly mean you're a good parent or that your kid will be safe or any of that stuff.
Fry wouldve taken my bike off me and not taken me to flamborough head anymore.
yeah. my mates wouldve thought id gone soft. wouldve ruined my image.
This still isn't about contrasting Stephen Fry directly with the McCanns, it's about straight people not necessarily being good parents, and the probability that gay people can be good parents.
This still isn't about contrasting Stephen Fry directly with the McCanns, it's about straight people not necessarily being good parents, and the probability that gay people can be good parents.
Then fry and te mccans are bad examples. good parents dont ruin their kids image.
Then fry and te mccans are bad examples. good parents dont ruin their kids image.
They weren't my examples, but they do somewhat illustrate the point. If you think a good parent allows their children to do illegal and dangerous things so they can 'fit in' and have a good 'image' with other people who also do illegal and dangerous things, you clearly have no idea what a good parent is.