Why Homosexuals should NEVER have been allowed to adopt or marry
Scroll to see replies
Original post by theoferdinand
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9245973/The-village-can-help-but-children-raised-by-a-mum-and-dad-do-best.html
The village can help, but children raised by a mum and dad do best
Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it.
The village can help, but children raised by a mum and dad do best
Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it.
That may be the case, but we can't achieve the ideal!
We don't prevent a single mum from raising her kids simply because they might get an average grade in school! Speculating that the children of gay parents might not be the best equipped to tackle the world is absolutely no reason to prevent them from trying.*
(* I don't believe they won't be well equipped!
)
Original post by Le King Henry
Men and women provide different attributes when raising a baby and a baby will miss out on such development if brought up by 2 gays. E.g. it's better to bring a baby up on natural breast milk, how on earth do gays provide that?!
/thread
/thread
So you would argue that single parents should not be allowed to raise children, as the baby misses out on both men and women providing different attributes? And btw, not even all straight parents breast feed, and I'm pretty sure there's some decent alternatives.
Original post by Jam198
Normal is heterosexual, it has been since the beginning of humanity. lest we forget, we would not be here with homosexuality, humanity at large would not be here if steve and steve were the love couple.
Nobody thinks that homosexuality should replace heterosexuality, just that the 10% or so (I believe that's the more commonly accepted figure) of homosexuals should be accepted and given equal rights.
Original post by Snagprophet
But the implication is that it grew without a womb so that's cheating.
Not really, it's just as attention grabbing as any other headline. Any literate adult reading it can easily figure out what it means.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Octahedral, that whipping out of gay animals proves nothing. They are biological anomalies. Mutations if you like of what goes wrong in nature sometimes, they are the off-cuts, warped dysfunctions of nature, the waste products of evolution. They are not the mainstream drivers of human evolution. The survivors and successes of natural adaptation are the heterosexual breeders.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by King Hotpie
......But everyone's not gay? Homosexuality has been seen in dozens (I say dozens, it's probably in the hundreds at least) of species. Homophobia has been detected in 1. Now tell me which isn't natural?
Have two gay animals produced a baby though? No...because they can't, because it's not natural. Nature isn't designed to produce with such circumstances and it's only though the intervention of science that such occurrences will happen.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to fulfill human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
(edited 10 years ago)
Going shopping. Please try not to have the thread binned before I get back. I'd like some tea time giggles.
Original post by Le King Henry
Men and women provide different attributes when raising a baby and a baby will miss out on such development if brought up by 2 gays. E.g. it's better to bring a baby up on natural breast milk, how on earth do gays provide that?!
/thread
/thread
Human children are naturally weaned at age 3 or 4 - you don't see many mothers breastfeeding children that old now. Many women also get mastitis or a similar condition, which leaves them unable to breastfeed anyway.
What about single parents? Should we confiscate their children, and donate them to a couple?
Original post by Le King Henry
Have two gay animals produced a baby though? No...because they can't, because it's not natural. Nature isn't designed to produce with such circumstances and it's only though the intervention of science that such occurrences will happen.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
And yet you're using some of the most advanced technology in existence to express yourself...
Original post by Le King Henry
Have two gay animals produced a baby though? No...because they can't, because it's not natural. Nature isn't designed to produce with such circumstances and it's only though the intervention of science that such occurrences will happen.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
And thus ends a somewhat intelligible debate.
Original post by theoferdinand
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9245973/The-village-can-help-but-children-raised-by-a-mum-and-dad-do-best.html
The village can help, but children raised by a mum and dad do best
Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it.
The village can help, but children raised by a mum and dad do best
Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it.
I should have been more clear. I took a psychology degree, I know how poorly the media reports research.
Can I see a peer-reviewed journal, a primary source, showing that children do better with opposite-sex parents than same-sex ones? (Clue: I wouldn't waste your time, any that did exist have already been deemed as Type 1 errors).
Basically, all opposition to gay marriage, gay adoption, trans adoption etc. rests on other people's prejudices rather than any actual issue. Children of gay parents will be bullied? That's a wider social problem and precisely the reason why equality laws are being introduced. Unless you make the error of thinking that homosexuality or transsexuality is a choice there's really no reason to think that gay couples and trans people shouldn't have total and complete equality with straight and cisgender citizens.
Original post by Le King Henry
Have two gay animals produced a baby though? No...because they can't, because it's not natural. Nature isn't designed to produce with such circumstances and it's only though the intervention of science that such occurrences will happen.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
Couldn't have agreed more . Its getting silly now . We got stem cell burgers,women who look like men having children . Dangerous times ahead
Original post by Le King Henry
Have two gay animals produced a baby though? No...because they can't, because it's not natural. Nature isn't designed to produce with such circumstances and it's only though the intervention of science that such occurrences will happen.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
He said USING A COMPUTER OVER THE INTERNET. Where on earth has the frankly illogical sentiment that natural = good come from? You know what is natural? ****ing bears. But I'd rather have my child raised by 2 gay guys than a bear.
And as for your comment that science is bad for the world, you can just **** right off. For a start, it did not invent HIV (just wtf?), but it did invent the medicines used to treat it. Without science, you would not have any modern medicine, you would not have TV, you would not have computers, you would not have cars, you would not have supermarkets. If you want to bugger off and live in a cave then by my guest, but don't try and make out that science is the problem here.
Original post by theoferdinand
And this goes for transgenders as well .
There is always this argument "but they aren't harming anyone"
Let me tell you something !!!!!!!
Just because these people are not harming anyone individually does not mean they are not harming the wider society because i ll tell you what ,men having babies is not normal,men wearing womens clothing ,acting like women is not normal .
There is always this argument "but they aren't harming anyone"
Let me tell you something !!!!!!!
Just because these people are not harming anyone individually does not mean they are not harming the wider society because i ll tell you what ,men having babies is not normal,men wearing womens clothing ,acting like women is not normal .
Now explain why something not being normal makes it bad.
Original post by Le King Henry
Have two gay animals produced a baby though?
Plenty of hermaphroditic animals around.
They invent HIV
HIV is related to the similar SIV. It likely jumped species due to the bushmeat trade - either while butchering the animal, and bodily fluids mixing due to cuts / abrasions or due to an SIV-infected animal biting a human while its mouth was bleeding.
Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
If science is so bad, why are you taking full advantage of the fruits of its labour?
Plenty of hermaphroditic animals around.
They invent HIV
HIV is related to the similar SIV. It likely jumped species due to the bushmeat trade - either while butchering the animal, and bodily fluids mixing due to cuts / abrasions or due to an SIV-infected animal biting a human while its mouth was bleeding.Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
If science is so bad, why are you taking full advantage of the fruits of its labour?
In bold red
Original post by theoferdinand
Couldn't have agreed more . Its getting silly now . We got stem cell burgers,women who look like men having children . Dangerous times ahead
Feel free to vacate the planet if you're worried.
Original post by King Hotpie
So you would argue that single parents should not be allowed to raise children, as the baby misses out on both men and women providing different attributes? And btw, not even all straight parents breast feed, and I'm pretty sure there's some decent alternatives.
No because that was rarely a 'choice'. Creating a baby which is forced upon a gay couple or a normal couple represents a choice. I feel sorry for any baby that is brought up unnaturally, I really do and I hope they enjoy their childhood as much as naturally brought up babies.
I know not all do but there's increasingly a drive away from formula milk for babies, there are some great health benefits from breast feeding as it has added nutrients from mother to baby. If it is possible to breastfeed and a mother wants best for that child then she should at least try imo.
Original post by Le King Henry
Have two gay animals produced a baby though? No...because they can't, because it's not natural. Nature isn't designed to produce with such circumstances and it's only though the intervention of science that such occurrences will happen.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think science is just wrong for the world. They invent HIV and nuclear bombs and cars and aeroplanes to full human needs without thinking of the needs of every other participant in this world. Now they want to create babies from a 2 gays that clearly don't have the required characteristics without the intervention of a laboratory.
> They invent HIV
Oh
Original post by Jam198
Octahedral, that whipping out of gay animals proves nothing. They are biological anomalies. Mutations if you like of what goes wrong in nature sometimes, they are the off-cuts, warped dysfunctions of nature, the waste products of evolution. They are not the mainstream drivers of human evolution. The survivors and successes of natural adaptation are the heterosexual breeders.
What are you saying it doesn't prove? The person I quoted said they didn't exist. They exist, which implies homosexuality is natural.
Many people are genetic anomalies - many have a low quality of life, and certainly aren't the 'mainstream drivers of human evolution'. Homosexual people cannot help being homosexual, they are usually healthy, and they do nobody any harm. Who cares about human evolution? What matters is living a good life, and that means accepting who people are.
I highly doubt that accepting homosexuality will make heterosexual people turn gay. Humanity will continue.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by King Hotpie
He said USING A COMPUTER OVER THE INTERNET. Where on earth has the frankly illogical sentiment that natural = good come from? You know what is natural? ****ing bears. But I'd rather have my child raised by 2 gay guys than a bear.
And as for your comment that science is bad for the world, you can just **** right off. For a start, it did not invent HIV (just wtf?), but it did invent the medicines used to treat it. Without science, you would not have any modern medicine, you would not have TV, you would not have computers, you would not have cars, you would not have supermarkets. If you want to bugger off and live in a cave then by my guest, but don't try and make out that science is the problem here.
And as for your comment that science is bad for the world, you can just **** right off. For a start, it did not invent HIV (just wtf?), but it did invent the medicines used to treat it. Without science, you would not have any modern medicine, you would not have TV, you would not have computers, you would not have cars, you would not have supermarkets. If you want to bugger off and live in a cave then by my guest, but don't try and make out that science is the problem here.
Science is the problem though. It's fueling all the wrongs in this world. If humans didn't have this technology and weaponry, we'd be far better off. Okay, we wouldn't live as long and we'd live more basic lives but nature provided more than enough to survive and now it's slowly being destroyed.
http://www.originofaids.com/
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
