Gay adoption Watch

This discussion is closed.
DamnBuster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#101
Report 13 years ago
#101
(Original post by william1986)
But you said: men cannot make a baby, so why should they be allowed to bring one up? Thus do you admit your logic is wrong?




Why?
Sperm + egg = baby

Sperm + sperm = double the sperm.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#102
Report 13 years ago
#102
(Original post by DamnBuster)
Sperm + egg = baby

Sperm + sperm = double the sperm.
So someone who can't be fertilised as they are barren, by your logic, should not adopt as it would not be natural for them to have children. Can't you see this?
0
DamnBuster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 13 years ago
#103
No. It is just bad that they can't have a child. Billions of straight couples over the years have produced a child between them. How many gay couples? Somewhere around the 0 mark I believe.

As far as I am aware Arnie is the only bloke over to have given birth.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#104
Report 13 years ago
#104
(Original post by DamnBuster)
No. It is just bad that they can't have a child. Billions of straight couples over the years have produced a child between them. How many gay couples? Somewhere around the 0 mark I believe.

As far as I am aware Arnie is the only bloke over to have given birth.

So? You say tt's bad therefore you support adoption for them. Why is it not bad that a gay couple can't have children if thats what they want? Just because they have different sexaul organs?

Also just because it hasn't happened in the past means nothing. In 1600 no one could have a baby by artifical insemnation, yet now they can. Should they not be allowed to do that anymore because in the past people could not have it done.
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#105
Report 13 years ago
#105
(Original post by william1986)
So? You say tt's bad therefore you support adoption for them. Why is it not bad that a gay couple can't have children if thats what they want? Just because they have different sexaul organs?

Also just because it hasn't happened in the past means nothing. In 1600 no one could have a baby by artifical insemnation, yet now they can. Should they not be allowed to do that anymore because in the past people could not have it done.
Becuase it's blatantly against nature. Animals need both sexes involved for a reason in nature. Plus, when the child is growing up, I feel that it would need influence from both sexes - I know this doesn't often happen now due to high divorce etc. but if you look at children from single parent families they generally do worse in school, have higher crime ratings etc., and I think this is because of the lack of a strong loving family and influences from either sex.
0
DamnBuster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 13 years ago
#106
I think you know what I mean.

It is not natural for gays to have children. If you can find a way of arguing this point I will be impressed, and saddened.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#107
Report 13 years ago
#107
(Original post by Blackadder)
Becuase it's blatantly against nature. Animals need both sexes involved for a reason in nature. Plus, when the child is growing up, I feel that it would need influence from both sexes - I know this doesn't often happen now due to high divorce etc. but if you look at children from single parent families they generally do worse in school, have higher crime ratings etc., and I think this is because of the lack of a strong loving family and influences from either sex.
Lets say it is against nature what right do you have to impose your view of nature on others. 100 yrs ago many thought homosexualty was against nature, so should homosexualty be illegal?

Your analogy is wrong. That's not because they have one sex of a parent but because they have one parent. What's to suggest otherwise?

Can't gays give a strong loving family?

--------------

(Original post by DamnBuster)
I think you know what I mean.

It is not natural for gays to have children. If you can find a way of arguing this point I will be impressed, and saddened.
See my above post.

Also remember your the one proposing that it is unnautral thus the onus is on you to prove that it is unnautral and than provide an argument for whay that means it should be illegal.
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#108
Report 13 years ago
#108
(Original post by william1986)
Your analogy is wrong. That's not because they have one sex of a parent but because they have one parent. What's to suggest otherwise?
And what's to suggest otherwise?

I think a child needs a male and a female influence, so 1 parent families would be the same as a gay family in not being able to provide this.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#109
Report 13 years ago
#109
And what's to suggest otherwise?
The fact that gay couples have children in parts of the US and they are perfectly normal and happy. Let's not forget your the one who made the initial claim thus the onus is on you.

I think a child needs a male and a female influence, so 1 parent families would be the same as a gay family in not being able to provide this.

Why does a child need both influnces? Why is gender so important to you? By implication do you think children should be taken from single parents and given to hetro couples.
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#110
Report 13 years ago
#110
(Original post by william1986)
The fact that gay couples have children in parts of the US and they are perfectly normal and happy. Let's not forget your the one who made the initial claim thus the onus is on you.
They're not 'perfectly normal' - they are statistically more likely to be gay as well.

(Original post by william1986)
Why does a child need both influnces? Why is gender so important to you? By implication do you think children should be taken from single parents and given to hetro couples.
Because that's the way nature intended it.

Plus, I again bring up 1 parent families - a child lacks these influences and so is more likely to do worse in school, take drugs and commit crimes.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#111
Report 13 years ago
#111
They're not 'perfectly normal' - they are statistically more likely to be gay as well.

The are happy. Why do you oppose that? People don't turn gay.



Because that's the way nature intended it.

So? Nature, im many cases, intended us to die when we get ill, thus should we refuse medicne?

Plus, I again bring up 1 parent families - a child lacks these influences and so is more likely to do worse in school, take drugs and commit crimes.
Its a 1 parent family, a gay couple is 2 people by definion. Your comparing apples and pears.
0
DamnBuster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 13 years ago
#112
Yeah, stop trying to make everyone happy. Sometimes life is tough, gays can;t have their own children so they shouldn't be given someone elses.

I know I wouldn't have been the fine upstanding member of society that I am today if it hadn't been for having a loving mother AND father.
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#113
Report 13 years ago
#113
(Original post by william1986)
The are happy. Why do you oppose that? People don't turn gay.
Evidently thay do.


(Original post by william1986)
So? Nature, im many cases, intended us to die when we get ill, thus should we refuse medicne?
Nature also gave us the intelligence to cure ourselves.

(Original post by william1986)
Its a 1 parent family, a gay couple is 2 people by definion. Your comparing apples and pears.
Not at all, you're ignoring the fact that 1 parent = 1 sex, like gay couple = 1 sex.
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#114
Report 13 years ago
#114
(Original post by DamnBuster)
I know I wouldn't have been the fine upstanding member of society that I am today if it hadn't been for having a loving mother AND father.
Same here.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#115
Report 13 years ago
#115
Yeah, stop trying to make everyone happy. Sometimes life is tough, gays can;t have their own children so they shouldn't be given someone elses.
I'm not saying what im saying to make people happy but because i believe in freedom. On the above logic str8 couples who can't have children should not be allowed to adopt/

I know I wouldn't have been the fine upstanding member of society that I am today if it hadn't been for having a loving mother AND father.

Rhetoric. Impossible to prove.
0
hugatree
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#116
Report 13 years ago
#116
My parents are devorced and my mum raised me just fine all by herself, so I don't think it's necessary to have both. So I don't mind gay adoptions.

EDIT: and I'm not gay, so that's irrelevant to what I think.
0
william1986
Badges: 0
#117
Report 13 years ago
#117
Evidently thay do.

So where's your evidence. They don't 'turn' gay, rather they discover they are.



Nature also gave us the intelligence to cure ourselves.
And nature gives us the abilty to allow gays to adopt. Its not as if there is going to be an earthquake everytime gays adopt



Not at all, you're ignoring the fact that 1 parent = 1 sex, like gay couple = 1 sex.

why are you obsessed with sex?
0
hugatree
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#118
Report 13 years ago
#118
(Original post by william1986)
why are you obsessed with sex?
I don't think he meant 'sex' but 'the sexes'.

And if we're comparing to nature... Animals adopt. Animals have gay sex. I don't see the problem.
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#119
Report 13 years ago
#119
(Original post by william1986)
So where's your evidence. They don't 'turn' gay, rather they discover they are.
It's statistically proven that they are more likely to be gay, and hence obviously their 'parents' gayness is having some effect on them

(Original post by william1986)
And nature gives us the abilty to allow gays to adopt. Its not as if there is going to be an earthquake everytime gays adopt
Well not really. Buecause in nature there would have been no chance for this, but even the very first humans had simple medicines out of leaves or whatever.

(Original post by william1986)
why are you obsessed with sex?
Because it's important when discussing homosexuality and adoption?
0
Blackadder
Badges: 0
#120
Report 13 years ago
#120
(Original post by william1986)
Rhetoric. Impossible to prove.
Where's your evidence to the contary then?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (40)
27.78%
No - I got the required grades (86)
59.72%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (18)
12.5%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed