'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt':McCain

he is a old man...and technically he is right.

parent's mother and a father.

if they are both same sex....one can not have both now can they.

putting on dress's and pantie's does not necessarily make you a mother.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


At what point would it be inappropriate for the opposite sex to
help children with bathroom activities.

2 guys bringing up a Girl
or 2 Gals bringing up a Boy

And how different would this be to a Bishop in a Church or a
Paedophile.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective




Once again, the rag called rawstory has failed us as a reliable source.

McCain never implied that 'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt'.

Anyone that posts this garbage should be ashamed of themself.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by jsobecky]

I think I will have to agree with McCain. I dont believe it is healthy for a gay couple to raise a child. Both parents (male and female) are very important in the upbringing of a child. It is not fair for a child to be forced into a situation in which they probably do not understand. Gay couples seem to be all the rage today and it as seen as "normal" when it is not. Humans were not meant to be "gay", if we were, then there would only be one sex. Now remember this is my opinion and I am not going to tell anyone how to live there life but to put a child in a situation like this is totally unfair to the child. If gay couples want kids I say to bad, I also do not agree with marriage between same sex couples but civil unions are fine.

I have to agree with McCain on this one...... whilst i have nothing against gays/lesbians, i believe its not in the childs best interest to be brought up by two parents of the same sex, two men raising a little girl? i think that would lead a young girl to have some emotional and identity problems as she grows up, and vice versa.... whether its fair or not the child would endure immense taunting at some point during their school life, the child will also grow up with many questions and may even resent his/her parents in the future.... there are endless reasons why its not fair or practical.....

I think its quite selfish if im honest.... maybe caring and raising a pet (dog) would be a better option, less emotional complications involved but plenty of love all round..... just my opinion.

Well, as a social worker I'm sure if you have a choice between a toothless crackhead and an affluent, educated, albeit odd, gay couple as potential parents, the choice is obvious.!!!!
Acoording to some, the crackhead, of course!
I'm not a social worker, though so....

reply to post by djerwulfe


Yes it is, NEITHER. It's disturbing to me "that as a social worker" you would suggest that a choice between them needs to be made. Then, your not a social worker

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by jsobecky


As a parent, I've watched how my kids grew up and learned about life by observing both of their parents. A male and a female both have unique points of view on many issues that they face and that their children face. They also provide balance. Having said that, I cannot see how having two gay parents could not affect a child growing up differently than having two straight parents. If the difference was only teach a child more tolerance, that would be one thing. But if it goes beyond that into pushing the gay lifestyle (as in recruitment) onto a child that would never have been exposed to it if their circumstances were different is just wrong IMO.

This is a relatively new issue. Unfortunately, it will take time to tell if having gay parents is no big deal, or if we have screwed up a bunch of kids lives on yet another failed social experiment. First thing to look for would be to see if kids with gay parents were more likely to be gay as adults than kids with straight parents. If that answer turns out to be yes, then IMO the social experiment has to be stopped, because it will show that the gay parents are changing the kids. As I said, it will take time, but should still be easy to test what's happening.

Emmm loving,caring,nurturing and teaching a child...i dont think those attributes depend on what genitalia you have in your pants....As for the ohh they will get picked on,well thats nonsense....kids get picked on for everything under the sun..kids see weaknesses or differences and exploit them...not much is going to change there....As for two of the same sex parents cant raise a child...well single parents manage fine...nevermind the fact friends or relatives of your parents often have a large impact on your upbringing aswell.Really i find it shocking we still have to have these kinds of debates...but i guess its needed with some of the views on here...As for the unnatural approach... trusting and acting on your instincts(being gay) is hardly unnatural,infact its very natural...otherwise it wouldnt happen...and when it comes to evolution...being gay is another way to make the species more diverse...its not all about procreation..DNA doesnt work that way.

didnt read properly...

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Lethil]

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Lethil]

Really i find it shocking we still have to have these kinds of debates...but i guess its needed with some of the views on here...

Yes with all the work the gay agenda has done, it frustrating that we hav'nt all been indoctrinated into this line of thinking . I have no problem with gay people. They just should'nt be raising children. See my above posts on this position.

Originally posted by Lethil
Emmm loving,caring,nurturing and teaching a child...i dont think those attributes depend on what genitalia you have in your pants....As for the ohh they will get picked on,well thats nonsense....kids get picked on for everything under the sun..kids see weaknesses or differences and exploit them...not much is going to change there....As for two of the same sex parents cant raise a child...well single parents manage fine...nevermind the fact friends or relatives of your parents often have a large impact on your upbringing aswell.Really i find it shocking we still have to have these kinds of debates...but i guess its needed with some of the views on here...As for the unnatural approach... trusting and acting on your instincts(being gay) is hardly unnatural,infact its very natural...otherwise it wouldnt happen...and when it comes to evolution...being gay is another way to make the species more diverse...its not all about procreation..DNA doesnt work that way.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Lethil]

I found this definition of the word "rationalization" online:

Definition: An unconscious defense mechanism in which irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings are logically justified or made consciously tolerable by plausible means.

i think chainey doesnt know what the # hes talking about, in his perfect white suburban world.....

seriously , sometimes I wish I had 2 dads, or 2 moms instead of both... a hetero couple are actually pretty conflicting. chainey is a #ing moron for being so absolutely profound and closed minded. hes basically under minding the homo-population as if they we're less than human and dont know right from wrong. I dont understand how assholes like this, run your #ing country america. G.G


Originally posted by bakednutz
I think I will have to agree with McCain. I dont believe it is healthy for a gay couple to raise a child. Both parents (male and female) are very important in the upbringing of a child. It is not fair for a child to be forced into a situation in which they probably do not understand. Gay couples seem to be all the rage today and it as seen as "normal" when it is not. Humans were not meant to be "gay", if we were, then there would only be one sex. Now remember this is my opinion and I am not going to tell anyone how to live there life but to put a child in a situation like this is totally unfair to the child. If gay couples want kids I say to bad, I also do not agree with marriage between same sex couples but civil unions are fine.



uhhh, im sorry... but i missed the part, where sexuality is apparently a #ing choice??? yeah being gay, isnt exactly the right way. Doesnt mean its the wrong way either. you guys make homosexuality sound like terrorism here......

once again
your sexual preference IS NOT A CHOICE.....
I do what my body tells me to... body and mind are seperate things, thus even though one may not agree with another - it doesn't mean our needs should be disregarded to save ourselves from... ourselves?

IM NOT GAY..... but i dont think its fair, gays should be underminded AT ALL. people are just people, every 1 is #ed up in their own special way. and in a way, every 1 is a minority of some sort.

I think disfunctional, and abusive parenting is a lot more to worry about, than a couple of fags and faguette's raising children. sure we might get a handful of flamboyant MF's out there, but hey... this world needs a little gay if you ask me.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Pregowaffle]

Originally posted by Swingarm

Really i find it shocking we still have to have these kinds of debates...but i guess its needed with some of the views on here...

Yes with all the work the gay agenda has done, it frustrating that we hav'nt all been indoctrinated into this line of thinking

. I have no problem with gay people. They just should'nt be raising children. See my above posts on this position.

I have read this whole thread...and it still sounds like backward dribble(no offence...well maybe a bit) But really arrrgh i have a vagina...really?..i have a penis...this means we can raise children brillinatly! Far better than those parents who have two vagina's or two penises......ohhh wow isnt the 21st century the pinnacle of humanity...

Originally posted by Lethil
But really arrrgh i have a vagina...really?..i have a penis...this means we can raise children brillinatly! Far better than those parents who have two vagina's or two penises......ohhh wow isnt the 21st century the pinnacle of humanity...

But one could just as logically (maybe more logically) ask that since nature promotes what works and throws out what doesn't through billions of years of evolution, then why do we still naturally have two parents of the opposite sex? There are "asexual" creatures that can reproduce by themselves, but they are much lower lifeforms than "the 21st century pinnacle of humanity". Again, why has nature chosen this course for us over a billion years?

Or are you suggesting that a small percentage of humanity somehow knows better?

I strongly agree with McCain on this. I have a cousin in law, who was raised by a lesbian couple, and he seems to have insecurity about his masculinity. His upbringing didn't make him gay (he's happily married) but it appears to have left him with a small mental problem. I believe gay couples can provide children with love and physical needs, but they are unable to provide the children with a male and female role model. Overall, I think we have to remember that humans are animals too, and a child's instinct and skills are taught by a male and female.

1+1=1? Hes right.Hes not very good with numbers.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Lethil
But really arrrgh i have a vagina...really?..i have a penis...this means we can raise children brillinatly! Far better than those parents who have two vagina's or two penises......ohhh wow isnt the 21st century the pinnacle of humanity...

But one could just as logically (maybe more logically) ask that since nature promotes what works and throws out what doesn't through billions of years of evolution, then why do we still naturally have two parents of the opposite sex? There are "asexual" creatures that can reproduce by themselves, but they are much lower lifeforms than "the 21st century pinnacle of humanity". Again, why has nature chosen this course for us over a billion years?

Or are you suggesting that a small percentage of humanity somehow knows better?

Evolution has nothing to do with procreation...nature also determines that a child of about 13/14 is capable of having a child...is nature right when it comes to that aswell? Should children of 13 or 14 years old be having sex and giving birth because nature allows them to?

Originally posted by marg6043
Incredible

by the views of many here, we should still be burning witches, stoning prostitutes and any social deviants, that means fornicators, gays and disenters.

Unbelivable.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by marg6043]

It is unbelieveable how in this day and age there are people so uneducated and ignorant where they FEAR anything that deviates from THEIR comfort zone. It's like lighting a firecracker near a group of neanderthals and watching them run for their lives over something completely harmless. It's so stupid I find it entertaining.

I think the people who DON'T fear should be supporting homosexual rights in this country. they are Americans. Nuff Said!

I find homosexuals to be far less harmful than the people who hate them yet can't produce a legitimate reason why.

Bottom line here, is that if these people cannot accept the fact that America will continue to become more diverse racially and sexually as time goes on, might want to consider leaving.

It's ok though, because redneck morons have actually become the minority! Soon there won't even be an audience for these people.

P.S. McCain can go to hell along with them.

Originally posted by Lethil

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Lethil
But really arrrgh i have a vagina...really?..i have a penis...this means we can raise children brillinatly! Far better than those parents who have two vagina's or two penises......ohhh wow isnt the 21st century the pinnacle of humanity...

But one could just as logically (maybe more logically) ask that since nature promotes what works and throws out what doesn't through billions of years of evolution, then why do we still naturally have two parents of the opposite sex? There are "asexual" creatures that can reproduce by themselves, but they are much lower lifeforms than "the 21st century pinnacle of humanity". Again, why has nature chosen this course for us over a billion years?

Or are you suggesting that a small percentage of humanity somehow knows better?

Evolution has nothing to do with procreation...nature also determines that a child of about 13/14 is capable of having a child...is nature right when it comes to that aswell?

Should children of 13 or 14 years old be having sex and giving birth because nature allows them to?

Long before humankind created all this tightassed morality, science and nature dictated how things worked. The more time has gone by, the less human we have become and that is the whole problem.

We are nothing more than any other animal. yet any other animal procreates at sexual maturity. And that's a fact, no matter how much people want to try and throw in their religiously motivated morality into the works.

It seems to me that he made it clear that it is his personal belief and not a policy or anything he wants to try and enforce. And I can totally see where he is coming from although I'm not sure I agree.