It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by mybigunit
 


but they aren't gay lions, or any other kind of gay animal. they're people just like you and I. and they're perfectly capable of raising healthy, happy children, just like you and I.


My point in the gay lions or any animal is there is a purpose a male and a female were created. Plain and simple as that. They werent put here for the hell of it they were put here to breed and to raise children and that is with humans or any animal out there. Now I will not argue the fact that some gay humans would make excellent parents I will not and cannot argue that. But I think more harm can come out of that situation than good. Once again if that is the lifestyle one chooses to live that is cool with me but this is an issue that shouldnt even be complex. Look at all the other animals on earth. Nuff said.


the point i was trying to make is that , in general, we're supposed to be above animals and animal mentality. there's over six billion people on the planet. more than enough homes for orphan children. if a gay couple meets the standards of being able to provide a loving and nourishing home and giving that child a good headstart in life, what does it matter if they're a little different? it shouldn't.




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
whoa, i didn't mean that to look like a personal attack. in retrospect it does, but that wasn't my intent. i find the idea ignorant, but i wasn't trying to attack you personally.
No problem. Just a misunderstanding on both our behalves.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I refuse to be drawn into the 'Is gay Ok' debate being had by some posters.

From the view point of the child , as half the dominant species on the planet are female and the other half male , in my opinion the prime, optimum situation for raising any child must be to have examples of both as the two major rolemodels in said childs upbringing.

Again this is my opinion as what is best for a child and in no way implies that 2 men or 2 woman's love for their child would be less than anyone elses.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
I refuse to be drawn into the 'Is gay Ok' debate being had by some posters.


Why? You might grasp some understanding on that perspective.


From the view point of the child , as half the dominant species on the planet are female and the other half male , in my opinion the prime, optimum situation for raising any child must be to have examples of both as the two major rolemodels in said childs upbringing.


Like I said, children are cruel. They'll make fun of anything different. My parents are straight. Imagine what it was like growing up with a father that was a cop and a mother that was Jehovah's Witness.

I'm pretty sure that kids raised by gays would have a lot more slack than that.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 






There are many avenues to make fun of someone. I see that with my own kids and it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of their parents. Kids are cruel and will continue to be so. Gay parents on the other hand have a GREAT appreciation of what it's like to be malignied. They will also have coping mechanisms that straight parents don't have.


Wow thats a really interesting statement. Gays have now evolved above the straight ability to cope. I think not.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
It's not hard to follow McCain's logic. He apparently thinks children need to be raised by both sexes. But I think he's wrong. Plenty of children are raised by single parents and come out well adjusted. Besides, better to have one parent than none.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


who said anything about being more evolved? i for one, thought it was common knowledge that those who are teased quite often as children and make it to adulthood intact make for excellent advisors to their children when similar situations happen to them....it's called teaching.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


Well thats basically the premace of the thread so what did you expect?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid



Why? You might grasp some understanding on that perspective.



Because the thread is not about if a Homosexual lifestyle should be accepted in mainstream society or even at the individual level.

It's about Gay couples bringing up children.




From the view point of the child , as half the dominant species on the planet are female and the other half male , in my opinion the prime, optimum situation for raising any child must be to have examples of both as the two major rolemodels in said childs upbringing.

Like I said, children are cruel. They'll make fun of anything different. My parents are straight. Imagine what it was like growing up with a father that was a cop and a mother that was Jehovah's Witness.

I'm pretty sure that kids raised by gays would have a lot more slack than that.


Again You miss understand me, my post is not about the ability of the upbringers to prepare a child for the rigours of society around them.

Its about the childs ability to deal with the human race as a whole in the long run.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swingarm
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


Well thats basically the premace of the thread so what did you expect?


i think Both my posts state what i believe is best for a 'Child' - a male and female rolemodel.

but is it wrong to be Gay? that is not what this thread is about.

Or is it wrong to be Gay and want your cake and eat it? thats a different argument of wether we should allow science to change natural law.

[edit on 15/7/08 by Quantum_Squirrel]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
As always this issue is a hot one
My position has been stated. have a fine evening all



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


No only a gay daughter but, she and her gay partner are the proud mothers of a baby.

Cheney's grand baby, you are right McCain better doesn't angry the master alright.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
i think Both my posts state what i believe is best for a 'Child' - a male and female rolemodel.

but is it wrong to be Gay? that is not what this thread is about.

Or is it wrong to be Gay and want your cake and eat it? thats a different argument of wether we should allow science to change natural law.


We're going there? Gay = unnatural? I'll debate that in the Debate forum against anyone.

Any takers?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


We're going there? Gay = unnatural? I'll debate that in the Debate forum against anyone.

Any takers?


It isnt natural its a lifestyle or some chemical imbalance. The fact is if homosexuality was natural we would ALL be screwed. No reproduction. No need to debate I ended it there.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


Sorry I notice you responded to me. Gay is a function of this issue as gay people can't have children. Lets just keep this simple and not twist it. Straight people can have children. If they can't they should be albe to adopt because it's not outside the realm of possibility and very much the way it is. Gay adoption is contrived and has no place in our society.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
i think Both my posts state what i believe is best for a 'Child' - a male and female rolemodel.

but is it wrong to be Gay? that is not what this thread is about.

Or is it wrong to be Gay and want your cake and eat it? thats a different argument of wether we should allow science to change natural law.


We're going there? Gay = unnatural? I'll debate that in the Debate forum against anyone.

Any takers?


Pls quote me in the above post where i said Gay is unnatural?

I Said "Is it wrong to be Gay that is not what this thread is about'

i did not Say 'It is wrong to be Gay' - you do not know my views on this , but just for you i believe people can be what they want as long as they don't hurt other people, who has the right to say what two consenting people do with each other?.

The have your cake and eat it quote is a reference as to should society allow Science to intefere with natural law, Ie it takes a Male AND a Female to have a child , unless science steps in , in some capacity. This is a Natural law is it not? - again i did not say being Gay was unatural. pls think deeper than that.

So to me this is a more important discussion , and philosophical thought than my opinion on 2 same sex parents bringing up a child.

But i stand by my opinion that in the 'Current' world make up a role model for each of the two main sexes is the 'Optimum' upbringing situation.
This does not mean that other situations should be excluded. it is just in my opinion the optimum.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
It isnt natural its a lifestyle or some chemical imbalance. The fact is if homosexuality was natural we would ALL be screwed. No reproduction. No need to debate I ended it there.


OK. Fine. Would you like to go head to head on this issue and have it judged independent of political bias? Just on the issues merit?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by mybigunit
It isnt natural its a lifestyle or some chemical imbalance. The fact is if homosexuality was natural we would ALL be screwed. No reproduction. No need to debate I ended it there.


OK. Fine. Would you like to go head to head on this issue and have it judged independent of political bias? Just on the issues merit?


Ack I really didnt want to because I wanted to get to bed early...with that said just like in real life if Im challenged to something I have to take it...But I get the first shots
So where do we meet?

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I'm all about maintaining the nuclear family on this issue. You can tsk tsk all you like



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join