'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt':McCain, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 10:59 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

Since the little people who are affected by this legislation are just along for the ride with no choice of their own.

Can you prove that little people have been taken for a ride by a sexuality? Or even by those with said sexuality?

You failed to respond to my entire post, I’ll try again: Religion has often been an oppressive force in many societies; do you blame the religion that fuels the people or the people who are fueled by the religion?

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:03 PM by Swingarm

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

"Jamming": Advertising that equates fear of gays with hatred of Jews, Blacks and women.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:07 PM by Swingarm

TextYou failed to respond to my entire post, I’ll try again: Religion has often been an oppressive force in many societies; do you blame the religion that fuels the people or the people who are fueled by the religion?

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

I personally don't see this as a religious issue. I'm not religious.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:08 PM by sc2099

I hate to burst everyone's bubble here, but a child missing a father (or mother) has a hole in his or her heart forever. It doesn't matter if the father walked out, never knew about the child, passed away, or never existed because the mother was artificially inseminated. The bottom line is that kids need a mom and a dad. Two moms or two dads doesn't do the trick because one half of the equation is still missing, just as if there were just a mom or just a dad.

A child raised in such a way, even with all the love and compassion anyone could offer, will still never be whole.

This being said, I believe that a homosexual couple or single person should only be allowed to adopt if there are no worthy heterosexual couples available at all. Obviously a homosexual parent or single parent household is better than any foster home or group home, but it's not better than a household headed by a mother and father. I don't believe a homosexual couple or single person should be allowed to create a child at all.

Edit to add that I am not religious at all, so that has absolutely no bearing on my opinion.

[edit on 7/15/2008 by sc2099]

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:09 PM by Swingarm

TextCan you prove that little people have been taken for a ride by a sexuality? Or even by those with said sexuality?

My point is they have no choice in the matter, understand?

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:12 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

That’s not my point. My point is a lot of things that are considered none harmful to society cause certain individuals to do harmful things. Do you blame the people or do you blame what has fueled them to do those things. I think any reasonable person would blame every individual for their own actions, especially since gay people (just as religious people) can not be grouped together into one group that you disagree with or dislike or believe is doing wrong.

Again you failed to answer my entire post: Can you prove that little people have been taken for a ride by a sexuality? Or even by those with said sexuality? I'm simply trying to draw the line between your opinion and fact, and I'm trying to determine if your opinion is misguided or has any reasoning what so ever.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:13 PM by Swingarm

That’s not my point.

Well thats my point. The Child comes first, or don't you agree?

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:13 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

My point is they have no choice in the matter, understand?

That's your opinion, you have every right to it, but this is not a fact and I doubt you have proof to the contrary. Plenty of straight people support it, others do not. We do not always have a choice in matters, this is the way a democracy works, that is why we have seperate parties and no one party passes all or all abolishes the rights they believe in or don't believe in.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:14 PM by ConMi27

So what does he want then, four gays?

For some reason I don't think congress would approve of that in a marriage.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:15 PM by Swingarm

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

That’s not my point. My point is a lot of things that are considered none harmful to society cause certain individuals to do harmful things. Do you blame the people or do you blame what has fueled them to do those things. I think any reasonable person would blame every individual for their own actions, especially since gay people (just as religious people) can not be grouped together into one group that you disagree with or dislike or believe is doing wrong.

Hello? This is a simple point your hiding behind double speak.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:17 PM by toasted

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

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

You know, it's hard enough to grow up in a "normal" family.

If I were king, I wouldn't allow it, because it is un-natural. period.

A child needs the influence of a male and a female...real ones, not frauds.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:18 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

Hello? This is a simple point your hiding behind double speak.

How so? Why is this a hard question to answer for you? You create the un- substaniated argument against gays and I made a point about your manner of logic. If you wish to further not respond to a counter argument then I suggest you sease using such an argument.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:19 PM by Swingarm

This is very much like the totalitarian tiptoe. Except toalitarian has to be substituted with gay agenda tiptoe.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:21 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

The Child comes first, or don't you agree?

I've seen plenty of research that has been done for decades showing that a child with gay parents is at no disadvantage, care to counter this with recent research? If you'd like to some of the research I refer to please click the link in my first post.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:28 PM by Swingarm

Research can be generated till the cows come home on both sides of this argument. So what. The issue is the child came into this world through a man and a woman. Then the state decides to give the child to homosexual parents. The child has no say in this, many people like myself agree it's the right of the child to live in a traditional home with a man and a woman.
gays can't have children. The state has no right giving children over to gays.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Swingarm]

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:31 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

If being raised by gay parents has no adverse affect on a child the state has every right to give a child to qualified parents who will love it.

The child has no say in this

Children do not have a say in a lot of things, children can not decide what is in their best interest, so far research has shown living with loving gay parents is not against their best interest despite your un-substantiated views.

You make it sound like female and male parents are always so great. Gender does not define a good parent, nor does sexuality.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:33 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

gays can't have children

A piss-poor argument if that. Many women and men are born sterile who adopt, should they be denied access to children as well?

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:39 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

traditional home

Tradition is something that has been altered since the beginning of time. No one tradition has sustained a span of time with out alteration. There is no reason to not shift traditions to include gay couples if it has no adverse affect on society.

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:40 PM by Swingarm

My stance is simple. Gays can't have children. Traditional couples who can't have children should be able to adopt bescause even though they can't have them it's within the realm of possibility. Our society sadly is sinking into a mess in so many areas of society that up is down and down is up. There are people who like it that way. Time to start calling a spade a spade. If you'd like to call me somthing thats fine with me

reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 11:44 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by Swingarm

Traditional couples

What about un-traditional couples? Should they be denied rights to, what exactly do you think traditional means, because you use it oddly there.