The#1Spot wrote:
We dont need gays to influence the young children's minds.
Poll
Do you agree with gay couples adopting kids from poor countries?
| Yes | 61% | 61% - 57 | ||||
| No | 38% | 38% - 36 | ||||
| Total: 93 | ||||||
We don't need fanatical religion or homophobia to influence them either, but oh well...Blueteam21 wrote:
The#1Spot wrote:
We dont need gays to influence the young children's minds.
Do I like the idea? Not particularly.
Should it be allowed? Most definitely. As long as the couple meets all normal requirements, it would be unfair to descriminate based on sexual orientation...unless the government can argue some legitimate objection (which I doubt).
Should it be allowed? Most definitely. As long as the couple meets all normal requirements, it would be unfair to descriminate based on sexual orientation...unless the government can argue some legitimate objection (which I doubt).
*facepalm*LividBovine wrote:
You said they wouldn't care, I said they would. Case closed.FallenMorgan wrote:
Well their opinion doesn't matter. Just because the parents are bigots doesn't mean the child should have to be stuck in some traditional-ass family.LividBovine wrote:
You think they wouldn't care? Ignorant kid.
If they didn't care about their child or what kind of environment they grew up in they wouldn't put them up for adoption. In most 3rd world countries it is illegal to abandon your child. They have to go through a lot just to get them to a safe place where they will be discovered. If they didn't care they would just kill them for being inconvenient or the wrong gender.
I believe biological parents care very much if the new parents are heterosexual or not.
As far as it being ok. Yes it is OK. The conditions that these children are coming from far outweighs any feelings I have about homosexuality. They are more likely to lead a happy fullfilling life being adopted by any solid family. I strongly prefer a traditional family though.
What do you define as a traditional family? Those are rare in the 21st century.
Why the facepalm?FallenMorgan wrote:
*facepalm*
Man + Woman + Marriage + Kids = Traditional FamilyFallenMorgan wrote:
What do you define as a traditional family? Those are rare in the 21st century.
Rare or not I believe a stable "traditional" family has the best chance of producing well adjusted children.
Last edited by LividBovine (2008-05-08 20:12:53)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Man + Woman + Kid = Stable FamilyLividBovine wrote:
Why the facepalm?FallenMorgan wrote:
*facepalm*Man + Woman + Marriage + Kids = Traditional FamilyFallenMorgan wrote:
What do you define as a traditional family? Those are rare in the 21st century.
Rare or not I believe a stable "traditional" family has the best chance of producing well adjusted children.
Woman + Woman + Adopted Kid = Kid being a lucky little bastard
A family doesn't need to be "traditional."
Agreed, butFallenMorgan wrote:
Man + Woman + Kid = Stable Family
Woman + Woman + Adopted Kid = Kid being a lucky little bastard
A family doesn't need to be "traditional."
Not the only chance. Just in my opinion, the best chance.Me wrote:
"I believe a stable "traditional" family has the BEST chance of producing well adjusted children.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
I really dont give a fuck if A) It's not some feminazi's that adopt a girl from some third world shithole and teach her to hate men for all the problems of the world. And 2. It's not some goddamn faggots that parade themselves in shit that a kid shouldn't fucken know about! Screwing them up forever! I.e. Assless chaps, Crotchless jeans, Anything that shows off private areas. That shit is as bad as molestation sometimes. One of my special ed buddies got fucked up that way(His uncle was gay and walked around the house in a fucking thong making him confused and the rest I wont say)
EDIT: No i dont hate gay people! Just Faggots! There is a difference you know. Except it's a thin thin line between the 2 and it's hard to tell.
EDIT: No i dont hate gay people! Just Faggots! There is a difference you know. Except it's a thin thin line between the 2 and it's hard to tell.
Last edited by David.P (2008-05-08 21:19:44)
depends on the couple, if they can't breed they must recruit. . .
Wat? Why?FallenMorgan wrote:
Woman + Woman + Adopted Kid = Kid being a lucky little bastard
I think he is refering as to the other option the child had, not to be adopted at all.DrunkFace wrote:
Wat? Why?FallenMorgan wrote:
Woman + Woman + Adopted Kid = Kid being a lucky little bastard
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
QFTLividBovine wrote:
I think he is refering as to the other option the child had, not to be adopted at all.DrunkFace wrote:
Wat? Why?FallenMorgan wrote:
Woman + Woman + Adopted Kid = Kid being a lucky little bastard
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If by traditional, he means a family with a mother and father figure, then I would agree with him. Gay couples can function in the same way as heterosexual ones in terms of these figures, but admittedly, they usually can't do it quite as well for simple biological reasons.FallenMorgan wrote:
*facepalm*LividBovine wrote:
You said they wouldn't care, I said they would. Case closed.FallenMorgan wrote:
Well their opinion doesn't matter. Just because the parents are bigots doesn't mean the child should have to be stuck in some traditional-ass family.
As far as it being ok. Yes it is OK. The conditions that these children are coming from far outweighs any feelings I have about homosexuality. They are more likely to lead a happy fullfilling life being adopted by any solid family. I strongly prefer a traditional family though.
What do you define as a traditional family? Those are rare in the 21st century.
Yes that was what I meant. Just about half a page up from here.Turquoise wrote:
If by traditional, he means a family with a mother and father figure, then I would agree with him. Gay couples can function in the same way as heterosexual ones in terms of these figures, but admittedly, they usually can't do it quite as well for simple biological reasons.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Lol.David.P wrote:
I really dont give a fuck if A) It's not some feminazi's that adopt a girl from some third world shithole and teach her to hate men for all the problems of the world. And 2. It's not some goddamn faggots that parade themselves in shit that a kid shouldn't fucken know about! Screwing them up forever! I.e. Assless chaps, Crotchless jeans, Anything that shows off private areas. That shit is as bad as molestation sometimes. One of my special ed buddies got fucked up that way(His uncle was gay and walked around the house in a fucking thong making him confused and the rest I wont say)
EDIT: No i dont hate gay people! Just Faggots! There is a difference you know. Except it's a thin thin line between the 2 and it's hard to tell.
There are gay people who go around in assless chaps, but that's not the majority, just the real stupid ones who do meth and spread AIDS, just like how there are straight kids who spread STDs. Many homosexuals are in stable relationships. Taking a kid to a gay pride parade would just largely show the kid to be proud of whatever he/she is, it doesn't mean "when you turn 18 wear those assless chaps for me."
Really, the only place where a lesbian couple adopts a girl and then uses her as a sex toy when she turns 18, is porn.
They are better having AIDS and starving, right dude.Blueteam21 wrote:
The#1Spot wrote:
We dont need gays to influence the young children's minds.
i have to agree with that video i posted..
let me explain...
gays = child molesters ... if the guy wasn't gay why would he wanna rape a young boy.
also how many molested boys " turn gay"?
vicious circle if you look at it ..
so . if gay folks want kids well men cant have ass babies but dike women can get a froze semen.
adopting from 3rd world countries so we can have more f'd up kids no thanks.
let me explain...
gays = child molesters ... if the guy wasn't gay why would he wanna rape a young boy.
also how many molested boys " turn gay"?
vicious circle if you look at it ..
so . if gay folks want kids well men cant have ass babies but dike women can get a froze semen.
adopting from 3rd world countries so we can have more f'd up kids no thanks.
NO...which one is better: leading a shitty life and suffering everyday by being ostracized for acting gay/ having gay parents, or dying and ending your suffering?sergeriver wrote:
They are better having AIDS and starving, right dude.Blueteam21 wrote:
The#1Spot wrote:
We dont need gays to influence the young children's minds.
WTF?Schittloaf wrote:
i have to agree with that video i posted..
let me explain...
gays = child molesters ... if the guy wasn't gay why would he wanna rape a young boy.
also how many molested boys " turn gay"?
vicious circle if you look at it ..
so . if gay folks want kids well men cant have ass babies but dike women can get a froze semen.
adopting from 3rd world countries so we can have more f'd up kids no thanks.
No dude.
Child molesters = gay
Even then, they aren't gay really - most child molesters like both genders, as long as they're pre-pubescent. There is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE that a majority or even minority of homosexuals are child molesters. Often it's just nasty relatives coaching a kid to say that his/her mommies touched them.
You have decided that life in the third world or potential death through disease is less suffering than living in the first world with gay parents? You actually believe that? If we avoided attitudes such as yours, then we wouldn't have difficulties with people being ostracized, which in the form of bullying is not as serious a problem as you present in any case. People will always find a reason to bully others, regardless of what situation they are in, even if it is something completely insignificant. Your argument is entirely irrational.argo4 wrote:
NO...which one is better: leading a shitty life and suffering everyday by being ostracized for acting gay/ having gay parents, or dying and ending your suffering?sergeriver wrote:
They are better having AIDS and starving, right dude.Blueteam21 wrote:
what kinda jump is this ?sergeriver wrote:
They are better having AIDS and starving, right dude.Blueteam21 wrote:
The#1Spot wrote:
We dont need gays to influence the young children's minds.
" its adoption or Aids " WTF ?
I know in the 1970s and 80s the west coast was over running with homeless Philippino teens.
It turned out the were being adopted from Philippino orphanages in droves by gay men as children and turned out on the street when they lost their pre-pubescent allure.
does that sound like the better option ?
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2008-05-10 03:32:03)
gay people should have kids when turds start learning to walk and talk...nuff said.
Oh really? What about the numerous child molesting men that only rape little girls? Should I then assume that all heterosexuals are child molesters?Schittloaf wrote:
i have to agree with that video i posted..
let me explain...
gays = child molesters ... if the guy wasn't gay why would he wanna rape a young boy.
also how many molested boys " turn gay"?
vicious circle if you look at it ..
so . if gay folks want kids well men cant have ass babies but dike women can get a froze semen.
adopting from 3rd world countries so we can have more f'd up kids no thanks.
Do me a favor, don't vote.argo4 wrote:
NO...which one is better: leading a shitty life and suffering everyday by being ostracized for acting gay/ having gay parents, or dying and ending your suffering?sergeriver wrote:
They are better having AIDS and starving, right dude.Blueteam21 wrote:
You honestly think that dying is better than having parents that just happen to be gay? In elementary school, I was called gay and whatnot often, but that's nothing now. Everybody gets bullied for some reason. Kids are naturally stupid. Other girls will bully a girl for having short hair, other boys will bully a boy for having long hair. Elementary school groups are like Nazi Germany basically: conform or pay the consequences, in this case, intense bullying.
I was bullied to the point of crying sometimes in elementary school, but it's childish to say that dying would be better than bullying.
Wow.
Do any of you even know any gay couples? Every single gay person I know would make one hell of a parent compared with some of the heterosexual couples out there.
How you raise your kid is your own choice, and just because a family and their beliefs aren't considered 'normal' by society's standards doesn't mean that they can't raise a child just as well as anyone else.
Do any of you even know any gay couples? Every single gay person I know would make one hell of a parent compared with some of the heterosexual couples out there.
How you raise your kid is your own choice, and just because a family and their beliefs aren't considered 'normal' by society's standards doesn't mean that they can't raise a child just as well as anyone else.