Should gay couples be able to adopt a child?


My opinion is no they should not, it is an abnormal enviorment for a child to grow up in. Having 2 dads or 2 moms would not be regular and would be a burden in school and social activities for the kid. I think it would be too hard on the child atm because other parents would not want their kids to go over to their house, and the child would be a loner and wouldn't fit in. In short if the 2 gay people want to live that livestyle, a child shouldn't have to suffer for it.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. Raised well, a child should have the confidence to fit in. The more society develops a tolerance for homosexuality, the less concern there will be regarding "fitting in."


Should couples of different races be allowed to adopt? Some would make the same arguments you do in saying no.

As a related aside, I'm familiar with only one study that looked into children growing up in homes with homosexual "parents." That particular study recorded no significant socialization problems in the children, nor was there an increased likelihood that the child would become homosexual (the rate was below average, in fact, tho' may not have been statistically significant). To be fair, this was quite some time ago. More recent research may have reached different conclusions.

Single parents should not be allowed to raise/adopt children.

it is an abnormal enviorment for a child to grow up in. Having 0 dads or 0 moms would not be regular and would be a burden in school and social activities for the kid. I think it would be too hard on the child atm because other parents would not want their kids to go over to their house, and the child would be a loner and wouldn't fit in. In short if the 1 parent wants to live that livestyle, a child shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Trell

That was pretty homophobic Tibbert. You think that children should not have to "suffer" that environment. Like Thormir said, what makes you think that the children would even "suffer" at all?

How is it homophobic? I don't agree with him but IMO its more just ignorance than homophobia.

There should be no barriers to gay couples adopting children other than those placed on heterosexual couples.

How is it ignorant, your the ignorant one if you think having gay parents is normal. In these times the child is bound to be discriminated against because of his gay parents, I don't think a child should go through that. Its reality.

Umm... huh? In these times? I think the problem is you're not living in these times, you're somewhere in the past. There should be laws to keep people like you from adopting though.

I can see where Tibbert is coming from. I know for a fact that a kid would be made fun of for having gay parents, and their life wouldn't be normal. Its not being ignorant, hes facing the facts.

You'd be picked on for being adopted too... and for being a different race... and for being mentally handicapped... and for being poor... and for being too short... and for being too tall...

You're making your judgments based on your own feelings about homosexuals.

Yes, I absolutly hate homosexuals... god are you retarded or what? A child being raised by a gay couple is not normal at all. How many kids do you know? How many of them are raised by gay parents?

My theory is this, have all orphan children adopted by gay families. That way when the kid rebels against their parents it will eliminate the homosexual problem ending this stupid ass discussion...and yes if you know anything about 12 year olds you know they would never let the fact a kid has gay parents die. It is not the same as being poor, black, short, wierd w/e. It is a unique thing and kids will see it as a "OMG HIS DADS ARE GAY HE IS WAY WORSE THAN EVERYONE ELSE"

Also the fact that being without a mother or father figure in your will make you suffer in certains areas of your life.

Same logic works for single parents. Saying we should "Ban" gays from adoption is the same as taking kids away from single parents. Its the same logic and has the same misconceptions. Is it the ideal? No but now adays what is. I was made fun of in school for being like "Leave it to Beaver" so it dont matter how your raised other people will mock you. Kids get made fun of PERIOD. Stop turning kids into pathetic helpless lamers.

Ya know,
In 1930s Germany the people were brought up believing that Jews were unnatural, and dirty and conniving people. That was their social value. They were taught it from their parents and their schools.
Jews werent allowed to marry for the sake of the offspring that might result.

What is it about Gays that is driving people so crazy? Who Cares? If 2 people love each other, cool, let them live their lives. There is nothing "unnatural" if it is their innate nature.

Ive been back and forth about this, but Im pretty much settled that Gays should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. I dont like the way they have campaigned for it, and I dont like the in your face gay rights people. But I know a gay couple, both wonderful women. Ones a pediatrician and the other is a lawyer. They have been together for 9 years. Why shouldnt they be allowed to get married and adopt a child, or BOTH to be a legal parent.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, primairly because it promotes homosexuality as a "normal" thing.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

Let me ask you this L2, since you are a parent. Would you rather see your son become a homosexual or straight when he is older?

From a selfish perspective, I want grandchildren.
But from a selfless perspective, I just want him to be happy. If he is gay, thats ok, as long as he is a good person, is successful in the ways he wants to be and has goals and dreams and the education and support to achieve them

Not that I am at all religious but I always thought, there was a reason men could not create children alone as well as women...they need to be with each other to continue the progression of our race.

On a different level, you would not be happier helping your son pick out a tux for his first school dance to take a girl out rather than be taken out by another boy?

.......

I dont think you understand what being a parent means Weolf.

What I want doesnt matter. Its not about me.
If hes gay, hes gay. Im not going to love him any less, or disown him. I dont need him to BE anything but healthy and happy.
See, thats the problem with so many kids today. Being born to selfish parents. Like young girls who just want someone to love them. They are bringing a child into the world and placing all these expectations and needs THEY need met. Well, guess what, it doesnt work that way. IF you are having a baby and you NEED something from THEM, what chance does that child ever have of getting what they need to be healthy and happy.
Healthy and Happy, thats all i care about.
I type this with him sitting on my lap.
And know this, I would set this world on fire for him, I would do anything, I would give my life without a second thought.

I've got a good friend who's dad is gay. She's married to my best friend. She's fairly normal, as far as people go. She was a cheerleader in high school. Her dad(s) didn't seem to have a negative impact on her. Her sister has been pursuing a sure thing modeling contract with Elite. She doesn't seem to be hurting over having had dad(s).

It's a myopic argument to cite how the kids will be teased. Kids are brutal anyway. When you're a kid, you're going to get dogged on for something.

What about the more positive aspects to that? I don't know about nationally, but here in Atlanta the gay community is mostly on the high end of the pay scale. They're involved with the arts and culture. They usually live in the high rent areas of town, with the best schools, parks, libraries, etc.

I'd rather see a kid grow up that way than under privileged, with no access to a well rounded education, just because of sexual orientation.

Letting homosexuals adopt children isn't a bad thing at all.

For economic reasons alone, it is good because while they can claim that child in their taxes, the money saved from the child being a ward of the state is > any tax right off.

For social reasons the child has a much better chance of surviving in a loving household over a cold adoption facility or foster home. I don't know what view of homosexuals you hold, but of all the ones I know none of them are the type of people who are in your face 'Will and Grace' (I fucking rhymed) style gay. They're normal people who happen to have found happiness with a person of their same gender. If Dave and Leo (the friends of my mother who recently got married) decided to adopt a child I'd be happy for them, and I'd be glad because that lucky kid just found a good home with two people that would be sure to take good care of him/her.

I'm not saying that the gay community is all like the ones I know, but the assumption that they're going to force their homosexual ways down the throats (try not to take that the wrong way) of their adopted child is pretty far fetched.

To boycott all homosexuals and decide that they're all dirty bad anal sex having child molestors is pretty ignorant, Tibbert. They ARE normal people. I bet that if you lined up 20 people in a police line up and 10 of them were gay you couldn't pick out those 10 people - because at the bottom of it all we're all human beings. Except Buyza, he's just a dirty Messiah Murderer.

He didn't say they weren't normal, he said their lifestyle wasn't normal, which it isn't.

You are right L2 I am not a parent, just think it is ironic that even people who are not against homosexuality still would hate to see their children turn homosexual. Hence the questions I asked.


[Edited out the retardation. -Thormir]

That is the most retarded post ever put on these boards.

Seriously in school if someone's parents were gay they would NEVER hear the end of it from the rest of the students. Not to mention the fact that being gay is not the norm, theres a reason why homo's cannot reproduce.

I will call Homosexuality "normal" when some man births a child out of his ass.

Until then, it's "out of frequency" as my monitor likes to say.

theres a reason why homo's cannot reproduce. Its interesting that the meaning of this is that someone or something "prevented" gays from reproduction because they are gay and not that its simply a biproduct of biology.

Once again (and boy have we play this stupid line of logic to death) if making babies is all about natural then infertile people are unnatural.

You know I was teased from Kindergarden till 8th grade because my name was Chris C. Honestly the "teased by other kids" thing is obviously in error when making a judgements about the "Fitness" of a set of parents.

in Atlanta the gay community is mostly on the high end of the pay scale. They're involved with the arts and culture. They usually live in the high rent areas of town, with the best schools, parks, libraries, etc.

your right Sanchek all gay pplz are rich, i mean it makes sense, they suck mucho cock to get to the top.

Or they get educated and work for a living. Do you even take yourself seriously?

I assume Tibbert's just a huge troll, but if he's not:

At least in Atlanta (being in the South), there's still a stigma attached to being homosexual in the professional workplace. They still have to guard their personal life closely. If they were to walk into the law firm and parade their lifestyle around, they'd be out of work and blacklisted across town in a week. Sad, but true. In fact, I bet a lot of statistics about homosexuals as a percentage are terribly skewed due to that.

In my personal experience doing contract web development for an architect that designs 7 figure+ homes, I've been surprised how many gay couples he works with. Not surprised that they're gay, but surprised at how exactly "normal" their lifestyles seem on the outside and how prevalent they really are in the "normal" affluent neighborhoods.

It only stands to reason that two people with 6 figure incomes vs. a single one and a soccer mom to deplete it; will have higher overall means.

Gay men have more disposable income and know how to use it. Why yes I would like the leather seats and the sun roof and the marble counters upgrade and the inground pool and the ... blah blah blah.

Your right sanchek, because I disagree with you and because I brought up a topic for debate im a troll....

Saying that all gay people are rich or you have to be gay to be rich or whatever the fuck your saying is stupid. Yes there are gay people that are rich, but there are more that are poor.


Edit: Women can work too Sanchek, just because there are 2 men in a relationship doesn't mean they make more money. A woman of equal qualifications is by law required to recieve equal pay to that of a man.

No actually, it was just because you sound like a moron board troll. I know I've got the minority view on homosexual rights around here. That doesn't bother me at all.


Saying that all gay people are rich or you have to be gay to be rich or whatever the fuck your saying is stupid.
But, when you come back with stuff like that (assuming you actually read any of my posts), I can only assume you're A) a troll or B) 5 years old.


Edit: Women can work too Sanchek, just because there are 2 men in a relationship doesn't mean they make more money. A woman of equal qualifications is by law required to recieve equal pay to that of a man.
I never said they could or couldn't make as much money. I only speak from my personal experience here in Atlanta, like I said. The person I report directly to at work (who is #2 in the company) is a woman. She makes a good 50% more money than I do. I have no idea what your point is, and I don't think you do either.

Oh I agree you are a troll too, but I also agree that saying gays are richer is some what stupid. I guess you could argue the point that with no woman in their life to blow all their money on stupid shit like 30k womens diamond bracelets they save more money...unless they are in to that. Honestly I have no real problem with gays, hell I play basketball 3-5 times a week with a gay guy at the local park (I admit I try not to post up on him). Just being a guy who graduated high school I can tell you a kid who has 2 gay parents is going to get ripped on WAAAAAY harder than any kid who is fat, short, stupid, whatever. As our culture, gay has always been like one of the ultimate sins, so kids see it as a "OMG HIS PARENTS ARE GAY HOW INSANE IS THAT LETS MAKE FUN OF HIM"...and being the type of guy that speaks his mind freely and talks a lot of shit I could tell you they would NEVER let it die.

Another common misconception that really hurts the gay community and this is that "all gay men love any other man" which scares most men while they are around gay men. They think "OMG is he going to touch me? Stare at my penis?" Just my 2 cents though of how I see homosexuals since I always have discussions like this with the guy at my park.

In general Gay people have more disposable income because we arent allowed to spend it on things like raising kids or marriage costs.

Good point Bowler, however gay people can now get married. Also they can adopt kids (i think) saw 2 mothers raising a child on the news, not sure if it was a child from a past marriage though.

I cannot get married ... name one gay male couple that adopted and trust me my hubby (as far as Im concerned after this many years) would love to adopt.

I dunno Buyza... That seems like it might be just you and/or your friends. We give my friend with the gay dad(s) a hard time sometimes, but she gives me just as much shit for dating strippers. It's all in good fun.

As for the money thing, I never said "ALL GAY PEOPLE ARE MILLIONAIRES OMG!". You guys seem awfully defensive about that or something. I'm just telling you that I've had professional interaction with quite a few here that have been a lot more well off than any double professional hetero couples I know. More often than not, they've been people you would never guess for gay in a million years, using the typical stereotypes.

They certainly wouldn't be the type to "touch you" or "stare at your penis". Man, if you think gays being affluent is a off base stereotype, I say it's got nuttin on something as absurd as that one.

Yeah you can get married, drive or buy 2 plane tickets to Massachusetts and you come back married.


Edit: I have no problem at all with gay people that keep it to themselves and live regular lives. It's the ones that go around parading and running around saying "Hi, I am gay, I deserve to be worshipped" while having a rainbow flag attaching to their back are the people that piss me off.

I feel the same way tibbert, congrats on being gay, but let it die or face oppression. Also sanchek, you are 25-30 I am assuming? I just graduated high school so know what I see there heh. You also have to consider girls get much less teasing from guys than guys get from guys. I guess since I went to a very snotty school too it would be different. To be fair I talk shit to most people evenly :)

Edit: I have no problem at all with gay people that keep it to themselves and live regular lives. It's the ones that go around parading and running around saying "Hi, I am gay, I deserve to be worshipped" while having a rainbow flag attaching to their back are the people that piss me off.
If there were accurate statistics about this stuff available, I'm sure you'd find that those people are in the vast minority of gays overall. But, due to the discrimination they face for being even slightly public, they're better off hiding it than acknowledging it.

Those clients I mentioned are a good example. I had to sign off on what basically amounted to an NDA to even get near their personal information, when working with them. They were so paranoid about the wrong person/people finding out about their sex lives, that they'd do just about anything to protect the secret. Yet, people tout percentages as if they'd be even remotely accurate.

Yeah, I'm out of high school, but I'm not that far removed from the frat days. I know of and have dealt out verbal and mental abuse that would make any high school kid hide under his bed in the fetal position until mommy made it all better.

So what if they do want to flaunt it? Why is that a problem for you? Fact is its not a proble FOR you its a YOUR problem.

Yeah, I'm out of high school, but I'm not that far removed from the frat days. I know of and have dealt out verbal and mental abuse that would make any high school kid hide under his bed in the fetal position until mommy made it all better
HAH, bring it bitch! You're so dumb you thought a parking meter was a gumball machine! OMG PAWNED!!! Go hide under your bed and cry until mommy gets home.


...bitch

Um that was stupid. That doesnt make you cool it makes you the kid that we all kicked for being a moron.

My way of facing oppression is to not let it die. I will not roll over for you.
BTW .. not compromising my happiness for your fucked up world view is not "flaunting it".

Yeah you can get married, drive or buy 2 plane tickets to Massachusetts and you come back married.


Edit: I have no problem at all with gay people that keep it to themselves and live regular lives. It's the ones that go around parading and running around saying "Hi, I am gay, I deserve to be worshipped" while having a rainbow flag attaching to their back are the people that piss me off.
Wait wait... This is great.

"I have no problem with them being gay and getting married; just so long as they don't do it in my state!"

Your tolerance should be applauded, sir.

Theres no difference what state you do it in, once your married your married. I think you misunderstood what I meant to say. My first sentence was responding to Bowler's claim saying that he couldn't get married, when he could.

name one gay male couple that adopted and trust me my hubby (as far as Im concerned after this many years) would love to adopt.

To bad you are not a lesbian Bowler you could have one artificially...get out the turkey baster!

Ibudin

Ask yourself this, would you rather a kid be placed in a home with abusive straight parents or loving gay parents. It shouldn't mater what the parents sexual preference is as long as the child is treated right and is in a save enviroment. You don't just become gay one day, and it has nothing to do with your parents sexuality because i'm sure most of the gay community had straight parents. So to think that just because someone's parents are gay the child will "turn out" gay is just absurd.

Tibbert you are ignoring the states like the one I live in that have laws FORBIDING gay marriage be accepted from outside the state. Wont do me any good. I live here because Nevada is not the cesspool that California has become. I also like the more conservative views on most issues. Too bad the religious right turned Conservatives against gays. Talk about brainwashed.

Actually Ibudin a couple lesbian friends of mine offered to carry a child for us. The reason we said no is A) We dont want to be tied to them like that and B) I need to graduate first.

I cannot get married ... name one gay male couple that adopted and trust me my hubby (as far as Im concerned after this many years) would love to adopt.
The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant : An Adoption Story
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452281768/qid=1090001102/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/103-9616302-5231862?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

You been in Vegas long? If so, I'll buy 'ya a beer next time I swing up there.

I had a good friend through junior high and high school who's father was gay. He had tried living the "normal" life; marriage, kid, but it just didn't work out for him because, as he said, he knew he was living a lie. When my friend's parents split and his father moved in with his boyfriend, I honestly don't recall anyone giving him a hard time about it, even though it was during junior high, the age when kids are perhaps their most critical. And unless someone thinks I came from some liberal wonderland, I'm a good ole Southern boy. Most kids just didn't really care. My friend was much more hurt by the divorce than being raised by a gay person. If gay adoption had been more of a norm back then, my friend's father would of had other options for having children. Lord knows there are enough children needing good homes.

Fil

The republican party has to appease the religious right just like the democratic party has to appease the ACLU and hardcore socialists.

I disagree. The Republican Party could simply appeal to fiscal conservatives, those in favor of a small federal government, and those who want to keep at a minimum the government's interference with the personal lives of its citizens.

Thor

That is probably the most logical thing I have heard anyone say in here. If only it were true and possible.

Sadly it is a voting game. If the republican party abandoned religious voters they would loose many votes and probably not be elected. I am not religious myself so I personally would perfer a republican party that had a primary goal to lower taxes, reduce social programs, reduce spending, and reduce the government's role in people's lives.

Lets see...I have a cousin who is gay(was married to a woman though at one time)and has a daughter,she seems to be pretty normal.My husbands friend's Dad is gay....didn't make him gay,nor did it make his values any less.An old boss of mine is gay...and yet he managed to have 2 children who have been brought up with the utmost respect for all people and have gone on to live so far wonderful lives.

You're right though....they should have buried all desires to have children because they obviously weren't worthy of having children.~rolls her eyes in disbelief of such arrogant people~

But would the GOP really lose those votes? There are a couple possibilities:


1) The religious right starts voting Democratic. Do you see this as likely? I do not, though it wouldn't surprise me if the Dems started tossing bones in their direction, which would be an ironic turnaround.

2) The religious right forms their own party or finds their own candidate a la Pat Robertson. This seems more likely, but has a few problems. First, it's unlikely that their candidate would win, and they probably realize it. Second, their candidate would do to the GOP what Nader did to the Dems. The conservative Christians wouldn't like that even if their religious views are influencing the White House. They could use their lack of support as a threat against the GOP, which then may need to pander to their interests in order to generate votes they need, which brings us round to the current state of affairs.

But maybe...just maybe the GOP could get by without appealing to the religious right and instead appealing to people who want a conservative government without the fundamentalist overtones.

The religious right will probably never vote liberal and is very unlikely they will start their own party, but voter turn out would be very low. If a canidate doesn't support their views many will not go through the trouble to vote for him even if they perfer him over another canidate.

However I think John Kerry is trying to snag a few, he is campaigning saying he has family values and supports a traditional family enviorment. Probably an attempt to gain favor among black and hispanic voters who definatly have religion in their lives, but don't support Bush.

yet sadly we are given what appears as two choices:


left
right


aside from general voter apathy, it's no wonder so few people vote.

As a middle grounder I can see pros and cons of both Bush and Kerry, it's going to be hard for me to vote this year.
I don't consider the Green party a choice for me as it is too far left for me.

The Republican Party could simply appeal to fiscal conservatives, those in favor of a small federal government, and those who want to keep at a minimum the government's interference with the personal lives of its citizens.
Smartest political idea put forth on these boards to date.

Voting is gonna suck this year. I hate voting Democrat and I dont really like Bush all that much.

Can't do it because the major factor holding a lot of people with the republican party is religious values.. especially in the midwest and south. The libs have them all convinced that tax breaks are evil, and the more you tax business owners the better things will be for them.

Objection ... Total speculation.

Can't do it because the major factor holding a lot of people with the republican party is religious values.
I identify myself a lot more with the Republicans than Democrats, and I certainly don't care about the religious aspects of the party. In fact, I can't think of any of my Republican type friends that care either way about religion... And I live in the Bible Belt.

Its total speculation that you say its total speculation. However, I don't care one way or the other which makes me a better judge on the subject than you Bowler.

Most people I know, even liberals want tax breaks. Only the hardcore liberals are against tax breaks, not many people are say with a straight face "I want the government to take away more of my paycheck this year!" (at least in my experience) ;-\ I think the republican party should definatly go and re-energize itself by pushing tax breaks and smaller government involvement, but every time they do that liberals say they are in the pockets of corportations, are taking money from special interests, and they are not helping the poor ect.

However I think John Kerry is trying to snag a few, he is campaigning saying he has family values and supports a traditional family enviorment. Probably an attempt to gain favor among black and hispanic voters who definatly have religion in their lives, but don't support Bush.Family values are a lot like taxes. Most people want successful, cohesive families, including Kerry. I don't think he has to force himself or prevaricate to say he supports family values. The difference between the parties lies in how they define that catch phrase and how much they want to legislate it.

Its total speculation that you say its total speculation. However, I don't care one way or the other which makes me a better judge on the subject than you Bowler.
If you reread this its the stupidest thing Ive read all week. So because you dont care and have no interest in a subject that makes you a better judge of it? Are you really that fucking retarded?

i think hes trying to say that hes a better judge cause hes not prejudice. I can see where hes coming from because if you have no feeling on something then you will base your judgements on facts and not from previous conflicts or anything else.

Being apathetic gives him insight into the entire republican populace of the midwest. Hi I live in the midwest and I have a very different experience.

Probably an attempt to gain favor among black and hispanic voters who definatly have religion in their lives, but don't support Bush.

You mean kinda like how Bush only mentions Castro in an election year when hes trying to win the state? More empty rhetoric without meaning.

I thought you lived in Vegas Bowler?

I think adoption should be outlawed, unless the babies deserve to die.
You know.. if they've been kicking too much.

No one likes a kicker.

I thought you lived in Vegas Bowler? Nope, not even close. Well my parents are moving there and I might end up there for school in a few years.

Apathy on this issue IE I don't really care about the whole family values issue except in regards to a candidates conduct in his personal life. You're outspoken about the values issues and have already stated how you want it out of the republican party therefore you have a bias. Not to mention that the values platform in your own party tends to deny you.

The Republican Party treats the religious right the same way the Democratic Party treats the blacks. Do as little as possible to keep them from thinking of the other party as a viable option. For people who are conservative because of their religion, but believe in unionization and entitlement programs, I think they'd be a lot more likely to vote for the libs if the conservatives stopped making a show of defending their beliefs.

Are you really that fucking retarded Bowler?

Should gay couples be able to adopt a child?

First of all, please make the distinction between adopting a unknown kid and adopting your partners child. The later is called "närståendeadoption" in Swedish, dunno what it's called in english.

It is very common that a single parent get new girlfriend/boyfriend, and that s/he adopt the child so that they will both be legal guardians. This protects the rights of the child, especially in emergencies and if the biological parent or the stepparent dies.

A lot of kids live with homosexual couples where one of the grownups is the biological parent. Of course these children should have the same protection as the children of heterosexuals.

Over to the other kind of adoption...

My opinion is no they should not, it is an abnormal enviorment for a child to grow up in. Having 2 dads or 2 moms would not be regular and would be a burden in school and social activities for the kid. I think it would be too hard on the child atm because other parents would not want their kids to go over to their house, and the child would be a loner and wouldn't fit in. In short if the 2 gay people want to live that livestyle, a child shouldn't have to suffer for it.

First of all, your logic is totally backwards. According to it, jews should not be allowed to adopt children. After all, there are people who hate jews and who will give their children a hard time.

In case of harassment and discrimination, the problem is the ones who do it - not their petty excuses and justification.

Second, do the childrens of homosexuals really get harassed all that much? Actually, no. As I pointed out allready, there are many children who live with homosexual parents. And most of them do "fit in" and have lots of friends and all that. Two of my RL friends is a 43 years old lesbian sadomasochist and her 61 years old "slavegirl". They keep their sexuality to themselves, their home is just like any other home of a ordinary average monogamous couple. The only thing that differs from the average is that they are both women. They have three children (born during previous heterosexual relationships) who live with them permanently, and the kids have friends visiting all the time.

There is no problem whatsoever thse days, and there have only been one previous problem that I know of. On a web community where these two women and I hang out, there's also a guy who's a psychopath and borderline pedophile who always try to get as young girls he can get away with. He also keep creating new accounts to replace the ones that gets banned for harassment. For reference, think Ghallunt and Triklin all rolled into one. The younger of the two women I mentioned is one of the few who bothers to stand up against this creep. When she defended a young girl who he was just starting to harass for refusing to meet him IRL he decided to get revenge for "denying him his right to get pussy", so he tried to start a hompohobia campaign, claiming that it was bad for her children ´to live witha lesbian (and sadomasochistic) couple. Luckily, noone joined him.

Yes, I absolutly hate homosexuals... god are you retarded or what? A child being raised by a gay couple is not normal at all. How many kids do you know? How many of them are raised by gay parents?

I know a bunch, and they live good lives.
As for "normal", why would it be a virtue to be average. Diversity is good. :)

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, primairly because it promotes homosexuality as a "normal" thing.

Yes, that is the TRUE reason for why most people who are against adoption are against adoption. Thank you for being honest about it.

Care to elaborate?
WHY, exactly, would it be a bad thing to treat homosexuals as normal people? Do you feel diminished if you don't have a untermench group to feel superior over? :o

The later is called "närståendeadoption" in Swedish, dunno what it's called in english.The same thing, actually.

;)

A person has every right to feel either way. 30 years ago I would have been against gay adoption on the grounds that society just wasn't ready for it. That's definitely a position that's open for criticism. I think its an issue that's more than acceptable now though.

Not that I am at all religious but I always thought, there was a reason men could not create children alone as well as women...they need to be with each other to continue the progression of our race.

Just like there's a reason why humans don't have built-in contraceptives. Do you think it's immoral to use condoms or p-pills to prevent pregnancy?

By the way, gays can get pregnant too. And they sometimes get pregnant with each other. A male homosexual couple and a female homosexual couple get together and have sex or insemination, for the purpouse of creating children.

Not that any of this is relevant.

Seriously in school if someone's parents were gay they would NEVER hear the end of it from the rest of the students. Not to mention the fact that being gay is not the norm, theres a reason why homo's cannot reproduce.

Actually, last time I heard about someone getting teased at school about homosexuality, it was like this:

The girl was a lesbian, and another lesbian girl was hitting on her. However, she wasn't interested in that girl. So the other girl got into the vicious mode that some people do when they get rejected, and started spreading a rumor that the first girl was actually hetreosexual and was just pretending to be lesbian to get attention. She was very upset over this rumor.

Being 14 years old today isn't exactly the same thing as being 14 years old when we was that age, much less when our grandparents was that age. Things change.

Look at the Greeks and the Romans and any other society who experimented sexually, where are they now? And yes their social decay there of did play a part in their fall. Everything has a natural order, who are we to be so decadent to change the way of things?

A growing number of people are way to arrogant and ignorant just like in times past. The current 'liberal' society most 'gays', 'partiers' or whoever it may be knows is still very young and will continue to change as it ages. One thing to keep in mind is it can't and won't last forever! True joy will always > 'fun' anyway.

Find meaning in life all you happy people, don't live on certain select moments from that one time you were on xyz or defied that one person:(

Just read what this thread started off as and would have to say they should not be allowed to in my opinion. Although before long, time being relative, I would say they will probably have those rights as well.

For sure Edeina knows how to increase his posts count!! :p

Just read what this thread started off as and would have to say they should not be allowed to in my opinion.And you base your opinion on...
True joy will always > 'fun' anyway.And the fall of Greeks and Romans.

Just... wow.

:D

Wow, posts have to be atleast four characters long :eek:

Look at the Greeks and the Romans and any other society who experimented sexually, where are they now? And yes their social decay there of did play a part in their fall.
I'd love to see a defense of the notion that the fall of Rome and Greece was due to homosexual behavior on the part of some of their citizens.

Look at the Greeks and the Romans and any other society who experimented sexually, where are they now? And yes their social decay there of did play a part in their fall. Everything has a natural order, who are we to be so decadent to change the way of things?

Eh. Ehr. :confused:
Are you, in any way... kidding?
That was the most surreal bullshit I've read in a long long time.

Julius Caesar was bisexual, and Alexander the great was either homosexual or bisexual. You know, Julius and Alexander? The guys who MADE those empires. Not that it's relevant.

Empires form, empires fall. It happens. Blaming it on homosexuals or jews or whatever is merely bigottery. :mad:

Find meaning in life all you happy people, don't live on certain select moments from that one time you were on xyz or defied that one person:(


Ah.
You think it's a good idea that people settle down and live family life instead of just partying?
And I who thought you was against homosexuals having children.
Now you're making me confused... :confused:

The last two pages have been pretty much surreal, to paraphrase Ed.

Your comparision is wack, don't compare stright abusive couples to gay loving ones, compare loving to loving or abusive to abusive. When collecting scientific data your only change 1 variable at a time idiot.

To the one that posted the above in my rep points.

I compared the two because Tibbert apparently dislikes gay men an women and i would assume he would dislike abusive parents. If it would make you feel better how about comparing a white couple to a black and white couple or letting a couple adopt a child of a different race. In my mind i would allow a gay couple adopted a child before letting an abusive one adopt a child. Tibbert is just being prejudice because there is something about that couple he doesn't like.

Letting a gay couple is not endangering the child at all as long as he/she is in a safe and loving enviroment.

Next time you deside to rip on one of my posts why don't you try doing it inside the post and not calling names.

The last two pages have been pretty much surreal, to paraphrase Ed.

Care to elaborate?

I don't think I really can Edeina. It wasn't directed at you, but I should really have said the whole thread is surreal. I was really surprised by the bigotted viewpoints expressed by some... and by the fact that I really have a hard time being 100percent on either side. One of the places I work, the patrons are about 90 percent gay... and I have to say most of them don't have lifestyles that I personally would like to see a child in. Of course they might be a specific unrepresentative cohort. My sister's a lesbian, and I definitely wouldn't want to see a child being raised by her... /shudder.

I have a great group of college buddies who are all married and all of them are perfect parents with great marriages. In fact, of all my friends, none are divorced. Again... a nonrepresentative cohort probably. I've only known a couple gay guys in relatively stable relationships... both of them are split up now with the partner they were with at that time.

However, I just think that if everyone was held to the same standard of stability, income, etc... any kind of couple should have the same adoption rights.

Letting a gay couple is not endangering the child at all as long as he/she is in a safe and loving enviroment.


A Gay couple adopting a child can never be a loving environment, becasue there is hatred throughout the world.. im sure u cannot find a civilized place where it would be accepted without any comments from the peanut gallery.

If two males raised a son in a perfect world.. that son would want to grow up to just like... dad(y's) And that defys the whole Gay at birth. If you think your gay from birth either you dont believe in God or u can just shoot yourself for having a lower IQ then paris hiltin cause that is the most bullshit i have heard in months.

The Main reason i don't like fags is becasue i dont accept them... to me they are not real people.

Care to elaborate?I don't think "Ed" is you Edeina. ;)

I have a great group of college buddies who are all married and all of them are perfect parents with great marriages. In fact, of all my friends, none are divorced. Again... a nonrepresentative cohort probably. I've only known a couple gay guys in relatively stable relationships... both of them are split up now with the partner they were with at that time.

However, I just think that if everyone was held to the same standard of stability, income, etc... any kind of couple should have the same adoption rights.I guess that's resume perfectly this issue. In France, when you want to do a legal adoption, there are a helluva interviews, pediatric and psychologic meetings with parents, social care checking of your income, and so on.
To be able to adopt a child, you need to prove that you will be stable and loving parents. In fact you could say that most adpoting parents are more stable on the same ratio with "natural" parents.
So your partner gender choice shouldn't interfere with how "stable" your couple is.

Oh and shut up Talari. :rolleyes:

' The Main reason i don't like fags is becasue i dont accept them... to me they are not real people.'

- Yegods, do people actually still think like this?
It's like a Greek tragedy.

A Gay couple adopting a child can never be a loving environment, becasue there is hatred throughout the world..
So does that mean a black couple can't adopt a white child because there is hatred in the world against blacks? Just because the couple is gay shouldn't mean bullshit. What should truely matter is how the child is treated. As long as they're not abused and mistreated by their parents there should be no problem. If a child is going to be picked on they're going to be picked on.

If two males raised a son in a perfect world.. that son would want to grow up to just like... dad(y's) And that defys the whole Gay at birth.A mind so fine no thought dare penetrate it...

Children often grow up to be like one or both parents, but I know of no evidence showing that sexual orientation is adopted in such a way, and I recall one study from years ago that showed that children of homosexuals were actually (slightly) less likely to be homosexual themselves. Also, it's uncertain whether homosexuals are "gay at birth" or whether it's due to processes occurring early in development (though what little research has been done on this seems to suggest the former).
If you think your gay from birth either you dont believe in God or u can just shoot yourself for having a lower IQ then paris hiltin cause that is the most bullshit i have heard in months.This sentence speaks for itself (and Talari) in so many ways it hardly needs comment.
The Main reason i don't like fags is becasue i dont accept them... to me they are not real people.I feel very similarly about ignorant bigot retards, but I always hold onto the hope that some glimmering of rationality will overcome their baseless prejudices.

Interestingly enough, Talari has been invited to be the keynote speaker are the Republican National Convention this year.. The tentative title for his speech is "Y Queers R Teh Sux Roffles"

OMG he r making generalzations from teh republicans omg u r cant do that! U R want paint us all wit same brush omg ur stupid.

Not entirely sure if Winterwong is joking or..
Just stating his regular opinion.

It's my Halo and LL impersonation. Sorry I'm not as good at it as you two.

How about this? Should a 14 year old girl who doesn't make her boyfriend wear a condom be allowed to be a parent?

Why don't we focus our energy on stopping retards from becoming horrible parents, instead of a perfectly happy gay couple that could be an awesome parent.

My uncle and his boyfriend do a damn fine job raising their daughter, a girl who would have been killed or just left to starve to death in China but has been given an incredible second chance at life.

Condoms???
No sorry, our GoP overlords have informed us that abstinence is the only permissable form of birth control.
And anyone who does get preggo will carry the baby to term, wether they want it or not. Or, alternatively, will sneak off to a back alley illegal abortion doctor who will harm them up for life, or they can do it themselves in the closest with a wire hanger and bleed to death. You know, like in the "good old days".
http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/back%20a2.jpg

And of course gay couples wont be allowed to adopt, because they are perversions, and they would create other perversions if allowed to have children.
Thats why our constitution needs to be fixed, because even though almost every single court it has been in, the rights for gays to marry has been held up, its just wrong, so our constitution must be changed and altered to prevent the legal joining of the penis and the male anus, because that may just destroy our culture.
My God! Think of the consequences if 2 men were allowed to spend thier lives together if they were in love...
It may turn other people gay! Then who would we be able to deny birth control too?

Oh Bowler, I just read that you and your husband would like to adobt. E-mail me at kelraz@guildrip.com and I can give you the info my cousin Carl used to adopt his child. They did have to go overseas and adopt a girl in China, and it certainly wasn't easy for them, but they were able to none the less.

I am not sure if the child is in both of their names, or just in Carl's, though.

Please be gentle I'm sleep deprived.


Condoms???
No sorry, our GoP overlords have informed us that abstinence is the only permissable form of birth control.
And anyone who does get preggo will carry the baby to term, wether they want it or not. Or, alternatively, will sneak off to a back alley illegal abortion doctor who will harm them up for life, or they can do it themselves in the closest with a wire hanger and bleed to death. You know, like in the "good old days".


See you are a Michael Moore clone. Nice dramatization. I've actually performed abortions bozo. There's a minority of the republican party that sees abortion as murder and will always be set against it you're right there. However the majority are pro choice but believe in restrictions such as some form of parental involvement. You'd be right if you said that Bush is very conservative on abortion, and I myself disagree with his views... as do most republicans. http://www.rpcc.org/legislation/03ecea.shtml

If you overlay your graph with mortality rates for all surgical procedures during the same time period, the trends are exactly the same. Infant mortality rate from 1970 to 2001 has gone from over 2 percent to less than 0.6 percent. The dip in reported mortality due to abortion around 1972 coincides with the beginning of officially verified records being kept. Maternal mortality in 1930 was approximately 700 per 100,000 live births (dwarfing maternal mortality numbers due to abortion.) Today maternal mortality is somewhere less than 8 per 100,000 live births. Of the 10 or so abortion procedures I've assisted with, only half were officially reported as abortions because the mom's didn't want anyone to know and so just the doctor, anesthesiologist, and I knew why we were doing the D and C. Abortion mortality these days is somewhere around 1 or 2 per 100,000 procedures in the US. The real battle isn't in saving lives from the overdramaticized coat hanger abortions, but more in destigmatizing abortion without taking away from the seriousness of the decision, and continuing to assure access to the procedure. I think the way you present your little argument above is symptomatic of where liberals go wrong... OMG WOMEN WILL BE JUMPING OFF THE ROOF ONTO FENCEPOSTS AND DYING TO GET RID OF THEIR BABY! It's not gonna happen.

No one is saying "hey you have to carry the baby to term whether you want to or not." The fight between choice and life movements is a typical arms race that occurs because both sides are hysterical about the issue and have to go overboard to counter the fact that the other side will go overboard and on and on. The far left wants absolutely no restrictions or impediments, and the far right wants absolutely no abortion except to save the mother's life. I think Bush's own belief is stated as in cases of rape and incest as well. His official position makes specific recognition of the fact that there are deep disagreements between honest good people on the issue and so he wanted to simply focus on issues like parental notification, partial birth abortions, and the promotion of adoption like that which some of my friends did last year, completely paid for by their church. The girl chose to have the baby and give it up for adoption to a family that she chose herself. I think we can all agree we want fewer adoptions? So how do we accomplish this without impeding on a woman's civil rights and when does that unborn child become an individual with rights? The far right would say at conception, and the far left would say not until the cord is cut or first breath. So ... why not 21 weeks? or 26 weeks? And therefore any procedure terminating that pregnancy after that time is governed by strict guidelines.

In terms of condoms... I favor the opt-out system where if parents seriously have an objection they can deny their kid permission to get condoms from school, but otherwise they are available. The abstinence-only policy which I assume you're alluding to? I'm not very familiar with how it's actually implemented but honestly... it seems like a waste to me. I believe abstinence should be stressed especially considering the long term health consequences of even protected intercourse on girls under 19. I also think sex ed in public schools is way to careful to avoid scaring them about sex. On the national level we're basically talking about how much money will go to the various programs such as abstinence only or abstinence plus programs. I think most of the policies are on a local level. I know in this state I just assumed all the high schools had condom distribution programs, and I know their sex education classes are forced to adhere to a rigid curriculum that specifically doesnt not place a value judgment on abstinence. Its just another choice. I think what republicans would tend to prefer is to stress abstinence as this is what you should do but if you don't... wear a condom and you're playing russian roulette. The current programs have been criticized as saying basically... look we know you guys are going to have sex, so here we'll show you how to do it and show you its not such a big deal.


And on your cartoonlike characterization of the party's stance on gay rights... it's childish and simplistic, but I agree that in general the party is allowing the radical right to steer it too strongly. Its not as simple as making the two absolutely the same, but its not as complicated as the beginning of the end of the world either. I don't really know, but I believe the majority desire is to see unions receiving the same legal recognition but with some sort of caveat that somehow distinguishes between them socially. I'm not sure im completely coherent I havent slept in over 36 hours.

For what it's worth, when you say "Partial Birth Abortion" you're already picking a side. The words were carefully chosen to imply that a "baby" is right at that point where the doctor tells the parents if it's a boy or a girl, and the vile abortionists come whack the kid with a hammer until he screams and dies.

Anyway, I don't want to talk about Abortion, I wanted to follow-up on adoption. I've got a close friend who already has three kids of their own. They're looking to adopt two more south americian kids (and while I want to say Brazil, I could be wrong). One, they want to grow their family, and two, they want to adopt these kids because they're bastard children in a country where bastard children are treated like... ...bastard children. They take scraps from the table from grandmother after the "real" kids have eaten. They can either go through a long and expensive process (greasing the palms of local politicos), or, they think a faster route for them might be to simply establish residence in Brazil for the 2 months necessary for them to adopt through local channels.

Anyway, just killing time and passing along stories.

My God! Think of the consequences if 2 men were allowed to spend thier lives together if they were in love...
L2, you seem to be suggesting that a law that defines 'marriage as a union between a man and a woman' would prevent all gays from living together and doing what they do.

I understand what you are saying.
And I agree mostly along the same lines. I would actually prolly be alot more republican if they lost the religious right agenda from the GoP, but they seem to have sold their soul, in a weird juxtapostion of the term. They just dont mesh. Personal freedom and Religious zealotry dont mix. It smells of hypocrisy and political expedience.
The GWB today at the Urban League. I could vote for that guy. Unfortunatly, next time he is in front of a religous group, the tone changes, and the man is frightening. If the right ever manages to get abortion illegalized, I think you can recognize the really awful situation that would occur. We dont live in the same age as people did pre Roe V. Wade. Im sure you could attest that doctors today are under intense scrutiny. 30 years ago the profession was a lot different, and doctors could operate with a greater degree of autonomy. Times have changed, regulations, HMOs, computers, lawsuits. The ability of a young girl to find a doctor willing to do this procedure would be extremely limited, and most likely be only availible to the wealthier members of society.
Hell, you can barely find a doctor willing to deliver a baby anymore, how do you think it would be to find one to perform an illegal procedure.
Add to the fact that any successful overturning would probably come through the back door, such as the "lacy peterson" bill, that would have charged the murderer with 2 seperate crimes, leaving open the door to expand that into forcing the courts to recognize the individual unborn as a entity in the same context as a fully developed person. Therefore, doctors who perform abortions *could* theoretically be charged with murder.

As far as gays are concerned. Im sorry, but the GOP is way out on this one. Gays arent a new invention, they arent a product of decadent society. They arent perverse. There really is no defense for this short lived and unsuccessful push to create this amendment. It is either pandering to the RR or its bigotry.

As far as kids. I dont know, there really is no real easy answer. Kids are overexposed, overstimulated, exploited and not at all prepared to deal with what society throws at them on a daily basis. The family unit is crumbling.
These kids are being used up by these massive media synergy conglomerates. Every child has levels of need, they start at the base with food, shelter, clothing.. and then they move up to love, acceptance, self value.
At this second level the children are being exploited. You have this disgusting system up on programs like TRL. The complete hijacking of the culture to turn it into a huge sublimal advertisement that defines "cool" in the name of profits is destroying the youth of this country. "Keeping it real" is such a perversion of the truth that the utterance of it on tv should be grounds for incarceration. There is NOTHING real. Its all managed and groomed and stragecially placed. The clothes, the words, the jewelry, the image, all manipulated in the quest to sell shit.
And its all fine.
Except for the fact that this is were kids are meeting that second level of need. A child who has his self esteem and worth based on the aquistion of material goods that this parasitic consortium has injected into his subconcious, is living in a house whose foundations are false. It is fact, the need is not actually being met, kids are not developing in healthy ways. Their values are screwed up because the ones they are being force fed, from TV, from magazines, from billboards, from Radio, from computers, from music... are all designed not to help them become better men and women, but to sell shit.
Its like the Allegory of the Cave from Plato's Republic. The media is showing children these images, and they percieve not the actuality, not the truth, but a manipulated version of it.
Garbage In ---> Garbage Out.
Why do you think kids get killed over sneakers.
Why do you think sex is valued over self respect.
Why do you think that we are continually shocked by the violent narcassistic actions of kids. They are TRYING to meet these needs, but they can feel the falseness and fakeness of the world. Eventually they realize that owning a 300 dollar pair of sneakers does not give the person any ACTUAL REAL self worth, no matter what the advertisement tells you. Sex sells, violence sells. So sell it.
Families have gotten alot smaller, and life has gotten more expensive. Moms HAVE to work, it is a fact of life. Parents cannot compete with the media. They cannot compete with the massive bombardment of images and messages, all crafted by billion dollar companies to have maximum effect. An advertisement designed to manipulate a fully actualized adult tears through a teenager like a knife. They dont have the self esteem, or the self knowledge, they are more open to the message, to the manipulation, to the subliminal nudges.
I personally think the only way to protect our kids is in school. Kids need to be armed to deal with the bullshit. To be encouraged from an early age to start creating depth to their personalities. Give them themes and ideas rather than ED Hersch or NCLB straight regurgitation of facts.
As a teacher my primary goal is to help create a fabric of morality, an anchor for them in the world that is looking to use them and toss them in the trash can. Arm them for battle by giving them the ability to have and defend strong ideas. To attack any presentation fact and discover it for themselves.
To ask the hard questions of "war on terror", or "globalization", to defend a belief with extreme passion and vigor, is using the same exact skill sets that is required to remain grounded and impervious to the outside manipulations.

Defend what you believe in. I will always challenge it. If you get angry enough where you feel the need to insult to defend, then maybe the problem isnt me, but your own innate lack of faith in your ideas.

The term Partial Birth Abortion is a legal term defined by Congress. Anyway, okay how about the medical terms? Intrauterine cranial decompression, or D/ X. Is that better?

If you look at the medical definition of the D and X its not actually technically an abortion because it normally is done during a time when the "fetus" is viable, meaning it would be able to survive if delivered normally. The D stands for dilation of the cervix, as normally happens during delivery to allow the "fetus'" body to be pulled out feet first with grasping forceps while the head remains in the uterus, face down. You then take surgical scissors and place your forefinger at the tip of the scissors to protect the vagina from the sharp point and move it into position at the base of the skull. Then you apply pressure to begin the penetration into the flesh at the back of the cranium, forcing the blades of the scissors deep into the brain. The scissors are then opened and manipulated as necessary to expand the opening. A suction device is then inserted into this hole and the brains are exctracted which results in the depression of the cranium to allow easy extraction (X.)

Disinformation on both sides at all levels prevents an accurate estimate of the number of these procedures performed each year, but its somewhere between 400 and 50,000, and probably is in the 3000 range. And no they aren't all performed in cases where they mother's life was in risk etc. I've never seen one in person, but I've seen taped procedures.

""Defend what you believe in. I will always challenge it. If you get angry enough where you feel the need to insult to defend, then maybe the problem isnt me, but your own innate lack of faith in your ideas.""

I was actually diggin it til I got to that. Insults and sarcasm are the meat of most of your posts... yeah I do it too. Anyway whatever. I'm not sure where all the diatribe... not the right word but oh well I'm too tired to be a thesaurus... about the state of the kids came from. Maybe from someone else's post back a ways in the thread? Is it responding to the sex education issue? Anyway... interesting and I'm sure more interesting when I read it with a clear head.

They'll never manage to get abortion illegalized. Roe V Wade is an extremely shaky piece of judicial mumbo jumbo and IMO relies on some serious smoke and mirrors. However RvW was supposed to be limited to first trimester procedures but has become a blanket to cover all terminations of pregnancy. It doesn't matter though because there's no going back, there's no way to undo whats done... period. I don't know exactly how to feel about first trimester abortion, but I don't have an negative feelings about it. Second trimester.... probably the same but to be avoided. In the third trimester though, I think its the same as murder personally but I would have to assume that someone who was doing it or having it done didn't feel the same and I wouldnt call them a murderer or a criminal. It's kind of like I'd bash a salmon over the head without a second thought but some PETA whacko would firebomb my house for it.

...rambling

Gay Straight pig fucker sheep humper what ever.


I feel every kid needs the love from atleast one parent. My Mom divorced my dad when she was 3 mos preg cause he would not change his life style and settle down. She decided that she did not want to raise a child with a father who felt he needed to drink and smoke pot to be happy. Did I turn out ok well I had the love of a mother and she had the support of her parents and I turned out ok. She even married when I was 10 to an abusive asshole of a man who now would give his life so I would not feel any pain and I am closer to him now in my late 20's than I ever was as a child.

I have seen people who take kids from the state just to get the money I have seen kids turn in to thugs because the parents do not care. I think if they have the time, love, and money to take care of a child and raise it to be a productive member of the human race then they should be able to.

I don't disagree that Abortions - in general - aren't pretty Winterwong. The PBA term, recognized by congress or not, was chosen to evoke an image.

Palimax... lol. All words are chosen to invoke an image. All terms and names are chosen to invoke an image. Its what gives them meaning. It was chosen because its a descriptive term that people could easily understand. It's a fucking abortion where the baby is taken all the way out of the mother except for its head and has its brains scrambled and sucked out. What the fuck is wrong with calling it a partial birth abortion? Let's pick a more descriptive name... how about Viable Unborn Infanticide? Is that better? You come up with a better name and I'll use it Palimax. Just tell me what to say from now on and what words I'm allowed to use that are the most inoffensive to your feelings and that YOU feel are not "picking a side."


Omg you're choosing a side because you're using the most common term for the procedure. What will you come up with next.

I'm honestly not interested in discussing abortion at all. I can't think of a single less useful topic for discussion here.

I don't find the term "Partial Birth Abortion" to be offensive (as you suggest I do). I simply think, as I've already CLEARLY stated, that it was a phrase crafted to make it sound "wrong."

Anyway, discussing abortion online is useless, and it's something I won't be engaged in. Bait someone else into your off-topic discussion, I'm not buying it.

Homosexuality, politics, race, religion, abortion, Nazi-ism...man this thread almost has it all. It's like an argument deathtrap. All we need is someone to state that Star Trek is better then Star Wars and that Mr. Jackson is a hack for not sticking closer to the books and we'd have the makings of a thread that would be worthy of immortilization on Google.

I'm not trying to bait anyone into an off topic discussion I'm responding to a topic that someone else brought up. You're the one that chose to make an issue out of the terminology. The term is the most accurate term to describe a very specific procedure. Now you can't defend it so you say you don't want to go off topic. I'm not sure I should be using the term "off topic" because its clearly a biased term though. Please just tell me what term you would prefer and I'll be happy to use it.

By the way... what do you mean when you say "imply that a "baby" is right at that point where the doctor tells the parents if it's a boy or a girl?" I didnt catch that the first time but I'm really curious wth you were talking about.

Although I will say this. I wrote a paper on it briefly in High School where I argued for a society where children are raised 'professionally' until age 20 at which point they are re-united with their parents and the 'young adults' are given the option of rejoining their 'family' or striking it out on their own. We're already halfway there anyways. I know far too many of my peers who, while growing up, barely lived at home anyways. It was a place to crash and someones lawn you had to mow in the summer.

Of course, it was only supposed to be a 3 page paper so I really couldn't delve as deep as I had liked. Probably been tackled by people far more intelligent then myself anyways.

Oooh...looks like a trip to ye olde local library is in order.

I think Winter what Palimax was stating was that "Partial Birth Abortion" gives you the image of a doctor pulling the child out, saying, "It's a boy!" and then the abortionists come by with the goold ol' whack-a-mole hammers and smash the newborn to itty bitty pieces.

Ahh well we need to find a name that implies that they pull the baby all the way out except for the head and suck out its brains instead then. I'm sure proponents of the PBA would prefer something that people would have a much more difficult time understanding. But whatever... I'll use whatever term Palimax prefers since PBA is biased.

I think Winter what Palimax was stating was that "Partial Birth Abortion" gives you the image of a doctor pulling the child out, saying, "It's a boy!" and then the abortionists come by with the goold ol' whack-a-mole hammers and smash the newborn to itty bitty pieces.Correct.

I get that you feel that since Partial Birth Abortions are an "unpleasant" prodedure (something I don't disagree with), that they deserve a simarily unpleasant name. I disagree. Similarly, I'd prefer that my veal flank steak not be referred to as seared baby calf's ass -- no matter how much more "correct" it may be.

Now, please, my deepest apologies for saying anything. Continue discussing abortion to your heart's content -- just do it without me.

Adoption not abortion! :p

We need some input from real life homosexuals, where is wiggo when you need him.

hes "with" brollan atm

Homosexuality, politics, race, religion, abortion, Nazi-ism...man this thread almost has it all. It's like an argument deathtrap. All we need is someone to state that Star Trek is better then Star Wars and that Mr. Jackson is a hack for not sticking closer to the books and we'd have the makings of a thread that would be worthy of immortilization on Google.

Star Trek IS better then Star Wars, and the LOTR movies was close enough to the books. The Tolkien fanatics can just go and *BEEEEEEEEEP* themselves.

There.

:D
:o

How about this? Should a 14 year old girl who doesn't make her boyfriend wear a condom be allowed to be a parent?
You're kidding right? I sure hope you don't expect your partner to make you protect yourself.

Young teens often aren't as responsible in protecting themselves or others as adults.

Fildien, she would also be protecting herself, too. I think that was the point of the statement.

Man Fil, reread the entire thread ... I think you've missed the point of the past 13 pages.

I think he's saying a responsible fag is a better parent than a teenager who has an accidental pregnancy.

Palimax I'll ask you again.. what term would you prefer. Just let me know. You can't because there isn't one. It's the only defined accurate term. Your problem is you got hold of some piece of liberal garbage and believed what they said because you don't know enough about the subject.

*smile* I did read the entire thread.

There are many good points in there but I wanted to zero in on this statement b/c I think so many people somewhere along the line are taught to believe it. At least that was my experience. Luckily growing up in the hip-happening-now town of less than 5 thousand people my Mom a single parent instilled it was both parties responsibilities.

And yes Thor, I agree young teens aren't responsible. *shrug* it was meant less of a knock against Kelraz and more of a....do you really belive that kind of thing?

When I have kids I will educate them about sex not the schools. Just my stance on the matter.


Winterworg I think he's saying a responsible fag is a better parent than a teenager who has an accidental pregnancy.
Well no, I didn't really say that but ok I will now. Yeah I think if a homosexual can provide a more suitable, loving, caring, stable, enviornment then yeah they are probably a better parent than the 14 year old.

Your problem is you got hold of some piece of liberal garbage and believed what they said because you don't know enough about the subject.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Palimax I'll ask you again.. what term would you prefer. Just let me know. You can't because there isn't one. It's the only defined accurate term.I don't care what word you use, because I have no interest in discussing abortion online. I regret making a comment. Stop trying to bait me into a conversation on abortion.

It may be the most appropriate term, but that doesn't change my feeling that the term is crafted to invoke a negative image.Your problem is you got hold of some piece of liberal garbage and believed what they said because you don't know enough about the subject.You have no idea what I know and don't know about abortion. ...because I won't discuss it with you here.

Actually LL I know exactly where that opinion comes from and I know why it's bogus, and thats why I said that. So anyway Palimax if you don't know what you're talking about and you can't back yourself up keep it to yourself cuz you're dead wrong on this one. The media's intoned asterisk on the term is part of their bias and is has more to do with an ideology than anything else. The media if full of such phrases authored for mass distribution that don't receive nearly the attention. How about "Assault Weapons Ban" or "Hate Crimes Law." There was no other name for the specific procedure so one was made up that fits perfectly... its in common usage and it doesn't imply bias. Actually its turned into just the opposite as the media tries to imply that the term was created out of thin air when we could just as easily be using the term Dilation and Extraction. The fact is the two are not synonymous, although the media continuously makes the "mistake" of saying they are.

You brought it up... all I wanted was for you to give me a term that we could use that you wouldn't whine about anymore.