Originally posted by robbie carrobiewe allow old people to raise children. we allow kids not yet 20 to raise kids. single people raise kids. divorcees, widowers. kids are raised by their grandparents, aunts. kids are adopted by people not of their race, ethnicity, or religion.
umm actually zippy, there are some legitimate concerns it seems, children are also involved as legislation was passed giving gays right of adoption. Please read the article and try to keep your knickers on.
but god forbid two gay dudes providing a loving environment for a child. that's just crazy.
and no, it still isn't anyone's concern what other people do with their lives.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewho gives a damn about traditional family values? it used to be traditional to lynch black people, we changed that because we got better at being human.
Children are involved and no traditional family values do not remain intact. Legislation has been passed which effectively redefines family. A traditional family consists of a husband and a wife, a male and a female.
how about you mind your own business and only but into other people's family when parents refuse to give their child a blood transfusion to save his life. then you can protest and call the police.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziit used to be traditional???? to whup black people? It used to be traditional???to keep slaves in Roman times also? Is mistreating people now a tradition, wow, not only are you prepared to redefine the family you are now prepared to redefine words.
who gives a damn about traditional family values? it used to be traditional to lynch black people, we changed that because we got better at being human.
how about you mind your own business and only but into other people's family when parents refuse to give their child a blood transfusion to save his life. then you can protest and call the police.
How about you stop telling me what i should and should not do, its none of your business what i should and should not do unless of course you are willing to add hypocrisy to your now growling list of irrational statement.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhy is it crazy? because you say so? Sorry to burst your bubble but unless you have something more to consider than personal opinion, what is the point? If these peoples have concerns, what are they? have you taken the time to find out or will you simply continue in the vein that its none of anyone's business, as if that is in some way a legitimate reason for establishing any kind of legislation. Government: Why dont you pay your taxes. Zippy :its none of your business. When did the government ever legislate on the basis of its none of your business?
we allow old people to raise children. we allow kids not yet 20 to raise kids. single people raise kids. divorcees, widowers. kids are raised by their grandparents, aunts. kids are adopted by people not of their race, ethnicity, or religion.
but god forbid two gay dudes providing a loving environment for a child. that's just crazy.
and no, it still isn't anyone's concern what other people do with their lives.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieArgumentum Ad Populum
I am not surprised, i am simply saying that, since i was accused of being part of the problem, it seems that all these thousands, possibly millions of persons must also be part of the problem.
when will people realise that concerns are legitimate?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethese people can still adopt children. their rights are unaffected. so what is their concern?
why is it crazy? because you say so? Sorry to burst your bubble but unless you have something more to consider than personal opinion, what is the point? If these peoples have concerns, what are they? have you taken the time to find out or will you simply continue in the vein that its none of anyone's business, as if that is in some way a legitimate ...[text shortened]... ur business. When did the government ever legislate on the basis of its none of your business?
Originally posted by stellspalfiei suspect their concern is for children being adopted by gays. whether it will prove detrimental to their development. As i say, i do not know, you have read what i have read.
these people can still adopt children. their rights are unaffected. so what is their concern?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiereferring back to your op. if these people are marching because they think homosexual parents will be detrimental to the development of children then yes, they are homophobic.
i suspect their concern is for children being adopted by gays. whether it will prove detrimental to their development. As i say, i do not know, you have read what i have read.
where do the j.w.'s stand on homosexuals adopting children?
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfiewhy are they homophobic, because you say they are? as for JW's we recognise that the natural family arrangement is the best.
referring back to your op. if these people are marching because they think homosexual parents will be detrimental to the development of children then yes, they are homophobic.
where do the j.w.'s stand on homosexuals adopting children?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieaccusing all homosexuals of being detrimental to child development is irrational. an irrational negative reaction to homosexuals is homophobic.
why are they homophobic, because you say they are? as for JW's we recognise that the natural family arrangement is the best.
you choose your words carefull robbie. explain in a bit more detail for me. is the traditional family arrangement just a preference? in the absence of a traditional family would a homosexual family suffice?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefind the dictionary definition of traditional, and then i can continue to mock your hilariously homophobic mind.
it used to be traditional???? to whup black people? It used to be traditional???to keep slaves in Roman times also? Is mistreating people now a tradition, wow, not only are you prepared to redefine the family you are now prepared to redefine words.
How about you stop telling me what i should and should not do, its none of your business what i sh ...[text shortened]... ss of course you are willing to add hypocrisy to your now growling list of irrational statement.
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfienot if it is founded on evidence its not. Indeed, to term someone homophobic without evidence is irrational.
accusing all homosexuals of being detrimental to child development is irrational. an irrational negative reaction to homosexuals is homophobic.
you choose your words carefull robbie. explain in a bit more detail for me. is the traditional family arrangement just a preference? in the absence of a traditional family would a homosexual family suffice?
The traditional family arrangement was instituted by God when he created the first woman and gave her, as a companion and a compliment of Adam. It seems evident that males have attributes and females have attributes which when combined as a whole, compliment each other, because of their very nature.
Homosexuality is defined by a sexual act, which stands condemned in scripture and therefore any arrangement made on this basis is illegitimate from a Biblical perspective.
Rather interestingly there have been attempts to draw comparisons from some Biblical accounts, most notably the justification for Lesbian adoption based on the idea that Timothy was brought up by his Grandmother Eunice and his mother Lois, but they of course were not homosexuals, simply a mother and a grandmother.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh marvelous. i know the french 'tet toi' and 'vous est un gross gross vache'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22671572
organisers said close to 1 million persons marched. Far from being the minority and part of the problem that Proper knob and others have made out, people are really concerned and divided by this issue. Are all these persons also homophobes? Wow its an amateur psychoanalysts nightmare. Materialism has gone too far.
(fat fat cow, learnt that at school)
maybe you should plan a holiday there rc?
4 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisLOL, why would i want to do that, they are right wing nutters, i am a socialist by nature. They have failed the revolution. The French revolution is why i love pawns, the Great Philador made this clear, pawns (the peasants) are the soul of chess, not the hierarchy of the capitalist bourgeoisie pieces (knights bishops and rooks)!
oh marvelous. i know the french 'tet toi' and 'vous est un gross gross vache'
(fat fat cow, learnt that at school)
maybe you should plan a holiday there rc?