Three wise former gays

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mixed race? there is one race, its termed the human race! sexuality is not race and i mock your pretensions that it is, people change their sexual habits all the time and unless you're Michael Jackson I have yet to see someone from a specific ethnicity manage to change their racial characteristics, perhaps you can direct me to them?

Could you reply to the point that was raised instead of nitpicking about terms that are perfectly clear in their meaning? For your reference, it was:

That's a curious argument from someone who has a mixed race child, from what I guess, is a predominantly white area. I seem to recall you mentioning in the past racial slurs directed against your mixed race son. You're happy to knock down social barriers pertaining to racial discrimination yet not sexuality.

Penguin

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh would you rather a child be placed in a natural and loving environment or an unnatural and artificial one?

You constantly persist in committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Natural does not mean better.

Marriage as a whole is an artificial and abstract construct.

Houses and heating and clothing and cooking and cars and planes and
computers and laws and governments .... None of it is natural.
All of it is artificial, manufactured.

Gay parents are just as good as non-gay parents.

And I am more than happy for them to have children, either through adoption
or by other Reveal Hidden Content means.

Originally posted by sonship

You are lying and wrong.

And I'm done with you on this topic.

Kids without one parent do not fare AS well as kids with two parents.

Now, I'll grant you that when it comes to statistics and surveys it is sometimes who you ask that makes some difference.

I did not say "Kids with no fathers commit suicide." I said kids w ...[text shortened]... t if a dad is not present in the parenting, those kids do not fare as well in a number of areas.

the 'statistics' show that children raised by one parent tend to do worse, regardless if its a single mother or father. children with two parents regardless if they are same sex or not tend to do better.

if you still (despite the statistics) want to argue that same sex parents do worse. you need to explain why. if you are basing your theory on gender stereotypes i.e - a child needs a masculine and feminine influence. can you answer what happens when a child is raised by a masculine man and a masculine woman? there are plenty of women out there who dont have a nurturing nature and lots of men out there who are not very masculine. so bearing this in mind, please explain to me how you can be so clear cut that a child specifically needs a man and woman!!!! what is it from the man and woman that the child needs???? this is the question you need to ask yourself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no thats not my argument at all,

I am not a kid, I no longer attend school but the reality is that children are often quite cruel and have none of the pretentious politically correct namby pamby jive talk that you espouse, you by your action will make them an object of ridicule because of your artificial anti nature stance. That is my argument. ...[text shortened]... arguments weak and beggarly, your hatred self reciprocating, your bigotry and bias hypocritical.

my sister has adopted several children. she is not their 'natural' parent. the two eldest have been the victims of school yard bullying based on their adoption.

so from your perspective due to the un-natural arrangement and the ridicule of schoolchildren. my sister should not have adopted her kids, left them in the natural environment of their maternal (alcoholic) mother and (violent) father. nice work robert.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
my sister has adopted several children. she is not their 'natural' parent. the two eldest have been the victims of school yard bullying based on their adoption.

so from your perspective due to the un-natural arrangement and the ridicule of schoolchildren. my sister should not have adopted her kids, left them in the natural environment of their maternal (alcoholic) mother and (violent) father. nice work robert.

That is not my argument at all and its a monstrous unmitigated fabrication to say that it is. A good mother is better than an alcoholic one, a loving stable heterosexual family better than an unnatural artificial one, that is actually the essence of my argument. This is spirituality, you may be able to get away with misrepresentation elsewhere but here we are interested in truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is not my argument at all and its a monstrous unmitigated fabrication to say that it is. A good mother is better than an alcoholic one, a loving stable heterosexual family better than an unnatural artificial one, that is actually the essence of my argument.

but you always start with natural is better than un-natural. so is this the case or not? is natural always better than un-natural....yes or no?

Originally posted by Penguin
Could you reply to the point that was raised instead of nitpicking about terms that are perfectly clear in their meaning? For your reference, it was:

That's a curious argument from someone who has a mixed race child, from what I guess, is a predominantly white area. I seem to recall you mentioning in the past racial slurs directed against your mixe ...[text shortened]... k down social barriers pertaining to racial discrimination yet not sexuality.

Penguin

I replied to his argument and pointed out that its based on an erroneous assumption that being that race is synonymous with sexual preference, clearly its nothing of the sort. I am under no duress to commit to erroneous assumptions and especially questions framed around those erroneous assumptions, to do so would be to legitimise the error, I don't think so.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
but you always start with natural is better than un-natural. so is this the case or not? is natural always better than un-natural....yes or no?

I would say that a natural and stable heterosexual family is the best, yes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I replied to his argument and pointed out that its based on an erroneous assumption that being that race is synonymous with sexual preference, clearly its nothing of the sort. I am under no duress to commit to erroneous assumptions and especially questions framed around those erroneous assumptions, to do so would be to legitimise the error, I don't think so.

No it isn't. It isn't at all.

It's based on the fact that you cited "being bullied by school kids" as one of the
damaging factors that you count against gay couples adopting kids.

Given that kids can also be bullied for having different race parents, or for being
adopted at all, or for having parents with an unusual religion, ect ect...

It's a perfectly valid and reasonable question to ask.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I would say that a natural and stable heterosexual family is the best, yes.

ill take this to mean that there is no overriding rule that natural is best. you seems to be making your own system up on scenario by scenario basis.

sometimes you go straight in with 'its wrong because its un-natural'
sometimes you ease off with a 'un-naturals nots wrong, its just that natural is better'
sometimes we get 'un-natural can be better if the natural isnt working'

you just pick and choose.

if you really think that anything is wrong purely because its 'un-natural' then all things 'un-natural' must be wrong.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the 'statistics' show that children raised by one parent tend to do worse, regardless if its a single mother or father. children with two parents regardless if they are same sex or not tend to do better.

if you still (despite the statistics) want to argue that same sex parents do worse. you need to explain why. if you are basing your theory on gende ...[text shortened]... t from the man and woman that the child needs???? this is the question you need to ask yourself.

if you still (despite the statistics) want to argue that same sex parents do worse. you need to explain why. if you are basing your theory on gender stereotypes i.e - a child needs a masculine and feminine influence. can you answer what happens when a child is raised by a masculine man and a masculine woman? there are plenty of women out there who don't have a nurturing nature and lots of men out there who are not very masculine. so bearing this in mind, please explain to me how you can be so clear cut that a child specifically needs a man and woman!!!! what is it from the man and woman that the child needs???? this is the question you need to ask yourself.

Of course there are gentle males and tough females. It is not a matter of stereotyping. It should be obvious to you that if reproduction requires in principle a male and a female, that rearing that which has been reproduced would best be suited in the same arrangement.

There is a disconnect in your mind between the physical phenomenon of reproducing another human being and the best environment for raising that human being.

This logic displays the arrogance of one thinking he can improve upon the natural order of the family. You think you can come up with an arrangement just as good. I don't trust your experimentation to be better than that which nature has delivered to us.

If the normal arrangement of child rearing can coincide with the normal reproducing of the child in the first place, why not promote that instead of your experiment ?

Why promote the exception ? Exceptions of course will occur. I think what should be promoted is the normal situation rather than the exception.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]a child with same sex parents risks absolute stigmatization, especially with two dudes and no matter how politically correct your namby pamby liberal ideas are, they will get ripped at school making their life an absolute misery.

And why? Because the parents of the bullies are probably homophobic bigots like you.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote]
if you still (despite the statistics) want to argue that same sex parents do worse. you need to explain why. if you are basing your theory on gender stereotypes i.e - a child needs a masculine and feminine influence. can you answer what happens when a child is raised by a masculine man and a masculine woman? there are plenty of women out there who d ...[text shortened]... e will occur. I think what should be promoted is the normal situation rather than the exception.

you failed to answer my question. if you are not basing your theory on gender stereotypes can you please explain why a child needs a male and female parent. what is specifically a male and specifically a female brings? if you can answer me this ill be happy to tackle the point you have risen above.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh would you rather a child be placed in a natural and loving environment or an unnatural and artificial one?

Answering my question with another question is nothing more than a dodge. It's okay though, I know your answer to this question already, you have answered in a previous thread. You would rather prolong the suffering of children in care than hand them over to a perfectly loving same sex couple. That is nothing short of evil as I've told you before.

I was interested in Jay's answer, which it seems, is not forthcoming. Shame.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I replied to his argument and pointed out that its based on an erroneous assumption that being that race is synonymous with sexual preference, clearly its nothing of the sort. I am under no duress to commit to erroneous assumptions and especially questions framed around those erroneous assumptions, to do so would be to legitimise the error, I don't think so.

This is pure unadulterated dung, would you care to try again?