Originally posted by stellspalfiefirst of all its not a few percent, its a huge disparity and is way too risky to be subject to some whacked out liberal social experimentation on children
lets say for the purposes of debate and that nobody has time to read all the papers quoted in your post, that the data is correct.
do you think that the few percent increase in risk is enough to make this a valid reason to stop homosexuals adopting?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo. Lets not grant the lies and distortions of a known hate group any validity
lets say for the purposes of debate and that nobody has time to read all the papers quoted in your post, that the data is correct.
do you think that the few percent increase in risk is enough to make this a valid reason to stop homosexuals adopting?
in any circumstance.
They want to claim that despite all the evidence otherwise that gays make
bad parents then they have to legitimately prove that claim.
Till then they can go fish.
There is bias, and it is all on your side.
Really now ?
This matter of homosexual marriage endorsement of government is not a religious matter. It is not about the government dictating where someone has to worship or go to church. It is about the government seeking what should be the better endorsement of behavior.
If you argue that religious motivation should disqualify groups on this issue then you should also disqualify churches which have policy to ordain homosexual clergy and perform gay marriages. Their "religious" involvement then equally should raise the objection of separation of church and state.
So don't argue for keeping religion out of politics when it disagrees with your bias but allowing it in when it agrees. That is also a form of lying.
Now there are a couple of different researching groups I see. Now on any one of those groups I have no doubt that interviewing them one by one you could pick out a more militant advocate one way or another. I don't dismiss the entire findings of the group because a more vocal case of advocacy can be identified.
Do you trust the Center for Disease Control [ CDC ] ?
Would you be inclined to regard their statistics as more objective than Family Research Council ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipYou really have no clue what you are talking about.There is bias, and it is all on your side.
Really now ?
This matter of homosexual marriage endorsement of government is not a [b]religious matter. It is not about the government dictating where someone has to worship or go to church. It is about the government seeking what should be the better endorsement of behavior.
...[text shortened]... ould you be inclined to regard their statistics as more objective than Family Research Council ?[/b]
I oppose religions period, and religious involvement in anything to do with governance
and/or morality.
Try to remember who you are talking to.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThey should do. but his point was that you claimed that it was 'more than a few percent' difference.
maths? we are dealing with children here, do you think they care about maths?
Which is a factual claim dealing with numbers (maths).
So, back up your claim, with maths, or shut up.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeok the original premise is that there is a disparity between the number of homosexual acts perpetrated against male minors and the number of homosexuals per population as a whole, which would seem to suggest that homosexual males do more than their fair share of degenerate sex acts against minors and cannot be trusted, at least thats how i read it.
They should do. but his point was that you claimed that it was 'more than a few percent' difference.
Which is a factual claim dealing with numbers (maths).
So, back up your claim, with maths, or shut up.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by googlefudgei dont think its actually accepting the bile. its saying - okay if you are putting this forward as a reason, go ahead and explain why?
No. Lets not grant the lies and distortions of a known hate group any validity
in any circumstance.
They want to claim that despite all the evidence otherwise that gays make
bad parents then they have to legitimately prove that claim.
Till then they can go fish.
i suspect the answer is actually that the percentage is irrelevant, its a bogus argument. if no homosexuals were pedophiles and 30% of all heteros were. i think sonship and robbie would still argue that homosexual parents its wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieyes we are opposed to homosexuality on as religious basis all other evidence is used merely to corroborate our religious stance.
i dont think its actually accepting the bile. its saying - okay if you are putting this forward as a reason, go ahead and explain why?
i suspect the answer is actually that the percentage is irrelevant, its a bogus argument. if no homosexuals were pedophiles and 30% of all heteros were. i think sonship and robbie would still argue that homosexual parents its wrong.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethank you to my secret admirer who follows me around thumbing down my posts, it shows that I am hitting the mark 😀
I really think there is a severe underestimation of feminine qualities that are brought to a family and especially the nurturing of children, imagine having a mom that was a dude? thats just perverse!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes but nobody cares what you think because you are an ignorant and
I really think there is a severe underestimation of feminine qualities that are brought to a family and especially the nurturing of children, imagine having a mom that was a dude? thats just perverse!
bigoted little **** who knows nothing about reality.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the traditional Christian patriarchal
two sex family model is any better than same sex parents.
Kids actually in such families have no detectable problems, excepting those
problems caused by homophobic bigots such as yourself.
As I said before, I wouldn't change my parents for the world because they
are my parents. however i would say exactly the same if I had had a pair
of loving same sex parents of either gender.
Apart from breast feeding, which not all mothers can do, let alone choose to
do, there is nothing a father can do a mother can't do just as well. And vice versa.
You are simply making **** up to justify your religious beliefs, made up by ignorant
peoples thousands of years ago.
The fact that you find it 'icky' is simply due to your having never actually grown up
and is no kind of argument against homosexuality of any kind.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it shows that I don't tolerate your bigoted tripe in any amount you
thank you to my secret admirer who follows me around thumbing down my posts, it shows that I am hitting the mark 😀
pathetic little weasel.
EDIT: and I am not at all secretive about it.
Also... Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
It cannot be overstated how repulsive I find you and your position.