Planetarion Forums - Should gay people be allowed to have children?

JonnyBGood · 11 Dec 2003, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

should a convicted peadophile be allowed to adopt, even if they promise to be good?

I'm not even going to bother ridiculing this comparison. Instead I'm going to do something more constructive and WATCH PAINT DRY.

madi · 11 Dec 2003, 17:49

and no, fat people shouldnt be allowed children either
fat parents = fat children = bad influence

if you have medical grounds for being fat you should be allowed because of teh longevity issue
if you dont then you eat to much

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 17:58

Homophobia tastes like chicken.

CrashTester · 11 Dec 2003, 18:10

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have children as they live in a different culture and society to us and their strange ways might disrupt children which is reflected in the rates of comparative ethnic crime in the USA and Britain. Jews neither because they have a history of usury and cheating.

JonnyBGood · 11 Dec 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have children as they live in a different culture and society to us and their strange ways might disrupt children which is reflected in the rates of comparative ethnic crime in the USA and Britain. Jews neither because they have a history of usury and cheating.

SilverSmoke · 11 Dec 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why is 'Society is a prejudiced piece of shit, so we should keep on encouraging it to be a prejudiced piece of shit.' given as an argument, do you suppose?

tnx, that was what I was thinking but couldnt find the correct English words to make it sound clever.

Work_Child · 11 Dec 2003, 18:33

if god wanted gay people to have babies he'd have allowed them to reproduce...OH WAIT, HE DID! THEY JUST SPAT IN HIS FACE THEY DESERVE TO DIE!

Dace · 11 Dec 2003, 18:42

GAY PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE NEVERMIND ADOPT!

Work_Child · 11 Dec 2003, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

Gay people don't deserve to live never mind adopt.

omg racist sue!

LHC · 11 Dec 2003, 18:50

Gays shouldn't adopt for there own benefit. Assuming it benefits the child, I see no problem. I wonder if that's the case.

Intrepid00 · 11 Dec 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work_Child

omg racist sue!

Being gay doesn't make you a race. The same applies to Jews, Arabs, Hindus, Cathlocis, etc, etc.

Work_Child · 11 Dec 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Being gay doesn't make you a race. The same applies to Jews, Arabs, Hindus, Cathlocis, etc, etc.

Omg omg omg omg he's making a mockery of the jews who dies in concentration camps in the second world war.sue sue sue!!!

Intrepid00 · 11 Dec 2003, 19:00

They need to get over that. How many Jews are alive that actually where in a conceration camp. Not many and give it another 10-15 years and I would be shocked if there was any easily found. I want to a Jewish Temple once, in fact two with each slight diffrent beliefs, and the Rabbi started bitching about Germany (he was in a conceration camp) and how he would never go there because their was to much Jewish blood in the soil. Well he can go **** off because no country is innoceant and harboring scars of the past on future generations is asinine.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Being gay doesn't make you a race. The same applies to Jews, Arabs, Hindus, Cathlocis, etc, etc.

Now, I could understand you saying that about Catholics, but to apply it to Arabs (who are never anything but a race; what did you think they were? A religion?) and the Jews (orthodox jews have to have a jew for a mother) is nonsense of the highest order,

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

They need to get over that. How many Jews are alive that actually where in a conceration camp. Not many and give it another 10-15 years and I would be shocked if there was any easily found. I want to a Jewish Temple once, in fact two with each slight diffrent beliefs, and the Rabbi started bitching about Germany (he was in a conceration camp) and how he would never go there because their was to much Jewish blood in the soil. Well he can go **** off because no country is innoceant and harboring scars of the past on future generations is asinine.

No country is innocent, but to assume that all have equal levels of guilt is ALSO stupidity of the highest order. ('Hey you, why are all the rocks different sizes?') Surely if you, and many millions of people who were alike in some way to you that you felt a kindred feeling for, were killed in a country, surely you wouldn't wish to return?

Intrepid00 · 11 Dec 2003, 19:15

If I was in his shoes, I would go. Its not the same Germany anymore.

Dace · 11 Dec 2003, 19:16

The way i heard it the Jews thought that the concentration camps were holiday camps which concentrated the fun and so because they were advertised so cheap and because the Jews are apparantly tight with their money all these Jews went to the concentration camps and sure they might have had to work a little to subsidise their stay and sure the food might not have been up to much but hey you get what you pay for and all those Jews didn't pay very much and they should quit their yapping and their whinning and be glad that they had such a good time when they think about how little they had to pay.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

If I was in his shoes, I would go. Its not the same Germany anymore.

I think that's rather devaluing the experiences he had there.

These things change people, and saying that you wouldn't change is, again, stupidity of the highest order.

Mmmm consistency.

Marilyn Manson · 11 Dec 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

and the Jews

Dude, that is not the preferred nomenclature. 'Hebrew', dude.

Vermillion · 11 Dec 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

They need to get over that. How many Jews are alive that actually where in a conceration camp. Not many and give it another 10-15 years and I would be shocked if there was any easily found. Well he can go **** off because no country is innoceant and harboring scars of the past on future generations is asinine.

We are not talking about the 1600s here, we are talking about an event which ended less than 60 years ago, in which an agency within a nation exterminated about a quarter of the jews in the world in as ruthlessly efficient mechanised manner unlike anything else ever done in human history. During this time, the rest of the world was refusing to allow entry of jewish refugees into their countries, and did little to either act or inform the world with regards to what was going on.

You know what? I think they might just have some reason to complain and be a touch upset, even 60 years later.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Dude, that is not the preferred nomenclature. 'Hebrew', dude.

This is what happens when you **** A STRANGER IN THE ASS

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 19:26

If there are kids left over in the orphanage after all the suitable heterosexual applicants have got one, sure.

or if a gay couple wanted to pay a woman to carry a child for one of them, that would be cool too.

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion

So is prejudice a reason to discriminate? Does that not just reinforce ignorant behaviour?

I think its sad that youre willing to condemn children to a childhood of hell just to push through your political agenda

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Surely if you, and many millions of people who were alike in some way to you that you felt a kindred feeling for, were killed in a country, surely you wouldn't wish to return?

If I were killed in a country I dont think I'd have very much say over whether I wished to return...

Also, why do they have a kindred feeling for them? Because they had the same religion and they were treated badly for this? I hope youre never going Spain...

Marilyn Manson · 11 Dec 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

just to push through your political agenda

What, allowing people to adopt children?

yeah we should really listen to the prejudices of nine year olds when forumulating social policy.

Vermillion · 11 Dec 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think its sad that youre willing to condemn children to a childhood of hell just to push through your political agenda

Grandiose overgeneralisations much?

Firstly, the assertion of a childhood of hell is just that, a blatant assertion, and an exaggerated silly one at that. Why would you assume that children of homosexual parents would be targeted? Why further would you assume that it would make them any more of a target than any other difference among children?

Secondly, even if I accepted that silly assertion, I find it sad that you would willingly accept the promotion of discrimination just because it is the path of least resistance.

NEWSBOT3 · 11 Dec 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion

We are not talking about the 1600s here, we are talking about an event which ended less than 60 years ago, in which an agency within a nation exterminated about a quarter of the jews in the world in as ruthlessly efficient mechanised manner unlike anything else ever done in human history. During this time, the rest of the world was refusing to allow entry of jewish refugees into their countries, and did little to either act or inform the world with regards to what was going on.

You know what? I think they might just have some reason to complain and be a touch upset, even 60 years later.

worse things have and do happen today and get ignored by the world.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Also, why do they have a kindred feeling for them? Because they had the same religion and they were treated badly for this? I hope youre never going Spain...

Because they were your family would be a good one.

Vermillion · 11 Dec 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

worse things have and do happen today and get ignored by the world.

Firstly, no they dont. Please find me one worse thing.

Secondly, the point I think you were TRYING to make was that terrible things do happen and are ignored by the world.

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What, allowing people to adopt children?

No, placing his desire to mould society into a certain pattern above the interests of the children involved. He is completely indifferent to any suffering the children might endure during their childhoold, because he sees the plight of a few isolated individuals as being a worthwhile sacrifice in order to achieve a greater good - ie the complete normalization of homosexuality within society, which this is a small but significant step towards. I dont think children should be used as pawns in a purely political game. If you do, then whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

yeah we should really listen to the prejudices of nine year olds when forumulating social policy.

You should when they are the ones involved.

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Firstly, no they dont. Please find me one worse thing.

chechnya

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

worse things have and do happen today and get ignored by the world.

Today, there tends to be much more humanitarian aid given, and the refugees are less likely to be turned away simply because of who they are.

Even if that wasn't true, it wouldn't change his point about people feeling agrieved; I'm sure the people who are targeted by such things in this day and age are pretty annoyed about it too.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

chechnya

That's not worse. It's very bad, but not worse.

Vermillion · 11 Dec 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No, placing his desire to mould society into a certain pattern above the interests of the children involved. He is completely indifferent to any suffering the children might endure during their childhoold, because he places the plight of a few isolated inviduals as a worthwhile sacrifice in order to achieve a greater good - ie the complete normalization of homosexuality within society, which this is a small but significant step towards.

I love how you have blanket accepted (and then projected onto me) the unsubstantiated assertion that somehow children of homosexual parents will automatically suffer some vast drop in the quality of life, that their childhood will automatically be, as you put it, a 'living Hell', and that this adoption will entail great suffering by the children.

Once again, even if that were the case (which it is not) do you think it is then better to have stay in orphanages and foster homes? Is that the Xanadu you would give them as opposed to the 'Living Hell' of adoption with a homosexual family?

I am disapointed in you Nod, normally you are the first person to challenge silly and baseless assertions like that.

Vermillion · 11 Dec 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

chechnya

Firstly, Chechnia is unquestionably a terrible and tragic situation, it bears no comparason to the holocaust.

Secondly, even if it did, I have no problem at all if in 60 years the Chechens still feel aggreived with Russia. They can feel free, in fact I would be surprised if they did not.

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion

I love how you have blanket accepted (and then projected onto me) the unsubstantiated assertion that somehow children of homosexual parents will automatically suffer some vast drop in the quality of life, that their childhood will automatically be, as you put it, a 'living Hell', and that this adoption will entail great suffering by the children.

Im not even sure how to argue it. If you honestly believe that 99% of children wouldnt merclilessly slaughter another for having "two daddies", then I dont know what to tell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Once again, even if that were the case (which it is not) do you think it is then better to have stay in orphanages and foster homes? Is that the Xanadu you would give them as opposed to the 'Living Hell' of adoption with a homosexual family?
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If there are kids left over in the orphanage after all the suitable heterosexual applicants have got one, sure.

Marilyn Manson · 11 Dec 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No, placing his desire to mould society into a certain pattern above the interests of the children involved.

I don't think that's his - or anyone else's - argument, tbh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You should when they are the ones involved.

What, we should take into account the fact that there are bigoted individuals in the world who won't like X type of progress, and may cause people who are linked in some way in X type of progress some potential emotional harm, even though there is no rational bar to it, and they might be perfectly happy otherwise?

If you took this argument to it's logical conclusion, then you wouldn't have any progress at all.

Your argument essentilaly amount to "Society is backward, so the law should be backward", which in my mind isn't really much of an argument, especially consdering that my belief that the state, authority, and also, particularly community are some of the prime actors in challenging such atitudes, although you probably won't accept that. So the backwardness is perpetuated.

LHC · 11 Dec 2003, 20:02

as if anyone here wouldn't make a fag's child's life a hell

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What, we should take into account the fact that there are bigoted individuals in the world who won't like X type of progress, and may cause people who are linked in some way in X type of progress some potential emotional harm, even though there is no rational bar to it, and they might be perfectly happy otherwise?

The childrens' interests should be put first in any sane adoption process. If a child is likely to have a happier life with couple X than they are with couple Y, then they should be put with X (assuming the couple wants it). Whether the cause of this increased happyiness is others acting "rationally" or "unrationally" is irrelevant.

Posts like yours and vermillions in this thread consitutte a fairly good argument for the complete privitisation and deregulation of the adoption process to be honest. Having the state involved simply opens the whole thing up to a whole range of pseudopolitical agenda pushing like this, where the best interests of those involved are mercilessly sacrificed "in the name of progress".

Dante Hicks · 11 Dec 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

99% of children wouldnt merclilessly slaughter another for having "two daddies"

Any kid with an ounce of brain power wouldn't really go round talking about it. I was fairly "embarrassed" growing up in a single parent family, but no-one (outside of people I liked) knew about it, so it was never really an issue.

What, did your parents turn up to parents evening and other faggy middle class shit like that?

Vermillion · 11 Dec 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Im not even sure how to argue it. If you honestly believe that 99% of children wouldnt merclilessly slaughter another for having "two daddies", then I dont know what to tell you.

Well then you apparently dont know what to tell me.

Any basic study of the patterns of bullying shows clearly that kids are not bullied because they have some odd thing about them or their parents, they are bullied because they are perceived as targets, weaker than the other children. Once weaker, the bullies will pick on anything, parentage, colour of hair, sports ability... it doesnt matter. Kids will not be bullied because they have homosexual parents, they will be bullied because they are pront to being bullied, and yet in that case it is possible, likely even that the parentage issue will be used as ammunition, but anything would be used as ammunition. Like, for example, that they were adopted at all, even by heterosexual parents, or perhaps only had a single parent.

Now thats the issue of bullying. Outside that, will things be said about the parents of such a child? Will the child face hurtfull comments? Of course, but all childen do on any issue, children are creul to each other. I faced hurful comments when I was a kid because I was so tall, or because of a hundred other things, so did everyone else.

So you need to show me that this, (assuming of course it became public knowledge at all) would be any different from the regular trials and tribulations of growing up.

There are vastly more children in need of adoption than there are suitable couples seeking to adopt. 'Availability' of children is certainly not an issue.

The fact is, allowing suitable homosexual parents to adopt is the right thing legally, morally, AND in the best interests of the child.

Nodrog · 11 Dec 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Any kid with an ounce of brain power wouldn't really go round talking about it. I was fairly "embarrassed" growing up in a single parent family, but no-one (outside of people I liked) knew about it, so it was never really an issue.

What, did your parents turn up to parents evening and other faggy middle class shit like that?

These things normally come out eventually. "Hey jonny, why does a different man pick you up every day from school?" "What does your mummy do for a living?" "So... parents evening huh?"

edit: and if you think i'm letting communists adopt children then youre deluded.

Dante Hicks · 11 Dec 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

edit: and if you think i'm letting communists adopt children then youre deluded.

Unlike you inevitably homosexual right-libertarians, Communists are virile enough. Look at Castro, he's got like eight kids.

SPQR · 11 Dec 2003, 20:32

I'd rather have gay parents than no parents tbh.

Phang · 11 Dec 2003, 20:35

My general view is that in matters of adoption, heterosexual couples should be given the nod over gay couples when looking at equally suitable applicants, simply because of issues such as extra bullying - and there will be, anyone who argues has never met the vicious little ****s that are our nation's youth - rejection by the adopted kid, etc etc etc. However, a less suitable heterosexual couple should have no advantage over a gay couple. Oh, and on account of how I'm actually gay don't try to label me as prejudiced on this one ta

(By suitable i mean 'unlikely to molest them, abuse them, upset them generally, force beliefs on them etc' before anyone tries to make the 'omfg how can gheys be sutable' school of thought (or lack thereof). Oh, and in case any of our less intelligent posters try to make the similar 'but gays are child molesterers' point, you can **** right off my planet, kthxta.)

Dace · 11 Dec 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion

We are not talking about the 1600s here, we are talking about an event which ended less than 60 years ago, in which an agency within a nation exterminated about a quarter of the jews in the world in as ruthlessly efficient mechanised manner unlike anything else ever done in human history.

I'm thinking "soviet nation".

I'm thinking "state sponsored murder".

I'm thinking "20 million".

But then i might be wrong :shrug:

Bunga · 11 Dec 2003, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think its sad that youre willing to condemn children to a childhood of hell just to push through your political agenda

I think it is sad that you are willing to condemn children to a childhood of a hell just to puch thorugh your political agenda. I would pick a stable gay couple over an orphangae any day of the year if I were an orphan. I think most orphans would.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Dec 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunga

I think it is sad that you are willing to condemn children to a childhood of a hell just to puch thorugh your political agenda. I would pick a stable gay couple over an orphangae any day of the year if I were an orphan. I think most orphans would.

Why do people always fail to read nod's reply about him not opposing the adoption of children by homosexuals?

Phang · 11 Dec 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

I'm thinking "soviet nation".

I'm thinking "state sponsored murder".

I'm thinking "20 million".

But then i might be wrong :shrug:

im thinking stalin wasn't elected :shrug:

edit: and certainly not elected on a platform of conducting mass murder or directly by the populace

Dace · 11 Dec 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunga

I think it is sad that you are willing to condemn children to a childhood of a hell just to puch thorugh your political agenda. I would pick a stable gay couple over an orphangae any day of the year if I were an orphan. I think most orphans would.

I agree with Nod's point of view.

I think you and Vermillion and MM are completely skull ****ed by a fag* on this subject.

You say that only vulnerable kids get bullied and if it wasn't "you have gay parents" something else personal would be picked on.

Have you stopped to consider that the vulnerabilty the bullies see would be the gay parents.

That if the kid didn't have gay parents he wouldn't be picked on???

*ie retarded