Agree or Disagree?

Disagree. :/

Disagree heartily.

You guys are skipping the second half of the question, which asks Why. It's hard to have a discussion otherwise.

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:You guys are skipping the second half of the question, which asks Why. It's hard to have a discussion otherwise.

Because stoners piss me off.

I know that it's completely irrational, and I don't care.

Naked Snake wrote:

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:You guys are skipping the second half of the question, which asks Why. It's hard to have a discussion otherwise.

Because stoners piss me off.

I know that it's completely irrational, and I don't care.

Oh, I know. I wasn't talking to you, you gave your reason. I was talking to the people above me that just said Yay or Nay and left it at that.

I can't say I like your reasoning, but it's pretty hard to argue against it. I mean, it's pretty much the reason I'll never vote Green Party.

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:People say its barely harmful, but excessive use of weed can lower a man's sperm count or cause erectile problems, and affect one's short term memory.

None of which are harmful to anyone but the people that choose to do it. Nor are the effects as bad as people that abuse alcohol or smoking, which are both legal. If it was legalized, they could put these effects on the packaging much like they do with cigarettes.

In fact this seems like a good thing. Weed protects us by keeping pot-heads from being able to reproduce.

Anyway, I've already voiced my opinion on this subject. It should be legalized and then regulated to within the Nth degree.

Mine is more or less the same reasoning as snake- know too many people that want it legalised just so they can get stoned more easily.

Next statement:

Week 14: Gays couples should be allowed to adopt.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

They absolutely should, so long as they meet the requirements to do so. There's no reason to withhold a person or people from doing anything simply because they are sexually attracted to the same gender.

I'll go ahead and get my input in.

I'm not sure that blatant homophobia is the reason most states don't allow homosexual couples to adopt. Thats seems too cut and dry. There has to be a bigger reason.

I personally believe that since we are born from man and woman, we should be raised by man and woman. Thats seems like the natural order, and perverting that might not be good for the child. Homosexual couples can't raise children the same way Heterosexual couples can.

Child-rearing is a sociological child-bearing is biological. It seems to me that lots of people just can't recognize that difference. I mean plenty of cultures did perfectly well when children were raised by people other than their parents. Heck most of the historic cultures women raised the children primarily because the men were dead.

In Sparta they'd actually ship the kids off to military school of the day where they were encouraged to beat bloody and generally be violent to one another, and then when the next batch of smaller kids came in those that were just coming off being on the low rung got to have their turn being top dog.

In, Rome I believe most children were either raised by slaves, or were slaves. Wealthy families would have five or ten slaves whose jobs were entirely just to keep an eye on the kids and teach them one thing or another throughout the day.

The same was more or less true in Victorian London, the wealthy children were raised by live in tutors more than by their parents. Lewis Carol the author of Alice's Adventures In Wonderland made his living as a mathematics tutor, he invented the stories so that he'd have something to reward his charges with when they did well on their lessons.

Children haven't been raised by their parents in a long time, if ever. I was raised by a rather 'typical' family and I hate my father, well I did recently I've come to realize that we're simply too similar to get along with one another. But the fact of the matter is that I hate most of my biological relations, biology doesn't do squat when it comes to shaping who we are. If it was one would assume we'd have at least some amount of middle ground with any of our relations.

Society serves the purpose of shaping who we become, in Sparta they shaped their children into warriors by teaching them to beat the bloody daylights out of one another for the fun of it. In London they raised children to know their place, to be seen and not heard. Now we all know how well those cultured worked out, so I'm not saying that they're the answer, though I do think our children could use a little more time to just beat the bloody daylights out of each other, as a society we're over protective, children are durable, and more importantly if they do something and then get the bloody daylights beat out of them shortly there after, they're not gonna do that anymore. I remember once upon a time in high school, I was a senior and this scrappy little sophomore tried to pick a fight with me, now I'm lookin' at him like he's crazy cause while I've never been the most muscular man in history, far from it, I've still got a good two, three feet on this idiot, and he's prancin' about throwing his backpack down acting like he's gonna kick my ass. Now I find myself forced by social morays not to give this little such and such exactly what he's asking for, but I find it mind boggling that he even thought that that such a situation could end anyway but badly for him, and I think that if we allowed kids to beat the snot out of one another, using say their fists, then I would wadge we'd actually have less problems with schoolyard violence, and probably an easier time getting kids to exercise.

Now I'm not saying I favor homosexual couples adopting, but as far as a rational look goes, there is very little reason why they shouldn't. Let's look at the reasons why. No homosexual couple will ever end up with a kid they didn't want. Heterosexual couples can have kids 'accidentally' and as a general thing, they're stupidity is to blame. I'd rather kids be raised by homosexual who are at least vaguely aware of what they're getting into, than by a pair of people who are too stupidity to take the simple measures to prevent having a kid conceived, and you can't plead poverty on their behalf either there is a very simple contraceptive that is 100% effective and has been used for thousands of years. (no its no abstinence)

The only real down side I can see to homosexual couples raising a kid, is that there are idiots out there who think it's bad for them to raise a kid. This is through no fault of the couple, after all, I'll wager if you're Jewish and you adopt a nice Christian baby there are a few people out there who'd have a problem with it or vise versa. Or if you're white and you adopt a black baby, or vise versa. Does this mean that these adoptions should not happen? As far as I'm concerned no, it just means that some wrath should be visited upon those who have a problem with it should just shut up and deal with it.

Not to mention the fact that as a culture we have a surplus of babies. Now it's not the homosexual couples fault that this is happening, so go figure that one out. There's more babies than there are capable heterosexual parents, if I'm wrong the whole adoption system seems to have a serious flaw in it. Now seeing as a homosexual couple won't possible 'accidentally' adopt a kid, and seeing how that means that they're probably put more thought into it than most heterosexual couples who end up with kids, the exceptions being 'planned kids,' then they're probably more capable than the majority of heterosexual couples.

But I say take it a step further. Let's do away with all this 'artificial insemination' nonsense. It is a sad day when humanity needs mechanical assistance to reproduce. And as I said, it's not like we don't have plenty of children to go around, we don't need to be 'artificially' creating more. Let's just give these couples some of the surplus babies and be done, heck let's lie to them and tell them that this is their kid. Lord knows that what with these 'surrogate' mothers running about the real 'mom' wouldn't know the difference.

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:Homosexual couples can't raise children the same way Heterosexual couples can.

Why can't they? What can a heterosexual couple do and provide that a homosexual couple of the same financial and emotional level provide. (IE. Both can afford the items needed to raise a child, and both are not crazy idiots that will abuse the child)

What about single parents? Should they not be allowed to raise children on their own because they are not able to raise children the same way a heterosexual couple can?

The question is phrased awkwardly. Mainly the word should throws everything off.

Should they be allowed to adopt? Well they already do and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them from adopting.

Sponge wrote:What about single parents? Should they not be allowed to raise children on their own because they are not able to raise children the same way a heterosexual couple can?

There's really no choice in the matter for single parents. Either their spouse left them, their spouse died, or they don't have a spouse and just have kids to get money from the government, should they or shouldn't they be allowed to raise a child is out of the question. What are we going to do? Take away their child because they can't serve the same way a couple could do? No, that's their child, of course they should be able to raise them.

Why can't they? What can a heterosexual couple do and provide that a homosexual couple of the same financial and emotional level provide.

You forget to mention the advantages both roles of the heterosexual couple provides. Males and females serve completely different roles in a child's upbringing. There's an obvious reason why males and other males can't bare children, they weren't meant to. They might have the same financial benefits any heterosexual couple can provide, but I'd have to disagree with you on the emotional part.

Lets look at a quote I nabbed.

To a child the mother is the image of love and security, because the mother is the giver of life to the child and the child is totally dependent on the mother both biologically and emotionally. The mother unlocks for the child the reality of being alive and of having both awareness and feelings that are safely expressed and understood.

To a child the father is the image of love and strength, because every child looks up to his or her father, regardless if the father is the strongest guy on the block, or the biggest bread winner or not. Babies are able to perceive love from each parent, and indeed they need love from each parent. But babies are also able to perceive the gender based difference between the mother and the father.

Mercy wrote:There's really no choice in the matter for single parents.

Single people can adopt too.

To a child the mother is the image of love and security, because the mother is the giver of life to the child and the child is totally dependent on the mother both biologically and emotionally. The mother unlocks for the child the reality of being alive and of having both awareness and feelings that are safely expressed and understood.

To a child the father is the image of love and strength, because every child looks up to his or her father, regardless if the father is the strongest guy on the block, or the biggest bread winner or not. Babies are able to perceive love from each parent, and indeed they need love from each parent. But babies are also able to perceive the gender based difference between the mother and the father.

Studies from many places, including University of Texas (Dean Scott Ryan) and South Carolina University (Prof. Paige Averette) show that there is no difference when children are parented by gay parents. In fact, funnily enough, one study from the University of California/University of Amsterdam (Prof. Nanette Gartrell and Dr. Henry Bos) shows that children raised by Lesbians are not only no different socially than those raised by straight parents, they might even do better in school. Research is still ongoing on that though.

Just once, I would like to look into this thread and see Mercy posting an argument that makes sense and doesn't come from a place of either A: blatant prejudice masquerading as something besides blatant prejudice or B: ignorance.

You forget to mention the advantages both roles of the heterosexual couple provides. Males and females serve completely different roles in a child's upbringing. There's an obvious reason why males and other males can't bare children, they weren't meant to. They might have the same financial benefits any heterosexual couple can provide, but I'd have to disagree with you on the emotional part.

Hey! Homegirl! Newsflash! A heterosexual couple is just as capable of being negligent, abusive or just plain crappy towards their child as a homosexual couple! A homosexual couple is just as capable of being nurturing, loving and just plain fantastic towards their child as a heterosexual couple! To hell with all this nonsense about gender roles and homosexual couples being biologically incapable of conceiving children together (the blue-balling hell does that have to do with anything?! Anything?!); the outcome of any child-rearing depends entirely upon the parents and their ability to raise a child; both parents having penises does not mean that they won't be able to nurture the child, the child is not at a disadvantage because he or she is not being raised by a heterosexual couple and I goddamn defy you to concretely demonstrate otherwise!

Here's a handy tip to help you get started: Using uncited quotations from mystery sources doesn't count as making an argument.

I'm not sure that blatant homophobia is the reason most states don't allow homosexual couples to adopt. Thats seems too cut and dry. There has to be a bigger reason.

...No, there really isn't. That's basically what it boils down to.

Oh, FYI, only five states have laws outright prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children. The number used to be larger, but the courts struck most of those down on account of them being stupid, pointless and bigoted.

Why can't they? What can a heterosexual couple do and provide that a homosexual couple of the same financial and emotional level provide. (IE. Both can afford the items needed to raise a child, and both are not crazy idiots that will abuse the child)

Two men can't really relate to or empathize with their adopted daughter when she starts her periods, and they say ''it takes a man to tell a man how to be a man'', which is something two women can't do for a son. I agree with Mercy as far as both the man and woman having different roles in a child's upbringing. If both the adoptive parents are the same gender, they'll probably play the same role, which would mean the other role is missing, and in effect, it would be no different than a single-parent home, emotionally. There are definitely some conversations best conversed with a mother, and some better conversed with a father, and if both parents are the same sex, the child is missing out on the influence of one of the parental roles that can't be mimicked by same-sex parents.

Two men can't really relate to or empathize with their adopted daughter when she starts her periods, and they say ''it takes a man to tell a man how to be a man'', which is something two women can't do for a son. I agree with Mercy as far as both the man and woman having different roles in a child's upbringing. If both the adoptive parents are the same gender, they'll probably play the same role, which would mean the other role is missing, and in effect, it would be no different than a single-parent home, emotionally. There are definitely some conversations best conversed with a mother, and some better conversed with a father, and if both parents are the same sex, the child is missing out on the influence of one of the parental roles that can't be mimicked by same-sex parents.

That would be a wonderful argument, but it's wrong. Like I've said, studies have been conducted over, and over again and they show that you're incorrect. A child raised in a family with gay or lesbian parents comes out just the same as a child raised by straight parents. Why is a man unable to talk to their daughter about her period? Why can't a woman teach her son about nocturnal emissions? Real parents aren't like TV. They don't get all blushy about this stuff and go "Go ask your mother/father." They can sit down and have an honest conversation with their children and teach them things they need to know.

And again, I have to ask you. If you're against gays adopting for this reason, are you also against single people attempting to adopt?

It does not take a man to teach a man to be a man. That means absolutely nothing, because being a man means absolutely nothing beyond having a penis. Saying what you're saying implies that a woman and a man should not be taught the same things. What "manly" things should be taught to boys, by fathers that can't be taught to girls by either parent? I honestly don't understand what qualities you equate to manliness which are (or should be) absent in all women?

It takes a good parent to teach a child to be a good person.

And again, I have to ask you. If you're against gays adopting for this reason, are you also against single people attempting to adopt?

I don't favor homosexuals adopting for several reasons. It boils down to the fact that I just don't believe that there is no disparity between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents, and since homosexuals can't conceive children, even if both partners were fertile, I simply don't believe they were meant to have children at all. I firmly believe there is a reason why reproducing is a feat only a man and a woman can perform. I can't really explain much beyond that.

As for single-parent adoption, I think its better, emotionally at least, if two parents were to adopt. But like Mercy said, you can't just take away someone's kid in the event they become a single parent. Am I against single-parent adoption? I can't say I am.

Why is a man unable to talk to their daughter about her period? Why can't a woman teach her son about nocturnal emissions?

Its not so much that they are incapable of talking, its more like they aren't as suited. Kids need someone to relate to. The opposing gender can't always relate to a matter the opposite gender faces. If you can't relate all that great to someone and a certain thing they're going through, you won't understand that well.

Sometimes as a child or a person in general, you are more comfortable discussing certain things with someone of the same sex. Men and Women think differently. We sometimes hold different ideals. Even our brain chemistry is different, though i'm not sure if thats relevant.

What "manly" things should be taught to boys, by fathers that can't be taught to girls by either parent?

That quote that I mentioned was once made in reference to the dire need of positive male role models nowadays. It doesn't have so much to do with masculinity than it does with the importance of men being positive role models for younger males. Most kids that have a role model have a role model that is of the same sex. Its not that the opposite sex isn't capable to be a good role model for the opposite sex. But wisdom comes from experience, and the opposite sex doesn't always experience the same things. An emotional issue a girl might face may not be the same as an emotional issue a boy does, and vice versa. And because of that, I think its pivotal to have someone of the same sex that you can relate to .

As far as what we are taught, I would say we are taught certain things based off of gender. Some boys are taught to offer up their seat in church to whichever woman that doesn't have a place to sit. But I don't think things like that are taught to girls. Of course, doing things like this doesn't necessarily make you *manly* or masculine and you don't need to do things like that to *prove* masculinity. But my point is boys and girls aren't always raised with the same ideals.

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:It boils down to the fact that I just don't believe that there is no disparity between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents...

And this is the main problem, you're plugging your ears when someone tells you that there have been extensive studies done on the matter, and that they all come back saying that there IS no disparity between homosexual and heterosexual parenting.

And like I said, preliminary finding of a new study show that children raised by lesbians do better in school, and also have higher self esteem.

I hate to be this blunt, but earlier in this thread you mentioned that you didn't think it all boiled down to homophobia and bigotry, but it does. It really, really does. And you're proving the point to me even more.

It makes me sad that there are young people in this world that still think this way. But it makes me happy that with every new generation it gets less and less.

Sorry for the double post, but I think this video says a lot.

It's about gay marriage but talks about homosexuals raising children.

Xenophobic Sponge wrote:

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:It boils down to the fact that I just don't believe that there is no disparity between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents...

And this is the main problem, you're plugging your ears when someone tells you that there have been extensive studies done on the matter, and that they all come back saying that there IS no disparity between homosexual and heterosexual parenting.

And like I said, preliminary finding of a new study show that children raised by lesbians do better in school, and also have higher self esteem.

I hate to be this blunt, but earlier in this thread you mentioned that you didn't think it all boiled down to homophobia and bigotry, but it does. It really, really does. And you're proving the point to me even more.

It makes me sad that there are young people in this world that still think this way. But it makes me happy that with every new generation it gets less and less.

There is also evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But I still don't believe in evolution.

I don't hate gay people, I don't resent them for their lifestyle, and I don't think of them as inferior to me. I don't have a *phobia* of gay people. The word ''homophobe'' is thrown at every single person that shows the slightest oppostion to anything that has to do with homosexuals. If your not a valiant gay rights activist, then you're a bigoted homophobe. No one says it like that, but thats basically how it is.

What I shared with you all regarding this topic is my beliefs, not bigoted prejudice. With all due respect, I think you're stereotyping me and bunching me together with the people oriented with the ''EW GAYS ARE GROSS'' mentality just because I don't favor same-sex adoption. I am dogmatic when it comes to my some of my beliefs, including the aforementioned ones, but it has nothing to do with antipathy, hatred, or bigotry towards homosexuals. I'm sorry you think I am a bigoted homophobe. All I can give you is my word that i'm not, but if that isn't enough for you, then so be it.

There is also evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But I still don't believe in evolution.

Coooooongratulations, my friend! You just lost the debate! Why? Because your default response to being smacked in the face with actual evidence is to say "Well, I still don't believe it so nyah." Now, you may be thinking to yourself "What?! No! That's poppycock and flim-flammery!" But 'tis the truth.

Here's why--and to illustrate my point, I'm going to quote another part of your post:

What I shared with you all regarding this topic is my beliefs, not bigoted prejudice. With all due respect, I think you're stereotyping me and bunching me together with the people oriented with the ''EW GAYS ARE GROSS'' mentality just because I don't favor same-sex adoption. I am dogmatic when it comes to my some of my beliefs, including the aforementioned ones, but it has nothing to do with antipathy, hatred, or bigotry towards homosexuals. I'm sorry you think I am a bigoted homophobe. All I can give you is my word that i'm not, but if that isn't enough for you, then so be it.

You can repeat over and over again that you have no bias or prejudice against homosexuals, but from where I'm standing, that's a load of Mykan. Because if that weren't the case, then you wouldn't categorically reject evidence disputing your beliefs (which you're totally not dogmatic about, even though you just used an analogy connecting your views on homosexual adoption of children to your staunch denial in the theory of evolution, which you almost certainly are dogmatic about). Unprejudiced people don't do that. Unprejudiced people accept evidence and think of ways to counter it; if they're successful, then their views are vindicated, and if they fail, then they accept it and modify their beliefs.

The proof is in the pudding, sir.

Also, for added perspective, let's all think back to that time you brow-beat someone who identified as Wiccan and repeatedly told him that he was a tool of the devil. Bet you weren't prejudiced or dogmatic about that too, right?

Coooooongratulations, my friend! You just lost the debate!

Well, you can't win 'em all. >_>

Also, for added perspective, let's all think back to that time you brow-beat someone who identified as Wiccan and repeatedly told him that he was a tool of the devil. Bet you weren't prejudiced or dogmatic about that too, right

When did I ever do that?

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:I don't hate gay people, I don't resent them for their lifestyle, and I don't think of them as inferior to me.

You just don't want them to have equality. My mistake.

You say your beliefs have nothing to do with Bigotry towards homosexuals, but your reasons for not wanting them to have the ability to adopt is pretty much 'because they're gay'.

And I love your reasoning for ignoring evidence. It's a line of thought I've heard before, and frankly it baffles me. If you choose to believe whatever you want, regardless of what the brightest minds have said to the contrary, what's the point in trying to learn or teach or improve anything? What's the point in learning the earth is round, if we KNEW the world was flat? What's the point in learning black people AREN'T animals when before we KNEW they were a completely different species? What's the point in learning how to cure disease when before we KNEW leeches would suck the illness out of people? What's the point in discovering gays can raise a child properly when we KNOW only a pair of straight people can.

So when you watched that video I posted, and you saw that successful, well read, well spoken young man you honestly thought a straight couple would have raised him better?

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:
When did I ever do that?

Thewizardofodd, in the chatbox. You pissed him off pretty badly. I think he left after that.

You just don't want them to have equality. My mistake.

You say your beliefs have nothing to do with Bigotry towards homosexuals, but your reasons for not wanting them to have the ability to adopt is pretty much 'because they're gay'.

And I love your reasoning for ignoring evidence. It's a line of thought I've heard before, and frankly it baffles me. If you choose to believe whatever you want, regardless of what the brightest minds have said to the contrary, what's the point in trying to learn or teach or improve anything? What's the point in learning the earth is round, if we KNEW the world was flat? What's the point in learning black people AREN'T animals when before we KNEW they were a completely different species? What's the point in learning how to cure disease when before we KNEW leeches would suck the illness out of people? What's the point in discovering gays can raise a child properly when we KNOW only a pair of straight people can.

So when you watched that video I posted, and you saw that successful, well read, well spoken young man you honestly thought a straight couple would have raised him better?

Hon, it's cool. I got this.