Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay couple raising a child.

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 12:58:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let's raise a hypothetical situation. Two women are together, and they conceive child through means other than IVF (If you want a FULL list PM me). If one of them gives birth, should they be allowed keep the child, even if the government says a man and a woman are required to raise a child. Should social services take their child away regardless?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:00:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can't concieve a justification for not allowing them to raise a child.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:09:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law.

That said, on moral grounds (on whether or not such a law should exist), a child does have a natural right to (be raised by) a mother and a father, and by allowing gay in-vitro fertilization/adoption, that right is violated.

Even if a child lives in an orphanage until age 18, that right would be upheld/honored.

Whether or not this would be the best condition for a child's emotional and spiritual development---as opposed to allowing gay in-vitro/adoption---is a completely different issue.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:13:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You are advocating positive rights, that children have a right to parents.

...which is flawed in that this cannot be guaranteed to everybody, given orphans...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:17:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not suggesting that everyone must have a mother and a father, but the right to having what's natural is a natural right.

While many can/will likely argue that homosexuality is natural, etc., without something more natural (heterosexual fertilization), at least for humans, a child cannot even exist (barring cloning, which wasn't mentioned in the first post).

Removing that possibility is potentially violating that child's natural right.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:18:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Please don't extend this to legalization of natural drugs, etc., based on my "right to what's natural" comment. For the integrity of the thread, please stay on point.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:19:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Biut such a right does not exist, and by trying to achieve this positive right, you are denying them their natural right to be raised by their mother.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:20:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:09:16 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law.

That said, on moral grounds (on whether or not such a law should exist), a child does have a natural right to (be raised by) a mother and a father, and by allowing gay in-vitro fertilization/adoption, that right is violated.

A child has a right to be raised by loving, responsible parents. On moral grounds, bigots and hateful people should no be allowed near children. Throwing children out on the street because you don't approve of what their consenting adult parents do in their bedroom is as immoral as one can get in my book. The utimate tyranny is to invade and destroy a responsible and loving family because of bigotry.

Righteousness of the master race majority is not a true right. Heterosexuals do not deserve a superior standing just because they were born heterosexual anymore than a man deserves to be superior because he was born male or a white person deserves the special privileges our society continues to provide to white people.

Even if a child lives in an orphanage until age 18, that right would be upheld/honored.

You deny a child a right to a loving family, you mean.

Whether or not this would be the best condition for a child's emotional and spiritual development---as opposed to allowing gay in-vitro/adoption---is a completely different issue.

Children brainwashed into religion without being exposed to all and allowed to make up their own mind have their emotional and spiritual development castrated.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:21:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:18:50 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Please don't extend this to legalization of natural drugs, etc., based on my "right to what's natural" comment. For the integrity of the thread, please stay on point.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:23:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:17:35 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
I'm not suggesting that everyone must have a mother and a father, but the right to having what's natural is a natural right.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, even adoptive same-sex parenting exists in nature (such as was recently reported about penguins) and is thus natural.

What isn't natural is parents brainwashing their children to abide by religious mythology. I have yet to see a penguin force their children to recite a Christian bible.

While many can/will likely argue that homosexuality is natural, etc., without something more natural (heterosexual fertilization), at least for humans, a child cannot even exist (barring cloning, which wasn't mentioned in the first post).

You cannot get more natural than what occurs in nature. Please check your dictionary.

Removing that possibility is potentially violating that child's natural right.

Removing a child from an opportunity for a loving family with responsible parents is most definitely violating that child's right, as well as the right of those potential parents you forbid from the opportunity to raise a child because their existence offends your bigotry.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:25:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:13:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
You are advocating positive rights, that children have a right to parents.

...which is flawed in that this cannot be guaranteed to everybody, given orphans...

No, she is advocating brainwashing to avoid exposing children to having a family that is different. Its about preserving bigotry and is very much anti-family, anti-children and unnatural.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:27:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:18:50 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Please don't extend this to legalization of natural drugs, etc., based on my "right to what's natural" comment. For the integrity of the thread, please stay on point.

In other words, don't take the premise to its logical conclusion in order to see if you still want the premise?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:29:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:20:41 PM, PervRat wrote:

A child has a right to be raised by loving, responsible parents. On moral grounds, bigots and hateful people should no be allowed near children.

Okay...?

Throwing children out on the street because you don't approve of what their consenting adult parents do in their bedroom is as immoral as one can get in my book.

An orphanage isn't "the street." And if you look at my posts, it really doesn't have anything to do with reprobation against gays.

The utimate tyranny is to invade and destroy a responsible and loving family because of bigotry.

Don't blame me, blame nature. Besides, a gay couple adopting a child could prevent a loving family, complete with a mother and a father, from establishing.

Righteousness of the master race majority is not a true right. Heterosexuals do not deserve a superior standing just because they were born heterosexual anymore than a man deserves to be superior because he was born male or a white person deserves the special privileges our society continues to provide to white people.

1.) This isn't eugenics here.

2.) Again, blame nature. Or advocate cloning.

You deny a child a right to a loving family, you mean.

Not at all. But the child has a chance to uphold his or her right to a mother and father.

Children brainwashed into religion without being exposed to all and allowed to make up their own mind have their emotional and spiritual development castrated.

You seemed to miss this post of mine:
Whether or not this would be the best condition for a child's emotional and spiritual development---as opposed to allowing gay in-vitro/adoption---is a completely different issue.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:31:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:19:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Biut such a right does not exist, and by trying to achieve this positive right, you are denying them their natural right to be raised by their mother.

It's a natural right, not a constitutional one.

As for the song, good tune. I personally don't care, but it would be a red herring. I tried to take preventative, preemptive measures against it. That's all.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:34:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:31:13 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 8/15/2009 1:19:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Biut such a right does not exist, and by trying to achieve this positive right, you are denying them their natural right to be raised by their mother.

It's a natural right, not a constitutional one.

I don't care about the current constitution. It doesn't even really exist anymore.

The 'natural righ't to be raised by one's mother and father can not be achieved by taking the child away from his/her mother. That only deprives the child of his natural rights further.

As for the song, good tune. I personally don't care, but it would be a red herring. I tried to take preventative, preemptive measures against it. That's all.

We should be able to make you contradict yourself and realize that you're justifications go both ways.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:41:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:23:40 PM, PervRat wrote:

Homosexuality occurs in nature, even adoptive same-sex parenting exists in nature (such as was recently reported about penguins) and is thus natural.

What isn't natural is parents brainwashing their children to abide by religious mythology. I have yet to see a penguin force their children to recite a Christian bible.

1.) I've already addressed this:
"While many can/will likely argue that homosexuality is natural, etc., without something more natural (heterosexual fertilization), at least for humans, a child cannot even exist (barring cloning, which wasn't mentioned in the first post)."

2.) You're the only one who's brought up religion here. Twice.

You cannot get more natural than what occurs in nature. Please check your dictionary.

Please check my original sentence again.

Removing a child from an opportunity for a loving family with responsible parents is most definitely violating that child's right, as well as the right of those potential parents you forbid from the opportunity to raise a child because their existence offends your bigotry.

...[H]e is advocating brainwashing to avoid exposing children to having a family that is different. Its about preserving bigotry and is very much anti-family, anti-children and unnatural.

Ha, I'm not forbidding anyone of anything. Nor am I "advocating brainwashing." I'm merely presenting a hypothetical argument; and before you label me evil, etc., don't overlook my very first sentence posted in this thread:

"If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law."

If my position here was flatly to reject gays from raising children, I wouldn't have supported their opportunity under a particular circumstance.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:27:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

In other words, don't take the premise to its logical conclusion in order to see if you still want the premise?

Hey, at least I predicted this would happen.

I don't care, go ahead.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:45:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:34:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:

We should be able to make you contradict yourself and realize that you're justifications go both ways.

It'd only be a contradiction if I also felt drugs shouldn't be legalized. I just catered the focus to child-rearing; the only reason that statement stood out was because I neglected to attach it to the previous post and made it its own separate one, which drew attention and likely some "Now, wait a minute..." responses.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
One of my daughter's schoolfriends has two mums who she lives with and a biological father she sees occasionally, I don't see anything wrong with this situation.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:02:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:43:09 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 8/15/2009 1:27:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

In other words, don't take the premise to its logical conclusion in order to see if you still want the premise?

Hey, at least I predicted this would happen.

I don't care, go ahead.

Kay, in nature you can murder things without involving cops gg.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:04:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:34:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:

The 'natural righ't to be raised by one's mother and father can not be achieved by taking the child away from his/her mother. That only deprives the child of his natural rights further.

While's "one's" mother and father would take precedent, I said "a" mother and a father. Granted, there would be parameters and guidelines (i.e., non-criminals should have custody opportunities before criminals, etc.) to this, but that's another issue.

If one's own parents died, her natural right wouldn't die with them; but even a single parent would still uphold the right because it's still possible, the potential still exists, to give the child a mother and father/figure, which would naturally be more accurately served by a man and a woman, not two of the same sex.

Now, if I'm my own opponent, I'm already thinking this hypothetical counter:

"So if a heterosexual mother and a heterosexual father both turn gay, decide to live together, then decide to raise, or adopt, or in-vitro-ly fertilize a child, that would be morally acceptable under your premise? That wouldn't deny them a natural right to a mother and father, right?"

I suppose I'd have to point back to the natural state of how the child came into existence, for precedence. Even though you may argue that homosexuality, and the love for a child by a gay couple, is natural---it still defies natural laws and would be, technically (not emotionally), an unnatural/abnormal environment.

And that's likely what this would come to until/unless cloning was brought into the equation, which is a whole other can of worms unto itself.

The gap would be "So if a gay person lied about his sexuality in order to raise a child, he could potentially be considered a qualified "father figure" right? But this seems to be getting off track....

Hmmm, maybe this has dissertation potential somehow....
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:15:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:57:36 PM, feverish wrote:
One of my daughter's schoolfriends has two mums who she lives with and a biological father she sees occasionally, I don't see anything wrong with this situation.

Few people would see anything wrong with it - well, perhaps the father?

But what about two gay men bringing up a kid? It shouldn't be any different to two gay women raising a child but, for some reason, it somehow seems socially less acceptable.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:21:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 2:02:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Kay, in nature you can murder things without involving cops gg.

But you would still face consequences of that action; in our society, the law is one of those.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:24:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 2:15:19 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

But what about two gay men bringing up a kid? It shouldn't be any different to two gay women raising a child but, for some reason, it somehow seems socially less acceptable.

Interesting observation.

Then there's the "My Two Dads" (1980s TV sitcom) scenario. Or the "Full House" scenario. :)
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:24:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:09:16 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law.

That said, on moral grounds (on whether or not such a law should exist), a child does have a natural right to (be raised by) a mother and a father, and by allowing gay in-vitro fertilization/adoption, that right is violated.

What exactly is your justification for this "natural right"? From what premise does it derive? Or is it an assertion?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:28:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:29:10 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
An orphanage isn't "the street." And if you look at my posts, it really doesn't have anything to do with reprobation against gays.

Naw, its not that you feel gays are inferior and deserve more rights, its just that you feel the master heterosexual race deserves special privilege.

The utimate tyranny is to invade and destroy a responsible and loving family because of bigotry.

Don't blame me, blame nature. Besides, a gay couple adopting a child could prevent a loving family, complete with a mother and a father, from establishing.

There's no necessity and no benefit to heterosexual parents over homosexual. In fact, by and large, two consenting adults who form a family out of love and choice, over a heterosexual couple who had a "whoops" and marry out of obligation, are more inclined in my book to be loving and responsible parents.

Righteousness of the master race majority is not a true right. Heterosexuals do not deserve a superior standing just because they were born heterosexual anymore than a man deserves to be superior because he was born male or a white person deserves the special privileges our society continues to provide to white people.

1.) This isn't eugenics here.
It is when you discriminate against someone's biology.

2.) Again, blame nature. Or advocate cloning.
I don't blame nature, you are opposing what's natural.

You deny a child a right to a loving family, you mean.

Not at all.
If you prevent adoption by a loving, responsible family because you are a bigot against the sum of their genders or because they are mixed race or have the wrong colored eyes, you are.
But the child has a chance to uphold his or her right to a mother and father.
Heterosexual supremacism is not a right.
Children brainwashed into religion without being exposed to all and allowed to make up their own mind have their emotional and spiritual development castrated.
You seemed to miss this post of mine:
No, I didn't miss a thing. I wish I had.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:29:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:31:13 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 8/15/2009 1:19:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Biut such a right does not exist, and by trying to achieve this positive right, you are denying them their natural right to be raised by their mother.

It's a natural right, not a constitutional one.
How can something be a natural right if it is opposed to what happens in nature?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:37:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:41:55 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
"While many can/will likely argue that homosexuality is natural, etc., without something more natural (heterosexual fertilization), at least for humans, a child cannot even exist (barring cloning, which wasn't mentioned in the first post)."

Heterosexuality is not more natural than homosexuality. Your argument is against any and all adoption. You just happen to single out queers because of your homophobia.
2.) You're the only one who's brought up religion here. Twice.
You can't provide a reasoned excuse, so I have to assume the common one.
You cannot get more natural than what occurs in nature. Please check your dictionary.
Please check my original sentence again.
You haven't checked your own sentence.
Removing a child from an opportunity for a loving family with responsible parents is most definitely violating that child's right, as well as the right of those potential parents you forbid from the opportunity to raise a child because their existence offends your bigotry.

...[H]e is advocating brainwashing to avoid exposing children to having a family that is different. Its about preserving bigotry and is very much anti-family, anti-children and unnatural.

Ha, I'm not forbidding anyone of anything.
Except allowing gays to adopt.
Nor am I "advocating brainwashing."
Do you think preaching one religion to a child is acceptable and forcing them to go to church before they are of an age to make a responsible personal choice?
I'm merely presenting a hypothetical argument; and before you label me evil, etc., don't overlook my very first sentence posted in this thread:
You have outted yourself as a bigot. Whether you want to euphamize it or not as "I don't believe gays are bad people, its just that straight people deserve special privilege that queers haven't earned" kinda bullcrap is irrelevant. That's like saying "Oh, I don't advocate banning interracial marriage, I'm just promoting Aryan-only marriage those unnatural interracial people haven't earned."
"If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law."
The letter of the laws is not necessarily the moral or ethical law.
If my position here was flatly to reject gays from raising children, I wouldn't have supported their opportunity under a particular circumstance.
And you haven't and you aren't. You assert and re-assert only heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, because homosexuality -- even though it occurs in nature -- is somehow unnatural and a child is somehow harmed and their rights denied if they are forced to be raised by queers instead of straight people.