Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

do children of gays matter?

Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 7:27:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wonder how many others in similar situations feel the same way?

http://www.americanthinker.com...
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 8:14:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:27:51 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I wonder how many others in similar situations feel the same way?

http://www.americanthinker.com...

I would say no they don't. The idea that a child may prefer to have a mother and a father is irrelevant to the homosexual couple. The homosexual couples happiness comes first. Would a homosexual couple break up to please the child? One could make the argument of "What if the child wants same sex parents" but are we really going to have that discussion? I guess someone would.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 8:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 8:14:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/29/2015 7:27:51 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I wonder how many others in similar situations feel the same way?

http://www.americanthinker.com...

I would say no they don't. The idea that a child may prefer to have a mother and a father is irrelevant to the homosexual couple. The homosexual couples happiness comes first. Would a homosexual couple break up to please the child? One could make the argument of "What if the child wants same sex parents" but are we really going to have that discussion? I guess someone would.

From what I can see in todays world, a push is being made to separate children from their families, not physically "yet" but to undermine the parents with indoctrination practices facilitated by the public school system and the govt. The state is to become the mother, father and teacher. The parents merely provide food and housing on behalf of the state.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:24:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:27:51 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I wonder how many others in similar situations feel the same way?

http://www.americanthinker.com...

This person is honestly deranged. If he had a sh!tty childhood, it isn't something that should be blamed on gays in general. The adopted children of gay people aren't slaves any more than the adopted children of straight people are. Studies which support his views haven't been silenced, they have been criticized for gross methodological errors because his position isn't supported by reality.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:58:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wonder if the widespread scarring of gay children from abusive straight parents makes them better parents from the process or worse?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 7:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh American Thinker...

*Clicks off thread*
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:58:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:27:51 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I wonder how many others in similar situations feel the same way?

http://www.americanthinker.com...
The author clearly has his own psychological problems that he's generalizing and deflecting onto gay people as a whole as a coping mechanism. It's about as ridiculous to me as a gay kid making a similar point against all heterosexual parents because of his own personal trauma; Greyparrot adequately summed that up for me.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:17:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 7:00:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Oh American Thinker...

*Clicks off thread*

Is it an extreme conservative site?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:29:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 11:17:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:00:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Oh American Thinker...

*Clicks off thread*

Is it an extreme conservative site?

http://media.economist.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:21:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 11:29:22 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:17:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:00:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Oh American Thinker...

*Clicks off thread*

Is it an extreme conservative site?

http://media.economist.com...

Okay, get it, lol.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:15:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

That's just illustrating correlation-causation fallacy. But what if there's evidence of causation? Stats master race


I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:14:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

There are plenty of opportunities to be a foster parent, teacher, or mentor for young people. Why is it so important to create another mouth to feed among the billions?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:44:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The only valid point made in the article was that legitimate criticism of gay parenting would be stifled because it could simply be dismissed as "anti-gay". The rest was just the author's absurd astonishment that people don't accept his anecdotal evidence as proof that "Children of gays are slaves."
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 1:07:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

Not really, nope.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 1:16:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 11:14:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

There are plenty of opportunities to be a foster parent, teacher, or mentor for young people. Why is it so important to create another mouth to feed among the billions?

Familial responsibility > Social responsibility. Being a foster parent, a teacher or a mentor are certainly good things, but 'creating another mouth' that extends the bloodline of your family is more important.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 1:24:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 1:07:52 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

Not really, nope.

Do you accept the idea that the earth holds only a finite amount of resources for people to use or consume? Or do you believe that, no matter how many people there are, the earth will never run out of land, crops, or fuel for them?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 1:33:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 1:24:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 1:07:52 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

Not really, nope.

Do you accept the idea that the earth holds only a finite amount of resources for people to use or consume? Or do you believe that, no matter how many people there are, the earth will never run out of land, crops, or fuel for them?

Sure, I accept the idea that our resources our limited. Yet our tech isn't. Improvements in production technology allows us to use other or fewer resources, and to use our resources sustainably. In a century, the developed world may have moved towards a cyclical economy.

In any case, having children doesn't necessarily mean population growth. If each family only has 1-2 children, there won't really be an increase...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 1:33:58 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2015 1:24:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 1:07:52 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

Not really, nope.

Do you accept the idea that the earth holds only a finite amount of resources for people to use or consume? Or do you believe that, no matter how many people there are, the earth will never run out of land, crops, or fuel for them?

Sure, I accept the idea that our resources our limited. Yet our tech isn't. Improvements in production technology allows us to use other or fewer resources, and to use our resources sustainably. In a century, the developed world may have moved towards a cyclical economy.

I've encountered this position many times, and it always just seems untenable. People just assume we'll continually invent new technology to support a higher population. That's not the firmest of ground to stand on.

In any case, having children doesn't necessarily mean population growth. If each family only has 1-2 children, there won't really be an increase...

You can't assume a uniform population growth standard throughout the world. It's impractical, not to mention against nature. How would natural selection ever work if everyone always reproduces at the same rate?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 1:48:06 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 1:33:58 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2015 1:24:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 1:07:52 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2015 10:42:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:28:44 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:40:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:11:16 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
There are horrible same-sex parents, but the same can be said of normal couples. Gays may fare worse statistically, but as Mark Twain said, there are only three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies and statistics, and I wouldn't trust stats from either side. (Sorry 16k - no offence at all.)

I've always been an advocate of free and compulsory parenting classes, provided by the government or government-licenced institutions. If there are areas of parenting where gays are known to fare worse, we can always require an extra course for them to address those concerns.

What conservatives don't realise that raising children isn't just about making the parents happy. Having children is a moral obligation towards your parents and ancestors. Couples have responsibilities towards their children, sure, but the primary role that every single human in the world plays is that of child. Our responsibilities towards our parents, and by extension our ancestors, should be put before responsibilities towards anyone else.

It's lucky that in this day and age, we have the technology to allow even gays to extend the family's bloodline and carry out their moral responsibility. If we deny them of the ability to do so, we are making it impossible for them to carry out their responsibility. Unless, of course, we can make them marry people of the opposite sex - but we can't, and that's an unintended consequence of abolishing arranged marriages. We have to deal with it, and allow gays the ability to have children.

You believe everyone has a moral obligation to have children?

'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

Endark, IIRC you've mentioned that you don't wish to have children (I read far more threads than I've commented on). I have deep respect for you a person, but I honestly don't agree with you on this.

I'll take that as a yes, then. Do you not believe in the problems of overpopulation?

Not really, nope.

Do you accept the idea that the earth holds only a finite amount of resources for people to use or consume? Or do you believe that, no matter how many people there are, the earth will never run out of land, crops, or fuel for them?

Sure, I accept the idea that our resources our limited. Yet our tech isn't. Improvements in production technology allows us to use other or fewer resources, and to use our resources sustainably. In a century, the developed world may have moved towards a cyclical economy.

I've encountered this position many times, and it always just seems untenable. People just assume we'll continually invent new technology to support a higher population. That's not the firmest of ground to stand on.
I'd have to disagree with that. Have you looked at the technologies that could feed us in the future, like vertical farming? Food is grown in towers that run on solar and wind power, and each tower can feed 50,000.

In any case, having children doesn't necessarily mean population growth. If each family only has 1-2 children, there won't really be an increase...

You can't assume a uniform population growth standard throughout the world. It's impractical, not to mention against nature. How would natural selection ever work if everyone always reproduces at the same rate?

I agree that we can't assume that. My point was that everyone having children doesn't necessarily lead to population growth.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 8:57:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:27:51 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I wonder how many others in similar situations feel the same way?

http://www.americanthinker.com...

I read this and all I can think is:

"Waaaaaaaa, I want my parents this way. Waaaaaaaa I want my parents that way. Waaaaaaaa I want my parents to not be so into themselves. Waaaaaaa, I want my daddy to be home more. Waaaaaaaaa, I want, I want, I want."

Holy whine fest. Apparently this guy really wants a Daddy. There are more children of straight couples who want their daddy too. It is too bad that he has to go after gays when the bigger problem is divorce and absent fathers.

Plus, everything his premise is built upon is wrong. There is no material lack of anything being raised by lesbians that will cause a child to develop abnormally other than their parents character flaws and resulting behaviors which all children of have to deal with in their parents.

This guy thinks he is credible because he was raised by lesbians, but he does not provide any concrete evidence that he was impacted in any significant ways.

It ends up not having a dad to show you how to put a worm on a hook is a gender stereotype anyway. Plus he can learn how to do it now as an adult if he so chooses.
Sharku
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:26:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Depends on how old the children are when adopted. Babies, no contest. They won't know any different, and they'll be raised to be alright with differences. Therefore their feelings are irrelevant at time of adoption.

As for older children, presumably in foster care, I do believe the courts ask them if they want to be with those parents before signing them over for adoption. They can have an option of opting out.

There's lots of terrible straight couples that shouldn't be allowed near children. Orientation has nothing to do with how well you'll parent.

As long as background checks are given and gay couples are assessed the same way as straight couples, I don't see how giving a child a loving home could be a bad thing.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A child of gays? think about it. If these guys keep sticking it in the other hole. neither of them will get pregnant, no matter how hard they try.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 10:23:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 9:25:22 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
A child of gays? think about it. If these guys keep sticking it in the other hole. neither of them will get pregnant, no matter how hard they try.

one day it will be possible via science. Hell, today it could be possible to combine dna and insert in zygote. Gene therapy is real. Pretty soon we can create designer gays who can take over the world.

All you sad sacks thought this was about marriage when it was really about gay world domination. I plan on being a token straight guy who can teach them about bbq'ing.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 9:39:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's right Slo 1. Gay scientists are hard at work on a project to transplant a womb from a brain dead woman into a gay man's colon.
The gay man will get a colostomy to divert waste out of his large intestine. The gay mans husband will then go Greek with him until he has a fertilized human egg cell growing in his lower end. After 8 months the pateint will be given drugs that will induce labor. He will then take a dump and find a premature baby floating in the toilet. He will be in hospital so the doctors may be able to save this premie.
Lets hope this kid is not a boy, the other boys in school will think he is so much of a freak, they will beat the crap out of him every week.