Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Choice of childhood

Gyankrit
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.
%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=536/=:%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=5a21=)&-15822+)=244+))=4444=5%/5544565+)=4)=5+((545:=521=)&-15822+)=244+))=44
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:15:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

This is the religion forum. What does this have to do with religion?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:22:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

I don't think anyone realistically would compare a heterosexual parenthood to a homosexual one, but for that comparison to occur you have forgotten one detrimental fact: the child in question was available to be adopted.

As such, our comparison is not really a homosexual/heterosexual parenting, its one of homosexual vs the State/foster-hood. That variety of comparison becomes down right easy.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Yes.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

No.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

No.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.

No.
________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

No, the question was having no father or mother. That is, having neither. The question amounts to having no parents.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:09:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 1:09:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Yes.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

No.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

No.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.

No.
________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

No, the question was having no father or mother. That is, having neither. The question amounts to having no parents.

'Or' can mean one or the other. As an operator it returns it only returns false when both inputs are absent.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:09:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/17/2016 1:09:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Yes.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

No.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

No.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.

No.
________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

No, the question was having no father or mother. That is, having neither. The question amounts to having no parents.

'Or' can mean one or the other. As an operator it returns it only returns false when both inputs are absent.

Correct. Therefore when you put the 'not' operate in front, as you have, it only returns true when both inputs are absent.

So "having no father or mother would positively impct the childhood" returns true only when both father and mother are false.

Regardless, linguistics do not follow the constructs of formalized logic and your sentences are far too crude to even be reasonably interpreted as well formed formulas. So I interpreted as most people would: as a casual conversation, not boolean algebra.

When you say, "not this or that" it is reasonably interpreted as "neither this nor that". If I said I had no quarters or pennies on me, you would infer that I had neither, not that I possibly had one or the other but not both.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:25:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:09:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/17/2016 1:09:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Yes.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

No.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

No.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.

No.
________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

No, the question was having no father or mother. That is, having neither. The question amounts to having no parents.

'Or' can mean one or the other. As an operator it returns it only returns false when both inputs are absent.

Correct. Therefore when you put the 'not' operate in front, as you have, it only returns true when both inputs are absent.

So "having no father or mother would positively impct the childhood" returns true only when both father and mother are false.

Regardless, linguistics do not follow the constructs of formalized logic and your sentences are far too crude to even be reasonably interpreted as well formed formulas. So I interpreted as most people would: as a casual conversation, not boolean algebra.

When you say, "not this or that" it is reasonably interpreted as "neither this nor that". If I said I had no quarters or pennies on me, you would infer that I had neither, not that I possibly had one or the other but not both.

Not this or that

Is not the same as

Neither this nor that

Any point he means it means 'without father or without mother'

And I had no problem understanding him. Because, you know I speak English.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:25:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:09:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/17/2016 1:09:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Yes.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

No.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

No.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.

No.
________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

No, the question was having no father or mother. That is, having neither. The question amounts to having no parents.

'Or' can mean one or the other. As an operator it returns it only returns false when both inputs are absent.

Correct. Therefore when you put the 'not' operate in front, as you have, it only returns true when both inputs are absent.

So "having no father or mother would positively impct the childhood" returns true only when both father and mother are false.

Regardless, linguistics do not follow the constructs of formalized logic and your sentences are far too crude to even be reasonably interpreted as well formed formulas. So I interpreted as most people would: as a casual conversation, not boolean algebra.

When you say, "not this or that" it is reasonably interpreted as "neither this nor that". If I said I had no quarters or pennies on me, you would infer that I had neither, not that I possibly had one or the other but not both.

DeMorgan's boolean logic not (A or B) equals (not A) or (not B)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:44:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:41:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:46:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When you say, "not this or that" it is reasonably interpreted as "neither this nor that". If I said I had no quarters or pennies on me, you would infer that I had neither, not that I possibly had one or the other but not both.

DeMorgan's boolean logic not (A or B) equals (not A) or (not B)

No it doesn't. DeMorgan's law says not(A or B) = (not A) AND (not B)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:50:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

Ah, I see, you actually have no evidence whatsoever, as I suspected. Instead, you have some imaginative, out of left field, irrelevant notions.

You do realize of course, that children don't watch their parents having sexual relationships?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:50:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

You think a foster home is a "normal" relationship?

The entire reason why said child is in such a position from the onset is because their (99.999 % of the time) hetero family utterly failed. Woefully. The ultimate goal is to get the kids out of state control and into the hands of potential parents that want them and can provide for them. While I am not stating hetero/homo relationships are equal, I can rather easily state that a nurturing relationship of any variety is going to be better than something stated imposed due to a previously failed family.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:50:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:47:32 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:46:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When you say, "not this or that" it is reasonably interpreted as "neither this nor that". If I said I had no quarters or pennies on me, you would infer that I had neither, not that I possibly had one or the other but not both.

DeMorgan's boolean logic not (A or B) equals (not A) or (not B)

No it doesn't. DeMorgan's law says not(A or B) = (not A) AND (not B)
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for correction. I'll concede
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:56:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:50:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

Ah, I see, you actually have no evidence whatsoever, as I suspected. Instead, you have some imaginative, out of left field, irrelevant notions.

You do realize of course, that children don't watch their parents having sexual relationships?

lol it is well known that children learn from their surroundings, children who come from physically abusive homes of become abusive themselves, they are not taught it.. they see and assume that is how to behave, the same thing would apply to a child given to a homosexual couple..

I would hope they wouldn't have sex in front of the child but the relationship would be very clearly seen....
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:00:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:50:21 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

You think a foster home is a "normal" relationship?

The entire reason why said child is in such a position from the onset is because their (99.999 % of the time) hetero family utterly failed. Woefully. The ultimate goal is to get the kids out of state control and into the hands of potential parents that want them and can provide for them. While I am not stating hetero/homo relationships are equal, I can rather easily state that a nurturing relationship of any variety is going to be better than something stated imposed due to a previously failed family.

and you think homo relationships have a better chance of success, I don't think so...

really would you give said child to child molesters, known rapists, known criminals....

a child given to an unnatural couple would be badly affected by that couple, now if that is more damaging than no family I guess that depends..
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:02:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:56:33 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:50:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

Ah, I see, you actually have no evidence whatsoever, as I suspected. Instead, you have some imaginative, out of left field, irrelevant notions.

You do realize of course, that children don't watch their parents having sexual relationships?

lol it is well known that children learn from their surroundings, children who come from physically abusive homes of become abusive themselves, they are not taught it..

Strawman. This has nothing to do with physical abuse. Besides, children can physical abuse others when they grow up and have never been abused themselves. You clearly still have no evidence whatsoever and are just making up stuff as you go along. How every dishonest of you, which is something your children will learn from you, according to you.

they see and assume that is how to behave, the same thing would apply to a child given to a homosexual couple..

Then, prove it. Your assertions of this are irrelevant without evidence. I have already provided scientific evidence that gay parents are no more or less qualified to raise children.

I would hope they wouldn't have sex in front of the child but the relationship would be very clearly seen....

Would it? And, what exactly will be seen by the child?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:03:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:44:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:41:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

Are you familiar with Attachment Disorder? If young children are deprived of developing a connection with their caregiver(s), then this could cause irreparable damage during the child's emotional development. A small child that's moved from one caregiver to another is susceptible to developing this disorder, which is why homosexual parents (even if you assume are somehow worse than hetero parents) are better for the child than remaining unadopted.

http://www.helpguide.org...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:06:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:02:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:56:33 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:50:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

Ah, I see, you actually have no evidence whatsoever, as I suspected. Instead, you have some imaginative, out of left field, irrelevant notions.

You do realize of course, that children don't watch their parents having sexual relationships?

lol it is well known that children learn from their surroundings, children who come from physically abusive homes of become abusive themselves, they are not taught it..

Strawman. This has nothing to do with physical abuse. Besides, children can physical abuse others when they grow up and have never been abused themselves. You clearly still have no evidence whatsoever and are just making up stuff as you go along. How every dishonest of you, which is something your children will learn from you, according to you.

they see and assume that is how to behave, the same thing would apply to a child given to a homosexual couple..

Then, prove it. Your assertions of this are irrelevant without evidence. I have already provided scientific evidence that gay parents are no more or less qualified to raise children.

I would hope they wouldn't have sex in front of the child but the relationship would be very clearly seen....

Would it? And, what exactly will be seen by the child?

same sex relationships, they might accidentally at some time see them having sex who knows, the fact is they will see something that in unnatural and that will not be good for the child..

gays always gone on about the terrible hardships they faced growing up gay and being abused, so why would they want to adopt a child and put that child through the same abuse....
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:08:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:03:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:44:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:41:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

Are you familiar with Attachment Disorder? If young children are deprived of developing a connection with their caregiver(s), then this could cause irreparable damage during the child's emotional development. A small child that's moved from one caregiver to another is susceptible to developing this disorder, which is why homosexual parents (even if you assume are somehow worse than hetero parents) are better for the child than remaining unadopted.

http://www.helpguide.org...

really, not sure how exposing a child to an unnatural relationship is better for them than exposing them to a chance of a disorder....
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:11:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:08:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:03:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:44:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:41:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

Are you familiar with Attachment Disorder? If young children are deprived of developing a connection with their caregiver(s), then this could cause irreparable damage during the child's emotional development. A small child that's moved from one caregiver to another is susceptible to developing this disorder, which is why homosexual parents (even if you assume are somehow worse than hetero parents) are better for the child than remaining unadopted.

http://www.helpguide.org...

really, not sure how exposing a child to an unnatural relationship is better for them than exposing them to a chance of a disorder....

OK. Attachment disorder is demonstrable. Can you show demonstrable evidence that homosexual parents are more damaging than this disorder, or even damaging at all?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:13:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:06:18 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:02:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:56:33 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:50:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

Ah, I see, you actually have no evidence whatsoever, as I suspected. Instead, you have some imaginative, out of left field, irrelevant notions.

You do realize of course, that children don't watch their parents having sexual relationships?

lol it is well known that children learn from their surroundings, children who come from physically abusive homes of become abusive themselves, they are not taught it..

Strawman. This has nothing to do with physical abuse. Besides, children can physical abuse others when they grow up and have never been abused themselves. You clearly still have no evidence whatsoever and are just making up stuff as you go along. How every dishonest of you, which is something your children will learn from you, according to you.

they see and assume that is how to behave, the same thing would apply to a child given to a homosexual couple..

Then, prove it. Your assertions of this are irrelevant without evidence. I have already provided scientific evidence that gay parents are no more or less qualified to raise children.

I would hope they wouldn't have sex in front of the child but the relationship would be very clearly seen....

Would it? And, what exactly will be seen by the child?

same sex relationships, they might accidentally at some time see them having sex who knows

Who knows? Clearly, you appear to believe that if a child witnesses parents having sex that is reason not to allow those parents to adopt. Seriously?

, the fact is they will see something that in unnatural and that will not be good for the child..

Unnatural? Such as what? How is it not good for the child?

Of course, you do realize that heterosexual parents do a great deal of things that could be no good for a child?

gays always gone on about the terrible hardships they faced growing up gay and being abused,

Yet, another absurd assertion without any evidence. One bald assertion piled on top of another, and this is what you're calling your opinion?

so why would they want to adopt a child and put that child through the same abuse....

So, now you're saying that your bald assertion that has absolutely no evidence (abuse) is reason for another bald assertion to which you have no evidence (imagined abuse)
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:11:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:08:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:03:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:44:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:41:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

So what do you feel they are being "taught" if they are shuttled about from foster parent to foster parent, or put up as a 'ward of the state' in a designated facility?

hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

Are you familiar with Attachment Disorder? If young children are deprived of developing a connection with their caregiver(s), then this could cause irreparable damage during the child's emotional development. A small child that's moved from one caregiver to another is susceptible to developing this disorder, which is why homosexual parents (even if you assume are somehow worse than hetero parents) are better for the child than remaining unadopted.

http://www.helpguide.org...

really, not sure how exposing a child to an unnatural relationship is better for them than exposing them to a chance of a disorder....

OK. Attachment disorder is demonstrable. Can you show demonstrable evidence that homosexual parents are more damaging than this disorder, or even damaging at all?

i dare say if I looked for it yes but it doesn't mean you would accept the evidence..

but would you give a child to known criminals, known abusers, if not why not surely that home would be better than risking a disorder...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:38:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:13:33 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:06:18 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:02:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:56:33 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:50:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:39:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:34:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:24:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:21:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:10:43 AM, Gyankrit wrote:
Consider these two sentences given below -

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

It is OK to deliberately ruin the childhood for the fulfilment of one's desire.

NOW, Do you agree or disagree with these two lines -

Having no father or mother would positively impact the childhood.

Having no father or mother would have NO EFFECT on the childhood.
__________________________________________________________________________________

If your answer is No to the first and second question you admit -

Having no father would negatively affect the childhood.

homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, in my opinion....

What is your opinion on the matter? Why not?

because the child has no chance of growing up normal....

What evidence do you have for that outlandish claim? Of course, you have none.

http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.bu.edu...

i think it is quite obvious that a child learns a percentage by what they are taught but a greater percentage by what they see, so if they see a relationship that is homosexual then their chances of seeing a normal sexual relationship is very limited...

Ah, I see, you actually have no evidence whatsoever, as I suspected. Instead, you have some imaginative, out of left field, irrelevant notions.

You do realize of course, that children don't watch their parents having sexual relationships?

lol it is well known that children learn from their surroundings, children who come from physically abusive homes of become abusive themselves, they are not taught it..

Strawman. This has nothing to do with physical abuse. Besides, children can physical abuse others when they grow up and have never been abused themselves. You clearly still have no evidence whatsoever and are just making up stuff as you go along. How every dishonest of you, which is something your children will learn from you, according to you.

they see and assume that is how to behave, the same thing would apply to a child given to a homosexual couple..

Then, prove it. Your assertions of this are irrelevant without evidence. I have already provided scientific evidence that gay parents are no more or less qualified to raise children.

I would hope they wouldn't have sex in front of the child but the relationship would be very clearly seen....

Would it? And, what exactly will be seen by the child?

same sex relationships, they might accidentally at some time see them having sex who knows

Who knows? Clearly, you appear to believe that if a child witnesses parents having sex that is reason not to allow those parents to adopt. Seriously?

, the fact is they will see something that in unnatural and that will not be good for the child..

Unnatural? Such as what? How is it not good for the child?

Of course, you do realize that heterosexual parents do a great deal of things that could be no good for a child?

gays always gone on about the terrible hardships they faced growing up gay and being abused,

Yet, another absurd assertion without any evidence. One bald assertion piled on top of another, and this is what you're calling your opinion?

so why would they want to adopt a child and put that child through the same abuse....

So, now you're saying that your bald assertion that has absolutely no evidence (abuse) is reason for another bald assertion to which you have no evidence (imagined abuse)

the child would have little chance of growing up normal that is quite obvious, so why would you want to put the child through the trouble of growing up and being verbally or other wise abused for not being normal...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:47:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:35:45 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:11:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:08:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:03:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:44:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
hopefully some family values, some life skills at least they will see some normal relationships...

Are you familiar with Attachment Disorder? If young children are deprived of developing a connection with their caregiver(s), then this could cause irreparable damage during the child's emotional development. A small child that's moved from one caregiver to another is susceptible to developing this disorder, which is why homosexual parents (even if you assume are somehow worse than hetero parents) are better for the child than remaining unadopted.

http://www.helpguide.org...

really, not sure how exposing a child to an unnatural relationship is better for them than exposing them to a chance of a disorder....

OK. Attachment disorder is demonstrable. Can you show demonstrable evidence that homosexual parents are more damaging than this disorder, or even damaging at all?

i dare say if I looked for it yes but it doesn't mean you would accept the evidence..

So, you admit that you're just arguing without any evidential foundation?? If you do decide to provide some evidence, you'd also have to overcome the contradicting evidence that has been presented earlier in the thread.

but would you give a child to known criminals, known abusers, if not why not surely that home would be better than risking a disorder...

These are not at all equivalent to homosexuality. If you disagree, show evidence to the contrary.