BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:i think another reason marriage should not be re defined is that gay guys tend to wander/stray much more than straight fellows.
You've done extensive research, heh?
You're so full of it.
diamond said:i think another reason marriage should not be re defined is that gay guys tend to wander/stray much more than straight fellows.
diamond said:in my 20s..i used to get hit on gay guys all the time...offered money etc..and they would try and sell me on the idea i was gay etc..it was creepy.
Dreadsox said:I was recruited..... Oh Yeah! I gots the MOJO!
Irvine511 said:
is that a Louisville Slugger in your pocket?
diamond said:in my 20s..i used to get hit on gay guys all the time...offered money etc..and they would try and sell me on the idea i was gay etc..it was creepy.
dbs
diamond said:i think another reason marriage should not be re defined is that gay guys tend to wander/stray much more than straight fellows.
in my 20s..i used to get hit on gay guys all the time...offered money etc..and they would try and sell me on the idea i was gay etc..it was creepy.
diamond said:
Irvine511 said:i'm in my 20s..i get hit on by straight girls all the time...offered money etc..and they would try and sell me on the idea i was straight etc..it was creepy.
martha said:
Here's some "experience" for y'all to chew on. I see parents every single day in my job. Straight, two-parent families fuck up their kids something fierce, so claiming that you think this is the best for them isn't based on anything true or researched. It's based on prejudices, bigotry, and religious fear. Please don't tart it up as anything else.
Irvine511 said:
1. children should only be adopted by couples making at least $100,000
2. children should only be adopted by couples with MA's or more, preferably PhD's
3. children should only be adopted by South Asian Indian parents (and, correlated to this, no black or hispanic couples should ever adopt children)
and we all want the ideal, don't we?
tommyvill said:
Sure we do!
but...mmmh...i don't think actually those categories are actually the best...
okay, rich families may assure a future to the child, but you know, too much rich family can go against the "regular family" principle...
Money doesn't means happiness...
it's a stress actually for the child to be considered son of a rich family, we all knows what I'm talking about...same with the study titles...they should be regular, not too much huge in study...and for the races, no problems at all (there are no races but the human one) but I would prefer the same human genre of the child...
Do the most to avoid the psychological stress to him...
VintagePunk said:
Excuse me for being cynical, but your message of oneness and unity is laughable to me, considering that you're advocating the exclusion of a segment of population from parenting, based upon the biology of who they love and feel sexual attraction for.
Irvine511 said:
so, you're saying that there might be exceptions to the rules? that poor people can be just as good parents as rich people? that white people can be just as good parents as Indian people? are you saying that we need to evaluate each potential couple on their individual merits instead of seeing how perfectly they fit into our predetermined "ideal" categories?
tommyvill said:
Hey I'm not! I'm not excluding anyone!
Without getting too personal here, I am a single parent. I've raised an exceptional human being. I could list her qualities and achievements, but I won't bore you. Are you trying to tell me that she would have done better had her father been around? Or that she should have been removed from my care, and placed in a two parent family? If so, you have much to learn about human nature, and the wisdom of looking at things on an individual basis.(just as the case of a single parents and lots more...)
don't take a defensive line
VintagePunk said:
You are excluding! Your entire premise is based upon exclusion. So far, from what I gather, you're not even willing to look at things on a case-by-case basis. Nor have you addressed any of the valid arguments that myself and others have expressed, showing how heterosexual families can be detrimental to a child's development.
VintagePunk said:
Without getting too personal here, I am a single parent. I've raised an exceptional human being. I could list her qualities and achievements, but I won't bore you. Are you trying to tell me that she would have done better had her father been around? Or that she should have been removed from my care, and placed in a two parent family? If so, you have much to learn about human nature, and the wisdom of looking at things on an individual basis.
tommyvill said:
I'm gonna leave this thread...no offence here but I would have preferred a more "open minded" environment here, it's "free your mind" here isn't it?
so respect my ideas...
farewell all!!
For the adoption, I would privilege a regular family...(mother father middle earning same origin as the child)
diamond said:makes sense
dbs
BonoVoxSupastar said:
A "regular family"? What's a regular family? Is that a mother, a father, and 2 children none of which have any race mixture? Because we know you can't mix the races, that's not "regular". Or is like those families defined in the Bible; One father, many wives, and numerous children?
If you're poor, mixed race, gay, or your mother passed away you are not regular or are not living in a regular home. My condolences to all of you irregulars.
Oh wait, shit I'm an irregular...