Should homosexual couples be able to adopt kids?

[martha]

Diamond, leave pedophiles out of the discussion. The question wasn't "Should pedophiles be allowed to adopt children?" Your equating pedophiles and gay men is offensive even to me, and I cut you a lot of slack, maybe too much. So knock that shit off in this thread. Start another thread for it, because we're not discussing that here.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by martha
Diamond, leave pedophiles out of the discussion. The question wasn't "Should pedophiles be allowed to adopt children?" Your equating pedophiles and gay men is offensive even to me, and I cut you a lot of slack, maybe too much. So knock that shit off in this thread. Start another thread for it, because we're not discussing that here.

When are you going to cut me some slack??????

LOL

[martha]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


When are you going to cut me some slack??????

LOL

I'll let you know.

[diamond]

we are talking about-
children
thier safety
and
lifestyles.

thats all.

Pedopliles/child murderers come from all walks of life.

Was looking for proportional numbers..that is all.

diamond

Peace

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by martha


I'll let you know.

[martha]

Originally posted by diamond


Pedopliles/child murderes come from all walks of life.

Almost 100% of those are MEN.

If you want to start shit, we can go.


Now, don't hide behind a diaper to excuse your prejudices.

[pax]

Originally posted by Zoomerang96


just cause you dont agree with what the person said, does not mean you should attack them in this manner.

in a discussion, different view points are presented, for your information. and believe it or not, you may not find yourself agreeing with what everyone has to say.

Deathbear, Dread's comment wasn't uncalled-for, in this case. pr0digy had stated that adoptive parents weren't capable of loving adopted children as much as biological parents could. Dread has personal experience that refutes this. pr0digy's comments (for which he apologized) were unfounded and inappropriate. There's a big difference. Maybe you should have read the rest of Dread's post.

[pax]

Originally posted by martha



Almost 100% of those are MEN.

If you want to start shit, we can go.

Now THERE would be some controversy in FYM!

I'm ready to go, martha, howsabout you?

[martha]

Originally posted by paxetaurora


I'm ready to go, martha, howsabout you?

Y'know, I'm this close!

All these freaking straight guys trying to give everybody else shit, when they're the ones fucking it up in the first place!!!!





[/rantette]

[diamond]

no duh..they are men .
now a break down of their sexual preference..is the next logical question.
Is it a 90/10 percent split? like the general population or not?
I dont have the answer, do you?

diamond

[speedracer]

Statistics 101.

Lesson 1: Conditional probability.

Why would anyone ask what percentage of pedophiliacs are gay/men/aliens from Mars/whatever? Since pedophiliacs are (I think) a tiny percentage of the population at large, any percentile differences you discover here are going to seem much more important than they really are.

The more meaningful statistic to look at is what percentage of gays are pedophiliacs, and that's probably not appreciably different from the percentage of heterosexuals who are pedophiliacs.

[martha]

Originally posted by diamond
no duh..they are men .
now a break down of their sexual preference..is the next logical question.
Is it a 90/10 percent split? like the general population or not?
I dont have the answer, do you?

diamond

Yes, actually, I do have the answer. I remember reading it when Samantha Runion was kidnapped by that hetero guy. It's 95% heterosexual and 5% homosexual as far as pedophiles go.

So. There you go. Straight guys are much more dangerous to children than guys who are not straight. Should straight guys be allowed to adopt kids? Hmmm...maybe not.

[diamond]

Martha-
As I stated, I did not have the statistical answer.

thank you for posting what u read.

Anyody that is a danger to children should not parent them, regardless of their oreintation..

hope i made my motive clear -which was the safety of a child first..
not the child's parent's sexual preference/lifestyle.

diamond

[Achtung_Bebe]

Originally posted by melon


You know what? This upsets me. I, and many others like me, have spent our entire fucking life looking for approval and acceptance in Christianity...only to run into flat out insulting statements like these. And are you being insulting on purpose? From what it reads, not at all...and that's what upsets me the most.

"Twisting nature."

"Raising standards."

Yes, you don't need to say it a third time. You think homosexuals, either consciously or subconsciously, are unnatural freaks undeserving of even the most basic of human emotions. Honestly? At a theoretic level, I would love to deprive you of all love, take away any chances for you having children, nonchalantly call you a "defective sinner" who just didn't have "enough faith" your entire life, and see how you would have turned out in this world. If anything, Christianity is devoid of empathy, a lost art in human emotions...and I've often wondered why I've even given a fuck all these years about Christianity, considering how "un-Christian" it is in practice.

Melon

all i can say to this is that you mistook a few of my quotes there, I wasn't even referring to the gay act by saying "twisting nature" and "raising standards"... twisting nature as in what would be occuring should a same sex couple become parents. Can you deny this? Does reproduction allow this? No and that's all I meant...... not referring to "unnatural freaks" at all.

And when I spoke of raising standards I was referring to things such as abortion... these standards set by society, not standards within the "unnatural freak" as you have suggested I meant it. You drew the conclusion that I am a horrible individual that gains excitement out of sitting back and labelling homosexuals as evil scum on the face of this Earth, and THAT upsets me, because I went out of my way to make it clear that I do not hold this prejudice.

I refuse to allow this to upset me. Obviously there is no way I can accurately express my feelings over the internet because this description of me as a cold-hearted serpent could not be farther from the truth.

If it were still in my power I would close this thread immediately

[Anthony]

Really? I wouldn't.

Ant.

[Anthony]

However, as a warning to those who find it relevant to post anything more about pedophiles in this thread, let me assure you that such posts forthwith will be deleted. Not simply because they are offensive to a lot of people, but because it is as relevant to the issue as posting about rapists in a thread about proper family values.

The thread is about homosexual couples raising children, not pedophiles. As intriguing as the topic is, please create another thread should you want to pursue it.

Ant.

[pax]

Ant. and I are in agreement on that one...so you'll have *two* unhappy mods on your arse should it continue.

[diamond]

it nice to be loved

for the rec.-
my recent findings of data late last nite were different from Martha's
BUT
we wont go there.

Peace
Diamond

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe
all i can say to this is that you mistook a few of my quotes there, I wasn't even referring to the gay act by saying "twisting nature" and "raising standards"... twisting nature as in what would be occuring should a same sex couple become parents. Can you deny this? Does reproduction allow this? No and that's all I meant...... not referring to "unnatural freaks" at all.

Let's talk about "nature" for a moment. In most animal "cultures," the male rapes the female and then goes off to rape other females. He is simply an impregnator. Also, depending on the animal species, abandoned "children" are either left to die from exposure (because these species won't adopt), are eaten by their mother beforehand, or, actually, are adopted by non-parents. I don't think we should start getting back to the basics, now do we?

And when I spoke of raising standards I was referring to things such as abortion... these standards set by society, not standards within the "unnatural freak" as you have suggested I meant it. You drew the conclusion that I am a horrible individual that gains excitement out of sitting back and labelling homosexuals as evil scum on the face of this Earth, and THAT upsets me, because I went out of my way to make it clear that I do not hold this prejudice.

I do not think of you as a horrible person in the slightest, and you should refuse to allow this to upset you. But you know what? You'll get to leave this thread and move on, and I'll just continue to be implicitly insulted by "well-meaning" individuals now and until I die--unless American culture substantially changes.

If it were still in my power I would close this thread immediately

If it were in my power, I would have deleted this thread even before there was one reply to it. I know how all of these threads go, and I hate them.

Melon

[pax]

Melon, with all due respect, I think this thread has gone pretty well. The few rough spots were taken care of quickly, and the VAST MAJORITY of folks who have posted in this thread seem to support the idea of homosexual adoption, thus validating the fact that homosexuals can be just as good and loving of parents as heterosexuals. I fail to see how this thread has gone so horribly wrong. Even the dissenters have, by and large, been respectful.