Homosexuals & Mental Health

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Spectre X

Cars aren't natural. Neither are processed meats.

Yes, they're not, and cars aren't good for the environment are they? Do you think processed meats are as good for your health as organic meat?
I don't think so. So why would you put a child in the unnatural situation of having two gay men as parents? It's not good enough.

[Geggy]

Originally Posted by sadie

lol

[Spectre X]

Originally Posted by Pharaoh

Yes, they're not, and cars aren't good for the environment are they? Do you think processed meats are as good for your health as organic meat?
I don't think so. So why would you put a child in the unnatural situation of having two gay men as parents? It's not good enough.

Clothes are unnatural. Solar power is unnatural. Space telescopes are unnatural. As are most breeds of dogs, seeing as humans bred them that way.

Trains are unnatural, houses are unnatural, so are bicycles, unicycles, tricycles and quadricycles. Books are unatural, the internet is unnatural, computers and robots are unnatural, helicopters are unatural, hanggliders are unnatural, toys are unnatural. Knives, scissors, chairs, pagers, phones pens, pencils, monkey wrenches and television shows are all unnatural.

Medicine is unnatural.

[Pharaoh]

Well, let's look at what unnatural really means.

unnatural
adjectiveÂ*
Definitions:
Â*
1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice
an unnatural tense silence between them
2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior
3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained
an unnatural festive atmosphere
4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

You could say a man on the moon is unnatural (1) or processed meats (3) and maybe travelling in cars (4), but you can't just say everything is unnatural. Being unnatural isn't necessarily bad in itself, travelling in a car or watching TV won't harm you but eating unnatural foods and breathing unnatural air isn't so good.
Having two gay men as parents is unnatural and unnecessary and isn't likely to be good for a child.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"not conforming to conventions: behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior"

Is this really a good argument though against gay couples adopting? Your leaps in logic seem to leave a pretty wide gap, IMO.

"Eating mashed potatoes with ketchup is unnatural, so two men shouldn't be able to have kids."



All the food we eat, even the fake, canned, GMO stuff, is of this planet. It's possible because it's there and we have the ability to do it. You seem to be talking not about what's natural and unnatural, but what's conventional and unconventional. That's a slippery slope to go down if ya ask me. Some other really "natural" and conventional things of their respective times: Blacks counting as 3/5 of a person, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote, blacks and whites using separate bathrooms, segregated schools, etc.

Sometimes mores and folkways are broken because they need to be. I don't think clinging to what's "natural" is the best argument against gay couples adopting.

[Spectre X]

Originally Posted by Pharaoh

Well, let's look at what unnatural really means.

unnatural
adjectiveÂ*
Definitions:
Â*
1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice
an unnatural tense silence between them
2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior
3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained
an unnatural festive atmosphere
4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

You could say a man on the moon is unnatural (1) or processed meats (3) and maybe travelling in cars (4), but you can't just say everything is unnatural. Being unnatural isn't necessarily bad in itself, travelling in a car or watching TV won't harm you but eating unnatural foods and breathing unnatural air isn't so good.
Having two gay men as parents is unnatural and unnecessary and isn't likely to be good for a child.

Right now you're just trying to desparately wiggle your way out of this thing, but it's not working.

Just quit while you're ahead.

[King Hadas]

Since some animals do practice it doesn't that make homosexuality natural?

[Pharaoh]

I think for some things natural is best and child-rearing is one of them. And I'd say having two gay men as parents is unnatural according to all these definitions: 1, 2, 3 & 4.

1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice

2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior

3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained

4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

It's contary to custom, not conforming to conventions, contrived and contrary to the laws of nature.
Two gay men aren't made to produce children and therefore aren't suitable to bring them up, in my opinion.

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by King Hadas

Since some animals do practice it doesn't that make homosexuality natural?

Yes maybe it does, but they don't have children from doing it, and other animals don't give them theirs to bring up.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Pharaoh

I think for some things natural is best and child-rearing is one of them. And I'd say having two gay men as parents is unnatural according to all these definitions: 1, 2, 3 & 4.

1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice

Well, as I said above, I think this is pretty weak.

2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior

See above.

3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained

Strained? Couldn't one argue that the heterosexual marriage is also strained? Doesn't the existence of divorce, single parents, and marriage counseling indicate that there is a strain on all marriage? Would that make the entire institution unnatural?

4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

Perhaps you could make an argument here, but again, don't heterosexual couples behave in ways that are unsustainable? Just because you can have 12 kids doesn't necessarily mean you should, right? I thought what made humans so special and unique was that our brains allowed us to do things that were contrary to the so-called laws of nature. It probably makes little sense that a person live in Las Vegas, NV or Siberia. That certainly isn't very natural, but we are able to do it because we've found ways to adapt to our surroundings through innovation and technology. A hundred years ago, it probably didn't seem very natural to live past 100. We can do it now, because we've advanced ourselves. Couldn't we look at gay couples adopting children as merely a luxury, one allowable due to our own intellectual advances and superiority....?

It's contary to custom, not conforming to conventions, contrived and contrary to the laws of nature.
Two gay men aren't made to produce children and therefore aren't suitable to bring them up, in my opinion.

Are you writing a book report?

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Read and shut the fuck up. You don't even know what you're talking about, it's so hilarious. I bet everytime you post you get more and more embarassed. Sure, all of your posts might not be from the same study, but it just goes to show that you post your studies without knowing any information about their validity. More than likely, you just went around and collected any studies that you felt were significant to your cause. This essentially shows that you're a stupid fuck, and your argument is just as lazy and poorly put together as your mind.

Oh, an outburst.

"I am not sure where the argument is. Let's try to be more concise and brief, to the point. "

Craziness has nothing to do with homosexuality. If ANY kind of craziness were to result DIRECTLY from it, it would be more of a neurosis caused by external stimuli. For your example you picked bulimia(which is purely external stimuli). Let's see who's, "At risk" according to wikipedia:

# Gay Males
# students who are under heavy workloads
[b]# those who have suffered traumatic events in their lifetime such as child abuse and sexual abuse[b]
# those positioned in the higher echelons of the socioeconomic scale
# the highly intelligent and/or high-achievers.

Again, external stimuli. Hell, according to that most of the people who are bulimic are probably smarter than you. I wonder if it's saying gays are smarter than you? Probably. Yes, i did pretty much just cut and paste the relevant parts. (gays are smarter than you)

Yes, all gays are smarter than me, great argument. But they aren't smarter than you, because you are a real intellectual.

You also posted something about emotional oversensitivity. I merely motioned that males are also emotionally sensitive. Like you, overly emotionally sensitive towards gays. Who knows, sometime soon you could become bulimic. I also mentioned this because you posted studies about "Gays" being "more emotionally sensitive" than normal men like it had some kind of relevance. I merely mentioned that that has more to do with CONDITIONING than anything else.

What conditioning? Do you believe each homosexual is conditioned by his parents to be a homosexual?

"hey do not write papers, they compile evidence and data."

Yea, real factual data. Did you know they often travel around the world and talk to every gay and straight male in the entire world just so the study can be absolutely true? Did you know they also compile in sociological and cultural data to compare it to? You just don't get that these studies are cheap. Rather than attributing them to social or cultural reasons (like any good scientist would do) they immediatly blame it on the gays(or at least, that's what you think since you apparantly didn't read them). That would sort of be like if there was a meterologist on tv who said, "Look, obviously these hurricanes are caused by Earth. We've pissed it off. Now we need to bring it special ceremonial virgins to throw into the volcano."
Use your brain, what did you post of this study? Nothing, some figures. Some numbers, nothing more. What the fuck kind of "Science" looks for shit like that? They aren't even real numbers because it's just a small piece of the pie. Real science takes "Numbers" then looks for things that "Causes" those numbers. Those "Experiments" had nothing to them other than the inclination to harm the gay image or something like that oh no wait they did find a cause and apparantly it was societal exactly what everyone's been saying and you've been arguing with congrats again.

Certainly the polls are not of every homosexual, but enough studies with enough conclusions using enough people heap up some evidence.

The only use psychological statistics has, psychologically, is in the aid treating patients and finding remedies. Homosexuality isn't treated anymore, because there's no "cure". Sexual orientation is part of a socio-sexual complex developed throughout life manifesting generally within the early teens. It is possible to change that orientation, but generally there has to be an inclination to do so in the first place(the process can also be quite dangerous). So the only relevance these numbers have is for curiousities sake, and apparantly, so you can have something pointless to base your life off of. It doesn't really matter how much you hate gays, they aren't going away. In fact, more than likely people like you are going away.

We'll never go away -- not in my lifetime, and not in the lifetime of my kids; you'll die before you see your ideals factualized, in the very least. We are losing the war, but we will still make you uncomfortable because we hate you.

Do you really tink that it is a matter of simply random kids becoming homosexuals, and just a slight alteration with how we are raised? Ridiculous. What is your proof?

Speaking of which, the only reason you act like you do is because you want to fit into some social circus tent. I think without it you are probably a very boring and uninteresting person. Therefore, you base most of your spectrum of beliefs and ideas onto that one ideal. I find it hilariously sad.

Sure, great idea.

"First one cites a study done by Chicago university researchers. "

I wonder if that means it was done by Students?

I don't think a University is going to take credit for studies conducted by kids.

"(kind of like mine)"

Yea, good ol' Narth, kicked out of the psychological scene. That must be such a disgrace.

"Wow, you got me; it is not like homosexuals make up 50% of the population -- JACKASS. 43% of bulimics are homosexuals, and what percent of people are homosexuals?"

Gee you wouldn't say thanks for reminding me. Regardless, the study was done on bulimics, not gays, and more straight males are bulimic than gays.
Also, you can't really know what percentage of the population is gay.

You're stupid. Iam not going to go further down this because it is going to be similar nonsense and I do not have time to waste.

If you want, please put the relevant points in much shorter ways.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by Emu

I skim them, and then I forget their precise contacts when I am away.

Goood.

But what does that have to do with the research within the article? The journalist didn't do the research.

Perosnal testimony becomes relevant when you have enough people who notice a shocking trend, but you are right, in thi case it is irrelevent.

this part of the article was not part of what I quoted; I quoted the researc evidence from it. What point are you trying to make?

the journalists didnt make the article, and I would never cite a source made by them for objective debate.

Get a clue.

So does that mean heterosexual men are inclined to pedophilia? There seems to be a correlation there.

If you can bring me evidence saying that heterosexual men, per capita, perform more acts of pedophilia than homosexual me, yes, it definitely does.

However, the rate of pedophilia amongst men in general I am sure is small, though perhaps the heterosexuals are more inclined; instead of 1 in 10,000 it becomes more like 2 in 10,000, maybe, for heteros as compared to homosexuals.

I do not pick and choose what facts are convenient for me, unlike my opponents.

Maybe even homosexuals generally have higher IQs than heterosexuals; I would not doubt it or deny it if evidence was brought up. So why don't you do some research?

I have heard about some of these acts from friends, and a few from my mother (she used to share an apartment with a homosexual who still remains her friend; my mother is a liberal, like you).

Again, I am not going to debat eit; I begin to feel queasy.

No, people who are homosexual.

The only non-biased source you cited showed the rates in percentages, which I've already shown to be misleading. If you could show this statistic in actual numbers, citing several independent studies, I would be more inclined to believe you.

How are they misleading,a nd are there any other studies to prove these conclusions as being wrong?

Think about this for a second. Who persecutes homosexuals? People like you. You, frankly, are personally responsible for the chemical dependencies of homosexuals, if what you say is true. You continue to believe they're sick and perverted, and you chide them for it, which drives them to chemical dependencies. YOU are the one making them behave this way. You can't blame them for something that people like you caused.

Yes, we can; they should have more self-control or be straight, or move away from our society.

Now you're just insulting people because you can't defend your irrational hatred and you know it. This would be sad if it weren't funny.

It is not irrational; it is a deviance that they practice that spreads disease and contaminates the society as a whole. And now they want to raise kids.

I think you're beginning to slide down a slippery slope, here. What exactly do you think is going to happen if we accept homosexual orientation as a natural part of the scheme of human sexuality? If you think it's going to turn kids gay, think again. Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Let's try an experiment to prove it.

If homosexuality is a choice, you should reasonably be able to will yourself to be attracted to men. You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem. Will yourself gay and then go find some pictures of attractive men and see if you become aroused.

I don't know why I wasted my time writing that, since you won't do it, or you'll at least lie about it.

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your argument right now, but I'm desperately awaiting your response. WILL HE DO IT, FOLKS? WILL HE BE GAY FOR AN HOUR? PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!

[/quote]

LOL, I would never be a gay.

[Immortal Goat]

First of all, homosexuality cannot be fucking "chosen", and it has been proven so. Get your head out of your ass and research for fucking once.

Second of all, straight sex transmits just as many (if not more) diseases as gay sex, so that make that argument moot. You are just looking for excuses to hate a group of people that have never done you personally any harm? Were you raped by a gay man or something? Or are you just basing your hate off of pure ignorance?

Maybe you should talk with a gay man. And I mean actually talk. Don't bash him, degrade him, or anything else. I mean hold a conversation about everyday activities. Don't even talk about sex. Talk about the weather, sports, or TV shows. Maybe music, movies, or books (or can't you read?). Maybe then you'll see that gay people aren't the "EVAL HOMOES FROM HELL" that you protray them as.

And if all goes well, maybe he'll give you a reacharound.

[Dr. Boogie]

Just don't let him breathe on you, or you'll catch the gay from him.

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Couldn't we look at gay couples adopting children as merely a luxury, one allowable due to our own intellectual advances and superiority....?

I can understand that point of view if you really believe a child won't be adversely affected by being adopted by gay men, but I'm not convinced that they won't be. It's a luxury for gays but I don't think we have the right to give them that luxury.

Gays want homosexuality to be considered normal and natural, and I can mostly accept that, I think some people are just born gay, but they dont accept the natural consequence of being gay, which is to be childless.

I'm surprised only two people here, me and Kulturkampf, are against gay adoption, because any opinion poll I've seen shows that most people are against it. And if a parent, who's against gay adoption, dies, then why should a gay couple be able to adopt their child?

[Pub Lover]

Originally Posted by Pharaoh

I'm surprised only two people here, me and Kulturkampf, are against gay adoption...

Being the internet racist that I am, the image that springs straight to mind is of two black guys walking into a Klu Klux Klan meeting & for them to ask 'Where Mah Niggas At?'

SCANDALIZED!

[ziggytrix]

I'm neither for nor against gay adoption, however, gay couples wishing to make a lifetime commitment do not have the same legal recognition as a straight couple, so the right to adopt is moot.

However, Pharoah, if having gay parents is not a problem when one of the parents is a biological parent, then I fail to see why it should be a problem when they are both only legally parents.

In our current society the stigma of homosexuality (in this case the stigma of having gay parents) is not something I would wish upon anyone, so on those grounds I cannot say I'm for gay adoption rights. But I have to wonder if a gay couple would not provide a better home for a child than an orphanage. Isn't that the bottom line?

[kahljorn]

Kulterkamp, I would like responses to the following(since you chose to ignore them, which to me signifies you feel stupified by them):

"Did you know they often allow child molesters to adopt? Yes, it's true. When going through the process of adopting a child they do absolutely no background check, drug tests or anything else like that. I hope you can recognize the sarcasm in that. "


"They aren't facts, remember? And also, my response was pretty much the result that the studies you yourself posted suggested. I find that hilarious. You're the one arguing against facts. I'll post it again so you can revel in it:
"In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems." (That's from one of your posted articles, in case you forget)
Here's what i said, in case you forget:
"And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints" "


Okay thanks, here's responses to yours:

"What conditioning? Do you believe each homosexual is conditioned by his parents to be a homosexual?"

You're obviously stupid, learn to read. I was talking about Emotional oversensitivity and how genders are socially conditioned to have different emotional responses to various situations.


"We'll never go away -- not in my lifetime, and not in the lifetime of my kids; you'll die before you see your ideals factualized, in the very least. We are losing the war, but we will still make you uncomfortable because we hate you. "

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm not made uncomfortable by anything. Especially not people who hate gays. And I don't know why you keep targetting this at me like I have any personal interest in the topic, or like I'm taking sides. I just think your argument is illogical and stupid and am having fun tearing it apart.
P.S. I hope your kids turn out gay, and they probably will. It's been found that children with homophobic parents often end up gay.


"Do you really tink that it is a matter of simply random kids becoming homosexuals, and just a slight alteration with how we are raised? Ridiculous. What is your proof? "

Um, I don't believe that necessarily but that can have an effect, sure. There's so much that can happen before that that will influence it. These aren't necessarily even my ideas I'm quoting, these are well-founded psychological ideas. Maybe try looking up, "Psychosexual development"?
Imagine somebody who actually knows about psychology taking part in a conversation like this. Madness.


"If you want, please put the relevant points in much shorter ways."

See towards the very top. Especially the part about adoption agencies requiring drug tests and background tests. Because, despite what your insane punile mind would like to imagine, they don't just give children out to drug addicts.
Dumbass.
I'd really like a response to that, if you can. I'm sure it just tears apart your universe though, considering it essentially undermines every single point you've made.

Also, what about the point with straight people being drug addicts? Are they still allowed to have kids? You never responded to that. I wonder why.


But in all seriousness, it's obvious our debate is over. you refuse to answer any of the serious questions and instead attempt to focus on the weakest link to avoid them, which to me signifies you feel you've already lost. This debate is now pointless, we've already won. You've lost. We are obviously too smart for you, or maybe you're too stupid for us? Either way, good day. I'm glad we were able to crush all of your pitiful ideas that had such a weak intellectual backing.
To be completely honest, the only reason I even want to see you try to respond to the above is to see you squirm, so if you want to indulge me.. please. It's always nice to see how people respond to things they fear.

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I'm neither for nor against gay adoption, however, gay couples wishing to make a lifetime commitment do not have the same legal recognition as a straight couple, so the right to adopt is moot.

However, Pharoah, if having gay parents is not a problem when one of the parents is a biological parent, then I fail to see why it should be a problem when they are both only legally parents.

In our current society the stigma of homosexuality (in this case the stigma of having gay parents) is not something I would wish upon anyone, so on those grounds I cannot say I'm for gay adoption rights. But I have to wonder if a gay couple would not provide a better home for a child than an orphanage. Isn't that the bottom line?

A new law that went into effect last week means that same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children in the UK now, and they can have the same legal recognition as a straight couple since December last year, so it's not moot here anymore.

For me, the important difference is that the child has a mum or dad looking after them if one of the parents is a biological parent. It would be dad and his partner, or mum and her partner. It isn't ideal at all but it just has to be coped with if it happens.

A child who's adopted by a gay couple though doesn't really have any mum or dad, they've just got two men or two women, you can't really have two dads, it's too odd, and it can be avoided by not allowing gay adoption. It doesn't have to happen and I don't think it should.

A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else although possibly a gay couple would provide a better home for a child than an orphanage, I agree, but it's a risk.

[ziggytrix]

you can't really have two dads, it's too odd

if one of the parents is a biological parent. It would be dad and his partner

Your argument is internally inconsistent. That doesn't suprise me though, as 100 years ago whites were likely mading internally inconsistent arguments for why it would be unnatural for interracial adoption to occur.

I think it's probably too soon to allow it in the UK - you guys aren't that progressive/liberal. But perhaps a generation or two from now some of the old prejudices won't be so strong.

Who knows?

So, how do you feel about singles adopting, regardless of sexual orientation?

[kahljorn]

"A child who's adopted by a gay couple though doesn't really have any mum or dad"

A child who's adopted isn't really going to have a "Mom and dad" anyway, because they aren't their real parents. So that point is kind of moot.

Children from orphanages are likely to have just as many theoretical problems bonding with a male and female as they are with two males or two females. This has nothing to do with their parents sexuality, but more to do with their "Biological" parents who they were attached to being gone. Lots of people manage to get over that, though.
The only possible argument i could see arising from this is that people would make fun of them for having gay parents. But they are just as likely to be made fun of for being an orphan, anyway. People get made fun of for things all the time, and personaly if I had to chose between sharing my bedroom with 30 other people and eatting gruel everyday or having parents, my own bedroom and decent food I would probably choose the later. There's enough dignity in that to make up for the lost dignity of having homosexual adopted parents.
However, I can understand the point. I just don't know if it's really a good one or not. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how society responds to it. Personally, I think it's a great fixer upper for everyone's problems, and I think outright refusing the possibility of it because they'll be made fun of is retarded.
You know, children who are raised in orphanages their entire life aren't always the best developed people anyway. Maybe it's because nobody adopted them, or just their living conditions? I don't really know. If I remember right there's alot of psychological syndromes that originate within orphanages, though.

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

you can't really have two dads, it's too odd

if one of the parents is a biological parent. It would be dad and his partner

Your argument is internally inconsistent. That doesn't suprise me though, as 100 years ago whites were likely mading internally inconsistent arguments for why it would be unnatural for interracial adoption to occur.

I think it's probably too soon to allow it in the UK - you guys aren't that progressive/liberal. But perhaps a generation or two from now some of the old prejudices won't be so strong.

Who knows?

So, how do you feel about singles adopting, regardless of sexual orientation?

I'm not inconsistant, it's just that you can't read properly, a biological dad and his partner is not two dads. It's dad plus Steve or Dave or whatever.

And a generation or two from now we'll probably have sharia law so I wouldn't count on it being more progressive/liberal here.

Singles adopting aren't as ideal as married couples adopting but are better than gay couples, I'd say.

[kahljorn]

"I'm not inconsistant, it's just that you can't read properly, a biological dad and his partner is not two dads."

If only you could write/type properly.

"Singles adopting aren't as ideal as married couples adopting but are better than gay couples, I'd say."

You're just saying it. That's the problem. If you had some solid intellectual or logical backing maybe your 'points' would be a little more accepted/pointed? For now you're just running your mouth-- just like that other guy.
I don't know why either of you even bother to talk like you'll change things, no commitee with any say would act in the following manner:

Comitee: "Why shouldn't gays be allowed to adopt children?"
You or the other idiot: "Because they're gay and i think that's bad"
Comitee: "WRITE UP A NEW LAW STATING GAYS ARE BAD AND CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN"

Normally, you'll have to introduce some kind of solid psychological proof, and none of that is going to involve you going, "I'd say".

Still, it's funny that you guys think you could change the world with shit like that. All in all, I'd say you should hand your penii over to some other aspiring jerk-off with a big brain, because you fucks won't succeed in anything-- especially in making a point with any validity.

[ziggytrix]

I assure you, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I find your argument inconsistent because your definition of "dad" requires common genetic material. I know adopted people and people with step-parents who would disagree with that definition. These are not rigid facts, but statements of personal opinion (just in case reading comprehension is not, shall we say, high in your skillset).

As for that quip about Sharia law, that's absolutely asinine. I have little desire to discuss your prejudices against Islam in a discussion about general prejudices against homosexuals, so let's try to stay on-topic or at least on-tangent here.

So am I correct then that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship you can imagine? Do you believe the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent is fundamentally more important than their race, economic level, health, or any other factor?

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I assure you, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I find your argument inconsistent because your definition of "dad" requires common genetic material. I know adopted people and people with step-parents who would disagree with that definition. These are not rigid facts, but statements of personal opinion (just in case reading comprehension is not, shall we say, high in your skillset).

As for that quip about Sharia law, that's absolutely asinine. I have little desire to discuss your prejudices against Islam in a discussion about general prejudices against homosexuals, so let's try to stay on-topic or at least on-tangent here.

So am I correct then that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship you can imagine? Do you believe the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent is fundamentally more important than their race, economic level, health, or any other factor?

Read back through my posts and you'll see that my definition of "dad" does not require common genetic material. I said 'A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else'.

No, you're not correct that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship, I think two gays are even worse.