|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 13:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Bill the bigot wrote: | No homosexual couple alive can reproduce. |
Did you just miss the entire post I wrote about how now they CAN reproduce due to new reproductive technologies?
| Therefore it is self evident that homsexual couples were never the the intent for the family nucleus |
The intention of who? You have said the Creator. So you are advocating imposing your religious beliefs on society through laws that discriminate against a huge segment of the population, and your reasons are entirely religious, not practical. That makes you an irrational, religious bigot.
| I never said that every heterosexual couple would be good parents. |
Nobody said you said that. What you said is that you are fine with all those mediocre parents having the right to legally adopting and foster kids and get married, but you oppose gay couples doing so no matter how awesome they are at parenting, and no matter how many needy kids are out there dying for parents. I see how you just ignored that gay couples foster kids unrelated to them more than straight couples do. I guess you're fine giving a big "Too fucking bad" to all those foster kids stuck in the system. Nice, Bill. Very compassionate of you.
| What I have been saying is that it was the designed intent that a man and women reproduce and raise children. |
First of all, if there is a Creator it is clear that he/she intended humankind to reproduce sexually (involving a man and woman.) It says nothing about what he/she intended with regards to raising children (in most cultures, many more people than just the biological parents are involved in the rearing of children, and in some cultures the biological fathers aren't a very active participant at all.) Furthermore, the fact that gay humans are capable of falling in love with people of the same sex, that such couples often desire to have long-term monogamous relationships with each other, that they often desire to raise children, and now humans have even developed reproductive technologies to allow gay couples to have their own biological children, I'd say it is pretty damn clear if there is a Creator he/she intended humanity to surpass the base animals and static hunter-gatherer cultures we evolved from. I mean, you could say it is clear humans were never "intended" to fly or go to the moon (again, assuming there is an intelligent Creator who actually gives a shit what we puny little humans do) and yet we developed the technology for airplanes and rocketships. Now we've developed the technology to let Jane and Judy or Tom and Bob have their own biological kiddos. If there is a God who gives a shit about us, I'd think he/she would be proud of our technological accomplishments.
| If the deigned intent were for homosexuals to reproduce and raise children then the Creator of the universe would have given them the ability to do so. |
By that logic you should be Amish and against airplanes and space travel and a host of other things we can't do without technology.
| Homosexual couples raising adopted children is merly man's added distorion of the design intent of the human family nucleus. |
How does this convoluted, sinister logic not apply to ANY adoption? If it is okay for straight couples and single straight people to adopt kids, it is okay for non-biological-parents to raise kids. And if that is okay, why single out gays for discrimination? You are bigot. You are so bigoted that you go through elaborate lines of thought just to defend your bigotry while claiming it is not bigotry. But you are bigot, Bill, plain and simple. Also, traditionally across history and cultures, the nuclear family isn't even the norm. You are an idiot as well as a bigot. Bigot.
| Again, this is all self evident. You are not arguing against me here but rather you are arguing with reality. |
LOL! Reality is that gay couples raise children lovingly and successfully all over the world today. Millions of them. And you want to strip these people of that right. As a parent who always looked forward to raising children and now loves raising children, I am outraged. As someone with many friends, relatives, and acquaintances who are gay and either already raising children or planning to raise children some day, I am outraged even further. As a teacher who has taught the children of gay couples, some of which have had to endure horrendous discrimination against people with opinions like yours, I am even further outraged. Imagine if someone was advocating laws that would prevent your friends from having children. Just imagine the anger and outrage you'd feel. Not that any of this is going to change your mind. It's not like any of your rationalizations are based in compassion, practicality, or basic human decency. You are just so in love with your own version of Christianity and your own personal "ick" response to even the thought that two men might do sexual things with each other that you are willing to deny equal rights to a significant segment of people. So fuck you, bigot, fuck you.
No, are you? Many kids lose their fathers or mothers to death or because they skip out on the family permanently. You saying that a boy or girl who loses their mother or father can't learn everything they need to know about being a man and woman from uncles and aunts, grandparents, and other adult mentors? My buddy Joe is one of the most masculine (in the best ways), responsible, ethical men I know. His dad died when he was a toddler and he was raised my his mom, aunt, and grandma mostly. But I guess according to you he's deficient in some way because he didn't have his biological daddy around to teach him whatever the fuck you think a biological father needs to be able to teach his son. Idiot. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/12/2011 13:53:00 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 14:06:21 [Permalink]
|
Bill, you keep saying over and over again that homosexuals can't reproduce with each other. They can. Look it up. They can now. Yeah it is in the early stages, but it is happening, and it is only going to get better. Just like heterosexual couples who previously could not reproduce now can. Technology is a beautiful thing.
Nobody has brought up all the bisexual people who bridge the gap between gay and straight. Lots of those gay people who have reproduced with people of the opposite sex are bisexual. So here's a scenario that does happen in the real world quite a lot: a man and woman get married, have a kid. They later divorce and the mother gets custody. Then she marries another woman. The child now has gay parents. There is no evidence that kids who come out of this situation are any worse of than the kids of any divorced and re-married parents, showing that gay parents are just as good as straight ones. Therefore, gay couples should be allowed to adopt. After all, kids up for adoption have already lost their biological parents. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2011 : 15:06:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I never said homosexuals could not have kids. I said the homosexual couple cannot reproduce with each other. This is self evident. |
But what does that have to do with adoption? Absolutely nothing.| The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is. |
That would be the distorted family nucleus. |
A No True Scotsman argument.| No, that's completely wrong. Materialism doesn't address what is or is not a "family nucleus." |
It completely addresses it when it gives the ability to reproduce to heterosexuals only. |
Materialism is a philosophy, Bill. It hasn't given the ability to reproduce to anything.| object to homosexuals getting married for other reasons. |
Name one.| I object to homosexuals adopting children because it is the exact opposite of the self evident design intent for the family nucleus given to us by reality. |
But why does that matter? Are kids adopted by gay people going to somehow become broken because the family is "the exact opposite of the self evident design intent for the family nucleus given to us by reality?" Where is the downside? Why does it matter what the "intended" family looks like? Who says that there is only one "intended" style of family (looking around, there are many)?| I am asking to accept reality as the spokesman for the Creator of the universe. And that reality dictates that homosexual human couples cannot reproduce with each other. |
But that's irrelevant to the question of adoption.| But the kid is not truly their own... |
Since we're talking about adoption, that the kid isn't "truly their own" is the default.| Of course you might throw all logic out the window and claim that just because no person who has ever existed in the history of the plant was ever brought about through a homosexual relationship and that all persons in the history of the world were created using heterosexual reproductive means or artificial reproductions of heterosexual relationships and say that that is no evidence that the design intent was for men and women to reproduce in a heterosexual relationship and raise the child unto maturity alone. |
Until you provide evidence of a designer, I certainly cannot agree that anything is evidence of any "design intent." It's you who brought intention into this discussion, so it's up to you to support the idea that there was a single intended family "nucleus," using evidence with which we can all agree.| The same twisted logic will also dismiss the fact that no person in the history of the world has ever existed via a homosexual relationship and say that this has no bearing when comparing homosexuals acting as a family vs heterosexual couples. |
It doesn't have any bearing on that. Study after study shows that the kids of homosexual parents aren't worse off in any way than the kids of heterosexual parents. That is reality. That one-man, one-woman parenting isn't better than two guys or two women, and so cannot be held up as an ideal that should be the standard. Instead, you have to invent some "design intent" that is nowhere evident.| That is why since the beginning of time until this very day the homosexuals raising children has had to fight for it's acceptance because the overwhelming majority can recognize that reality dictates that men and women are to reproduce and raise children. |
That is historically wrong.| It's not about enlightenment as homosexuality has been around for eons. The reason most people still to this day look at homosexuals couples raising kids as a distortion of reality is because it is. That will never change just because time is added. |
It is changing, Bill. If you don't recognize that, you'll be a bitter old man about it in the coming decades.| Who cares about "the natural design intent?" |
Most people. |
Show me evidence that "most people" care about "the natural design intent" when it comes to adopting children.| Is adopting a child "the natural design intent?" |
No. But that is why I said a heterosexual couple adopting a child is infinitely closer to the design intent then is a homosexual couple adopting a child. |
It can't be "infinitely closer" to that which you admit it is not. If adoption runs counter to "the natural design intent," then it can't be closer to "the natural design intent" than a gay couple.| We were talking about adoption, foster parenting and marriage. Why does it matter to those subjects if a homosexual couple can't have kids of their own? |
Well I was talking about adoption and it matters to that subject because if homosexual couples were supposed to be raising children they would have been given the ability to reproduce them with each other. |
And if humans were meant to fly, they would have been given wings. I don't see you arguing against United Airlines because their business runs counter to "the natural design intent" of humans, though.| Heterosexual couples are supposed to raise kids and so they have been given the ability to reproduce their own offspring. |
That's completely backwards from an evolutionary point-of-view, you know. Heterosexual couples have kids, and so there's an evolutionary advantage to sticking around and making sure that your children grow to adulthood.
More later, gotta run. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 15:58:48 [Permalink]
|
I love how one of Bill's arguments against gay people adopting children is that gays have been a target of discrimination throughout history and across cultures. Racism and sexism have been pretty pervasive in history and across cultures, too. I guess those should be upheld, too. I guess it is more important to stick with the crowd, no matter how much it hurts people, and no matter how much evidence there is that public opinion can and does change.
Bill will indeed be an increasingly bitter old man regarding this issue if he refuses to change, given that currently a majority of Americans disagree with him on gays adopting children, and within the next 5-10 years affluent gay couples will be using reproductive technologies to have their own biological children, destroying that pathetic argument of his. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 18:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Bill, what is self-evident is that sperm are metabolically cheap to make and distribute, while pregnancy and birth are expensive, time-consuming and dangerous. This suggests that the best reproductive strategy for men is to inseminate as many women as possible, and not bother with parenting at all. This should maximize the odds that at least one child will survive to reproduce. That could be seen as the "natural design intent" of men.
But this stuff is ridiculous anyway. The idea that the numbers and forms of parental genitalia is the defining characteristic of a family is ludicrous when an eye is turned to history, and it is found that it was the norm for larger extended middle-class families to live together under the same roof, while the rich long ago used their power and wealth to maintain harems and/or collections of concubines. The term "nuclear family" dates back less than 100 years, and has been a conservative ideal for less time than that.
You, Bill, try to describe the man-woman-kids arrangement as the self-evident family nucleus, but it hasn't apparently been self-evident for most of human history. Usually, self-evident things are found much more easily than that.
Besides, even if men and women having real sex together was the only way for humans to have children, it doesn't logically follow that the ideal parenting could be performed only by man-woman teams. You're going to have to do better than to simply insist that ideal parenting follows from genital shape and function. Especially when recent research suggests that a major leap in life expectancy occurred because childrens' grandparents stuck around to help with child-rearing (which in turn suggests that three men and three women raising kids is better than one of each - so much for the nuclear option).
Oh, also, Bill:| If we allow you to say two homosexuals raising kids is OK just because Dave said so the flood gates are now opened up to anything that people want to define as a family nucleus. Next the 5 guys on a Friday night bowling team will want to adopt a kid and they will scream that you cannot deny them this right if two homosexuals can adopt kids. |
Sure I can. I can say that the fact that five guys like bowling together is not a good indicator that they can provide a good home to a child that needs one. Nobody is arguing, Bill, that adoption laws be scrapped entirely. Prospective parents need to demonstrate that they can provide a good home environment for a child.
But, if five bowling buddies can show that they can offer a good home for a kid, more power to 'em! Bill, you seem to think that that's a horrible idea, but given the alternative of bouncing around a massively flawed foster system or rotting in an orphanage, five guys who would give a kid a loving and stable home would get my vote. The goal is to get parentless children into environments in which they can prosper. We already have too few people who want to adopt kids (especially older or brown kids), so it's counter to the goal to get picky about the prospective parents' genitalia when they're not predictive at all of good or bad parenting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 10:48:22 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: Actually, Bill, what is self-evident is that sperm are metabolically cheap to make and distribute, while pregnancy and birth are expensive, time-consuming and dangerous.
...
Besides, even if men and women having real sex together was the only way for humans to have children, it doesn't logically follow that the ideal parenting could be performed only by man-woman teams. |
To add to Dave's great info about the history of human family structures, I'll add that because of the natural difficulties associated with pregnancy and birth, before modern medical advances a huge number of women died in childbirth. And many not while having their first child, but having their second, third, fourth, or more. A significant portion of children in human history have not been raised by their biological mothers for this reason. And of course a significant portion of children have not been raised by their biological father, but for other obvious reasons, some of which Dave mentioned. According to what is evident in nature, parenting is indeed quite different from the act of procreation that starts with conception and ends in birth.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/13/2011 10:48:59 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 11:44:54 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| If we allow you to say two homosexuals raising kids is OK just because Dave said so the flood gates are now opened up to anything that people want to define as a family nucleus. Next the 5 guys on a Friday night bowling team will want to adopt a kid and they will scream that you cannot deny them this right if two homosexuals can adopt kids. |
Sure I can. I can say that the fact that five guys like bowling together is not a good indicator that they can provide a good home to a child that needs one. |
Based on what? You are just discriminating against guys who like bowling now. Don't be a bigot.
| Nobody is arguing, Bill, that adoption laws be scrapped entirely. |
That is my point. Once we deviate from the natural and intended structure of the family all flood gates have now been opened up. Next the five guys on the Friday night bowling team are going to point to the two homosexuals adopting a child and they will ask on who's authority was it decided that two homosexuals can adopt a child but the Neil's Garage Friday night bowling team cannot? They make five times as much money as the homosexual couple, they have a perfect record with the police and between the five of them they could provide 24 hour coverage of a child and all testify to their love of children. And in your backwards bizarro world where reality can be whatever you want it to be Neil's Garage Friday night bowling team actually has a leg to stand on in their case to adopt a child going by your twisted and moronic logic.
Once Neil's Garage adopted a child a group down at the local swingers club wanted to adopt a kid for themselves. On who's authority did you give a child to the homosexual couple and Neal's Garage bowling team and then decided that The Seekers group could not adopt a kid? The Seekers group makes more money than the bowling team, they all have steady jobs, not one has a criminal background and they just love children. You can't turn them down for their sexual habits, you have no authority to judge what is moral and what is not when it comes to sex. And so in Dave's bizzaro word using Dave's twisted logic the The Seekers Swingers Club has meet all the criteria and should be granted the adoption of child. Who can challenge the insanity of this decision if we live in society where the legal family nucleus can be whatever anybody wants it to be? Nobody. And so in Dave's twisted world we live in a society where homosexual couples, a man's bowling team, a group from the local swingers club etc... etc... can all adopt children legally because after all what is considered a perfectly natural, legal and healthy family nucleus is in the complete eye of the beholder, according to Dave.
| But, if five bowling buddies can show that they can offer a good home for a kid, more power to 'em! Bill, you seem to think that that's a horrible idea, but given the alternative of bouncing around a massively flawed foster system or rotting in an orphanage, five guys who would give a kid a loving and stable home would get my vote. |
I used to think that if you and I would disagree enough that we would eventually find something that we agreed on. But the fact that you, in complete seriousness, acknowledged that in your bizzaro world a five man Friday night bowling team could legally adopt a child with the complete blessings of yours truly shows me that I might as well exist this debate now. You and I are so far apart in our thinking here that it is becoming rather obvious that we will agree on nothing.
In all honesty, Dave, I must admit that this is one strange reality in which you dream of. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 09/13/2011 12:35:03 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 12:59:27 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is. |
Based on what and by who's authority have you declared that it must be a couple? Why can't a five man bowling team adopt a kid? Why can't 3 women and 2 men adopt a kid together? Really you should have said, if you are gonna be fair and not judge or discriminate against others lifestyle, that in Dave's bizzaro and twisted world a family nucleus is whatever any individual, any couple or any group of people think it is. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 13:09:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Based on what? |
Based on the fact that bowling is not parenting.| You are just discriminating against guys who like bowling now. |
No, if they can demonstrate that they'll make a good home for a kid, they can adopt, same as everyone else.I'm not. I would subject the bowling buddies to the same rules as everyone else. Those rules, at the moment, do not include that prospective parents be married or even have maintain only one home. So why is it that you think the bowling team should be excluded from adoption? What harm might they do to a child by being a bowling team? And if a bowling team could harm a child as parents, then don't you think the government should take away all the current biological kids of bowling team members?
Really, you, Bill, are the one who wants to discriminate based on some mythical "intented" family structure, which is what makes you the bigot here. That's just reality. You cannot provide evidence that one-man, one-woman and kids is the "intended" family structure, so you just try (and fail) to infer that from genital shape and function, squealing "self-evident" like a magical mantra that'll make your ridiculously false statements come true. All in an attempt to provide a materialistic justification for your bigotry, without even understanding what materialism is. It's pathetic.| Nobody is arguing, Bill, that adoption laws be scrapped entirely. |
That is my point. Once we deviate from the natural and intended structure of the family all flood gates have now been opened up. Next the five guys on the Friday night bowling team are going to point to the two homosexuals adopting a child and they will ask on who's authority was it decided that two homosexuals can adopt a child but the Neil's Garage Friday night bowling team cannot? |
Nobody has said that the bowling team cannot adopt, Bill.| They make five times as much money as the homosexual couple, they have a perfect record with the police and between the five of them they could provide 24 hour coverage of a child and all testify to their love of children. |
Then they're a fantastic set of prospective parents and should go adopt a kid!| And in your backwards bizarro world where reality can be whatever you want it to be Neil's Garage Friday night bowling team actually has a leg to stand on in their case to adopt a child going by your twisted and moronic logic. |
You haven't shown that the logic is either twisted or moronic.| Once Neil's Garage adopted a child a group down at the local swingers club wanted to adopt a kid for themselves. On who's authority did you give a child to the homosexual couple and Neal's Garage bowling team and then decided that The Seekers group could not adopt a kid? The Seekers group makes more money than the bowling team, they all have steady jobs, not one has a criminal background and they just love children. You can't turn them down for their sexual habits, you have no authority to judge what is moral and what is not when it comes to sex. And so in Dave's bizzaro word using Dave's twisted logic the The Seekers Swingers Club has meet all the criteria and should be granted the adoption of child. |
That's right!| Who can challenge the insanity of this decision if we live in society where the legal family nucleus can be whatever anybody wants it to be? |
You haven't shown it to be "insanity" in any way.Because it's not insane.| And so in Dave's twisted world we live in a society where homosexual couples, a man's bowling team, a group from the local swingers club etc... etc... can all adopt children legally because after all what is considered a perfectly natural, legal and healthy family nucleus is in the complete eye of the beholder, according to Dave. |
Who said anything about "natural?" I sure didn't. You did. Whatever a prospective adoptive family is, yes it definitely needs to be legal and healthy for the child. Other than that, why should any other considerations matter? Whether a family structure is "natural" or not simply doesn't enter into the calculus for determining whether one or more people would qualify as adoptive parents. You obviously want that criteria to be measured and included, but good luck finding any current adoption laws which include it.| I used to think that if you and I would disagree enough that we would eventually find something that we agreed on. But the fact that you, in complete seriousness, acknowledged that in your bizzaro world a five man Friday night bowling team could legally adopt a child with the complete blessings of yours truly shows me that I might as well exist this debate now. You and I are so far apart in our thinking here that it is becoming rather obvious that we will agree on nothing.[quote]But you haven't even tried to show what's wrong with five guys adopting a kid, so I have no possible way of knowing why you think it would be wrong. If people like you are in the habit of giving up without even making an attempt, then our country is going to sink faster than a lead balloon.[quote]In all honesty, Dave, I must admit that this is one strange reality in which you dream of. |
And yet you won't say why. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 13:13:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is. |
Based on what and by who's authority have you declared that it must be a couple? Why can't a five man bowling team adopt a kid? Why can't 3 women and 2 men adopt a kid together? Really you should have said, if you are gonna be fair and not judge or discriminate against others lifestyle, that in Dave's bizzaro and twisted world a family nucleus is whatever any individual, any couple or any group of people think it is. |
You're right, Bill. Good of you to point out that I misspoke yesterday. Obviously, you correctly read my intended meaning, though, so my wrong use of the word "couple" has in no way disrupted our communications on this subject. All is well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 13:14:16 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Based on the fact that bowling is not parenting. |
As if homosexuality is... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 13:28:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Based on the fact that bowling is not parenting. |
As if homosexuality is... |
No, Bill. Don't be an idiot. Nobody is saying that simply being a homosexual will make anyone a good adoptive parent.
We're saying that being homosexual shouldn't be enough to get someone prohibited from adopting. (You are.)
Similarly, being a bowling team isn't an indication that the five guys will be good parents, but it also isn't an indication all by itself that they should be prohibited from adopting. Being a bowling team is orthogonal to being good parents. Being homosexual is orthogonal to being a good parent.
You're the one who wants these things to be prohibitive for adoption. I'm not saying that they're beneficial for adoption, I'm saying that they're irrelevant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 14:43:01 [Permalink]
|
| So, Bill, how does 2 women or 2 men raising a child affect YOUR life? |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 05:24:53 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| You cannot provide evidence that one-man, one-woman and kids is the "intended" family structure, |
The evidence is eons of years of human reproductive history. Because you choose to ignore reality is no reason that I should. By your authority alone do you attempt to tack your philosophy onto the back of reality and claim that it makes no difference if a 5 man bowling team adopts a child in place of a heterosexual couple and becomes the "parents". The fact that you, with all seriousness, would say that you would allow a 5 man bowling team to adopt a kid is the most bizarre thing I have come across in months. It also demonstrates for me just how unattached from reality you really are.
Here is just how insane it is. What are you going to do when Neil's Garage losses to Carl's Barber Shop in the Friday Night Bowling Championship round and a rift breaks out between the members of Neil's Garage and they decide to disband? Each member lawyers up and sues in court to have full custody of the child that you allowed them to adopt. Are you gonna send this kangaroo circus over to the local court house for them to weed through? As if they are not already busy enough as it is. And then what? Do all five former team members get equal parenting rights, privileges and time with the kid? Or does the former team captain get sole custody with the 4 others getting equal visitation rights? Are you seriously gonna try and split a kids time up among 5 separate legal parents? And then what if one the former members of Neil's Garage joins another team, does the poor kid now have 5 dads and 4 step dads? And what if all the former members of Neil's Garage join new teams, does the poor kid now have 5 dads and 20 step dads? What if all the other bowling teams had adoptive kids? This is gonna be one strange "family" reunion in Dave's bizzaro alternative to reality. And then after this case you got the case coming up where the swingers group, who you adopted a kid out to, has broken up and each of the six people in that group wants to do something different with the kid after the break up is complete. Each one is rich and has a lawyer on retainer. Get ready for the battle of the Keystone Cops at Dave's local "family" circus court.
Obviously this has nothing at all to do with reality and is just some twisted and bizarre alternative to reality that you dream about. Do we have any examples, searching through all of human history, of such a bizarre and twisted society as one that would allow 5 man bowling teams and swingers clubs, or any other combination of people, to adopt children and become their legal parents in which this society went on to grow and prosper? The examples of thriving societies around the world and throughout history all have one thing in common, mother and father raising their offspring was the model used for their family nucleus, just as it was naturally intended to be.
| You're the one who wants these things to be prohibitive for adoption. I'm not saying that they're beneficial for adoption, I'm saying that they're irrelevant. |
Well all I can say is that I could not disagree with you more with the notion that it is irrelevant to the prospective child whether he be adopted out to a heterosexual couple or a 5 man armature bowling team. I am simply amazed that you sit here and want to argue using this backwards and twisted logic. It is completely insane and the fact that you cannot see this is what is most scary. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 09/14/2011 07:07:15 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 06:27:05 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| You cannot provide evidence that one-man, one-woman and kids is the "intended" family structure, |
That you can reject the realities of human reproductive history and insist that the fact that heterosexual relations, being the only way ever for humans to be reproductive, is not evidence that heterosexual couples are the natural intended family structure fully demonstrates beyond doubt that you would reject this claim no matter how much evidence was placed before you. I have to remind myself that you are the one who would adopt children out to a 5 man amateur bowling team so obviously logic and reality would never be one to get in your way. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 09/14/2011 06:39:28 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Drummer wanted
