|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/14/2011 : 07:26:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| 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. |
That's not evidence that such a structure is intended, especially since it hasn't been the norm for most of those eons.| Because you choose to ignore reality is no reason that I should. |
You are projecting your own failures onto me.| 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". |
I never said it makes "no difference," and you know it.| 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. |
I don't care how bizarre you find it. Your willing participation in a death cult is bizarre to me, but that's not what makes your arguments wrong.| It also demonstrates for me just how unattached from reality you really are. |
You haven't demonstrated "reality" to be what you claim it is.| 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? |
That might be a good reason to not allow them to adopt: the lack of anything except bowling holding them together. A heterosexual married couple who have separated and reunited several times probably shouldn't be allowed to adopt, either, because their history suggests a lack of stability.| Each member lawyers up and sues in court to have full custody of the child that you allowed them to adopt. |
Divorces frequently present custody problems, even with biological children. This can't possibly be a serious argument against homosexuals adopting kids, or even five bowling buddies.| 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. |
Ooooh, an argument against taking up the courts' time. Are you in favor of tort reform in general, or are you against using the courts just for adoption custody battles?| 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? |
These are all legal custody questions which have nothing to do with the question of whether they should be allowed to adopt in the first place. The courts exist to resolve these sorts of issues, so trying to prevent the issues from arising in the first place is ridiculous. It also is completely irrelevant to whether or not loving homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, which you claim "opens the flood gates" to the bowling team. A ludicrous slippery-slope argument that you can't defend by adding another slipper-slope argument on top of it.| 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. |
You need to stop acting like an idiot, Bill. The question was whether we should prohibit homosexuals from adopting just because they are homosexuals. Like prohibiting the bowling team from adopting just because they're a bowling team, or the swingers' club just because they're a swingers' club. You couldn't justify on those bases alone, you had to present an argument about taking up the courts' time with highly tangled custody battles, which wasn't the question at all.
You would prohibit a single homosexual rich guy (for whom there would be no custody issues) from adopting just because he's gay. Can you justify that prohibition without also prohibiting single straight rich guys or single straight rich women from adopting kids?| Obviously this has nothing at all to do with reality... |
No, they are important questions, they're just not relevant to the arguments you'd previously made. They're brand-new arguments you're throwing up as a smoke screen to try to avoid having to answer serious questions about your claims.| ...and is just some twisted and bizarre alternative reality that you dream about. |
Just because you've shifted the goalposts in a stupid attempt to justify your bigotry doesn't mean that I'm crazy, Bill.| 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? |
We've got plenty of evidence that homosexuals are no worse as parents than heterosexuals. Why not address that?| 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... |
Now that is a denial of reality.| ...just as it was naturally intended to be. |
Where is your evidence that it was intended to be so?| 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. |
All you could come up with is possible tangled legal battles if the bowling team splits up, which is no different from what occurs when a bitter heterosexual couple splits up. Custody battles for biological children can go on for years, Bill. Should we prevent everyone from adopting just because there might be legal troubles in the future?
I am simply amazed that you think any of this is a good argument against allowing homosexuals to adopt. It's just one fallacy after another and appeals to a "reality" which does not exist. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 07:37:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
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... |
How many times does it need to be pointed out to you, Bill, that reproduction isn't the same thing as either parenting or a family? You've made the claim that heterosexual couples are "the natural intended family structure," but you've yet to provide any evidence of that, you're simply demanding that we acknowledge genital shape and function as the defining characteristic of a family.
Given that parents who use their genitals on their children should and do go to jail for it, I must conclude that genitals are irrelevant (at best) to parenting or to family.| ...fully demonstrates beyond doubt that you would reject this claim no matter how much evidence was placed before you. |
Your insistence that something is true isn't evidence that something is true. You haven't provided any evidence, only your insistence. If you show me some evidence, I'll certainly consider it, but it's just more of your bigotry to conclude that I would reject evidence when none has been offered.| I have to remind myself that you are the one who would adopt children out to a 5 man amateur bowling team... |
No, the point was that being a bowling team doesn't automatically disqualify them from adopting. Just like being a homosexual shouldn't automatically disqualify anyone.| ...so obviously logic and reality would never be one to get in your way. |
More projection. |
- 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 - 09/14/2011 : 08:26:33 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| 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. |
I don't care how bizarre you find it. |
Well thank God the vast majority of Americans throughout history, as well as all the thriving societies in the world's history, have not seen things your way by allowing legal family structures to be whatever anybody wanted them to be.
| That might be a good reason to not allow them to adopt: the lack of anything except bowling holding them together. |
I have plenty of evidence showing bowling teams being together for decades, but yes, sometimes divorce happens in all types of relationships. The point was how retarded and insane it would be to be putting children through a custody case involving 5 or more separate but legal parents, or any other strange combination of people who have been given an adoptive child in Dave's alternative to reality. What are you gonna make this kid have visitation with 5 different parents?
| You need to stop acting like an idiot, Bill. The question was whether we should prohibit homosexuals from adopting just because they are homosexuals. |
But that can never be the only question, as I have been repeating over and over. Once Dave overrides that natural intent for the family structure and insists that all alternatives to the natural are fully acceptable then the flood gates are now open. You will have the 5 guys who bowl for Neil's Garage wanting to adopt a kid, you will have the local swingers club wanting to adopt a kid etc... etc.... Fortunately most of human civilization has seen the insanity of your ways and never implemented them.
| Like prohibiting the bowling team from adopting just because they're a bowling team, or the swingers' club just because they're a swingers' club. |
But I am not rejecting them just because they are a bowling team or a swingers club. I am rejecting them because they are not a heterosexual couple, the natural intended structure for the family unit.
| You couldn't justify on those bases alone, you had to present an argument about taking up the courts' time with highly tangled custody battles, which wasn't the question at all. |
Those are real problems that will arise in your alternative to reality dream.
| No, they are important questions, they're just not relevant to the arguments you'd previously made. They're brand-new arguments you're throwing up as a smoke screen to try to avoid having to answer serious questions about your claims. |
Nonsense. I have answered questions to my claims.
| Just because you've shifted the goalposts in a stupid attempt to justify your bigotry doesn't mean that I'm crazy, Bill. |
I never shifted the goal posts. You are the one who agreed with my correction of you when I pointed out that in your alternative to reality dream that any individual, couple or group of people could make the family structure whatever they wanted it to be. Again, you agreed with this. That would be known as defining the goalpost and not moving it.
| All you could come up with is possible tangled legal battles if the bowling team splits up, which is no different from what occurs when a bitter heterosexual couple splits up. Custody battles for biological children can go on for years, Bill. Should we prevent everyone from adopting just because there might be legal troubles in the future? |
If they are not a heterosexual couple, then yes, we should.
| 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? |
We've got plenty of evidence that homosexuals are no worse as parents than heterosexuals. Why not address that? |
Why not show us any long standing society throughout history who was thriving and prospering where it was legal and considered completely normal for a five man bowling team or a swingers club to adopt children and raise them as a family? Or you could just admit that your ramblings have nothing at all to do with reality and are just an alternative to reality dream of yours. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 08:48:39 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| 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? |
We've got plenty of evidence that homosexuals are no worse as parents than heterosexuals. Why not address that? |
It would go a long way in giving your claims a leg to stand on if you could point out any long standing thriving and prospers society throughout history where it was legal and considered normal to allow 5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc.... to adopt children and raise them as a family. Until then your just spouting off some untested alternative philosophies and dreams of yours |
"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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 09:51:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| All you could come up with is possible tangled legal battles if the bowling team splits up, which is no different from what occurs when a bitter heterosexual couple splits up. Custody battles for biological children can go on for years, Bill. Should we prevent everyone from adopting just because there might be legal troubles in the future? |
If they are not a heterosexual couple, then yes, we should. |
The implications of this answer are astonishing. You actually have to believe that little Suzy is going to be less psychologically scarred by a custody battle between mommy and daddy than she would be by a custody battle between mommy #1 and mommy #2 to be able to give that answer, Bill. On what evidence do you believe that?| Or you could just admit that your ramblings have nothing at all to do with reality and are just an alternative to reality dream of yours. |
They're not my ramblings, they're your idiotic slippery-slope arguments trying to justify your anti-gay bigotry.
Let me guess, Bill: one of your arguments against allowing gays to marry is that it "opens the door" to people marrying their pets, right?
Less important stuff:| ...have not seen things your way by allowing legal family structures to be whatever anybody wanted them to be. |
Actually, governments throughout history have repeatedly failed to impose any particular family structure except in cases of adoption. Most families throughout history have had multiple generations and sibling adults living under the same roof. You are denying reality if you think that man-woman-kids has been the norm prior to a century ago.| The point was how retarded and insane it would be to be putting children through a custody case involving 5 or more separate but legal parents... |
No, the point was that you could only come up with that objection to five guys, and not two.| Once Dave overrides that natural intent for the family structure and insists that all alternatives to the natural are fully acceptable... |
Stop lying about what I "insist" upon. I never once said, "all alternatives to the natural are fully acceptable." I never even hinted at that. Just because your examples aren't the nightmare families you think they might be doesn't mean that I'd be willing to allow, say, the operators of a meth lab to adopt their neighborhood orphan.
Again, Bill, there are plenty of reasons to not allow some people to adopt, but none of the reasons which are empirically justifiable include inspections of the prospective parents' genitals for "natural" form, function and number.| But I am not rejecting them just because they are a bowling team or a swingers club. I am rejecting them because they are not a heterosexual couple... |
Bullshit! You rejected them because of potentially harmful custody battles. You didn't say one word about them not being heterosexual couples when you described those potential families as insane. You instead screeched "won't anyone think of the children" and keeled over on your fainting couch.| ...the natural intended structure for the family unit. |
You have yet to provide any evidence to support this claim.| I have answered questions to my claims. |
Not the serious questions.| You are the one who agreed with my correction of you when I pointed out that in your alternative to reality dream that any individual, couple or group of people could make the family structure whatever they wanted it to be. Again, you agreed with this. |
And that has nothing to do with custody battles, thus demonstrating that you've shifted the goalposts with all that nonsense.
People can and do make the family structure whatever they want it to be. To say otherwise is to deny reality, Bill. Government cannot step in and split up a "non-traditional" family just because it's not traditional. Hell, they can't even remove the children from a huge hippie commune with rotating parenting duties without probable cause that the children are being harmed by the arrangement. So yes, individuals, couples and even larger groups of people most certainly can make their own family structure whatever the hell they want it to be. Who are you to say that any of them are wrong?
Also:| It would go a long way in giving your claims a leg to stand on if you could point out any long standing thriving and prospers society throughout history where it was legal and considered normal to allow 5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc.... to adopt children and raise them as a family. |
If you could point out even a single adoption agency which bases its placement of children on the effects that those placements will have on the society in which it operates in terms of longevity or prosperity from a historic viewpoint, that would go a long way towards giving this objection of yours an iota of relevance.
But really, I'm not going to support claims that I never made, especially not when "long standing," "thriving" and "prosperous" haven't been defined with any metrics. It's a sure sign that the challenge is in bad faith.| Until then your just spouting off some untested alternative philosophies and dreams of yours |
No, I've been saying that the reasons you have been giving for denying certain people the right to adopt are bad reasons. I'm not saying that the bowling team or the swingers club should be handed children, only that they should be given the same considerations as any other prospective parents, including gay people.
You, with your heterosexual-couples-only rule, would even deny adoption rights to single heterosexuals. Your rule would prevent the rich bachelor friend of a man who dies with his wife in a car accident from adopting their kids, who have known him all their lives. "Nope," you would say. "Doesn't matter if you've attended every birthday party and even cared for them when their parents had to go to Somalia for a month. Go get married to a heterosexual woman, and then you can adopt them." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| 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. |
I don't care how bizarre you find it. |
Well thank God the vast majority of Americans throughout history, as well as all the thriving societies in the world's history, have not seen things your way by allowing legal family structures to be whatever anybody wanted them to be. |
Really? One man one woman is not the only family structure apparent in societies. There are several where polyamory is common.
| That might be a good reason to not allow them to adopt: the lack of anything except bowling holding them together. |
I have plenty of evidence showing bowling teams being together for decades, but yes, sometimes divorce happens in all types of relationships. The point was how retarded and insane it would be to be putting children through a custody case involving 5 or more separate but legal parents, or any other strange combination of people who have been given an adoptive child in Dave's alternative to reality. What are you gonna make this kid have visitation with 5 different parents? |
Islam allows for up to four wives per man. Same issue here.
| You need to stop acting like an idiot, Bill. The question was whether we should prohibit homosexuals from adopting just because they are homosexuals. |
But that can never be the only question, as I have been repeating over and over. Once Dave overrides that natural intent for the family structure and insists that all alternatives to the natural are fully acceptable then the flood gates are now open. You will have the 5 guys who bowl for Neil's Garage wanting to adopt a kid, you will have the local swingers club wanting to adopt a kid etc... etc.... Fortunately most of human civilization has seen the insanity of your ways and never implemented them. |
Slippery slope on a strawman argument.
14 states allow homosexuals to adopt. APA has published a study on it denoting how there are no downsides to it.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx
| Like prohibiting the bowling team from adopting just because they're a bowling team, or the swingers' club just because they're a swingers' club. |
But I am not rejecting them just because they are a bowling team or a swingers club. I am rejecting them because they are not a heterosexual couple, the natural intended structure for the family unit. |
Unsupported fluff and nonsense, Bill. There have been documented cases of child rearing structures between same sex animals in the wild. One that springs to mind was 2 male penguins who managed to find an abandoned egg and raised the chick as their own.
| You couldn't justify on those bases alone, you had to present an argument about taking up the courts' time with highly tangled custody battles, which wasn't the question at all. |
Those are real problems that will arise in your alternative to reality dream. |
Yup. They exist now, though. Doesn't seem to be a major issue.
| No, they are important questions, they're just not relevant to the arguments you'd previously made. They're brand-new arguments you're throwing up as a smoke screen to try to avoid having to answer serious questions about your claims. |
Nonsense. I have answered questions to my claims. |
Poorly, I might add.
Seems to be a "Homosexuals shouldn't be able to foster or adopt because my religions says they can't in the face of research showing the exact opposite."
| Just because you've shifted the goalposts in a stupid attempt to justify your bigotry doesn't mean that I'm crazy, Bill. |
I never shifted the goal posts. You are the one who agreed with my correction of you when I pointed out that in your alternative to reality dream that any individual, couple or group of people could make the family structure whatever they wanted it to be. Again, you agreed with this. That would be known as defining the goalpost and not moving it. |
And what, barring an appeal to anonymous authority, makes this incorrect?
| All you could come up with is possible tangled legal battles if the bowling team splits up, which is no different from what occurs when a bitter heterosexual couple splits up. Custody battles for biological children can go on for years, Bill. Should we prevent everyone from adopting just because there might be legal troubles in the future? |
If they are not a heterosexual couple, then yes, we should. |
How are the custody battles different between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, Bill?
Both can be just as nasty. Question of visitation again has the issue that it exists now. The problem is that you are focusing on a highly unlikely condition of all or nothing. You do not consider where one of the members of the family unit divorces the rest of them. There would be 2 units (a core of 4 and one outlier) to be dealt with. Multiple visitation schedules also occur with multiple remarriages.
| 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? |
We've got plenty of evidence that homosexuals are no worse as parents than heterosexuals. Why not address that? |
Why not show us any long standing society throughout history who was thriving and prospering where it was legal and considered completely normal for a five man bowling team or a swingers club to adopt children and raise them as a family? Or you could just admit that your ramblings have nothing at all to do with reality and are just an alternative to reality dream of yours.
|
As I said. Islam allows for multiple wives. So does Mormonism and other societies which practice polyamory.
Your attempt to ignore these salient issues undermine your position. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:15:37 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| ...and is just some twisted and bizarre alternative reality that you dream about. |
Just because you've shifted the goalposts in a stupid attempt to justify your bigotry doesn't mean that I'm crazy, Bill. |
But you say this right after we had this conversation:
| 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. |
So here we see I merely gave you a corrected definetion of your goalpost, of which you agreed to, so how you go from that to claiming that I moved the goalposts in just a few posts is beyond me.
Actually I think it is you who is now trying to shrink the goal post as you now see the the genie is out of the bottle. See you first made this statement
| The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is. |
Which I corrected you by saying:
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.
To which you said
| You're right, Bill. Good of you to point out that I misspoke yesterday. |
But the genie was already out of the bottle. Our exchange had already demonstrated beyond doubt, Dave, that once you open up adoption to one alternative (homosexual couples) you then must open up adoption to all alternatives (5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc...) least you be accused of being bigoted against all the other alternatives. Once you realized this you quickly tried to steer the conversation back to homosexual couples only as the alternative choice by falsely claiming that I had moved the goalposts. Nice try. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:49:32 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Valiant Dancer |
Islam allows for up to four wives per man. Same issue here. |
And most of their societies have suffered the repercussions of this.
Slippery slope on a strawman argument.
14 states allow homosexuals to adopt. APA has published a study on it denoting how there are no downsides to it. |
So you agree then with Dave and myself? If you are going to open up adoption to one alternative lifestyle then you must open it up to all alternatives, least you find yourself being a bigot towards all the other alternatives. Which means 5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc... all have equal rights under the law to adopt children in this bizzaro world.
| Unsupported fluff and nonsense, Bill. There have been documented cases of child rearing structures between same sex animals in the wild. One that springs to mind was 2 male penguins who managed to find an abandoned egg and raised the chick as their own. |
But this was illegal as penguin law states that the natural family unit is between a male and female, just as intended.
| Seems to be a "Homosexuals shouldn't be able to foster or adopt because my religions says they can't in the face of research showing the exact opposite." |
But that is not my position at all. I said that because of the entire history of human reproduction, because all the longstanding and prospers civilizations throughout time have been built on this nucleus it is my position that our current nucleus model should continue to be one man and one women raising their offspring as the only legal family structure. I say this in regards to all the alternatives out there. It is you who has fixated this whole conversation around homosexual couples as the only alternative. Why? Don't you equally support all the other alternatives right to adopt, you are not bigoted against them are you? But for some reason you fixate only on the homosexual couples as the alternative. |
"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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| ...and is just some twisted and bizarre alternative reality that you dream about. |
Just because you've shifted the goalposts in a stupid attempt to justify your bigotry doesn't mean that I'm crazy, Bill. |
But you say this right after we had this conversation:
| 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. |
So here we see I merely gave you a corrected definetion of your goalpost, of which you agreed to, so how you go from that to claiming that I moved the goalposts in just a few posts is beyond me.
Actually I think it is you who is now trying to shrink the goal post as you now see the the genie is out of the bottle. See you first made this statement
| The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is. |
Which I corrected you by saying:
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.
To which you said
| You're right, Bill. Good of you to point out that I misspoke yesterday. |
But the genie was already out of the bottle. Our exchange had already demonstrated beyond doubt, Dave, that once you open up adoption to one alternative (homosexual couples) you then must open up adoption to all alternatives (5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc...) least you be accused of being bigoted against all the other alternatives. Once you realized this you quickly tried to steer the conversation back to homosexual couples only as the alternative choice by falsely claiming that I had moved the goalposts. Nice try.
|
Quoted in its entire madness.
Bill, you attempted to define the "family nucleus" in a particular way, and when I said it's whatever a family wants it to be, you went off on a rant about the horrors of forcing kids through a five-way custody battle. Your imagined courtroom dramas have nothing to do with what makes a family a family. They were a distraction away from the main point of all this, which is that you're a bigot for wanting to deny adoption rights to people just because of who they prefer as consensual sex partners.
You claimed that opening up adoption to more than hetero couples means that we would have to consider the five bowling buddies. Aside from that being a slippery-slope argument on its face, there's nothing inherently wrong with five bowling buddies adopting a kid. The only objection that you managed to articulate was the legal trouble it would cause if they broke up, which is an utterly stupid objection and so you later said no, you objected because they're not a heterosexual couple. You can't keep your story straight, which is funny because you apparently hate things which aren't straight.
But I say "so what?" to all of that. Nothing you've brought up so far offers a solid - logical and empirical - reason for denying homosexuals the privilege of adopting children. If "they cannot procreate" is good enough, then you must advocate for the denial of adoption to sterile heterosexuals, including a child's own biological grandparents if they're past a certain age. If "they're not a heterosexual couple" is good enough, then you must also advocate for the denial of adoption to single, church-going, rich, stable heterosexuals. If "they might cause a legal mess when they split up" is good enough, then you must also advocate for the denial of adoption services to everyone who can afford a lawyer.
Because you have not agreed to such blanket denials of adoption rights, it is obvious that these objections of your aren't logical, they're emotional. They're not evidence-based, they're bigotry-based. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 11:05:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Valiant Dancer |
Islam allows for up to four wives per man. Same issue here. |
And most of their societies have suffered the repercussions of this. |
Baseless accusation, Bill. Their society has done just fine.
Slippery slope on a strawman argument.
14 states allow homosexuals to adopt. APA has published a study on it denoting how there are no downsides to it. |
So you agree then with Dave and myself? If you are going to open up adoption to one alternative lifestyle then you must open it up to all alternatives, least you find yourself being a bigot towards all the other alternatives. Which means 5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc... all have equal rights under the law to adopt children in this bizzaro world. |
BUZZZZZZZZ Homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle. It is a gender identity. I am open to letting anyone adopt who can prove that they are committed to raising a child in a manner which has not been shown to be detrimental to their welfare. This includes anarco-syndicist communes, polyamorous family structures, single people of means, and other forms of alternative familial structures.
Meth lab operators are out. So are the mentally ill.
| Unsupported fluff and nonsense, Bill. There have been documented cases of child rearing structures between same sex animals in the wild. One that springs to mind was 2 male penguins who managed to find an abandoned egg and raised the chick as their own. |
But this was illegal as penguin law states that the natural family unit is between a male and female, just as intended. |
No one took them to court.
| Seems to be a "Homosexuals shouldn't be able to foster or adopt because my religions says they can't in the face of research showing the exact opposite." |
But that is not my position at all. I said that because of the entire history of human reproduction, because all the longstanding and prospers civilizations throughout time have been built on this nucleus it is my position that our current nucleus model should continue to be one man and one women raising their offspring as the only legal family structure. I say this in regards to all the alternatives out there. It is you who has fixated this whole conversation around homosexual couples as the only alternative. Why? Don't you equally support all the other alternatives right to adopt, you are not bigoted against them are you? But for some reason you fixate only on the homosexual couples as the alternative.
|
No, it isn't. Even the Bible is repleat with polyamourous relationships. I am not fixated on homosexual couples as the ONLY alternative, I am only pointing out that your position on homosexual adoption is unsupported by studies. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 11:09:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Valiant Dancer |
| Islam allows for up to four wives per man. Same issue here. |
And most of their societies have suffered the repercussions of this. |
Please list all of the repercussions on Islamic society which have actually occurred of allowing a man to marry up to four women.| So you agree then with Dave and myself? If you are going to open up adoption to one alternative lifestyle then you must open it up to all alternatives, least you find yourself being a bigot towards all the other alternatives. Which means 5 man bowling teams, swingers clubs etc... etc... all have equal rights under the law to adopt children in this bizzaro world. |
You haven't yet made a decent argument as to why any particular alternative should be denied consideration for adoption.| But this was illegal as penguin law states that the natural family unit is between a male and female, just as intended. |
Please provide a proper citation to penguin law on this matter.| I said that because of the entire history of human reproduction, because all the longstanding and prospers civilizations throughout time have been built on this nucleus... |
That premise is incorrect.| ...it is my position that our current nucleus model... |
Which has been a conservative ideal for less than 100 years.| ...should continue to be one man and one women raising their offspring as the only legal family structure. |
How would you impose this "legal" structure, Bill?
You do realize that it's not currently illegal for one woman to live with two guys and bear both their children, right? You do realize that there is no legally imposed family structure anywhere in America, yes? So your desire to "continue" "the only legal family structure" is in fact a desire to federally legislate entirely new intrusions of the government into peoples' homes, correct?| I say this in regards to all the alternatives out there. It is you who has fixated this whole conversation around homosexual couples as the only alternative. Why? Don't you equally support all the other alternatives right to adopt, you are not bigoted against them are you? But for some reason you fixate only on the homosexual couples as the alternative. |
Because homosexuals have had a lot of research done on them and their families, Bill. We know it doesn't hurt anyone for gay people to adopt and/or marry. Nobody has done the same studies on five bowling buddies. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2011 : 11:50:42 [Permalink]
|
But oh-so-true.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 12:08:40 [Permalink]
|
This was part of his material when I saw him perform at the Traverse Comedy Arts Fest in February this year. Too funny. Thanks for the replay. :) |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 06:44:50 [Permalink]
|
Very funny, thoroughly enjoyable. There is the alternate reality to those wise cracks.
Try explaining why catalogue shopping is so popular. You can order what you see in the book. You are also expected to believe what you see in the book or the process would fail. Called faith in the product.
Darwins theory of Evolution is great reading. Are we to be respected for believing what is in his book? How does being constantly reminded we are monkeys aspire us to build better societies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz52ivJgVx8
Bill Scott with his religious beliefs on a skeptic forum makes for bad karma. But he does have some world events on his side.
Most of the wars waged in recent history were not over religion but democracy. There was a time it was the other way around.
We have replaced one type of human perversion with another....How much is this because we are raised to believe we are monkeys. After recovering from being told we are all sinners. 
|
| Edited by - justintime on 09/28/2011 06:46:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Drummer wanted
