Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:04 am

You should have quoted yourself before making that post, troll.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:09 am

Law wrote:You should have quoted yourself before making that post, troll.

I only troll you because I'm perceptive enough to see that you are impervious to reason.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:10 am

Or because you have nothing of value to add.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:24 am

Law wrote:Or because you have nothing of value to add.

yeah but everyone here save you knows that's not the case.

for example I posted solid evidence that your premise is false.

noone here agrees with your point of view. know why? because it's preposterous.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:27 am

Troll on.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:29 am

Law wrote:Troll on.

Drool on.

Post by **werldhed** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:03 am

bikkeldesnikkel wrote:
Jackal wrote:However, the fact there are homosexual people prooves that there is no such thing as "natural heterosexual insitincts".
The weird thing is, homosexual people say its not choice. If it's not choice it must be inhereted or some kind of mutation.

The fact that there are homosexual people doesn't _prove_ that there aren't heterosexual instincts, it could be a mutation in the DNA or some kind of psychological mutation of some sort. That is if it's true that it isn't by choice.

Hasn't there been any research as to biological differences in homosexuals?

Yes, there has been. The latest that I heard is that there is a candidate mutated gene that has been identified in homosexuals. That only means they identified that it was present. I don't think any studies have been done that actually shows it does anything. Still, it provides evidence that gays are genetically different from heteros.
I'll have to look into the studies, as soon as I'm done with the other readings and my test I have to do tonight.

Post by **Transient** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 am

Law wrote:And to address your point yet again, if said countermeasures can be implemented successfully for every circumstance I would have no problem with it. I've stated many times that if the trauma can be negated then I'm all for it. My argument is based on a child going to a normal school because the reality is 99% of the children in adopted situations would be attending a school of this nature.

Jesus Christ.

Countermeasures are implemented.
Any parent determined enough to adopt is going to do their homework. They'll move, pick the right school, whatever it takes to ensure their kids aren't traumatized.

How can you honestly cling to your ONE justification for banning gay adoptions? You want to eradicate ANY chance of misfortune? You can't guarantee everything. Hell, we're allowed to own guns, even though they can cause traumatization. You're a goddamned fear monger. If every law that got passed was done that way, this country would be ruled by fear moreso than it already is.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:51 am

You can't guarantee that every gay parent of a child will ensure that their child will be schooled in a system removed from the normal schooling system, to think so is naive to say the least.

Post by **Transient** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:52 am

Fuck off with your "OMGAH I HAVE TO HAVE A GUARANTEE OF SAFETY OR ELSE THE KIDDIES AER DOOMED" bullshit.

Post by **Transient** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:05 am

I'm just waiting for raw to pull off the mask and say he is Law, with a big "played

"...

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:34 am

Transient wrote:Fuck off with your "OMGAH I HAVE TO HAVE A GUARANTEE OF SAFETY OR ELSE THE KIDDIES AER DOOMED" bullshit.

Sorry I won't fuck off, my whole point is based around the psychology of the children in question. I'm not saying the countermeasure you identify wouldn't work, I'm saying that it can't even come close to being applied to all circumstances.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:35 am

Law wrote:
Transient wrote:Fuck off with your "OMGAH I HAVE TO HAVE A GUARANTEE OF SAFETY OR ELSE THE KIDDIES AER DOOMED" bullshit.
Sorry I won't fuck off, my whole point is based around the psychology of the children in question. I'm not saying the countermeasure you identify wouldn't work, I'm saying that it can't even come close to being applied to all circumstances.

keep waiting retard

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:36 am

Keep trolling.

Post by **Transient** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:36 am

You are so blind by your own fear that you refuse to see any other possibility other than the one you've constructed in your mind.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:37 am

Actually I consider all other possibilities.

Post by **Transient** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:40 am

Only for the brief time it takes you to erroneously shoot them down and further convince yourself despite your argument's obvious shortcomings, that you are right. Which is a totally misguided lie.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:42 am

Just because I argue doesn't mean I don't go away and consider other points of view. You seem to have difficulty discussing topics which have a point of view that differs from your own.

Post by **werldhed** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:45 am

He's refusing to accept a point of view that lacks evidence, as yours does. I'm glad you can have a civil argument about your belief, but you have yet to offer evidence that it is correct; whereas most everyone else has given specific reasons why you could be wrong.
You've just been saying that "it is your belief."

If you want to believe it, fine. But when rational arguments and evidence are presented in contradiction to that belief, and you refuse to back down, it just makes you stubborn.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:48 am

Perhaps it does and I'm more than happy to live with that, but unless someone has done a decade long survey on the treatment of children at school who have been adopted by gay parents there isn't much I can offer other than my opinion. I'm also not trying to convince anyone of my point of view, I'm simply providing it to generate some provocative discussion - and I've been more than successful in my intention.

Post by **werldhed** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:49 am

Transient wrote:I'm just waiting for raw to pull off the mask and say he is Law, with a big "played "...

If he is an alt, he's at least a decent one that can form complete sentences, even if they are unfounded. (OMG, reptilians!!) It makes me miss that Maleck32 character who was around before Q3W died. He was the one who used to argue that Bush won the debates.

Good guy.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:04 am

the bottom line is either he's playing dumb or is genuinely one of the thickest cunts to ever have graced this forum.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:05 am

Troll on.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:06 am

it's not trolling if it's true you dumbfuck

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:07 am

Hence the trolling.