God dates fags

Xluna

Dave! wrote: »

It's not anymore Guess why? Because of things like mixed couples getting together and adopting kids. Because it became normalised.

I'm sure some kids got bullied along the way, that's sad. But the world is a better place for it.

People fear,and sometimes hate, what is uncommon. Normal does not equate to good or bad. Having mixed race parents is perceived as less abnormal than having same sexed parents because it's been accepted for centuries longer than same sex parents and is more common. It has a massive head start.

You honestly think that it would take the same length of time for same sex parents to be as tolerated as mixed race parents? Is there a lack of straight parents who want to adopt? It makes the world a better place,not for the kids who end end up with social phobia,self loathing and depression to make a political point. Does the ends justify the means?This is selfish imo.

Caoimhín

I bet a loving couple in a stable, same sex relationship would do a better job at raising kids than some of the pajamas wearing junkies i see dragging their offspring from the welfare office to the off licence.

doncarlos

Caoimhín wrote: »

I bet a loving couple in a stable, same sex relationship would do a better job at raising kids than some of the pajamas wearing junkies i see dragging their offspring from the welfare office to the off licence.

Of course they would. Has anybody on this thread questioned a same sex couples' ability to raise kids?

Dave!

Xluna wrote: »

People fear,and sometimes hate, what is uncommon. Normal does not equate to good or bad. Having mixed race parents is perceived as less abnormal than having same sexed parents because it's been around centuries longer than same sex parents.

No, miscegenation, particularly between blacks and whites, was illegal in most places until relatively recently. Certainly in the United States. You're just looking at it from a modern perspective. It wasn't acceptable, probably until the civil rights movement in the 60's.

Xluna wrote: »

You honestly think that it would take the same length of time for same sex parents to be as tolerated as mixed race parents?

Hopefully not as long as that, but yes, society is alot more liberal than it used to be. It'd probably take a few generations, but it'd eventually become normalised.

Xluna wrote: »

Is there a lack of straight parents who want to adopt?

Probably not, no. I didn't say gay couples should get first preferences, but they shouldn't be completely excluded. The ideal seems to be (I'm open to research suggesting otherwise) a heterosexual couple, but if hypothetically there were no suitable heterosexual couples, you don't think homosexuals should get a look-in?

Xluna wrote: »

It makes the world a better place,not for the kids who end end up with social phobia,self loathing and depression to make a political point. Does the ends justify the means.This is selfish imo.

They'd also end up with loving parents who are willing to jump through hoops to have a child that they can nurture and look after for the rest of their lives.

Xluna

No, miscegenation, particularly between blacks and whites, was illegal in most places until relatively recently. Certainly in the United States. You're just looking at it from a modern perspective. It wasn't acceptable, probably until the civil rights movement in the 60's.

America is a WASP nation. Look at societies in antiquity and you'll see that mixed race parents was more common and accepted than gay foster parents.

Hopefully not as long as that, but yes, society is alot more liberal than it used to be. It'd probably take a few generations, but it'd eventually become normalised.

I don't think it would ever become as accepted a mixed race couples because it's less common,and people tend to hate and fear what is uncommon. A sad facet of human nature.

Probably not, no. I didn't say gay couples should get first preferences, but they shouldn't be completely excluded. The ideal seems to be (I'm open to research suggesting otherwise) a heterosexual couple, but if hypothetically there were no suitable heterosexual couples, you don't think homosexuals should get a look-in?

I think once a child enters the world he/she should get as good a chance in life as possible. It's not like it's the gay couples biological kids we're talking about. I'd rather see a good gay couple adopt a child then a bad straight couple. But a good straight couple is optimal imo for reasons I mentioned. If there's a lack desirable straight parents then yes,but is there?

They'd also end up with loving parents who are willing to jump through hoops to have a child that they can nurture and look after for the rest of their lives.

Plenty of kids who had good loving parents end up psychologically damaged,even to the point of suicide,due to bullying. Not worth it to make a political point imo.

Dave!

Xluna wrote: »

America is a WASP nation. Look at societies in antiquity and you'll see that mixed race parents was more common and accepted than mixed sex parents.

Mixed between blacks and whites? I find that hard to believe considering Europe was engaged in trading blacks as slaves for so long.

But regardless, take America as the example. It wasn't acceptable there and then, was seen as completely abhorrent, blacks weren't considered human, considered to have no souls, there was laws against consorting with them.

Now, it's perfectly acceptable (save in a few hick areas).

How do you account for that if not as a result of people actually doing it?

Blacks weren't allowed to go to college with whites, but people like Vivian Malone had to break that by just doing it. Blacks were supposed to sit at the back of the bus, then Rosa Parks just went ahead and did it.

People can theorise all they want about equality, but until something is put into practise you don't really have it.

Xluna wrote: »

I think once a child enters the world he/she should get as good a chance in life as possible. It's not like it's the gay couples biological kids we're talking about. I'd rather see a good gay couple adopt a child then a bad straight couple. But a good straight couple is optimal imo for reasons I mentioned. If there's a lack desirable straight parents then yes,but is there?

Won't get any arguments here

Xluna wrote: »

Plenty of kids who had good loving parents end up psychologically damaged,even to the point of suicide,due to bullying. Not worth it to make a political point imo.

But it would only become a factor (in your own suggestion, which I don't disagree with) if there were no suitable heterosexual homes for the child to go to. So if the choice is between a homosexual family, in which case they may get bullied, or bouncing around in foster homes, where children are also prone to psychological damage, then you'd agree that the homosexual home is better.

Xluna

Dave! wrote: »

Mixed between blacks and whites? I find that hard to believe considering Europe was engaged in trading blacks as slaves for so long.

But regardless, take America as the example. It wasn't acceptable there and then, was seen as completely abhorrent, blacks weren't considered human, considered to have no souls, there was laws against consorting with them.

Now, it's perfectly acceptable (save in a few hick areas).

How do you account for that if not as a result of people actually doing it?

Blacks weren't allowed to go to college with whites, but people like Vivian Malone had to break that by just doing it. Blacks were supposed to sit at the back of the bus, then Rosa Parks just went ahead and did it.

People can theorise all they want about equality, but until something is put into practise you don't really have it.

Politics affect racism. It varies from society to society and aeon to aeon. Social Darwinism had a big impact on attitudes in that period.
Racism boils down to tribalism,but it's undeniable that it's more common gay families. Mixed race children have kids and it's their biological kids,so society has been more exposed to non singular race families than gay parents,for obvious reasons. So they have a big head start. People consider mixed race adoption more normal because mixed race people are capable of producing kids. Children do not originate from gay relations,so people tend to consider it abnormal,and unfairly, classify it as wrong.

But it would only become a factor (in your own suggestion, which I don't disagree with) if there were no suitable heterosexual homes for the child to go to. So if the choice is between a homosexual family, in which case they may get bullied, or bouncing around in foster homes, where children are also prone to psychological damage, then you'd agree that the homosexual home is better.

Yes, I'd agree that the gay foster parents would be better in such a case.

cantankerous

Dave! wrote: »

Mixed between blacks and whites? I find that hard to believe considering Europe was engaged in trading blacks as slaves for so long.

But regardless, take America as the example. It wasn't acceptable there and then, was seen as completely abhorrent, blacks weren't considered human, considered to have no souls, there was laws against consorting with them.

Well the average african american has 20% european genes. Go figure.

Dyr

greyed wrote: »

Umm, its already in effect, since the new year :P

I wonder about gay marraige, I think with the catholic church shooting itself in the foot so much lately, people might pay less attention to its dogma.

With regards to gay adoption, I dont think two dads would leave a kid in a worse off situation than one dad, or one mom, which happens all the time. There are "gender influences" lacking in many irish families anyway. Theres always the school thing alright, but if we're going to move forward as a society, it has to start with the young, right?... Educate them.

Are single parents approved for adoption? Are single men approved for adoption? I don't think kids unfortunate enough to be up for adoption should be used as some consolation prize for two mens lack of a womb.

greyed

Bambi wrote: »

Are single parents approved for adoption? Are single men approved for adoption? I don't think kids unfortunate enough to be up for adoption should be used as some consolation prize for two mens lack of a womb.

So a male-female couple would be better, even if they are unfit parents... so long as theres a womb involved? Nice, at least you can tick your boxes :rolleyes: Or maybe the kid should stay in limbo for 18 years? You dont know the hypothetical men involved, they could be the best thing to ever happen to this "unfortunate" kid. Each case is unique.

Surprised to see option 2 had some takers? I would have thought the highly religious inclination behind wanting to retain the blasphemy legislation would have excluded a willingness to redefine traditional marraige. Interesting stuff :pac:

Dyr

greyed wrote: »

So a male-female couple would be better, even if they are unfit parents... so long as theres a womb involved? :pac:

it's the womans womb and she can do with as she pleases. Men can't give birth,
adoption agencies aren't there to redress that biological inequality for gay men. Take it up with evolution.

Mister men

cantankerous wrote: »

Well the average african american has 20% european genes. Go figure.

Resi12

Bambi wrote: »

it's the womans womb and she can do with as she pleases. Men can't give birth,
adoption agencies aren't there to redress that biological inequality for gay men. Take it up with evolution.

And women can't conceive without a man so your whole stupid argument is redundant right there.

twinQuins

Bambi wrote: »

Are single parents approved for adoption? Are single men approved for adoption? I don't think kids unfortunate enough to be up for adoption should be used as some consolation prize for two mens lack of a womb.

And I suppose they're just a "consolation prize" for a couple where the woman can't conceive, aye?

Or where both can't conceive?

See, this is why gay men can't adopt; with people like you around of course the kids are going to be made fun of and made to feel like the relationship with their parents is less than others.

Dyr

Resi12 wrote: »

And women can't conceive without a man so your whole stupid argument is redundant right there.

Women can't conceive without sperm rather than men, so your whole stupid argument is redundant right there. Thanks for calling.

landsleaving

Bambi wrote: »

Women can't conceive without sperm rather than men, so your whole stupid argument is redundant right there. Thanks for calling.

And where do we get sperm?

Did they not have sex education in your school?

bodice ripper

Xluna wrote: »

This is most likely true. But it would take a long time for this to happen. A childs mind is very absorbant. There would be kids who'd be really hurt by the abuse. It's a question of whether the end justifies the means.
IMO,if you really love a child you'd sacrafice your own happiness so they would'nt be subjected to abuse.

So, let us make sure that no one is subjected to adoption by gay, poor, ill-educated, mixed race, fat, unfashionable, disabled, pushy with their religion, or ugly people. it is very important to sculpt society with bullies in mind.