adoption by gay couples?

[AGBF]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

'I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.'

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

Steal-Although I posted before Kenny posted the statement to which you responded above, you answered him and did not answer me. You wrote, "Same goes for Laila & Irishgirl" (that you lament their decision not to discuss the issue, but rather to, "jump on the bandwagon" of those who oppose your point of view).

I believe I was respectful in my tone and stuck to the issues-i.e.I hardly jumped on any bandwagon-but you did not answer me. Please do. Why is the only yardstick you use with which to measure whether something is good for society whether or not it is, "natural" when society was constructed by men to protect them from the brutality then ensues when a natural order is left unchecked?

Please read my initial posting.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 11:21:47 AM
Author: elledizzy5
As always, ditto E B! Particularly the highlighted part. I had no idea genitalia had such a significant effect on child raising capabilities.

I''d love to see studies/research/information saying that homosexual couples negatively affect children. Since being gay is, in fact, natural, that argument doesn''t really fly.

Please read what I am saying you are completely missing the point.

Being gay is natural, obviously. Who is disputing that? But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

I tisk tisk at your intimation that I am saying being placed with a gay couple would ''negatively affect children''. Please read what I said earlier about twisting my words.

I''ve read it. Multiple times.

You say "less than ideal" and pretend that makes it kinder or less bigoted than saying "negative"

You can use the kindest words in the world, but you''re essentially saying that gay couples can''t do as good of job as straight couples because its not biologically possible for them to have children, making it "less ideal"

Explain how you know that? "Natural order" is not an answer.

 

[KimberlyH]

Gah, this thread is giving me a headache. Kenny, Danny, Penn, i have such respect for the manner in which you''ve conducted yourselves.

Kenny, I live in CA as well, and was appalled by the election results. We moved from a community where signs against prop 8 were stolen from a friends'' yard on 5 different occasions (I taped my bumper sticker on the inside of my car window so it couldn''t be touched) to a neighborhood where we will celebrate the 4th of July at a block party with several gay couples, a caucasian couple who just adopted a baby from ethiopia, and several other families/couples who are considered more "traditional." We moved here so that our infant would grow up in a place that better reflects our beliefs about people, life, and what it means to love and be a family; my grandfather and my husbands parents are likely turning over in their graves at our choice of community. Things will shift, not fast enough, but they do and will. I have faith in that.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:11:14 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

Steal-Although I posted before Kenny posted the statement to which you responded above, you answered him and did not answer me. You wrote, ''Same goes for Laila & Irishgirl'' (that you lament their decision not to discuss the issue, but rather to, ''jump on the bandwagon'' of those who oppose your point of view).

I believe I was respectful in my tone and stuck to the issues, but you did not answer me. Please do. Why is the only yardstick you use with which to measure whether something is good for society whether or not it is, ''natural'' when society was constructed by men to protect them from the brutality then ensues when a natural order is left unchecked?

Please read my initial posting.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I''m afraid you won''t get an answer to the question you asked Steal, just as the rest of us have not received an answer to our questions (regardless of how respectfully we asked). Like you, I would love to hear Steal''s answers to the various questions that have been asked. However, I think she is now coming to the realization that she is unable to adequately support her position, and is therefore refusing to discuss the topic any further (other than repeatedly invoking her "natural order" argument and then categorically refusing to answer any questions regarding said argument).

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:48:11 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 12:39:24 PM

Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM

Author: Steal

But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.


So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?

Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?

Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.

I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .


Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

Why are you saying all this Kenny?


Did you see my earlier post?


''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

You have not answered the question.

You are arguing that because gays can''t make a child it is wrong to let them raise one, all becuase of ''natural order''.

Since houses are not natural, I suppose your family lives in a tree, or maybe a cave.
You never cut your hair since scissors are not natural.
I could go on.

The answer we are all hearing is, you just hate gays.
I''d respect you more if you just admitted it instead of dancing around.

You are not alone, far from it.
Clearly the majority of Americans hate gays - they prove it in the warm, safe, comforting privacy of the voting booth where they don''t have to explain away their hate with lame stuff like ''natural order''.

Kenny I expected more from you.

Why are you asking random questions? Do you have a valid response to my position? Or do you need to rely on my preferences on random questions in an attempt to discredit my thoughts as a whole; even though I have stated that I will not rise to this.

Man + Woman = Child could be conceived

Man + Man = No child could be conceived

Woman + Woman = No child could be conceived

Oh and thank you for bringing up the old anti-gay comment. I had not heard that one in a few posts. Shame on you.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:19:57 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 7/2/2010 1:11:14 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

Steal-Although I posted before Kenny posted the statement to which you responded above, you answered him and did not answer me. You wrote, ''Same goes for Laila & Irishgirl'' (that you lament their decision not to discuss the issue, but rather to, ''jump on the bandwagon'' of those who oppose your point of view).

I believe I was respectful in my tone and stuck to the issues, but you did not answer me. Please do. Why is the only yardstick you use with which to measure whether something is good for society whether or not it is, ''natural'' when society was constructed by men to protect them from the brutality then ensues when a natural order is left unchecked?

Please read my initial posting.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I''m afraid you won''t get an answer to the question you asked Steal, just as the rest of us have not received an answer to our questions (regardless of how respectfully we asked). Like you, I would love to hear Steal''s answers to the various questions that have been asked. However, I think she is now coming to the realization that she is unable to adequately support her position, and is therefore refusing to discuss the topic any further (other than repeatedly invoking her ''natural order'' argument and then categorically refusing to answer any questions regarding said argument).

AGBF: I didn''t reply to you because there was no way to reply to you. How does your comment about natural disasters and free choice impact on my logic? I didn''t reply because I think that your points were another ''twist''.

IrishGrrl: Ditto.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:15:47 PM
Author: KimberlyH
Gah, this thread is giving me a headache. Kenny, Danny, Penn, i have such respect for the manner in which you've conducted yourselves.

Kenny, I live in CA as well, and was appalled by the election results. We moved from a community where signs against prop 8 were stolen from a friends' yard on 5 different occasions (I taped my bumper sticker on the inside of my car window so it couldn't be touched) to a neighborhood where we will celebrate the 4th of July at a block party with several gay couples, a caucasian couple who just adopted a baby from ethiopia, and several other families/couples who are considered more 'traditional.' We moved here so that our infant would grow up in a place that better reflects our beliefs about people, life, and what it means to love and be a family; my grandfather and my husbands parents are likely turning over in their graves at our choice of community. Things will shift, not fast enough, but they do and will. I have faith in that.

Thanks Kim!

Me too.

 

[Shoopy]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:15:47 PM
Author: KimberlyH
Gah, this thread is giving me a headache. Kenny, Danny, Penn, i have such respect for the manner in which you''ve conducted yourselves.

Ditto this.

My brother is gay. He''s from a younger generation that is much more accepting and yet he still feels he is part of a hated group. He''d love to be a father one day but he feels that he never can be because of the way society views same sex parents. It''s so sad and I hope he changes his views on it because he''d be a wonderful father.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:27:19 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:19:57 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 7/2/2010 1:11:14 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

Steal-Although I posted before Kenny posted the statement to which you responded above, you answered him and did not answer me. You wrote, ''Same goes for Laila & Irishgirl'' (that you lament their decision not to discuss the issue, but rather to, ''jump on the bandwagon'' of those who oppose your point of view).

I believe I was respectful in my tone and stuck to the issues, but you did not answer me. Please do. Why is the only yardstick you use with which to measure whether something is good for society whether or not it is, ''natural'' when society was constructed by men to protect them from the brutality then ensues when a natural order is left unchecked?

Please read my initial posting.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I''m afraid you won''t get an answer to the question you asked Steal, just as the rest of us have not received an answer to our questions (regardless of how respectfully we asked). Like you, I would love to hear Steal''s answers to the various questions that have been asked. However, I think she is now coming to the realization that she is unable to adequately support her position, and is therefore refusing to discuss the topic any further (other than repeatedly invoking her ''natural order'' argument and then categorically refusing to answer any questions regarding said argument).

AGBF: I didn''t reply to you because there was no way to reply to you. How does your comment about natural disasters and free choice impact on my logic? I didn''t reply because I think that your points were another ''twist''.

IrishGrrl: Ditto.

Steal, I don''t know how the questions I asked in my post to you gave you the idea that I was trying to "twist" anything.

You said: "I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted."

I think you''re reaching quite a bit here. I don''t believe anyone is accusing you of being crazy, or trying to prove that you are crazy. You claim to lament that no discussion is taking place, but you refuse to answer valid questions posed to you about why you feel as you do. How can a discussion take place if you refuse to participate?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:27:19 PM
Author: Steal

AGBF: I didn''t reply to you because there was no way to reply to you. How does your comment about natural disasters and free choice impact on my logic? I didn''t reply because I think that your points were another ''twist''.

Actually, I never mentioned "free choice". Go back and check if you don''t believe me. And the problem with your logic is that it is flawed. You are being illogical. You would have flunked Logic 101.


Deb/AGBF

 

[CNOS128]

But -- here''s what I don''t understand:
A woman, by herself, could not conceive a child without "some intervention," just as a gay couple could not conceive a child "without intervention."

And yet, Steal, I believe you said single parenthood would be preferable to a gay couple raising a child? I don''t understand.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:33:20 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 7/2/2010 1:27:19 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:19:57 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 7/2/2010 1:11:14 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

'I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.'

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

Steal-Although I posted before Kenny posted the statement to which you responded above, you answered him and did not answer me. You wrote, 'Same goes for Laila & Irishgirl' (that you lament their decision not to discuss the issue, but rather to, 'jump on the bandwagon' of those who oppose your point of view).

I believe I was respectful in my tone and stuck to the issues, but you did not answer me. Please do. Why is the only yardstick you use with which to measure whether something is good for society whether or not it is, 'natural' when society was constructed by men to protect them from the brutality then ensues when a natural order is left unchecked?

Please read my initial posting.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I'm afraid you won't get an answer to the question you asked Steal, just as the rest of us have not received an answer to our questions (regardless of how respectfully we asked). Like you, I would love to hear Steal's answers to the various questions that have been asked. However, I think she is now coming to the realization that she is unable to adequately support her position, and is therefore refusing to discuss the topic any further (other than repeatedly invoking her 'natural order' argument and then categorically refusing to answer any questions regarding said argument).

AGBF: I didn't reply to you because there was no way to reply to you. How does your comment about natural disasters and free choice impact on my logic? I didn't reply because I think that your points were another 'twist'.

IrishGrrl: Ditto.

Steal, I don't know how the questions I asked in my post to you gave you the idea that I was trying to 'twist' anything.

You said: 'I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted.'

I think you're reaching quite a bit here. I don't believe anyone is accusing you of being crazy, or trying to prove that you are crazy. You claim to lament that no discussion is taking place, but you refuse to answer valid questions posed to you about why you feel as you do. How can a discussion take place if you refuse to participate?

I responded to AGBF and the ditto was so you would read my response to her, as you were so concerned (above) that I had not replied directly to her.

Please tell my how my living accommodations, clothing or attitude to cancer care is at issue? I would gladly discuss the issue as to how it is only ideal for a heterosexual couple to adopt. Not if I cut my hair

?

But none of you will see what I mean there either.... Or if you do, will be too afraid to say it.

If you have a specific point please nip back and quote it for me and I will reply; as long as it is not one of the inane questions about my knitting preferences or some such drivel.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:21:04 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 12:48:11 PM

Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM

Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 12:39:24 PM


Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM


Author: Steal


But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.



So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?


Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?


Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.


I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .



Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

Why are you saying all this Kenny?



Did you see my earlier post?



''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

You have not answered the question.


You are arguing that because gays can''t make a child it is wrong to let them raise one, all becuase of ''natural order''.


Since houses are not natural, I suppose your family lives in a tree, or maybe a cave.

You never cut your hair since scissors are not natural.

I could go on.


The answer we are all hearing is, you just hate gays.

I''d respect you more if you just admitted it instead of dancing around.


You are not alone, far from it.

Clearly the majority of Americans hate gays - they prove it in the warm, safe, comforting privacy of the voting booth where they don''t have to explain away their hate with lame stuff like ''natural order''.

Kenny I expected more from you.


Why are you asking random questions? Do you have a valid response to my position? Or do you need to rely on my preferences on random questions in an attempt to discredit my thoughts as a whole; even though I have stated that I will not rise to this.


Man + Woman = Child could be conceived


Man + Man = No child could be conceived


Woman + Woman = No child could be conceived


Oh and thank you for bringing up the old anti-gay comment. I had not heard that one in a few posts. Shame on you.

No, shame on YOU!

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:35:04 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 1:27:19 PM
Author: Steal

AGBF: I didn''t reply to you because there was no way to reply to you. How does your comment about natural disasters and free choice impact on my logic? I didn''t reply because I think that your points were another ''twist''.

Actually, I never mentioned ''free choice''. Go back and check if you don''t believe me. And the problem with your logic is that it is flawed. You are being illogical. You would have flunked Logic 101.


Deb/AGBF

Sorry Deb,

I was replying quickly and paraphrased you. I meant free choice in relation to this section of your post:



Steal-"The natural order" does some things that are not very nice. I abhor the saying, "God doesn''t give you more than you

can handle", because it is so obvious that He often does. An overwhelmed mother who abuses and kills her children has been

given more than she can handle! (I am a social worker.) I am afraid that that situation is very much a part of, "the natural

order". Nature can be very cruel. A look at the animal kingdom will show you that. Or Hurricane Katrina. Or the earthquake

in Haiti. I do not think that the ideal society models itself after nature and am not sure why something being "natural" is

your only yardstick.


Deb/AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 1:35:04 PM
Author: AGBF
Actually, I never mentioned ''free choice''. Go back and check if you don''t believe me. And the problem with your logic is that it is flawed. You are being illogical. You would have flunked Logic 101.


Deb/AGBF

But I would be interested to note how my logic is flawed here.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:48:33 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk


No, shame on YOU!

Thanks HH.

Very constructive.

But you go get a +1 for points scoring.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:42:57 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:33:20 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 7/2/2010 1:27:19 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:19:57 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 7/2/2010 1:11:14 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

Steal-Although I posted before Kenny posted the statement to which you responded above, you answered him and did not answer me. You wrote, ''Same goes for Laila & Irishgirl'' (that you lament their decision not to discuss the issue, but rather to, ''jump on the bandwagon'' of those who oppose your point of view).

I believe I was respectful in my tone and stuck to the issues, but you did not answer me. Please do. Why is the only yardstick you use with which to measure whether something is good for society whether or not it is, ''natural'' when society was constructed by men to protect them from the brutality then ensues when a natural order is left unchecked?

Please read my initial posting.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I''m afraid you won''t get an answer to the question you asked Steal, just as the rest of us have not received an answer to our questions (regardless of how respectfully we asked). Like you, I would love to hear Steal''s answers to the various questions that have been asked. However, I think she is now coming to the realization that she is unable to adequately support her position, and is therefore refusing to discuss the topic any further (other than repeatedly invoking her ''natural order'' argument and then categorically refusing to answer any questions regarding said argument).

AGBF: I didn''t reply to you because there was no way to reply to you. How does your comment about natural disasters and free choice impact on my logic? I didn''t reply because I think that your points were another ''twist''.

IrishGrrl: Ditto.

Steal, I don''t know how the questions I asked in my post to you gave you the idea that I was trying to ''twist'' anything.

You said: ''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted.''

I think you''re reaching quite a bit here. I don''t believe anyone is accusing you of being crazy, or trying to prove that you are crazy. You claim to lament that no discussion is taking place, but you refuse to answer valid questions posed to you about why you feel as you do. How can a discussion take place if you refuse to participate?

I responded to AGBF and the ditto was so you would read my response to her, as you were so concerned (above) that I had not replied directly to her.

Please tell my how my living accommodations, clothing or attitude to cancer care is at issue? I would gladly discuss the issue as to how it is only ideal for a heterosexual couple to adopt. Not if I cut my hair

?

But none of you will see what I mean there either.... Or if you do, will be too afraid to say it.

If you have a specific point please nip back and quote it for me and I will reply; as long as it is not one of the inane questions about my knitting preferences or some such drivel.

Steal, I did read your response to AGBF, as you can clearly see from reading my previous post (which you quoted here). And you know as well as I do that I''ve never asked about your living accommodations, clothing, attitude to cancer care, whether or not you cut your hair, or your knitting preferences. My question had to do with your feelings on interracial adoption, and I stated it as respectfully as I possibly could have. I was trying to get some insight into what you deem to be the "natural order" of things and how that should be considered (in your opinion) when placing a child for adoption. You chose not to answer. Own that.

 

[Lauren8211]

Man do I miss the days when "because" was an appropriate answer.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:35:22 PM
Author: TheBigT
But -- here''s what I don''t understand:
A woman, by herself, could not conceive a child without ''some intervention,'' just as a gay couple could not conceive a child ''without intervention.''

Uh huh?

Isn''t that obvious?

And yet, Steal, I believe you said single parenthood would be preferable to a gay couple raising a child? I don''t understand.

I did talk about this earlier. Which bit was unclear?

I can''t repeat myself all day.

 

[CNOS128]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:56:32 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:35:22 PM

Author: TheBigT

But -- here''s what I don''t understand:

A woman, by herself, could not conceive a child without ''some intervention,'' just as a gay couple could not conceive a child ''without intervention.''

Uh huh?

Isn''t that obvious?

And yet, Steal, I believe you said single parenthood would be preferable to a gay couple raising a child? I don''t understand.

I did talk about this earlier. Which bit was unclear?


I can''t repeat myself all day.

Right, you''re trying to make the point that it''s NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn''t raise children. But you''re okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not "natural." Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.
Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I''m not certain why you''re being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it''s just a constant personality trait, or something.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:54:18 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Steal, I did read your response to AGBF, as you can clearly see from reading my previous post (which you quoted here). And you know as well as I do that I've never asked about your living accommodations, clothing, attitude to cancer care, whether or not you cut your hair, or your knitting preferences. My question had to do with your feelings on interracial adoption, and I stated it as respectfully as I possibly could have. I was trying to get some insight into what you deem to be the 'natural order' of things and how that should be considered (in your opinion) when placing a child for adoption. You chose not to answer. Own that.

Just because you ask a question first does not demand an answer.

Thank you for being respectful to me; I believe it is as I deserve.

I hoped that my reference to knitting patterns would highlight that any question off topic is that; off topic. Why should I reply. Why should my answer colour this discussion? Unless as I said earlier it is to see if there is a tail hidden under my cloak?

The thing is, I have* no problem discussing any of the questions asked. But I am doggedly refusing to answer them in the context they have been raised. That is, in an oblique reference to my view of natural order and gay couples adopting.

*edit for spelling

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:59:30 PM
Author: TheBigT
Right, you''re trying to make the point that it''s NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn''t raise children. But you''re okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not ''natural.'' Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.
Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I''m not certain why you''re being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it''s just a constant personality trait, or something.

Well don''t worry about that. You have made up for it now, haven''t you?

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:03:17 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:54:18 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Steal, I did read your response to AGBF, as you can clearly see from reading my previous post (which you quoted here). And you know as well as I do that I''ve never asked about your living accommodations, clothing, attitude to cancer care, whether or not you cut your hair, or your knitting preferences. My question had to do with your feelings on interracial adoption, and I stated it as respectfully as I possibly could have. I was trying to get some insight into what you deem to be the ''natural order'' of things and how that should be considered (in your opinion) when placing a child for adoption. You chose not to answer. Own that.

Just because you ask a question first does not demand an answer.

Thank you for being respectful to me; I believe it is as I deserve.

I hoped that my reference to knitting patterns would highlight that any question off topic is that; off topic. Why should I reply. Why should my answer colour this discussion? Unless as I said earlier it is to see if there is a tail hidden under my cloak?

The thing is, I how no problem discussing any of the questions asked. But I am doggedly refusing to answer them in the context they have been raised. That is, in an oblique reference to my view of natural order and gay couples adopting.

Steal, I don''t think you have a tail hidden under your cloak. I don''t even think you have horns or cloven hooves!

I genuinely wanted to know what your "natural order" argument was based on, and whether you feel that the "natural order" argument applies only to gay couples wishing to adopt or if it applies across the board to all forms of adoption. I was hoping you would elaborate on why you feel the way you do, and how you feel about adoption in general.

Admittedly, I don''t agree with your position regarding adoption by gay couples. But you''re entitled to your opinion and it''s not my mission in life to change your mind. I would just like to understand better.

And you''re very welcome. I agree that you deserve respect. I try to be respectful to everyone, because I feel that everyone is deserving of respect.

 

[Clairitek]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:10:23 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:59:30 PM
Author: TheBigT
Right, you're trying to make the point that it's NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn't raise children. But you're okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not 'natural.' Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.
Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I'm not certain why you're being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it's just a constant personality trait, or something.

Well don't worry about that. You have made up for it now, haven't you?

How is what you just said to T any different than HH's previous post? You just called her out for being non-constructive, yet you just turn around and a give non-constructive snarky response back to a different poster.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:19:58 PM
Author: Clairitek

Date: 7/2/2010 2:10:23 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:59:30 PM
Author: TheBigT
Right, you''re trying to make the point that it''s NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn''t raise children. But you''re okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not ''natural.'' Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.
Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I''m not certain why you''re being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it''s just a constant personality trait, or something.

Well don''t worry about that. You have made up for it now, haven''t you?

How is what you just said to T any different than HH''s previous post? You just called her out for being non-constructive, yet you just turn around and a give non-constructive snarky response back to a different poster.

Thank you.

I''m glad that you can see HH was out of line.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:24:29 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 2:19:58 PM
Author: Clairitek

Date: 7/2/2010 2:10:23 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:59:30 PM
Author: TheBigT
Right, you''re trying to make the point that it''s NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn''t raise children. But you''re okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not ''natural.'' Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.
Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I''m not certain why you''re being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it''s just a constant personality trait, or something.

Well don''t worry about that. You have made up for it now, haven''t you?

How is what you just said to T any different than HH''s previous post? You just called her out for being non-constructive, yet you just turn around and a give non-constructive snarky response back to a different poster.

Thank you.

I''m glad that you can see HH was out of line.

Is that really all you''ve got left now?

 

[E B]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:10:23 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:59:30 PM

Author: TheBigT

Right, you're trying to make the point that it's NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn't raise children. But you're okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not 'natural.' Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.

Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I'm not certain why you're being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it's just a constant personality trait, or something.

Well don't worry about that. You have made up for it now, haven't you?

Oh, look. Another question asked, in context, and ignored. What a surprise.

Steal, you don't get to play the victim here. You've admitted to discriminating against an entire group based on sexual orientation alone, and you're shocked to find people upset about it? We're all adults here- we know how babies are made- and that's the only reason you've given for feeling the way you do. So don't act surprised or hurt when other forum members, some of them gay, get a bit hostile. It's 2010- you aren't going to find too many people outwardly accepting of discrimination just because it's your "opinion." Dig?

So please, continue to ignore perfectly legitimate questions and act as though we're all out to get you because you've dared to be "politically incorrect." Let's see how many pages this thread can hit.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:52:02 PM
Author: Steal



I was replying quickly and paraphrased you. I meant free choice in relation to this section of your post:

You mean you thought you had paraphrased me! In fact, you had thoroughly misunderstood me! I honestly had no notion of why you started to talk about, "free will"! My point was that the biological mother of children, given those children "naturally", far too often abuses and sometimes even kills them!


Deb/AGBF

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:27:54 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Is that really all you''ve got left now?

I don''t get it?

I replied to a thread and all hell broke loose. What should I have left? Was I on attack? I was under the impression that I typed an opinion and unlike the few before me who posted a pro opinion I was the only one who has been asked time and time again to repeat my thoughts; nay to justify them?

What do you mean by; is that all I''ve got left?

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:32:25 PM
Author: E B

Date: 7/2/2010 2:10:23 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 1:59:30 PM

Author: TheBigT

Right, you''re trying to make the point that it''s NATURAL for two parents to have children and this is your reasoning for why gay people shouldn''t raise children. But you''re okay with a SINGLE PARENT raising a child even though THAT is not ''natural.'' Hence, why people are telling you your logic is flawed.

Also, I never used a nasty tone with you, so I''m not certain why you''re being sarcastic and hostile to me. Unless it''s just a constant personality trait, or something.

Well don''t worry about that. You have made up for it now, haven''t you?

Oh, look. Another question asked, in context, and ignored. What a surprise.

Steal, you don''t get to play the victim here. You''ve admitted to discriminating against an entire group based on sexual orientation alone, and you''re shocked to find people upset about it? We''re all adults here- we know how babies are made- and that''s the only reason you''ve given for feeling the way you do. So don''t act surprised or hurt when other forum members, some of them gay, get a bit hostile. It''s 2010- you aren''t going to find too many people outwardly accepting of discrimination just because it''s your ''opinion.'' Dig?

So please, continue to ignore perfectly legitimate questions and act as though we''re all out to get you because you''ve dared to be ''politically incorrect.'' Let''s see how many pages this thread can hit.

It is the SAME question I have answered a number of times before. The SAME.

Why should I type back the same answer to 20 different posters? Just read what I wrote.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:34:31 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 7/2/2010 1:52:02 PM
Author: Steal



I was replying quickly and paraphrased you. I meant free choice in relation to this section of your post:

You mean you thought you had paraphrased me! In fact, you had thoroughly misunderstood me! I honestly had no notion of why you started to talk about, ''free will''! My point was that the biological mother of children, given those children ''naturally'', far too often abuses and kills them!


Deb/AGBF

If my language of paraphrase did not reflect your understanding I apologise; I should have taken the time and quoted you. That would have been clearer.

However the content for me is the same. I understood that we were born with free choice & free will. Freedom to abuse and freedom to not abuse. Unless you believe that is predetermined?