adoption by gay couples?

[AGBF]

Date: 7/2/2010 2:40:33 PM
Author: Steal

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?

So I ask you again: why is the only thing that matters to you-why is the only yardstick-whether something is, "natural"? Apparently you think that since a mother has (in your philosophy) free will, her abusing and possibly killing her children is not a matter that demands as much social action as adoption by gay couples. Because she has the babies naturally. I am not sure how her having free will helps her children or society if she exercises it to the detriment of the children due to mental illness, crushing poverty; or even being evil. I care about the children. Why are you only fixated on making sure that things remain, "natural"?

Deb/AGBF

 

[CNOS128]

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?

Nope, I don''t believe so. I was merely making the observation that you seem to be constantly hostile, no matter the demeanor of questions posed to you; and my observation was in response to your unkind treatment of me. YOU were intentionally hostile to me. There''s a difference.

And if you feel like you''ve already answered my question (which answer I don''t seem to be able to find), you could simply say so, or ignore it, rather than telling me you don''t have all day to repeat yourself. No one is forcing you to answer, I simply asked a question because your reasoning didn''t/doesn''t make sense to me.

 

[Ella]

This thread has more than run its course. It will now be closed.