• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas GOP Platform Advocates Criminalizing Gay Marriage, Banning Strip Clubs...

Southern Man said:
So the problem is with the red tape. That's not a valid reason to give queers priority for adoptions.
Click to expand...

No, the problem in America is partly due to red tape. Which is why it is common for people who really want to adopt to go to another country and adopt a child. Another reason is that many people want infants. Not children, but infants. Particular infants in fact. Those couple together an make adoption a tedious and long waiting process in America (people are waiting for their infants). Meanwhile millions of other children go without adoption. If a same sex couple wanted to adopt such a child, there should be no problem as there are not enough people willing to adopt the 143 MILLION orphans in the world. And no one said "give priority", equal consideration is all they'd get. Nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of one's own personal take on homosexuality, a stable, loving, two parent home be it heterosexual or homosexual is a lot better than the state raising a child till 18. So now if you're done with your selective hearing, perhaps you can consider the full of the problem.
 
Ikari said:
No, the problem in America is partly due to red tape. Which is why it is common for people who really want to adopt to go to another country and adopt a child. Another reason is that many people want infants. Not children, but infants. Particular infants in fact. Those couple together an make adoption a tedious and long waiting process in America (people are waiting for their infants). Meanwhile millions of other children go without adoption. If a same sex couple wanted to adopt such a child, there should be no problem as there are not enough people willing to adopt the 143 MILLION orphans in the world. And no one said "give priority", equal consideration is all they'd get. Nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of one's own personal take on homosexuality, a stable, loving, two parent home be it heterosexual or homosexual is a lot better than the state raising a child till 18. So now if you're done with your selective hearing, perhaps you can consider the full of the problem.
Click to expand...
I've heard that before and supposing it were true, why are gays adopting infants?
 
Southern Man said:
I've heard that before and supposing it were true, why are gays adopting infants?
Click to expand...

Your powers to ignore valid points are strong indeed. But is there even a point to your comment or are you confused? Because it's really a stupid comment with no application to the post you've quoted which outlined why there is a "line" for some adoptions and listed the total number of orphans which is well larger than the number of people willing to adopt. I don't know if you typed that while drunk, but it's completely nonsensical. Please try again, only this time put a little INT in it.
 
Ikari said:
Your powers to ignore valid points are strong indeed. But is there even a point to your comment or are you confused? Because it's really a stupid comment with no application to the post you've quoted which outlined why there is a "line" for some adoptions and listed the total number of orphans which is well larger than the number of people willing to adopt. I don't know if you typed that while drunk, but it's completely nonsensical. Please try again, only this time put a little INT in it.
Click to expand...

Awesome, ad hom. Obviously you can't refute my point.
 
Southern Man said:
Awesome, ad hom. Obviously you can't refute my point.
Click to expand...

You had a point? I don't think so. It was "why are gays adopting infants?". But the point was that there are more orphans in the world than people willing to adopt them. And any stable two parent home, be it heterosexual or homosexual, will do a lot better job raising a child than a state run agency. You don't have a point unless you can show that there are 143 million heterosexual couples out there willing to adopt. Until such time, there's no reason to even entertain the notion of barring same sex couples from adopting as children needs homes and there aren't enough homes to go around.

Now if you're willing to come up with an actual point instead of what seems to be your sterotypical gay bashing, I'll consider it. But you've had no point yet. Please do not pretend that travesty of a comment you made last was a point. It was not. There was no point in it, it did not address any of the previous points addressed.
 
Ikari said:
You had a point? I don't think so. It was "why are gays adopting infants?". But the point was that there are more orphans in the world than people willing to adopt them. And any stable two parent home, be it heterosexual or homosexual, will do a lot better job raising a child than a state run agency. You don't have a point unless you can show that there are 143 million heterosexual couples out there willing to adopt. Until such time, there's no reason to even entertain the notion of barring same sex couples from adopting as children needs homes and there aren't enough homes to go around.

Now if you're willing to come up with an actual point instead of what seems to be your sterotypical gay bashing, I'll consider it. But you've had no point yet. Please do not pretend that travesty of a comment you made last was a point. It was not. There was no point in it, it did not address any of the previous points addressed.
Click to expand...

I'm not gay bashing. That's another ad hom by you. All I'm saying is that queers should be a lower priority to adopt over stable hetro couples.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not gay bashing. That's another ad hom by you. All I'm saying is that queers should be a lower priority to adopt over stable hetro couples.
Click to expand...

Using the term "queers" as you do is gay bashing.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not gay bashing. That's another ad hom by you. All I'm saying is that queers should be a lower priority to adopt over stable hetro couples.
Click to expand...

Why? Studies have shown that they are just as good at raising children than a hetero-sexual couple.
 
Southern Man said:
No, since they use the term themselves. I use it merely to expedite typing, rather than constantly repeating the whole gay/ lesbian/ trans-whatever thing.
Click to expand...

Gay is only three letters if your issue is to expedite your typing.
 
Southern Man said:
Studies have also shown that they are not. Which view jibes with common sense?
Click to expand...

Mine. Explain how a homosexual couple is less capable then a heterosexual couple.
 
Southern Man said:
But it excludes trans-whatever. And by some definitions excludes lesbians.
Click to expand...


queer
   /kwɪər/ Show Spelled [kweer] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, verb, noun
–adjective
1.
strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.
2.
of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.
3.
not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer.
4.
mentally unbalanced or deranged.
5.
Slang: Disparaging and Offensive .
6.
Slang . bad, worthless, or counterfeit.
 
Southern Man said:
Explain how yours is common sense.
Click to expand...

A loving caring homosexual couple can provide a stable household and can care for a child the same as any loving caring heterosexual couple.

They should both have equal priority in being allowed to adopt a child. In fact sexual orientation shouldn't even be taken into account at any point of addoption.
 
ScottD said:
queer
   /kwɪər/ Show Spelled [kweer] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, verb, noun
–adjective
1.
strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.
2.
of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.
3.
not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer.
4.
mentally unbalanced or deranged.
5.
Slang: Disparaging and Offensive .
6.
Slang . bad, worthless, or counterfeit.
Click to expand...

winston53660 said:
You are not fooling anybody.
Click to expand...

About QSA
 
ScottD said:
A loving caring homosexual couple can provide a stable household and can care for a child the same as any loving caring heterosexual couple.

They should both have equal priority in being allowed to adopt a child. In fact sexual orientation shouldn't even be taken into account at any point of addoption.
Click to expand...

A child benefits from associating with parents of both sexes. Children emulate their parents, and are more likely to grow up normal if their parents are normal.
 
Southern Man said:
I posted a summary of studies earlier today. Here I'm arguing on the basis of common sense. Stop trolling.
Click to expand...

The idea that the sun revolved around the earth was also once considered common sense.
 
Southern Man said:
A child benefits from associating with parents of both sexes.
Click to expand...
No, a child benefits from associating with PEOPLE of both genders.

Children emulate their parents, and are more likely to grow up normal if their parents are normal.
Click to expand...
Normal is subjective. However, let's just pretend for second that one's sexual preferences are based on one's parent's sexual preferences. How many homosexual and bisexuals folks do you think came from heterosexual parents?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom