Rayman Pirate-Community

You know, I kind of haven't thought of things in that light.

Phoenixan wrote:You know, I kind of haven't thought of things in that light.

Your signature is hilarious.

Xenon wrote:If a child doesn't have a female parent then it wouldn't benefit from the unique motherly chemistry other kids get. Also mothers are generally better at basically teaching the child its right and wrongs, et cetera, so having gay "parents" could decelerate congnitive development.

But in my eyes there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. Homosexuality is socially accepted as a characteristic now, not a difference.

...I apologise if I misunderstood you, but it seems to me after reading this that you don't mind a lesbian couple adopting, but not a gay couple...?

lol you guys are sexist.

yasrsly gief us men some moar credit lol!

Tobbe wrote:yasrsly gief us men some moar credit lol!

whose got teh ballz?

...I apologise if I misunderstood you, but it seems to me after reading this that you don't mind a lesbian couple adopting, but not a gay couple...?

Yep, you did misunderstand me

neo wrote:I don't think its cruel to have a gay couple adopt a child. Why deny such happiness to two people because of who they like? Oh religion this religion that. Fuck that.

What the hell are you talking about? Religion has nothing to do with this and is irrelevant to the points I made. Did you actually read through the last page?

neo wrote:Well, two straight people can make their own. Can't make their own, then they should adopt. Who says you have to have a male parent? Some kids don't have them because their dad just left. How about them? Oh too bad? Nah. That don't cut it.

If two straight people can have their own child, then yes, they should. If they are infertile, then they should adopt. I already said this.

Of course you have to have a male parent. I'd hate to have grown up without a father. Fathers that abandon their children are assholes. What do you mean by “Oh too bad? Nah. That don't cut it”? Sorry, but I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

neo wrote:My father is old. So that meant less play time with him. I don't remember playing anything with him. Did he teach me anything? I don't know. I know he worked really hard and all that shit, but he never taught me anything about cars. When I was helping him with stuff like that, I was only the "Hey can you hand me the _______" ; -;

Are you not glad that you were brought up with parents of both genders? I don't understand you.

DesLife wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:

Tobbe wrote:So you think people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless they're planning on having children?

I don't think it should be disallowed, I just don't see what the purpose is. [...]
There is no need for a 'marriage', especially when there will be no children involved.
I wouldn't mind seeing marriage abolished altogether.

There's no need for it so they should'nt have this right ? Come on, this is ridiculous. There's no need for marriage for anyone, civil partnerships can provide everyone with all they need, so what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership ? Apart from the symbolic side, I don't see any. What is the purpose of disallowing gay people to marry then ?

First of all, I never said that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children. In fact, I specifically stated that they should be allowed. I simply expressed the point of view that there is no point in marriage if children aren't going to be involved, which I stand by.

The reason I think gay couples should be disallowed from adoption is something I have already explained clearly.

DesLife wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:And while I can understand your 'they can't help it' perspective, it should be remembered that helplessness cannot be equated with justification; paedophiles didn't choose to be paedophiles, but that doesn't mean that they should have the same rights as normal people.

Are you saying that being different means you can't have the same rights as anyone ?...

No, that paragraph was in response to a particular statement by Quickfist, and you're quoting it out of context. My point was that jus because someone 'can't help' something doesn't mean that it's fine and should be treated as such.

DesLife wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:And I said nothing about 'taking their rights'. I don't believe that they should have a right to marry to begin with; we are merely discussing whether they should be given said right, not whether we should 'take' it away from them.

Why would anyone has the right to marriage whereas others don't ? What exactly gives you the right to marry, is that your sexuality, your way of life ? That doesn't make any sense.

One's sexuality I should think. Marriage is for the protection of children as far as I'm concerned, which is why I think it's poinless if there are no plans to have any. If you take the perspective that gay adoption is wrong (which is a point of view which I've already explained), then all gay marriages would be childless. In which case, why the hell can't they be happy with civil partnerships, which offer all the same rights? All they're campaigning for is the right to call it a 'marriage'.

Tobbe wrote:Here's an overview of some of the studies. If you want more you can check out their references or search the web yourself: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

This is the summary presented at the start of the article above:

With the exception of studies at a few universities with very close connections with conservative Christian denominations (like the Brigham Young University in Provo, UT), essentially all research studies into same-sex parenting reveal that children of these families develop normally. There is some indication that boys are less sexually adventuresome, and that girls are more sexually daring. There are also anecdotal accounts of children having to endure ridicule, taunting and harassment from other youth because of their parents' sexual orientation.

I'm not sure that those studies are 100% conclusive, one of them admitting to their studies being “relatively few and open to criticism”, another saying that they had been too “defensive”... and in spite of any formal studies, I cannot bring myself to believe that a child can be raised without a mother and not suffer any negative consequences at all. One thing which everyone seems to agree on is the bullying, which I think is reason enough to at least give some preference to straight couples when choosing who gets to adopt... why should a child be forced into a motherless/fatherless upbringing where it is more likely to be bullied, when it could just as easily by raised by both a mother and a father, with the likelihood of acceptance by its peers increased? I am concerned for the children here, not going out of my way to deny rights to homosexuals.

Tobbe wrote:As for the death penalty thing: The 'eye for an eye' method of punishment is biologically built into all humans, and so the deafault position for most cultures is to have a death sentence for certain types of crime. The death penalty has been abolished in most western countries (the US being an exception) as evidence has shown that it's a cruel and pointless form of punishment. The deafault position on homosexuality in cultures built around the desert god is to kill anyone who practices it. In the same way, as new evidence has come in over the years, that law has been changed. So you're wrong: This argument could just as easily be applied to the death penalty debate (although it doesn't fit that debate that well). Because in both cases, the law has been changed because of evidence.

Well, your statement, “This idea that homosexuals aren't fit to raise children isn't based on any strong sociological evidence” is correct (I am not disputing that; I tried to make my point). But you pointed to the fact that homosexual adoption is legal in some places as proof of your statement (superfluous proof, since I am in agreement with you). I don't think the “Law has been changed because of evidence” argument really works either, as it assumes that the evidence in question supports the side of the debate which is 'correct'. But this is all trivial and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

spiraldoor wrote:I also think that single people should be disallowed from adopting, for the same reason. I think that infertile couples should find it easier to adopt than anyone else.

By the way, those sentences were the only alteration I made to my post on the previous page, before I knew that it had received a reply. I did not make any major removals or additions to my own post in response to Tobbe's, in case that's what it looks like.

One's sexuality I should think. Marriage is for the protection of children as far as I'm concerned, which is why I think it's poinless if there are no plans to have any. If you take the perspective that gay adoption is wrong (which is a point of view which I've already explained), then all gay marriages would be childless. In which case, why the hell can't they be happy with civil partnerships, which offer all the same rights? All they're campaigning for is the right to call it a 'marriage'.

While I agree that adoption should be disallowed for homosexual couples, I think it's ridiculous to remove a person's marital rights because of their sexuality. Most people marry for reasons besides bringing up their own children; it's not pointless. If you're arguing that legislation should be brought to abolish gay marriage because they cannot bring up children, then I assume you're also arguing that married heterosexual couples must have children?

spiraldoor wrote:I cannot bring myself to believe that a child can be raised without a mother and not suffer any negative consequences at all.

So you are narrow-minded after all, then. Debating with you is pointless. You really piss me off, you know. Not because you disagree with me, not because you won't change your mind, but because you openly declare that you won't change your mind no matter what. [Edit: That's a little to harsh. Sorry.]

Tobbe wrote:Debating with you is pointless.

That's the conclusion I came to. I don't have the feeling he's been reading my post at all before answering it.

Xenon wrote:While I agree that adoption should be disallowed for homosexual couples, I think it's ridiculous to remove a person's marital rights because of their sexuality. Most people marry for reasons besides bringing up their own children; it's not pointless. If you're arguing that legislation should be brought to abolish gay marriage because they cannot bring up children, then I assume you're also arguing that married heterosexual couples must have children?

No, I'm not. I personally just don't see the purpose of marriage if not to protect children's rights. What do you think the purpose is?

I support civil partnerships for homosexuals as a perfectly good alternative to marriage which gives them all the legal rights they want, but like you I still don't think they should be allowed to adopt while their are plenty of straight couples who would like to.

Tobbe wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:I cannot bring myself to believe that a child can be raised without a mother and not suffer any negative consequences at all.

So you are narrow-minded after all, then. Debating with you is pointless. You really piss me off, you know. Not because you disagree with me, not because you won't change your mind, but because you openly declare that you won't change your mind no matter what.

I will change my mind when I am presented with proof that a child can grow up without a mother and suffer no negative emotional and psychological consequences at all. From my own experience I don't think that this will always be the case. Don't say that I declared that I wouldn't change my mind no matter what; that's not true. I never said anything like that. Xenon expressed a similar perspective:

Xenon wrote:If a child doesn't have a female parent then it wouldn't benefit from the unique motherly chemistry other kids get. Also mothers are generally better at basically teaching the child its right and wrongs, et cetera, so having gay "parents" could decelerate cognitive development.

You didn't seem to have a problem with his views, though.

Tobbe wrote:May you never pass your genetic material on to future generations, you utter twat.

What the hell? Why is it that whenever I get into a debate with you it must always devolve into childish name-calling? I have shown you respect, regardless of what I may think of your views. The least you could do is refrain from hurling personal insults at me.

No, I'm not. I personally just don't see the purpose of marriage if not to protect children's rights. What do you think the purpose is?

Well most people marry to maintain conventions, but there's also a certain spiritual/emotional feeling of unity - I mean, I would like to marry when I'm older so that I can "officially" feel united with my partner. In any case, it might seem pointless to some people but that doesn't constitute a reason to legislate against it.

JFC I go away from here for more than 24 hours and this trainwreck happens, WTF man?

To be honest I'm rather indifferent on homosexual adoption, it's too much of a rare occurrence anyway for me to have a strong opinion of.

If anyone carries on being a raging homophobe here, I WILL take tings away. >8C

StaceyW wrote:If anyone carries on being a raging homophobe here, I WILL take tings away. >8C

Well so far I haven't seen any such behaviour so I guess it would be better if everyone respected each other's opinion, including spiraldoor's.

I can respect his opinion, not his narrow-mindedness.

I'll say again: I have nothing against the people's gender tastes. So I respect every opinion here.

Xenon wrote:

...I apologise if I misunderstood you, but it seems to me after reading this that you don't mind a lesbian couple adopting, but not a gay couple...?

Yep, you did misunderstand me

Hang on then....in that case, what WERE you trying to say?

Hang on then....in that case, what WERE you trying to say?

That mothers play an important role in a child's upbringing.

OK change of subject.

I was at work today and someone apparently brought in these French biscuit things. They had a dark chocolate topping and inside was a cream filling that's pear flavoured. They were quite nice. Do any of you Frenchies know what I mean?