Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
It is *entirely* irrelevant as just because he says he wants to do something doesn`t mean he can. It is irrelevant to *both* our arguments as it is merely drivel from some puffed up celebrity. When you have an article that warrants serious attention, come back. Until then, don`t waste my time with this trivia.
|
Its only trivia in your opinion because it highlights credibilty that the possiblity of a deliberate attempt to impose sexuall orientation in the rearing of a child does indeed exist, but that does not fit with your argument so you would rather disregard it as hogwash rather than condem that someone would consider performing such a possible action.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
No, you did not. You made a passing reference to their being differences of opinion, outside of the main thrust of the argument in your post, therefore clearly marking it as something separate.
|
It was seperated as it had allready recieved some debate, that doesnt mean if anything new that hadnt allready been said previously, then it is obviously welcome to further that element in this debate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Ok, let's have a laugh and assume you are right. Surely that means that you are a hypocrite for failing to address my question. Again, I ask you, do you advocate child endangerment as a valid option in the face of your prejudices?
|
Again ? dont see how you can ask again when you elected to just conclude before. Ill ignore your ignorant attempt at sarcasm there.
No abuse is good, wether that be physical, sexuall or an atempt of imposition of allsorts of orientations including sexual. The point I made before was I would rather risk my kids to some violence than the risk of imposed sexual deviation or worse sexuall abuse itself, That doesnt mean I dont have a non violent and unbiased sexuall first choice if something untoward was to happen to both me and my wife.
Now unless you have something new to add i'll head on to the others where you selectivly chose to try to debacle the post by incorrectly saying it wasnt balanced, when I was inviting further discussion into other possible scenarios, aswell as anything new on the first mentioned, I have to wonder why, perhaps theres more to the other scenarios than some would like to see.
Is it possible that not all gay unions are in fact happy, could it be that as many gay unions wether they be male or female suffer as much domestic violence pro rata as the hetro counterparts. Perhaps substance abuse is also very high in gays, maybe its higher than in hetro, and could it be that gays are possibly more susceptible to mental health issues including actual suicides and suicidal tendencies.
Is it also possible that gays are less likely to seek counselling for their problems ?
And if that is the case will adding children make the situation worse.
There are times in most hetro households where children can prove to be the most trying of people. If the above was any way near the truth would putting children into the gay couple sector put more gays at an even higher risk from an absolute certain increased strain in their lifestyles.
Theres one difference between this adoption activism and regualr gay rights of age of consent marraige etc.
Children are not a right they are a privelage.