Gay couples as fit to adopt as heterosexuals: study (2 Viewers)

[bianconero]

give us hints on your who is this

It's pretty explosive stuff though.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

There is no good reason why anyone would disallow gay marriage or adoption for gay couples. In fact, in many instances, it would seem that gay or lesbian couples are far more fit than heterosexual couples to adopt children. That being because of a better education, job, or simply being open-minded.

However, the reason some of us don't like the idea of gay people adopting children is because it conflicts with the default norms of our society. People are usually resistant to change, and we like to hold and maintain good old fashioned values because they make us feel safe and assured. It's more to do with our natural human psychology than it does with sheer prejudice, sexism, homophobia etc..

We simply crave fammiliarity and fear the obscured and the mysterious. At least most of us do.

Good post

Except that I would say these terms you listed here: prejudice, sexism, homophobia are precisely those elements of what you called "natural human psychology" that explain these attitudes.

And this is a sound definition of prejudice:

We simply crave fammiliarity and fear the obscured and the mysterious. At least most of us do.

Prejudice means to judge something ahead of time, before you have ever been able to examine it. That's what fear of the unknown is: familiar = good, unknown = bad.

 

[IrishZebra]

Thing is in this debate people are confusing Prereasoned fear with Prejudice.

 

[Martin]

Say what?

 

[IrishZebra]

Rational fear I suppose would be the same thing.

Fear that you can deduce from reasoning I.E. i'd be afraid if soembody put a gun to my head because i may indeed get shot.

Trying to apply that type of fear to this argument (gays will make kids gay/are paedos) is idiotic.

 

[Osman]

Stick with your acting skills offline.

It's cute how he tries to joke his way out of it.

Hehehe.

These two oneliners pretty much defines his predictable M.O, argues like a mofo with inane BS, then tries to act it was a joke all along, he was jesting/smiling while reading/writing it, never was serious about it, this conveniently said only when his feeble posturing it falls flat. Pretty predictable how often I read deflecting comments like "I was never serious" lately

 

[Enron]

You're agains poor people getting married ?

Why should the poor reproduce only to produce more poor?

 

[Fred]

Here, yes. I'm not gonna go on my everyday life telling women how I think they're full of shit, and they should stop trying to manipulate me because I'm smarter than them, and I can see through them like glass. No, I'm not gonna say that out loud in public

Have you read Salman's novel? I think you'd like it

Why should the poor reproduce only to produce more poor?

Are you serious?

 

[Enron]

Are you serious?

Of course. Look at the population problem. The countries that have the highest population densities and highest populations are generally the poorest. In addition to the population problems, you also find higher instances of disease, violence, environmental degradation, and human rights violations. Allowing only people of reasonable affluence and wealth to reproduce would eliminate these issues in a matter of generations. Basically it would be like a social vacuum sucking up the world's litter.

 

[Martin]

So in the end there would only be rich people?

 

[Osman]

Of course. Look at the population problem. The countries that have the highest population densities and highest populations are generally the poorest. In addition to the population problems, you also find higher instances of disease, violence, environmental degradation, and human rights violations. Allowing only people of reasonable affluence and wealth to reproduce would eliminate these issues in a matter of generations. Basically it would be like a social vacuum sucking up the world's litter.

 

[swag]

So in the end there would only be rich people?

In an odd way, that's a goal for a lot of people -- with a deep chasm over the means.

 

[Enron]

So in the end there would only be rich people?

No, we need the middle class to do unimportant labor. They will be the "new poor". But instead there will be more for them, without have to spend billions in Africa, Asia, and the Balkans stopping people from killing each other, catching AIDS, and ultimately slowing the world's progression into a modern society. Now there will be enough wealth for the rich to dole out a decent means of living to those that serve them.

 

[Enron]

You know I'm right. My logic is impeccable, my defense impreganable.

 

[Martin]

You know I'm right. My logic is impeccable, my defense impreganable.

impregnatable?

 

[swag]

You know I'm right. My logic is impeccable, my defense impreganable.

And so is your anus. :eyebrows:

 

[Enron]

impregnatable?

I don't know how to spell it.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Aaron likes it big!

 

[Enron]

Wait a minute. A couple pages back I was preaching human rights. Now I'm promoting feeding the poor to the rich? What is wrong with me!

Later guys.

 

[IrishZebra]

No, we need the middle class to do unimportant labor. They will be the "new poor". But instead there will be more for them, without have to spend billions in Africa, Asia, and the Balkans stopping people from killing each other, catching AIDS, and ultimately slowing the world's progression into a modern society. Now there will be enough wealth for the rich to dole out a decent means of living to those that serve them.

Ah class conflict, that last stumbling block on the road to becomin a human.



Your account got hacked by this guy didn't it.

The poor aren't the root of the problem btw. I hate welfare cases but what you proposes is elitist,classist and just as bad as racism and intolerance which i thought you hated man.