Gay couples as fit to adopt as heterosexuals: study (7 Viewers)

[Bianconero_Aus]

How about this:

Is having kinky sex a mental disorder? The extra shit isn't necessary for evolution, there's pain involved, and it only occurs in a small percentage of the population?

Does liking blowjobs mean you have a mental disorder? They're not necessary for evolution either.

What about people who masturbate? Surely people who like to jerk off are mentally deranged, as it does nothing for evolution.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Maddy]

What about people who masturbate? Surely people who like to jerk off are mentally deranged, as it does nothing for evolution.

And what about people who use birth control. I'd say they are a bunch of fruitcakes.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. good question. From what I know, bisexuals' sexuality fluctuates throughout their lives.

Someone needs to drop the books, hit real life and experience "sexuality".

 

[Seven]

What about people who masturbate? Surely people who like to jerk off are mentally deranged, as it does nothing for evolution.

Quite clearly they were once in fact considered as mentally deranged. And I'm quite sure if you ask Fred or Ze if they consider their own masturbating okay, they will tell you they don't.

In most Western societies these days the line tends to be drawn the minute your sexual behaviour starts to damage others.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

Quite clearly they were once in fact considered as mentally deranged. And I'm quite sure if you ask Fred or Ze if they consider their own masturbating okay, they will tell you they don't.

In most Western societies these days the line tends to be drawn the minute your sexual behaviour starts to damage others.

If jerking off is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

[Seven]

If jerking off is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

I don't think it's wrong, but you guys act as if it has been well established that it's not. I'd say there are still a whole lot of people who think it's wrong. Right, @Fred, @Zé Tahir?

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

And what about people who use birth control. I'd say they are a bunch of fruitcakes.

- - - Updated - - -



Someone needs to drop the books, hit real life and experience "sexuality".

If you knit...MENTALLY DERANGED.

If you enjoy crossword puzzles...FUCKED IN THE HEAD!

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it's wrong, but you guys act as if it has been well established that it's not. I'd say there are still a whole lot of people who think it's wrong. Right, @Fred, @Zé Tahir?

Fred is disgusted by the sight of penises, I wonder if that includes his own

 

[Maddy]

If you knit...MENTALLY DERANGED.

If you enjoy crossword puzzles...FUCKED IN THE HEAD!

- - - Updated - - -





Fred is disgusted by the sight of penises, I wonder if that includes his own

Good thing he doesn't use it.

- - - Updated - - -

So did we simplify sex to just be about reproduction?

So much for returning to the 18th century and Darwin or even better: tiems of the gospels.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

My favourite phrase

I'm not against gay people, but(t)...

 

[Seven]

Good thing he doesn't use it.

- - - Updated - - -

So did we simplify sex to just be about reproduction?

So much for returning to the 18th century and Darwin or even better: tiems of the gospels.

'We' didn't.

 

[Martin]

i am only discussing if the supreme court has the jurisdiction to 'legalize' gay marriage, and the facts as you say support my view, as enron himself conceded.

I'm not surprised, because at this point in the evolution of our societies the only thing people are interested in discussing anymore is legal details. We are so beyond ethical debates, that stuff is irrelevant now.

That's why so much of the uproar about the Iraq war, Guantanamo, NSA etc is framed in legalistic terms. "Illegal war", "illegal wiretapping".

he did, i said courts dont have the right to change definitions he said no since it happened with voting

I wasn't debating that at all. In fact, just to make it extra clear: I don't give a flying f if the supreme court has or doesn't have the jurisdiction. Why? Because it's a bunch of 70 year old guys in a special club with special clothes and some of the statements that come out of that place are so deranged you wonder which trailer park they were head hunted from.

 

[Seven]

Because it's a bunch of 70 year old guys in a special club with special clothes and some of the statements that come out of that place are so deranged you wonder which trailer park they were head hunted from.

I don't agree with that at all.

But I also think that this debate should not be merely about the jurisdiction of the supreme court. While they may have overstepped their boundaries that changes nothing about the ethical and moral implications of gay marriage or gays adopting children.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I'm not surprised, because at this point in the evolution of our societies the only thing people are interested in discussing anymore is legal details. We are so beyond ethical debates, that stuff is irrelevant now.

That's why so much of the uproar about the Iraq war, Guantanamo, NSA etc is framed in legalistic terms. "Illegal war", "illegal wiretapping".




I wasn't debating that at all. In fact, just to make it extra clear: I don't give a flying f if the supreme court has or doesn't have the jurisdiction. Why? Because it's a bunch of 70 year old guys in a special club with special clothes and some of the statements that come out of that place are so deranged you wonder which trailer park they were head hunted from.

wait so you want me to quote your posts? as for the whole ethical vs legal, that only works when you agree with the one setting up the ethical system, ethics are a personal matter, law is a societal one.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't agree with that at all.

But I also think that this debate should not be merely about the jurisdiction of the supreme court. While they may have overstepped their boundaries that changes nothing about the ethical and moral implications of gay marriage or gays adopting children.

really? who sets these ethics/morals we have to live by?

 

[Seven]

really? who sets these ethics/morals we have to live by?

We do. I'm not saying those are your ethics. They are mine though. And the supreme court can't change those.

 

[Martin]

wait so you want me to quote your posts?

only you could have the hubris to purport to tell me what I meant and what I didn't

 

[GordoDeCentral]

only you could have the hubris to purport to tell me what I meant and what I didn't

does that make you my nemesis?

- - - Updated - - -

We do. I'm not saying those are your ethics. They are mine though. And the supreme court can't change those.

yes but in the case of gay marriage the ethics of a few were imposed on the majority without due process, and thats very wrong

 

[Martin]

does that make you my nemesis?

that's what I keep asking my therapist

 

[Seven]

yes but in the case of gay marriage the ethics of a few were imposed on the majority without due process, and thats very wrong

And we are in agreement on that. But that doesn't change my personal views.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

that's what I keep asking my therapist

imagine, im just a really elaborate prank by one of your friends

 

[Martin]

imagine, im just a really elaborate prank by one of your friends

that's your first truthful statement since 2005

 

[Azzurri7]

Animals tend to fuck whatever sex, doesn't really matter. It's not as if humans are the only ones fucking their same sex. I disagree that it is a mental illness. Hormonal difference yes. Should Gay couples be able to adopt? Yes. A good parent is a good parent, Gay, straight doesn't really matter.

I actually don't care if men are fucking same sex since I enjoy Lesbians myself, as for the adoption, it's one's right to adopt a baby if it's the only way but at the same time it's also baby's right to be raised in a family with a mother.

Either-way, I can assume only that Gay couples adopting babies will have it's side-effect in the future, not near future though.