There's more than a 50percent chance for the child to be born normal.(First filial generation that is)
Even at 5 percent chance of abnormality,I won't support it.
Because as it goes,it increases.

If there was a hundred percent chance of the kids being born normal,I won't support it. I'll only mind my business.

crackhaus:
I have read your response to him, you did not humour me.

If there's a 50% possibility that the offspring from an incestuous relationship will be born normal, would you support it then?

HARTZIV:
u forgot the ugly and and stupid people
they have a high risk of getting ugly and stupid children

its irresponsible to allow them to reproduce

ne child deservs to be ugly and stiupid

True.

First 10 percent is a big percentage.
Second did you study genetics?
Third if the law is allowed,what stops the brother and sister born of the same brother and sister union to mate or marry?
( They most likely might want to since their brother and sister parents were happy together)

Which increases the chance to 80percent.

What stops the grand kids borne of this same brother and sister mating/ marrying within their own nuclear family or from the next branch of the family tree(cousins)?

Does the law now make sense to you?
Or will your hatred for gays not let you still see it?

You're the one speaking from a position of disgust. Stop projecting.

I'm amazingly detached from what other chose to do.as long as the next person isn't affected
You're clearly not.
This is all about gayism

pickabeau1:

So with all the facts that only 10 to 30 percent of kids from an incestuous relationship are at risk of congenital defects..you continue spouting this your line?


Do u think kids raised in a 2 father or 2 mother scenario are better than those raised by a man n woman who JUST happen to be related

Are u advocating sterilisation of couples with genetic issues so they don't have kids who will be a disturbance to you

Heck..why not make laws to sterilise parents who could have genes with downs syndrome since it affects the next generation

Coco's.world..where disgust determines which laws reign

crackhaus:
I wonder if this was supposed to make 'us' feel bad...

Remember that thin line between confidence and cockiness again?

You want to set limits to my confidence by calling it cockiness?

Well, the man in my life has taught me NOT to have such limits. Notice the difference?
Now this was supposed to make you feel some bitter-sweet pain pain.




Playing the music loud and clean-dancing.

[img]http://3.bp..com/-5UlMGLLV-CY/Uu8KX88NdCI/AAAAAAAADeQ/pdDN-06ePCw/s1600/cleaning-gif.gif[/img]

cococandy: There's more than a 50percent chance for the child to be born normal.(First filial generation that is)
Even at 5 percent chance of abnormality,I won't support it.
Because as it goes,it increases.

If there was a hundred percent chance of the kids being born normal,I won't support it. I'll only mind my business.

Glad you corrected me.

So after all that you typed here, you would still support abortion I presume?
The exceptions you listed in your reply to saga does not even account for up to 20% of all abortion cases, so why should it not be made illegal?

If even at 100% chance of kids being born normal, you won't support sibling relationships... then at just 20% of abortion cases being related to those exceptions you listed, you should also not support it.
Both are borne out of the instinctual need to speak up for the unborn child, don't you think so?

Sagamite:

Your problem is that you don't know who my FAAAADA is.

What a pity!

What do you mean?

Obama would have many arguments and you know them all. This way of thinking would not be 100 % flawless but whose is?



















































I know you will say yours.

carefreewannabe:

He would have many arguments and you know them all. This way of thinking would not 100 % flawless but whose is?

He would expose that the fundamental points of his arguments in favour of homosexuality is illogical and moronic as it is selectively applied.

carefreewannabe:
I know you will say yours.

Of course, yes.

freshdude2: Have you ever lived in Ghana or is this just nationalistic pride speaking?

guess

You presume?

Let me put it this way.

I don't support abortion.
But I support it when a woman is molested
I support it when the child could be born severely deformed
I support it when it poses a risk to both mother and child.

Yet I don't support abortion?
If I would support it under these conditions,why should call myself an anti-abortionist?

Some people who say they don't support abortion would support it under those conditions. What does it make them? Supporters or non-supporters?

At least I like to tell myself the truth. That's the difference between different types of people.

crackhaus:
Glad you corrected me.

So after all that you typed here, you would still support abortion I presume?
The exceptions you listed in your reply to saga does not even account for up to 20% of all abortion cases, so why should it not be made illegal?

If even at 100% chance of kids being born normal, you won't support sibling relationships... then at just 20% of abortion cases being related to those exceptions you listed, you should also not support it.
Both are borne out of the instinctual need to speak up for the unborn child, don't you think so?

Sagamite:

He would expose that the fundamental points of his arguments in favour of homosexuality is illogical and moronic as it is selectively applied.



Of course, yes.

carefreewannabe:

You want to set limits to my confidence by calling it cockiness?

Well, the man in my life has taught me NOT to have such limits. Notice the difference?
Now this was supposed to make you feel some bitter-sweet pain pain.




Playing the music loud and clean-dancing.

[img]http://3.bp..com/-5UlMGLLV-CY/Uu8KX88NdCI/AAAAAAAADeQ/pdDN-06ePCw/s1600/cleaning-gif.gif[/img]

cococandy: First 10 percent is a big percentage.
Second did you study genetics?
Third if the law is allowed,what stops the brother and sister born of the same brother and sister union to mate or marry?
( They most likely might want to since their brother and sister parents were happy together)

Which increases the chance to 80percent.

What stops the grand kids borne of this same brother and sister mating/ marrying within their own nuclear family or from the next branch of the family tree(cousins)?

Does the law now make sense to you?
Or will your hatred for gays not let you still see it?

You're the one speaking from a position of disgust. Stop projecting.

I'm amazingly detached from what other chose to do.as long as the next person isn't affected
You're clearly not.
This is all about gayism

I never said the word disgust.. You did or if not you carefree then....my bad if not you

I don't have any hatred for gays but I wonder if you do

You have not answered any of my q...all u e doing is being defensive

If gays are free and enjoy human rights to love and be loved why should transgender, zoophiles and brother-sister lovers be dened their basic human right

why can't you live and let live


You are seeing your position is becoming tenuous hence deflecting

Its not about me or you


Its about human rights and equality

Or are u not a proponent of equality again

Sagamite:

Please listen for 5 minutes if possible. Alone and loud.


http://tunein.com/radio/AMBIENT-AND-LOUNGE-s153942/

carefreewannabe:

You want to set limits to my confidence by calling it cockiness?

Well, the man in my life has taught me NOT to have such limits. Notice the difference?
Now this was supposed to make you feel some bitter-sweet pain pain.




Playing the music loud and clean-dancing.

I get it, family section gets it, Nairaland and Seun himself gets it...you love your man, he adores you and treats you like his queen, you're both happy with each other and enjoying life.
Why do you keep talking about your relationship with your man still on almost every thread?

I saw someone antagonize you on that earlier today, and like I said WE GET IT!

Now as for your confidence, I'm not trying to limit anything...the woman who will be able to intimidate me hasn't been born yet.
I'm just pointing something to you and that is, you very well occasionally walk the line between confidence and cockiness....friendly gesture, that's all

So are you going to come back to that thread now? You need to explain to me how the 'super-intellectual' carefreewannabe mistakenly referred to herself as a supporter of post-feminist feminism, the exact kind that opposes everything she has stood for on this site.

I still fancy you, so don't think I'm witch-hunting you, same as you cococandy

You're the one who quoted me to say the disgust thing.
If you read it elsewhere, your bad.

I've answered your question a thousand times. A very genuine answer that transcends the right to have sex between two siblings.
If you can't give me a reason how locking up drug dealers is a denial of human rights,then you should have by now seen why ince'sst is outlawed too.

Because for the zillionth time (it affects the next person-the child- negatively).

If you're too stubborn to throw in the towel,your cup of tea.

One wonders if you believe you've to be right all the time.

pickabeau1:

I never said the word disgust.. You did or if not you carefree then....my bad if not you

I don't have any hatred for gays but I wonder if you do

You have not answered any of my q...all u e doing is being defensive

If gays are free and enjoy human rights to love and be loved why should transgender, zoophiles and brother-sister lovers be dened their basic human right

why can't you live and let live


You are seeing your position is becoming tenuous hence deflecting

Its not about me or you


Its about human rights and equality

Or are u not a proponent of equality again

cococandy: You're the one who quoted me to say the disgust thing.
If you read it elsewhere, your bad.

I've answered your question a thousand times. A very genuine answer that transcends the right to have sex between two siblings.
If you can't give me a reason how locking up drug dealers is a denial of human rights,then you should have by now seen why ince'sst is outlawed too.

Because for the zillionth time (it affects the next person-the child- negatively).

If you're too stubborn to throw in the towel,your cup of tea.

One wonders if you believe you've to be right all the time.

I accept your points...
Let's leave this for now..I will get back to you


So let me ask u this

Do you believe gays should be able to adopt a child or have one by surrogacy

cococandy: You presume?

Let me put it this way.

I don't support abortion.
But I support it when a woman is molested
I support it when the child could be born severely deformed
I support it when it poses a risk to both mother and child.

Yet I don't support abortion?
If I would support it under these conditions,why should call myself an anti-abortionist?

Some people who say they don't support abortion would support it under those conditions. What does it make them? Supporters or non-supporters?

At least I like to tell myself the truth. That's the difference between different types of people.

Okay.

pickabeau1:

I accept your points...
Let's leave this for now..I will get back to you


So let me ask u this

Do you believe gays should be able to adopt a child or have one by surrogacy

No.

I did have a debate with one of them some time ago and she won the debate by having more points.

It didn't change my POV but I only stopped arguing about it because I could not prove with facts that such kids are affected by having gay parents.

The most award winning point being that since straight parents raised gay kids,so who are we fooling by saying gay parents will only raise gay kids.(That one got her a million likes)

I still believe every kid needs a dad and mom.
I won't debate that with them again until such a time as when it is PROVEN that kids are affected by gay parents.

Then I'll have substance to back up my stance when next I go against them.

cococandy:

No.

I did have a debate with one of them some time ago and she won the debate by having more points.

It didn't change my POV but I only stopped arguing about it because I could not prove with facts that such kids are affected by having gay parents.

The most award winning point being that since straight parents raised gay kids,so who are we fooling by saying gay parents will only raise gay kids.(That one got her a million likes)

I still believe every kid needs a dad and mom.
I won't debate that with them again until such a time as when it is PROVEN that kids are affected by gay parents.

Then I'll have substance to back up my stance when next I go against them.

OK....interesting.....

crackhaus:

I still fancy you, so don't think I'm witch-hunting you, same as you cococandy

cococandy:

No.

I did have a debate with one of them some time ago and she won the debate by having more points.

It didn't change my POV but I only stopped arguing about it because I could not prove with facts that such kids are affected by having gay parents.

The most award winning point being that since straight parents raised gay kids,so who are we fooling by saying gay parents will only raise gay kids.(That one got her a million likes)

I still believe every kid needs a dad and mom.
I won't debate that with them again until such a time as when it is PROVEN that kids are affected by gay parents.

Then I'll have substance to back up my stance when next I go against them.

It is very simple.

A human's identity is very fundamental to their mental well-being and psyche.

Where you are from? Who are your ancestors? Which country or tribe do you associate with? etc are very fundamental to a complete package of your identity and important to self-worth.

As two homosexuals cannot procreate, a child will always feel something is missing. Hence homosexual parenting is inferior to natural parenting. So it is really child abuse and not in the best interest of the child (contradictory to the normal claim of western philosophy) to create them to be raised in an unnatural family setting.

As for adoption, the one man/one woman model is that natural and societal norm and a better setting than homosexual setting.

Good point.
I'll remember that next time.

Sagamite:

It is very simple.

A human's identity is very fundamental to their mental well-being and psyche.

Where you are from? Who are your ancestors? Which country or tribe do you associate with? etc are very fundamental to a complete package of your identity and important to self-worth.

As two homosexuals cannot procreate, a child will always feel something is missing. Hence homosexual parenting is inferior to natural parenting. So it is really child abuse and not in the best interest of the child (contradictory to the normal claim of western philosophy) to create them to be raised in an unnatural family setting.

As for adoption, the one man/one woman model is that natural and societal norm and a better setting than homosexual setting.

cococandy: Good point.
I'll remember that next time.

If you want more ammo (which Sagamite always has in reserve to bash fcktards), they were cases of Canadian Inuit/Aboriginal kids taken from their natural useless parents (or where orphans) and then put with white parents.

These white parents were all middle-class (and mostly loving) parents who then raised them and gave them the better lives than they would have got. Despite this, many of these kids ended up being fcked up mentally and had a disproportionate part of them ending up having a police record. This is despite living a more privileged and even loving life.

They all felt out of place and it would have been better to leave them with the people they identify with. There identity meant a lot to them.

http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news5.html

Even kids with single-parenthood or step-parenthood have a more disproportionate level of troubled life than kids raised with both natural parents, talkless of homosexual parents.

Love is not everything. Identity and personal history counts a lot.

Ok. Thanks

Sagamite:

If you want more ammo (which Sagamite always has in reserve to bash fcktards), they were cases of Canadian Inuit/Aboriginal kids taken from their natural useless parents (or where orphans) and then put with white parents.

These white parents were all middle-class (and mostly loving) parents who then raised them and gave them the better lives than they would have got. Despite this, many of these kids ended up being fcked up mentally and had a disproportionate part of them ending up having a police record. This is despite living a more privileged and even loving life.

They all felt out of place and it would have been better to leave them with the people they identify with. There identity meant a lot to them.

http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news5.html

Even kids with single-parenthood or step-parenthood have a more disproportionate level of troubled life than kids raised with both natural parents, talkless of homosexual parents.

Love is not everything. Identity and personal history counts a lot.

crackhaus:
I get it, family section gets it, Nairaland and Seun himself gets it...you love your man, he adores you and treats you like his queen, you're both happy with each other and enjoying life.
Why do you keep talking about your relationship with your man still on almost every thread?

I saw someone antagonize you on that earlier today, and like I said WE GET IT!

Now as for your confidence, I'm not trying to limit anything...the woman who will be able to intimidate me hasn't been born yet.
I'm just pointing something to you and that is, you very well occasionally walk the line between confidence and cockiness....friendly gesture, that's all

So are you going to come back to that thread now? You need to explain to me how the 'super-intellectual' carefreewannabe mistakenly referred to herself as a supporter of post-feminist feminism, the exact kind that opposes everything she has stood for on this site.

I still fancy you, so don't think I'm witch-hunting you, same as you cococandy

And you think I fall for this?

Sagamite:

As two homosexuals cannot procreate, a child will always feel something is missing. Hence homosexual parenting is inferior to natural parenting. So it is really child abuse and not in the best interest of the child (contradictory to the normal claim of western philosophy) to create them to be raised in an unnatural family setting.

As for adoption, the one man/one woman model is that natural and societal norm and a better setting than homosexual setting.

See jumping! You be frog? What is this "something" that will be missing that made you jump to the conclusion that homosexual parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting?

Let's follow your logic for a second, single parenting would also be considered child abuse, right? To say good parenting is swayed by the sexual orientation of parents is bullocks.

Aren't homosexuals from heterosexual homes? How can something so "normal" produce something so "abnormal"?

You excused abortion because the one woman/one man model is the "natural and societal norm". We create our societal norms, dude. We determine what is normal. If a child grows up in a society where both parents can be of the same sexx, he sees this as normal. That becomes his normal.

cococandy: Good point.
I'll remember that next time.

Really? You basically giving someone kudos for being scared of change. "It is the norm", it's time we start our new normal. Enough of the old norms.

cococandy: You're trying to make me argue for gay rights.
Sadly I'm indifferent to that ish.

I would be all up in arms against it,if I know of the negative effect it has on anyone apart from the couple.(To me that should be the basis of selectivity)

But I can't find any such reason all the while I've known about it, so I've kept my opinion about it to myself until such a time as when we will have the reason to backed with proof to argue against it.

Cococandy morning, as ever, you make a good fist of it, but much as I try I can’t square the circle you’ve drawn. You’ve clearly stated you agree with a “womans right to choose”. This is not selective. It’s at any stage and for any reason.

You’ve also stated that you are against incest due to the “possible” effects on any offspring – as a direct result of the parents actions. Abortion is the same – there is conflict in your position and it is not resolved by resorting to “selectivity.

Further, your position on homosex is that it’ harms no one except the two involved. But like in the first two instances, there are children involved.

The wholesale acceptance of homosex as moral means they are given the right to adopt and/or procure children via surrogacy. You cannot claim that homosexuality only affects the couple involved when children are part and parcel of the package of rights accorded to them.

At the very least you are saying being raised without a father or mother – and by design – has no deleterious effect on children. Please humour – and impress me – by squaring that circle.


Danke schön


TV

BananaBender:

See jumping! You be frog? What is this "something" that will be missing that made you jump to the conclusion that homosexual parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting?

Let's follow your logic for a second, single parenting would also be considered child abuse, right? To say good parenting is swayed by the sexual orientation of parents is bullocks.

Aren't homosexuals from heterosexual homes? How can something so "normal" produce something so "abnormal"?

You excused abortion because the one woman/one man model is the "natural and societal norm". We create our societal norms, dude. We determine what is normal. If a child grows up in a society where both parents can be of the same sexx, he sees this as normal. That becomes his normal.



Really? You basically giving someone kudos for being scared of change. "It is the norm", it's time we start our new normal. Enough of the old norms.

You are a cretinous person!

The only difference is that, for once, you are trying to use your Fisk University degree to have a debate, instead of showing your usual hooodrat ghetto ranting. But your Fisk education exposes your idiocy.

Now person let me humiliate your Fisk education:

- Show us where I said good parenting is swayed by people's s*xual deviancy (what you called orientation).

We will comeback later to how you disregarded "natural" in your moronic answer.

The rest of your argument is really all over the place which shows Fisk cannot teach someone structured and logical thinking and writing. You guys obviously did not have tutorial sessions where your arguments are presented and challenged. Instead you probably had rowdy rap battles and twerking contests.

From homosexual parenting is inferior, jumped to single parenting is abuse, jumped to good parenting is swayed by s*xual deviancy, jumped to heterosexual parents produce homosexual kids, jumped to abortion, then jumped to societal norms, all under 8 lines. FCK LORD!

May no one in Nigeria be caused again to end up at Fisk University o.

I will have to work hard to force you to structure the way you put down your thoughts.

Oya, chop, chop. Show us the root of your moronic post about what "I said" about good parenting.

Sagamite:

If you want more ammo (which Sagamite always has in reserve to bash fcktards), they were cases of Canadian Inuit/Aboriginal kids taken from their natural useless parents (or where orphans) and then put with white parents.

These white parents were all middle-class (and mostly loving) parents who then raised them and gave them the better lives than they would have got. Despite this, many of these kids ended up being fcked up mentally and had a disproportionate part of them ending up having a police record. This is despite living a more privileged and even loving life.

They all felt out of place and it would have been better to leave them with the people they identify with. There identity meant a lot to them.

http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news5.html

Even kids with single-parenthood or step-parenthood have a more disproportionate level of troubled life than kids raised with both natural parents, talkless of homosexual parents.

Love is not everything. Identity and personal history counts a lot.

Well said Saga. It's been recently published that the biggest single indicator of a childs well-being is their understanding of their cutural, ancesteral - and dare I say it - biological lineage/heritage.


TV

TV01:

Well said Saga. It's been recently published that the biggest single indicator of a childs well-being is their understanding of their cutural, ancesteral - and dare I say it - biological lineage/heritage.


TV

Thanks.

They did not teach some of that at Fisk University.

This is what happens when you lead a miserable life, and you need the internet to affirm your self-worth. This dude is hella trifling.

LMAO! Says the mor0n that goes around NL fighting any and every one that would engage him. You are a hood roach.

Stop being stup1d, you know I went to better schools than anyone in your family. No need for me to brag, but I would love for you to try to disprove that fact.

You get caught being fool1sh, then you start shouting like a rabid dog. Here, "As two homosexuals cannot procreate, a child will always feel something is missing. Hence homosexual parenting is inferior to natural parenting. "

You are comparing parenting between two different sexual orientations. One is inferior to the other because something about it is not sufficient or missing. I would love for you to tell me how this does not insinuate that their sexual orientation affects their parenting. Let's here it, c'mon.

This is not an answer, this is me mocking your stup1dity with much less insults.

Wow! I edited your post and this is all that was meaningful, LORD!

- Show us where I said good parenting is swayed by people's s*xual deviancy (what you called orientation).

Sagamite:

Thanks.

They did not teach some of that at Fisk University.

LoL, what did I just say? Looking for random people online to affirm you. You need NL Sagamite, you really do.

I edited that part of your post for a reason. It's pointless!

Homosexuals do not fall from the sky, they have identities okay?