BananaBender: 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 answer, this is me mocking your stup1dity just with much less insults.

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

BananaBender:

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?

Sagamite:
.........

TV01:

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.


I would say I answered this question before at some point on this thread. But let me do it again.

Is there a line for totally against or for abortion? Are there grey areas?would you consider someone who supports abortion in some instances but rejects it in other instances as truly for or against?

I support abortion for many of the reasons I stated before. I know many people do too. I know that there are men who will scream murder at the mention of abortion but when affected by the case of their wives or daughters being rapedd will then succumb to become 'somewhat' supporters.

so yes TV there's room for selectivity.

Even if you deny it until tomorrow,90 percent of prolifers will suddenly become prochoice if the pregnancy has more demerits than merits.

as much as I don't and won't tell a young girl to go have an abortion just because,
I won't play the card of being totally against it when I don't know how I would react if faced with one of those dire reasons or situations that make abortion the reasonable way out.

I expect a TRUE prolifer to:
1)Accept a pregnancy concieved of rape whether of herself or his wife or his/her daughter
2) To take the chance at death even if the pregnancy is 90 percent high risk.to welcome death first rather even think of abortion.

3) To have the child or support having the child even if the father impregnanted his daughter or son impregnated the mother.

4) To go ahead and give birth to a severely deformed child whatever the case maybe. Even if the child will be subjected to a life of pain and misery and bedridden existence. Just don't abort. For any reason.

If they will heed medical advice and have an abortion because the pregnancy could kill the mother then they don't get off to calling themselves prolifers. That's where selectivity comes in.

So TV which do you belong to? Class of all or nothing?


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.

and unlike in incesst where we have medical proof that the kids can be affected,there's no real medical proof yet that kids in homosexual homes will be affected. And you must understand that is not my position but a position I've grudginly been relegated to until I can prove otherwise.


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.

just like the whole acceptance for incesst is that they are allowed to have kids too. In each case,I would say let the parents be together if they want to but since their union can affect the kids,they can be together on the condition that they have no kids.
Is that partial acceptance? Whatever.

That's how I feel about both cases. But My feelings hold no water as far as the law is concerned. So I've to at least state my opinion based on fact.
We have fact that incestuous unions affects kids. But no fact that homosex unions affect the kids. We have good points to earn us some marks in a debate but nothing that can't be disproved by the opponent.if a point can be disproved that means it won't be considered when the laws are being made.

Unlike in incestuos unions. The supporters can't disprove the fact that it hurts the kids. Hence we have the upper hand.

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.

I never said that TV.(Assumptions). I'm of the opinion that kids need a father and a mother.I am of the opinion that homosex parents should not adopt kids. But that's just my opinion. Can it hold sway in the face of criticism?. Can I truly expect changes to be made because of my opinion and not something I can prove?

All points raised against homosex parents have a 'nullifier' when compared directly to heterosex parents. So until I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that homosex parents are not fit to raise kids,I just have to keep my opinion about their right to adopt kids to myself. No need engaging in lost debates with them.


TV

Sagamite:

You are a cretinous person!

Can you see what Fisk University has done to your thinking abilities now?

So I said: "As two homosexuals cannot procreate, a child will always feel something is missing. Hence homosexual parenting is inferior to natural parenting."

And you interpreted it as: "Good parenting is swayed by the parents s*xual deviancy"?

And you are still denying you are not a person?

BananaBender:
*sigh*

It's 4:35am, and I'm wasting my precious time hoping that you would act your age.

Tell me the sort of identity you mean that heterosexuals are capable of having that homosexuals can't.

You keep on thinking with the idea of the "norm" you have in your head. Children of homosexuals would not suffer any identity crises that adopted kids wouldn't.

People find their identity wherever they choose to find it. I am yet to understand your noise making.

BananaBender:

You are just hiding your foolery. You jumped from "something" is missing to parenting skills being inferior. You are yet to tell us this mysterious "something".

*sigh*

You are mixing things up, thanks for quoting me. I am accusing you of jumping into a conclusion that doesn't make sense based on your premise.

My quote was mocking the fact that you are dismissing good parenting having a factor in a child's upbringing and totally determining inferior parenting by sexual orientation.

Sagamite:

You are a cretinous person!

You are now looking for a way to run?

You want to jump out of the window of the slaughter abattoir?

TELL US how you ended up with you Fisk interpretation and how you came to the conclusion anyone said homosexuals don't have an identity.

You have this level of comprehension and Fisk gave you a degree and pushed you out as a "graduate"?

BananaBender:

What are you going on about??

What is all this hog-wash?

Do you have a stone for a brain?

LMAO! You must be very verbose and redundant in arguments if you feel a need to talk about something(identity) that plays no part in your argument.

This roundabout is becoming a lil irritating, you could state your point you know.

Sagamite:

You are a cretinous person!

So if I say a Toyota Camry has an inferior driving performance to a Range Rover, according to the teachings at Fisk university, that means I said cars are not good if made by Toyota?

Can you see how dumb you are?

Sagamite:

You are a cretinous person!
You think it is SAGAMITE you can deviate from your lack of comprehension before moronically jumping on the thread with your Fisk education thinking "Yes, I am making sense".
Me? SAGAMITE?
person, did you comprehend before moronically making your daft, disjointed and unstructured statements?

BananaBender:

I never accused you of saying Toyota cars can't be good. I'm accusing you of not having a logical proof that Toyota's (the maker) process of making vehicles is inferior to that of Land Rover.

Let me try to break this down to a lower level. Let's start from the beginning. *sigh* (This dude is ridiculous)

How did you determine that homosexual parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting?

BananaBender:

Are you always this pathetic? Or today is just a bad day?

Calm down, I'm not going to beat you.

cococandy: So TV are you prolife or prochoice.?

Good morning and thank you too

TV01:

I'm pro-life.

Take rape - two wrongs do no tmake a right, up to 80% or preganacies concieved in rape are kept. Not that I would force anyone raped to keep the pregnancy, that doen not ever make abortion a morally good or neutral choice. The statistical percentage of abortions for rape is ,!%

Take the risk of death - we keep both alive until we have to induce labour or the mother will die. Unfortunately the baby may not survive delivery. But we don't kill the baby. The termination of life is never the answer to the dilemna of death.

Take deformity - life is a precious gift from God. Fact is we are all "born deformed" - abi you no see our ways on NL ? - the key is to avoid behaviours or pairingd that may give rise to deformity and treat with humanity and dignity those that suffer from it. It's a reverse argument for euthanasia - do we kill the aged as they start to become deformed.

There are no moral or humane arguemnts for abortion - Pro-choice for life - pun intended.


TV

Sagamite:

You are a cretinous person!

Where in my statement did you see me make a statement about homosexual parent's process of child-rearing?

BananaBender:

Parenting nigga, parenting!

cococandy:

Sagamite: The moronic Fisk person has realised I have exposed her lack of comprehension folly and now wants to deviate the argument by asking questions.

When you fail your SATs and end up at Fisk out of all the universities in the USA, of course your brain will stall and not develop.

Simple comprehension of arguments na challenge, but twerking is eeeeasy!

TV01:

As for homosex - 2 or more parents of the same sex can never substitute for 1 of each.
The sublte differences and input from both parents is key to ensuring a well-rounded individual.
The physiological and psycholigical changes both parents undergo are different, as are the skills and contriburtions of each.

Look closely, you'll find studies that tell you same-sex parenting is as good (or even better) than mixed sex parenting - it's junk science. We don't have the requisite sample sizes or benefit of historicity of SSM to conduct a comprehensive study. But we don't really need it as stated above. A same sex couple cannot deliver what a miced sex couple can - ATBE.

And I say this knowing that a mixed couple does not gaurantee success and that there will be some cases of ss couples offspring doing well. Just like in single parent homes.



TV

cococandy: They are being sensible in applying the laws of human rights.
And being sensible requires some measure of selectivity.

cococandy: Ok. Glad you're staunch in your position.
At least you're clear about that.

One more thing would that still be your stand if it happened to your wife or daughter?

Sagamite:

You are a cretinous person!

If you want it in your language:

Where in my statement did you see me make a statement about homosexual parent's process of parenting?

TV01:

My position remains the same - although I appreciate it wouldn't be solely my call.

And the "right to choose" is not pursued by it's advocates on a selective basis. So there is really no middle ground - however hard you try to find it.

Did you find inconsistencies in my position?

TV

cococandy: An opinion I share too.

Problem is,is there enough proof of that to make a law that bans homosex parents from adopting kids?

The last paragraph being the winning line they will have over every argument against them

cococandy:
Never mind if it's your call or not. Just wanted to know your position.

No. No inconsistencies per your words.

I will abort if I'm rapped,if the pregnency could take my life or both our lives or if the baby will be born severely deformed.
So I'm prochoice. I think that's consistent.
But if I told a young girl that having an abortion just because is wrong,she might think I'm prolife. Hence giving the impression of inconsistency.

I find people who say they are prolife but will heed medical advice to save a mother's life by abortion as inconsistent.
They will claim prolife but can't accept their wives with a baby she concieved from being rap'ed.

In order words,the right to life shouldn't be pursued by it's advocates selectively. So when next someone is 'prolifing' alongside you,try find out their true position in cases like that.
That message may do them good.

You'd be surprised at how many prolifers are actually prochoice.

TV01:

Especially in light of the fact I noted earlierabout the wellbweing of a child being directly related to the knowledge of their ancestry, culture and biological heritage.
Same sex homes cannot provide this and the child will eventually come to realise that a large part of their identity is missing.

BananaBender:

Again, how is this "missing identity" different from the experience an adopted child might have in a heterosexual home??

TV01:
The case of an adopted child is not by design. We recognise it as remedial, unfortunate and to be avoided at all costs. We don't legislate for it as "good and proper".

Plus, a heterosexual couple will graft the child into their lineage. The feeling of affection, love and embrace will not be any different and the child will identify with that.

BananaBender:
Adoption should be avoided at all costs?? Is that what you meant to say??

BananaBender:
I'm pretty sure a homosexual couple could do the same for their adopted child. What makes the "affection, love or embrace" different?

BananaBender:
Homosexuals are regular people, you know that right?