2 Dads, 5 Kids.

[Sander]

It doesn't mean that that they won't' date=' either. Stop using arguments like this; it goes both ways.

[/quote']

 

Nice way of only quoting THAT part of my post and completely ignoring the rest of my post.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yes' date=' you.

[/quote']

 

Population control, and try quoting next time.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Just because the parents are gay' date=' doesn't mean the kids will be. Just the children will be more social-ably tolerant to minorities.

[/quote']

 

Just because the kids could grow up and be tolerant about gays/other minorities, doesn't mean that they will. Not all kids have the traits to see through the bullshit that is spewed onto them by the people who hate gay people/other minorities, and by the time that they grow up, the bullshit has already f***ed up their judgment.

 

And Under the same right, a child who's raised in the most closed basket-ed household could just as well turn out in any sexual or otherwise preference. I saw a few documentaries on children who lives in strict militant households and still ended up Gay/Lesbian far before they knew what either was.

 

So yeah... No ones argument AGAINST this works. (Yay I was half right on the response with Raver). Not to mention, one of the fathers is the actual father as far as I could tell. So even more so it's alright.

[Lyfe.]

Everything on TV is stupid. Everyone not on TV is stupid.

 

People do what they want. Media gets alerted. Events are put onto TV. People watch. People get involved.

 

Stupid.

[Zexaeon]

Yes' date=' you.

[/quote']

 

Population control, and try quoting next time.

 

One would think quoting is unnecessary if the post being referred to is right above the response.

 

And what about Population Control? You can't just cite two words as your reasoning without actually explaining their significance. What, you're concerned over too much population? Too little? What?

[Frunk]

WHO CARES? EVERYBODY'S JUST GOING TO DIE EVENTUALLY ANYWAY!!! MOOT ARGUMENT!!! MOOT ARGUMENT!!!

[Luna Lovegood]

"The kids would be bullied forever" And I wonder who would bully them? The kids of the people who said this, perhaps?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yes' date=' you.

[/quote']

 

Population control, and try quoting next time.

 

One would think quoting is unnecessary if the post being referred to is right above the response.

 

And what about Population Control? You can't just cite two words as your reasoning without actually explaining their significance. What, you're concerned over too much population? Too little? What?

It takes two seconds and eliminates all uncertainty.

 

What I mean is rather obvious. Two people take in five. Following this path, we're going to overpopulate and cause the downfall of our Earth. Greedy acts such as this are sickening.

[Womi]

"The kids would be bullied forever" And I wonder who would bully them? The kids of the people who said this' date=' perhaps?

[/quote']

 

So true.

[BehindTheMask]

2) You are using fear-mongering as an argument.

 

You used a possible and unlikely scenario as an argument. :?

 

In a debate' date=' one must consider all possibities. The reason his argument is fallacious is that it doesn't have any substance other than pandering to emotions to make people agree with him, rather than have an argument that can actually be discussed.

 

Yes' date=' you.

[/quote']

 

Population control, and try quoting next time.

 

One would think quoting is unnecessary if the post being referred to is right above the response.

 

And what about Population Control? You can't just cite two words as your reasoning without actually explaining their significance. What, you're concerned over too much population? Too little? What?

It takes two seconds and eliminates all uncertainty.

 

What I mean is rather obvious. Two people take in five. Following this path, we're going to overpopulate and cause the downfall of our Earth. Greedy acts such as this are sickening.

 

grape YEAH

[Guest JoshIcy]

Yes' date=' you.

[/quote']

 

Population control, and try quoting next time.

 

One would think quoting is unnecessary if the post being referred to is right above the response.

 

And what about Population Control? You can't just cite two words as your reasoning without actually explaining their significance. What, you're concerned over too much population? Too little? What?

It takes two seconds and eliminates all uncertainty.

 

What I mean is rather obvious. Two people take in five. Following this path, we're going to overpopulate and cause the downfall of our Earth. Greedy acts such as this are sickening.

 

2 people take in 5. Out of what... 10'000 people? 2 people take in 1 or 2 in most families. The 3 extra outweigh the differential in most families with 1 child. Not such a bad thing.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yes' date=' you.

[/quote']

 

Population control, and try quoting next time.

 

One would think quoting is unnecessary if the post being referred to is right above the response.

 

And what about Population Control? You can't just cite two words as your reasoning without actually explaining their significance. What, you're concerned over too much population? Too little? What?

It takes two seconds and eliminates all uncertainty.

 

What I mean is rather obvious. Two people take in five. Following this path, we're going to overpopulate and cause the downfall of our Earth. Greedy acts such as this are sickening.

 

2 people take in 5. Out of what... 10'000 people? 2 people take in 1 or 2 in most families. The 3 extra outweigh the differential in most families with 1 child. Not such a bad thing.

We can try applying this to things like global warming and pollution, but it doesn't work. We all have to do something about it. 2, 1, or 0 is the only way to go IMO.

[Zexaeon]

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt, how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they didn't adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

[Dark]

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt' date=' how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they [i']didn't[/i] adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

 

I agree completley, especially with the last sentence.

 

If we are going to discriminate against homosexuals, why don't we repeal laws that give non-whites the ability to do things, and get rid of all female rights, and discriminate against religion?

 

There really isn't much of an argument to support the banning of homosexuals adopting kids except for 'the bibl sayd gay ppl baad'. =/

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt' date=' how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they [i']didn't[/i] adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

They should have only taken one or two of them, as opposed to all five of them. But I didn't read if they were all related children. If they were I would actually agree that raising them would be the best option.

 

I agree completley' date=' especially with the last sentence.

 

If we are going to discriminate against homosexuals, why don't we repeal laws that give non-whites the ability to do things, and get rid of all female rights, and discriminate against religion?

 

There really isn't much of an argument to support the banning of homosexuals adopting kids except for 'the bibl sayd gay ppl baad'. =/

[/quote']

What the hell? That has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

[Dark]

Yeah, I tried adding a new topic, since you guys are beating the topic of 'population' to death.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yeah' date=' I tried adding a new topic, since you guys are beating the topic of 'population' to death.

[/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure the gay stuff was beaten into Earth's mantle a page ago.

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

This thread disgusts me. So many homophobes. Illinois at least in my area has made it so gays can't adopt or give blood. As for gay marriage, in America, a politician will be labeled anti-american because they based their vote on their religious views. Anyone remember the 1st amendment? It includes the words "separation of church and state" I personally believe that every politician that is given the right to determine gay marriage rulings be put under a polygraph and asked the question "what did you base your vote upon"

 

As for the gay couple being two pedophiles, your argument is invalid because every state has restrictions on sex offenders including but not all "no adoption rights, no parental rights, tracking chips, registration, given routes for getting around, a certain limits between buildings such as schools and daycares and the pedo themself.

 

I don't believe in religious gay marriage because America can't do that.

Society(gov't) is only recently changing because of Obama. Beating up a gay person because they are gay is a hate crime and you get several years of jail. Gays can sue businesses for discrimination now.

 

History has shown that homosexuality was normal in a majority of countries except for European countries. In Greece they had feminine festivals for lesbians in which they would party and have orgys.

In Asia it was accepted as well as was polygamy.

 

Homosexuality was seen as normal and alright until two certain religions(mainly the same)came into play and started taking over the world. I'm guessing everyone thought up the same religions as I did.

 

Christianity and Catholicism are to blame as well as the turn of centuries that added to the brainwashing.

 

EDIT: I'll be back to add more as soon I learn about Africa's history. *goes to wikipedia*

---

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt' date=' how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they [i']didn't[/i] adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

They should have only taken one or two of them, as opposed to all five of them. But I didn't read if they were all related children. If they were I would actually agree that raising them would be the best option.

 

I agree completely' date=' especially with the last sentence.

 

If we are going to discriminate against homosexuals, why don't we repeal laws that give non-whites the ability to do things, and get rid of all female rights, and discriminate against religion?

 

There really isn't much of an argument to support the banning of homosexuals adopting kids except for 'the bible said gay ppl baad'. =/

[/quote']

What the hell? That has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

 

It is a valid argument though. Women and non-whites were discriminated as well but not in the same way. So if you're a female or a non-white person then let's take away your freedom of speech and freedom to vote. Is that what you want?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt' date=' how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they [i']didn't[/i] adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

They should have only taken one or two of them, as opposed to all five of them. But I didn't read if they were all related children. If they were I would actually agree that raising them would be the best option.

 

I agree completely' date=' especially with the last sentence.

 

If we are going to discriminate against homosexuals, why don't we repeal laws that give non-whites the ability to do things, and get rid of all female rights, and discriminate against religion?

 

There really isn't much of an argument to support the banning of homosexuals adopting kids except for 'the bible said gay ppl baad'. =/

[/quote']

What the hell? That has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

 

It is a valid argument though. Women and non-whites were discriminated as well but not in the same way. So if you're a female or a non-white person then let's take away your freedom of speech and freedom to vote. Is that what you want?

Oh geeze, you're like those people that claim everything is racist. I never said I disagreed, it simply has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt' date=' how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they [i']didn't[/i] adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

They should have only taken one or two of them, as opposed to all five of them. But I didn't read if they were all related children. If they were I would actually agree that raising them would be the best option.

 

I agree completely' date=' especially with the last sentence.

 

If we are going to discriminate against homosexuals, why don't we repeal laws that give non-whites the ability to do things, and get rid of all female rights, and discriminate against religion?

 

There really isn't much of an argument to support the banning of homosexuals adopting kids except for 'the bible said gay ppl baad'. =/

[/quote']

What the hell? That has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

 

It is a valid argument though. Women and non-whites were discriminated as well but not in the same way. So if you're a female or a non-white person then let's take away your freedom of speech and freedom to vote. Is that what you want?

Oh geeze, you're like those people that claim everything is racist. I never said I disagreed, it simply has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

did I say that you were racist? Anyway that clock is racist, google is racist, god is racist, Hank hill is racist D<

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Since if you're initial argument was that they shouldn't adopt' date=' how is this at all relevant? Those five kids, if they were all being adopted, would all have existed already. What difference would it make if they spent the rest of their lives in an orphanage rather than with 2 gay parents? You can't claim the problem is with overpopulation, because even if they [i']didn't[/i] adopt those kids, they'd still be part of the population, so it's not as though not adopting will decrease the global population by any amount.

 

Besides, if you're so concerned about population control, then adopting should be the ideal solution here. It means the parents get kids without having to add more people to the world.

They should have only taken one or two of them, as opposed to all five of them. But I didn't read if they were all related children. If they were I would actually agree that raising them would be the best option.

 

I agree completely' date=' especially with the last sentence.

 

If we are going to discriminate against homosexuals, why don't we repeal laws that give non-whites the ability to do things, and get rid of all female rights, and discriminate against religion?

 

There really isn't much of an argument to support the banning of homosexuals adopting kids except for 'the bible said gay ppl baad'. =/

[/quote']

What the hell? That has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

 

It is a valid argument though. Women and non-whites were discriminated as well but not in the same way. So if you're a female or a non-white person then let's take away your freedom of speech and freedom to vote. Is that what you want?

Oh geeze, you're like those people that claim everything is racist. I never said I disagreed, it simply has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

did I say that you were racist? Anyway that clock is racist, google is racist, god is racist, Hank hill is racist D<

You're acting like I disagreed with him. I said it was irrelevance and you responded by saying it was true, which doesn't matter at all.

[Zexaeon]

I'm still confused on your stance here, Corporal.

 

What does it matter if the kids are related or not? It doesn't do anything negative for population control if the couple adopts five kids.

[Saturn of Elemia]

I don't see what the problem is. So they're gay. Big deal?

 

People just blow things out of proportion just so they have something to complain about.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

I'm still confused on your stance here' date=' Corporal.

 

What does it matter if the kids are related or not? It doesn't do anything negative for population control if the couple adopts five kids.

[/quote']

Other people willing to adopt may have to go through means you mentioned before to create new kids.

[Zexaeon]

There are tons of kids available for adoption all across the country. It's actually a pretty notable problem that there simply aren't enough willing parents to adopt them all. I fail to see how allowing a slew of new, willing parents into the adoption ring causes any problems where this is concerned.