I REALLY HATE POKEMON! wrote:This sort of ties into what I believe. Gays aren't all damaged straight children, but rather that is just one type. Kind of like people who are prison gay; they weren't gay until they were, essentially, damaged.
That's another assumption you've made, though. If potential homosexuals practice homosexual behavior when they are in prison, it does not mean they somehow turned gay all of the sudden.
Except the lesbians are the influence.
The people whom you believe may be lesbians are unlikely to be the only influence on a child. This is just you showing your bias for belief that lesbian parents are a cause. You have provided no evidence, even in this scenario, that the women were actually lovers. You have also provided no evidence to suggest that the child "naturally belonged to one of them. It's likely he was adopted. Or, staying with relatives.
Also, if he were somehow negatively affected by the loss of a father, how did the loss occur? For instance, a child being raised by two women with no apparent father could just as easily have been negatively affected by the traumatic death of his father, and seem to behave awkwardly simply because he has ongoing issues in correlation to that.
What I'm saying here is that you are only examining the superficiality of this supposed instance. You have not observed these women making love. You are not privy to knowledge of their connection to the boy.
You have made no example as to how the boy had been affected negatively by his guardian's behavior.
You haven't even a guarantee that they're actually lesbians, or that they have a normal or stable lesbian relationship if they are. If the source of information is your sister, and she has what I would consider a bigoted attitude, it's just as likely to me that she's imagined the whole thing.
You don't think different races have different qualities? You'd be ignorant for not thinking so. Now, maybe Asians aren't crappy drivers but certainly statistics will shows differences between races. I recall hearing blacks (perhpas it was specifically black women) have a higher rate of cancer, for example.
This is more unintentional racism on your part. Because of racial divisions by circumstance, race coincides with culture. Because race coincides with culture, symptoms of culture can circumstantially reflect on observations of race.
If a black woman is part of a culture that promotes cancer, and most black women are, it will appear to reflect on her race. It does indirectly that people of that race frequently belong to that culture, but that does not mean it is direct.
If a majority of Chinese aboriginals eat food with chopsticks - does that mean all Chinese eat food with chopsticks? That is culturally associated. You can raise a Chinese aboriginal child to have no knowledge of chopsticks. If I observed white people to wear hats, and then I observed some blacks to not wear hats, do whites wear hats because they are white? Your perceptions are acting as a bias, here.
This applies to gays just as easily:
If a gay woman is unstable, is it because she is gay? If, for instance, heterosexuals are not 100% dependably capable of providing stable environments for children to be raised in - There are some which are unqualified to do so. - If there are unqualified heterosexuals, why does a single unqualified homosexual reflect on the entire group? This is your bias, that you are insinuating that one or two people's behavior is damning to an entire group. Inversely, if there were 99 homosexuals unfit to raise children, and 1 that was, is that last one not homosexual because he is qualified to? If you're surrounded by persons incapable of providing a stable household, but you think they're all idiots, how would you feel if someone removed your individuality like that, and said you're just a part of the group that can't have children?
But I would allege that your bias goes further. Because you deny that homosexuality could be naturally occuring, if a straight couple had a gay child, you suggest that something must not have been right in the way the child was brought up.
Frankly, you aren't some master of the art of raising children. The idea that being incapable of raising a child somehow invalidates homosexuality is hilarious. There are plenty of heterosexuals incapable of raising children, but that doesn't mean I'm evil for being heterosexual, or that I'm somehow hurting someone. You're assuming that correlation implies causality.
To state this most directly: In the scenario you provided, assuming all of your assumptions in regard to context are 100% correct, a homosexual couple raised a boy
a different way. If you were somehow automatically accurate, if we assumed that, you still haven't had any proof that this was a direct result of the homosexual relationship. If the child did not behave the same way you would, how do you assume he is inferior for it? Why should he not be allowed to creep you out? Because you
don't like it? And
so...?
Let me replace "likely" with "it's been known to happen, sorry for the lack of citations."
It's inappropriate, and damaging to your argument, to make claims like this without proof. Prove it, or don't use it. The majority of people here aren't going to accept an argument based on it, otherwise.
No, I'd really rather not shut the "f*ck" up, but thanks for the suggestion. Hey, I have one for you too. Take a stance, let your opinion be known, or don't waste a post. And I'd love for you to make me shut the "f*ck" up, by the way. Everybody is Chuck Norris online, rite?
tough guys to the left of me, e-thugs to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you
Pedophilia refers to sexual conduct with someone who is physically undeveloped, and is therefore unlikely to have the ability to procreate at that stage. Perhaps hebephilia and rape would suit procreation, though.
You and I are not in agreement about the use of the term "undeveloped". The ultimate root form of an undeveloped human being is a human being that has not yet come into existence. So we're using the term in a context that means less developed. You are contesting how developed a human may be, before they are considered sexually mature. I do not see that as a hindrance to my argument overall, though:
You're lacking foresight, as many pedophiles prep children for sex later on by exposing them to it as children. Many secluded victims will continue to be molested into adulthood, which is an extension of the pedophile relationship. This may be equally justifiable as a means of procreation as untreated victims often associate sex with
love, and have sex to feel loved. This is called nymphomania, and could lead to a large increase in childbirths in the victim's lifespan, without the use of contraceptives.
You know, rape is a moral issue, which is something of a different topic.
Of course it is, I was just pointing out the absurdity of procreation as some justification. Obviously, it would have to be context sensitive. I don't see it as having any context, though. People have sex without producing children all the time. Guild's the one assigning this value. I don't eat cereal to have children, but apparently it's still okay to do that.
Seems more of a hassle and a waste of time.
It's not like you've tried it. Unless you have? Share your knowledge with us.
Incest, at least in humans, usually results in abnormal offspring. Not such a great plan.
If you'd cite some scientific data, I'll be nice enough to let you use this argument. As such, doesn't seem like you actually have any factual evidence for it. No having any incest-originated children myself, I'm open to the suggestion that incest does not lead universally to abnormalities, or even as frequent as you make out.
Old people weren't always old, men with low sperm counts may be nature's way of weeding out that person's gene pool, and same for sterile women.
So their genetics are now being weeded out of the gene pool? Are you supporting Guild's argument? I don't want to make assumptions, here, but that would be pretty funny to use evolution to justify religious morals.
They're doing it because it feels good, and people tend to do what feels good, and that tends to be good for procreation, if you haven't noticed. Teen pregnancy anyone?
I never got anyone pregnant. Oh, wait, birth control. WHOOPSIE, GOIN TA HELL.
