Moderator: Community Team

No i did not forget that part of the question Snorri ... that was the knockout punch after all!Snorri1234 wrote:jiminski, you forget to mention the "preferable" part of the second option. It doesn't add anything except for people to notice that a person growing up with two heterosexual parents would have less problems regarding acceptance. (As in, being bullied because their parents aren't "normal".)
I mean, someone was asking for a Yes, but heterosexual is preferable- option!
Never thought I would be called a bigot for recognizing what is naturally good, but I guess you can count me in too. I think it's natural for kids to be raised by a father and a mother so I'm a bigot. Woohoo!meme wrote:Add me to the list of bigots. I believe that kids should be raised by a father and mother. It's worked well for centuries and now people are trying to change it so they can think of themselves as enlightened.
Norse wrote: But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
i did take up the charge a bit earlier in the thread, but as the numbers continue to go in a certain direction, im reminded that it doesnt do any of like minded thinkers (to me at least) any good to end up becoming the things we speak out against.suggs wrote:tonk, i see as usual you are trying to be balanced-thats admirable.
But sometimes you have to take a stand, otherwise you end up in moral cul-de-sac. I do call people who disagree with the assertion "yeah, being is fine, obviously"-because they are.
likewise, undoubtedly Hitler had a rough childhood-but lets not be too balanced eh?
Come on man the question has skewed the result and purposely contorted the debate.bradleybadly wrote:
Never thought I would be called a bigot for recognizing what is naturally good, but I guess you can count me in too. I think it's natural for kids to be raised by a father and a mother so I'm a bigot. Woohoo!
i have a hunch if you ran the poll without the qualifiers you wouldnt get much dissent.jiminski wrote:Come on man the question has skewed the result and purposely contorted the debate.
Stright-forward question:
Should Homosexual couples have the right to adopt?
the answer would be very different without the qualifications:
Yes, in all circumstances, treated just as heterosexual couples are in applications
No, a heterosexual couple is preferable
No opinion
It cleverly changes the goalposts to 'is one thing preferable' where in the first instance it asks an ultimatum question as to 'whether it should be possible at all'!
this shepherds those who may think it is acceptable but not preferable to vote that that it should not be acceptable at all.
I believe your idea here is that all children have a right to have both a mother and a father, yes?Napoleon Ier wrote:Being raised by two gay men is unnatural! It also tramples the rights of children!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Qft.Neoteny wrote:I refuse to vote due to the wording of the poll, but I keep running into the same responses on these gay/straight debates. "Natural. Traditional. Right." With the exception of natural, these are all relative to the current zeitgeist, and I think that "natural" does not always mean moral. It is natural to have sex with as many people as we can to spread our seed as much as possible and have as many kids as possible. Nobody (should) thinks that's a good thing, and rightly so. I'll say again, what is traditional is not necessarily right (sacrificing virgins), and neither is what is "right" at any given time (slavery).
And for those talking about being bigots, if you think restraining the rights of a population that is different than you is a good thing, whether you think they are "right" or "wrong," then you unfortunately fit the term. I really don't like that people are religious, and I hate their religion, but I would not, in any way, want to restrict their rights.
rambos poodle wrote:I am lesbian as a few of you know with a nearly 15 year old daughter
that is very much heterosexual in her out look on life ,she has boy friends and lots of mates that stay over with us and she stays with there parents for stay overs .
And the only difference i can see in my daughter and her mates is that she and her mates are less likely to stereo type people just for there sexual
orientations or beliefs .
And just a point to remember in this most homosexuals start of in a heterosexual house hold of two parents , and it does not make us heterosexual.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Yeh this is an important point. Although I can only comment from study at undergrad level (and that was fairly minor) social historians trace the nuclear 'mother, father, children' family group back only somewhere between 200-300 years. Previous to that (i.e. for millennia) kinship groups were the norm. The whole 'you need a mother and father' thing was wide of the mark. Everyone in the community or group had a contribution to upbringing.btownmeggy wrote:It takes a village.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.