Sayonara

We may have a common point of reference, but there's a clear difference between identifying the problem and pretending it's something else.

I am sure that a lot of children in that position would be bullied, but is that a reason not to create a family unit, or is it simply highlighting the failure of the bullies' teachers and parents to teach tolerance? There are many ways in which people might live that will give others cause to harrass them. The issue is that the other party has a problem that they need to address. Of course, that's not a very practical thing to tell a child, but the endemic culture of bullying and persecution in schools (and society in general) has to end. Developing a better understanding of what the problems actually are is a good place for anyone to begin.

I am not testing you, nor do I think we necessarily have to come to an agreement. I'm just curious as to how you arrived at these highly defined beliefs about what is normal, and what is moral. I have a specific interest in the reason why if a gay couple do something, it's bad, but if a straight couple do it, it's ok. I think Phi pretty much addressed the rest of your post in much the same way I would have done.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oestrogen I like the way the American Heritage dictionary calls it a "chiefly British variant of estrogen".

Not really true - over time, plasticisers can accumulate in your body. Some have an oestrogenic effect

I am asking why her dad (or any other straight parent/s, adoptive, biological, divorced, married - whatever) can refer his child to someone else, but gay parents can't. Unless what you mean to say is not the same as what you actually typed, you did not answer that question.

I vote for Tetrahedriteiteite.

What does that have to do with the suitability of [specifically] homosexuals as adoptive parents? If you want to show that homosexuals are less deserving of parenthood than heterosexuals, you need to show how things will be different, not how they can be the same. That made no sense as a reply to my question. You can expect whatever you like, but nobody chooses their parents. If you think that two same-sex parents are not morally normal, then you must think of them as either morally abnormal, or immoral. Since biology is self-evidently amoralistic, this view needs to be justified if it is going to be used as an argument. You have yet to show how gay couples are any less capable or deserving in terms of being parents, so that can only be seen as discrimination. The use of the word "disgusting" is suggestive of greater issues, which are yours. Show that it's not right. You couldn't make it a law, because random "I don't like it" reasoning from one person just doesn't wash.

You are a lot more likely to ingest residue from cling film left on food in your refridgerator - plasticisers leach out of it after a couple of days.

Right, so why can't gay adoptive parents do what your dad did?

It's rather handy* for thinks like paleo-botany, for obvious reasons. * well, within reason. Given the half life and all.

Many (and I really do mean many) heterosexual parents explain poorly, or ask someone else to do it (esp. a godparent), so I don't see why homosexuals should be held to some golden standard that isn't likewise being pushed onto anyone else. No, the argument has to be that they are not as well-equipped. The default position is that everyone has the right to be a parent, and that every child has the right to a parent. Society doesn't force anyone else to defend their rights before they can act on them, in a game to which the rules are being made up on the spot, and this is no different.

Here is a graph comparing two populations, where the only difference between the two species is that one is mortal, the other not. Assumptions: Two offspring per breeding pair per generation. Parent generation of mortal species dies when grandchildren born (i.e. mortals only have two sets of offspring.) Formulae: Mortal - Population = Parents*2 - grandparents (The population rise on generation n+1 is the population of generation n, plus that number again (divide by two for breeding pairs, multiply by two for two offspring per pair), minus the population of generation n-1 (grandparents mate then die).) Immortal - Population = parents*2 (Immortals produce two offspring per breeding pair per generation, for their entire lives.) No matter where you set the K boundary, the immortals hit it first. Interpretations?

Surely that's only a valid comparison of adaptive success if K is the same for both species?

Very well: "Please explain all of that again, using sentences and physics, including a demonstration of why our observations of black holes are not, in fact, observations of black holes."

The same ones as everybody else. Absolutely agree. You could probably drop the "personally", in fact, because there's no reason why it should be considered an opinion. Some sort of justification would be nice. Special pleading, and really quite offensive. Afaik they do. Is there some sort of current problem with gay clubs that needs to be addressed? Agree. Some do, some don't. They aren't a special section of the population all sharing the same brain; they're as diverse as any other community. Are you suggesting that a study of gay parents needs to have a 100% shiny happy glossy result in order to come to any sort of favourable result, and that one bad experience will mean they "fail"? Because if so, then you need to apply the same criteria to any study of heterosexual parents, and now nobody is allowed to adopt. And if not, then one anecdotal example of a disgruntled child really means nothing to this debate. Hence the need for studies. Agree. Although "no gays can adopt until we've run studies on children adopted by gay couples" is obviously not going to work, and if society wants to remain democratic then people are just going to have to get over it for the time being. Very incisive. We've had this debate before, and that was a major point. That says more about you than it does about them (allowing for the fact that they're hypothetical, of course).

That doesn't really answer my question.

Yes. I know. And it was a retarded question, given the information that was presented beforehand.

What? How did you manage to pack so many things that are obviously wrong into that one sentence?

Hence it's called MAC IE. /me has brain haemorrhge

I'm sure there will be people who would jump at the chance to call gays genetically inferior; just as there would be people who would cite it as elegant evidence of selectively mediated population control, and a highly advanced social altruism mechanism.

No, your posts were moved here because you were taking someone else's thread off-topic.

15:15x15 = 1:15

Nothing. The problem is with IE Mac - it's terrible.