kılıç_mehmet,
See how Esquilax keeps mistakenly referring to the facts of natural history as a ''fallacy'' of appealing to tradition?
It's like he seems not to understand the difference between repetitive data and nostaligia.

I'd say you Mehmet don't care about children if you'd rather them grow up rotting in an orphanage than being with two fully functioning and loving parents.

You know there's mental illnesses acquired from lack of parental stimulation, right? Same mental illnesses that are avoided through parents no matter the gender of said parents?

Prove to me why those kids deserve to be mentally ill rather than in a home.

(November 19, 2013 at 11:54 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 11:33 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Did you not read what I said about experiments at this scale? It's not reasonably doable (especially when gay marriage is such a new thing, which means no official records, which means active recruiting). Which part of that is so hard to understand?

You certainly can do such an experiment. It's being done in some jurisdictions right now. Give it time. Nature will gradually take its course over time. Take a hundred million babies and raise them in adoptive, same-sex defacto parenting arrangements and see how things turn out.

(November 19, 2013 at 11:33 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...You can't even substantiate your claim that if you compare 100mil homo couples and hetero couples the result will be in your favour. Go ahead and try and present your result. Since you're already so sure that it worked well historically, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find data.

This from the person who sarcastically mocked the importance of maternal breast to the welfare of children.

(November 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Yea, cos that's what's parenting is about, the quality of breast milk.

What do you think about drinking alchohol while pregnant? No biggie? Kids turn out just fine? If a woman is being used a a surrogate mom for gay husbands Mitch and Cam to adopt, would it be OK for her to drink during pregnancy?
After all - its not as if she has to worry about the future welfare of the donated baby.

Drinking happens in almost all the pregnancies. Here's some science for you. You miss your period on the 2nd week of pregnancy, this is when most will find out they're pregnant. The most susceptible period of pregnancy to alcohol is the first 4 weeks, especially first 2, the earlier the worse it is. It happens to almost every pregnancy, it's a matter of luck for most people. Later on in the pregnancies alcohol still has an effect that hasn't been properly quantified yet. But many are willing to sneak a drink or two during Christmas or new years. I don't think it's ideal of course, but I'm not dumb enough to think that parents who intend to keep their children don't do that or that surrogates would do that because they don't care about the life they've decided to bear. Anyways, besides surrogacy there's adoption, so you are really not making any point.

What do you feel about drugs during pregnancy? What do you feel about mothers who have conditions that require constant medication throughout pregnancy? Some of these drugs greatly affect the baby's health. But no drug also affects baby's and mother's health. You see this is what we adults call "grey areas". Which is why it's so dumb to make a blanket statement and say: yes! This one small thing, this is going to make heteros better parents. Oh by the way, taking drugs often means that the mum can't breastfeed either, because the effect will pass on to the child. See why I said you were ridiculous?

(November 19, 2013 at 9:48 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Two gay men dont have lactating breasts. How on earth can they provide the scientifically proven benefits of maternal breast milk?

Does this mean that lesbians get bonus points?

(November 20, 2013 at 12:04 am)Lion IRC Wrote: kılıç_mehmet,
See how Esquilax keeps mistakenly referring to the facts of natural history as a ''fallacy'' of appealing to tradition?
It's like he seems not to understand the difference between repetitive data and nostaligia.

Except you can't claim that natural history backs you up, moron, because the natural world is brimming with homosexuality, and those groups work out just fine. What you're mistakenly referring to as "natural history," is, in fact, a human cultural construct based around a religious need to alienate the other into some separate, lesser group. It's got nothing to do with nature, and I think you knew that when you made your dishonest comparison.

Quote:Does this mean that lesbians get bonus points?

Sure....in the movies.

(November 19, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Polaris Wrote: What benefit is there in trying to refute Fundies?

When they say something outlandish, I just politely move in the opposite direction and don't talk to them for the rest of the day. You'll find you'll be much better off doing the same.

Well, I dont think Fundies should be allowed to get away scot free when they assert "politically correct" stuff plucked out of the zeitgeist about same-sex adoptive parenting as if it was a brute fact.

And when those clone Fundies screech-on-cue and call me homophobe, preaching at me from the latest edition of Huffington Post, I'm sorry, I am gonna think for myself and say what I think.

(November 20, 2013 at 12:14 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Polaris Wrote: What benefit is there in trying to refute Fundies?

When they say something outlandish, I just politely move in the opposite direction and don't talk to them for the rest of the day. You'll find you'll be much better off doing the same.

Well, I dont think Fundies should be allowed to get away scot free when they assert "politically correct" stuff plucked out of the zeitgeist about same-sex adoptive parenting as if it was a brute fact.

And when those clone Fundies screech-on-cue and call me homophobe, preaching at me from the latest edition of Huffington Post, I'm sorry, I am gonna think for myself and say what I think.

Lol this is actually really funny.

(November 20, 2013 at 12:14 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Polaris Wrote: What benefit is there in trying to refute Fundies?

When they say something outlandish, I just politely move in the opposite direction and don't talk to them for the rest of the day. You'll find you'll be much better off doing the same.

Well, I dont think Fundies should be allowed to get away scot free when they assert "politically correct" stuff plucked out of the zeitgeist about same-sex adoptive parenting as if it was a brute fact.

And when those clone Fundies screech-on-cue and call me homophobe, preaching at me from the latest edition of Huffington Post, I'm sorry, I am gonna think for myself and say what I think.

Maybe you should not give them a reason to do so.