talk amongst yourselves... i'll give you a topic..

[disease_of_ease]

a person cannot be against same-sex marriage &amp; adoption and still be considered "pro-family." <br> <br>discuss.

[Yhcrana]

Uh oh, I think I have schpilkus in my ganectigazionk! [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[DirkRamrod]

They can't. <br> <br>They can be considered idiots though. Yeah, sure, you could use reasoned debate, but only to their faces. Idiots. Surely if two people of the same sex get married and want children, they're gonna REALLY want a child cos they can't have one by accident. And they're going to REALLY love that child that they adopt. But they're not allowed? <br> <br>This is one of those things that makes my head explode. Boom.

[Yhcrana]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>a person cannot be against same-sex marriage &amp; adoption and still be considered "pro-family." <br><p><hr></blockquote> <br> <br>Yes they can because the Bible says so! [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Guest]

family is the real F word.

[Man]

Just ask Prot from the film K-PAX

[Ringworm]

&lt;snip&gt; <br>a person cannot be against same-sex marriage &amp; adoption and still be considered "pro-family." <br>&lt;/snip&gt; <br> <br>That really depends on your definition of family. If by family you mean a social group of people composed of children and their two biological parents, joined in holy wedlock, then they can. If you mean a social group of people composed of children and their parents, joined in any-sex wedlock, then they cannot. <br> <br>Its all relative really. Family to the pro-family conservative has a different connotation than it does to the gay rights liberal. So this becomes an arguement in semantics. <br> <br>Conservatives are pro-family. Pro-(Their)Family. <br> <br>RW

[raynedawg]

valu[color=red]e</font color=red> [color=orange]a</font color=orange>[color=yellow]l</font color=yellow>[color=green]l</font color=green> [color=blue]f</font color=blue>[color=purple]a</font color=purple>milies

[Gods_Son]

Personally I'm glad that gays cannot adopt children, since it means there are less children in society, peroid. I hate children and everything about them. <br> <br>What the hell could ever make a person insane enough to actually WANT children? It is shocking that anyone could be boring, uncreative &amp; stupid enough that of all the accomplishments they could make, of all the sights they could see, the causes they could help, the things they could create...what do they do? Ignore it all, and choose to spend 18+ years waiting hand and foot on some egotistical, smelly, loud, stupid, quasi-savage, mineature human being. <br> <br>It is bad enough that Children even exist at all. Every time I see a child, and the inherent complaining, ignorance, parasitic attitude, infinite reservoir of stupid questions, and all the other bullshit that comes along with the vile little creatures, I wish the parent of that thing would actually do the right thing by snapping its little neck. <br> <br>Why the hell are gays complaining? They should be GLAD that they cannot adopt kids. It is bad enough when a sane person (child hater) unfortunately falls in love with an insane person (child lover) of the opposite sex, and is strongly coerced into, if not given a flat out demand to have children. But gay people have a good excuse: "Its a biological impossibility for us to have them ourselves, and the state won't let us adopt". Or so they thought. Now, as if gays do not go through enough difficulty in our society, people want to compound the oppression even further by pressuring them into having children. Whats more, you want (child)free people like me to put up with even more children in society in general. Well fuck that. <br> <br>For the good of gays and child-free people everywhere, gay adoptions should not be allowed. Gay marriage? Fine, That doesn't hurt anyone. But no adoptions. No more children; the world has enough of them already!

[huntergatherer]

People want kids, let them have kids. Hell. Get rid of straight couple adoption if anything.

[perpetuality]

[color=green]Personally I'm glad that gays cannot adopt children, since it means there are less children in society, peroid. I hate children and everything about them.</font color=green> <br> <br>How do you figure this? Are children without a nuclear family home environment actually not children? It seems to me like the numbers aren't changing whether a child is adopted or not. Unlike animal shelters, orphanages generally do not carry out euthanasia on unparented children. <br> <br>By the way, I love children, with a few exceptions. It's just when they grow up that they turn into close-minded, brainwashed members of the capitalist society.

[Gods_Son]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>How do you figure this? Are children without a nuclear family home environment actually not children? It seems to me like the numbers aren't changing whether a child is adopted or not. Unlike animal shelters, orphanages generally do not carry out euthanasia on unparented children.<p><hr></blockquote>It is true that the number of children alive remains the same, however, the number of children out and about in society dwindles when couples don't adopt them. Orphanages keep children pretty much in the orphanage and away from the rest of society. That is the way I like it. It is where those wretched little creatures belong.

[Henery]

I like it that you see children as a seperate species - ahaha. <br> <br>Were you never a child?

[Aaron]

[color=green]It is where those wretched little creatures belong.</font color=green> <br> <br>Someone obviously had an upsetting childhood.

[Edo]

Call it Newspeak. (I personally prefer calling it the Tongue of Cowards. It's more poetic, more... well, not more poetic, it sounds Klingon.) It's a sign of how limited discourse has become. And where discourse is limited, there my comrades is a place where subversion can take place.