Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
Value Collector said:
So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?
Click to expand...
The above is out of character with your usual rational debate. You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.
 
Julia said:
The above is out of character with your usual rational debate. You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.
Click to expand...

I think its completely rational, his argument was that its unfair to allow straight children to be raised by gay parents. By that logic it would be unfair for gay children to be raised by straight parents, its "confusing" in his words.

I don't agree, I think parents of either sexuality can raise children of either sexuality. But using his logic, if it were possible to determine sexuality of a baby, giving a gay baby to straight parents would be immoral.
 
Value Collector said:
So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. Would you be in favour of a mother having an abortion if that test indicated her baby would be gay ? Most parents want grandchildren of their own offspring so I suggest that such a test would be used to filter gays out of the population if it was available.

All else being equal, I think that a loving family with a father and mother provides the best environment for raising children.
 
Julia said:
Such a situation is extremely rare compared with the number of adult males who assault children of both genders.

I think the whole surrogacy issue needs to be clamped down on. There have already been too many examples of males using vulnerable, poverty-stricken females as surrogates to provide them with children whose future will be uncertain at best.
Click to expand...

Yes, female sexual predators are rare, by far the most common sexual predators are straight males.
 
SirRumpole said:
Interesting question. .
Click to expand...

Yes and you didn't answer it.


Would you be in favour of a mother having an abortion if that test indicated her baby would be gay ? Most parents want grandchildren of their own offspring so I suggest that such a test would be used to filter gays out of the population if it was available
Click to expand...
.


No, I wouldn't be in favour of an abortion of a foetus simply because of its sexuality, but thats not my choice and its not the topic of the current discussion.

If my child was gay I would love him or her with all my heart just the same, and welcome their partner into my family. The fact that I am straight wouldn't stop me being a supportive father, and i think a gay couple are just as capable of raising a child as myself and my partner.

All else being equal, I think that a loving family with a father and mother provides the best environment for raising children
Click to expand...

Is that based on a body of evidence, or just your opinion?

I think there is so much more to what makes a good family home than the gender of the parents, i have seen quite a few interviews of children that were raised by gay parents and they are overwhelmingly positive.
 
SirRumpole said:
True, but there have been a number of cases of mothers pimping their children in prostitution rings, which amounts to child abuse.
Click to expand...

Yes, i don't think anyone would disagree that that was child abuse of the highest level.

So with the evidence suggesting that both males and females are capable of sexual child abuse, and by far most sexual assaults are conducted by straight males, what reason (other than bigotry) do we have for trying to disqualify gay men and women based on the charge of sexual assault risk?

I am happy to entertain any other reason that can be shown to be valid, but I think the paedophila arguments need to be put to bed, other wise we must admit that couples with a member who is a straight male must also be disqualified.
 
Value Collector said:
So with the evidence suggesting that both males and females are capable of sexual child abuse, and by far most sexual assaults are conducted by straight males, what reason (other than bigotry) do we have for trying to disqualify gay men and women based on the charge of sexual assault risk?
Click to expand...

Very little, but as I said, all the other factors like role models, balanced male/female outlooks add up to heterosexuals providing a more complete environment for children in the normal course of events.

There could be exceptional circumstances if a child has been abused by for examples males, and has a fear of males that can't be overcome, for that child to be placed with a lesbian couple, but these situations would be the exceptions.
 
SirRumpole said:
Very little, but as I said, all the other factors like role models, balanced male/female outlooks add up to heterosexuals providing a more complete environment for children in the normal course of events.

.
Click to expand...

As I said though, many households only have a mother or a father, surely a household with two mothers or two fathers could be just as capable or even more capable of raising children. And the children would still be exposed to other sexes outlook through extended family, family friends etc.

I have a few cousins who were raised by single parents, and they turned out fine,
 
Value Collector said:
I have a few cousins who were raised by single parents, and they turned out fine,
Click to expand...

That is a false argument, trying to judge a whole by an observation of a part, and a very small one at that.

Certainly a lot of single parents raise fine children, it's also been shown that a lot of children of single parents suffer from a lack of role models from the missing parent.

Single parenthood is a less than ideal arrangement, brought about by unforeseen and unwanted circumstances, and it can't be compared to a planned arrangement like adoption.
 
SirRumpole said:
.

Single parenthood is a less than ideal arrangement, brought about by unforeseen and unwanted circumstances, and it can't be compared to a planned arrangement like adoption.
Click to expand...

No, there are many cases where single parenthood is planned.

There is even cases of single mothers having ivf, and i would have to research it but i am sure i have heard of single women adopting.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_YpxX1swas[/video]
 
Value Collector said:
No, there are many cases where single parenthood is planned.

There is even cases of single mothers having ivf, and i would have to research it but i am sure i have heard of single women adopting.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_YpxX1swas[/video]
Click to expand...

Just because things have been done doesn't mean they should be done. The IVF and surrogacy trade is all about making money. The welfare of the children doesn't enter into it.
 
Value Collector said:
lol, there is no actual club, It was just a figure of speech, I was just pointing out from what your saying, you seem to be an "agnostic Atheist", because you said you don't believe in a god (so that's atheism) but also said you don't know if one exists ( which is agnosticism), which makes you an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...

Of course there is no actual club.. I just did not want to be inferentially grouped.

You didn't really get my point and that may have been my fault. I didn't have the time or interest in a longer reply.
 
Value Collector said:
So you don't agree with Ivf either?
Click to expand...

Here is a young woman who is the product of a single woman using donated sperm to make a baby, she explains how she is fine with it, and actually actively defends the process.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh9r5M4QKUc[/video]
 
SirRumpole said:
No, as I said it's a commercial process in which the rights of children, specifically the rights to know and be raised by their biological parents, are deprecated.
Click to expand...

To an extent, religious bigotry against gays is on topic here. Otherwise perhaps this particular spat should be carried on elsewhere.

The religious love to hold onto the notion that the "traditional" family (husband/wife) is best for children but do so for religious reasons and not because it's always best for the children's welfare. They abhor any deviation from their imaginary God's perfect order for the family unit and indoctrinate their children with this prejudice. Society has generally moved on from such dogma but the religious continue their campaign for religious based traditions based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls. After all, only a sky God of some description knows best how humans should interact with one another or has the authority to determine this right?
 
FxTrader said:
To an extent, religious bigotry against gays is on topic here. Otherwise perhaps this particular spat should be carried on elsewhere.

The religious love to hold onto the notion that the "traditional" family (husband/wife) is best for children but do so for religious reasons and not because it's always best for the children's welfare. They abhor any deviation from their imaginary God's perfect order for the family unit and indoctrinate their children with this prejudice. Society has generally moved on from such dogma but the religious continue their campaign for religious based traditions based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls. After all, only a sky God of some description knows best how humans should interact with one another or has the authority to determine this right?
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that I'm not religious.

I don't like the fact that some people born of ivf or surrogacy have to search for years to find their biological parents (if they ever do), get their medical history and determine their lineage. These are things you and I take for granted but for children of IVF and surrogacy they have no such rights, and I ask you what right do you have to deny them these things ?

As for bigotry against gays, the points above apply to both gay and heterosexual people who have children by those methods.

All your talk about "sky gods" is so much piffle which is irrelevant to this debate.
 
SirRumpole said:
The problem with your argument is that I'm not religious.
Click to expand...
Yet you post drivel about "radical" atheists and their imaginated oppression of religion and religious freedom. My argument was against religious dogma in general with respect to the traditional family unit.

I don't like the fact that some people born of ivf or surrogacy have to search for years to find their biological parents (if they ever do), get their medical history and determine their lineage. These are things you and I take for granted but for children of IVF and surrogacy they have no such rights, and I ask you what right do you have to deny them these things ? As for bigotry against gays, the points above apply to both gay and heterosexual people who have children by those methods. All your talk about "sky gods" is so much piffle which is irrelevant to this debate.
Click to expand...
I kindly remind you again that the IVF/surrogacy debate is clearly off topic here, either create a new thread or stay on topic please.
 
FxTrader said:
Yet you post drivel about "radical" atheists and their imaginated oppression of religion and religious freedom. My argument was against religious dogma in general with respect to the traditional family unit.
Click to expand...

There are such things as radical atheists who want to destroy religious freedom. Lots of religions have dirty laundry which needs to be washed, but a lot of good people are religious and shouldn't be condemned en masse.

I kindly remind you again that the IVF/surrogacy debate is clearly off topic here, either create a new thread or stay on topic please.
Click to expand...

The usual tactic of someone who knows he has lost an argument.

I've said all I've wanted to say on IVF/surrogacy, but if someone else wants to start another thread, I'll contribute.

Others have made comments on the ivf or surrogacy issue, but you appear to have singled me out because I previously made comments supporting some aspects of religion which differ from your own. I see that as prejudicial harassment.
 
Top