4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Disagree with every single point you make. 

you can't fight nature

for example your personal preference

that is natural isn't it?

4 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Have you not noticed society grow and develop over the years? 

no I think it is regressing

22 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

you can't fight nature

for example your personal preference

that is natural isn't it?

 

There is nothing unnatural about gay couples raising a child. 

 

What is unnatural is those objecting to it, but those who do so, tend to be riddled with all sorts of  unnatural prejudices. 

 

Edited November 30, 20187 yr by Bluespunk

Troll posts and replies have been removed. 

 

Off topic posts and replies about being Jewish and antisemitism have been removed. 

2 hours ago, khunken said:

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What do you think about Darwin's "survival of the fittest"?

Is that arrogant?

Would it be better in the long run if not the fittest survive but all the others?

That's what I call "nature". It's not arrogant and bigoted. It's nature.

Darwin's theory, which I accept, does not cater for modern medicine, gene therapy, prosthetics and numerous other enhancements to human life.

Your second question is stupid and unanswerable. 

We have come a long way since the survival of the fittest, apparently you haven't.

"Would it be better in the long run if not the fittest survive but all the others?" is perfectly answerable. But I guess not with the answer which you want. That's the problem with reality.

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

 

There is nothing unnatural about gay couples raising a child. 

 

What is unnatural is those objecting to it, but those who do so, tend to be riddled with all sorts of  unnatural prejudices. 

Really? Maybe you have a link maybe with a YouTube video of a gay couple of animals having babies and raising them.

If you think that happens in nature all the time it should be easy for you to show us.

 

How about these "unnatural prejudices": How often do lesbian women have to have sex with each other before one of them gets pregnant? Or do they both get pregnant at the same time? And how often do gay men have to have sex with each before one or both of them gets pregnant? Please explain. And if you can't explain it then maybe those are not unnatural prejudices?

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

"Would it be better in the long run if not the fittest survive but all the others?" is perfectly answerable. But I guess not with the answer which you want. That's the problem with reality.

Really? Maybe you have a link maybe with a YouTube video of a gay couple of animals having babies and raising them.

If you think that happens in nature all the time it should be easy for you to show us.

 

How about these "unnatural prejudices": How often do lesbian women have to have sex with each other before one of them gets pregnant? Or do they both get pregnant at the same time? And how often do gay men have to have sex with each before one or both of them gets pregnant? Please explain. And if you can't explain it then maybe those are not unnatural prejudices?

Unnatural prejudices are those based in bigotry, as are those prejudices that would deny gay couples the right to raise children. 

 

As long as the children are raised in a loving and caring environment, then the gender and sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant. 

Really? Maybe you have a link maybe with a YouTube video of a gay couple of animals having babies and raising them.
If you think that happens in nature all the time it should be easy for you to show us.
 
How about these "unnatural prejudices": How often do lesbian women have to have sex with each other before one of them gets pregnant? Or do they both get pregnant at the same time? And how often do gay men have to have sex with each before one or both of them gets pregnant? Please explain. And if you can't explain it then maybe those are not unnatural prejudices?

More like extraordinary ignorance.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

13 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

 

There is nothing unnatural about gay couples raising a child. 

 

What is unnatural is those objecting to it, but those who do so, tend to be riddled with all sorts of  unnatural prejudices. 

 

prejudice is natural

a lot of things that are natural are not necessarily good

20 hours ago, rkidlad said:

I know a gay couple who are seemingly in a very loving marriage. I know a few straight couples who are most definitely in loveless marriages. These couples most definitely aren't the same. 

 

You do know there are single parents out there? Should they be made to relinquish their kids to a heterosexual couple wanting to adopt? What with it being nature and all. 

 

Don't be so judgmental it may come back to haunt U

Why can`t some except that men and women do have different roles to play in society that has mostly to do with parenting and are biologically different for these reasons.

 

It is the mothers that play the part of the nurturing parent. Women have breasts for a reason and not just for the sexual pleasures of men. In nature women breast feed their new borns to nourish and develop their child`s growth, plus a stronger maternal instinct than men. Men under the scheme of things are meant to be the protectors and the providers. A child having same sex guardians go against the balance of nature. Not only that, same sex guardians means one of both of the guardians will not be biologically related to the child excluding the child`s family heritage and identity. This creates an artificial unnatural family unit for the child.

 

In my opinion, same sex couples should not be permitted to adopt children or use surrogates for reasons I have mentioned above, it simply is not in the child`s best interests to do so.  

 

 

So no same sex people should raise children as not in the best interest of the children.

 

A widow or widower should than not been allowed to raise their young child(ren) alone, as the child(ren) are missing the maternal or protector/provider aspect.

18 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

So no same sex people should raise children as not in the best interest of the children.

 

A widow or widower should than not been allowed to raise their young child(ren) alone, as the child(ren) are missing the maternal or protector/provider aspect.

Maybe ask if a widow or widower would be able to adopt children. I guess not, at least not in many countries. And I guess that is like that because the adoption agencies look for the best possible conditions for the children.

It's not impossible that single parents have children and it's not impossible that same sex couples have children - but it's far away from optimal.

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

far away from optimal

 Everybody knows that some children raised by a woman and a man is not always done in the right expected conditions, far away from being optimal.

 

Giving love and unwavering support to children can never been wrong.

 

And this can also come from same sex couples as from 1 parent family.

 

 

2 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

prejudice is natural

a lot of things that are natural are not necessarily good

The prejudice I refer to is based in hatred, it is by no means natural to hate someone because of who they are. 

Edited December 1, 20187 yr by Bluespunk

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The prejudice I refer to is based in hatred, it is by no means natural to hate someone because of who they are. 

depends on who they are

6 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

depends on who they are

Nope. 

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nope. 

say someone was a paedophile

and you knew

would you like them?

12 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

say someone was a paedophile

and you knew

would you like them?

As I have said, as long as children are raised in a loving, caring, safe environment then it does matter what the gender of the parents is.

 

Paedophiles would not present such an environment, many children are abused by their biological parents in such households. 

 

However, that is not the same as denying adults the right to raise children, because of their sexual orientation or in same gender relationships. 

 

As you should know, this this is a thread about gay parenting rights and that has nothing to do with paedophiles. 

 

Only an ignorant bigot would compare the two. 

Edited December 1, 20187 yr by Bluespunk