Somewhat controversial poll I want you to test out

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-01 08:00pm

OK, it seem as if there are two subjects where fundies stand clear and unwaiving: Abortion, and Homosexuality. Both are evil, the Bible says so, yadda yadda yadda. So, I will try to pit them together by the following question:

If you had to choose between the two, would you rather allow abortion to be legal, or would you rather give otherwise qualified homosexual couples the right to adopt. Obviousily this is a false dilemma; in the real world other options exist like foster homes, orphanages, etc. However, for the sake of this poll, you must choose between the two. I would imagine that the consensus on this board will that homosexual adoption would be preferable to abortion. By the way, for this poll, the option of abortion includes everyting from RU-486, to pulling the baby half-way outside the mother and stabbing it in the head with sissors.

I plan to post this poll on the Ready Rapture Board, just to see if they can think on their own. Select an option and tell me what you think.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-12-01 08:11pm

Homosexual Adoption as "Setting Woman on fire" is a know good(As in will 100% aport the baby) Aborition pratice

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-01 08:21pm

Homosexual adoption is fine as long as there is a constant member of the opposite sex of the couple around the house. Doesn't have to be a relative or anything. Anything otherwise is unfair to the child.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-01 08:27pm

Durran Korr wrote:Homosexual adoption is fine as long as there is a constant member of the opposite sex of the couple around the house. Doesn't have to be a relative or anything. Anything otherwise is unfair to the child.

How so?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-01 08:31pm

Durran Korr wrote:Homosexual adoption is fine as long as there is a constant member of the opposite sex of the couple around the house. Doesn't have to be a relative or anything. Anything otherwise is unfair to the child.

That is not an option. Flaming Homos or Partial birth, one or the other

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-01 08:34pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Homosexual adoption is fine as long as there is a constant member of the opposite sex of the couple around the house. Doesn't have to be a relative or anything. Anything otherwise is unfair to the child.
That is not an option. Flaming Homos or Partial birth, one or the other

Right, and I didn't vote for it, I was just explaining my position.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2002-12-01 08:34pm

I rather death unto the children, there are starving kids and families growing up, less people means less to feed and to house.

Cyaround,
Jason

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-01 08:40pm

data_link wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Homosexual adoption is fine as long as there is a constant member of the opposite sex of the couple around the house. Doesn't have to be a relative or anything. Anything otherwise is unfair to the child.
How so?

You can't deny that it's in the best interest of the child to have both a male and female influence in the household. While females tend to be better with small children, males tend to be better with adolescents.

And to answer Wicked, Flaming Homos for sure. So many of these late-pregnancy abortion procedures are extremely barbaric.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-12-01 08:42pm

Gay marriage might work as a suitable alternative for unrestricted abortion as well, it really riles up fundies. Another possibility would be "teaching Wicca in public schools."

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-01 08:46pm

Urgh... Stupid poll...
*Climbs back into bed with an aspirin*

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-01 08:50pm

Durran Korr wrote:
data_link wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Homosexual adoption is fine as long as there is a constant member of the opposite sex of the couple around the house. Doesn't have to be a relative or anything. Anything otherwise is unfair to the child.
How so?
You can't deny that it's in the best interest of the child to have both a male and female influence in the household. While females tend to be better with small children, males tend to be better with adolescents.

And to answer Wicked, Flaming Homos for sure. So many of these late-pregnancy abortion procedures are extremely barbaric.

Actually I can deny it - I'm denying it right now.

But seriously, contrary to popular belief, there isn't enough of a difference betwwen men and women that either is substantially more effective at parenting, or that the child will suffer a loss of gender identity if they are not exosed to both (and even if that were true, loss of gender identity would be a good thing, as the most psychologically healty individuals tend to be androgynous.)

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-01 08:51pm

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:Urgh... Stupid poll...
*Climbs back into bed with an aspirin*

*replaces aspirin with hot chick*

I think you'll find that somewhat more effective.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-01 08:56pm

So far everything is going as forseen...

Keep in mind, I put up this poll not really to see where you stand, but to get your opinion on how you think fundies will react to such a question.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-01 08:56pm

From what I have read, there are no really good studies to back up either position. It's just common sense for me.

And you're getting into patkelly territory with the androgyny comment.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-01 08:58pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:So far everything is going as forseen...

Keep in mind, I put up this poll not really to see where you stand, but to get your opinion on how you think fundies will react to such a question.

I think most fundies will prefer homosexual adoption, since homosexual adoption does not by definition involve the destruction of human life (using their language; whether or not I agree with the language is irrelevant).

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-12-01 08:59pm

i would have voted for abortion if it had been normal abortion excluding cruel methods like pulling out the baby after 8 1/2 months, skinning it and letting it die slowly in a bowl of salt.

i think it´s more important for some people to get rid of a kid than for other people to get a kid. but i dont support evil methods.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-01 09:12pm

Durran Korr wrote:From what I have read, there are no really good studies to back up either position. It's just common sense for me.

And you're getting into patkelly territory with the androgyny comment.

No, patkelly was trying to support that children should be allowed to have sex with adults. The fact that androgynous people tend to be more psychologically healthy than those who fall more firmly into their gender roles has nothing to do with that. I'll try to remember the name of the studies...

*goes to look through psych notes*

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-01 09:16pm

data_link wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:From what I have read, there are no really good studies to back up either position. It's just common sense for me.

And you're getting into patkelly territory with the androgyny comment.
No, patkelly was trying to support that children should be allowed to have sex with adults. The fact that androgynous people tend to be more psychologically healthy than those who fall more firmly into their gender roles has nothing to do with that. I'll try to remember the name of the studies...

*goes to look through psych notes*

Ah, a failure to communicate. When you said androgyny, I thought you meant "androgyny" in the biological sense.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-12-01 09:21pm

I have a feeling what you'll get from the poll are lots and lots of flames... take an extinguisher with you when you post this thing.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-01 09:24pm

beyond hope wrote:I have a feeling what you'll get from the poll are lots and lots of flames... take an extinguisher with you when you post this thing.

You mean on a board that won't let you post profanity. Those people at Rapture Ready won't even let you say "#@%!".

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-01 09:25pm

Durran Korr wrote:
data_link wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:From what I have read, there are no really good studies to back up either position. It's just common sense for me.

And you're getting into patkelly territory with the androgyny comment.
No, patkelly was trying to support that children should be allowed to have sex with adults. The fact that androgynous people tend to be more psychologically healthy than those who fall more firmly into their gender roles has nothing to do with that. I'll try to remember the name of the studies...

*goes to look through psych notes*
Ah, a failure to communicate. When you said androgyny, I thought you meant "androgyny" in the biological sense.

Hermaphroditism? Oh good God no...

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-01 09:27pm

There's a slight difference between androgyny and hermaphroditism...

Androgyny - lacking gender characteristics.
Hermaphroditism - Possesing sexual characteristics from both genders.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-01 10:06pm

Durran Korr wrote: You can't deny that it's in the best interest of the child to have both a male and female influence in the household. While females tend to be better with small children, males tend to be better with adolescents.

It doesn't have to be in the household, just an influence. An Aunt or Uncle would do just fine.

And the member of the oppisit sex influence is terribly minor compare to love of the parents.

Sienthal · Post by **Sienthal** » 2002-12-01 10:43pm

Adoption should have no question. S'all in the character, not the personality quirks.

As for abortion, it's better than having a future street urchin that will have a hellish life, but I'd feel that they'd be put to better use in stem cell research or something along those lines. If you're going to be a tightass bastard about wanting to get rid of your child, then donate it to the betterment of humanity.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-12-01 10:51pm

I would prefer abortion. In some countries, there aren't enough resources around for everyone. It's better for many families to limit childbirths--for their own sake and their neighbors'.

That being said, I really don't mind gay couples adopting children. Doesn't strike me as inherently bad or anything. Things could be bad even if the parents were straight. Sexual orientation doesn't figure much into parenting.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Somewhat controversial poll I want you to test out

Which should be allowed over the other?

Somewhat controversial poll I want you to test out