Parent of Choice inspired by Orangeandblueblooded's Pwnfest Thread - The Orange Mane

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 11:07 AM

A recent thread on this site sparked my participation. I thought the premise was a good one but most people refused to answer or discuss the questions posed.

I’ve added an anonymous poll to facilitate an actual intellectual discussion.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 11:20 AM

Forgive how brief my question is but the full version wouldn’t fit in the poll. On Orangeandblueblooded’s pawnfest this discussion started and I wanted to really discuss it.

Assuming both couples are identical in every way except their sexual orientation who would people prefer for a kid to be raised by.

theAPAOps5 · 03-21-2011, 11:21 AM

This thread will end nicely. I wish there was a choice of I don't care as long as the parents do their job. But I also understand why only the 2 choices based on the other thread.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 11:26 AM

Sadly I feel like I’ve already failed to get an answer from the first person in the room. I feel like the Japanese futilely working on a melting down nuclear reactor. I get that a magic wand would be wonderful or it not happening at all would be even better.

How about we just answer the poll. I know more choices would be nice but I didn’t give any to avoid people doing the philosophical mamba.

OABB · 03-21-2011, 11:28 AM

Great idea insomniac. I wish I had thought of this a ****ing week ago.

Something tells me w*gs is on his way to overcomplicate and pussify a simple poll.

I also will put 1 million dollars down that he won't answer it at all.

Even being private.

He must have a ghost that haunts his every thought.

I assume that ghost also has a lisp.

theAPAOps5 · 03-21-2011, 11:31 AM

My vote is to not vote based on such lame limited choices, there I answered your question.

OABB · 03-21-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theAPAOps5

My vote is to not vote based on such lame limited choices, there I answered your question.

I see you edited your post above. Perhaps insomniac didn't see the change in time.

If you want to pull a w*gs and evade that is fine, my suggestion is to not participate at all.

There are many people that understand the beauty of the question. That can clearly understand from the other thread why it is even neccessary.

Maybe you didn't see the 30 pages of wags and his band of merry gangsters evading this very simple question.

Insomniac even made it private, which I don't like, but agree it's probably neccessary.

If only people could just answer a simple ****ing question.

Is it that hard?

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theAPAOps5

My vote is to not vote based on such lame limited choices, there I answered your question.

No you took the cowards way out. Then there is nothing to discuss with you because you like so many fearful people chose to give away your right to stand up and be counted.

If you don't want a vote then you have no right to disagree or debate. Those things are for the people involved. Thanks for stopping by anyway.

That One Guy · 03-21-2011, 12:00 PM

Obviously the question is a trap. As such, they're not going to torpedo their own boat playing along.

We already, through thousands of years of humanity, know that a male-female couple can raise children successfully. That is proven. We cannot say that they absolutely always will but that they can. Now, what do we know about a gay couple raising kids? Less. It's that simple. Because history is not on that side, it's newer and, thus, less proven.

In any scenario where the new option even holds even the potential for new risks and no new potential benefits, why even consider the new option?

For me, it boils down to something similar to what I posted in the other thread when races were brought up. As much as anything, it's just a matter of making things easiest on the kids. Do two kids of a single race face less scrutiny about the color of their parents than kids of a mixed family would? Possibly. Would kids who have clean new clothes get made fun of less than someone with older or more worn clothes? Possibly. The clean clothes and the single race family don't inherently make anyone better or worse but if it takes some drama out of the kid's life, the benefit is already identified. I'm probably stronger for having grown up in a family where clothes were one of the least significant considerations but would I have appreciated if we'd just had clothes like everyone else and I just learned that strength somewhere else? Absolutely.

That's what it boils down to, for me. There are more potential issues in the gay scenario than the straight one. Take a variable out of the equation and you'll always get a more predictable situation. Whether the variable is the most minute or world changing, it is a variable to some degree.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 12:03 PM

I made the poll private! No trap, just a chance to step up and be counted. I see it's 100% one way right now and I haven't voted so the outcome may surprise people

sakuraba · 03-21-2011, 12:16 PM

seriously it's private, so where's the trap.

theAPAOps5 · 03-21-2011, 12:19 PM

Ok fair enough, it is an interesting debate though!

That One Guy · 03-21-2011, 12:27 PM

I call it a trap because much like the debate at hand, there is no logical benefit to one side and they can only lose. That is, of course, based on the concept that the argument is win/lose which, in my opinion, is exactly the road they took us down. I'm saying this as I perceive their point of view to be.

If they say the gay couple, they have absolutely no justification and are only saying it to be hard headed. If they say the straight couple, they lose. If they say neither, OABB unleashes on them and we repeat.

That One Guy · 03-21-2011, 12:28 PM

There it is, someone answered with the gay couple. Now, lets see if they choose to defend it.

OABB · 03-21-2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That One Guy

I call it a trap because much like the debate at hand, there is no logical benefit to one side and they can only lose. That is, of course, based on the concept that the argument is win/lose which, in my opinion, is exactly the road they took us down. I'm saying this as I perceive their point of view to be.

If they say the gay couple, they have absolutely no justification and are only saying it to be hard headed. If they say the straight couple, they lose. If they say neither, OABB unleashes on them and we repeat.

I didn't start this poll. And I will not unleash onthem because insomniac cut my balls off by making it private.

This is jut to check the temerature I assume.

Actually, I think insomniac just got so mad that no one would answer it he tried to do it his way.

It's private, there is no trap.

We have made it as easy as possible to defend.

We just was the question answered!

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 01:42 PM

4 to 2 and baja, alk and W*gs haven't been in yet. Gays may win. Either way maybe we can have the honest conversation

elsid13 · 03-21-2011, 01:46 PM

You need to add third option = Don't give rats' ass. Because I don't care either way.

W*GS · 03-21-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elsid13

You need to add third option = Don't give rats' ass. Because I don't care either way.

That's why it's a biased poll.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 02:57 PM

W*gs Mr. Big talk no answers himself. I noticed you haven't voted. Why am I not surprised

W*GS · 03-21-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That One Guy

In any scenario where the new option even holds even the potential for new risks and no new potential benefits, why even consider the new option?

I got a hint for you - gays have been raising kids, successfully, ever since there have been gays and kids. That the gays had to lie to the rest of society because society was homophobic and bigoted isn't the gays' fault.

The only change today is whether or not gays can be open about their sexuality, or have to continue the lies that make some in society a little less blatantly hateful towards their fellow human beings.

The question isn't whether or not gays can raise kids successfully - they obviously can. The question is whether or not society will man up and force the bigots' bile back down their throats, and let gays raise their kids without all the bigots' bull****. That's the issue.

W*GS · 03-21-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac

W*gs Mr. Big talk no answers himself. I noticed you haven't voted. Why am I not surprised

I refuse to answer a question that has all the subtlety of "When did you stop beating your wife?".

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac · 03-21-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

I refuse to answer a question that has all the subtlety of "When did you stop beating your wife?".

See that is the exact type of cowardly wording that got you owned in the other thread.

You could ask such a question, or a real man might actually go to the abusive jerk and tell him to stop battering his wife.

I wish you would actually say something instead of complaining about what others say.

OABB · 03-21-2011, 03:09 PM

Wags. Can you tell me about your childhood? I need to know the exact date you were molested by a man.

NUB · 03-21-2011, 03:17 PM

How about this question:

Two identical couples in every way except their skin color: Your preference for the kid,

White or black.

underrated29 · 03-21-2011, 03:21 PM

Prefer- male/female

However, with so many kids up for adoption and kids who have no parents and potentially no future. I would say any couple willing to take them in and provide them a future and not just use them for tax breaks and such, would be a winner in my book.

So looks like this

male/femal>homo>no parents

03-21-2011, 11:07 AM	#1
Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac Solid Starter If you don't get it, I'll explain Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: California Posts: 216 Adopt-a-Bronco: RB by Committee	Parent of Choice inspired by Orangeandblueblooded's Pwnfest Thread A recent thread on this site sparked my participation. I thought the premise was a good one but most people refused to answer or discuss the questions posed. I’ve added an anonymous poll to facilitate an actual intellectual discussion. Last edited by Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac; 03-22-2011 at 02:11 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-21-2011, 11:20 AM	#2
Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac Solid Starter If you don't get it, I'll explain Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: California Posts: 216 Adopt-a-Bronco: RB by Committee	Forgive how brief my question is but the full version wouldn’t fit in the poll. On Orangeandblueblooded’s pawnfest this discussion started and I wanted to really discuss it. Assuming both couples are identical in every way except their sexual orientation who would people prefer for a kid to be raised by.

03-21-2011, 11:21 AM	#3
theAPAOps5 A new beginning! Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 26,058 Adopt-a-Bronco: Watermock - RIP	This thread will end nicely. I wish there was a choice of I don't care as long as the parents do their job. But I also understand why only the 2 choices based on the other thread.

03-21-2011, 11:26 AM	#4
Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac Solid Starter If you don't get it, I'll explain Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: California Posts: 216 Adopt-a-Bronco: RB by Committee	Sadly I feel like I’ve already failed to get an answer from the first person in the room. I feel like the Japanese futilely working on a melting down nuclear reactor. I get that a magic wand would be wonderful or it not happening at all would be even better. How about we just answer the poll. I know more choices would be nice but I didn’t give any to avoid people doing the philosophical mamba.

03-21-2011, 11:28 AM	#5
OABB Master of Karate aaahaaaaaaaaah Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Los angeles Posts: 7,132 Adopt-a-Bronco: tgnsmyb****	Great idea insomniac. I wish I had thought of this a ***ing week ago. Something tells me wgs is on his way to overcomplicate and pussify a simple poll. I also will put 1 million dollars down that he won't answer it at all. Even being private. He must have a ghost that haunts his every thought. I assume that ghost also has a lisp.

03-21-2011, 11:31 AM	#6
theAPAOps5 A new beginning! Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 26,058 Adopt-a-Bronco: Watermock - RIP	My vote is to not vote based on such lame limited choices, there I answered your question.

03-21-2011, 12:00 PM	#9
That One Guy Producer of Nonsense Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sun and Beachville Posts: 14,042 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	Obviously the question is a trap. As such, they're not going to torpedo their own boat playing along. We already, through thousands of years of humanity, know that a male-female couple can raise children successfully. That is proven. We cannot say that they absolutely always will but that they can. Now, what do we know about a gay couple raising kids? Less. It's that simple. Because history is not on that side, it's newer and, thus, less proven. In any scenario where the new option even holds even the potential for new risks and no new potential benefits, why even consider the new option? For me, it boils down to something similar to what I posted in the other thread when races were brought up. As much as anything, it's just a matter of making things easiest on the kids. Do two kids of a single race face less scrutiny about the color of their parents than kids of a mixed family would? Possibly. Would kids who have clean new clothes get made fun of less than someone with older or more worn clothes? Possibly. The clean clothes and the single race family don't inherently make anyone better or worse but if it takes some drama out of the kid's life, the benefit is already identified. I'm probably stronger for having grown up in a family where clothes were one of the least significant considerations but would I have appreciated if we'd just had clothes like everyone else and I just learned that strength somewhere else? Absolutely. That's what it boils down to, for me. There are more potential issues in the gay scenario than the straight one. Take a variable out of the equation and you'll always get a more predictable situation. Whether the variable is the most minute or world changing, it is a variable to some degree.

03-21-2011, 12:03 PM	#10
Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac Solid Starter If you don't get it, I'll explain Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: California Posts: 216 Adopt-a-Bronco: RB by Committee	I made the poll private! No trap, just a chance to step up and be counted. I see it's 100% one way right now and I haven't voted so the outcome may surprise people

03-21-2011, 12:16 PM	#11
sakuraba vae victus Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 203 Adopt-a-Bronco: Fidel Castro	seriously it's private, so where's the trap.

03-21-2011, 12:19 PM	#12
theAPAOps5 A new beginning! Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 26,058 Adopt-a-Bronco: Watermock - RIP	Ok fair enough, it is an interesting debate though!

03-21-2011, 12:27 PM	#13
That One Guy Producer of Nonsense Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sun and Beachville Posts: 14,042 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	I call it a trap because much like the debate at hand, there is no logical benefit to one side and they can only lose. That is, of course, based on the concept that the argument is win/lose which, in my opinion, is exactly the road they took us down. I'm saying this as I perceive their point of view to be. If they say the gay couple, they have absolutely no justification and are only saying it to be hard headed. If they say the straight couple, they lose. If they say neither, OABB unleashes on them and we repeat.

03-21-2011, 12:28 PM	#14
That One Guy Producer of Nonsense Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sun and Beachville Posts: 14,042 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	There it is, someone answered with the gay couple. Now, lets see if they choose to defend it.

03-21-2011, 01:42 PM	#16
Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac Solid Starter If you don't get it, I'll explain Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: California Posts: 216 Adopt-a-Bronco: RB by Committee	4 to 2 and baja, alk and W*gs haven't been in yet. Gays may win. Either way maybe we can have the honest conversation

03-21-2011, 01:46 PM	#17
elsid13 Lost In Space Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: DC Posts: 19,096	You need to add third option = Don't give rats' ass. Because I don't care either way.

03-21-2011, 02:57 PM	#19
Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac Solid Starter If you don't get it, I'll explain Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: California Posts: 216 Adopt-a-Bronco: RB by Committee	W*gs Mr. Big talk no answers himself. I noticed you haven't voted. Why am I not surprised

03-21-2011, 03:09 PM	#23
OABB Master of Karate aaahaaaaaaaaah Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Los angeles Posts: 7,132 Adopt-a-Bronco: tgnsmyb****	Wags. Can you tell me about your childhood? I need to know the exact date you were molested by a man.

03-21-2011, 03:17 PM	#24
NUB Just Crafted New to the Forum Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,448 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	How about this question: Two identical couples in every way except their skin color: Your preference for the kid, White or black.

03-21-2011, 03:21 PM	#25
underrated29 10-6 baby. Cutler doesnt suck Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	Prefer- male/female However, with so many kids up for adoption and kids who have no parents and potentially no future. I would say any couple willing to take them in and provide them a future and not just use them for tax breaks and such, would be a winner in my book. So looks like this male/femal>homo>no parents