Emotional waffle.

You thinking that's a gotcha is weak logic I'm afraid.

A homosexual relationship can't produce children. Science has to provide it for them. Hence what I am, rather poorly stating, is that the 'box' is society's social constructionism changing the natural results of nature.

Basically it's the point that nature making you a homosexual was a kind of hint that you aren't designed to have children.....not particularly fair but life isn't.

Society is providing the means to enable it......Now I'm not against science improving lives...for the obvious example medicine... but this to me is science being used for social constructionism.....not to cure you of illness.

I never tip toe darling.....stop showing your prejudices.

But you have a point that my objections....to the extent they are objections is partly connected to nature and my disquiet at the over confidence of social constructionists......frankly....to play your game. I find your faith in them disquieting....you must have some interior motive...oh my.

Oh please.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Sorry, it is risible to divorce the two. One is a consequence of the other.

Again, a obvious case of you being willing to diminish possible negatives because...possibly you are emotionally invested.

But I'm playing your game there....must stop doing that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.57pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You obviously do care for social constructionivism because you are willing to play 'social theory' with the lives of powerless babies being introduced into a new family construct.

You are willing to risk the possibility that this is in fact a worse family construct all based upon your 'feels' that the data would be fine......yeah hell, do it for thirty years....lets find out. No bias in that logic is there.

That's playing with people's lives to gain data.

I make exceptions to the situations where both sexes are apart of an upbringing. What I do take exception to is this idea that for 'equality' you support the possibility that one sex can exclusively raise a baby with society's unconcerned support.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 10.04pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stay objective, rather than venturing off track.

It’s is far from risable - just because something can create social backlash doesn’t mean it should not be challenged. See history.

I also never categorically said there are no negatives. It’s just clear that there are no significant ones based on what we know at this moment in time. To claim otherwise is simply wrong,

For the record I am in no way emotionally invested, if anything I’m socially perfect for your template. White, hetrosexual, married, middle class, 2.4 children etc. I just like to challenge people when it’s obvious they don’t have anything behind their opinions other than hearsay and ‘life experience’. Especially when perpetuating that narrative can be very damaging for in this case an often persecuted minority of people, and their children. The irony here is that if you impress this on others it actually does more harm to the children involved. Think about that.

There is no game here. Only objectivity.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

You aren't objective, I've seen that in your arguments.

Whether or not something creates backlash and 'should' be challenged doesn't divorce it as a known negative of a course of action.

You denied that it was connected.....Wooosh....that was your objectivity sprinting over the hill old boy.

As for your description of yourself....how can I put this politely....I don't believe you.

But I might be wrong...and fundamentally on the arguments it doesn't matter anyway.

You can have the last word....I have some ham slices to finish up.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)