Captain... Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 Yes I meant David, and I knew he was gay, I was demonstrating how him being gay doesn't affect my positive judgement of him at all The way I see it, a homosexual couple having a child is against nature, it is not 'right' or 'normal'. Homesexuality itself IS NORMAL behaviour for a minority of animals (inc. humans) in any species. Most populations of creatures on this planet have homosexual or bisexual examples. However, in every other species except humans they cannot have young for obvious reasons. So in humans, is it right to place children with couples that should biologically NOT have children? I do not think it should be permitted. By all means, if there are no straight couples available to adopt a child that needs a family then maybe, but it should be a last resort. There is evidence to suggest that children need a mother and a father. Not 2 mothers, not 2 fathers. Why risk physchologically damaging a child? You see the argument about it going against nature falls down, because in nature there is almost no such thing as monogamy or society as we understand it, marriage is very much against our natural instincts to rut and fvck and spread our seed as far and wide as possible, again going against evolution by restricting this. Also in nature most young are reared by only one parent, often the femal but in some cases the male and they don't suffer any psychological damage, they are also normally only raised to a point of maturity and then are left to fend for themselves. They also often tend to fvck their brothers and sisters, so be careful how much you want to follow the natural order of things. It is not against nature, it is against what we have had imposed on us as the natural order of things, religion, marriage, monogamy, family, and both natural parents raising children together and continuing to support them way beyond what they need.
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 It's funny how you never offer your own opinions, just rudely dismiss everyone else's. Careful.....he'll stick the knife in !!!
acooling08 Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 You see the argument about it going against nature falls down, because in nature there is almost no such thing as monogamy or society as we understand it, marriage is very much against our natural instincts to rut and fvck and spread our seed as far and wide as possible, again going against evolution by restricting this. Also in nature most young are reared by only one parent, often the femal but in some cases the male and they don't suffer any psychological damage, they are also normally only raised to a point of maturity and then are left to fend for themselves. They also often tend to fvck their brothers and sisters, so be careful how much you want to follow the natural order of things. It is not against nature, it is against what we have had imposed on us as the natural order of things, religion, marriage, monogamy, family, and both natural parents raising children together and continuing to support them way beyond what they need. You're actually a pretty convincing fvcker!
Daggers Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 It's funny how you never offer your own opinions, just rudely dismiss everyone else's. I find it funny how I do, I placed them in the very first thread on Foxestalk about same sex marriage. You can go find them using the search function. I am not going to repeat them because people have piss-poor memories or an infantile approach to research. I don't rudely dismiss everyone's, just those with a history of spouting bigoted shit. That makes you special because for as long as you've been on the forum I've not read a single constructive, researched, well-argued post by you. Ever. You wave your little flag of ignorance about as if you have the right to hold whatever dumbfvck opinion you want without any reason or justification. You do have that right - but when you wave your little flag of stupidity it gives everyone else the right to take the piss out of you. You want to start being treated seriously? Grow the fvck up and stop being a total dickwad.
Captain... Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 You're actually a pretty convincing fvcker! Careful I might be grooming you I just honestly believe that life can be pretty fvcking tough and you need good caring loving people around you to get you through it and if they are gay/straight somewhere in between it really doesn't matter as long as they are there, whether they are natural parents, adopted parents, god parents, brothers, sisters, friends, that guy in the street who helps you up when you fall over, whatever, judge people by what they do not who they do.
Saxondale Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 Careful I might be grooming you Until you set up the Foxy Fanboys Facebook page, I'm sure you can be granted benefit of the doubt.
Finnegan Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 Pfft. And? Anyone else made a welcome return recently? Any other name spring to mind? Honestly, I don't know why I bother. Honestly - I've no idea why I bother. I knows it I love you, Dave, your know that. But I just assume you've always been here under some pseudonym or other
Daggers Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 judge people by what they do not who they do. Bang on.
Daggers Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 I love you, Dave, your know that. But I just assume you've always been here under some pseudonym or other I am also wherethefoxhat, Bert, SteveO, davieG and Lisa.
21st Century Fox Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 You see the argument about it going against nature falls down, because in nature there is almost no such thing as monogamy or society as we understand it, marriage is very much against our natural instincts to rut and fvck and spread our seed as far and wide as possible, again going against evolution by restricting this. Also in nature most young are reared by only one parent, often the femal but in some cases the male and they don't suffer any psychological damage, they are also normally only raised to a point of maturity and then are left to fend for themselves. They also often tend to fvck their brothers and sisters, so be careful how much you want to follow the natural order of things. It is not against nature, it is against what we have had imposed on us as the natural order of things, religion, marriage, monogamy, family, and both natural parents raising children together and continuing to support them way beyond what they need. Bang on what I was going to say. The monogamous parental unit goes against nature. Hence why you'll find alpha males who their impregnate entire group. Thats not forgetting the ability for species to rear the young of completely different species.
Zingari Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 Its wrong, full stop. why question mark exclamation mark
Captain... Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 why question mark exclamation mark You mean interrobang.
FuriousFox46 Posted 2 March 2012 Author Posted 2 March 2012 NO NO NO. Realistically a child needs both a mother and father figure around them. Not two mums or two dads. Read page 6
FuriousFox46 Posted 2 March 2012 Author Posted 2 March 2012 Haven't got time to read about something that I totally disagree with. All you're saying is that "It is wrong." without providing any reason as to why you think that. People, may also value your opinion if you didn't use unprovoked homophobic slurs.
Phube Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 A family realistically needs a mother and father, the awkward moment when a child says they have 2 dads or vice versa ... im not being horrible they will get bullied ? There is evidence to suggest that children need a mother and a father. Not 2 mothers, not 2 fathers. Why risk physchologically damaging a child? A Mummy and a Daddy... like this: I bet their kids will be nice and socially well adjusted! ADAM WAS MADE FOR EVE NOT STEVE !! just my opinion Your opinion is formed from a fairy story... Interesting...
Captain... Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 Don't waste your finger energy on those, most of them were bored spammers causing trouble, check out the Dear Hilarious Spammers thread
Phube Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 Don't waste your finger energy on those, most of them were bored spammers causing trouble, check out the Dear Hilarious Spammers thread acooling08 is a spammer... NO!!!!
Daggers Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 I bet their kids will be nice and socially well adjusted!
FuriousFox46 Posted 2 March 2012 Author Posted 2 March 2012 Adam and Eve? You mean the story about how the World was created in 6 days, with no reference to evolution or the dinosaurs, featuring a cameo of a talking snake? Must be factual.
Daggers Posted 3 March 2012 Posted 3 March 2012 God created Adam and Eve, he didn't create Adam and Steve.
Gold Coast Fox Posted 3 March 2012 Posted 3 March 2012 So bored of the 'God created Adam and Eve argument. God created everyone in his own image? So god created gay's... so shove that up you're arse, who knows.. you might like it and convert.
Daggers Posted 3 March 2012 Posted 3 March 2012 So bored of the 'God created Adam and Eve argument. God created everyone in his own image? So god created gay's... so shove that up you're arse, who knows.. you might like it and convert. You do realise the post wasn't a serious comment on sexuality don't you? You have heard of Alan Partridge?
Gold Coast Fox Posted 3 March 2012 Posted 3 March 2012 You do realise the post wasn't a serious comment on sexuality don't you? You have heard of Alan Partridge? I wasn't referring to you're post per say, which is why i didnt quote it I just meant the whole Adam and Eve argument as a whole. And yes i have heard of Alan partridge and i do find him rather funny no offense was intended
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.