The Year Of The Fox Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 What programmes do you watch then, where this happens? I'm not on about programs where that happens, no need to be obtuse!
Webbo Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I might be missing something here but what makes you say it's a boy? I can barely tell what's going on on that goblet let alone what age they are supposed to be. In any case I'm not sure what what that has to do with this overall debate, we're not talking about paedophilia. Are you trying to confuse everyone into submission? It was a major news story when it was sold at auction some years ago.
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Won't the " Bi's" need at least two groups ? At least three I can think of. The obvious two, plus 'the greedy bastards' club. Or IDAL, the 'I'd do anything lot'.
1964FOX Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Sorry if this post isn't relating to what's being discussed now, I've just been reading pages 3,4,5. Anybody on here tell me honestly that you wouldn't be even the slightest bit embarrassed to tell a new friend or girlfriend that you have '2 mums' or '2 dads'. If you can, you're either very open minded, or lying. I believe I could in all honesty, I had to tell people I was a council estate boy from a single parent family when I attended grammar school in the late 70's. I took a load of shit for that (from other pupils and teachers) but never going to deny where I came from.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 At least three I can think of. The obvious two, plus 'the greedy bastards' club. Or IDAL, the 'I'd do anything lot'. Imagine being schizophrenic and Gay you would not know if your coming or going.
leicsmac Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Yes indeed you do believe in your convictions and lets hope we have much more of your honesty on this site. well thought out and too the point . Cheers. I always enjoy a debate. Sorry if this post isn't relating to what's being discussed now, I've just been reading pages 3,4,5. But I think that fundamentally, a child should be raised by a man and a woman. We do not know really if being raised by 2 gay men or 2 gay women is harmful to children's development, but is it worth taking the risk? In my opinion, no. In society now where straight parents may have a homosexual child, the child when reaching adolescence may be confused and worried about being different and not understanding why. Maybe a straight child may think that when noticing the opposite sex for the first time, if they have 2 same sex 'parents' at home. I'm noy saying that having 2 gay parents will make the child gay, but I do not think they are a positive influence in this regard. Would having 2 dads affect a boys ability to socialise with girls and vice versa? In my family, I always went to my dad when I was going through puberty to ask the questions every youth asks. I would be too embarrassed to ask my mum. What would a boy do if he felt this way but had 2 lesbian mothers? What about a girl having her first period? Her mother should be there to help her through it, not 2 men. Then there's the playground bullying thing. It will always happen. It's an open goal to getting mocked and ridiculed. Even between mates, the banter would be a right pain in the arse (like your dad felt last night, wahey!) Anybody on here tell me honestly that you wouldn't be even the slightest bit embarrassed to tell a new friend or girlfriend that you have '2 mums' or '2 dads'. If you can, you're either very open minded, or lying. Homsexuality is natural and homosexuals wanting children is natural, but actually having them isn't. Giving them children is tampering with nature in a no less controversial way than genetically engineering a designer baby, imo. Wow Cooling - well thought out and rational viewpoint there. I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, but you've put it across well.
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Some say you're born gay. The video above is one example that proves that prison makes you gay, you're not actually born that way.
Rincewind Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 I am sure I have seen those posting against gay marriage because some religions and churches object post on here saying they are against religion. That leads me to thinking that they are using the religious sectors as a cover and maybe to excuse for their own views. There are more important things to worry about in the world than gay marriage. Maybe some of the protesters should focus on those instead of being so childish.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Let's face it marriage is just a certificate and it changes fook all so let them get married.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Let's face it marriage is just a certificate and it changes fook all so let them get married. Being married will probably reduce the amount of KBS if normal marriages are anything to go by
ozleicester Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Sorry if this post isn't relating to what's being discussed now, I've just been reading pages 3,4,5. But I think that fundamentally, a child should be raised by a man and a woman. We do not know really if being raised by 2 gay men or 2 gay women is harmful to children's development, but is it worth taking the risk? In my opinion, no. To be fair, we dont know about ANYONE and how they will affect their childs development, their colour, sexuality, religious beliefs, football team, location they were born, along with a billion other things will affect their childs development. There is no greater risk in a homosexual couple, than in a heterosexual couple! In society now where straight parents may have a homosexual child, the child when reaching adolescence may be confused and worried about being different and not understanding why. Maybe a straight child may think that when noticing the opposite sex for the first time, if they have 2 same sex 'parents' at home. I'm noy saying that having 2 gay parents will make the child gay, but I do not think they are a positive influence in this regard. Would having 2 dads affect a boys ability to socialise with girls and vice versa? as for them "making" gay children... you do realise that 99.9% of gay people are the result of heterosexual parents right?..perhaps we should stop heteros having sex and creating all these gay kids? In my family, I always went to my dad when I was going through puberty to ask the questions every youth asks. I would be too embarrassed to ask my mum. What would a boy do if he felt this way but had 2 lesbian mothers? What about a girl having her first period? Her mother should be there to help her through it, not 2 men. What about single parent families? or families where grand parents bring up children? Children in these families find a way to have their needs met no diferent for gay couples.... Then there's the playground bullying thing. It will always happen. It's an open goal to getting mocked and ridiculed. Even between mates, the banter would be a right pain in the arse (like your dad felt last night, wahey!) Anybody on here tell me honestly that you wouldn't be even the slightest bit embarrassed to tell a new friend or girlfriend that you have '2 mums' or '2 dads'. If you can, you're either very open minded, or lying. There are a milion things that people are bullied for.... we should be taking away the rights of bullies.. not the rights of the innocent Homsexuality is natural and homosexuals wanting children is natural, but actually having them isn't. Giving them children is tampering with nature in a no less controversial way than genetically engineering a designer baby, imo. im afraid your opinion is wrong.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Being married will probably reduce the amount of KBS if normal marriages are anything to go by Korean Bitch Slap?
flowwolf Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Do homophobes still believe in cooties? I'm sure I would if I knew what they were.
flowwolf Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 I am sure I have seen those posting against gay marriage because some religions and churches object post on here saying they are against religion. That leads me to thinking that they are using the religious sectors as a cover and maybe to excuse for their own views. There are more important things to worry about in the world than gay marriage. Maybe some of the protesters should focus on those instead of being so childish. Or maybe the government should focus on more important issues and stop being so childish.
indierich06 Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Or maybe the government should focus on more important issues and stop being so childish. The government is capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time you know? That's what we pay them for. All they've done is debated it for a bit and put it to a vote. It's hardly dominated all of their time, has it?
MikeyT Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 http://www.thisislei...l#axzz2K6QT7oue MPs have explained their stances on gay marriage following a landmark vote on the issue. On Wednesday, MPs voted by a majority of 225 to support the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which would allow gay couples to marry. Each of the city's MPs – all Labour – voted in favour of the Bill. County MPs – all Conservative – voted against the bill, except for Alan Duncan, who has been in a civil partnership since 2008, and Stephen Dorrell. Charnwood MP Mr Dorrell said: "We have had for some years civil partnerships and most people take the view if you value marriage it is an opportunity that should be available regardless of sexuality. "Many people take the opposite view on the grounds of their faith or ethics and I respect that. "But this is not about whether they would do it themselves, rather about whether the opportunity should be denied to others in society. I don't think it should be." Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth said he voted in favour of the Bill because "this is just about giving people equality". He said: "So long as the safeguards are in place than mean no religious organisations are forced to marry gay people, this is the right thing to do." Colleague Liz Kendall, MP for Leicester West, said: "I believe in equality and if you love somebody and want to make a long-term commitment to them, you shouldn't be prevented from doing that because you are gay." Leicester East MP Keith Vaz said: "We are all equal in the eyes of God. People should not be excluded from marriage simply because they love someone of the same sex." In the free vote, 400 MPs supported the bill while 175 opposed it. It is likely to be resisted in the Lords but is expected to become law nonetheless. Many of those who voted against it said they were lobbied by constituents concerned allowing gay people to wed would undermine traditional marriage. Some said they had received offensive letters accusing them of homophobia or bigotry. South Leicestershire MP Andrew Robathan said opposing the Bill was "a matter of principle". "I resent any suggestion this is homophobic," he said. "You can't say a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be the same. "I have had a lot of letters from constituents on this – about 130 – and the vast majority were opposed to homosexual marriage." Harborough MP Sir Edward Garnier said: "For me, marriage is between a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex. It's a simple and straightforward view. "I have had some very vitriolic correspondence telling me I would be confined to the worst recesses of hell. "My view is not a moral view, it is not an anti-gay view or a religious view. "Two people of the same sex can have a relationship but to me that is not what the word 'marriage' means." Bosworth MP David Tredinnick said he did not feel there was any need to change the existing marriage laws. Loughborough MP Nicky Morgan said her religious views were one of the factors that moved her to oppose the Bill. "I am an active member of my church, and the Church of England has been pretty clear on this," she said. "Marriage has, until now, always been between a man and a woman. I think this is a big social change and it needs more public debate." The MP said she had received 300 letters from constituents opposing the bill and 24 in support. North West Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen and Mr Duncan were not available for comment. Read more: http://www.thisislei...l#ixzz2KCrA0EAU Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
Leicester Piggott Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Its just a way to get 2x married man tax break benefit.
Rincewind Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Or maybe the government should focus on more important issues and stop being so childish. So you agree that gays should be able to marry in a church if they wish to? I was thinking more about the church and religious people that object. The ones that preach equality and to love your fellow man. Those that say they don't like religion for the old fashioned rules that they have but defend them when the rules suit them. All this should have gone ahead without all the fuss. Could be a smokescreen by certain newspapers to take peoples minds off other policies that are being implemented that concern many ordinary people.
Reynard Bleu Posted 7 February 2013 Author Posted 7 February 2013 The government is capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time you know? That's what we pay them for. All they've done is debated it for a bit and put it to a vote. It's hardly dominated all of their time, has it? You are right of course, but it has filled the news reports in the UK and if the views expressed on here are anything to go by it is a very important and devisive matter for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. Clearly its a big deal for the Conservative Party, I suspect for the duration of the campaigning and the vote they were very focused on this issue,
Zingari Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 The kids didn't fancy chocolate covered cream eclairs though did they?
indierich06 Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 You are right of course, but it has filled the news reports in the UK and if the views expressed on here are anything to go by it is a very important and devisive matter for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. Clearly its a big deal for the Conservative Party, I suspect for the duration of the campaigning and the vote they were very focused on this issue, It's been stirred up by the media precisely because it's quite an interesting debate, so it's bound to be newsworthy. I'm not even convinced there was much 'campaigning' so to speak - as far as I can tell, they decided to vote on it, set the date and this has been the outcome. It'll be debated in the Lords for a lot longer, but that's all they're good for anyway. At the end of the day, there should be no debate or campaigning because in terms of politics, it's a no brainer. It's a case of freedoms and equality - in this country you're free to marry anyone of any race, you're free to practice whatever religion you like... If it were a law saying people of different races or religions couldn't marry there would be uproar, I don't see why it should be any different for people of the same sex. I really fail to see how it's going to make any difference to the lives of those who don't agree with it - it's none of their business what two consenting adults get up to. I have to say as well, even homophobes should be backing this change in the law because we are privileged to live in a free country - if the government voted definitively that gay people aren't allowed to marry they would be setting a dangerous precedent because they would be denying people a basic freedom - the freedom to marry whoever you want. If that's where it starts, where does it end?
Zingari Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 What about polygamy ? Should it be illegal ? Should we have the right to take many wives (or husbands) if we want to?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.