purpleronnie Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 I'm still not sure why the gays want to get married. Surely a civil service is enough for them. Nobody knows how prehistoric men behaved. They could have had very good manners for all we know. equality.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 equality. I think, given the reference thereafter is a "civil service", the question is why it needs to be "marriage". I am getting married in 2 months in a civil ceremony. Other than the name, I don't see the difference to a civil partnership but perhaps somebody more enlightened could educate me? Whatever your principles, surely it's abhorrent for somebody and their partner to be denied the same rights as you based on sexuality, particularly when it affects just them? Gay adoption is another area. I'd say it deserves its own thread but it seems to have one already. Broadly speaking I'm with MattP and Moose. Gay adoption should be allowed but adopted children must be allowed to have the most "normal" life possible, and unfortunately that would involve preferring heterosexual couples for adoptive purposes.
Alf Bentley Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 Gay adoption should be allowed but adopted children must be allowed to have the most "normal" life possible, and unfortunately that would involve preferring heterosexual couples for adoptive purposes. Here are some well-known heterosexual couples: Ian Brady & Myra Hindley; Fred & Rose West; Ian Huntley & Maxine Carr. Maybe, instead of prioritizing the sexuality of the adoptive parents, it would be an idea to prioritize their ability to be responsible, loving, nurturing, flexible parents? It should also be stressed that there is a major shortage of adoptive parents, particularly for children, as opposed to babies. As for "normal", heterosexual is "normal" to me and presumably to you, as part of the heterosexual majority, but for a significant minority of people homosexual is "normal"....and remember (a) many adoptees are children of school age, not babies; (b) many people are aware of their sexuality by age 8 or 9, probably most by age 13...why should straight parents be deemed better suited to bring up a gay schoolchild? In truth, how important is the sexuality of our parents? I didn't witness much overtly sexual conduct between my parents, apart from the odd kiss and cuddle. Surely, the provision of security, affection and good guidance tailored to the individual child is more important, regardless of sexuality. If the sexuality of the child happens to be different from that of the parents (e.g. my gay nephew v. his straight parents), either the parents will adapt to help their child grow up - or the child will find guidance elsewhere.
purpleronnie Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 Rape, incest, inter-species breeding happen in nature. So they must be natural too? No-ones claiming that though are they?
DennisNedry Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 No-ones claiming that though are they? I'm sure there are some yanks in the deep south who'd support incentious marriages
Guest ttfn Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 Here are some well-known heterosexual couples: Ian Brady & Myra Hindley; Fred & Rose West; Ian Huntley & Maxine Carr. Maybe, instead of prioritizing the sexuality of the adoptive parents, it would be an idea to prioritize their ability to be responsible, loving, nurturing, flexible parents? It should also be stressed that there is a major shortage of adoptive parents, particularly for children, as opposed to babies. As for "normal", heterosexual is "normal" to me and presumably to you, as part of the heterosexual majority, but for a significant minority of people homosexual is "normal"....and remember (a) many adoptees are children of school age, not babies; (b) many people are aware of their sexuality by age 8 or 9, probably most by age 13...why should straight parents be deemed better suited to bring up a gay schoolchild? In truth, how important is the sexuality of our parents? I didn't witness much overtly sexual conduct between my parents, apart from the odd kiss and cuddle. Surely, the provision of security, affection and good guidance tailored to the individual child is more important, regardless of sexuality. If the sexuality of the child happens to be different from that of the parents (e.g. my gay nephew v. his straight parents), either the parents will adapt to help their child grow up - or the child will find guidance elsewhere. I don't disagree. I think I made my point clumsily. The ability of people to be good parents should be absolutely paramount in any adoption decision. I think the point has been made elsewhere that we are talking about in a "tie-breaker" circumstance, which is probably so rare as to be a completely obsolete point anyway. And the more kids we can get into loving and supportive homes the better. I used "normal" in quotation marks deliberately as I am aware that it is an emotive word to use and interpreted by different people in different ways. I'm sorry if you or others have taken offence to that.
Alf Bentley Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 I don't disagree. I think I made my point clumsily. The ability of people to be good parents should be absolutely paramount in any adoption decision. I think the point has been made elsewhere that we are talking about in a "tie-breaker" circumstance, which is probably so rare as to be a completely obsolete point anyway. And the more kids we can get into loving and supportive homes the better. I used "normal" in quotation marks deliberately as I am aware that it is an emotive word to use and interpreted by different people in different ways. I'm sorry if you or others have taken offence to that. Absolutely no offence taken, at least not by me - just discussing the issue and questioning the thinking behind your post - as others rightly question the thinking behind mine.
Leeds Fox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 This. Good straight couple > Good gay couple > Single-parent > None Not sure if I've missed a trick here, apologies if I have! Are you saying a 'good gay couple' would be bette for a child than it's 'natural' single parent?
Rincewind Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Not sure if I've missed a trick here, apologies if I have! Are you saying a 'good gay couple' would be bette for a child than it's 'natural' single parent? What do single parents have to do with it. Many women with children left their partner to get away from violent relationships. They are quite capable of bringing up children by themselves.
theessexfox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Not sure if I've missed a trick here, apologies if I have! Are you saying a 'good gay couple' would be bette for a child than it's 'natural' single parent? Yep... I'd rather stability and two parents, myself.
stix Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Yep... I'd rather stability and two parents, myself. ....than it's NATURAL birth mother/father?
theessexfox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 ....than it's NATURAL birth mother/father? I meant for adoption.
The Doctor Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Rape, incest, inter-species breeding happen in nature. So they must be natural too? They are yes. Don't confuse something being natural with being something that should be done mind.
Rincewind Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Humans can reason and think so can decide what should and should not be done originally because we were told the big man in the sky would not like it later later through morality and concern for each other.
DennisNedry Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 They are yes. Don't confuse something being natural with being something that should be done mind. So is homosexuality something that 'should be done'?
The Doctor Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 So is homosexuality something that 'should be done'? Homosexuality and homosexual marriage is fine since unlike the other three, it does not have any adverse affect, be it physical or mental on anyone. Rape meanwhile can be traumatic, incest can have serious effects on any child due to genetics and epigenetics, while inter-species breeding can lead to all sorts of dodgy illnesses. Homosexuality meanwhile is between two consenting members, with no additional illnesses as threat compared to heterosexual sex, and cannot lead to badly formed children.
DennisNedry Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Homosexuality and homosexual marriage is fine since unlike the other three, it does not have any adverse affect, be it physical or mental on anyone. Rape meanwhile can be traumatic, incest can have serious effects on any child due to genetics and epigenetics, while inter-species breeding can lead to all sorts of dodgy illnesses. Homosexuality meanwhile is between two consenting members, with no additional illnesses as threat compared to heterosexual sex, and cannot lead to badly formed children. So do you prevent people with disabilities or disorders from having children because the resultant children can be badly formed?
The Year Of The Fox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 I'm not sure what's more boring now, this thread or the last few overs at Lords
The Doctor Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 So do you prevent people with disabilities or disorders from having children because the resultant children can be badly formed? No, because there there's still the genetic diversity and different possible markers to inherit that the disability is not guaranteed to be passed down. With incest though, the incredibly similar genes means there'll be some seriously ****ed up shit within the child's growth.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 Did no one acknowledge your last ridiculous post in this topic? I guess you'll have to throw some more shit at your keyboard until you get a reaction. Sorry, I didn't realize you were gay. Oh, and by the way, I meant every word of it. God help such poor kiddies.
Manwell Pablo Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 You are without doubt.. the perfect example as to why heterosexuals shouldnt be allowed to mate. You piss weak , fat little gobshite...Make no mistake, if your internet persona was even close to real, someone like me will fvck you up soon. Oh dear someone had a drink on Friday. Did you know a lot of alcohol products in Australia could have fish in them Oz http://beer.about.com/b/2008/10/02/beer-may-contain-fish-products.htm lol
BoneDog Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 As the old saying goes - God made mother and father, not Adam and Steve. The day that a man can scream YABADABADOO whilst sperminating up another mans sphincter, creating a baby in the process, is the day that I'll believe having two dads is normal. I know some lesbos who have children, so I'm not racist. Oh, and Tatchell is a demon-child. All the famous and powerful lobbies are full of them.
Rincewind Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 If one man kills another man for his God it is OK. If a man loves another man it is considered wrong. Something don't add up.
BoneDog Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 If one man kills another man for his God it is OK. If a man loves another man it is considered wrong. Something don't add up. I don't think the first one is ok. And if a man wants to love another man that's fine by me. Alot of the gay and feminist protest groups I see say things like "BURN THE CHURCH" and "HAIL SATAN", so I just don't understand why they want to get married in a church or anything like that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.