Gays want to take over the rest of Society?

MrStuffins

thebullkf wrote: »

this is the problem, your failure not mine.

and to be fair you didn't answer my question, according to you the child would be in limbo, due to all things being equal.

No, according to me the decision wouldn't be made on sexuality.

i have answered your question, it depends on many things.

then you failed to understand it. I'm not surprised.

K-9

I honestly believed the world was flat, gays should be be imprisoned and Liverpool just win leagues and European Cups. The natural order of things.

geetar

thebullkf wrote: »

what posters here have missed is one very important thing.

the rights of the child and the benefit to that child of having a same sex parents, vs mixed sex parents.

let me stop you here.

what people are saying is that gay couples should have equal rights to PREVENT the child from having less rights.

there is no evidence to support that a child is better off having both mother and father, rather then two of the same.

your argument is based on assumptions that youre making yourself without any fact.

thebullkf wrote: »

I honestly believe that having a mother and a father is more beneficial to the child than having same sex parents. {all other things being equal}

i will answer your question, it depends on many things, not least the environment in which the child is brought up.

if it ws here in Ireland i see no difference between a black vs white vs whatever race parents .

if the child were for instance in Nigeria and was white then i don't think that child would have as easy a childhood than if that child were black, do you get what i'm trying to say:o

i get what you are saying, and ill ask this.

if ireland was a more or less 100% gay tolerant country, with no stigma attatched to being gay, would you say the child would be better off?

it is therefore not the homosexuality thats the problem, but the people who discriminate against it.

so who should suffer? loving couples and parentless children, or the people who discriminate?

thebullkf wrote: »

i'm not sating gay parents are poorer paretns than hetero, what i am saying is i believe the hetero parents offer a better balance {all other things being equal}

define better balance

if they are no worse, and all other things are equal, how is it better balanced?

any loving couple should be allowed adopt end of.


why should societal discrimination harm innocent peoples wants and desires and impact on childrens lives? that shouldnt be allowed, and the only way to start getting rid of it is to remove this fabricated stigma that gay people are inferior parents.

once society accepts it, then all of your problems that you have with it will dissapear.






2 men would apparently make excellent fathers if they had children with 2 women, but if you join the two together as a gay couple, they become incapable of caring and loving a child.

absolute nonsense.

eightyfish

thebullkf wrote: »

it was a remark relating to spousal abuse. and implied i did it. not funny, not even in AH.

But this is the point.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
"I never beat my wife!"
"But you haven't answered the question."

It's not meant to be funny, it's always been the textbook example of a loaded question. To answer it implies something.

I'm not actually implying anything against you. I don't know you from Adam. It was a comment on your question. In my 2,000-odd posts in boards I have never insulted the poster rather than the post. I'm not about to start now.

A child would have the same happy environment growing up as long as his parents were loving. It's is not relevant whether they are gay, straight, black or white. An answer to your question has the loaded opinion that one couple would be superior to the other based on these things. This is why both questions are theoretical and both questions add nothing to an argument because there would never be a case where the only difference between two couples would be sexual orientation.

crystallove

so...
I have no words to express my feeling....

efb

Damn! My secret plan foiled yet again!
Damn you Sunday Independent!!!

Sinfonia

woodoo wrote: »

There is alot i agree with in that post. I have been arguing that the ideal is the man woman and child.

You also said you'd specifically vote No in a referendum to allow alternative family structures. That's what people have been pulling you up on:

woodoo wrote: »

I'm not particularly interested in the subject other than i would vote against it in a referendum.

woodoo wrote: »

Its going to happen anyway i'd say regardless of what i think. Like i said earlier i'm not militantly against it. If it happens i'll not be too bothered. So long as children have a happy upbringing all is good.

If that's true, then maybe you would consider voting Yes if such a referendum arises, or at least not voting. That would make the excruciating relay between you and MrStuffins all worthwhile!

Ellis Dee

Why is it that people like me get so much flak for supporting gay rights/opposing homophobia? I have no personal agenda, but when I see a group being demonised and victimised, I always wonder who's turn will it be next, when the bigots, haters - often motivated by a twisted and ridiculous belief in some kind of sky fairy - turn their attention to another collective of victims?:rolleyes:

Or, as Martin Miemöller put it:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Anita M.

It is true, more and more men are gay and there is no one left for us girls to date. Womens rights are trampled upon here.
And then we all get f ed up the bum by the government. They are all gay and overpowerfullofit.

Temptamperu

Anita M. wrote: »

It is true, more and more men are gay and there is no one left for us girls to date. Womens rights are trampled upon here.
And then we all get f ed up the bum by the government. They are all gay and overpowerfullofit.

Its because they are on tv and it spreads through visual stimulus apparently.

efb

The real issue they have is the normalisation of homosexuality- which is happening, Thank Jobs, but they want society to continue to see it as evil, wicked and perverse.

4leto

Temptamperu wrote: »

Its because they are on tv and it spreads through visual stimulus apparently.

It has reached epidemic proportions, it went from a downtrodden minority to taking over the world. Yeah see,, living in a free society has its drawbacks, some people should not be allowed to express themselves or have any aspirations.

Gummy Panda

People still get upset about gay people?!?! I don't give a **** enough about other people to care whether they're gay or not.

Anyway, at least efb's evil plan has been foiled for another week

4leto

efb wrote: »

The real issue they have is the normalisation of homosexuality- which is happening, Thank Jobs, but they want society to continue to see it as evil, wicked and perverse.

WTF what are you on about "the normalisation of homosexuality-" it is normal for those who are gay. How about the normalisation of black people.

woodoo

Sinfonia wrote: »

You also said you'd specifically vote No in a referendum to allow alternative family structures. That's what people have been pulling you up on:




If that's true, then maybe you would consider voting Yes if such a referendum arises, or at least not voting. That would make the excruciating relay between you and MrStuffins all worthwhile!

I would still vote no most likely, because whatever about gay women raising a child (its far from ideal but may possibly work out) i wouldn't support gay men adopting a child. A mother figure is far too important. And gay men don't seem to stay together all that long from my observations.

Gummy Panda

4leto wrote: »

WTF what are you on about "the normalisation of homosexuality-" it is normal for those who are gay. How about the normalisation of black people.

Probably something along these lines:

20 years ago two guys kissing "GET OUT OF HERE YOU HEATHENS"

Now two guys kissing "Meh.."

old hippy

Newsite wrote: »

Why is expressing an opinion against anything gay immediately 'homophobic'? Do you know what 'homophobic' actually means, and do you know if the journalist is homophobic?

Because the person who expresses it is usually in the "it's disgusting/you're going to hell" camp (no pun intended).

old hippy

woodoo wrote: »

I would still vote no most likely, because whatever about gay women raising a child (its far from ideal but may possibly work out) i wouldn't support gay men adopting a child. A mother figure is far too important. And gay men don't seem to stay together all that long from my observations.

Have you been observing for long, wood?

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, according to me the decision wouldn't be made on sexuality.



then you failed to understand it. I'm not surprised.

Ask questions then cast aspersions on someones ability to either understand or answer. Thats been your ploy.

Next post from you I want to see at least a full paragraph on why you think same sex couples are equally as good as mixed sex couples.

No more damn questions Jeremy 'MrStuffins' Paxman?

woodoo

old hippy wrote: »

Have you been observing for long, wood?

There are quite a few gay men in my area. And i can't think of one couple.

old hippy

woodoo wrote: »

There are quite a few gay men in my area. And i can't think of one couple.

So on that basis, gays shouldn't be allowed adopt or marry? Oh dear.

Having one loving parent is a blessing, having two is a gift. Doesn't matter what the gender is.

Lots of couples split up, gay, hetero or otherwise. Most of us kids of split parents manage to survive. It does help that we were loved. If you're attempting to put the idea out that gay people cannot be good parents - shame on you.

4leto

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Probably something along these lines:

20 years ago two guys kissing "GET OUT OF HERE YOU HEATHENS"

Now two guys kissing "Meh.."

That's good isn't it, no more hiding away and a freedom to express their sexuality and live their life in freedom. We all have one life, a small little jaunt in wonderful existence. So why make it harder for certain people, let them be, it hurts nobody.

One thing about us is human sexuality be it straight or gay is the weirdest thing we do. Human sexuality is far removed from procreation. Its a desire and a drive that gets twisted about in our massive cortex. It is about our spirit and spirituality, its not natural. How many times have you had sex for so called natural purposes, with me it was never about having children, I don't particularly want any, but I do want sex, does that make me unnatural.

Sonics2k

woodoo wrote: »

There are quite a few gay men in my area. And i can't think of one couple.

I can from the top of my head think of 5 different gay (male couples) who have been together for more than 15 years.

Alternatively, I'm seperated. My Uncle is divorced. My Aunt is also divorced (but re-married), and my grandparents separated over 30 years ago.

Now I can easily say, based on the relationships I saw growing up, that straight couples don't stay together for very long.

You're basing an entire world view on what you have personally seen, which can't be attributed to a world-wide scale.

woodoo

old hippy wrote: »

So on that basis, gays shouldn't be allowed adopt or marry? Oh dear.

Having one loving parent is a blessing, having two is a gift. Doesn't matter what the gender is.

Lots of couples split up, gay, hetero or otherwise. Most of us kids of split parents manage to survive. It does help that we were loved. If you're attempting to put the idea out that gay people cannot be good parents - shame on you.

It would be interesting to see a poll for gay adoption.

Logical Fallacy

woodoo wrote: »

I would still vote no most likely, because whatever about gay women raising a child (its far from ideal but may possibly work out) i wouldn't support gay men adopting a child. A mother figure is far too important. And gay men don't seem to stay together all that long from my observations.

woodoo wrote: »

There are quite a few gay men in my area. And i can't think of one couple.

If there are no gay couples, then how can you decide how long they have stayed together?

To be honest, i find it pretty odd that, despite admitting yesterday that a same sex couple would provide better care for a child than the care system, you would still vote to keep all those kids in the care system rather than see them adopted.

It tells me you are thinking about this whole thing with your gut a lot more than with your head.

Killer Pigeon

woodoo wrote: »

I would still vote no most likely, because whatever about gay women raising a child (its far from ideal but may possibly work out) i wouldn't support gay men adopting a child. A mother figure is far too important. And gay men don't seem to stay together all that long from my observations.

What's your opinion on single fathers, widowers, divorcees, etc.? Should they be denied the same legal right to the care of their children as mothers have, simple because they're male. This is sexism, plain and simple.

And you analogy that gay men don't "stage together all that long" is utter nonsense.

Sonics2k

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What's your opinion on single fathers, widowers, etc.? Should they be denied the same legal right to the care of children simple because they're male. This is sexism, plain and simple.

Or even better, what about un-married fathers who are separated from the mother of the children.

Under Irish law they have no legal rights to the child unless they take it too court to fight for that basic right.

woodoo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If there are no gay couples, then how can you decide how long they have stayed together?

To be honest, i find it pretty odd that, despite admitting yesterday that a same sex couple would provide better care for a child than the care system, you would still vote to keep all those kids in the care system rather than see them adopted.

It tells me you are thinking about this whole thing with your gut a lot more than with your head.

I also said i'd prefer them fostered or adopted by straight couples. Better than orphanages is what i meant though. Not necessarily the care system which fostering is a part.

woodoo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What's your opinion on single fathers, widowers, divorcees, etc.? Should they be denied the same legal right to the care of their children simple because they're male. This is sexism, plain and simple. And you analogy that gay men don't "stage together all that long" is wrong.

No because that is the place they have found themselves. These things happen. It would be unfair to remove the child from parents, single fathers they already know and love.

I'm talking about adoption.

Sonics2k

woodoo wrote: »

I also said i'd prefer them fostered or adopted by straight couples. Better than orphanages is what i meant though. Not necessarily the care system which fostering is a part.

Can I ask though.

Why does it disturb you?
Are you afraid the child will turn out gay? Or bullied?

Because I wasn't bullied because my parent's were gay, I did get bullied because I had an English accent though. Nothing like a bit of token racism growing up, is that alright with you?