Far Rider wrote: Lon thanks for asking. The answer is yes and no.
Yes a strong heterosexuality was modeled by my parents in a strict religious environment. Yes, I believe the Bible is correct in condemning homosexuality as being wrong, a sin.
But honestly the biggest part of my objection to it is the complete indecisiveness of the individuals Ive known who claim to be homosexuals. I have found them to be unstable. Every one of them.
The second most important reason I object to it is because it is unnatural. The parts just do not fit. It's abnormal and unimaginable to me.
Third, I believe there is a very concerted effort on the part of the homosexual community to send out this false idea that they are all upstanding citizens. Have you ever been to Sanfrancisco and seen first hand the homosexual bars and abath houses, the type of life a large part of homosexuals live? It's not all this single partner for life, I only love my partner.
The truth of it is its a very heartbreaking sight.
When I consider all Ive seen and heard, then I fall back on what the Bible says, and it fits.
So yes, and No.
I don't get it? I'm older then you and I didn't truly know about homosexuality......so why would your parents instill this big belief thing.....was it rampant where you grew up?
(homosexuality)
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Far Rider wrote:
But honestly the biggest part of my objection to it is the complete indecisiveness of the individuals Ive known who claim to be homosexuals. I have found them to be unstable. Every one of them.
I second the motion. The ones I've known were twitchy and unpredicable too.
The second most important reason I object to it is because it is unnatural. The parts just do not fit. It's abnormal and unimaginable to me.
I agree and I'm adding...gross.:-2
But honestly the biggest part of my objection to it is the complete indecisiveness of the individuals Ive known who claim to be homosexuals. I have found them to be unstable. Every one of them.
I second the motion. The ones I've known were twitchy and unpredicable too.
The second most important reason I object to it is because it is unnatural. The parts just do not fit. It's abnormal and unimaginable to me.
I agree and I'm adding...gross.:-2
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Well you know, I just like to make an impression, plus it is a subject that I feel quite strongly about. I'm a married man with 2 kids and I've had a few gay friends, to be honest I'd feel safer with them looking after my kids than most of my heterosexual friends. I don't agree with the judgment by religion thing, but maybe that is because my parents said to me that they were not personally religious, but if I went out into the big wide world and found that there were any that appealed to me then they would be supportive of that.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Slade1 wrote: Well you know, I just like to make an impression, plus it is a subject that I feel quite strongly about. I'm a married man with 2 kids and I've had a few gay friends, to be honest I'd feel safer with them looking after my kids than most of my heterosexual friends. I don't agree with the judgment by religion thing, but maybe that is because my parents said to me that they were not personally religious, but if I went out into the big wide world and found that there were any that appealed to me then they would be supportive of that.
See? He can be lucid and polite.
See? He can be lucid and polite.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Bumping this because I think it got lost in the storm
Accountable wrote: I think very few of us are tolerant in this thread. Several of us steamrolled Daffy's daffy posts, several are showing their intolerance of Far's stance, by the strict definition Far & I are intolerant of each other's views.
At what point does simple dislike and stating opinions become true intolerance?
Accountable wrote: I think very few of us are tolerant in this thread. Several of us steamrolled Daffy's daffy posts, several are showing their intolerance of Far's stance, by the strict definition Far & I are intolerant of each other's views.
At what point does simple dislike and stating opinions become true intolerance?
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Hello, hello. Thanks for the welcome there. No I've never been to the Grapes Pub in Mathew Street. After swiftly Googling 'Grapes Pub, Mathew Street' I discoverd that it was in Liverpool. Unfortunately I've never been to Liverpool, I'm from Bristol down in the Westcountry...
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Far Rider wrote: No, I didnt encounter it till I went to Africa in the army. I said my parents modeled a very heterosexual ideal. They loved each other, showed proper affection.
I do remember hearing My fther preach and other preachers tell of it. My first recollection is of being taught the story of the two angels that stayed in Lots house and how the men of the city wanted to sexual abuse them and Lot would nto let them go out of the house.
I was probably about 15 or 16 when I learned what that languge meant.
Gee I didn't really know til I was about 24, I only knew about stereotypes......and they were cruel......I never correlated the sexual part of it.
I do remember hearing My fther preach and other preachers tell of it. My first recollection is of being taught the story of the two angels that stayed in Lots house and how the men of the city wanted to sexual abuse them and Lot would nto let them go out of the house.
I was probably about 15 or 16 when I learned what that languge meant.
Gee I didn't really know til I was about 24, I only knew about stereotypes......and they were cruel......I never correlated the sexual part of it.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Far Rider wrote: Lon thanks for asking. The answer is yes and no.
Yes a strong heterosexuality was modeled by my parents in a strict religious environment. Yes, I believe the Bible is correct in condemning homosexuality as being wrong, a sin.
But honestly the biggest part of my objection to it is the complete indecisiveness of the individuals Ive known who claim to be homosexuals. I have found them to be unstable. Every one of them.
The second most important reason I object to it is because it is unnatural. The parts just do not fit. It's abnormal and unimaginable to me.
Third, I belive there is a very concerted effort on the part of the homosexual community to send out this false idea that they are all upstanding citizens. Have you ever been to Sanfrancisco and seen first hand the homosexual bars and abath houses, the type of life a large part of homosexuals live? It's not all this single partner for life, I only love my partner.
The truth of it is its a very heartbreaking sight.
When I consider all Ive seen and heard, then I fall back on what the Bible says, and it fits.
So yes, and No.
Far----I grew up in Oakland, Ca., went to high school there and college in San Francisco, so I know San Francisco well. I have known gays all my life and would agree that some are unstable, just like some heterosexuals, some on the other hand are quite stable. San Franciso has always had a large gay community and while I dislike the "IN YOUR FACE" attitude of some of the Gay Community, I am otherwise quite tolerant and count some gays among my personal friends.
Gays will always be with us as it is not a choice for most of them, just like in the animal world. I don't see gays as having a strong negative impact on society or on traditional family lifestyles. Live and let live.
Yes a strong heterosexuality was modeled by my parents in a strict religious environment. Yes, I believe the Bible is correct in condemning homosexuality as being wrong, a sin.
But honestly the biggest part of my objection to it is the complete indecisiveness of the individuals Ive known who claim to be homosexuals. I have found them to be unstable. Every one of them.
The second most important reason I object to it is because it is unnatural. The parts just do not fit. It's abnormal and unimaginable to me.
Third, I belive there is a very concerted effort on the part of the homosexual community to send out this false idea that they are all upstanding citizens. Have you ever been to Sanfrancisco and seen first hand the homosexual bars and abath houses, the type of life a large part of homosexuals live? It's not all this single partner for life, I only love my partner.
The truth of it is its a very heartbreaking sight.
When I consider all Ive seen and heard, then I fall back on what the Bible says, and it fits.
So yes, and No.
Far----I grew up in Oakland, Ca., went to high school there and college in San Francisco, so I know San Francisco well. I have known gays all my life and would agree that some are unstable, just like some heterosexuals, some on the other hand are quite stable. San Franciso has always had a large gay community and while I dislike the "IN YOUR FACE" attitude of some of the Gay Community, I am otherwise quite tolerant and count some gays among my personal friends.
Gays will always be with us as it is not a choice for most of them, just like in the animal world. I don't see gays as having a strong negative impact on society or on traditional family lifestyles. Live and let live.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Far Rider wrote: No, I didnt encounter it till I went to Africa in the army. I said my parents modeled a very heterosexual ideal. They loved each other, showed proper affection.
I do remember hearing My fther preach and other preachers tell of it. My first recollection is of being taught the story of the two angels that stayed in Lots house and how the men of the city wanted to sexual abuse them and Lot would nto let them go out of the house.
I was probably about 15 or 16 when I learned what that languge meant.
My parents were and still are very affectionate together and have a very happy and loving relationship, but they always told me not to judge by colour, sexual preference etcetera. Any kind of intolerant leanings that I have now have been developed by independent thought and experience.
I do remember hearing My fther preach and other preachers tell of it. My first recollection is of being taught the story of the two angels that stayed in Lots house and how the men of the city wanted to sexual abuse them and Lot would nto let them go out of the house.
I was probably about 15 or 16 when I learned what that languge meant.
My parents were and still are very affectionate together and have a very happy and loving relationship, but they always told me not to judge by colour, sexual preference etcetera. Any kind of intolerant leanings that I have now have been developed by independent thought and experience.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
SnoozeControl wrote: ... opened my mind to the vagaries of the human spirit.
Actually, that was a nice piece of writing!
(Note to self: Be nice to Snooze!):o
Actually, that was a nice piece of writing!
(Note to self: Be nice to Snooze!):o
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
SnoozeControl wrote: My mom was a hairdresser in San Diego and had a buddy that worked in a beauty supply store downtown. We were visiting her one day when one of the regulars came in to browse... my mom and her friend whispered and tittered that "Brucie" was getting a sex change and so far only had the boobs. S/he looked pretty good!
I was probably about 12 and don't remember feeling horrified or disgusted by it, only interested. Maybe it was this early encounter with someone that was uneasy with their own sexuality that opened my mind to the vagaries of the human spirit.
Yes, that last line is a bit dramatic, but you all know what I mean, I hope.
Snooze you spoke about Cabaret, I was about 17 I guess when I saw it.....Joel Grey mesmerized me and I didn't know why......he was so creepy yet.....(sexy?) I don't mean drop dead I want you sexy......but the thing that got me was that there was death and all going on all around and life went on in the "Cabaret" I have to see this on stage.........It's hard to find on video, I don't even think it has been released on dvd yet.
I was probably about 12 and don't remember feeling horrified or disgusted by it, only interested. Maybe it was this early encounter with someone that was uneasy with their own sexuality that opened my mind to the vagaries of the human spirit.
Yes, that last line is a bit dramatic, but you all know what I mean, I hope.
Snooze you spoke about Cabaret, I was about 17 I guess when I saw it.....Joel Grey mesmerized me and I didn't know why......he was so creepy yet.....(sexy?) I don't mean drop dead I want you sexy......but the thing that got me was that there was death and all going on all around and life went on in the "Cabaret" I have to see this on stage.........It's hard to find on video, I don't even think it has been released on dvd yet.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Far Rider wrote: I do, this thread was talking about gay couples adopting children. The impact on our soceity is one child at a time. Why would any potential parent who loves a child decide to bring the stigma of being "different" on the head of a child. That in and of itself is selfish on the part of the one who wants to be a parent. We're not talking about being born into a gay family, we're talking about legally adopting into an environment that already has a negative social impact.
Hmm...The funny thing is I can see what you mean about the stigma of being 'different'. I 100% disagree with the fact that there should be a stigma attached to being 'different' but I do see what you're saying. I don't think that you can class them as selfish though, I would think that the vast majority of Gay couples that want to adopt want to do it for genuine reasons, just as heterosexual couples do. I think that the level of stigma is variable, depending on which area you live in, but maybe that's just in the UK.
Hmm...The funny thing is I can see what you mean about the stigma of being 'different'. I 100% disagree with the fact that there should be a stigma attached to being 'different' but I do see what you're saying. I don't think that you can class them as selfish though, I would think that the vast majority of Gay couples that want to adopt want to do it for genuine reasons, just as heterosexual couples do. I think that the level of stigma is variable, depending on which area you live in, but maybe that's just in the UK.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Because we feel sorry for the adults... oh whoa is me, they cant have children...well no kidding. They cant have children cause God made two persons of the OPPOSITE sex able to procreate? Theres a reason for that! It's by design.
Ok so there it is. I'm done. If thats offensive so be it.
Maybe that's where we differ. I believe that evolution made two persons of the opposite sex able to procreate, not by design but by trial and error (sort of). Gay people are not gay because they decide to be, they can't just give up being gay, science has isolated parts of the brain and certain genetics that make someone gay. I also believe that evolution gave us the intelligence and emotion to understand this and not to deny gay people the right to adopt just because nature has made them that way.
Ok so there it is. I'm done. If thats offensive so be it.
Maybe that's where we differ. I believe that evolution made two persons of the opposite sex able to procreate, not by design but by trial and error (sort of). Gay people are not gay because they decide to be, they can't just give up being gay, science has isolated parts of the brain and certain genetics that make someone gay. I also believe that evolution gave us the intelligence and emotion to understand this and not to deny gay people the right to adopt just because nature has made them that way.
-
daffodil52
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:45 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Clancy wrote: ...oops , my apologies, my mistake
Enjoy the forum
its by lime street, railway station liverpool ? grapes vault pub
not in mathew street,,,,, its all getting interesting......didnt it close down,,,,
thank u all daffy50,,,,,,
Enjoy the forum
its by lime street, railway station liverpool ? grapes vault pubnot in mathew street,,,,, its all getting interesting......didnt it close down,,,,
thank u all daffy50,,,,,,
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Slade1 wrote: Maybe that's where we differ. I believe that evolution made two persons of the opposite sex able to procreate, not by design but by trial and error (sort of). Gay people are not gay because they decide to be, they can't just give up being gay, science has isolated parts of the brain and certain genetics that make someone gay. I also believe that evolution gave us the intelligence and emotion to understand this and not to deny gay people the right to adopt just because nature has made them that way.
Here's my take on homosexuality. It's not a switch in one's head. It's a continuum. Most of our preferences fall on a continuum from one extreme to another:
Only Men Only Women
Pedophile Necropheliac
Anorexic Orca
I'm sure there are dozens more, but you get the picture. The type of person one is sexually attracted to is not a choice, it is nature. Whether one acts on that attraction is absolutely a choice. Behavior is always a choice.
If a person falls somewhere in the middle of one of the continua, let's say the man/woman one since that's the subject at hand, he or she may be tempted by people of both sexes. The choice of which way to go will be strongly swayed by societal or familial standards. Therefore, if society says it's okay to be homosexual, more kids are likely to check it out to see if it's for them.
Here's my take on homosexuality. It's not a switch in one's head. It's a continuum. Most of our preferences fall on a continuum from one extreme to another:
Only Men Only Women
Pedophile Necropheliac
Anorexic Orca
I'm sure there are dozens more, but you get the picture. The type of person one is sexually attracted to is not a choice, it is nature. Whether one acts on that attraction is absolutely a choice. Behavior is always a choice.
If a person falls somewhere in the middle of one of the continua, let's say the man/woman one since that's the subject at hand, he or she may be tempted by people of both sexes. The choice of which way to go will be strongly swayed by societal or familial standards. Therefore, if society says it's okay to be homosexual, more kids are likely to check it out to see if it's for them.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Accountable wrote: Here's my take on homosexuality. It's not a switch in one's head. It's a continuum. Most of our preferences fall on a continuum from one extreme to another:
Only Men Only Women
Pedophile Necropheliac
Anorexic Orca
I'm sure there are dozens more, but you get the picture. The type of person one is sexually attracted to is not a choice, it is nature. Whether one acts on that attraction is absolutely a choice. Behavior is always a choice.
If a person falls somewhere in the middle of one of the continua, let's say the man/woman one since that's the subject at hand, he or she may be tempted by people of both sexes. The choice of which way to go will be strongly swayed by societal or familial standards. Therefore, if society says it's okay to be homosexual, more kids are likely to check it out to see if it's for them.
Hey! If they've not decided surely it's best to explore both avenues (excuse the pun) before they decide. If there are people who fall to either side of your first diagram and are just outright gay, then shouldn't it be socially acceptable? If not then that would surely be a form of discrimination tantamount to racism...
Only Men Only Women
Pedophile Necropheliac
Anorexic Orca
I'm sure there are dozens more, but you get the picture. The type of person one is sexually attracted to is not a choice, it is nature. Whether one acts on that attraction is absolutely a choice. Behavior is always a choice.
If a person falls somewhere in the middle of one of the continua, let's say the man/woman one since that's the subject at hand, he or she may be tempted by people of both sexes. The choice of which way to go will be strongly swayed by societal or familial standards. Therefore, if society says it's okay to be homosexual, more kids are likely to check it out to see if it's for them.
Hey! If they've not decided surely it's best to explore both avenues (excuse the pun) before they decide. If there are people who fall to either side of your first diagram and are just outright gay, then shouldn't it be socially acceptable? If not then that would surely be a form of discrimination tantamount to racism...
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
SnoozeControl wrote: If the thought of two men together is "gross" then what about men that enjoy anal sex with women?
Because it's not anal sex that's gross, it's anal sex between 2 men that's gross.
Because it's not anal sex that's gross, it's anal sex between 2 men that's gross.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Slade1 wrote: Hey! If they've not decided surely it's best to explore both avenues (excuse the pun) before they decide. If there are people who fall to either side of your first diagram and are just outright gay, then shouldn't it be socially acceptable? If not then that would surely be a form of discrimination tantamount to racism...I didn't express my opinion in that post, but does your sentiment go for all the coninua I listed, or just homosexuals?
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
BabyRider wrote: Because it's not anal sex that's gross, it's anal sex between 2 men that's gross.
Hmmm...makes a lot of sense that...
Hmmm...makes a lot of sense that...
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Accountable wrote: I didn't express my opinion in that post, but does your sentiment go for all the coninua I listed, or just homosexuals?
Interesting one that, I would probably rate paedophilia as being worse than necrophilia, for obvious if disgusting, reasons. I don't think you can compare homosexuality to paedophilia though, You may as well say...
[CENTER]Consenting sex Rape
Anyway, I'm finished with this for now. It's 00.36am over here and I have to be up for work.
To be continued...
Interesting one that, I would probably rate paedophilia as being worse than necrophilia, for obvious if disgusting, reasons. I don't think you can compare homosexuality to paedophilia though, You may as well say...
[CENTER]Consenting sex Rape
Anyway, I'm finished with this for now. It's 00.36am over here and I have to be up for work.
To be continued...
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Slade1 wrote: Hmmm...makes a lot of sense that...
I would think the "two gay men" would think the direct opposite.:rolleyes:
I would think the "two gay men" would think the direct opposite.:rolleyes:
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
G'night. Do some exploring tomorrow. We're incredibly diverse.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
I think Far hit it right on when saying, "adoption is not a right...it's a privilege granted by the State based on proof they can be good parents."
The discussions of this thread appears to be more about the moral values of homosexuals verses heterosexuals, in which case this thread should have been titled as such.
As I see it, fault should be placed upon the State for enacting this new law...not on the prosective couples that want to adopt foster children that are in need of homes.
Far made another good point...to take measures for placement of your own children with people you feel have the same morals and values you share, in case something should happen to you.
The discussions of this thread appears to be more about the moral values of homosexuals verses heterosexuals, in which case this thread should have been titled as such.
As I see it, fault should be placed upon the State for enacting this new law...not on the prosective couples that want to adopt foster children that are in need of homes.
Far made another good point...to take measures for placement of your own children with people you feel have the same morals and values you share, in case something should happen to you.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Lil~Basco wrote: I think Far hit it right on when saying, "adoption is not a right...it's a privilege granted by the State based on proof they can be good parents."
The discussions of this thread appears to be more about the moral values of homosexuals verses heterosexuals, in which case this thread should have been titled as such.
As I see it, fault should be placed upon the State for enacting this new law...not on the prosective couples that want to adopt foster children that are in need of homes.
Far made another good point...to take measures for placement of your own children with people you feel have the same morals and values you share, in case something should happen to you.
If I had a child that became orphaned, I would have no problem with that child being raised by a very stable lesbian couple that I know quite well.
The discussions of this thread appears to be more about the moral values of homosexuals verses heterosexuals, in which case this thread should have been titled as such.
As I see it, fault should be placed upon the State for enacting this new law...not on the prosective couples that want to adopt foster children that are in need of homes.
Far made another good point...to take measures for placement of your own children with people you feel have the same morals and values you share, in case something should happen to you.
If I had a child that became orphaned, I would have no problem with that child being raised by a very stable lesbian couple that I know quite well.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Lon wrote: If I had a child that became orphaned, I would have no problem with that child being raised by a very stable lesbian couple that I know quite well.
And, I understand your point of view, as I do Far's.
My point being...this thread started out as "a new law passed in UK" for gays to adopt. The issue therefore falls upon State, for passing this law. The Law is the issue to me...not gay rights.
And, like Far stated....as you just did, you would choose placement for your children with people you felt comfortable leaving them with.
And, I understand your point of view, as I do Far's.
My point being...this thread started out as "a new law passed in UK" for gays to adopt. The issue therefore falls upon State, for passing this law. The Law is the issue to me...not gay rights.
And, like Far stated....as you just did, you would choose placement for your children with people you felt comfortable leaving them with.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I would think the "two gay men" would think the direct opposite.:rolleyes:
I know for sure they would. That changes nothing. I can think it's sick and wrong and depraved, just like they can think it's fine and normal and acceptable.
I know for sure they would. That changes nothing. I can think it's sick and wrong and depraved, just like they can think it's fine and normal and acceptable.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
posted by far rider
I am tolerant. But I will prevent the best I can anymore destruction of the family unit. Homoesexuality destoys that unit.
You know I hear this all the time, that I'm not being tolorant. There are many things I dont think you'd tolerate either.
I dont like loud music of any sort when im trying to relax, especially in my own home. Should I tolerate when a person blares their music in front of my house?
How about when a person tries to steal my child? Or break into my home?
Why should I tolerate homosexuality? Why give me one positive thing that benifits society in it?
Why do I have to allow something that is blatantly abnormal go on in front of me?
You don't seem to tolerate folks from liverpool (that parts a joke. hehehe)
I agree with you to some degree. I am ambivalent about this in that I don't understand homosexuality nor understand it's appeal-although I can understand what lesbians see in each other but I suspect for different reasons altogether.
There are things i will not tolerate (for instance i would be willing to bet we all feel the same about paedophiles) but what people do in their own lives is up to them and so long as it doesn't harm others I would leave them to it.
On the other hand i do not share your religious beliefs although I do respect them and enjoy talking about it I don't understand it. Faith by definition is completely irrational and the christian myth is no more convincing to me than any other religious myth. Not beleiving in god is equally irrational becue you can no more disprove he exists that you can prove it.
So long as i am left alone to follow my own beliefs and to express them any time I choose and they don't try and make me comply with their belief system I will tolerate those of a religious disposition.
Religious fundamentalists of ALL types I regard as one of the most destructive social forces on the planet (political extremists as well come to that).
Arguably a child brought up with islamic or christian fundamentlists and denied the knowledge of other faiths or even the theory of evolution is potentially every bit as damaged and brainwashed as child might be if brought up by same sex parents or by parents who are aetheists who refuse to achknowledge that religious belief is a choice they have to make for themselves.
There was time when being a free thinker was downright life threatening if you expressed an opinion just as beleiving that all men were created equal and that therefore no man should be your master and no man (or woman, or maybe even person) should be a slave made you a dangerous revolutionary and a threat to the social fabric of the nation.
So I will ask the quetion again So long as the children learn to be compassionate human beings with a sense of their own worth does it matter who brings them up? Gay, miserable, christian, muslim, jewish, aetheist.
posted by lilbasco
My point being...this thread started out as "a new law passed in UK" for gays to adopt. The issue therefore falls upon State, for passing this law. The Law is the issue to me...not gay rights.
If the purpose of law is to ensure fair treatment of everybody should all discrimination not be outlawed? Surely the only issue is whether they will be good parents?
So what is good parent?
The other day in our local shopping centre there was a little boy wandering along in a ranger shirt singing the sash while his proud parents looked on fondly. given what they were teaching the child were they good parents? no doubt they got it from their own parents.
The sash, by the way, is a sectarian, protestant, anti-catholic song much beloved of football fans.
What about parents who dress their children up like dolls and enter them in children's beauty pageants. What are they teaching little girls about their role in society, early training on being a sex object or what.
I am tolerant. But I will prevent the best I can anymore destruction of the family unit. Homoesexuality destoys that unit.
You know I hear this all the time, that I'm not being tolorant. There are many things I dont think you'd tolerate either.
I dont like loud music of any sort when im trying to relax, especially in my own home. Should I tolerate when a person blares their music in front of my house?
How about when a person tries to steal my child? Or break into my home?
Why should I tolerate homosexuality? Why give me one positive thing that benifits society in it?
Why do I have to allow something that is blatantly abnormal go on in front of me?
You don't seem to tolerate folks from liverpool (that parts a joke. hehehe)
I agree with you to some degree. I am ambivalent about this in that I don't understand homosexuality nor understand it's appeal-although I can understand what lesbians see in each other but I suspect for different reasons altogether.
There are things i will not tolerate (for instance i would be willing to bet we all feel the same about paedophiles) but what people do in their own lives is up to them and so long as it doesn't harm others I would leave them to it.
On the other hand i do not share your religious beliefs although I do respect them and enjoy talking about it I don't understand it. Faith by definition is completely irrational and the christian myth is no more convincing to me than any other religious myth. Not beleiving in god is equally irrational becue you can no more disprove he exists that you can prove it.
So long as i am left alone to follow my own beliefs and to express them any time I choose and they don't try and make me comply with their belief system I will tolerate those of a religious disposition.
Religious fundamentalists of ALL types I regard as one of the most destructive social forces on the planet (political extremists as well come to that).
Arguably a child brought up with islamic or christian fundamentlists and denied the knowledge of other faiths or even the theory of evolution is potentially every bit as damaged and brainwashed as child might be if brought up by same sex parents or by parents who are aetheists who refuse to achknowledge that religious belief is a choice they have to make for themselves.
There was time when being a free thinker was downright life threatening if you expressed an opinion just as beleiving that all men were created equal and that therefore no man should be your master and no man (or woman, or maybe even person) should be a slave made you a dangerous revolutionary and a threat to the social fabric of the nation.
So I will ask the quetion again So long as the children learn to be compassionate human beings with a sense of their own worth does it matter who brings them up? Gay, miserable, christian, muslim, jewish, aetheist.
posted by lilbasco
My point being...this thread started out as "a new law passed in UK" for gays to adopt. The issue therefore falls upon State, for passing this law. The Law is the issue to me...not gay rights.
If the purpose of law is to ensure fair treatment of everybody should all discrimination not be outlawed? Surely the only issue is whether they will be good parents?
So what is good parent?
The other day in our local shopping centre there was a little boy wandering along in a ranger shirt singing the sash while his proud parents looked on fondly. given what they were teaching the child were they good parents? no doubt they got it from their own parents.
The sash, by the way, is a sectarian, protestant, anti-catholic song much beloved of football fans.
What about parents who dress their children up like dolls and enter them in children's beauty pageants. What are they teaching little girls about their role in society, early training on being a sex object or what.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
posted by lil basco
I think Far hit it right on when saying, "adoption is not a right...it's a privilege granted by the State based on proof they can be good parents."
How do you prove someopne will be a good parent? It's not as though there is an objective test you can use. Show me a parent who say they haven't made any mistakes and I think you will be looking at a liar.
posted by far rider
Ok let me answer this from a new perspective:
Orphans have already lost parents. They are set in such a way as already having a lot of emotional stress. Why predispose them to a couple that may bring a new stigma to their already difficult circumstance and set them up to loose another parent or set of parents in late childhood or early adulthood.
Most couples seeking adoption are usually in their 30's, I'm guessing.
The life expectancy of homosexuals, according to this study is 50 years.
Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):847-66. Related Articles, Links
Does homosexual activity shorten life?
Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL.
Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, CO 80962, USA.
Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.
PMID: 9923159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yes, it does matter who raises you.
This is kinda hitting below the belt, but every circumstance should be considered we're talking about kids here.
So fat people and smokers should be prevented from adopting as well? Why not just anyone over 30 is too old to be a parent? People who ride moter bikes are more likely to be killed than car drivers.
How about single would be parents like hollywood stars who seem to be going in for going along to the african or vietnamese baby shop to pick up an orphan?
What about political or religious convictions should not they be taken in to account? Should a jewish couple be allowed to adopt a christian baby or vice versa? A black baby should a white couple be allowed to adopt it-after all how will a white person relate to black culture? On orphan of democrat parents should a republican be allowed to adopt it or will that result in a morally corrupt child:sneaky: ?
Being a bit ridiculous I know and I'm quite glad i am not faced with assesing suitability for adoption. But I don't think the issue is as black and white as that lifestyle is wrong while that one is right.
One man's morality is anothers prejudice. It depends how how you decide your moral values and whether you are prepared to examine the way you think-not necessarily change them. One aspect of someone's character or lifestyle does not necessarily make them all bad.
I think Far hit it right on when saying, "adoption is not a right...it's a privilege granted by the State based on proof they can be good parents."
How do you prove someopne will be a good parent? It's not as though there is an objective test you can use. Show me a parent who say they haven't made any mistakes and I think you will be looking at a liar.
posted by far rider
Ok let me answer this from a new perspective:
Orphans have already lost parents. They are set in such a way as already having a lot of emotional stress. Why predispose them to a couple that may bring a new stigma to their already difficult circumstance and set them up to loose another parent or set of parents in late childhood or early adulthood.
Most couples seeking adoption are usually in their 30's, I'm guessing.
The life expectancy of homosexuals, according to this study is 50 years.
Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):847-66. Related Articles, Links
Does homosexual activity shorten life?
Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL.
Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, CO 80962, USA.
Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.
PMID: 9923159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yes, it does matter who raises you.
This is kinda hitting below the belt, but every circumstance should be considered we're talking about kids here.
So fat people and smokers should be prevented from adopting as well? Why not just anyone over 30 is too old to be a parent? People who ride moter bikes are more likely to be killed than car drivers.
How about single would be parents like hollywood stars who seem to be going in for going along to the african or vietnamese baby shop to pick up an orphan?
What about political or religious convictions should not they be taken in to account? Should a jewish couple be allowed to adopt a christian baby or vice versa? A black baby should a white couple be allowed to adopt it-after all how will a white person relate to black culture? On orphan of democrat parents should a republican be allowed to adopt it or will that result in a morally corrupt child:sneaky: ?
Being a bit ridiculous I know and I'm quite glad i am not faced with assesing suitability for adoption. But I don't think the issue is as black and white as that lifestyle is wrong while that one is right.
One man's morality is anothers prejudice. It depends how how you decide your moral values and whether you are prepared to examine the way you think-not necessarily change them. One aspect of someone's character or lifestyle does not necessarily make them all bad.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Far Rider wrote: Posted by GMC
Ok let me answer this from a new perspective:
Orphans have already lost parents. They are set in such a way as already having a lot of emotional stress. Why predispose them to a couple that may bring a new stigma to their already difficult circumstance and set them up to loose another parent or set of parents in late childhood or early adulthood.
Most couples seeking adoption are usually in their 30's, I'm guessing.
The life expectancy of homosexuals, according to this study is 50 years.
Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):847-66. Related Articles, Links
Does homosexual activity shorten life?
Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL.
Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, CO 80962, USA.
Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.
PMID: 9923159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yes, it does matter who raises you.
This is kinda hitting below the belt, but every circumstance should be considered we're talking about kids here.
Far, you know I love ya, but you don't know what you're talking about. This is a wild punch, not low. You're looking for evidence to fit your theory, rather than the other way round.
Become a foster parent. That will be one of the best things you can do for kids, giving them homes rather than preventing them.
Ok let me answer this from a new perspective:
Orphans have already lost parents. They are set in such a way as already having a lot of emotional stress. Why predispose them to a couple that may bring a new stigma to their already difficult circumstance and set them up to loose another parent or set of parents in late childhood or early adulthood.
Most couples seeking adoption are usually in their 30's, I'm guessing.
The life expectancy of homosexuals, according to this study is 50 years.
Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):847-66. Related Articles, Links
Does homosexual activity shorten life?
Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL.
Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, CO 80962, USA.
Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.
PMID: 9923159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yes, it does matter who raises you.
This is kinda hitting below the belt, but every circumstance should be considered we're talking about kids here.
Far, you know I love ya, but you don't know what you're talking about. This is a wild punch, not low. You're looking for evidence to fit your theory, rather than the other way round.
Become a foster parent. That will be one of the best things you can do for kids, giving them homes rather than preventing them.
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
I don't really want to get into this again but some other isssues have come up....there are assumptions here that most gay people have aids and die young.....when are people going to get it into their heads that like it or not many gay couples have lived together in stable relationship for years and years....they are liflelong partners and not promiscuous.....
I am neither pro. nor anti gay but I am FOR the human race....if some look different, act different, speak different, live different lifestyles then SO WHAT ???? I only care that they are GOOD people. There is so much other really BAD stuff going on in the world that should be the focus of peoples attention....
Geez....this thread is exhausting...need the weekend to get over it :-4
I am neither pro. nor anti gay but I am FOR the human race....if some look different, act different, speak different, live different lifestyles then SO WHAT ???? I only care that they are GOOD people. There is so much other really BAD stuff going on in the world that should be the focus of peoples attention....
Geez....this thread is exhausting...need the weekend to get over it :-4
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
gmc wrote: So fat people and smokers should be prevented from adopting as well?
Far...You have an EXCELLENT point here. It is never in the best interests of a child to place them in an UNHEALTHY environement.
You bring up a good point, GMC, obese people can't possibly provide the kind of physical interaction necessary for wholesome growth. And Smokers? Second hand smoke kills! Placing a child in a dangerous environment can't ever be a good idea.
Both of these people have something in common. Poor health habits and a poor health environment.
You bet I would think twice about placing a child there.
Why not just anyone over 30 is too old to be a parent? People who ride moter bikes are more likely to be killed than car drivers.
Do you see the difference between these two examples and the previous two? In the previous examples the environment is not a healthy one. that would certainly be reason to consider when placing a child, but here despite age and transportation, the environment could be very healthy. So these factors should not be considered.
How about single would be parents like hollywood stars who seem to be going in for going along to the african or vietnamese baby shop to pick up an orphan?
Should race matter in adoption? If you think skin color and culture are interconnected, then yes, otherwise no.
What about political or religious convictions should not they be taken in to account? Should a jewish couple be allowed to adopt a christian baby or vice versa?
Aha! Now I've got you. A baby has no religious convictions or any others for that matter. They will become the product of their environment. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with placement. I'm adopted, I should know better than you the effect on a child of nuture and environment.
On orphan of democrat parents should a republican be allowed to adopt it or will that result in a morally corrupt child
A baby does not have values, those will be instilled by the parents, so again, this is not a criteria for adoption.
One man's morality is anothers prejudice. It depends how how you decide your moral values and whether you are prepared to examine the way you think-not necessarily change them. One aspect of someone's character or lifestyle does not necessarily make them all bad.
On the contrary, since the values of the parents will be transferred to the child, and a healthy environemnt is a criteria for adoption, Far Rider has come up with the strongest argument against gay adoption in this thread.
A gay environment is dangerous. He has proved it with his health statistics, so for the same reason you would not place a baby in a crack house, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
Far...You have an EXCELLENT point here. It is never in the best interests of a child to place them in an UNHEALTHY environement.
You bring up a good point, GMC, obese people can't possibly provide the kind of physical interaction necessary for wholesome growth. And Smokers? Second hand smoke kills! Placing a child in a dangerous environment can't ever be a good idea.
Both of these people have something in common. Poor health habits and a poor health environment.
You bet I would think twice about placing a child there.
Why not just anyone over 30 is too old to be a parent? People who ride moter bikes are more likely to be killed than car drivers.
Do you see the difference between these two examples and the previous two? In the previous examples the environment is not a healthy one. that would certainly be reason to consider when placing a child, but here despite age and transportation, the environment could be very healthy. So these factors should not be considered.
How about single would be parents like hollywood stars who seem to be going in for going along to the african or vietnamese baby shop to pick up an orphan?
Should race matter in adoption? If you think skin color and culture are interconnected, then yes, otherwise no.
What about political or religious convictions should not they be taken in to account? Should a jewish couple be allowed to adopt a christian baby or vice versa?
Aha! Now I've got you. A baby has no religious convictions or any others for that matter. They will become the product of their environment. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with placement. I'm adopted, I should know better than you the effect on a child of nuture and environment.
On orphan of democrat parents should a republican be allowed to adopt it or will that result in a morally corrupt child
A baby does not have values, those will be instilled by the parents, so again, this is not a criteria for adoption.
One man's morality is anothers prejudice. It depends how how you decide your moral values and whether you are prepared to examine the way you think-not necessarily change them. One aspect of someone's character or lifestyle does not necessarily make them all bad.
On the contrary, since the values of the parents will be transferred to the child, and a healthy environemnt is a criteria for adoption, Far Rider has come up with the strongest argument against gay adoption in this thread.
A gay environment is dangerous. He has proved it with his health statistics, so for the same reason you would not place a baby in a crack house, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
Jives wrote: Far...You have an EXCELLENT point here. It is never in the best interests of a child to place them in an UNHEALTHY environement.
You bring up a good point, GMC, obese people can't possibly provide the kind of physical interaction necessary for wholesome growth. And Smokers? Second hand smoke kills! Placing a child in a dangerous environment can't ever be a good idea.
Both of these people have something in common. Poor health habits and a poor health environment.
You bet I would think twice about placing a child there.
Do you see the difference between these two examples and the previous two? In the previous examples the environment is not a healthy one. that would certainly be reason to consider when placing a child, but here despite age and transportation, the environment could be very healthy. So these factors should not be considered.
Should race matter in adoption? If you think skin color and culture are interconnected, then yes, otherwise no.
Aha! Now I've got you. A baby has no religious convictions or any others for that matter. They will become the product of their environment. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with placement. I'm adopted, I should know better than you the effect on a child of nuture and environment.
A baby does not have values, those will be instilled by the parents, so again, this is not a criteria for adoption.
On the contrary, since the values of the parents will be transferred to the child, and a healthy environemnt is a criteria for adoption, Far Rider has come up with the strongest argument against gay adoption in this thread.
A gay environment is dangerous. He has proved it with his health statistics, so for the same reason you would not place a baby in a crack house, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.So what's your alternative, Jives?
You bring up a good point, GMC, obese people can't possibly provide the kind of physical interaction necessary for wholesome growth. And Smokers? Second hand smoke kills! Placing a child in a dangerous environment can't ever be a good idea.
Both of these people have something in common. Poor health habits and a poor health environment.
You bet I would think twice about placing a child there.
Do you see the difference between these two examples and the previous two? In the previous examples the environment is not a healthy one. that would certainly be reason to consider when placing a child, but here despite age and transportation, the environment could be very healthy. So these factors should not be considered.
Should race matter in adoption? If you think skin color and culture are interconnected, then yes, otherwise no.
Aha! Now I've got you. A baby has no religious convictions or any others for that matter. They will become the product of their environment. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with placement. I'm adopted, I should know better than you the effect on a child of nuture and environment.
A baby does not have values, those will be instilled by the parents, so again, this is not a criteria for adoption.
On the contrary, since the values of the parents will be transferred to the child, and a healthy environemnt is a criteria for adoption, Far Rider has come up with the strongest argument against gay adoption in this thread.
A gay environment is dangerous. He has proved it with his health statistics, so for the same reason you would not place a baby in a crack house, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.So what's your alternative, Jives?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
gay couple can adoped in the uk new law pass
I have no problem whatsoever with prioritizing who gets to adopt first. Ethnicity, health, income, all that can be considered when making the list. But to wholesale prohibit an entire part of the population because the situation would be less than ideal is ludicrous.
Virtually any family-style situation is superior to warehousing. Prohibition should be on a case-by-case basis.
Virtually any family-style situation is superior to warehousing. Prohibition should be on a case-by-case basis.