PDA

View Full Version : A day of shame.


vee-tail-1
21st May 2013, 08:37
A day of shame ... political clowns playing their games in parliament ... kicking the gay 'marriage' bill around in an orgy of barter, brinkmanship, and bamboozle.

Talking of fairness, equality, the 'right thing to do', and all the while ignoring the core issue ...

No one cares what gays get up to in their bedrooms ... but parents (women & men!) care about what could happen to their children.

NO WAY should young children be given to two men for adoption … what kind of sadistic PC marinated idiot would think of doing such a thing.

Yet politicians ignore this bit of legalised child abuse, and instead concentrate on the ‘unfairness’ of not allowing gays to marry.

Truly the cockroaches have taken over the kitchen. :\

StressFree
21st May 2013, 09:48
:D:D:D:D:D

probes
21st May 2013, 10:27
Dunno. Bin puzzled actually why children should be affected by the bedroom behaviour of the people raising them (unless they have to witness it somehow). It's normal for a single mother to live with her mother, I guess, so would it for a single father with his father? Somehow it's just that the male species has become to be suspected of all kinds of nastities, regardless of what they do in their bedrooms.
Seriously, why would I be interested in who's sleeping with who if they're nice persons and caring to kids?

angels
21st May 2013, 10:45
Seriously, why would I be interested in who's sleeping with who if they're nice persons and caring to kids?

Yip. Absolutely. :D

vee-tail - I doubt if you would take such a view if you had been at the Christening my wife was at this weekend. Two lovely girls aged 5 and 18 months, both born through IVF. The parents are two ladies in a civil partnership. They've been together 12 years.

The kids are being brought up in a loving, caring home with two parents -- unlike many other kids in London.

The five year old knows she has two mummies and her friends who come round to play do as well. They're fine with it.

And yet you accuse the parents of

of legalised child abuse

I'm not going to argue with you, you've made your mind up (never mind that most 'child abusers' are hetero-sexual). Just thought some people would like to hear what gay partnerships can produce.

jetset lady
21st May 2013, 10:46
Oh yes. Far better for young children to go through our wonderful care system which has been proven to be oh so much safer, than to subject them to two parents who will bring them up with love, care and tolerance....... :rolleyes:

Navajo8686
21st May 2013, 11:30
Sadly the cemetries have plenty of children buried in them from 'normal' households......:(

The love of the parents or couple should be the deciding factor not their sexuality.

KBPsen
21st May 2013, 11:42
Better to be raised by two gays than one bigot.

Alloa Akbar
21st May 2013, 13:15
setting aside all the gay rights Vs Homophobic stereotypes, and just for a minute lets leave children born to dysfunctional parents (Male and female, gay, straight or Jedi) and just focus on some basic human emotions, needs and characteristics.. Can someone put up a cohesive argument as to where a child brought up with single sex parents is even close to being as good as father / mother homes?? Men will NEVER provide maternal instinct and motherly love any more than a woman will provide basic protectionism.

I'm not bigotted, just stating obvious natural facts.

Dons tin hat and awaits chucking of flowers and frilly drawers and hissy bitch fits. :rolleyes:

Lon More
21st May 2013, 13:28
I think that having, or adopting, a child is a much bigger step for a same sex couple than for most "normal" relationships. A lot more consideration given to the consequences, after all, it's not just a case of hoping the condom doesn't burst.

rgbrock1
21st May 2013, 13:43
It is of my not so humble opinion that, if nature intended for same-sex couples to have children, nature would have provided the physical capability for that to happen. Nature did NOT provide for such a capability with same-sex couples therefore, it is unnatural.

ExXB
21st May 2013, 14:08
But nature has provided a way for same sex couples to have children. They legally adopt them, just like different sex couples have been known to.

In theory we are an intelligent race, but its not always apparent.

Msunduzi
21st May 2013, 14:16
.....................But nature has provided a way for same sex couples to have children. They legally adopt them,................


What has that got remotely to do with nature?

Put two queers or two lezies on and island and see if nature provides for them.

I generally don't have anything against them personally, but I can see the idea that they can be "married" is going to influence my opinions.

They are allowed their opinions, but so are the rest of us.

rgbrock1
21st May 2013, 14:18
ExXB wrote:

But nature has provided a way for same sex couples to have children. They legally adopt them, just like different sex couples have been known to.

The legal means to adopt children, by same-sex couples, is a man-made device. Nature has f**k all to do with that device.

ORAC
21st May 2013, 14:18
I see the bigots are out early this year. Must be the weather.......

Fareastdriver
21st May 2013, 14:25
So if somebody has a different opinion they're automatically a bigot.

Choxolate
21st May 2013, 14:32
So if somebody has a different opinion they're automatically a bigot.No, if someone is a bigot they are a bigot. Some of the comments in this thread are simply bigotted, including the OP.

The same sex marriage bill has nothing to do with same sex adoption - that was passed into Law in 2002 under the Adoption and Children Act so has been legal for 11 years. Raising it now as a "reason" for stopping same sex marriage is simply ignorance on the part of the poster.
What is the name for someone who argues from a position of ignorance again??

probes
21st May 2013, 14:35
Can someone put up a cohesive argument as to where a child brought up with single sex parents is even close to being as good as father / mother homes?? Men will NEVER provide maternal instinct and motherly love any more than a woman will provide basic protectionism.
absolutely. In an ideal world each kid has a loving mum and dad and grandparents who take good care of them and prepare for independent life; nobody dies, divorces, gets criminal or turns a pervert. In the real world there are widows and single parents, cheating husbands and cougar moms, paedophiles and drug-dealers. I wouldn't call same-sex partnerships 'marriage' either, just to respect the tradition, but I still think parents' sexual preferences have nothing much to do with kids. Most of them wouldn't believe their parents did it anyway :E?

P.S after all, it's not that long ago when girls rather drowned herself and the baby than lived alone, without a male? The world is changing.
Also, man has taken the role of God anyway, if we think of the fertility-treatments when people were 'not meant to' have babies.

Sallyann1234
21st May 2013, 14:37
This was posted previously. It seems to be still valid...

bigot
• noun

1 a person whose intolerance of the opinions of others does not coincide with one’s own intolerance of the opinions of others.

2 a person whose opinions are as strongly held as one's own, but different.

3 a person who remains unpersuaded by one's argument, often because he/she has failed to 'understand'.

Alloa Akbar
21st May 2013, 14:45
SallyAnn1234 - Loving it. :D:D:ok:

surely not
21st May 2013, 14:52
Couldn't give a monkees whether the bill goes through or not but I am slightly puzzled by the reasoning of some on here that seems to suggest all gay couples are loving, sweet and kind.

Really? I doubt that this is true, I'm sure they are just as capable of violence and abuse as a hetro couple. In the past I have seen gay lads come to work with severe bruises caused by their partner so I am sure that there will be some who are capable of abusing children just as there are hetros who do this.

I also hope that any gay couples give their adopted children the right to be straight just the same as they have been given the right to be gay.

Intolerance cuts both ways, as should tolerance

Choxolate
21st May 2013, 15:02
I am slightly puzzled by the reasoning of some on here that seems to suggest all gay couples are loving, sweet and kind.
Like to point out any post that either said or implied that?
Really? I doubt that this is true, I'm sure they are just as capable of violence and abuse as a hetro couple.
I am sure it is not true, but as nobody has said this it would seem to be something of a strawman.

surely not
21st May 2013, 15:14
I did say it is 'suggested'. To have something suggested it doesn't need to be written as a bold statement 'I suggest all etc etc.

To me, it is suggested by the references to loving gay couples and the counter references to hetros being kiddie fiddlers and 'cemetries with plenty of children from 'normal' parents'.

I have no issue with gay couples of either gender adopting children, but I do object to the underlying, implied, call it what you will, commentary on here that abuse and violence are only present in Hetro relationships.

The important thing in any adoption is to refuse it to those, regardless of sexual preferences, who might endanger the well being of a child in their care.

Juud
21st May 2013, 15:18
I'm not bigotted, just stating obvious natural facts.


Yes you are.
No they aren't.

Choxolate
21st May 2013, 15:24
The important thing in any adoption is to refuse it to those, regardless of sexual preferences, who might endanger the well being of a child in their care.
I completely agree, sexuality has nothing to do with it.

ExXB
21st May 2013, 15:44
The legal means to adopt children, by same-sex couples, is a man-made device. Nature has f**k all to do with that device.

You mean, just like flying ...

Alloa Akbar
21st May 2013, 15:52
Juud,

That wasn't really the cohesive argument I was looking for.. Perhaps you focused too much on my flippant and (some say) witty closing remark.. I'll try to refrain.

So, let me explain, us men, and you women are different, genes, hormones, physical, emotional.. the lot. So, is it not reasonable to deduce (First principles and all that) that between us, we achieve some sort of natural balance, which we apply in our lives, outlook and behavior? Therefore, and again, I will make this clear, "Can you put forward a cohesive argument to persuade me that a single sex parented family provides the same moral, emotional, physical and psychological balance as a male / female parented family?" Examples of the physics and psychological or emotional aspects would be appreciated to show where a woman can provide a fundamental male influence and vice versa..

"You are a bigot" is up there with "Liar liar pants on fire" in the scale of pointless retorts.. I'm expressing a genuine opinion and am inviting someone to offer a scientific or proven counter.

Lord Spandex Masher
21st May 2013, 15:59
I know a young lad, he's 7, who tells all his mates and teachers at school that his dad is dead. He's got 2 mums. His dad isn't dead, just not there since his mum started preferring other mums.

Psychological balance?

Choxolate
21st May 2013, 16:02
Can you put forward a cohesive argument to persuade me that a single sex parented family provides the same moral, emotional, physical and psychological balance as a male / female parented family?"
That depends entirely on which family you are talking about. I am positive that there are examples of very good same sex parents and appalling examples of mixed sex parents and, of course, vice versa.

However surely the point is that being of the same sex OF ITSELF is no guide to the outcome of child raising. If you have any evidence to the contrary then it would be interesting to see it. My father's family were all raised by his mother and her sister after the early death of my grandfather, they all seemed to turn out quite well without a resident father figure.

gorter
21st May 2013, 16:05
I'm a parent in a loving heterosexual relationship and doing my damned best to raise my current and hopefully future children as well as I possibly can.

Marriage is just a term and religion has decided it must be between a man and a woman.

Gay men and women being allowed to marry doesn't affect my life in any way shape or form.

Gay couples can be just as good a parent as I hope to be or as horrible a parent as mick phillpot. However I think a gay couple may have a slightly better chance than many. The social system is already angled against them and they have to jump through endless hoops and prove to the satisfaction of several people that they will be good parents and bring their children up in a good and caring manner to turn them in to well adjusted gay or straight individuals.

And you're right nature has got nothing to do with it. There are plenty of abused/abandoned/tormented children that need a loving home. If a gay couple can provide that then I refuse to believe that anyone has the right to deny that child a family.

rgbrock1
21st May 2013, 16:09
Yes, ExXB, just like flying. A man-made invention which has f**k all to do with Nature. If Nature had intended for us to fly then we would've been born with wings. Which flap. Like a bird. Or like a pterodactyl.

B Fraser
21st May 2013, 16:11
If gays are allowed to marry, what will they do when they have run out of things to protest about ? They have plenty of things that straight people don't such as parades and civil partnerships, what will they be asking for next ?

Can I demand a special parade for blokey blokes who like rugby, beer and loud rock music ? There would have to be lots of sports cars and cheerleaders, oh and some massive fireworks and a barbeque too. We could even have our own flag with a set of rugby posts above a garden shed and crossed spanners. Our chant could be "What do we want ? Sport ! When do we want it ? When the mother in law is visiting !"

Alloa Akbar
21st May 2013, 16:11
Choxolate - No specifics in mind, merely highlighting the physics and challenging the theory in broad terms with regard to the ability of one sex to compensate for another. I'm not convinced it ever can. Thats not to say that same sex parenting can't work, just that I'm not sure it can ever be the same as mixed.. a fair and reasonable deduction..??

Beef - Can I come to your parade mate? I promise to bring slices of dead cow, frothing ale and my Jimmy Paige book of guitar riffs?? :ok:

rgbrock1
21st May 2013, 16:12
LSM wrote:

I know a young lad, he's 7, who tells all his mates and teachers at school that his dad is dead. He's got 2 mums. His dad isn't dead, just not there since his mum started preferring other mums.

Does the 7 year old tell his mates and teachers that his dad is dad because he believe this to be the truth or to cover himself?

If he believe his father is dead, when his father isn't dead, then his mum(s) lied to him. Which says all you need to know about his mums.

If he says this to cover for himself, then he's on a continued path to a world of hurt.

Davaar
21st May 2013, 16:15
SallyAnn: reminds me of the assessment I once read made by a captain on one of his commanders:

"He often displays that stubborn pig-headedness that I recognise in myself as tenacity of purpose".

gorter
21st May 2013, 16:16
LSM wrote:

I know a young lad, he's 7, who tells all his mates and teachers at school that his dad is dead. He's got 2 mums. His dad isn't dead, just not there since his mum started preferring other mums.

Does the 7 year old tell his mates and teachers that his dad is dad because he believe this to be the truth or to cover himself?

If he believe his father is dead, when his father isn't dead, then his mum(s) lied to him. Which says all you need to know about his mums.

If he says this to cover for himself, then he's on a continued path to a world of hurt.

Or maybe he just doesn't like his dad

Lord Spandex Masher
21st May 2013, 16:24
RG, to be frank I don't know. Although I've chatted to him over the fence I heard about his via my missus, from the mums next door.

Gorter, his old man left before he was 1, he doesn't even know him.

probes
21st May 2013, 16:25
Can I demand a special parade for blokey blokes who like rugby, beer and loud rock music?
you'd have to become a minority then, which would be the chances of... :}?

Lonewolf_50
21st May 2013, 16:25
Far better for young children to go through our wonderful care system which has been proven to be oh so much safer, than to subject them to two parents who will bring them up with love, care and tolerance
Why do you make that assumption?

If you do not assume evil based on sexual preference, why do you assume virtue?

ORAC
21st May 2013, 16:41
This was posted previously. It seems to be still valid... Except it's factually incorrect, like most of the bigoted homophobic comments posted here.

The difference between the legislation concerning adoption has been posted, with links, on repeated threads. Those posting here have seen these but continue to make farcical, ignorant comments which suit their prejudices. These same posters in most cases who took the opportunity of the "euphemisms" thread to parade their knowledge and glee in offensive phrases concerning homosexuals.

I stand by the term bigoted, in fact it's highly appropriate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry).

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

Octopussy2
21st May 2013, 17:00
I think gorter's first post sums up everything that needs to be said about this issue.

Sailor Vee
21st May 2013, 17:01
I think a lot of people, including the OP, are missing the point being discussed, especially across the UK. It would seem that gays & lesbians will shortly have the right to choose between marriage or a civil-partnership, the latter being currently denied to heterosexual couples. One can have a "common-law" couple which so far does not give as many rights in law as a civil partnership.

That, (and not adoption by homosexual couples), appears to give more rights to the gay fraternity/sorority.

normiejs
21st May 2013, 18:40
Queers and Lezzis..god forbid u work in this industry..
words fail me

that is a rare occurrence
back to your cave dear.:mad:

vulcanised
21st May 2013, 19:52
I think it's a retrograde step.

PTT
21st May 2013, 19:57
Frankly I couldn't care less. It has no effect on my own ability to do what I want to do, so why should I care?

normiejs
21st May 2013, 20:16
Heliport,I was Quoting Musunduzi.
I was busy,I still am,and I dont sit around with a red marker pen trying to catch people out with smartarse remarks.
I posted in a hurry in between real life events.
Maybe you should get one,a life I mean?
Quick,get your dictionary out to make sure I have spelt everything correctly,to hell with all the vile comments about peoples life choices.

Milo Minderbinder
21st May 2013, 20:34
"back to your cave dear"

given the subject matter, shouldn't that be "cave bear"?

Mr Chips
21st May 2013, 20:42
Oh dear Lord - haven't we done this before ad nauseam?

Could one of the Homophobic posters please direct us to any kind of evidence that same sex parents are a bad thing? Those of us on the tolerant side of life will be able to demonstrate many examples of "normal" families that are an appalling place for a child...

Milo Minderbinder
21st May 2013, 20:59
well......this claimed to be definitive, probably a load of religious bollox though
Press Release | Same|sex parenting (http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2002/february_06_2002.htm)

and no - I've not read it and nor do I intend to

Mr Chips
21st May 2013, 21:16
Milo - I wouldn't bother reading that link as there is not a shred of evidence contained within it

any other offers?

Nervous SLF
21st May 2013, 21:47
Whilst it is not proven that I am I do like to think that I am reasonably tolerant towards other folks and their ways. Even when
those ways are very distasteful to myself I try and keep my opinions to myself. Sad to say though that I become a tad intolerant
when people get very loud, aggressive and start trying to ram their believes down my throat. That is when I change to being annoyed
and tend to loudly disagree with them. I can become aggressive myself and when I fight I use any methods I can, I don't care if they
are fair or foul I just want to win. Luckily 99% of the time I can restrain myself :ok: IF I hadn't in the past I could well have ended up in prison.

The point I am trying to make is that I don't care that much about Gay people getting married but I am starting to get
fed up with it being rammed down my throat and then being accused of being weird because I don't want to keep hearing about it.

Capetonian
21st May 2013, 21:59
I am amazed at the heat that this trivial news has raised. Gay people can now sign a piece of paper to say they are married or in a legally recognised union. So what? They've been able to carry out their sexual practices and preferences before and will continue to do so regardless of any legislation. It's far from being my scene but I find it wrong to deny gay people the chance of a happy and fulfilling life with a partner they love.

Plenty of heterosexual couples are utterly unfit to be allowed to breed, so whilst I don't believe that it is natural for same sex couples to bring up children, it may well give adopted children of same sex couples a better life than they would otherwise have with some of the lowlife filth we have read about recently in the UK tabloids.

I couldn't care less about this.... and oddly enough, neither can two gay friends whom I have spoken to in the last few days.

Bob Viking
21st May 2013, 22:23
Like many of the posters here I couldn't really care less what folks get up to. If they want to get married, fine. If they want to adopt a child, fine - as long as they are fit to do so.
What makes me laugh about this thread is the way several posters get so uppity that others disagree with their own viewpoint. We are each entitled to our own opinion. If someone disagrees, that's life. Get over it or go mad worrying about it.
People on here are not bigots because they disagree with your views. They may not have the experience to form the same opinion as yourself but they are certainly not bigots based on their honestly held beliefs. If they actively go about hounding or abusing gay people then they are definitely straying into dangerous territory. If they merely voice a viewpoint then that is their right.
This is a site for grown ups isn't it? Oops, my mistake.
BV:O

ORAC
21st May 2013, 22:51
Whilst it is not proven that I am I do like to think that I am reasonably tolerant towards other folks and their ways......... Some of my best friends are black......

Nervous SLF
21st May 2013, 23:06
Good to know that you have some Black friends however I think that statement is a bit off topic?

Richo77
21st May 2013, 23:30
Vee-tail starts a post with one of the biggest pieces of sh!t opinions i've had the displeasure to read and then makes not one further post.

Its called trolling.. small minded feckers love doing it and we've all fallen for it.
Shame on us.

Cacophonix
21st May 2013, 23:43
Talking of metaphors, this thread reminds me of crew members who start painting the motorboat as the f#king ([email protected]) ship starts sinking. Very JB. Utterly useless.

Caco

BenThere
22nd May 2013, 01:10
The struggle for gay rights/acceptance is largely won in the West.

I think it would be more productive to focus on Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Iran.

Milo Minderbinder
22nd May 2013, 01:29
"I think it would be more productive to focus on Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Iran"

what? Equal marriage rights for donkeys goats and camels?

Cacophonix
22nd May 2013, 01:35
What the hell does it matter if people of the same sex want to frigging cleave together morally or lawfully?

Damn it.

There are some many things worse than this in life that this whole subject palls into insignificance save for those who seem to be uncomfortable in their own skins!

The subject is an irrelevance.

Caco

Msunduzi
22nd May 2013, 03:30
............................................Like many of the posters here I couldn't really care less what folks get up to. If they want to get married, fine. If they want to adopt a child, fine - as long as they are fit to do so.
What makes me laugh about this thread is the way several posters get so uppity that others disagree with their own viewpoint. We are each entitled to our own opinion. If someone disagrees, that's life. Get over it or go mad worrying about it.
People on here are not bigots because they disagree with your views. They may not have the experience to form the same opinion as yourself but they are certainly not bigots based on their honestly held beliefs. If they actively go about hounding or abusing gay people then they are definitely straying into dangerous territory. If they merely voice a viewpoint then that is their right.
This is a site for grown ups isn't it? Oops, my mistake.
BVhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif................................................ ...


Someone who can see the real state of people, about the only common sense post on here so far.

I work with them with no problem, I don't (so far as the workplace is concerned) judge them, neither do I discriminate against them. If they bring the subject up, I make it clear that their lifestyle does not fit my personal views, but I never bring the subject up myself. If it is discussed, it is an open discussion with both sides stating their views, and they do not take the aggressive attitude shown here.

I get the impression that there is a few people here (common to many different threads on different topics) that argue for the sake of it, I don't believe they really have an interest in many of the subjects discussed, only in trying to make themselves look big and others small. Trouble is, it doesn't work!!!

Alloa Akbar
22nd May 2013, 09:48
Could one of the Homophobic posters

It was only a matter of time until such utterances of drivel spewed from the closet..:ugh:

Nobody said it was bad, but some of us questioned if was as balanced..

being accused of being weird because I don't want to keep hearing about it.

Delete "weird" insert "Homophobic / bigotted" as required.. :rolleyes::ok:

Fantome
22nd May 2013, 11:14
It is patronising to say you 'allow' someone with an opposing view to have their opinion.

It is futile to expect that any public debate on religious beliefs, gender preferences, sexual practices and child-raising that may be influenced by parents biological or not, can ever come near to resolution or consensus.

It is the height of presumption to tell those who lead peaceful, unobtrusive, law-abiding lives that their sexual, religous or political views stink. Is there any person, anywhere, who can be held up and shown in any sense to be worthy of the moral high-ground?

There will always be those, even in closed societies, who will advocate, however impractical in reality, the division and separation into distinct camps, of those who cannot tolerate the 'other'. (The partition of India was bloody, but without it it would have been far worse.)

People who grow up to become pompous , bigoted , purblind and prejudiced are more likely to stay that way throughout life than not.

Juud
22nd May 2013, 11:28
Whilst it is not proven that I am I do like to think that I am reasonably tolerant towards other folks and their ways. ........ Some of my best friends are black......

ORAC, apposite and funny! :D

Solid Rust Twotter
22nd May 2013, 11:40
Don't care who folks marry. They can marry a goat as long as the goat thinks it's a good idea, for all I care. I'd prefer not to have to get into a discussion with them about it though, regardless of preference. The dripping soap operas of the lives of others are of supreme disinterest to me.

Mr Chips
22nd May 2013, 13:10
Um Alloa you have quoted me and then said It was only a matter of time until such utterances of drivel spewed from the closet.
So I assume that you are inferring I am gay? 'fraid not old son, nice try

And why would it matter if I were gay?

I deliberately chose the word Homophobic because the comments being made on here are clearly anti gay, not well thought out, evidenced arguments.

You said Nobody said it was bad and yet the whole thread was started with
NO WAY should young children be given to two men for adoption … what kind of sadistic PC marinated idiot would think of doing such a thing.

Yet politicians ignore this bit of legalised child abuse,

So gay adoption is legalised child abuse? And nobody is saying "this is bad2 and no comments are homophobic ?

Have you actually read the thread. At all?

Lets try to simplify things

Gay marriage does not equal gay adoption. Two separate topics
Gay adoption does not equal child abuse - unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

Have I missed anything?

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd May 2013, 13:25
The legal means to adopt children, by same-sex couples, is a man-made device. Nature has f**k all to do with that device.
Thinking that man is somehow above and beyond and not subject to nature is mind-boggling arrogance.

rgbrock1
22nd May 2013, 13:42
I, as a self-professed Pantheist, do not think Man is above Nature. Nor do I believe man is not subject to Natural Law.

I guess you didn't get the gist of my point then.

jetset lady
22nd May 2013, 14:09
Why do you make that assumption?

If you do not assume evil based on sexual preference, why do you assume virtue?

Actually, I don't. I originally wrote "may just well bring them up with love, care and tolerance", however decided that because of the subject matter, someone would no doubt comment that "may just well" is not good enough. In an ideal world, no, it's not good enough but in the real world, good, bad, useless and downright evil cross all lines, genders and preferences. Until telepathy is invented, "may just well" and the extremely stringent adoption processes for all prospective adoptive parents are all we've got. With those processes in place, I maintain that a child has to better off by being brought up in good home environment by people that love them, than in a care home. Whether that be by a Mum and Dad, two Dads or two Mums or any other combination of family unit that you can think of is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

Alloa Akbar
22nd May 2013, 15:14
Chips - I had chosen to ignore the OP as the thread moved on, primarily because I don't agree with it, and yes it's a bit strong, however I am now tired of pussy-footing around the PC brigade, let me be blunt and inquire of our resident benders a question regarding the adoption thing based on the general social nuances of arse banditry.. If you'll pardon the phrase.

In a two sex family, generally the children are brought up in the (some say) "normal" environment of someday engaging in relations with the opposite sex.. Fathers would often inquire of his son as to his general progress in "getting a bird".. or "does she have big t!ts?" whilst Mothers often muse over their daughters future, hopefully settling down with some doctor or lawyer in a bid house and producing children.. So in a gay household, what would be the prevailing mindset and general influence parameters? If it is that children are influenced to accept packing fudge or munching rug as "normal", then is this a good thing? I'm in the "I'm a bigoted, homophobic intolerant dinosaur and I prefer fanny and tits so No it's not" group by the way.. :}

Curious Pax
22nd May 2013, 15:18
I think I've just had a 'Life on Mars' moment and been transported back to the 1970s! :ugh:

Alloa Akbar
22nd May 2013, 15:55
I think I've just had a 'Life on Mars' moment and been transported back to the 1970s!

Have you just arrived at MAN T1 ??

Tankertrashnav
22nd May 2013, 16:26
So in a gay household, what would be the prevailing mindset and general influence parameters? If it is that children are influenced to accept packing fudge or munching rug as "normal", then is this a good thing? I'm in the "I'm a bigoted, homophobic intolerant dinosaur and I prefer fanny and tits so No it's not" group by the way.. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


A little later this year I shall be entertaining an old friend of mind to lunch in London. I'll be congratulating her on her civil partnership to her long term female partner, which will take place in July, the same month that she will be attending the marriage of her eldest son to his fiancee (note the two 'e's). Her daughter is already in a steady heterosexual relationship which she thoroughly approves of. I may relate your comments about encouraging "fudge packing" and "rug munching" to her, but as she would only treat them with contempt I probably won't bother.

I would guess that same sex couples are no more likely to encourage their children into same-sex relationships than heterosexual couples are likely to bring their own kids up to be homophobic bigots.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd May 2013, 16:35
Through peripheral experience I know of 3 kids being raised by 3 same sex couples and to my mind the kids are somehow not like other kids, as to whether that's good or bad who knows. I do feel that in general children flourish when there is both a constant male and female influence and this is how nature and it's procreative tricks has made us. It is not, however, an exclusive method as seen by the number of healthy children raised by single parents and same sex parents these days, albeit tiny statistically against the main numbers. A loving, constant, disciplined guide is what is required and if that is what same sex couples can muster, then so be it.

As to why same sex couples want to marry, a ceremony devised by religions to join together man and woman to procreate and stay together, is a mystery to me. Most religions don't agree with homosexuality, so wanting to partake of these bindings seems strange, especially when legally binding and protecting civil-unions already exist.



SHJ

rgbrock1
22nd May 2013, 16:38
I wonder if in any of these so-called same-sex marriages, or unions, who want to adopt children of their own ever give one nanosecond of thought to the ridicule their kids may experience at school, or from friends, when it becomes known that Junior has a mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy.

Alloa Akbar
22nd May 2013, 16:42
Thanks TTN, that's what I was getting at, and as I don't know any same sex parent families, it was a genuine question. It does beg other peripheral questions, but I shan't bother, my interest in understanding other views will probably be drowned out in calls for my burning at the stake.. ;)

rgbrock - I remember the crap kids took at school in the 70's and 80's when they came from single parent families.. Got to be tough. My kids go to a catholic school in Hampshire, and one little girl has two mummies.. My own kids have asked me several times why Lucy (Made up name) has two mummies.. I can imagine curiosity turns to taunting around puberty. How long do you give it before somebody educates me by telling me if I was a decent parent I would teach my kids not to ridicule, and we'd all live in a tolerant happy fashion.. :rolleyes:

Kids will be kids..

rgbrock1
22nd May 2013, 16:50
http://www.mimenta.com/Mimenta/Images/Extra%20Graphics/VA07/Burning%20at%20the%20stake.jpg

Alloa? Is that you? How dare you make homophobic remarks.

Burn him. Burn him. Make him pay. Burrrrnnnnn himmmm.

rgbrock1
22nd May 2013, 16:52
Alloa:

How long do you give it before somebody educates me by telling me if I was a decent parent I would teach my kids not to ridicule, and we'd all live in a tolerant happy fashion..

Yup. And we can all sit around in a circle singing kumbaja, with our voices raised as one. :yuk::yuk::yuk:

Cornish Jack
22nd May 2013, 17:11
Quite fascinating!!
"Mad, swivel eyed loon "- (acy)???
or just a Farrag-o (sp intended) of intolerant idiocy??????????
and to think that I could be watching a splendid patch of paint drying.:yuk::yuk:

ORAC
22nd May 2013, 17:32
Well Sandi Toksvig's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandi_Toksvig#Personal_life) seem to have turned out OK, at least from their Facebook pages. (Theo, Jesse and Meggie Toksvig-Stewart.)

But then again, why wouldn't they?

Fantome
22nd May 2013, 18:57
Mind boggling arrogance, you say, Gert old girl? And that is one reason why
when subjects such as this one arise it is better to be doing something else with precious time. (Forget watching paint drying tho'. Hear a Cornish man converse? I'd rather hear a choir singing flat. Hope ee doan take that personal . My forebears came from Bodmin, after all. Prior to transportation, that is. Before those dreadful emicons were invented, even.)

Incidently . . been meaning to ask . . how did you get that little Beaver thumbnail pic on there? As I had one of me own .. on floats . . . I think the admin here might at least allow me one like yours. Someone said a while back you have to pay for it.

Back now to savouring the daisies .. . . . or the lantana actually, as it is rampant. To contemplate nature. To give a thought to Wm Blake at his profoundest, somehow transcends the shallowness, the mundanity, of the never ending fascination of who is doing what to whom.

Mr Chips
22nd May 2013, 20:22
Alloa as you are clearly a bigot with no tolerance for anyone outside your own narrow view of the world, there is no point in attempting any kind of discussion with you. Your prejudices are quite staggering.

Fantome
22nd May 2013, 20:31
no they're not . .. .. they're just all you would expect. There is no point in responding. If your mind is open to rational debate you will consider what makes sense and ignore what is manifestly stupid. You might even come to see the futility of getting into slanging matches, which is merely an extension.

Krystal n chips
23rd May 2013, 05:08
"
It always the same 2 or 3 homophobic people in every gay thread on here. What does that tell you?" .

It tells you that some people clearly wish to return to the not so distant past, being incapable of understanding that sexual orientation does not reflect an individuals personality and intellect.

And that, in all probability, have never actually socialised with people who are gay / lesbian......heaven forbid that by doing so their closed minds might actualy be opened !

Solid Rust Twotter
23rd May 2013, 06:13
It tells me they have an opinion, as do many others here. It's not wrong or right, it's just their opinion and they're entitled to it.

Thought police telling us what opinions we may and may not have are dangerously intrusive upon such liberties we have remaining.

ORAC
23rd May 2013, 06:58
Grace Dent: I’m not sure how these people can avoid being called ‘bigots’. And the more ‘civilised’, the worse they are (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/grace-dent-im-not-sure-how-these-people-can-avoid-being-called-bigots-and-the-more-civilised-the-worse-they-are-8627046.html) :D:D:D

ORAC
23rd May 2013, 07:40
It tells me they have an opinion, as do many others here. It's not wrong or right, it's just their opinion and they're entitled to it. Thought police telling us what opinions we may and may not have are dangerously intrusive upon such liberties we have remaining.

And it's my, and many others, opinion that they're homophobic bigots. Sorry if that offends them, just my opinion you understand.

Alloa Akbar
23rd May 2013, 07:44
Get a grip Martin, nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be banned.. but one post earlier made a good point, why can't hetero's have civil partnerships??? Seems a bit one sided.

Chips - Had you read my posts you would understand as many others have, that I ask questions to solicit the opinions of those who hold said opinions diametrically opposite to my own, as I am interested in opposing views to try and learn and understand the wider context a little better. I have no first hand knowledge of being in a gay relationship or a same sex parent family, therefore I ask questions sprinkled with a few flippant words or phrases to keep the mood light hearted and jovial in the spirit of JB.

If you lack the wider vision to understand that, then that is your issue to deal with. We each have a personality and a style.. Krystal, Martinmax, rgbrock, ORAC etc etc, there is a common style and undertone to everyone's posts, mine is non-pc phrases, which I use to highlight that I think we have gone a little crazy over the whole pc thing on certain issues, and yes I am a hetero, yes the idea of having sex with another man is distasteful to me.. However, that's my opinion and I am entitled to express it, just as much as Martinmax is rightly entitled to express his opposite view. I don't agree with him, but in past threads I have read his posts and understand where he is coming from and I respect that.

If that makes me a bigot and homophobic, then I'll live with it. block me if you like, but stop blubbing like a big fanny about the big bad nasty poster who is obviously not as educated or as morally sound as you.. Its pompous, self righteous and profoundly pathetic.

Incidentally, I note that you haven't actually offered any reasonable opposition to my posts.. I doubt that you are capable of such based on that observation.

Solid Rust Twotter
23rd May 2013, 07:53
ORAC

Yup, and you're entitled to it. Same as those who feel otherwise. Personally I don't care where folks stick things, as long as both reckon it's a good idea. I do object to being told what I should think, though.

vee-tail-1
23rd May 2013, 10:27
Hmnn .... no more than I expected ... throw them red meat and the homofascists foam at the mouth.
Thanks are due to those like AA who managed to keep a debate going through the din. :hmm:

Brian Abraham
23rd May 2013, 12:18
nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be bannedIf I may contritely edge a toe towards the waters.

The only issue I personally have is the word "marriage" when it involves those of the gay community. To me the word associates male and female.

In engineering we have male and female components, and they are said to be "married" when cojoined. An electrical plug and socket is a prime example.

Take bolts and nuts, two bolts cannot be married, nor two nuts, but a bolt and nut may be.

I have no issue with same sex couples having all the legal rights that a married couple may have in law, but please come up with a name other than "married" for the union.

Just a point of view, and yes I have gay friends to this day of 1977 vintage should I be in for a shellacking.

Mr Chips
23rd May 2013, 12:55
Alloa you use outdated bigoted language and call it "flippant". You are living in a bizarre world if you think that is acceptable

being obnoxious and offensive is not "light hearted" it does actually show you up as a really rather unpleasant person.

The original point of this thread was to claim that gay adoption is akin to legalised child abuse. I have asked twice now for any kind of supporting evidence. I have seen none.

Expressing an opinion is fine, using language such as you do is not.

My opinion is that you need to grow up.

i have not "offered any opposition to your posts" as to do so would be futile, you have a very obviously closed mind. As i have already stated

Do feel free to actually read what people write.

Alloa Akbar
23rd May 2013, 13:48
To be fair the thread has developed since the OP..

using language such as you do is not. Really? Says who? I haven't been spanked by the mods for it??

That said you are entitled to your opinion of course, I have no problem with that.. As for your feeling that I am unpleasant.. again no problem, if we lived next door, it might be an issue, but we are just names on screens.. If I told you I thought you were a wet, hand wringing, flower arranging, shandy drinking, apologist gayboy would it matter?? Naa not really. (I'm not saying I do think that.. Just demonstrating a point in my non-pc comical wit style ;) )

Have a good one :ok:

ORAC
23rd May 2013, 14:03
Take bolts and nuts, two bolts cannot be married, nor two nuts, but a bolt and nut may be. Nuts and bolts aren't married - though they do screw together....

Ropes, on the other hand, are married (spliced) together, and are similar in nature. Hence splice being used as a synonym for marriage as in "they spliced the knot".

Which would seem to indicate that your are arguing from a false premise.

cockney steve
23rd May 2013, 18:02
@orac splicing a knot is like saying "welding a rivet"


A knot is usually the joining of two ropes by bending and weaving each about the other.....A Splice, however, is made by the intimate interweaving of the STRANDS of different ropes (or parts) one with the other.....eg, an eye-splice, where the ends of the strands are plaited back through the strands of the standing-part........a standard splice or long-splice, again relies on the intimate weaving of the individual strands.

In engineering -terms, there have always been mating compoents and since time immemorial a lead has been taken from the natural order....female is receptacle for male.

yes, they're married. 2 males or 2 females are designed to serve a purpose....put them together as you will, they're not married.

United?-certainly.....I don't give a damn about anyone's sexual preferences,as long as they abide by social Mores and Conventions.

@ Martinmax 69.....you're" confronted "by Hetero couples, 'cos that's the natural order!....dogs, cats, sheep, goats......all normally hetero.....the ABNORMAL ones who prefer their own gender will not procreate...so the Darwin effect removes their genes from the pool.

Because we are sentinent and somewhat more intelligent than the aforementioned beasts, (add monkeys, apes and gorillas, if you like)
we cheat nature by artificially inseminating -in livestock, it's selective breeding.....with "gay" humans, it's ELECTIVE breeding.
Apparently, the ancient Greeks preferred boys, though they used women to breed....but it "wasn't like the real thing" :}
whatever rocks your boat.

The Homo-sexual community have annexed the word "Gay"...now they are doing the same with "Marriage"

I have never married,but would quite happily have had a heterosexual civil-partnership or union .....but we're denied that.

Fantome
23rd May 2013, 18:21
What is the point in arguing the toss with a tosser?

Hasten to add, that comment aimed at no one in particular. A non specific one, such as 'preaching to the converted'.

The Homo-sexual community have annexed the word "Gay"...now they are doing the same with "Marriage"

When the black dog is not slinking around I am quite a gay hearted sort of a chap. (There was a boy back in primary school days called Anthony Prance. when the Rev Jack Tyrell called the roll each morning, he did not say 'Prance', but instead 'gay gamboling across a meadow'. David Creed - he was 'this I believe'. There was a Goldsmith but not a Dicksmith, to be teased.)

Annexation of the term and the meaning of 'marriage'? Not in a thousand years. It is irreplaceable. Like 'dinner'.

Now give over. You'll be done like a dinner.

rgbrock1
23rd May 2013, 18:24
cockney steve wrote:

I have never married,but would quite happily have had a heterosexual civil-partnership or union .....

I see your age is showing as 66? You were never married?
You'll probably live to 166 because of that. :}

Mr Chips
23rd May 2013, 21:07
I have never married,but would quite happily have had a heterosexual civil-partnership or union .....but we're denied that.

I'm pretty sure that a "heterosexual civil-partnership" is called a wedding.....

ExSp33db1rd
23rd May 2013, 21:48
It's a long time since I heard a wedding ceremony, but does it not include words like - between man and woman - and - for the procreation of children - how exactly are two same sex persons going to comply with that ?

World's Gone Mad.

B Fraser
23rd May 2013, 22:03
It most certainly has gone mad. If people are queueing to jump aboard the big pink outrage bus because someone has said "woolly woofter" then they ought to see the stage acts of Kenneth Williams, Graham Norton, Julian Clary, Frankie Howerd, Alan Carr etc. Smelling salts at the ready. :rolleyes:

B Fraser
24th May 2013, 06:09
You actually don't know any gay people do you?

Quite a few actually starting with one of my oldest mates who was my best man many years ago. Another guest at my wedding was a neighbour and close friend who turned up in his "rainbow club" tie and was a hit with the girls who complained "what a waste". When it comes to poking fun at the other side then the gay community do it par excellence. It can be very witty. Perhaps banter is banned in your ultra-orthodox sect ?

Richo77
24th May 2013, 06:25
Martin,
Please dont feed the trolls.

B Fraser
24th May 2013, 08:34
Richo77,

Either your post was superb irony which I applaud or showed an unfortunate lack of knowledge of the subject. "Troll" is yet another word that has been hijacked by the gay community. A hostie friend from way back was fluent in Polari and explained the gags that were embedded in the brilliant radio series "Around The Horne".

Bona to varda your dolly old eek Richo, now zoosh your riah, climb into your bona new drag, don your batts and troll off. There's a good omi palone.

Personally, I prefer donas with big willets*



* see photos from Der Schlaschenfuhrer passim.

;)

Alloa Akbar
24th May 2013, 08:57
You actually don't know any gay people do you?

Yes he does.. they didn't call him "The Beef of Berkshire" for nothing you know!! :}

My gripe is the same as everybody else's on here whom you tag "Homophobic" We really don't care about your sexual preference, really, we don't. Just stop bloody banging on about it will you, between the Muslim Extremists, gay rights groups and frickin Jedi's, we are bombarded every day with people demanding special recognition for whatever persuasion they are.. For gods sake shut up.. its tedious.

B Fraser
24th May 2013, 09:13
Very good Alloa, I'll deal with you later.

Anyway, it was "The Ox of Oxfordshire".

Choxolate
24th May 2013, 09:18
Just stop bloody banging on about it will you, between the Muslim Extremists, gay rights groups and frickin Jedi's, we are bombarded every day with people demanding special recognition for whatever persuasion they are.. For gods sake shut up.. its tedious.
If everybody took that approach we would still have disenfranchised women, slavery and child labour.

I know it annoys you that in the UK we have a basically democratic and tolerant approach to those who are not like "us" (whoever "us" are), I am sure the alternative would make you a lot happier, such is life.

KAG
24th May 2013, 14:56
I guess in western Europe we feel our end is near? So that's why we focus on the ones around the core and take them as a reference in order to become weaker faster. We are getting lost. Time has passed since the old Greece when we were killing all abnormal babies in some cities. We have reached the opposite madness: if you are a trouble maker or a bit special then we will spend all our political effort and money on you.

There were a study in France not a long time ago: if you were a "normal" average white young individual living in a small city without special troubles/needs you would probabely be a loser, job less, with the government not giving a damn about you and slightly depressed on top of that.
If you were a migrant living in the suburb of big cities, you would have all the government help, the drug money, the good jobs (including local singer or local star) for the ones willing to work, and if you were handicaped or gay in addition then bingo, you would be the center of the world even if you never helped anybody or did anything good in your life.

Our societies are not fit to win anymore. We admire handicaped people running in some weird contest we set for them, we admire gay people marrying and wanting kids one way or an other, we admire bandits, we admire migrants when they just do what they are supposed to do, we almost thanks them for not killing anybody. The normal ones? They can die those close minded bigots with nothing special.
Our societies are fit to lose. We lost our mind.

Gay marriage? This is a huge farce, the only ones who agree with it are the gays (and not all of them, some are completely aware that it doesn't make any sense) and the people who want to play/look like intellectuals, or open minded. That's a big fraud.
Why?

Because marriage is nothing political, it didn't appear (or was created by) in any government, it appeared in the real life among basically all the different culture in the world thousand years ago. It is not political, so no president, no prime minister can change it. That's not like that. That's not because you vote for the sky to be green that it will become green. Marriage is the union that brings back together the 2 genders in which human species is divided into. Those 2 genders together, male and female, IS THE ONLY WAY to have kids LIKE IT OR NOT. 2 men or women just cannot. Yes nature is homophobic then, blame it.

Adoption? There are not enough babies available to be adopted, and the international baby traffic has became a business to meet the demand (80% of adoption is international, understand white couple adopting colored kid). If you have more baby 'produced', that's only because more people want to adopt, a huge part of those babies wouldn't even exist if there were no demand from the rich countries. See "baby factory" in poor countries with young girls forced to be pregnant every 9 months non stop, google is your friend.
The fantasy that says a couple of gay who can adopt is great because they will be able to take care about a poor abandonned cute little baby is complete [email protected] because we all know that more demand: more production in baby international traffic, in surrogate mother, medically assisted procreation and other. Gay couple will only increase the production of fragile and legally border line produced baby. Remove your rosy glasses, because this is the dirty truth.

Mr Chips
24th May 2013, 18:52
Wow KAG, all those words, all of them meaningless.

Milo Minderbinder
24th May 2013, 19:15
Another shower of irrelevance which scores null points on the conceptual comprehensibility index.
I'm convinced he spends a few weeks in some Chinese Opium den, emerging once a month to go cold turkey and spout his randomised ravings while still under the influence of the substances roaming through his blood.

Maybe its the blood wine that makes it worse, favourite tipple of the Kling-on Action Group. Personally I find soft paper, used well, removes most traces of Kling-ons. Or winnits for that matter.

vee-tail-1
24th May 2013, 21:36
Chips & MM
What a couple of ass**les you are. Try posting like grown ups if you can, your pathetic rubbish makes my eyes hurt. Always attacking the poster and never debating the issues. KAG is head and shoulders above your level of purile discourse and he is doing it in a foreign language. :mad:

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 02:08
Methinks this thread is a fine example of people seeking to occupy the perceived moral high ground, exhibiting faux-outrage on other's behalf. Voicing opinions, probably not what they dearly hold - but what they think they ought to be seen to hold. I see all the usual labels were bandied about quickly also.
Some of the most outwardly virtuous people I know harbour some of the most truly bigoted opinions also. At least you know exactly where you stand with people who voice opinions that run against the grain of perceived 'right-thinking' - It's the ones who adopt the façade of virtue you have to watch out for.

Fantome
25th May 2013, 02:59
John Cleese's take on stupidity -


John Cleese Explaining Stupidity - YouTube

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 04:25
A 20-year-old straight man has told of his terror at being set upon by a gang of openly gay thugs.

The victim told reporters that earlier that evening he had been the subject of a series of bitingly waspish remarks from what had either been two men and a woman, one man and two women, three very effeminate men or three very butch women. Their comments, which were of a ribald nature, were accompanied by a lot of ‘oohs’ and ‘ahs’ and high-pitched shrieking.

The man, who was singled out by the group for looking a bit ‘buildery’, had been drinking in the Queen’s Head, which was known to be popular with local heterosexuals. After leaving the pub, and on his way to a nearby lapdancing club, he was cornered and subjected to a series of unprovoked slaps.

Despite his cries of ‘oi’ the victim continued to receive further poorly co-ordinated blows, accompanied by more remarks in Polari about his interest in ‘lady parts’. His attackers then left the scene laughing outrageously.

While his assailants remain unidentified, police have said that CCTV footage of the attack shows it was unremittingly camp. Several passers-by merely stopped to admire the attackers’ outfits before walking on.

Det Sgt John Hoskins, who is leading the case, said: ‘This was an appallingly bitchy attack. A young man was singled out simply because he favours the vagina. Incidents such as this remind us that anti-heterosexual violence must not be tolerated.’

Last month, four angry lesbians from Gloucester were sentenced to three months each for ‘straight bashing’ a 26-year-old housewife. The dykes admitted taunting the woman about her lack of motorcycle repair skills and then accused her of ‘taking it up the front bum’.

Bill Butler, a student at the University of West London, said: ‘I try not to walk around in public with my girlfriend holding hands, it’s just too dangerous. I’ve had friends bitched at in public, normally by more than one gay. We shouldn’t have to go around pretending to like Dusty Springfield, to act like we care about Eurovision or worrying endlessly about our skin care regime.’

Campaigner Tony Tucker said: ‘For a lot of straight people it’s simply not an option to get back in the closet; often because it’s now filled with stacked heels and shiny hotpants.’


courtesy of Newsbiscuit.

Fantome
25th May 2013, 04:35
crass.............and vile

owen meaney
25th May 2013, 05:10
Well Martin, in Australia every person working with children must have a blue card, so you can desist with that puerile tactic of trying to bait people.
Most people have no fear of homosexuals, so you can lose the phobic invective as well.
On the upside, I personally do not care who or what a person "marries".
But then again I am not part of the group fighting against the ingrained social mores of western society.

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 05:25
Hilarious! The source of most of the vitriol, ad hominem and opprobrium appears to be sourced at those who bask in their own self-righteousness or perceived victimhood. Ironic that the bigot card is their first gambit also.

Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, a bit like vegetarian beefburgers. Why would somebody wish to be recognised under a banner of a club that outwardly disapproves of their sexuality? It's a bit like a Somalian illegal immigrant demanding his right to join the BNP. Anybody remember the Monty Python sketch where a bloke wants a baby? "But you can't have one - you're a bloke"..."But I demand the right to have the right to have a baby!"

There is a proportionally tiny lobby group actually pushing for this and it strikes me as nothing more than a tick in the box for the sheer hell of gaining ground that does not need to be gained.

If it became fashionable to be seen showing solidarity with Albino Eskimos in Peru who had been denied their right to do forward rolls in blancmange then I'd wager a few on here who are always eager to demonstrate their broad-mindedness would be right there waving the appropriate wristbands.

Martin... you are being too precious and need to get over yourself. I don't actually believe for one minute that you, or any of the others who have expressed outrage or that they felt hurt by anything on this thread actually really feel that way.

ORAC
25th May 2013, 05:54
There is a proportionally tiny lobby group actually pushing for this The truth being that on 21st May the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed the third reading in Parliament by 366 votes to 161 – a majority of 205, and with the support of the leaders of all 3 main parties. Meanwhile the majority of the population is in favour, (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3091/Poll-on-Gay-Marriage.aspx) including 82% of those under 34.

Please feel free to rage, whine and complain as the law, history and the generations pass you by.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 06:04
ORAC - your stats are meaningless in the context you provide - and well you know it. I only know 3 gay people, one of them is a woman and the other two you would never guess their orientation. They actually find it patronising that people seek to show their "support" for them and are actually embarrassed by those who "over-egg the pudding" with regards to their sexuality. Gay marriage has never crossed their minds and all 3 of them have been in stable relationships ever since I have known them. I maintain that this is just a very small minority pushing for something just for the sake of gaining ground on something that isn't really an issue.

What I get incensed by is the tired old rants inflicted upon gay people. I have seen first hand what bullying can do, what words can do. So long as you say it's ok to do these things by remaining silent, the problem will remain.


I think you'll find that most, if not all of the "rants" on this thread have been from you and your cohorts. As for bullying...what has that got to do with this thread - or did somebody post in a font you found intimidating? You do yourself and others of your orientation no favours by actually playing up to the oft stated stereotype of homosexuals...you big girls blouse, stop being such a drama queen!

ORAC
25th May 2013, 06:10
I think you'll find that most, if not all of the "rants" on this thread have been from you and your cohorts. Read the opening post of the thread? :hmm:

ORAC - your stats are meaningless in the context you provide - and well you know it. I only know 3 gay people, one of them is a woman and the other two you would never guess their orientation. Thus proving you know such a small and unrepresentative sample that any attempt to draw a valid conclusion is impossible. You argue from an openly admitted area of ignorance.

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 06:19
Thus proving you know such a small and unrepresentative sample that any attempt to draw a valid conclusion is impossible. You argue from an openly admitted area of ignorance.

Care to state what exactly the sample of under 35 year olds was who support this act? Are you stating that I need to know a requisite number of homosexuals before I can hold a valid opinion on this and will otherwise be deemed 'ignorant'? Why is my sample unrepresentative? Is it because the blokes are not 'good with colours'? What exactly do you think is representative of a homosexual then? Are you saying any homosexual who is not openly "camp" is therefore unrepresentative of their sexuality?

You really are quite bigoted aren't you!

ORAC
25th May 2013, 06:33
A sample of 3 of anything is unrepresentative. Drawing conclusion even from a large sample is a science based on selecting the sample and the means of questioning and the framing of the questions. May I say I have doubts, based on your views, on the frankness of any replies you might receive in discussing such subjects with someone who might wish either not to offend or in fear of getting an earful?

The poll I quote was taken by a highly reputable polling company whose methods meet modern standards. I leave others to judge ifvI am bigoted in preferring to pay more regard to their results than your opinion.

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 06:43
ORAC - you are confusing "support" for gay marriage, as opposed to being opposed to gay marriage with those who are gay who actively want to get married. If 5000 under 35 year olds were polled on whether they supported Lesbian scrabble tournaments then would the results be actually worth anything?


I'd just like to add - I'm all in favour of Lesbian scrabble tournaments, I wholly encourage it!

Milo Minderbinder
25th May 2013, 08:34
"he is doing it in a foreign language"

Would that be Double-Dutch?

Mr Chips
25th May 2013, 10:11
Matelot, to be honest, comparing the whole 3 gay people you know, to a genuine survey is making you look really quite ignorant. Just saying

Vee tail - what is your problem with gays? YOU started this thread. I find it hilarious that there are complaints about gay rights being forced on people...and yet it was YOU that brought it up this time.

KAG spouted absolute nonsense about gay couples fuelling baby factories in the third world. Pure fantasy

Vee tail - you declared that gay adoption is legalised child abuse.

Do please provide some supporting evidence for this wild accusation...

Oh, and Vee tail, calling people A$$holes then telling them to post like grown ups....can you spell irony?

Lon More
25th May 2013, 10:36
Finally, a thread with more vitriol than any on Farage.
Can I play? :\

Milo Minderbinder
25th May 2013, 10:57
I always thought that Farage was a closet queen. He's got that kind of look about him, a bit like Portillo has.

owen meaney
25th May 2013, 11:19
ORAC, statistics are an interesting dark art.
99% of the drinkers at the Roma Pub said they were against PJs marrying, the barmaid wouldn't comment.
So what does that mean?
Buggerall really, but sounds impressive

ex_matelot
25th May 2013, 13:03
Statistically - 9 out of 10 people enjoy...

KAG
25th May 2013, 13:55
The problem Martin is that you take everything that is being said in this thread against you.
That's like, let's try a loose comparison, if I said: I am against kid marriage, so kids would answer to me, as an argument: you hate kids, you are kidphobic! No I am not.

We have 2 main leaders against gay marriage in France: one is an officially "gay friendly" woman, the other is a young man, officially homosexual. I am not kidding, you can google it. So what do you say about that?

Gay marriage and the new coming associated kids who will be "created" or "adopted" in our already over crowded world are just not right, that's all.
Your arguments are either rationalization, either basic emotion like "cute baby loving gay parents" style. You go nowhere with that.
There is an end to everyone's (group) rights, you'll have to learn it one day or another. No we don't do everything we are pleased to do, we have constraints everywhere. This is called civilization. A civilization ends when populism appears. That's populism already right here.

We all lose our familly (elders) as we grow up, the earth is being destroyed, cancer is developping and attacking the human race like never before, Europe is being threathened by globalization and might suffer soon, and all what we can do and think about in UK and France right now is to marry gay people (not that the gays in Europe were in a bad situation in addition), here is the big political plan for the future that will save us? Don't we see we are at war, not in a gaypride right now??? Good time for our politics to man up a bit, wrong time for them to speak endlessly about gay marriage, lovely surrogate mother (understand Indian or Ukainian slave) that will help gays to get what they asked to Santa Clauss.
Hollande has totally lost my trust this time. Cameron, same, even though I thought he had more guts, he is a populist too. They put the economy in danger and keep talking about the best way to provide kids to gay people. Madness.

PTT
25th May 2013, 14:26
ORAC, statistics are an interesting dark art.
99% of the drinkers at the Roma Pub said they were against PJs marrying, the barmaid wouldn't comment.
So what does that mean?
Buggerall really, but sounds impressiveIt would mean that, of the drinkers in that particular pub on that night, 99% were against PJs marrying. With no more context than you have given it can mean little else.

Context is everything. For a sample such as the one ORAC posted to be considered representative there are a number of factors it must take into account, not least of these being that it is a random selection of the population. Unless these are considered then there may be an unintended bias in the analysis. Your pub comment is a perfect example of there being a bias towards people drinking in that particular pub, as well as towards pubs in general, towards Roma etc etc etc...

MORI clearly have taken some of those biases into account, as can be seen on the tables you can download from the link ORAC provided. The inclusion of weighting suggests that some biases were considered, and they include a technical note at the bottom of the page ORAC linked:
"Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,023 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted by telephone 8th to 10th December 2012. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population. Where percentages do not sum to 100 this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of “don’t know” categories, or multiple answers."While the claim to be representative may be somewhat previous ("randomly chosen" might be a better phrase) there are at least three biases I can see which they have identified:1. Selection bias: people who answered the telephone and opted in.
2. Age bias: the numbers were adjusted to be proportionate with the age profile of the UK.
3. Sampling bias: the sample could only possibly include people who own a telephone.What MORI didn't do is put any sort of confidence interval to their means. This is a basic error, and one which the media and media-oriented outlets do all the time. With a sample size of 1023 there is likely to be an error in the region of 3% either way if the sample is to be considered representative of the UK population as a whole (biases excepted). The 73% quoted is better stated as "70-76% to 95CI", meaning that the team is 95% confident that between 70 and 76% of the population think that way. You can go to 99% (range is 69-77%) if you wish, but in social sciences 95CI is a well-used standard.

Statistics is only a dark art to those who haven't studied it. A bit like flying ;)

owen meaney
25th May 2013, 23:34
PTT, Thread Drift I know.
Your statistics have no more reality than mine.
I can load any result with what ever bias
For us uneducated scum, explain confidence interval and how this convoluted concept was arrived at. Hint think fertilising a crop. Then explain how the 5% was inverted to 95% .

Brian Abraham
26th May 2013, 03:07
Just for ORAC

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/293043_10151411800937019_135256674_n.jpgNuts and bolts aren't married - though they do screw together....They sure do screw, and when they do they are said to be mated, or married. Strange too that they screw, when the euphemism for what we do is not screwing at all.

Fantome
26th May 2013, 06:43
Are you quite sure? The euphemism after all applies whatever way you look at it. It applies in the sense that there are many euphemisms for this popular recreational sport, sport.

PTT
26th May 2013, 06:57
PTT, Thread Drift I know.
Your statistics have no more reality than mine.
I can load any result with what ever bias
For us uneducated scum, explain confidence interval and how this convoluted concept was arrived at. Hint think fertilising a crop. Then explain how the 5% was inverted to 95% .
First, they're not "my statistics".
Second, yes you can load a result with biases - that's exactly what I said. The key is to be sure to provide full data and context along with your conclusions, exactly as I said before
As for confidence interval, here you go (http://bit.ly/1118ZPB). If you have your own "fertilising" example then I suggest you use it yourself rather than attempting to lead people by the nose.

owen meaney
26th May 2013, 07:59
Then again PTT, odds are its wrong

Odds Are, It's Wrong | Brian Cooper - Academia.edu (http://www.academia.edu/333435/Odds_Are_Its_Wrong)

Which has not much to do with whether SSPs should be able to marry

BRIAN, one would hope she wasn't left hand thread:eek:

PTT
26th May 2013, 08:08
Base Rate fallacy is what that is about. Not much to do with social science and lots to do with medical science. Nice link though.

ExSp33db1rd
26th May 2013, 08:29
They sure do screw, and when they do they are said to be mated, or married. Strange too that they screw, when the euphemism for what we do is not screwing at all.

Like the lunatic asylum inmate who escaped after raping the laundry girls, and the media headline was just - Nut Screws Washers and Bolts

ExXB
26th May 2013, 09:42
Nuts and bolts aren't married - though they do screw together....

Seeing as this is an aviation forum, perhaps I should mention that in a Reservations Booking System 'sectors' can be married, meaning that the availability of a seat is dependent upon a connecting sector or final Point of Turnaround. i.e. a sector booking may not be possible if the connecting sector is low yield.

Sorta like real marriage, in some ways.

ex_matelot
26th May 2013, 16:36
Seeing as this is an aviation forum, perhaps I should mention that in a Reservations Booking System 'sectors' can be married, meaning that the availability of a seat is dependent upon a connecting sector or...

You should be banned from Jetblast for that comment.

Get yourself a METAR and some faux outrage about a compromise of flight safety and toddle off to R&N!

Richo77
27th May 2013, 05:22
28% of all quoted statistics are made up - 74.3% of people know that! Sheesh

Cacophonix
1st Jul 2013, 23:05
Martin, ignore the homophobes and the morons.

Caco

JimR
2nd Jul 2013, 01:50
Let's start by saying that I don't have a problem with two members of the same sex wanting to be with each other for whatever reason including love; however that union is not marriage! What I object to is that this be extended to selfishness by including a young person that has no say in the matter. This person will be subjected to (that's will be, not possibly) the normal taunting and bullying by colleagues. This is unfortunately a characteristic of human nature whether we like it or not to exclude and taunt anyone that doesn't conform to the norm. It seems to be the way the whole animal kingdom was created! I would like to think that we grow out of it via experience and education but a lot of the world's conflicts don't seem to support that view. There are plenty of stories of youngsters suffering through school from bullying so why anyone would want to heap on this extra burden is beyond me. I'm not saying that kids won't come through it, just as a lot of other kids that for some reason don't conform can come through the system, just that why throw this extra problem on their shoulders. Maybe slightly off track, but I just cannot understand why some (I realize not all) the gay community insist on dressing up in the most ridiculous and, offensive in many cases, outfits that do absolutely nothing to promote their cause in their parades.

Thomas coupling
2nd Jul 2013, 08:59
Hopefully a rep from a gay marriage can answer this:

When the adopted child is brought up in the british education system, they are taught sex education. It goes into significant detail, believe me. But at no stage whatsoever, do they go into detail about gay sex.
So how does the child cater for this then? Does the child blurt out that in their household sex is 'different' and then go onto describe it...of course not. Does the child remain quiet, go home and ask daddy and daddy ...please explain the birds and the bees to me daddy?
More importantly...and here is the rub....Does this child grow up, in full possession of the facts (gleaned from daddy and daddy, because the school won't / doesn't teach gay sex) and become more accepting of what daddy and daddy get up to (and assume it is normal) or does it drive them further away from the ideal?

The media talks about everything to do with gay marriage....except the main reason for that marriage, which is to procreate - no? Why does it shy away from this particular aspect and NOT discuss the effects of an innocent child 'experiencing' same sex....sex? [And the effects it can have on that childs development].

* I must add that I am in no way, shape or form, homophobic...but this aspect of their lives (marriage and sex) concerns me.

PTT
2nd Jul 2013, 09:14
@ Thomas
I'm not that "rep", but have two observations:
the main reason for that marriage, which is to procreate - no?Marriage is not required for procreation, only sex with someone of the opposite gender is required. Marriage brings with it a host of other baggage (some beneficial, some not), all societally driven, which is why it is an institution in and of itself now rather than a means to procreate.
Why does ... NOT discuss the effects of an innocent child 'experiencing' same sex....sex? [And the effects it can have on that childs development].Does anyone know what those effects are?

Thomas coupling
2nd Jul 2013, 10:41
PTT: I think it is self explanatory. For years they are taught, preached to, experience all around them that sex is 'normal' between a man and a woman.
It dawns on them pretty quickly that sex between gays "appears" to be out of the ordinary, shall we say.
Now they 'may' get used to it quickly and accept all that it embraces(excuse the pun). OR
They are permanently and psychologically adversely affected NOT by the belief that our society accepts homosexual behaviour in general - but by the fact that where sex is involved, it isn't "normal".
And if they live at home with same sex parents.....is that a thriving healthy environment in which to continue?
All the debates I ever hear about, when it comes to same sex relationships, is the spiritual or the psychological or the lega etc.
No-one ever discusses that a child is being brought up in a loving caring environment (through no choice of their own) where the two men are engaging in, practicing and advocating sodomy. Why is that?
[In the modern world we live in - is sodomy still illegal, perhaps not?].

Ancient Observer
2nd Jul 2013, 10:50
Isn't it about time that heteros in a church and state sanctified relationship found a new word for their relationship?

It used to be called marriage, but lots of people use that word in a 21st century way, so the antique word "marriage" (first used circa 1250) has been extended beyond what the Norman Monks set it up to be used for.

Any ideas for a new word?

How about "Heteromar"??

Thomas coupling
2nd Jul 2013, 10:52
How about........................erm.........................ah. ...........................ooooow....CIVIL PARTNERSHIP:ugh:

Capetonian
2nd Jul 2013, 10:54
I have followed this debate without contribution as I have mixed feelings. From a political perspective, the whole thing has been overemphasised by politicians as a diversionary tactic from more important matters. Politicians are filth and both Cameron and Hollande are spineless puppets, Hollande in addition is a moron. On the one hand, I couldn't give a toss if gay couples can marry or not as it doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I do have a number of gay friends and I don't see why they should be deprived on the same rights as heterosexual couples. I do however have a problem with gays adopting children, I think it's unnatural, but then the other part of me says that children whose parents are in a stable and loving homosexual relationship are probably better parents than some of the trash who have children 'naturally.'

martinmax69
KAG,
So you would not take it personally if I called you all those derogatory words associated with where you come from, "slanty eyed, bow legged, coke-bottle eyed, yellow-skinned, rice munching Asian", you wouldn't be concerned at all? Wouldn't you 'try' to point out the errors? All Im doing is trying to end the persistent stereo-types and myths that some here exhibit. The above comment is an example. I know that I'll never change some ingrained homophobic views expressed right here but if I can change just one persons viewpoint, then I have achieved my goal.

I think that if you insulted KAG's nationality (he is French) by using all the derogatory terms associated to that nationality, you would incur his full wrath! He will then launch into an attack on you, your beliefs, and your nationality.

vee-tail-1
2nd Jul 2013, 11:31
OMG! the government has published guidance on their proposed 'Gay marriage' bill ....

The terms “husband” and “wife” here refer to a person who is married for the purposes of paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 3. This means that “husband” here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman. In a similar way, “wife” will include a woman married to another wom...an or a man married to a man. The result is that this section is to be construed as including both male and female same sex marriage.

In other words, under this Bill, a woman can be a “husband” and a man can be “wife”. It just shows that words lose all meaning when politicians meddle with marriage. :hmm:

cockney steve
2nd Jul 2013, 15:34
@ Ancient Observer [QUOTE][Isn't it about time that heteros in a church and state sanctified relationship found a new word for their relationship?/QUOTE]

Are you the same sort of person who moves near an airport /busy road /entertainment/sporting venue...................then moans about the noise???

The term "marriage" has been defined, both in a social and a technical context, over several hundred years

To remind you.....it is the mating of a male and a female.

however hard you press two "same-sex" "items" together in their correct orientation, they will not MATE.....that is to say, one will not enter the matching receptacle of the other to form a proper union.

THAT UNION IS DEFINED AS MARRIAGE.

If you're convinced that corrupting the english language is the only way to describe the linking of M-M or F-F is the only way to describe that union, we've reached a sorry state of affairs.

The traditional use of the word "GAY" in conversation, can bring strange looks,- I understand that it was "hijacked" as the acronym for "good as you"...but that doesn't make it's appropriation right.

Likewise, leave MARRIAGE alone. it has a traditional meaning.

I'm sure it is not beyond the wit of the "same-sex" "community" to come up with an original and uncorrupted word to describe the legalised union they seek.

WRT the various posters who "know 3 gays" and "have black friends"

NO!!!! you're only AWARE of those numbers....(OK, I'll concede, unless you are blind...oops! "sight-impaired"... you'll suss out the "blacks" pretty quickly, even if the West indian patois doesn't do that)

Most GAYS don't have a big sign on them, though I have known a couple of guys more camp than a scout's jamboree. and a couple of females "butcher" than a bloke in a striped apron and straw boater.

Ludicrous pastiche, really, both the women reduce to limp-wristed , helpless female stereotype when confronted with "manly" challenges and the blokes are just "wet".....don't give a damn, really, they are/were all nice people but why the need to try so hard to "wear the badge"? and be something they weren't?

Where I have been made aware that a person's sexuality was homo-erotic rather than hetero, in the vast majority of cases,there was no previous inkling. Obviously, in the case of the hostile homophobes posting here, their GAY aquaintances are not going to out themselves :}

G-CPTN
4th Jul 2013, 12:00
Things might be different in Australia (and other countries), but, in the UK a civil partnership has all the same legal and inheritance privileges as a heterosexual marriage.

I cannot see the need to alter the situation.

PTT
4th Jul 2013, 12:09
@ Thomas Coupling
Are those (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/515315-day-shame-9.html#post7919113) simply your opinions on what you think might happen, or is it backed up with any sort of serious study? I ask because what is "self explanatory" or obvious often is not, and I was always taught to question things which people say are "obvious".

@ G-CPTN
Does it have any effect on you whether they can marry or not? If so, what? If not, why do you care?

angels
4th Jul 2013, 15:00
spelling nazi's

Why on earth would you think that?

PS - It's upper case 'N' and the apostrophe is errant.....:E

maxmartin96
6th Jul 2013, 22:44
Angels, English is NOT my primary language.:)