Gay Parents

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

The concerns? I listed one concern. The only thing I could find in your post that amounted to a concern, anyway. If it's the absence of female role models that worries you I assume you don't have the same worries when it comes to two gay females adopting? As for not going any deeper into the things you concern you, that's fine....but there's no need to get arsey about other peoples' responses when you're happy to make statements and unwilling to clarify what you mean when other people aren't quite sure how to interpret it.

 

As for the aforementioned arsey part of your reply to me, I don't even know how to address that. It's a load of nonsense. My point is that labelling people as 'easily offended' is the easy way out of any argument on here at the moment. Seems to me that if people know they're trying to defend the indefensible, the ludicrous or even just the less palatable, that's generally the exit route that they choose. "I don't know how to argue this point...so...er...ding ding...that works here, doesn't it...?"

 

And yes, Shaun is my mate but I have plenty of other mates on here with whom I regularly disagree. All of them are entirely capable of defending their own standpoints and certainly don't need my help. And btw, if you can find examples of me unfairly labelling people I'd love to see them.

 

Wow. Easy tiger! I'm not being entirely serious here.

[Beverley]

Wow. Easy tiger! I'm not being entirely serious here.

 

stop being redophobic

[ToYouToMe]

so, i'm wrong??

 

 

a nice gay couple bringing up an adopted child v the likes of baby p's parents??

 

some people are good parents, some people aren't

 

sexuality doesn't come into it in any way shape or form.

 

to say that someone isn't gonna be a good parent just because they happen to be gay is as bad an argument as saying someone won't be a good parent cos they have ginger hair

 

homosexuality is not something you learn. you either are or your not, and its not a conscious choice

 

and just for the record i know of a few who wold prefer not to be gay.

 

So, because there are some terrible hetrosexual parents out there, gay couples should have the right to adopt? Sorry, don't get the logic.

 

If we work on the premise of the best interests of the child, the question is, is it EVER in the BEST interests of the child to have same sex parents?

 

Now we can argue and disagree on that question but trying to justify gay adoption by reference to abusive or negligent hetrosexual parents is ridiculous. By the same standard i could find an example of negligent gay parents and use that to argue against gay adoption, that likewise would be a poor way to debate, by picking out extremes.

[ToYouToMe]

but scott, does it matter what two consenting adults do behind closed doors?

 

if 2 men, or 2 women want to bump uglies with each other, does make them sick, wrong, less human even?

 

 

just because its not something you want to do, doesn't make it wrong

 

depends who or what is the source of your morality.

[Generic Username]

Bumders? Bringing up kids?

 

I've heard it all now.

[Superman]

So, because there are some terrible hetrosexual parents out there, gay couples should have the right to adopt? Sorry, don't get the logic.

 

If we work on the premise of the best interests of the child, the question is, is it EVER in the BEST interests of the child to have same sex parents?

 

Now we can argue and disagree on that question but trying to justify gay adoption by reference to abusive or negligent hetrosexual parents is ridiculous. By the same standard i could find an example of negligent gay parents and use that to argue against gay adoption, that likewise would be a poor way to debate, by picking out extremes.

 

Good post mate.

[Beverley]

So, because there are some terrible hetrosexual parents out there, gay couples should have the right to adopt? Sorry, don't get the logic.

 

If we work on the premise of the best interests of the child, the question is, is it EVER in the BEST interests of the child to have same sex parents?

 

Now we can argue and disagree on that question but trying to justify gay adoption by reference to abusive or negligent hetrosexual parents is ridiculous. By the same standard i could find an example of negligent gay parents and use that to argue against gay adoption, that likewise would be a poor way to debate, by picking out extremes.

 

you argue your point well, but the fact is that one or ideally 2 loving parent who provide a safe, nurturing environment is the only important thing.

my argument about abusive parents was perhaps an extreme example but the fact is, and cannot be disputed that a loving parent is better than one who is negligent is the only important point. who they choose to sleep with should not be brought into the equation

 

 

the checks that any adoptive parent will go through are thorough and so we can at least be pretty certain that the adoptive parent is going to provide for the child the very best they can

 

as a single person can adopt nowadays, it is clear that those who work in that area will believe that one loving parent is better than none

[ToYouToMe]

you argue your point well, but the fact is that one or ideally 2 loving parent who provide a safe, nurturing environment is the only important thing.

my argument about abusive parents was perhaps an extreme example but the fact is, and cannot be disputed that a loving parent is better than one who is negligent is the only important point. who they choose to sleep with should not be brought into the equation

 

 

the checks that any adoptive parent will go through are thorough and so we can at least be pretty certain that the adoptive parent is going to provide for the child the very best they can

 

as a single person can adopt nowadays, it is clear that those who work in that area will believe that one loving parent is better than none

 

just because there is no violence or abuse going on in the home does not automatically make it an appropriate place for a child to live. it may be safe but still inappropriate. I still keep coming back to the same question i posed above, is it EVER in the BEST interests of the child to have same sex parents?

 

I would argue that it is not ever in the child's best interests, because of what i believe about humanity and life.

 

And just as you should have the right to disagree, i should have the right to state my beliefs without being called a homophobe. But increasingly some peoples' and groups' opinions seem to take priority over others as was my original post.

[Era Macaroons]

They shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they shouldn't be allowed to adopt doesnt count as an argument.

 

quite a pash counter arguement tho isnt it. some folk have ideas on life...there would be none if everyone was gay

[Beverley]

scott, i never called you a homophobe.

 

answer me this though, do you see homosexuals as less of a human being than a heterosexual person?

 

i'm asking as i feel i might get a reasoned answer from you.

 

i disagree with your views, but you're debating in a reasoned and calm manner

 

 

personally i think its as good an environment as any, as i think that as long as child is brought up with respect and the proper care, the fact their parents are the same sex or not is really irrelevant. for me, i see it as a loving, caring home where good values and such can be taught. i know as many gay couples who have excellent morals and values as i do straight couples

[Towzer]

Hang all gays.End of.

[Era Macaroons]

Shotty , 'KIng of Clubs' had arrived

[Generic Username]

Hang all gays.End of.

 

Don't hang back Towzer, tell us what you really feel!

[ToYouToMe]

scott, i never called you a homophobe.

 

answer me this though, do you see homosexuals as less of a human being than a heterosexual person?

 

i'm asking as i feel i might get a reasoned answer from you.

 

i disagree with your views, but you're debating in a reasoned and calm manner

 

 

personally i think its as good an environment as any, as i think that as long as child is brought up with respect and the proper care, the fact their parents are the same sex or not is really irrelevant. for me, i see it as a loving, caring home where good values and such can be taught. i know as many gay couples who have excellent morals and values as i do straight couples

 

I know you never called me a homophobe. I am just saying that society seems to view you as such if you dare to question homosexual practices.

 

I do not see homosexuals as sub-human, absolutely no way. We all do things which are wrong, every one of us, and just as I would never condone adultery, theft, murder, etc. I cannot in all honesty say that I think homosexual practices (because I want to distinguish homosexual feelings and tendancies from the practice) are right.

 

I might feel like killing someone, I might feel like cheating on my wife, I might feel like stealing but just because I feel that way does not make the practice right.

[Towzer]

Don't hang back Towzer, tell us what you really feel!

No probs,my opinion of course.

[Beverley]

thanks scott.

 

its interesting that you say that you may feel like cheating or stealing or murder and such in this context cos there has been others on thread hinting that homosexual practices, as you put it, are just as bad.

i've always thought you fall for anothe person and just as you can't choose the colour of your eyes, you can't choose who you fall in love with.

 

if both people are free to fall in love, and old enough to know their own mind, then whats so wrong with that?

 

i'm no lover of the ladies, its not for me, but if i met a woman somewhere down the line and fell in love with her, it would be as caring and loving i would, as it would be with any man i met.

[hughesie27]

How do you folk that are using this nature argument feel about straight folk who choose not to have any kids?

Are they as bad as the gays?

[this_is_my_story]

How do you folk that are using this nature argument feel about straight folk who choose not to have any kids?

Are they as bad as the gays?

 

As the whole thread has centred around posters offering opinions on parenting, people who've chosen not to have kids aren't really relevant to the content of the thread. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

That wasn't meant to sound arsey - just sayin', y'know.

[hughesie27]

As the whole thread has centred around posters offering opinions on parenting, people who've chosen not to have kids aren't really relevant to the content of the thread. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

That wasn't meant to sound arsey - just sayin', y'know.

I'm going with the 'its not natural, there will be no more humans' argument that a few have brought up.

Animals in teh wild don't choose to become a parent, it's their instinct that they recreate. So does that mean that straight non parents are jsut as bad as gays in the sense of being un natural?

 

I suspect the answer has to be yes in order to prevent any contradiction.

 

What many people do not realise though is that unlike many wild animals, humans are born with no instincts whatsoever. Put a baby in a room on it's own and it won't learn to walk, talk. Animals however are born with the pre determined mind set that they must hunt to live and mate to recreate.

[2NaFish]

What many people do not realise though is that unlike many wild animals, humans are born with no instincts whatsoever. Put a baby in a room on it's own and it won't learn to walk, talk. Animals however are born with the pre determined mind set that they must hunt to live and mate to recreate.

 

I was always under the impression that humans have certain evolutionary leftovers that are innate characteristics, ie instincts. For example, when you're about to drop off during the day, for example, i'm sure you catch yourself and jerk forward. This is a leftover from when humans (or whatver species we were) lived in trees and would protect themselves.

 

The fact that a baby can not look after itself from birth doesnt show it has no instincts. Most animals, if left to their own devices at birth, would flounder, to put it lightly. The reason humans are so underdeveloped mentally at birth is due to the physical constraints of the female. Humans are incredebily clever - comparitively anyway - and as such need large brains. To allow a human brain to develop to the level of anything approaching self sufficiency at birth would require it gestating for a length of time that it couldnt be birthed. This in turn is why humans have to raise their children for many years and, it has been argued, is what lead to the development of human society.

[hughesie27]

I was always under the impression that humans have certain evolutionary leftovers that are innate characteristics, ie instincts. For example, when you're about to drop off during the day, for example, i'm sure you catch yourself and jerk forward. This is a leftover from when humans (or whatver species we were) lived in trees and would protect themselves.

 

The fact that a baby can not look after itself from birth doesnt show it has no instincts. Most animals, if left to their own devices at birth, would flounder, to put it lightly. The reason humans are so underdeveloped mentally at birth is due to the physical constraints of the female. Humans are incredebily clever - comparitively anyway - and as such need large brains. To allow a human brain to develop to the level of anything approaching self sufficiency at birth would require it gestating for a length of time that it couldnt be birthed. This in turn is why humans have to raise their children for many years and, it has been argued, is what lead to the development of human society.

I am not sure about the facts behind that tree story but it still doesn't really qualify as an instinct does it? We are still territorial just like our ancestors so I would see it as something inherited as opposed to pre-determined. An instict is something that is common throughout every single human that is born. Something that we all do that allows us to survive. Breathing and flinching don't count as they are reflexes.

 

I didn't say all animals were born with instincts, obviously there are lots of animals that need to be brought up by their parent.

 

Can you come up with any human instincts?

[Miller Jambo 60]

I was always under the impression that humans have certain evolutionary leftovers that are innate characteristics, ie instincts. For example, when you're about to drop off during the day, for example, i'm sure you catch yourself and jerk forward. This is a leftover from when humans (or whatver species we were) lived in trees and would protect themselves.

 

The fact that a baby can not look after itself from birth doesnt show it has no instincts. Most animals, if left to their own devices at birth, would flounder, to put it lightly. The reason humans are so underdeveloped mentally at birth is due to the physical constraints of the female. Humans are incredebily clever - comparitively anyway - and as such need large brains. To allow a human brain to develop to the level of anything approaching self sufficiency at birth would require it gestating for a length of time that it couldnt be birthed. This in turn is why humans have to raise their children for many years and, it has been argued, is what lead to the development of human society.

 

 

you talk sum rubbish mate got bairns, doubt it.

My and boy are a team you sad bud IM A FAT WHALE JAMBO

[The Doctor]

What many people do not realise though is that unlike many wild animals, humans are born with no instincts whatsoever. Put a baby in a room on it's own and it won't learn to walk, talk. Animals however are born with the pre determined mind set that they must hunt to live and mate to recreate.

 

Crap. How did all three of my babies know which bit of their Mum was serving the drinks? They didn't get shown, they just knew to latch on and suck.

 

As for homosexuals adopting, I don't see the problem. The constantly repeated concept that gay parents will raise gay children is just not true, there's no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It's been said time and again on this thread, but nobody has come up with a single proof, because it's simply not true.

 

If homosexuality is nurture rather than nature then that means that people choose a life of prejudice and ridicule and have been doing so for hundreds of years, even suffering imprisonment and death! The love that dare not speak it's name.

 

It's blatantly obvious to all but the most simple minded that homosexual proclivity is a matter of nature, people are born homosexual.

 

You may know that I'm a Pastor of a church. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but then it says that sexual immorality of any kind, including lusting after someone is a sin. The only legitimate outlet for sexual expression is within a marriage and marriage can only between a man and a woman.

 

Everyone is called to sexual morality, if you're single (regardless of sexual orientation) you're called to be celibate, if you're married you're called to be faithful. So homosexuality becomes a non-issue.

 

Which is all very interesting, but totally unimportant if you're not a Christian. These are God's best for people who want to follow the teaching of Jesus. That doesn't mean that I have any right whatsoever to hold you or anyone else to these standards. It's for people who are into the God stuff, the rest of you can carry on and do what you like!

 

So homosexuals can adopt, if they can show that they can be responsible, stable parents, and you can do what you like to anybody else, unless you're trying to follow Jesus where you have to try to do what he wants, hence the word follow.

 

The only thing I'd add is that the track record of homosexual couples remaining together is slightly worse than for heterosexual couples. Historically homosexuals have been more promiscuous and so less likely to stay together. That would be damaging, particularly for a child who has likely come from a chaotic background in the first place. (Adopted babies are rare these days, you are far more likely to adopt a toddler, pre-schooler or primary age child, usually with a fairly unstable background. The stability of the home they're offered is far more important than the sexuality of the adopting parents IMHO)

[2NaFish]

I am not sure about the facts behind that tree story but it still doesn't really qualify as an instinct does it? We are still territorial just like our ancestors so I would see it as something inherited as opposed to pre-determined. An instict is something that is common throughout every single human that is born. Something that we all do that allows us to survive. Breathing and flinching don't count as they are reflexes.

 

I didn't say all animals were born with instincts, obviously there are lots of animals that need to be brought up by their parent.

 

Can you come up with any human instincts?

 

I would say it is an instinct. You disqualify it on the grounds that it isnt linked to allowing us to survive, but i think that is just one part of instinct. Namely a survival instinct. If there were only surival instincts we wouldnt have the phrase 'survival instinct' as it would be tautological.

 

However, if survival instinct is your poison, then developmental psychologists believe that suckling is a survival instinct innate in all humans. All babies attempt to suckle instantly. Nothing territorial and totally predetermined.

[Era Macaroons]

any gay couple ive cum across has had 30 years of partys/drugs/solo bashing....then as they get older and the partys /late nights fade away...., having a 'family' is the new desire....sorry too late ye need to Makem.

[hughesie27]

Crap. How did all three of my babies know which bit of their Mum was serving the drinks? They didn't get shown, they just knew to latch on and suck.

 

As for homosexuals adopting, I don't see the problem. The constantly repeated concept that gay parents will raise gay children is just not true, there's no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It's been said time and again on this thread, but nobody has come up with a single proof, because it's simply not true.

 

If homosexuality is nurture rather than nature then that means that people choose a life of prejudice and ridicule and have been doing so for hundreds of years, even suffering imprisonment and death! The love that dare not speak it's name.

 

It's blatantly obvious to all but the most simple minded that homosexual proclivity is a matter of nature, people are born homosexual.

 

You may know that I'm a Pastor of a church. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but then it says that sexual immorality of any kind, including lusting after someone is a sin. The only legitimate outlet for sexual expression is within a marriage and marriage can only between a man and a woman.

 

Everyone is called to sexual morality, if you're single (regardless of sexual orientation) you're called to be celibate, if you're married you're called to be faithful. So homosexuality becomes a non-issue.

 

Which is all very interesting, but totally unimportant if you're not a Christian. These are God's best for people who want to follow the teaching of Jesus. That doesn't mean that I have any right whatsoever to hold you or anyone else to these standards. It's for people who are into the God stuff, the rest of you can carry on and do what you like!

 

So homosexuals can adopt, if they can show that they can be responsible, stable parents, and you can do what you like to anybody else, unless you're trying to follow Jesus where you have to try to do what he wants, hence the word follow.

 

The only thing I'd add is that the track record of homosexual couples remaining together is slightly worse than for heterosexual couples. Historically homosexuals have been more promiscuous and so less likely to stay together. That would be damaging, particularly for a child who has likely come from a chaotic background in the first place. (Adopted babies are rare these days, you are far more likely to adopt a toddler, pre-schooler or primary age child, usually with a fairly unstable background. The stability of the home they're offered is far more important than the sexuality of the adopting parents IMHO)

 

 

I would say it is an instinct. You disqualify it on the grounds that it isnt linked to allowing us to survive, but i think that is just one part of instinct. Namely a survival instinct. If there were only surival instincts we wouldnt have the phrase 'survival instinct' as it would be tautological.

 

However, if survival instinct is your poison, then developmental psychologists believe that suckling is a survival instinct innate in all humans. All babies attempt to suckle instantly. Nothing territorial and totally predetermined.

Okay, I'll take your suckling and I'll raise you that it's a reflex too. Put a finger infront of their mouth and they will suckle on that. Put your finger in their hand and they will grab it. Not all babies are breast fed. Indeed babies don't even need milk to stay alive, it just so happens that it offers a lot of the good stuff they use to grow, however these could be gained through other foods. I don't mean to doubt your credibility Doctor but can you be 100% sure that your wee ones knew where to get food? Weren't they encouraged to suckle by your movement towards the breast? Unlike say a lamb who will actually go their for themselves.

[2NaFish]

Okay, I'll take your suckling and I'll raise you that it's a reflex too. Put a finger infront of their mouth and they will suckle on that. Put your finger in their hand and they will grab it. Not all babies are breast fed. Indeed babies don't even need milk to stay alive, it just so happens that it offers a lot of the good stuff they use to grow, however these could be gained through other foods. I don't mean to doubt your credibility Doctor but can you be 100% sure that your wee ones knew where to get food? Weren't they encouraged to suckle by your movement towards the breast? Unlike say a lamb who will actually go their for themselves.

 

An innate reflex is an instinct. Its a skill they are born with.

 

The reason a human baby doesnt travel to the breast itself is because of what i said in an earlier post regarding their ability to develop in the womb without destroying women on the way out. They physically can't, but mentally they are born with an instinct to suckle.

[Era Macaroons]

Crap. How did all three of my babies know which bit of their Mum was serving the drinks? They didn't get shown, they just knew to latch on and suck.

 

As for homosexuals adopting, I don't see the problem. The constantly repeated concept that gay parents will raise gay children is just not true, there's no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It's been said time and again on this thread, but nobody has come up with a single proof, because it's simply not true.

 

If homosexuality is nurture rather than nature then that means that people choose a life of prejudice and ridicule and have been doing so for hundreds of years, even suffering imprisonment and death! The love that dare not speak it's name.

 

It's blatantly obvious to all but the most simple minded that homosexual proclivity is a matter of nature, people are born homosexual.

You may know that I'm a Pastor of a church. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but then it says that sexual immorality of any kind, including lusting after someone is a sin. The only legitimate outlet for sexual expression is within a marriage and marriage can only between a man and a woman.

 

Everyone is called to sexual morality, if you're single (regardless of sexual orientation) you're called to be celibate, if you're married you're called to be faithful. So homosexuality becomes a non-issue.

 

Which is all very interesting, but totally unimportant if you're not a Christian. These are God's best for people who want to follow the teaching of Jesus. That doesn't mean that I have any right whatsoever to hold you or anyone else to these standards. It's for people who are into the God stuff, the rest of you can carry on and do what you like!

 

So homosexuals can adopt, if they can show that they can be responsible, stable parents, and you can do what you like to anybody else, unless you're trying to follow Jesus where you have to try to do what he wants, hence the word follow.

 

The only thing I'd add is that the track record of homosexual couples remaining together is slightly worse than for heterosexual couples. Historically homosexuals have been more promiscuous and so less likely to stay together. That would be damaging, particularly for a child who has likely come from a chaotic background in the first place. (Adopted babies are rare these days, you are far more likely to adopt a toddler, pre-schooler or primary age child, usually with a fairly unstable background. The stability of the home they're offered is far more important than the sexuality of the adopting parents IMHO)

 

from whats been in the news recentley in Ireland and other places...i wouldnt admit to it.whose gonna trust a 'churchman' now?

[The Doctor]

Okay, I'll take your suckling and I'll raise you that it's a reflex too. Put a finger infront of their mouth and they will suckle on that. Put your finger in their hand and they will grab it. Not all babies are breast fed. Indeed babies don't even need milk to stay alive, it just so happens that it offers a lot of the good stuff they use to grow, however these could be gained through other foods. I don't mean to doubt your credibility Doctor but can you be 100% sure that your wee ones knew where to get food? Weren't they encouraged to suckle by your movement towards the breast? Unlike say a lamb who will actually go their for themselves.

 

They smell it and they instinctively turn their head towards the nipple, they latch on and they suck.

 

I see what you're saying about reflex, swallowing the milk would be a reflex, but smelling the milk, turning towards and latching on, I'd say is instinct.

 

I'd say your point about going for a finger, or a dummy, or a bottle, if that's your thing, actually shows instinct too. Feeding, comforting (as a finger or a dummy would be) isn't a reflex, babies have an instinct to suckle.

 

Also crying, for attention, when uncomfortable, when hungry, not a reflex and nobody showed them, but they do it. A lot, one day you'll find out for yourself!

[The Doctor]

big part of the problem IMHO

 

What are you talking about?

 

What problem specifically?

[Era Macaroons]

What are you talking about?

 

What problem specifically?

see my edit

[The Doctor]

from whats been in the news recentley in Ireland and other places...i wouldnt admit to it.whose gonna trust a 'churchman' now?

 

Utterly cretinous post.

 

Well done.

[hughesie27]

They smell it and they instinctively turn their head towards the nipple, they latch on and they suck.

 

I see what you're saying about reflex, swallowing the milk would be a reflex, but smelling the milk, turning towards and latching on, I'd say is instinct.

 

I'd say your point about going for a finger, or a dummy, or a bottle, if that's your thing, actually shows instinct too. Feeding, comforting (as a finger or a dummy would be) isn't a reflex, babies have an instinct to suckle.

 

Also crying, for attention, when uncomfortable, when hungry, not a reflex and nobody showed them, but they do it. A lot, one day you'll find out for yourself!

Well you may well be correct. I can't say I have ever witnessed a baby do this as I am no parent so naturally I'm a bit skeptical of how much say the baby actually has in it's actions once it's born.

 

I wouldn't say crying was an instinct though. Not all babies cry for the same reasons which kind of goes against the definition of instinct.

 

What about babies that do not have the ability to cry through some horrible disability? That means that it doesn't exsist in every single human.

[2NaFish]

 

What about babies that do not have the ability to cry through some horrible disability? That means that it doesn't exsist in every single human.

 

Then the instinct is repressed. Present, but held back.

[Era Macaroons]

Utterly cretinous post.

 

Well done.

 

quite frankly ....much as you may hate it ,the church (of all denominations) is on trial here....(not personally!) but what on earth has been going on in 'churchs'?

 

do you deny that theres been anything to consider? ie do i want to send my kids to a church?

 

not intensionly cretenious

 

[Cade]

FAR too many people in this thread seem to have subscribed to the Daily Mail view that Homosexual=Paedophile.

 

Ignorance is the 8th Deadly Sin, and by far the most harmful.

[shaun.lawson]

Given his monicker, the OP could really just have summed up by quoting his namesake:

 

"It's just, as I see it, God created Adam and Eve. He didn't create Adam and Steve."

 

Seriously though, I just don't think it's right. Many on this thread have speculated as to what's natural and what isn't. Shaun has argued that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it's natural. Whilst that's a difficult argument to counter, where do we draw the line with regard to what's natural and what isn't? What about zoophilia? One could argue that it's a practice which occurs in nature, but would we consider it 'natural'?

 

Look at it this way - to be perfectly blunt about it, females have the part that nature lets us males fit our part into. And regardless of any views on anal sex, Therapist has rightly pointed out that the anus, as was intended by nature, is an exit route - not an entry route. Therefore, anal sex can surely be defined as unnatural. And, if we're to go by the definition of the word 'unnatural'- "Deviating from a behavioural or social norm" - I think it's fair to conclude that in this case, the 'social norm' would be heterosexuality, and that homosexuality can therefore be branded unnatural, or abnormal.

 

Again, it's all about nature here - and it's nature that allows a man and a woman to conceive a child between them. And in most cases it's natural for that man and woman to want to bring up, and care for that child. So for those very reasons, like it or not, having a mother and a father is nature's way - and I think it should stay that way.

 

Naturally.

 

Sorry - but females have an organ purely for sexual pleasure. That seems to be part of nature as well. More than that: both men and women can experience pleasure through anal stimulation. Can you explain why this would be if the anus was only meant to be an exit point in all cases?

[shaun.lawson]

I know you never called me a homophobe. I am just saying that society seems to view you as such if you dare to question homosexual practices.

 

I do not see homosexuals as sub-human, absolutely no way. We all do things which are wrong, every one of us, and just as I would never condone adultery, theft, murder, etc. I cannot in all honesty say that I think homosexual practices (because I want to distinguish homosexual feelings and tendancies from the practice) are right.

 

I might feel like killing someone, I might feel like cheating on my wife, I might feel like stealing but just because I feel that way does not make the practice right.

 

Why is the practice of homosexuality 'wrong'? Do you actually have a reason? You mentioned their lifestyle earlier: sorry, but WTF? What's different about any homosexual's lifestyle, other than who they have sex with? If it's promiscuity you're getting at: has it never occurred to you that homosexuals are often more promiscuous because society makes it far more complicated for gay men to have long term relationships than straight people? A straight couple can walk down the street holding hands or kissing, and no-one bats an eyelid. A gay male couple do the same, and many feel disgust.

[Moonheid]

I would have loved to have been brought up by two smoking hot ladypoofs!

[Miller Jambo 60]

Hang all gays.End of.

 

 

NO NEED POST MATE, let them ram away as long as they miss my aerse, simples

[Miller Jambo 60]

Why is the practice of homosexuality 'wrong'? Do you actually have a reason? You mentioned their lifestyle earlier: sorry, but WTF? What's different about any homosexual's lifestyle, other than who they have sex with? If it's promiscuity you're getting at: has it never occurred to you that homosexuals are often more promiscuous because society makes it far more complicated for gay men to have long term relationships than straight people? A straight couple can walk down the street holding hands or kissing, and no-one bats an eyelid. A gay male couple do the same, and many feel disgust.

 

 

Shaun you are a mate but come in to the real world.

I have 2 lovely boys from a lovely women, its called the real world.

I would die for that 3.

SIMPLES.

My oldest 15 has had more burds than Frankie Macavenie teeth.

And a good looking boy after his dad

Thing is my boys detest gays natural from young guys.

Me i dont care, never had my bum jabbed.

[chester copperpot]

Sorry - but females have an organ purely for sexual pleasure. That seems to be part of nature as well. More than that: both men and women can experience pleasure through anal stimulation. Can you explain why this would be if the anus was only meant to be an exit point in all cases?

 

 

You must pot the brown with that statement.

[Miller Jambo 60]

scott, i never called you a homophobe.

 

answer me this though, do you see homosexuals as less of a human being than a heterosexual person?

 

i'm asking as i feel i might get a reasoned answer from you.

 

i disagree with your views, but you're debating in a reasoned and calm manner

 

 

personally i think its as good an environment as any, as i think that as long as child is brought up with respect and the proper care, the fact their parents are the same sex or not is really irrelevant. for me, i see it as a loving, caring home where good values and such can be taught. i know as many gay couples who have excellent morals and values as i do straight couples

 

 

Thing is Bev i like women and always will, i feel sorry for gays as there missing out on good times.Ma Ha

[chester copperpot]

Thing is Bev i like women and always will, i feel sorry for gays as there missing out on good times.Ma Ha

 

 

Not according to Shaun.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Not according to Shaun.

 

 

Up early bud, think shaun has a tale to tell us .

Me dont care , i love a good ride wi a women, end off

Like most Gorgie boys, sexist me aye

[chester copperpot]

Up early bud, think shaun has a tale to tell us .

Me dont care , i love a good ride wi a women, end off

Like most Gorgie boys, sexist me aye

 

 

Have you been to bed yet Dougaloo?

[Miller Jambo 60]

Have you been to bed yet Dougaloo?

 

 

Wifes nights love her to bits, she will make my breakie.

then babies ma ha

[mac]

This is disgusting and vile, trying to explain to the children involved and now there are books, with pictures, aimed at the children attempting to justify the parents choice, one is "Daddy's new Roommate" another is "Heathers two Mummies"

 

Absolutely disgusting, but page 7 of "Heathers two Mummies" is pretty cool.

 

Y'all smart folks know that's from Bill Hick's.

 

I'm against this, but like Ellen DeGeneres, I like a bush in my mouth...

[Boaby Ewing]

I think the problem lies with how they'll be treated by the rest of society.

As another poster said they could be an easy target for bullies at school.

You're right.

While we're at it, perhaps we should ban carriers of the ginger gene from breeding just to be on the safe side.

[Therapist]

the fact is good parents are good parent, and bad parents are bad parents

 

Agreed, but the point is a heterosexual couple will bring their kid(s) up with a normal attitude whereas a gay couple will portray homosexuality as being normal, because that's just the way they think.

 

Gays should not be allowed to bring up children. End of.