Gay Parents

[Guest Roop]

I figured this audience might not be ready for that kind of material

 

I think you should re-post it. It would have kicked the thread off in a brand new direction, just as it was starting to wane.

[shaun.lawson]

crivvins ....wind yer neck in!

 

I didnt mention paedophiles once...thats all your own work.(but its ok , I forgive you )

 

I was referring to the churchs stance on homosexuality and whether I would wish to expose my children to such views(im sure youll clarify exactly what the current stance is), which has everything to do with this thread.

 

To be fair Era, the inference drawn by The Doctor from your post was exactly the one I did too. Thanks for the clarification though.

 

I think the Church's stance towards homosexuality is ******* ridiculous. I also think that stance has substantially caused much of the shocking child abuse within the Church over the past couple of decades: because the Church requires people of the cloth to suppress their sexuality for life. And it's that which isn't natural.

 

That often has dreadful consequences for an individual; within the Church, the consequences have been monstrous and tragic. Far too often, I think much of religion makes people ashamed of things that are natural; in extreme cases, this can lead to abuse.

[topcat]

I think you should re-post it. It would have kicked the thread off in a brand new direction, just as it was starting to wane.

 

I don't think so because, seriously, I don't actually know what kind of gradient's Therapist's son does his gardening on.

 

Slightly more seriously neither will his father

[Therapist]

I don't think so because, seriously, I don't actually know what kind of gradient's Therapist's son does his gardening on.

 

Slightly more seriously neither will his father

 

I'd be inclined to leave family stuff out of it or things may start to get a bit towsy.

 

If you're so interested in his sexuality you can ask him personally at the Rangers FC game. He'll be attending that one while on leave from the Army.

[davemclaren]

I'd be inclined to leave family stuff out of it or things may start to get a bit towsy.

 

If you're so interested in his sexuality you can ask him personally at the Rangers FC game. He'll be attending that one while on leave from the Army.

 

 

Who will he be supporting?

[topcat]

I'd be inclined to leave family stuff out of it or things may start to get a bit towsy.

 

If you're so interested in his sexuality you can ask him personally at the Rangers FC game. He'll be attending that one while on leave from the Army.

 

I'm similarly inclined* and that's why I edited my post.

 

At the risk of sounding pedantic it was you that first mentioned your son in this thread (Post 123) which was probably ill advised if it increased the risked towsyness.

 

I've no interest in his individual personal life and even if I was interested he'd be unlikely,as a serving member of the forces, to be frank about any friendship with Dorothy. Stonewall reckon it'll be at least a decade before soldiers feel they can be openly gay.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7504238.stm

 

The more generic situation where antediluvian parental attitudes cause offspring to hide the truth from their parents for decades is however more interesting. The attitudes you expressed summarised one half of that scenario perfectly, which is why you were used for illustrative purposes.

 

I know one woman in her 60s who still hasn't told her Mother because she feared precisely the kind of reaction that you outlined the whole situation is dreadfully sad. That old lady will go to her grave without ever really knowing her daughter. This kind of scenario is all too common and sees relationships between parents and grown up children become based on a tissue of lies and denial.

 

That is the more serious point

 

It's pretty unlikely that your case fits this pattern but it does happen a lot and it's a bad thing.

 

 

* I meant "Inclined to leave family stuff" so stop sniggering at the back

[Therapist]

At the risk of sounding pedantic it was you that first mentioned your son in this thread (Post 123) which was probably ill advised if it increased the risked towsyness.

 

I mentioned him to illustrate a point of view, not to invite people to slag him off.

[2NaFish]

I mentioned him to illustrate a point of view, not to invite people to slag him off.

 

Considering the standpoint of those doing it, calling someone gay isnt meant as an insult as they see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Considering your viewpoints, if you were to call someone gay it would clearly be meant pejoratively. As it stands, someone calling your son gay would probably be done to wind you up; and for you to complain about that would be more than a little hypocritical.

 

but beyond that, there's no need to bring families in to it.

[topcat]

I mentioned him to illustrate a point of view, not to invite people to slag him off.

 

I was also illustrating a point.

 

I wasn't slagging him off

 

If I was slagging anybody off it was you or more particularly the attitudes you expressed in post 123 and I stand by that

[this_is_my_story]

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.

 

I don't really think anyone has seriously implied that.

 

Do you?

 

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?

 

Sure they do, and that was never a fact which I did, or was going to, argue with. And I'll pretty much have to concede the points you've raised about anal stimulation, but I think we all know what the primary function of the anus is - we need an orifice through which we can pass waste, but we don't need a secondary sexual zone designed purely for pleasure. In the post you've quoted me on Shaun, I definitely made the implication that anal sex was abnormal, and I'd stand by that in terms of definition; I do not think that the practice of anal intercourse, amongst heterosexuals, is the norm. Now this may come across as somewhat contradictory, but for what it's worth I've indulged in the act with previous partners - just because I've said it's unnatural, doesn't mean I didn't or can't enjoy it!

 

To sum up on the parenting issue though, I feel pretty much the same towards that as I do when it comes to interfering with nature's way in other areas, for example: DNA cloning, GM foods, forms of surgical enhancement, and the likes (except, obviously, when a naturally occurring defect or disability in a child or animal can be rectified). I'm unsure as to whether there can be much credence given to the argument that gay 'parenting' would increase the chances of the adopted child being homosexual, as there probably isn't enough research or evidence to tell us either way. And I'm also sure that there are indeed many a gay couple who'd be capable of loving a child, and having that child's best interests at heart. But it's just not nature's way, and nature's way is not something that should be tampered with, in my opinion.

 

Now I know you won't Shaun, but given what I've said, I think there's a chance that some may ill-advisedly label me as a homophobe. I should point out that my attitude in the main is pretty much one of 'live and let live', and that my views are liberal enough to allow me to see a person for what they are, regardless of sexual orientation. I do not have a problem with homosexuality. When it comes to homosexual acts, however, I find the idea repulsive. I would suspect that any other straight male would be of the same opinion, though not all would admit as such for fear of being branded a homophobe. A gay man may well have loathsome opinions of intercourse between males and females, and find the very idea quite revolting - but does anyone brand them as 'heterophobes'? No.

 

Lastly, why is it that so many choose this incomprehensible "Ah, methinks you're protesting too much" line when posters such as Therapist repeat their strong views on the matter? FFS, I could sit and slag off fascism all day, and yet nobody has me down as a closet Nazi. Sit and ridicule hibs all day, yet no-one's going to call me out as a secret hibby. I really don't get this one!

[shaun.lawson]

 

To sum up on the parenting issue though, I feel pretty much the same towards that as I do when it comes to interfering with nature's way in other areas, for example: DNA cloning, GM foods, forms of surgical enhancement, and the likes (except, obviously, when a naturally occurring defect or disability in a child or animal can be rectified). I'm unsure as to whether there can be much credence given to the argument that gay 'parenting' would increase the chances of the adopted child being homosexual, as there probably isn't enough research or evidence to tell us either way. And I'm also sure that there are indeed many a gay couple who'd be capable of loving a child, and having that child's best interests at heart. But it's just not nature's way, and nature's way is not something that should be tampered with, in my opinion.

 

 

Ah - now that's a very good argument, and the only good one I've seen on this thread against gay parenting. I'm happy to tamper with nature in this case because there are so many kids out there who just need love, just need to be nurtured. We interfere with nature when heterosexual couples adopt or foster, and I feel the same way about gay couples. It's a very fair point on your part though.

 

 

When it comes to homosexual acts, however, I find the idea repulsive. I would suspect that any other straight male would be of the same opinion, though not all would admit as such for fear of being branded a homophobe. A gay man may well have loathsome opinions of intercourse between males and females, and find the very idea quite revolting - but does anyone brand them as 'heterophobes'? No.

 

 

Two things. First, I've never heard any gay man describe heterosexual intercourse as disgusting. Have you? Second, I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you can simultaneously acknowledge you practised anal sex with a female partner, then describe gay sex as repulsive. That doesn't make sense to me in any way. By all means be repulsed by anal intercourse, but why didn't that apply to anal intercourse with a woman? Many men who are repulsed by gay sex between men then go on to get off on gay sex between women; which again seems utterly irrational to me.

 

 

Lastly, why is it that so many choose this incomprehensible "Ah, methinks you're protesting too much" line when posters such as Therapist repeat their strong views on the matter? FFS, I could sit and slag off fascism all day, and yet nobody has me down as a closet Nazi. Sit and ridicule hibs all day, yet no-one's going to call me out as a secret hibby. I really don't get this one!

 

Answer: because a number of things he's said on this thread are very objectionable. Many are bound to respond to those comments in such a way. Of course, he's been on the wind-up to an extent as well; but then, so have those posters in return. Meanwhile, to draw a parallel, haven't you ever noticed how many of the most vehemently against smoking are themselves reformed ex-smokers? The same principle may well apply with at least some of those who loudly trumpet their disgust at homosexuality like a badge of honour.

[this_is_my_story]

Ah - now that's a very good argument, and the only good one I've seen on this thread against gay parenting. I'm happy to tamper with nature in this case because there are so many kids out there who just need love, just need to be nurtured. We interfere with nature when heterosexual couples adopt or foster, and I feel the same way about gay couples. It's a very fair point on your part though.

 

My counter argument to that would of course be that it's nearer to a natural situation because of the fact that in such a case, it'd be a man and a woman rasing the child. Closer to nature's way, in my opinion.

 

Two things. First, I've never heard any gay man describe heterosexual intercourse as disgusting. Have you?

To be honest, no - but given that females are not the object of a gay man's sexual desire, then I'd be pretty shocked if they were to find the idea of vaginal intercourse appealing, so I'd therefore conclude that a gay man would find it, at least, off-putting.

 

Second, I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you can simultaneously acknowledge you practised anal sex with a female partner, then describe gay sex as repulsive. That doesn't make sense to me in any way. By all means be repulsed by anal intercourse, but why didn't that apply to anal intercourse with a woman?

Shaun, let's be brutally honest, and equally blunt about this one! Anal intercourse with a woman: a woman is the subject, sexually, of my desire. I'm attracted to women. I like women's arses. I like to stick it up a woman's arse. Conversely, a man is not the subject of my sexual desire. I am not attracted to men. I really don't fancy the idea of sticking it up a man's hairy arse, with his balls hanging down below it. That can't be so difficult to understand, or differentiate between! I realise that the way I've explained that is maybe a bit vulgar, but I hope it'll be allowed to remain in my post as it wasn't vulgarity for the sake of it, but more so a way of conveying my point. I suppose it's a bit like me saying to you "Shaun, I love chicken." Then you'll say to me "Ok, so I suppose you like it with curry sauce, and with sweet & sour sauce?" And I'll say "No, because I don't like curry sauce. That's why I only like chicken with sweet & sour sauce." Perhaps not the best analogy, but surely you can see what I mean?

 

Many men who are repulsed by gay sex between men then go on to get off on gay sex between women; which again seems utterly irrational to me.

 

Again, it's pretty much the same thing - I like watching women get it on because I'm attracted to them, and find it quite erotic. Don't you? I don't want to watch gay male porn because I'm not attracted to men, and wouldn't find it erotic. Would you?

 

Answer: because a number of things he's said on this thread are very objectionable. Many are bound to respond to those comments in such a way. Of course, he's been on the wind-up to an extent as well; but then, so have those posters in return. Meanwhile, to draw a parallel, haven't you ever noticed how many of the most vehemently against smoking are themselves reformed ex-smokers? The same principle may well apply with at least some of those who loudly trumpet their disgust at homosexuality like a badge of honour.

I get what you're saying about the ex-smokers. Having been off the fags (this wasn't the best of threads to say that in, eh?!) for a couple of weeks now, I hope I don't turn out like that!

[Acey]

Some of the best and worst of KB in this thread, imo.

 

My attitude: homosexuality is natural, and I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. People making the "lol maybe ur gay" points show themselves up as being muppets.

[kitster]

I have lots of gay friends..but they by their own admission go out a lot, club a lot and are very seldom faithful to each other. They tend to argue about who is taking the dogs out for a walk. I'm sure other gay couples could be different to those I know and if that's the case I see nothing wrong with it. Kids need love, attention and education. Anyone who gives them that is to be praised for doing so.

[shaun.lawson]

My counter argument to that would of course be that it's nearer to a natural situation because of the fact that in such a case, it'd be a man and a woman rasing the child. Closer to nature's way, in my opinion.

 

 

Closer, sure - but still nothing to do with biology, and not specifically what nature intended at all. Someone asked earlier in the thread whether it would ever be in any child's best interests to be adopted by a gay couple: my answer to that would be, a child's best interests are served by being loved, nurtured and protected. Horrific numbers of children in this country are not.

 

 

To be honest, no - but given that females are not the object of a gay man's sexual desire, then I'd be pretty shocked if they were to find the idea of vaginal intercourse appealing, so I'd therefore conclude that a gay man would find it, at least, off-putting.

 

 

Well, who knows? But that neither you nor I have ever heard a gay man say so runs rather counter to straight men saying how much gay sex 'disgusts' them. Why the need to say so at all? Where's the respect for others in that?

 

 

Shaun, let's be brutally honest, and equally blunt about this one! Anal intercourse with a woman: a woman is the subject, sexually, of my desire. I'm attracted to women. I like women's arses. I like to stick it up a woman's arse. Conversely, a man is not the subject of my sexual desire. I am not attracted to men. I really don't fancy the idea of sticking it up a man's hairy arse, with his balls hanging down below it. That can't be so difficult to understand, or differentiate between! I realise that the way I've explained that is maybe a bit vulgar, but I hope it'll be allowed to remain in my post as it wasn't vulgarity for the sake of it, but more so a way of conveying my point. I suppose it's a bit like me saying to you "Shaun, I love chicken." Then you'll say to me "Ok, so I suppose you like it with curry sauce, and with sweet & sour sauce?" And I'll say "No, because I don't like curry sauce. That's why I only like chicken with sweet & sour sauce." Perhaps not the best analogy, but surely you can see what I mean?

 

 

That's all fair enough - and you're hardly being vulgar. To discuss this subject at all, I think we have to be quite graphic, or at least, brutally honest in what anal sex involves. And of course, you're attracted to women, and gay men are attracted to men: but that's precisely why I view it as the same thing. Gay men have sex with other men because they're attracted to them. Straight men have sex with women because they're attracted to them. I don't see any need for disgust in either case: sex and attraction are just sex and attraction.

 

 

Again, it's pretty much the same thing - I like watching women get it on because I'm attracted to them, and find it quite erotic. Don't you? I don't want to watch gay male porn because I'm not attracted to men, and wouldn't find it erotic. Would you?

 

 

Yep, I find lesbian porn erotic on occasion: it's very generic though. All depends on the quality of the porn really! I watched a bit of gay male porn many years back, out of curiosity: and hardly felt disgusted by it. Just neutral, and not aroused - and porn's boring when you're not aroused by it, of course.

 

 

I get what you're saying about the ex-smokers. Having been off the fags (this wasn't the best of threads to say that in, eh?!) for a couple of weeks now, I hope I don't turn out like that!

 

If you're two weeks in now, you've probably done the toughest bit. It gets better from here, or so I'm told: I'm a smoker myself, and know I need to quit, but it'll probably be a while yet.

[kitster]

Closer, sure - but still nothing to do with biology, and not specifically what nature intended at all. Someone asked earlier in the thread whether it would ever be in any child's best interests to be adopted by a gay couple: my answer to that would be, a child's best interests are served by being loved, nurtured and protected. Horrific numbers of children in this country are not.

 

 

 

Well, who knows? But that neither you nor I have ever heard a gay man say so runs rather counter to straight men saying how much gay sex 'disgusts' them. Why the need to say so at all? Where's the respect for others in that?

 

 

 

That's all fair enough - and you're hardly being vulgar. To discuss this subject at all, I think we have to be quite graphic, or at least, brutally honest in what anal sex involves. And of course, you're attracted to women, and gay men are attracted to men: but that's precisely why I view it as the same thing. Gay men have sex with other men because they're attracted to them. Straight men have sex with women because they're attracted to them. I don't see any need for disgust in either case: sex and attraction are just sex and attraction.

 

 

 

Yep, I find lesbian porn erotic on occasion: it's very generic though. All depends on the quality of the porn really! I watched a bit of gay male porn many years back, out of curiosity: and hardly felt disgusted by it. Just neutral, and not aroused - and porn's boring when you're not aroused by it, of course.

 

 

 

If you're two weeks in now, you've probably done the toughest bit. It gets better from here, or so I'm told: I'm a smoker myself, and know I need to quit, but it'll probably be a while yet.

 

 

Knowing both of you in reality..I am finding this a bit creepy. Get a room to discuss it please.

[Craigieboy]

Sorry - but females have an organ purely for sexual pleasure

 

As an aside, this greatly concerns me.

 

[shaun.lawson]

Knowing both of you in reality..I am finding this a bit creepy. Get a room to discuss it please.

 

Sorry - but I'd rather discuss things openly and respectfully like this than, say, what I had to listen to at school. In the sixth form, at a very good school full of very intelligent people, the best the guys in my class could do the day after This Life screened scenes between Ferdy and his boyfriend was complain about how 'disgusting' it all was. Straight men often do this in a group: it's like they're all desperately competing with each other to prove how rabidly straight they are.

 

Yet when my best friend first met her boyfriend, you know what really impressed her? He's straight, and never had any gay experiences; but said he'd be quite happy to have one if the opportunity presented itself sometime. She'd never met any man so comfortable in his sexuality before, and it made a very refreshing change as far as she was concerned.

[kitster]

Sorry - but I'd rather discuss things openly and respectfully like this than, say, what I had to listen to at school. In the sixth form, at a very good school full of very intelligent people, the best the guys in my class could do the day after This Life screened scenes between Ferdy and his boyfriend was complain about how 'disgusting' it all was. Straight men often do this in a group: it's like they're all desperately competing with each other to prove how rabidly straight they are.

 

Yet when my best friend met her boyfriend, you know what really impressed her? He's straight, and never had any gay experiences; but said he'd be quite happy to have one if the opportunity presented itself sometime. She'd never met any man so comfortable in his sexuality before, and it made a very refreshing change as far as she was concerned.

 

 

OK Shaun I just know you, I know him and you are discussing the merits of porn openly..fine you pair bash on.

[shaun.lawson]

OK Shaun I just know you, I know him and you are discussing the merits of porn openly..fine you pair bash on.

 

Pah - that's nothing! I know someone who whenever he goes to a party, loudly announces that he's a porn addict. By all accounts, he has porn for breakfast, porn for lunch and porn for dinner. That he's so open about it sounds incredibly creepy, I know: the weird thing is that it actually works for him though. Always breaks the ice at parties, always gets people talking... and usually results in at least one attractive woman wanting to go home with him.

[jambojackbilly]

Pah - that's nothing! I know someone who whenever he goes to a party, loudly announces that he's a porn addict. By all accounts, he has porn for breakfast, porn for lunch and porn for dinner. That he's so open about it sounds incredibly creepy, I know: the weird thing is that it actually works for him though. Always breaks the ice at parties, always gets people talking... and usually results in at least one attractive woman wanting to go home with him.

 

 

S. U. R. E

[shaun.lawson]

S. U. R. E

 

It's true! I can't get my head round it either. My best friend couldn't stop talking about it after she'd met him; and when she introduced him to me, she almost called him not 'Simon', but 'Porn Simon'. Because that's how he's known to us!

[tinydancer]

Poofs = hobos

Shaun = hobo

 

FTH

[shaun.lawson]

Poofs = hobos

Shaun = hobo

 

FTH

 

 

FTH? But surely if a poof is a hobo, and you wanted to FTH, that'd make you a poof yourself?

[this_is_my_story]

Well, who knows? But that neither you nor I have ever heard a gay man say so runs rather counter to straight men saying how much gay sex 'disgusts' them. Why the need to say so at all? Where's the respect for others in that?

It's not an intentionally disrespectful view that I've expressed Shaun, just an honest one - I'm merely stating the fact that, to say the least, it's not an act that's appealing to me.

 

I watched a bit of gay male porn many years back, out of curiosity: and hardly felt disgusted by it.

 

Poof.

 

If you're two weeks in now, you've probably done the toughest bit. It gets better from here, or so I'm told: I'm a smoker myself, and know I need to quit, but it'll probably be a while yet.

Nicotine patches. Really effective. Give 'em a shot mate!

 

Knowing both of you in reality..I am finding this a bit creepy. Get a room to discuss it please.

 

Och, come off it Kit! You're wise enough to know that blokes watch porn... end of!

 

OK Shaun I just know you, I know him and you are discussing the merits of porn openly..fine you pair bash on.

 

Pun intended?

 

Sorry...

[davemclaren]

Some of the best and worst of KB in this thread, imo.

 

My attitude: homosexuality is natural, and I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. People making the "lol maybe ur gay" points show themselves up as being muppets.

 

 

I see no reason why homosexuals should be barred from adoption either. I imagine they are relatively low on the suitability score though when it comes to getting a kid.

[tinydancer]

 

FTH? But surely if a poof is a hobo, and you wanted to FTH, that'd make you a poof yourself?

 

So **** means shagging!!!

 

Get a life. You've already admitted you were brought up with bent siblings so you won't understand the "discussion"

I'm like every "normal/natural" person here ie - it is not!!!!!!!!!!

 

FTH

[kitster]

It's not an intentionally disrespectful view that I've expressed Shaun, just an honest one - I'm merely stating the fact that, to say the least, it's not an act that's appealing to me.

 

 

 

Poof.

 

 

Nicotine patches. Really effective. Give 'em a shot mate!

 

 

 

Och, come off it Kit! You're wise enough to know that blokes watch porn... end of!

 

 

 

Pun intended?

 

Sorry...

 

 

Nah I'm not that clever..what's your name again? Don't push me. Aye they do...is what you watch harmless?

[bighusref]

Well, here is where I am.

 

 

Era macaroons is a nice guy. fact. (although he has no idea who I am.)

 

As for the rest, too many want a fight about nothing,bash on folks.

[Chris Benoit]

So **** means shagging!!!

Get a life. You've already admitted you were brought up with bent siblings so you won't understand the "discussion"

I'm like every "normal/natural" person here ie - it is not!!!!!!!!!!

 

FTH

 

 

Yep it does!

 

 

 

Was going to say something else here but any right minded person reading your post will think the same thing so no point.

[tinydancer]

Yep it does!

 

 

 

Was going to say something else here but any right minded person reading your post will think the same thing so no point.

 

 

So when we "feck" the hobos we are engaging in an act of debauchery?!!!!!

 

Oh and please tell me what any "right minded person" will think the same thing?????

 

 

FTH

[Chris Benoit]

So when we "feck" the hobos we are engaging in an act of debauchery?!!!!!

 

Oh and please tell me what any "right minded person" will think the same thing?????

 

 

FTH

 

 

Any right minded person would think your views on homosexuals are at best misguided at worst archaic and homophobic.

[tinydancer]

Any right minded person would think your views on homosexuals are at best misguided at worst archaic and homophobic.

 

Archaic and Homophobic. I'll no bother with misguided - that's an opinion!!

 

Old and understanding what we are brought in to this life for - by the Christ you've brought the out of me!!!!!!

 

 

FTH

[this_is_my_story]

Nah I'm not that clever..what's your name again?

Barrie. Remember it.

 

Don't push me.

 

I'm not trying to! Just enjoying the debate, that's all.

 

Aye they do...is what you watch harmless?

I'd say it is harmless, yes. What do you think?

[Jambo 4 Ever]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4419808/Give-nursery-children-lessons-sex-relationships.html

 

Is teaching this in nursery too early?  I agree with bringing it up in primary school perhaps, but is this a bit too young? 

[Салатные палочки]

Is homophobia still a thing never mind among toddlers? 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Is homophobia still a thing never mind among toddlers? 

The children should be allowed to just be children

[Салатные палочки]

I personally think nursery school is a little too young.  Nursery school, to me anyway, is about building motor skills, learning to play, share, develop peer relationships and enjoy learning before the step up to primary.  

 

Now I agree that it should be taught in primary school. I'm no expert but I would say maybe primary 4 on wards is acceptable.  I am quite impressed with how my kids know the basics about same-sex relationships and I don't feel awkward if there is something on say, the Simpsons (which they love) about it.  They are quite mature in their approach to it and don't feel the need to snigger or make remarks.  

 

It's a fact of life and if education about it help's some poor kid know that they won't be bullied and have their life made a hell because of their sexual orientation then that is fine by me.  

 

Some of the comments on that article are unbelievable.

[i8hibsh]

For the fact that school playgrounds are ruthless jungles I am against gay adoption.  I also feel it will/would damage a child pyschologically.  Just my opinion and I am entitled to it. However,  I certainly would not stand and protest about is as I don't feel that strongly against it and I certainly do not think gay people would not make great parents I just find it best for the child in the long run.

[marcus]

For the fact that school playgrounds are ruthless jungles I am against gay adoption. I also feel it will/would damage a child pyschologically. Just my opinion and I am entitled to it. However, I certainly would not stand and protest about is as I don't feel that strongly against it and I certainly do not think gay people would not make great parents I just find it best for the child in the long run.

My opinion is that your opinion is wrong.

 

Children can be "damaged" psychologically for many reasons... having heterosexual parents won't protect them from that danger.

 

A gay couple are just as capable of raising healthy minded children as a heterosexual couple.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Jambo 4 Ever]

My opinion is that your opinion is wrong.

 

Children can be "damaged" psychologically for many reasons... having heterosexual parents won't protect them from that danger.

 

A gay couple are just as capable of raising healthy minded children as a heterosexual couple.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

he wasn't saying they weren't though I don't think.

It is the issue that the kids are more likely to be bullied etc

[i8hibsh]

My opinion is that your opinion is wrong.

 

Children can be "damaged" psychologically for many reasons... having heterosexual parents won't protect them from that danger.

 

A gay couple are just as capable of raising healthy minded children as a heterosexual couple.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

 

100% agree.  Did I say I never?

 

I just don't like to see it as I think it can confuse a child and leave them open for getting their proverbial ***** kicked in as a daily ritual at school.

[i8hibsh]

You go into school with scuffed shoes - you will get the utter shit kicked out of you for being a scaff.  **** me go into school with your 2 daddies holding hands - well I fear for them I really do.

[hughesie27]

We probably shouldn't let any black couples adopt white children either because, you know, bullying.

[i8hibsh]

We probably shouldn't let any black couples adopt white children either because, you know, bullying.

 

That was a completely gratuitious comment.

[hughesie27]

That was a completely gratuitious comment.

I'm sorry you feel that way. 

Strange since it's completely on par with your opinion on gay adoption.

[i8hibsh]

I'm sorry you feel that way. 

Strange since it's completely on par with your opinion on gay adoption.

 

 

It was not pertinent to anything.

 

In 2017 you are simply not going to get bullied for being black, most schools have many .  The gay kid however will always be the target still to this day.  Having gay parents is not just fuelling a fire, it is pouring on an olympic sized swimming pool full of accelerant on to it.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

It was not pertinent to anything.

 

In 2017 you are simply not going to get bullied for being black.  The gay kid however will always be the target still to this day.  Having gay parents is not just fuelling a fire, it is pouring on an olympic sized swimming pool full of accelerant on to it.

This

[redm]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4419808/Give-nursery-children-lessons-sex-relationships.html

 

Is teaching this in nursery too early?  I agree with bringing it up in primary school perhaps, but is this a bit too young? 

 

What does it actually say? I'm not clicking that link. 

 

If by 'sex relationship lessons' it means including same sex couples in classes or stories in the same way that we discuss heterosexual couples than why not? That's the real world. Life's rich tapestry.

[Салатные палочки]

It was not pertinent to anything.

 

In 2017 you are simply not going to get bullied for being black, most schools have many .  The gay kid however will always be the target still to this day.  Having gay parents is not just fuelling a fire, it is pouring on an olympic sized swimming pool full of accelerant on to it.

 

Which is probably why education on the matter is so important.  Statistically most schools will have many gay pupils.  

 

If kid's can be educated to understand that racism is not acceptable in this day and age then why can they not be similarly educated to understand that homophobia is not acceptable?  

 

The only thing "fueling a fire" is the belief that being gay is wrong.  The only place it says that is in religious text and in church.  Yet we have gay ministers? 

 

Being bullied whether you are black or gay is unacceptable, if education helps stop that then I am all for it.