Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I take it no one knows of any studies into the effects of same sex parents on the upbringing of children then, or any personal experience of same sex parents and how it affected their children?

You're all talking guesswork and uneducated opinions then.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

My views, despite what certain people will try to tell you, are bourne out of personal experiences and concern for children in general. I can only go on what I know so far and have yet to see anything which persuades me otherwise.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

For a split second I actually thought you were agreeing with someone! :Yikes: :p:


But it *is* unnatural Graham, by definition (Dictionary=Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature) ie it's not usual. Neither is it normal; ie what the majority of people in society are, something like 0.5% of the population is gay. It is also deviant as I mentioned earlier. So that's why they face the attitudes of others. The majority of society must feel something against what they are doing or else they would be wholly accepted into society. I don't believe they are...

"Courageous?.....perhaps....but maybe verging on militant from what I have seen. Nevertheless you have to admire them for standing up for what they believe in whether you agree or not....I can't agree that it's natural and normal though. If natural and normal are formed by the majority then the antithesis must be unnatural etc...



Oooooh another semi agreement :). And I agree with you that ignorance is not a valid reason to deny them adopting. However I don't agree with the comparative analology you used regarding mixed races. Skin colour can hardly make a difference to an upbringing (and we have had many years to show this) but removing an entire gender from a child's upbringing can hardly bring balance..?


You're very keen for people to show evidence so I would bounce this back to you. What is your evidence?



It's either a definition or not. Maybe you should write to the Oxford English Dictionary and express your concerns? :)

Seriously though I understand that we can't be that prescriptive but I do wonder how many people would agree that is it "normal". A lot would use the wicca saying mentioned previously "If it doesn't affect me then let them do it..." type of thing...but there is immense pressure from the politically correct world we live in to say that. I wonder how many people actually DO feel nonplussed by it. Most blokes I meet when seeing other men kiss for example, do something on the lines of "errrrrrrrrrr [wincing slightly] make some funny comment and then add the token line of ".....but it's OK for them" or "whatever turns you on". The women however don't always have that extreme reaction. Likewise if a man sees two women kiss he may actively encourage it :Yikes: whereas the women wince again....


Why?

If it were just homosexuality then most would probably agree with you. I wouldn't condone it but I accept that it happens etc. But what we are talking about here is adopting/raising children. As I mentioned before we do not know the potential outcomes and we should be very careful before we put the gay couples rights above the childs.

We are also talking about gay marriage. This is not right. Marriage is for men and women. It is now (in UK) and always has been. It should not be available for gays. However recognising long term partnership for gay couples, legally should be catered for. One should not lose their long term home if their partner dies because they are not seen as a partner in the law.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

says who?
__________________

Good luck to them. :D

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Salu for one, he's giving his opinion. Plus millions of others who hold the same view, myself included.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

History


I wonder which one will be the bride? :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Lame



Also, Lame. :rolleyes:
__________________

Well, there are millions (like myself) who hold the view that marriage is for two people that love each other and want to announce their commitment. Regardless of their gender.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Fine. Stalemate?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Absolutely. :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Who on earth are you......and what have you done with the REAL orangebird???? :D

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Lame :p:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

:LOL: Still in a good mood :D
__________________

Sorry, but my 11 y/o nephew makes those kind of jokes..... :monkey:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Why is loving another person and wanting to show that fact lame?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Because Salu couldn't think of a better or substantial answer :shrug:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I was referring in jest to Orangebird's "11 year old's" retort. I refelected this irony back to her in the hope that she may find it mildly amusing. This however was not to be the case and it fell on deaf ears.

Sounds so slick when explain humour....doesn't it.... :rolleyes:

Appealing to Orangebird's sense of humour is as you all know, hard work.....;)
__________________

I thought "history" was a good answer. Short and succinct and obviously illustrative and more importantly true as opposed to her emotively suggesting that 2 loving people should be able to marry "because they are in love"....

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

That's a somewhat narrow argument, given that you latched on to one particular definition of "natural" that happens to fit your argument. If we use it in the sense of something that happens in nature, then it is entirely natural it is well documented that homosexual activity does take place in nature.

If we are to use "natural" in the sense of belonging to the majority, does that mean we can legitimately treat anyone who does not conform to the model of "Mr. Average" as a second class citizen? Do you not have any attributes that set you apart from the crowd? Would you be happy if you were treated as a second-class citizen as a result?
__________________

If historical precedent is so important to you, I guess you have no problems with buggering young boys?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

But she said that in response to you saying lame :confused:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Erm, no, you weren't - I believe it was this post you were referring to...

As opposed to your SOH - 'I wonder which one will be the bride?'... Excuse me while I stitch my sides back together.


Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Use "normal" or commonplace then rather than natural then. I'm talking about the numerical dominance in society of majorative behaviour.
__________________

EH??!!

Bizarre comparison.... :erm: I dread to think what made you think of that....

Needless to say I do not agree with your statement.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

While "history" may be a short and succinct answer, possibly illustrative and true, it *is* rather a big subject, and as such could form a lot of short, succinct, illustrative and true answers to a lot of questions. Could you be a bit more specific as to how history has a bearing on two people expressing (emotively) their love for each other.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I mean that History (read human being's experience) has shown that marriage has been for man and women. It has shown that it has provided a framework for a successful family environment. It has been done through many races and cultures.
When marriage is not worked through properly then that can lead to divorce and breakup which can be hugely damaging for the kids. That's a different debate though. Providing an unbalanced environment, that is 2 men or 2 women, may or may not damaging. We simply do not know yet.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Sorry to have to point this out, but if you want to make a point then it is helpful if you use the words that actually convey that point.

But, since you want to switch definitions mid-flow, if we are to go purely by numerical superiority, the majority of people do not have, and this is but one example, Down`s Syndrome. Do you want to treat those individuals as second class citizens?[/QUOTE]


I can find you plenty of examples of cultures where it has been acceptable to use young boys for sexual pleasure. You were the one arguing that we should adopt the example of history as a reason for the banning of gay marriage. You are using historic examples as your benchmark. Further, you are arguing that the weight of history lends it a certain degree of credibility. I can provide historic examples of the acceptability of buggering young boys, so following your argument, it must still be acceptable now.

Or could this be another example of citing an argument that is entirely dependent on you picking and choosing which aspects are valid purely on the grounds of whether they support your opinion or not?
__________________

But there were people using the same argument for mixed race marriages. Those people look pretty damn stupid now, dare I say even bigotted. It must be comforting to have such confidence in the veracity of your statements, or is it merely proving the case that ignorance is indeed bliss?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

History also at one time allowed 'white only' buses and schools, slavery, public flogging and burning witches at the stake. Does Salu think we should have stuck with all that too?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

And how does polygamy fit in?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I'm off work sick at the moment but damn it....... i love my job and couldn't resist :)

See attachment....... didn't do an extensive literature search, just picked up articles that had abstracts and weren't reviews from books.... from last 7/8 years.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Does this qualify for the Most Helpful Post Of April Award? !

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Let's hear some interesting replies.

Why do I feel uncomfortable at the notion of gay couples adopting?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Religious belief? ;)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

We established quite early on in this thread that religion is not part of why I feel this way. I'm actually a bit disappointed that you've suggested that.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Well one theory could be that you have homosexual urges yourself (be they consious or subconsious) You fear that a child brought up with such parents would have no reason not to try it out if they have the same urges you had. Since thats against your beliefs you think its inherintly wrong but that you would not have been able to fight it if you had been in that situation.
So as such you arrive at the conclusion that all children brought up by these couples will be gay and wrong in your view.

Not saying thats how you think Russ, but that is one possibility. I just hope I worded it correctly :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

:eek:

Wow, thanks for that, however I'm quite sure that is not the case!

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Didn't mean to offend. Being flippant again although your religious belief could perhaps impact upon your wider moral perspective. And I'm presuming - could be wrong - that it is a moral issue that's troubling you. The evidence marina has posted does seem to suggest that the balance of research points to same sex parents neither influencing the sexuality of their charges nor making any more of a balls up of parenting than mixed sex parents.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I've had these views long before I was saved - and the outcome of a child's sexuality isn't the issue for me, it's just the idea of a man and a man or a woman and a woman being parents is something which strikes me as being very uncomfortable and I'm interested as to people's suggestions why.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I haven't got a clue mate! ;) I guess it's a different experience than the vast majority of us have had and some people can find that unsettling?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Goths and bikers would be an experience I'm unfamiliar with but I don't feel uncomfortable about those guys being parents...:erm:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

OK, you're gonna have to help us out then?!

An aside though. Goth parents - how embarassing must that be at the school gates? :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Fear of the different, and I appreciate that sounds somewhat glib, it's not meant to be. Is it at all possible that you were exposed to the concept of a homosexual couple at a young age that cast a negative light on the concept? It could be something as simple as overhearing a conversation.

I can`t remember at what age my mother told me about homosexuality, I do know I must have been 11 or younger as I was at junior school (I can still remember why it was explained). It was stressed that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, just that it was different to heterosexuality. I believe that this positive introduction, as it were, at such a young age, pretty much killed any chance of prejudices being formed.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I remember laughing my head off at camp comedian Duncan Norvell in the early 80s as a child, I can't think of any negative experiences like that. I don't have any negative thoughts towards gays, it's just the idea of them as parents.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Russ, you are 30 and you still judge books by their cover?

Not all goths are manic depressives. People become goths to cheer themselves up. A mate of mine is far happier now with black nail varnish and ankhs than he was before

My old man rode bikes, and still managed to bring up 3 kids. We aren't all drug dealers and degenerates either.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

You're 24 and you still jump to conclusions?

Where did I say goths are manic depressives?

Where did I say goths are drug dealers and degenerates?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

That would be the last thing I'd admit on a public forum, you definitely need help ;)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

You miss the point that whilst those are, by the dictionary, strictly correct, it is *not* simply a matter of it being "different", but other people considering it to be *wrong*.

Most people don't support football team <foo>, so by definition that is "unnatural" and "not normal". Most people these days don't go to church or are religious, yet that's not considered "deviant".

There is more to it than that and those words have implicit sub-texts of it being "wrong" and "unacceptable", not just "different".

Pardon me if I say that that is a naiive and simplistic attitude.

There is a regrettable mind set amongst many people that they want to stop *others* from doing something which *they* know is wrong, even when it has no direct effect on them.

I don't watch Soap Operas, should I campaign to outlaw them because *I* don't want to see them? Of course not.

Yes, some are militant. Just like the difference between eg Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. Would you say, however, that either of them were wrong for wanting to be considered equal?

Yet again with this "natural/ normal" nonsense.

To quote Terry Pratchett: Someone who goes to a SF convention dressed in a Star Trek Uniform with pointy ears is considered to be a "wierdo" or even "deviant", yet someone who wakes up under a Man Utd Duvet to a MU alarm clock, puts on their MU replica shirt and drinks their coffee out of a MU mug is merely a "normal fan".

What is the difference? There is none, except in people's prejudices about what is "acceptable" or "normal".

Obviously *you* aren't black!

I'm white. I've walked down a street in London with a black girlfriend and we've got dirty looks from both black *and* white passers by!!!

Imagine you're a child of mixed race parents, do you really think other children are *not* going to comment (read "try to bully you") about that?

* * * * *

Who are the Perpetrators?

Perpetrators are most often someone the child knows and trusts. As far as we know, perpetrators are most often male relatives, including fathers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles and cousins; friends of the family; or neighbors. Perpetrators can also be female, including mothers, sisters, aunts, babysitters, and grandmothers.

Usually the perpetrator has easy access to the child because she/he has sole responsibility for the child, or takes care of or visits the child, and is trusted by the childââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s parents.

http://www.childabuse.com/wisdom/072501.htm

* * * * *

Who is most likely to commit child abuse?

Family members are responsible for the majority of assaults against very young children. "Family members" can mean immediate and extended family members related by blood, marriage, common-law or adoption as well as people who are considered to be the child's legal guardian.

http://www.law-faqs.org/nat/chi-06.htm

* * * * *

Who are the perpetrators?

Perpetrators of child abuse or neglect are often parents. In 2001, 80.9% of perpetrators were parents, and 15.9% were non-parents (e.g., other caregivers, babysitters, extended family members). Perpertrators in remaining cases (3.2%) were missing or unknown. Females were more often perpetrators than males (59.3% females, 40.7% males).

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/P...childabusedata

* * * * *

The words "coloured", "negro" and "nigger" are all definitions of black people.

Try using them in various locations and see what sort of reaction you get.

You go on to quote examples where people might go "err" or wince, but consider for a moment how much of that is simply based on ignorance or society's prejudices that the person has grown up with.

Again I mention that some people may have the same reaction to a mixed race kiss (remember the controversy over Plato's Stepchildren from the original Trek series where Kirk is forced to kiss Uhura? Some states in the USA banned that episode from being shown because it was an "unnatural act"!)

"I support them as people but not their actions." You can't support someone as a person at the same time as denying them the right to behave as they wish. If you do that, you are treating them as "less equal" and thus not a "proper person" at all.

*NOBODY* is talking about putting anyone's rights above anyone else's!

Of course the rights of the child should be paramount, it would be ludicrous (and dangerous) to suggest otherwise. But I'm not saying "oh, we must let gay couples adopt *just because* they're gay"!

As with *any* adoption, *all* factors must be taken into consideration, however simply *because* a couple is gay is *not* a reason to deny them the right to adopt.

This is rubbish and the logical fallacy known as "appeal to tradition" ie "this is the way it's always been done, so we shouldn't change it".

Once more I re-iterate the point that, in the past, were a black man try to marry a white woman, it would most probably not have happened, yet, now we're a little more enlightened, any consenting man can marry any consenting woman and it's nobody else's business.

There is *NO* reason to deny the gays the right to marry apart from sheer and utter *prejudice*. You don't like it, so you don't want them to be able to do it. You want to deny them rights that are open to others. You want to force them to be *different*.

I suggest you look at the policy of "separate but equal" that the US tried to bring in in the 1950s when they had segregation between Blacks and Whites.

http://www.answers.com/topic/separate-but-equal

It rapidly becomes evident that there is *no* actual "equality" in those policies, but it let the bigots claim that they were "doing something" when their actual agenda was to ensure that the blacks stayed "in their place" (ie subservient to whites).

There is *no* reason to deny gays the right to marriage, but there are plenty of people who will try to justify this form of discrimination because it fits in with their prejudices.
__________________

I wish them all the best! :D
__________________

Excellent find! Thank you very much for posting that :)
__________________

If you nominate it, I'll vote for it! :)
__________________

"We aren't *all* drug dealers and degenerates"??

Surely that implies that *some* of you are either or both...?! :D

:Peaceman: :jk:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I didn't say you said goth's were drug dealers were drug dealers or degenerates. I said I wasn't.

And it isn't a conclusion, its an educated guess. So come on then, why do you not want any goths or bikers to be parents then?

Even when we are on the same side, you still have to pick on me... :cry: :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

So why mention it?

(sigh) I'm getting too tired for all this. Read my post again please.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Aww...! :angel:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

You have 30 minutes until the nominations close so get posting.. :tu:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Yeah, I am sorry about that, I misread your post.

I'm going to go shut up and hide now. :blush:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

You can redeem yourself by helping me answer the question I set....

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

What question?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Yeah, from the drug squad and psychiatrists ;)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Theres a differing of opinions wether a volitile hetro parent set is better than a loving gay parent set

How about which is better between a loving hetro set of parents and a gay loving parent set or a loving hetro parent set and a volotile gay couple ?

Also one argument that has been applied by the fors and the live and let lives is how gay parents lifestyle would have no relevance on any sexuality influences on the child, but these people also say, that the reason for any homophobia by other children is by hetro parents and their lifestyle passing on a biggoted attitude on to their offspring against gay deviance.

Well here we are again with them wanting it both ways and expecting it to be accepted by anyone against the idea.

Either parents do have influence by the lifestyles lived and the way they rear their children or they dont.

And to answer your Q quickly Graham im sure that woman you keep pressuring me with would really rather a slap from me than come up against my mrs. ;)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

How about a loving set of parents, who's sexuality is irrelevant?

If, when you say Volatile, you mean what I think you mean, surely any parents who are non-volatile (gay or straight) would be better?

Well, I can't speak for the other "for" people, but I personally don't believe a good set of parents would try and influence their child's sexuality (assuming they can). I was taught (by died in the wool Tory parents BTW) to tolerate all genders, races and sexual persuasions.
Nope, I have never expected that of anyone. I come here looking for a good debate, and get it sometimes..

Parents can influence their children's lives. They CANNOT (IMO) influence their children's sexuality. As I understand it, this is set at birth, much like any physical attribute.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Fantastic, thank you for answering Russ.
Could you please share what your personal experience of same sex parents and their effect on bringing up a child was?

I take it no one else has actual experience of same sex parents bringing up a child?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Who says my experiences were of same-sex parenting?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Ah, my mistake, I thought your post #202 was replying to my #201

So no one in this thread actually has experience of same sex parenting then?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

It was.

Look Xaccers why don't you cut out the smart arse comments and say what you mean?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

That's like asking which is better, Ghandi with a machine gun or Hitler with a kitten?

BTW, you may want to check your maths. You've got two different factors here, sexuality and volatility, you've cunningly left out the volatile hetero couple in your example. Well, not that cunning really when it is so pathetically transparent the lengths you need to go to when trying to win your argument.

Or are we to honestly believe that you prefer a volatile hetero couple over a loving gay couple? Are you honestly saying that you would prefer a child be raised in a home with domestic violence over one without? I know you've stated that earlier as "fact", I just want to confirm that is what you believe.

So which is it, dubious debating technique or a genuine preference to put children in the path of physical danger?

Or they can influence the factors that are primarily nuture, while not really influencing the factors that are primarily nature. :rolleyes:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Although Xaccers is big enough to answer his own posts, I don't think he was hinting at anything he didn't say. I think he's trying to find out if any of us do have experience of single sex parenting (which, in a forum of several thousand members is a possibility), I don't think he's trying to infer anything though.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

What smart arse comments?
I simply asked who had actual experience of same sex parenting with regards to the effect on child upbringing.
You responded that your views were based on personal experience (the only person in this thread who's actually come out and said that) so I took it to mean you had experience of same sex parenting with regards to the effect on child upbringing, either good or bad.
Now is that not the case? I know I may have mis-interpreted your answer, but please, accept my appologies if in doing so I've some how caused you offence.

It appears that everyone on both sides of the discussion are making judgments and comments based on totally unfounded, unreasoned and uneducated opinions.

This thread isn't like say the speed camera one, where both sides can bring in facts to back up their opinions, this is about people and whether they would make good parents or not based soley on their sexuality.
It's the same argument against whether hetrosexual parents would be good or not, their sexuality doesn't come into it, whether they're a good person, loving and caring, or an total ******* who beats their children with a cane.
So far I've heard no actual evidence whether same sex couples would or would not have a detrimental effect on the development of a child in their care.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Someone else who cant read, check the first sentence of that post which clearly states weve allready covered in the thread what you accuse me of cunningly omitting. Now go read the thread, as I suggest if you want to debate in a concise way you get a clear view of what is being said, not just the bits you want to read

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Well, in this case, I cannot offer any evidence. I have based my opinion on the fact that, in my experience, parents don't involve their children in their sex lives (which, lets face it, would be sick).

You could argue that the child will not have the influence of both Genders. This is fair enough, but it can also happen with single parent (whether that parent is a mother or father) families. I am not saying that children of single parent families are any worse than children with two parents (some of my best friends are from single parent families, and they can be extremely level headed people).

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I have read your posts, but what matters there is what you have put in that post. I`m sorry if you expect everyone to automatically cross-reference everything you have written in this thread, or was that an after-thought defence? In the context of that particular post you failed to mention the volatile-hetero combination. I did acknowledge your frankly bizarre, child threatening predilection to that combination over a loving-homosexual couple when I question your debating technique vs your apparent like of child endangerment. So, as you can see, people have been reading what you post, that's partly why it is so glaringly absent when you leave it out of a subsequent argument.

For reference, the first statement of your post was:

No mention of things being covered in previous posts. Or am I mistaken, are you using the word "first" in some entirely novel manner?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I was subjected to cruelty by my father, his favourite for hitting me was an electric flex looped up, but worse was listing to the endless 'rows' & the way he treated my mother.

this isn't about me, but 'if' I could have avoided all that by being in a loving same sex marriage where the partners were supportive & enthusiastic, not critical and sarcastic, I don't think I would complain.....

- everyone is different, this is not a subject amenable to consensus, thank goodness it can be discussed sensibly, though :tu:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

All any child cares about is that they are loved...and that they love their parents whether they are gay,lesbian,transvestite or transexual.They only have a problem when OTHER people make it a problem. :rolleyes:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

The real question is why was a singular lateral context used in the first place by someone else ?

And why do you selectively pick my balancing of that ?

I guess both answers dont just speak for themselves they are also one and the same



http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=43960

:o

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

In the context of adoption (which is what we were talking about) volatile couples would definitely not be suitable adoptive parents, straight *or* gay. Loving couples, however, should be judged equally.

You again miss the point. There is a difference between, on the one hand, a couple just getting on with their lives and bringing up the child in a loving environment and on the other, one bringing them up teaching them that gays/ blacks/ muslims/ whatever are deviants/ sub-human/ all terrorists etc.

Ah, a cop out.

Now imagine you were single and try answering the question again. This time sensibly.
__________________

I'm not so sure.

I think they can influence it, but only *negatively* by teaching and telling them repeatedly that being gay is wrong/ a sin/ deviant etc meaning that if the child *is* gay they're going to end up with a massive guilt complex when they experience those feelings and be more inclined to end up in an unhappy straight relationship than a happy gay one.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Why is it a cop out ? it is based on the same for the alternatives in the here and now not almost 20 years ago. But for you I will give you an answer.

With this new question are you questioning my loyalty to the woman of my dreams before I met her ?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

If this is the best evidence that you can come up with then I suggest you try again. Just because some singer makes a statement about his intentions. I could claim in News 24 that I intend to walk across the ceiling un-aided, doesn`t mean that it is going to happen. :rolleyes:
__________________

Selectively balance? I don`t think so. There were four possible combinations, you only listed three. By stating the fourth I am balancing things, but hardly selectively.

Ok, if you are going to persist on this one I`ll accept that you think your debating technique is valid. That forces to me to conclude that you do think it a good think to put children in the way of physical harm.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I wasn't switching definitions but refering to a reference I made before. However maybe it wasn't so clear....

Just because I said "history" does not imply that I advocate gazing back at history and recommending that we continue with every bad/evil event that has happened. You are assuming somewhat provocatively..... I have not suggested that we treat anyone as second class citizens..



I was not arguing that history is a reason for banning of gay marriage. I was saying that it has become acceptable practice over many years for marriage to be man and woman. Acceptable majorative practice has become a recognise benchmark over centuries. Murder for example. Gay marriage may be *in* today but out in 20 years. There have always been fads. What makes you think it is here to stay? [rhetorical - not addressed to you] Has it not been considered before? Have we suddenly seen the light in today's society? Interesting questions.....

....like abusing young boys.....?
__________________

Yeah right, and we should bring bak the lion pits for Christians too.... :rolleyes:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Of course its irrelevant to you as it doesnt give any credibilty to your opinion, however while Moby may not even be a gay himself, he is a high profile avid supporter of gay activism and gay rights, and you chose to disregard it, which is a form of acceptance of abuse, as that is what that would mount to if it were to happen.
And you cannot seem to accept that all four were listed in my post, I seperated the first as it had all ready recieved some debate, and again I put it that it was a deliberatly chosen single lateral context in the first instance becasue it suited their point of veiw. The other 3 were added to balance that argument.
You continuation of insisting you did the balancing is as false as the accusation you make of me below, which is paramount to derogatory insults, but not to my intelligence, as it clearly shows you for what you are

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

There are some things that you should do/say something about. They are morals. Morals should not just be demoted to opinions. What about seeing someone being beaten up on the street? Would you intervene when you saw someone being raped? etc etc. You obviously feel passionate enough to argue against how I feel because you *feel* that I am *wrong*. Mind you I think you would argue the toss over anything as you enjoy a good rant.... ;)

You just can't have a world where everyone can do anything they want providing it doesn't affect others. It will affect others eventually.


This is just about exercising choice. But as Russ has mentioned there are some things that give you an inner discomfort, that is hard to explain. I don't mind in the slightest if you wish to paint your ears red and walk down the street with a planpot on your head. But if you wanted to do this naked I might have something to say. Why? Because it is regarded as socially unacceptable and morally wrong.


It doesnt make a difference to me.....I am not racist.


Thanks.


No thanks.

You are obviously trying to portray this reaction as outdated or old fashioned. So presumably you would feel that people who have this reaction are not enlightened? Who are still living in the dark of yesteryears' attitudes? I would say that they are feeling something inside that they feel to be inherently wrong. Like Russ has alluded to. We can ignore those feelings and let them practice what they wish providing it doesn't affect *us* but the question is should we? Shouldn't we stand up for how we feel?


Sure you can. You presumably don't have children then? My children do wrong all the time. I don't like what they do sometimes but I will always support them..


Glad to hear it. Maybe not reason to deny them but certainly a reason to prevent them until we know more about the implecations....




Try and hold back the insults Graham. Calling my opinions rubbish is not helpful to friendly debate.......It could also be viewed as *rubbish* to change something that has been tried and tested over time. The breakdown of the family unit has been attributed to the increase in youth crime over the past 30 years or so. The family is important. We could speculate that it is to do with *love* and that two men could equally *love* a child and provide a *loving* environment for them but we do not know...

How do you know there is *NO* reason other than their rights? If you place the child's rights equally if not greater than theirs how can you be sure?


OT a bit but thank you. However this shows more about attitude than actions.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Pardon me, but how the hell do you compare rape to a consenting adult relationship? That's twisted.... :erm:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I wasn't comparing it to a consenting adult relationship but as an illustration of something that you should stand up for and help avoid.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

It is *entirely* irrelevant as just because he says he wants to do something doesn`t mean he can. It is irrelevant to *both* our arguments as it is merely drivel from some puffed up celebrity. When you have an article that warrants serious attention, come back. Until then, don`t waste my time with this trivia.

No, you did not. You made a passing reference to their being differences of opinion, outside of the main thrust of the argument in your post, therefore clearly marking it as something separate.

Ok, let's have a laugh and assume you are right. Surely that means that you are a hypocrite for failing to address my question. Again, I ask you, do you advocate child endangerment as a valid option in the face of your prejudices?
__________________

Morals are *nothing* but opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong in the universe, just what is perceived as acceptable at any given point in time. Given that acceptability itself is not based on any objective measures to a very large degree.

With regard to your question, if I saw someone being raped then I would intervene, but it is still only an opinion that a woman shouldn`t be treated in this fashion, not an objective, universal truth.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I completely respect you for saying so, but I do think this exposes the real danger of moral relativism. It's not a very great leap from here to start questioning what right the rest of society has to impose its 'opinion' that rape is wrong on a person who fancies going out and committing a rape. You have at the very least to accept that morals if not universal are at least 'collective truth'. The people, embodied in the State, decide what is right and are then entitled to require it of everyone, whether they agree with it personally or not.

The Christian position, just to bring this right back to the original question, is of course that there is universal truth, but it is universal by virtue of the fact that God has a set of opinions which, being God, he is entitled to require of the rest of us. It's worth pointing out here that God does not make an example of homosexual activity as 'wrong' except as part of a whole list of other things that are also 'wrong' but which we spend far less of our time getting hot under the collar about - drunkenness, rage and casual sex for example.

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about whether or not a gay couple can create the right environment in which to bring up a child. It's a good question but Christians should not be afraid to speak out on this and say that it is nevertheless a secondary issue. God created a certain order and expects those he created to live according to that order. Living outside of that, even if you are very good at it, is 'wrong' according to God's law.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Which then begs the question: Would it be 'wrong' according to God's law if two Gay people who don't practice their homosexuality raise a child together? In other words: Is it God's law that a child be raised by two people of differing gender?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

That's a darned fine question ... :)

In truth, I haven't really thought about it, as the question of homosexual orientation and homosexual practice tend not to be seen as different issues by society at large. The Bible is very clear on the issue that it is the practice that is forbidden. Being tempted is not a sin, but acting on temptation is.

Thinking this through a bit, there are all kinds of scenarios I can think of where a child might be brought up in a house with just men (or just women, which is possibly more likely), whether gay or not. I can't see how that could be 'wrong' in and of itself. However the Bible is clear on the point that the family unit is one man and one woman, joined together for the purpose of (amongst other things), the procreation of children. I myself have no idea whether a homosexual, but celibate, couple would want to bring up a child to believe that.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I can see this getting sticky :)

Ultimately, you are saying that a child should be brought up according to God's law (forgive me if I'm wrong). This would of course, disqualify several people from adopting children (including myself, as I'm an Atheist, but also people adhering to other religions). Now I'm sure things are not so black and white, as no doubt there will be shades of breaking the law. So here's me, an Atheist (I denounce God) in a committed heterosexual relationship. I'm sure however there will be Christian homosexual couples as well. They will probably be well aware of breaking the law, but may be comitted to raising a child in a religious manner. Which is the worse of the two evils. I would say I am, as I would bring up a child telling him/her there is no God.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Can`t argue against you there, although I would still claim that a "collective truth" is still just an opinion, but, to get to your next point...

This, of course, is something that we will never agree on. As an aetheist there simply isn`t an external "force" (for want of a better word) that defines right and wrong, for me at least. My model of the universe does not allow for the concept of absolute truths.

A serious question, but one of those ones that has the potential to sound flippant. As a Christian, you believe that God is the ultimate arbiter or right and wrong. I`ll need to question some of my presumptions about Christianity which may render the rest of this somewhat moot. It has always been my assumption that God is the ultimate authority in the universe for a Christian. It has always been my assumption that Christians see God as a sentient being rather than some nebulous "force". If God is the ultimate authority, there can be no higher being to which he can turn, so while God may define universal truths for humans, who defines universal truths for God? Or is this simply one of those questions that doesn`t get looked at due to the risk of making anyone's brain fall out? :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I had a good think about this while I ate my super noodles.

Yes, I am saying that God requires all parents to bring up their children to be good citizens and more specifically to 'fear God'. But, if you don't mind me quoting the Bible (I know you don't hold it in high regard but it's where I'm coming from), 'Man is destined to live once, and after that comes judgement'. You aren't barred from having children by not being a Christian ('be fruitful and multiply' is a divine command to the whole race), but after you die you will be held to account for how you bring up your children. You will also be called to account for how you lived other aspects of your life.

You raise an interesting point about who would be the more fitting parents when it comes to adoption. Of course, Social Services already consider this issue, although often, it seems, from the opposite point of view. I know Christians who have adopted and believe me, the social workers take a very close interest in their Church life to ensure the religion the child will be exposed to is acceptable.

Nevertheless, I do think you have set up a bit of a false dilemma. For a start there is no such thing as the lesser of two evils in terms of final judgement. The 'pass mark' for entry to Heaven is a totally unattainable 100%, which is what the crucifixion is for. And in terms of a supposedly Christian gay couple trying to bring up their child to fear God, well this whole issue is nicely illustrated by Gene Robinson, the gay Anglican bishop in America. It's the fact that he is in an active homosexual relationship that has caused the concern. Christianity is supposed to be a process of continutal growth in Christ-likeness in the believer. You simply can't reserve certain aspects of your life outside that process.

As a Christian, I want to see the society I live in conform to the ideal that God has given, in social as well as spiritual terms. That means I resist changes in the spiritual life of our nation that take us further from God, and I resist social changes that take us further from God's ideal. Allowing gay marriage and adoption is just such a social change. Continuing to allow atheist, heterosexual couples to adopt is not a social change and while there are Christians still around to proclaim God's will, your soul isn't a lost cause either. ;)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Its only trivia in your opinion because it highlights credibilty that the possiblity of a deliberate attempt to impose sexuall orientation in the rearing of a child does indeed exist, but that does not fit with your argument so you would rather disregard it as hogwash rather than condem that someone would consider performing such a possible action.


It was seperated as it had allready recieved some debate, that doesnt mean if anything new that hadnt allready been said previously, then it is obviously welcome to further that element in this debate.


Again ? dont see how you can ask again when you elected to just conclude before. Ill ignore your ignorant attempt at sarcasm there.
No abuse is good, wether that be physical, sexuall or an atempt of imposition of allsorts of orientations including sexual. The point I made before was I would rather risk my kids to some violence than the risk of imposed sexual deviation or worse sexuall abuse itself, That doesnt mean I dont have a non violent and unbiased sexuall first choice if something untoward was to happen to both me and my wife.

Now unless you have something new to add i'll head on to the others where you selectivly chose to try to debacle the post by incorrectly saying it wasnt balanced, when I was inviting further discussion into other possible scenarios, aswell as anything new on the first mentioned, I have to wonder why, perhaps theres more to the other scenarios than some would like to see.

Is it possible that not all gay unions are in fact happy, could it be that as many gay unions wether they be male or female suffer as much domestic violence pro rata as the hetro counterparts. Perhaps substance abuse is also very high in gays, maybe its higher than in hetro, and could it be that gays are possibly more susceptible to mental health issues including actual suicides and suicidal tendencies.
Is it also possible that gays are less likely to seek counselling for their problems ?
And if that is the case will adding children make the situation worse.
There are times in most hetro households where children can prove to be the most trying of people. If the above was any way near the truth would putting children into the gay couple sector put more gays at an even higher risk from an absolute certain increased strain in their lifestyles.

Theres one difference between this adoption activism and regualr gay rights of age of consent marraige etc.

Children are not a right they are a privelage.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Because you gave a glib response that had nothing to do with what I was asking.

I am asking exactly what I asked.

If a woman came up to you and made persistant advances and would not take "no" for an answer (or even "f-off") would you use physical violence against her (as you have already said you would against a gay man who did the same) in order to "teach her a good hard lesson"?
__________________

Excuse me??? What the *hell* does this have to do with the subject under discussion? Is anyone here advocating that murder *should* be acceptable?

In our society IMO we have only just developed sufficiently to be able to consider such a thing in a rational and sensible manner and not respond with automatic prejudiced revulsion that this is simply "unnatural" or "deviant" etc.

However it's interesting to note that in other cultures the concept *has* been acceptable see http://www.bluecorncomics.com/gaymarry.htm for some more information eg:

"Segal pointed to "sanctified same-sex unions in the fourth century in Christianity" and to the Greeks and Romans applying the concept of marriage to same-sex couples, not to mention the Native American berdache tradition in which males married males."

Again you use a pejorative word in place of an argument.

In Greek society it was not considered abuse at all, but the purest form of love (since it was not done for reproduction) and it was entirely acceptable for a young boy to be mentored by an older man.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Of which I answered but you do not have the experience or the wisdom to see that answer.

For you I have reitterated. But then women are a lot easier to fend of even if your worse for the wear.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

It does nothing of the sort, it is merely the ramblings of a pop star in an interview. I`m sorry, but if that is you idea of credible evidence then I do not feel it worth debating with you any further. When you have something meaningful to present then by all means do present it. Until then, if this is the best "evidence" that you can come up with then I honestly feel that any rebuttal is wasted.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

The answer is, God has no need for anyone to define universal truths for him. The problem with the phrase 'universal truth' is that it implies the existence of some impersonal, universal law to which everything (God included) is subject. However that's not possible in Christian theology, because God is absolute and is subject to nobody, and nothing, except his own nature.

There was a time before anyone or anything else existed, when there was only God. He was the sum total of all that there was. He was perfect and complete in himself, expressing perfect love, hope and compassion within himself, the Thought, the Word and the Deed (Father, Son and Spirit) one to another. After he created the universe he determined that the laws that govern morality in that universe should be derived from his own nature. Prior to that there had been no law as such, just the perfect nature of God. Only in the creation of other beings was the nature of God translated into law and morals.

And now my brains are falling out. I need a cup of tea. :spin:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Ramblings or not, the intent is there, by a high profile activist. And even this one single interview poses more credible than anything to show the opposite, because the evidence for the opposite currently appears to be non existent.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

But that's exactly what morals *are*!!

Morals are nothing more than chunks of "tribal ethos" which have been around for so long that some people blindly accept them as "absolute truth" and cannot or will not look beyond them.

How long ago was it that being gay was "immoral"? What about sex outside marriage? Or how about single parenthood? All of these have been decried as "immoral" in the past but opinions(!) have changed now.

Yes, I would try to intervene or do something in those cases, but that's not down to "morals".

Didn't someone just complain that *I* was being "insulting"...?

Would you mind explaining the logic behind that conclusion? How can something that *doesn't* affect others end up "eventually" affecting others? ::confused:

But that's all that gays (in this case) want to do. They want to have the right to exercise *choice* over how they live their lives like everyone else!

What is your problem with that? Nobody's asking you to do it.

But "Socially unacceptable" and "morally wrong" are only *OPINIONS*!

It was considered "socially unacceptable" (and very probably "morally wrong") for Amelia Bloomer to wear trousers instead of a skirt and doing so got her arrested. Now, however, women can wear trousers without causing the slightest stir on the streets.

Again don't assume that because something is "unacceptable" or "wrong" at one particular moment in time, this is somehow *always* going to be the case.

That's not the point I'm making. It doesn't matter whether *you* are racist or not, *others* may be and if they are brought up with the attitude that you having mixed race parents is "morally wrong" or "socially unacceptable", *YOU* are going to suffer because of that.

So what do we do? Stop people of mixed races from marrying or teach children that racist (or homophobic) attitudes are wrong?

You're welcome.


Why not? Answer: because no matter what the dictionary says, some words *do* have negative connotations and it wouldn't be a good idea to use a word like "nigger" in the wrong context.

But *why* do people feel this to be "inherently wrong"? Do you think people are *born* with such attitudes? Is it built into us genetically? Is there an "anti-gay" gene somewhere in our makeup?

Personally I don't think so. I think it's that there's a lot of conscious or unconscious prejudice still in our society and children absorb those attitudes as they grow up without even knowing it such that when they reach adulthood they can pass the same attitudes on to their children without even realising it.

As I said, it depends on *why* you feel that way.

People used to feel that blacks were inferior to whites. A lot of people stood up for the right for whites to own slaves because it was "natural" to do so.

Then others stood up and said "hang on, we're all humans, they're no different from us apart from the skin colour, why shouldn't they have the same rights as us?"

So yes, you can stand up for what you feel, but please don't object when people like me stand up for what *we* feel and say that you're wrong.

We can then debate the subject and come to a conclusion and hopefully that debate will be conducted in a reasonable and rational way and not simply based on "arguments" such as "well I don't like it and they've not been able to do it before, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it now".

If *your* child kicks a ball through *my* window and then claims it wasn't them who did it, you will support them and tell me "tough luck, pal"?

But that argument can be strung out ad infinitum! If you *don't* ever allow them to adopt you're *never* going to know what the implications are.

The point is that unless there are obvious or overwhelming grounds *not* to allow them to adopt then they should be allowed to.

That is not an insult, that is an *opinion* and one that I backed up with reasoning explaining *why* I thought it was "rubbish".

It could. It could also be viewed as parocial, narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced...

And is that a conclusive reason? Or is it that just another fallacy "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore *because* of it)?

I have little doubt that the increase of youth crime has also been attributed to the banning of corporal punishment in schools, the removal of National Service, children watching too much television and a whole bunch of other factors too. The first two were "tried and tested over time", yet now we don't have them any more. Was getting rid of them "rubbish"?

Fear, uncertainty, doubt. No proof, no logical reasons, no evidence.

Not a good argument.

More FUD. As that pdf Marina posted pointed out, there is very little evidence to show that children growing up with gay parents are negatively affected and an awful lot showing that they *aren't* negatively affected.

This is not completely conclusive of course, but it's certainly more than circumstantial or anecdotal.

Yes, it's a bit OT, but it's relevant and attitudes *are* definitely important in this discussion.
__________________

Sorry, but you miss the point that *nobody* is saying that *anyone* has the right to inflict harm on another person.

You're probably already thinking of a reply that starts "but doesn't it harm the potential rapist by infringing on their freedoms" or some such, however the question then is which does the *most* harm and I doubt you'd find many people who would agree that the rapist would be more harmed than the victim.

I certainly don't accept that there is *any* "truth" in morals! Everyone can agree that Pi is equal to three, but that still doesn't make it true.

And others are entitled to stand up and object. Ask Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

The thing here is that if he *only* required that of Christians then I'd have no problems.

Unfortunately there are Christians out there who want *me* to behave as *they* think is correct, whether *I* want to or not.

They have the right to follow their religion, I don't tell them not to do so because I think it's nonsense and superstition. Why should they then try to inflict *their* opinions on me?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Except that, once again, Christians are trying to tell the rest of us what we can or cannot do, even though *we* don't follow their beliefs.

And that, to me, is definitely *WRONG*.
__________________

Yes, all of these are possible.

However unless you actually have proof of any of these, you still don't have an argument against gay adoption.

In which case it's a priviledge that's been abused by a huge number of heterosexuals!!!

(PS Isn't the reasoning behind IVF and fertility treatment that people *do* have the "right" to have children???)
__________________

Of which I answered but you do not have the experience or the wisdom to see that answer.[/quote]

No, you have not answered it before, you copped out. Now you have not answered it again, you have evaded.

Are you going to actually give a simple answer to a simple question?

Again you dodge the issue. We are talking about a woman who will *not* take "no" for an answer. One who you *cannot* simply "fend off".

Will you use physical violence against her to get her to go away? Yes or no?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Graham

I think we are at a stalemate, so like several people on this forum who debate with you, we will have to agree to disagree. :shrug:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Im no doctor but as it has been said in this thread that they are human too which is of course undeniable, they must be susceptible to the same fundamental flaws as hetros

no doubting that, you would hope that social services would intervene more often sometimes.
IVF and other methods is not a 100% guarantee so no it still remians a privelage.
Adoption is a guarantee that a child will be there, its the adopters that come with no guarantee

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Well I hope you enjoy that cup of tea, thanks for answering the question in such detail. Now I have to resist the urge to take this off on a tangent by discussing this point further. :D

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

And as an extra because you insist on delving into my past for more I went into my history and gave you a clear and consise answer, which I will now reitterate yet a 3rd time:
If you do not have the wisdom to see that answer the problem is yours not mine.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Actually I thought that the Doctor's point was that 'rape is wrong' is, when you get down to it, just an opinion, and, by extension, morals are just 'opinion', and therefore relative, and not absolute. I didn't detect any reference to your oft-quoted (and very laudible) saying, 'your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.'

I wasn't thinking that at all ... just for once I'm more interested in illustrating the Christian, Biblical view rather than attacking the secualr one. :)

Well that much is obvious! But then everyone could agree that there is no God and morality is entirely a matter of personal opinion, yet without it being true. We're going to have to agree to differ on this point.

Who was a committed Christian and, despite his fearsome reputation as a civil rights campaigner, apparently never made any public statement in favour of or against homosexual people. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=293986

I've seen the letter posted on Snopes before. It is very funny but it completely fails to grasp the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation, which are due respect for context and identification of literary genre. I am not about to embark on a 1,500 word exposition on this point, suffice it to say that I'm not sitting here thinking 'good heavens! That's a good point, I was obviously wrong all this time!' (and nor am I considering smiting anyone, or slaughtering the family goat).

As for Christians campaigning for society to pick up on their moral outlook, well Christianity is an evangelistic religion. It is our duty to share with the world how we believe God wants the world to be. I make no apology for it. I make no apology for the fact that the abolition of child labour deprived factory owners of cheap labour and deprived families of badly needed income because I can see, as the Christians who campaigned for it believed, that it is for the long-term good of our society.

And yes, I would like you to live your life in a certain way even though you don't want to, because I believe that in the long term, it's for your eternal good. Of course, you can be assured that I will never force you to live the way I want you to except using the democratic means open to you, me and everyone else. At the end of the day this is a legal issue as much as it's a moral one and laws only change when society wants them to.

I know you are a committed liberal but as a Christian I believe that absolute freedom is a myth and true freedom only exists within the boundaries set by God. We are poles apart on this issue.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Nobody has the right to have children. It is a privilige and responsibility. In some cases a privilidge used all too cheaply.

Would I treat a women who would not take no for an answer the same as a gay man? A gay man not taking no for an answer could be more threatening for the simple fact he is a man -gay or not - and therefore probably more physically stronger.

Would I use violence on this man - if he laid hands on me I would retaliate. If the woman was as physically threatening as the man I would retaliate in the same way.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?
I would rather a child be brought up in stable family unit gay or whatever rather than some cess pools of familys that are out there.

Would I have concerns as to the welfare of the child?
Whilst I don't believe that the nurture of a gay couple could overide the nature of hetrosexual child - I do believe the child could receive confusing infomation and this would have be handled carefully.

Morals/ Socially acceptable behaviour?
Those that live society must have respect for others "morals" /opinions/ Lifestyles etc.

Consenting adults should be allowed to behave as they see fit as long as it does impact on others. Mutual respect and understanding is the only to have an ordered society and you do not have be religious to know or believe that.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

If the people debating on this thread here, were on the panel that had a gay couple in front of them applying for adoption, where exactly are we up to in this. It appears that it is stalemate. So how do these things work in reality ? does someone have a casting vote or do they debate/argue for weeks.
Btw, its been very interesting reading all these posts and it makes one think.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Like blimey..... some very thoughtful and interesting posts gone up this afty. I'm with Blackthorn - great debate.





Hope you weren't expecting any more from me in this post though :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Id still like to see more comments on the Moby outward statement in his interview follow the article link in this post

And then theres this site which seems to highlight that they do indeed have flaws, and they are harder to address, for several reasons, Namely homophobia, getting turned away, amongst others. Id have to say some may be scared of applying for counselling as they have also perpetrated some indecent offences.
As for the homophobia to some extent i believe its a card that is overplayed at times to achieve positive discrimination, and some bring a certain amount of the homophobia about by commiting indecent assaults of varying levels.
This doenst mean there is no natural homophobia or influenced homophobia wether consciosly administered or not.

Apparently many also have a problem dealing with abuse commited against them and even while living a gay life continue to suffer sexual confusion as to wether the abuse turned them gay or it was a natural event. Id be pretty confident in saying at times that could certainly be true that the abuse can have affected the sexuall orientation.

Im sure I saw somewhere that :
1. abuse against males is one of the most unreported offences so real statistics are really like the illegal immigrant problem, its a hugely unknown quantity. -- That seems a pretty obvious statement in my mind
2. pre addolescent abuse is as much familier as outside of family but the proportion changes significantly to external during and after adolescent.

but cannot find the link atm

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I'm really not sure where you got the idea that gay people are in some way less stable and therefore less likely to be good parents. Yes, they are susceptible to the same flaws, but that does not mean they are more flawed.

Regarding Moby's statement, as others have said, he may try to raise his kid to be gay, but I doubt he can.

Regarding the team-care link. That is about domestic violence in gay relationships. That occurs, as it does in heterosexual relationships. What point are you trying to make?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

But it does stand to reason that they are less likely to seek or obtain help for certain flaws. Much male abuse is unreported also helps to clarify that, females are more likely to report abuse and get some counselling.
As earlier a different enviroment is debateable as to wether it could influence in any way what a child tries for sexualltiy, to me it would seem highly likely that he would try gay wether that would come first or not is unknown and each case could be different.
But Iv yet to see anyone but me condem his apparent intent to deliberately attempt to contort a childs sexuall orientation outcome. This is not only biggotted but will further undermine and potentially make it harder for people to accept gay adoption because it will allways be in the back of the minds of any adoption board as to wether they are handing children over to like minded biggoted gays. Iv no doubt there will be some who dont carry the size chip of what others may. It also states he will go to any lengths to ensure it happens. Those lengths we can only guess at. I really hope he never has a kid and if he does it is removed.
Someone wanted to see that its more than just possible and it not only covers gay domestic violence.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

It does not stand to reason for me, in fact, it seems a little far fetched. Also, there are female gay people as well.

I don't think it is likely, but I do agree that you shouldn't try to contort as child's sexual orientation, be it straight or gay.

That what is more than just possible?