Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[SOSAGES]

i think the world has far greater things to worry about than a couple of chaps getting married

good for them

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Damien

Never a man of my word, I will now re-enter the topic (for now):

I just want to clear something up

Gay Marriage- I have no problem with gay couples, I have no problem with that. What I possibly reject to is the term 'Marriage'. This is because it is seen by religious followers as a union between a man and a woman. A government cannot make laws regarding to religion

Originally Posted by danielf

Sorry Punky, but that is nonsense. I'm getting married and I am a staunch Atheist. Marriage is a civil as well as religious affair, and as far as I'm concerned they have little to do with each other. I certainly will not be going through a religious marriage.

So do you think that Daniels marriage will be a fraud also? Civil unions for "conventional" couples have been legal for many years where's the religious element in that?

Originally Posted by Russ D

Plus the rose would not be planted in a church? Check your PMs btw.

So my understanding is that you don't want the word used, and they can't have a religious ceremony. I can't see the logic myself, like I said a words a word. Also it's worth pointing out that many same sex couples already have their commitment blessed in a religious ceremony.

[Russ]

Hope you're wearing your flack helmet Chris......
__________________

Originally Posted by Shaun

So my understanding is that you don't want the word used, and they can't have a religious ceremony. I can't see the logic myself, like I said a words a word. Also it's worth pointing out that many same sex couples already have their commitment blessed in a religious ceremony.

As I've said, I'm quite old-fashioned when it comes to what I think marriage is. Since I've been part of this forum I'm unaware of any instance where I've asked or told someone to agree with any of my beliefs, so people are welcome to view marriage in any way they see fit IMO.

So do you think that Daniels marriage will be a fraud also? Civil unions for "conventional" couples have been legal for many years where's the religious element in that?

No, I dont. I am just saying that if religion, which i believed had the term marriage, said it was between a man and a woman then let it be so and call the marriage a civil union. Then everyones happy. Gay rights are a joke and we need to advance them, so if the term civil union helps that process then by all means use it.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Well that has to be a rhetorical question. I think (I hope) you're indulging in a little reduction to absurd-but-logical conclusion here, because I know you wouldn't advocate such compulsory abortion and I think I know that you don't think I would advocate it ... ... however, I don't think your reduction is valid because my starting point is the rights of and the protection of the child, and I think abortion is a fundamental abuse of the rights of the child. <snip>

And what about the rights of a child up for adoption who needs a loving home....I suppose the child is only entitled to that right as long as it's a man-woman family it goes into?

Originally Posted by orangebird

And what about the rights of a child up for adoption who needs a loving home....I suppose the child is only entitled to that right as long as it's a man-woman family it goes into?

What i think he is saying is that the effect on the child is the first priority and we do not know what the effects are.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Damien

What i think he is saying is that the effect on the child is the first priority and we do not know what the effects are.

Well, if you don't know what the effects are, how can you say they'll be worse off with a same sex parent family?

Originally Posted by orangebird

Well, if you don't know what the effects are, how can you say they'll be worse off with a same sex parent family?

I cant, but i cant say either way. Which is why we need to be careful

Originally Posted by orangebird

And what about the rights of a child up for adoption who needs a loving home....I suppose the child is only entitled to that right as long as it's a man-woman family it goes into?

Your question is based on the assumption that all a child needs is a loving home. I have no doubt that a same-sex couple could provide love for their adopted child, what they cannot provide is the full range of adult role models a child needs. We have already covered this point: studies show that children are relatively disadvantaged where they do not have both their male and female parents living at home with them.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Well, if you don't know what the effects are, how can you say they'll be worse off with a same sex parent family?

Well we allready know single parent families are not the perfect situation but they happen, the potential of a same sex couple adopting being considerably one sided will surely exist, even worse the child could be put into an enviroment where theres a form of detremental resentmant to the opposite sex. Not in all cases but in some its bound to happen.

Still they are only children and we really need to use them akin to laborotory guinea pigs so we can discover in a decade or 2 that its good or bad thing ?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Your question is based on the assumption that all a child needs is a loving home.

Isn't that why children are usually up for aoption - because the birth parents are otherwise incapable of doing so...

I have no doubt that a same-sex couple could provide love for their adopted child, what they cannot provide is the full range of adult role models a child needs. We have already covered this point: studies show that children are relatively disadvantaged where they do not have both their male and female parents living at home with them.

Disadvantaged in what way? Academically? Socially? Financially?

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Well that has to be a rhetorical question. I think (I hope) you're indulging in a little reduction to absurd-but-logical conclusion here, because I know you wouldn't advocate such compulsory abortion and I think I know that you don't think I would advocate it ... ... however, I don't think your reduction is valid because my starting point is the rights of and the protection of the child, and I think abortion is a fundamental abuse of the rights of the child. 'Nuff said about abortion though, that's another thread all by itself.

Yes it was rhetorical and I was trying to point out how spurious extrapolations can be. Of course I know you wouldn't agree with the point.

Originally Posted by Chris T

I completely respect your right to have a view, and to live your life according to that view. However on the matter of religious people influencing the lives of others, well I'm afraid it comes with the territory. Christianity is an evangelistic religion. It makes claims to absolute truth, i.e. the universe is a certain way, and this requires a certain response from everyone who lives in it, and it places on believers the obligation to share that truth with the whole world.

So you honestly believe that gives people with a religious conviction the right to influence the lives of those who donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t. Does that give OB the right to force you to get rid of your TV because she believes it is evil? No, it doesn't, she has a right to believe that but not to force that belief on others.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Well we allready know single parent families are not the perfect situation but they happen, the potential of a same sex couple adopting being considerably one sided will surely exist, even worse the child could be put into an enviroment where theres a form of detremental resentmant to the opposite sex. Not in all cases but in some its bound to happen.

Do you know any gay people? Sorry, but your 'detremental resentment' theory would be laughable if it weren't so ignorant. Gay people are NOT gay because they resent the opposite sex! They just don't feel emotionally/physically/mentally attracted to the opposite sex. How naive you are.

Still they are only children and we really need to use them akin to laborotory guinea pigs so we can discover in a decade or 2 that its good or bad thing ?

Slightly cleverer than you previous post I suppose, seeing as facetiousness does take a little sarcastic wit , but not a lot.....

Peter Sutcliffe had a mum and dad. Look how great he turned out.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Orangebord

Gay people are NOT gay because they resent the opposite sex!

You ought to hear some of the lesbians where I work

Originally Posted by Shaun

Does that give OB the right to force you to get rid of your TV because she believes it is evil? No, it doesn't, she has a right to believe that but not to force that belief on others.

Absolutely but she feels quite welcome to give her anti-christianity/religion views. By the same token does that entitle me to preach on CF? Regardless, I won't: it's not the way I work.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Isn't that why children are usually up for aoption - because the birth parents are otherwise incapable of doing so...

Please enlighten us all on how a gay couple with an adopted child could prepare that child for a hetrosexual adult life, just the mere fact that the child is in a gay family enviroment is without any doubt imo going to influence that childs mind.