Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[BBKing]

No thanks. Enough waffle about asylum round that way already.

[ZrByte]

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. If I could indulge in a little logical reduction myself, if it weren't for Christians trying to influence the lives of others, we would still have a slave trade and children would still be going out to work at the age of five instead of going to school.

But isnt the catholic church (wich this thread has more to do with) responsible for trying to maintain these things?
Dont think that really counters anything you have said but I found it relevant

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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.

In the same way a single parent family could.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Carefully avoiding the second part of the question I see!!!

So I will reitterate in a clearer manner, a child brought up in a gay couples home after being there for years and seeing his/her parents as a gay couple will in no way have influenced any enhanced curiosity towards trying that kind of relationship his/her main role models have displayed

Yes because being gay is really a bad and evil thing isnt it? You might not like it but that doesnt mean its bad. I personally find it disgusting that a person who knows they are gay could live either a loneley single life or an unhappy straight life because of how thier straight parents brought them up to believe that being gay is abnormal or evil.
How dare those straight parents give that gay child an enhanced curiosity towards straight sex (im not being serious here, but your point makes about as much sense to me).

Originally Posted by Russ D

A straight child is surely going to be asking questions why they are not attracted to someone of the same sex just like "mummy and mummy"/"daddy and daddy" are? Perhaps they may get confused in to actually trying a same-sex relationship out of feeling compelled to? I base my views on marriage on what my parents did/said.

Only as much as a child with hetro parents could be asking why they might not be attracted to people of the opposite sex.
And whats the harm in trying anyway? If they like it then good for them, if they dont then they are free to move on and try the hetro way, just because they where raised by gays doesnt mean its "the Gay way or the highway" to coin a phrase.

Originally Posted by Salu

How far do you go with legalising/promoting devience?

Originally Posted by Salu

I'm going to have to stop writing this as I am laughing too much

Pitty nobody else is

Originally Posted by Russ D

Then again not everyone believes that and neither should they be derided for doing so. I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t agree with the genetics deciding your sexuality as you say †“ itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s not cut and dried. There are heterosexual people who may find someone of the same sex attractive but do not feel enough to act on it.

Thats correct, just like there are gay people who may find a person of the opposite sex attractive but still not enough to act on it.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Well start with academcally at school, children are the meanest of beings at times and if something is different about the odd child here and there it leads to bullying, verbal and physical.

6 out of 10 have opposite sex parents
3 out of 10 have a single parent
1 out of 10 has same sex parents

That in itself is a disaster waiting to happen

Financially in the future, the bullied child leaves school because they cannot take the bullying any more, on the streets, mix with the wrong groups, get into alcohol and drugs early and become a lout, etc

In the home
Mummy and Daddy sleep in the same bed, they show certain affections towards each other through the day etc seems normal to me

mummy and mummy sleep in the same bed, they show affections to each other through the day would most likely seem normal to the girl adopted

Also with other social interests that a young girl or boy would be served far better by having a parent of each sex than that of same sex.

I was going to pick this appart but I see people have allready done a better job than I could have, I just left this in to register the fact that I couldnt dissagree with you more.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Now I suggest you take a visit to the nail bar and get those nice long pink finger nails re done they are looking tattered. Then you can pop along to Gala bingo with your cronies.
Mean while Im of to the snooker club gonna get myself a game or two and then Ill go play some poker.

Do you really think all gays are like the one from little brittain or that annoying little bald thing from big brother last year?

[NitroNutter]

To put this into another light so you may better understand

You allready are aware I was in a highly volotile hetro household , this was till about age 9. My old man did return for a very short time but then it was worse than ever before so his second stay was not for long a few months or so.

Now the extent of the birds and bees instilled into me by my parents was as much as this so you cannot say hetro was forced down my throat
My father said just before he left the last time
"one day you may meet a girl you wish to have some privacy with"
This was well before and sex edu at school so I really still did not have a clue.

To cut it short I was soon in a childrens home

Now lets say gay fostering and adoption was permitted then legally, Gay fostering actually has gone on for some time but the gay is usually alone and has his/her sexuallity well hidden.

Today as an adult where I have the choice rather than be adopted by any gay family, a gas chamber sounds good, or the electric chair, life on the streets, (somewhere i have also been), back to a home or even borstal would be more appealing.

So how do you feel knowing that in the future some children with no choice may be forced into a gay adoption scheme and when he/she reached adult hood feels as I would now if had been done to me. I would rather have my mother and father together 5 fold of each of them with 5 fold of the violence than have been put in the situation that is being suggested for spannish orphans, and I can only just bear to have either my mother or father visit me because neither of them will dare to ever cross me again, and if they both happen upon my house at the same time, well they do behave impecably, altho somewhat quiet with each other, I wonder why

I would not trust my father alone with my children and I really dont like my mother with them that often either. But I would put my kids in the trust of either of my parents than ever wish upon them to get adopted by any gay family.

So you politically correct do gooders enjoy what you may be supporting as a campaign in the future, you will most likely be causing as much serious misery as any good that could come of it

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

To put this into another light so you may better understand

You allready are aware I was in a highly volotile hetro household , this was till about age 9. My old man did return for a very short time but then it was worse than ever before so his second stay was not for long a few months or so.

Now the extent of the birds and bees instilled into me by my parents was as much as this so you cannot say hetro was forced down my throat
My father said just before he left the last time
"one day you may meet a girl you wish to have some privacy with"
This was well before and sex edu at school so I really still did not have a clue.

To cut it short I was soon in a childrens home

Now lets say gay fostering and adoption was permitted then legally, Gay fostering actually has gone on for some time but the gay is usually alone and has his/her sexuallity well hidden.

Today as an adult where I have the choice rather than be adopted by any gay family, a gas chamber sounds good, or the electric chair, life on the streets, (somewhere i have also been), back to a home or even borstal would be more appealing.

So how do you feel knowing that in the future some children with no choice may be forced into a gay adoption scheme and when he/she reached adult hood feels as I would now if had been done to me. I would rather have my mother and father together 5 fold of each of them with 5 fold of the violence than have been put in the situation that is being suggested for spannish orphans, and I can only just bear to have either my mother or father visit me because neither of them will dare to ever cross me again, and if they both happen upon my house at the same time, well they do behave impecably, altho somewhat quiet with each other, I wonder why

I would not trust my father alone with my children and I really dont like my mother with them that often either. But I would put my kids in the trust of either of my parents than ever wish upon them to get adopted by any gay family.

So you politically correct do gooders enjoy what you may be supporting as a campaign in the future, you will most likely be causing as much serious misery as any good that could come of it

Well then the question has to be, where does this hatred of gays come from? Are you just biggoted against them or is there actually a reason to dislike them?
And gay fostering has gone on for some time you are correct, but sexuality isnt so much kept a secret, its just something not relevant to the adoption process and certainly something you dont discuss with the child.
The part Gays are campaigning for is the right to adopt as a couple, something wich for some reason isnt recognised outside of marriage. The reason for this is for times where a partner may die, the partner who dies may be the childs legal guardian and the other may want to maintain the role as parent, unfortunatley in the eyes of the law the living partner would have no more right to than you or I and as such long legal battles are normally faught for custody of a child wich should legally be thiers.

[Xaccers]

I've a few things to say on this matter

Firstly, why the hell don't we have lesbians in this country that look as good as those two in the pic? Ok they're not fantastic, but they're a damn site better looking than all the lesbians I've met (even laura )

Secondly, has anyone actually done a large study on the effect of child rearing by same sex couples?
oh dear, maybe I should have rephrased that...

Or, is anyone on this forum the result of being brought up by a same sex couple, or actually have experience of the children of a same sex couple?

If not, then all this talk of it doing them harm, or not doing them harm is simply uneducated guesses.


PS Nitro, had you been adopted by a same sex couple, you probably would have eventually learnt that they were just human, like everyone else.

PPS For those who believe homosexuallity is not natural, why does it occur so much in nature? Many animals do it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

PPS For those who believe homosexuallity is not natural, why does it occur so much in nature? Many animals do it.

There are quirks of nature all around us. But it's not nature's intended way as we'd have died out a long time ago if it was. You should know that.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

There are quirks of nature all around us. But it's not nature's intended way as we'd have died out a long time ago if it was. You should know that.

If someone has a genetic disease causing them to die before puberty are they unnatural?
They cannot reproduce either.

[Russ]

I wouldn't used the word 'unnatural' to describe homosexuality unless you're trying to call it a disease too?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I wouldn't used the word 'unnatural' to describe homosexuality unless you're trying to call it a disease too?

Are you calling homosexuality a quirk of nature?

[NitroNutter]

Well the likelyness of you believing my real life story has about a 50/50 chance of your believing it as real. To express that story in a public forum on the internet in any real detail would, with almost 100% certainty bring about a premature demise of my life and put my wife and 2 children in iminent danger. You really think this is worth the risk ?
To make it more clear, in the case of most people your life is worth to some no more than a deal of crack or herion. Others would get a slightly more privelaged contract from a cheap to hire eu based ex pat who would likely be back in their country before any body was even discovered.
So to put this in the vaguest context as a damge limitation to me and my family,

I started my adult life somewhat earlier than many and I entered that world as a very liberal minded definitive hetro. Meaning I did associate with gay people, a lot of gay people. With what I discovered during my extensive time with such people, some 15-20 years and also including some very well connected gay people who were also business associates, I uncovered a highly corrupt and perverted section of society, the size of this section and the various levels within society that they resided was to put it bluntly huge. After my time there I developed such a sickening to what I was uncovering, aswell as distinct signs of lives were becoming in iminent danger as I was not falling into the line that was expected, that I left it, this had to be a quick exit, a clever exit, in order to stay in the land of the living, and I knew without doubt that I would have to forgo the entire multi million pound business in the process of making my exit, that I had spent a huge time of my life developing. To really elaborate any further than this is way to risky, but this section of society is not just responsible for some mild campaining to change some laws, they have a huge financial prowess behind them with both legal and illegal operations, including a huge part in todays drug culture, amongst many other interests. The section of society is very big in all citys and towns in Britain, and consist of a mix of some very tight knit circles linked with a lot of loose knit circles. It is this mix of tight knit and loose knit circles that in are in similar way to Al Qaeda networks and other such organistaions that make it hugely difficult for it to be legally countered in a really succesful way.

So biggoted opinion, well if you like, I really do not care about your opinion.
Homophobic ? again I really dont give a stuff about your opinion.
Hetrosexuals are no different, to a certain extent that is true, however you may also be very surprised how many married people there are that also live a hidden life. These are by far the ones to watch out for, they will almost certainly be into more than a bit of homosexuality.
Completely paranoid fruitcake, choose to belive what you like. Only I know the full details of what I know from my life.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Are you calling homosexuality a quirk of nature?

Yes - but let me elaborate.

Nature's way is for a man and a woman to reproduce. Technology might mean that it may not be required for long, but that isn't the natural way to conceive. Same sex couples cannot reproduce, as we all know. However I'm not doubting they experience love for each other which, again as we all know, is a natural feeling/emotion.

Nature's way as I see it, is for life to continue. With homosexuality, life cannot naturally continue. Homosexual sex is not a natural act however it's based on natural urges, so this is why I call it a quirk of nature, rather than unnatural.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Nature's way as I see it, is for life to continue. With homosexuality, life cannot naturally continue. Homosexual sex is not a natural act however it's based on natural urges, so this is why I call it a quirk of nature, rather than unnatural.

If you go in for surgery to correct a life threatening condition then by definition your life is not continuining in a natural way. I assuming here an example of a condition that is fatal and could not possibly resolve itself. Would you reject the offer of medical intervention? For yourself? For your family? The argument that life should continue in a "natural" way has been well and truly undermined time and time again, but I don`t see mainstream Christians demanding that hospitals be brought down.

In fact, by defining homosexuality as a "quirk of nature" you are implicitly defining it as an aspect of nature. Given that there is no way that you could define invasive surgery as a "quirk of nature", does that mean that homosexuality is more natural than going in to hospital?
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

There are quirks of nature all around us. But it's not nature's intended way as we'd have died out a long time ago if it was. You should know that.

Can I assume you have no problem with bisexuality as that allows the species to continue in a natural fashion?
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Now lets say gay fostering and adoption was permitted then legally, Gay fostering actually has gone on for some time but the gay is usually alone and has his/her sexuallity well hidden.

Today as an adult where I have the choice rather than be adopted by any gay family, a gas chamber sounds good, or the electric chair, life on the streets, (somewhere i have also been), back to a home or even borstal would be more appealing.

Is it not possible that a child raised in such an environment would not be instilled with such prejudices, thus rendering the question about your frankly irrational statements irrelevant?

I don`t want to debate the background of your upbringing in detail as that is neither necessary nor fair, but I am forced to ask what issues this has left you with. If you are arguing that you would rather be in a violent, heterosexual household as a child rather than a loving, homosexual household then I don think that you have some rather major issues that need to be resolved. Can you honestly say that the violent option is the preferable environment in which to raise a child?

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

did I say "purely" i belive not, but thats nothing unusual for you Graham to take words and then change them to suit yourself, its not the first time youve done this as several others will agree. The word I used was predominent

If you're going to accuse someone of mis-quoting, it's generally a good idea to make sure *you* quote accurately.

The words you actually used were "very predominent" which, whilst not exactly meaning "purely" is certainly closer to it than merely "predominant".

Now I suggest you take a visit to the nail bar and get those nice long pink finger nails re done they are looking tattered. Then you can pop along to Gala bingo with your cronies.
Mean while Im of to the snooker club gonna get myself a game or two and then Ill go play some poker.

Sorry, I'm not really certain I've seen many mothers taking their young daughters along to nail bars, let alone men taking young boys to snooker clubs and then going to play poker.

Perhaps you grew up in a different family environment??

ADDENDUM - Clearly you did.

But, even so, I don't think many nail bars would turn away a male customer (be they a goth who wants black nails or a "metro-sexual" man who wants to improve his personal grooming) and I don't think many snooker clubs are "men only" these days, it being somewhat illegal I believe.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

Semantics - you need a man and a woman.

Not semantics, genetic engineering.

But however you create the child, you have not proven by any means that a man and a woman are required to bring up a child.

Of course not - a child's upbringing should be kept as close to natural as possible.

Again with this word "natural".

Unfortunately what "natural" tends to mean in this sort of case is "what I am familiar with" or "what I approve of".

I suggest you look at the prevalence of homosexual (older male, younger male) relationship in societies such as the Ancient Greeks and Spartans.

For them such behaviour was considered entirely "natural". Just because it's not something that happens today (or that you don't like it) doesn't make it less valid.

As above

So, once again, because Russ D doesn't like it, it's "unnatural".

As above.

Sorry, how exactly is that *unnatural*? Just because mummy and daddy are different colours??

If we left it up to the couple to make the decision we'd have a lot of unhappy children, that's why we have agencies to assess the suitablilty of potentional adopters first.

Of course, but your objections seem to be that because *you* would have trouble *they* shouldn't be allowed to do this.

If a couple, be they straight, gay, mixed race or whatever are capable of bringing up a child in a loving and caring relationship, why should they *not* be allowed to adopt just because someone thinks it's "unnatural" according to their personal beliefs?
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

ummm well my basic instinct if some bloke makes any sexual advances towards me as they so often fail to understand 2 simple letters or 2 simple words, is to teach them a damn hard lesson,

And what if it was a woman? Would you give the bitch a good slapping to "teach her a damn hard lesson"???
__________________

Originally Posted by Incognitas

The only issue that would worry me for children adopted by gay couples would be the way in which it was percieved by society and the classmates of the child.

Again, though, I mention children who have mixed race parents or only one parent or who are disabled or just "different".

Children will bully no matter what, the trick is to stop the *bullying* instead of trying to eliminate all possible reasons for someone to be bullied which is utterly impossible.
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

How about turning westminster into one big assylum

I thought it already was...!
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

So how do you feel knowing that in the future some children with no choice may be forced into a gay adoption scheme and when he/she reached adult hood feels as I would now if had been done to me.

The answer is you can't know that, but it's also not a reason *not* to allow gay adoption.

The people who determine which family a child will be placed with will take into account the child's family background (if any) and all the other details as well before they make a decision, they won't simply pick a name out of the hat.

I would not trust my father alone with my children and I really dont like my mother with them that often either. But I would put my kids in the trust of either of my parents than ever wish upon them to get adopted by any gay family.

So you consider a loving gay couple would be a worse choice to look after your children then a potentially violent and abusive straight couple?

I hope you're not inculcating your children with this level of blind prejudice.

So you politically correct do gooders enjoy what you may be supporting as a campaign in the future, you will most likely be causing as much serious misery as any good that could come of it

This from someone who would prefer violent and abusive people to look after his children.

I pity you.

I certainly pity your children.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

There are quirks of nature all around us. But it's not nature's intended way as we'd have died out a long time ago if it was. You should know that.

This is a typically fallacious argument because it fails to note that if homosexuality was such a negative "quirk of nature" *it* would have been eliminated from the gene pool a long time ago.

I suggest you look at http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic...al-orientation this article, especially the section about the "gay uncle" theory which argues there's a potential benefit to the uncle since their genes have a better chance of being passed on because they are protecting/ providing for their nephews/ neices instead of competing against them for resources etc.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

I wouldn't used the word 'unnatural' to describe homosexuality

Yet you object to gay adoption because you want children to be brought up in a "natural"(!) environment.

I sense a slight contradiction here...!
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

It is this mix of tight knit and loose knit circles that in are in similar way to Al Qaeda networks and other such organistaions that make it hugely difficult for it to be legally countered in a really succesful way.

I think this comment is the most telling of all.

Fear, uncertainty, doubt...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Not semantics, genetic engineering.

But however you create the child, you have not proven by any means that a man and a woman are required to bring up a child.

So we're back to the days where Graham's opinion is the only opinion then.

Originally Posted by Graham

Again with this word "natural".

Unfortunately what "natural" tends to mean in this sort of case is "what I am familiar with" or "what I approve of".

As above.

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you look at the prevalence of homosexual (older male, younger male) relationship in societies such as the Ancient Greeks and Spartans.

For them such behaviour was considered entirely "natural". Just because it's not something that happens today (or that you don't like it) doesn't make it less valid

.

As above. *They* may have considered it natural, but I don't. I'm entitled to my options Graham just as you are. And just as I don't agree with you does not make me wrong.

Originally Posted by Graham

So, once again, because Russ D doesn't like it, it's "unnatural".

Now you're getting the hang of it! Yes, if it's my opinion!!

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, how exactly is that *unnatural*? Just because mummy and daddy are different colours??

I didn't say that was unnatural.

Originally Posted by Graham

Of course, but your objections seem to be that because *you* would have trouble *they* shouldn't be allowed to do this.

(sigh) Yes Graham, because...and get this....."it's my opinion".

Originally Posted by Graham

If a couple, be they straight, gay, mixed race or whatever are capable of bringing up a child in a loving and caring relationship, why should they *not* be allowed to adopt just because someone thinks it's "unnatural" according to their personal beliefs?

Graham....I'd swear you're doing this just to wind me up but something tells me you're honestly not.....you show me where I've said they should not be allowed to adopt, please. Oh that's right, you can't - because I didn't say it. I don't agree with it but I'm not trying to change the law or prevent anyone from doing it.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yet you object to gay adoption because you want children to be brought up in a "natural"(!) environment.

I sense a slight contradiction here...!

Well yes Graham, you would wouldn't you. Read my posts again, I've never said they should be brought up in a "natural"(!) environment - my views, if you'd bothered to enquire, would be their upbringing should be as "natural as possible". A difference.

[NitroNutter]

This liberal attitude of sit on the fence and appease all to be complete in political correctness mumbo jumbo is a complete and utter joke.
To continue with the acceptance and enhancing further rights to sexuall deviance, ie demonstrating gay as acceptable in society before the tv watershed is indeed a form of brainwashing, and will lead to a form of genecide, which also just happens to be a "quirk of nature". To explain the term i used genecide for this is mentally being battered into everyones heads "gay is ok" will in the end bring about the almost total destrucion of true hetrosexuallity and while I'm not religous in anyway Im sure it was said by some religous being "go forth and multiply" not "go forth and fill a *****box".
Next we will be accepting that muslims must be permitted to blow themselves up anywhere they like within the westernised world because there sexual devience is to be in the paradise of 'allah' with 40 tasty slappers or how ever many is promised.
Many quirks of nature are unacceptable and you cannot keep bowing down to a minority because they enjoy such a quirk. Eventually we will (if we havent allready done so) cross the line of no return.

Man + man or woman + woman is fine, but keep it away from being continually forced down the throats of those who do not like it and most certainly do not force it upon children.

I do wonder also with Graham if I remember correctly he has a form of adult website wether theres any bias in his opinions as that is his living, or a part of it.