Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Who says my experiences were of same-sex parenting?

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

It was.

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

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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 ?

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?

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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

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

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

It was.

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

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.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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.

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

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

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).

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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

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:

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

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

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.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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.

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

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ah, a cop out.

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

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, a cop out.

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

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 ?

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

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

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.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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?

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..

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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.

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.....

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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?

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

Originally Posted by orangebird

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?

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