It's Started..........

[frank_spencer]

You can't be against gays adopting because the kid might get picked on at school

 

The kid might turn out to be the hardest cunt in their year and be able to look after themselves, and who all the other kids are shit scared of

 

Just because the parents whiff of lavender doesn't mean they will

indeed, plus as i said above kids will always find something to pick on other kids for be it being a ginge, wearing glasses or their parents being bumders

[Whites man]

Any school bully who knows his business won't let any kid with gay parents go without getting some grief.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Any school bully who knows his business won't let any kid with gay parents go without getting some grief.

This. Take your point zico, but why make the child's life any more difficult.

Like I said, I must be a dinosaur, I've no problem with gay marriage, the lot. I just draw the line at this.

 

I used to know a lad whose dad had separated from his wife (lads mother) and had a new male partner.

 

Lad used to seem uneasy in public and no doubt got grief from his peers. Not the same situation, but difficult for him nonetheless. Just seems a bit unfair putting a child, who let's face it has already had some shitty things happen, in such a situation.

[Ani]

This. Take your point zico, but why make the child's life any more difficult.

Like I said, I must be a dinosaur, I've no problem with gay marriage, the lot. I just draw the line at this.

 

I used to know a lad whose dad had separated from his wife (lads mother) and had a new male partner.

 

Lad used to seem uneasy in public and no doubt got grief from his peers. Not the same situation, but difficult for him nonetheless. Just seems a bit unfair putting a child, who let's face it has already had some shitty things happen, in such a situation.

If you start saying someone can not adopt because the kid will get the puss taken out of them then you basically stop adoption as there will always be something.

 

I have a couple of gay relatives one of whom is also a mother and I bet if you did a scale of grief they get about being gay it is the older generation that give it out most. Kids really are not bothered.

 

If you think about the agony a lot of gay folk go through before coming out then you would also think they would think twice about putting someone else in a vulnerable position.

 

I assume gay couples have to go though same set of rules as other couples before adopting if that was not the case and it was made easier for them I would agree.

 

As an aside another relative of mine recently fostered a kid but after a few months could not hack it so kid has gone back into care. It is a really tough ride.

[only1swanny]

I had a year 7 form last year at work..

 

2.4 family, same sex parents, care home, foster parents... All seemed pretty normal to them..

 

The generations coming through are used to it now. 

[Sweep]

"My Dads bigger than your Dad"

 

"Yes, but at least my Dad doesn't fuck other blokes"

[Zico]

Yeah well my dad would rape yours and leave him a bleeding blubbering mess

[frank_spencer]

Or as Frankie Boyle said 'My Da'll fuck yer Da and yer Da'll like it'

[bolty58]

2 blokes kissing in public isn't going to mess with the "normal family unit". 

 

I see absolutely no valid argument against gay marriage. None at all. If folk are gay and want to marry...rock on. 

 

Interestingly your term "unnatural lifestyles" would resonate very well with some of the more extreme Muslims in this country. Perhaps you have some significant common ground there?

 

 

I was going to say 'don't be a cock' but I give up hoping for the impossible many years ago.

 

I have no sympathy or time for any religion, particularly the more extreme forms of Christianity, Scientology and the one you mention so don't waste your time with that one..

 

Your highlighting of the 'normal' and 'unnatural' is the crux of the matter. Clearly you would like to see what is patently unnatural (prove to me otherwise) be classified as normal. I would see that as further evidence of mans descent into the morass (I was going to use 'abyss' here but 'morass' seemed more phonetically appropriate for the subject matter).

[frank_spencer]

I was going to say 'don't be a cock' but I give up hoping for the impossible many years ago.

 

I have no sympathy or time for any religion, particularly the more extreme forms of Christianity, Scientology and the one you mention so don't waste your time with that one..

 

Your highlighting of the 'normal' and 'unnatural' is the crux of the matter. Clearly you would like to see what is patently unnatural (prove to me otherwise) be classified as normal. I would see that as further evidence of mans descent into the morass (I was going to use 'abyss' here but 'morass' seemed more phonetically appropriate for the subject matter).

As its very common amongst other animals and historical records of humans have it going on for millennia i'd say is fairly natural

[bolty58]

As its very common amongst other animals and historical records of humans have it going on for millennia i'd say is fairly natural

 

If you want to go historical, lets discuss the biblical record of Sodom and Gomorrah then. 

 

Not from a religious viewpoint of course (you will never get that from me) but from a historical record standpoint where the historical recorders had limited ways of describing what they saw. 'Pillars of salt'? Aids victims?

 

It seems that science may have overcome Mother Natures first attempt. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

As its very common amongst other animals and historical records of humans have it going on for millennia i'd say is fairly natural

I'd agree. By the same token its natural that children cannot be borne into such relationships.

 

I understand all points raised by several posters, and don't disagree with them. Ultimately, I feel it just adds another layer of potential difficulties.

 

We'll not change our views so I'll leave this one here.

[bwfcfan5]

I was going to say 'don't be a cock' but I give up hoping for the impossible many years ago.

 

I have no sympathy or time for any religion, particularly the more extreme forms of Christianity, Scientology and the one you mention so don't waste your time with that one..

 

Your highlighting of the 'normal' and 'unnatural' is the crux of the matter. Clearly you would like to see what is patently unnatural (prove to me otherwise) be classified as normal. I would see that as further evidence of mans descent into the morass (I was going to use 'abyss' here but 'morass' seemed more phonetically appropriate for the subject matter).

 

Prove you otherwise?

 

Natural: existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

 

Homosexuality is present in many non-human animal species. It is an entirely natural phenomenon. 

 

Your moral compass seems highly tuned to very old fashioned ideas heavily shaped by religion. Which is odd for someone who has no time for religion. 

[bwfcfan5]

I'd agree. By the same token its natural that children cannot be borne into such relationships.

 

I understand all points raised by several posters, and don't disagree with them. Ultimately, I feel it just adds another layer of potential difficulties.

 

We'll not change our views so I'll leave this one here.

 

By the same argument, IVF shouldn't be a thing. Or any adoption. Because children in those circumstances aren't naturally born into those couples.

 

I think adoption by gay couples is a complicated thing. But isn't necessarily always the wrong thing to do. Quality of parents must take precedence over their sexuality. 

[kent_white]

By the same argument, IVF shouldn't be a thing. Or any adoption. Because children in those circumstances aren't naturally born into those couples.

Or anything much above living in a cave and hunting and foraging for food.

[Zico]

If you want to go historical, lets discuss the biblical record of Sodom and Gomorrah then.

 

Not from a religious viewpoint of course (you will never get that from me) but from a historical record standpoint where the historical recorders had limited ways of describing what they saw. 'Pillars of salt'? Aids victims?

 

It seems that science may have overcome Mother Natures first attempt.

You're talking about someone being turned into salt because they watched god destroy a city after being told not to

 

I'm not sure how that relates to aids, science or gay adoption

 

Is this a case of Ziconvolution?

[Sweep]

By the same argument, IVF shouldn't be a thing. 

 

 

 

And from there, neither should organ transplants or chemotherapy etc  -  as they're basically going against what nature has decreed

[Carlos]

Sounds more like Jehovah's Witness bollocks now.

[Youri McAnespie]

So, to summarise, according to the book of facts that is the Old Testament, A.I.D.S. has been around before - solely afflicting the only gayers in the world at that time who happened to live in the city of Sodom, kind of like Blackpool or Brighton but without the seafront. This biblical plague was described in terms they understood at the time - Pillar of Salt (bad A.I.D.S. victims) or 'leper' (Good A.I.D.S. victims), now because there were no do-gooder leftist pansy sympathiser doctors around to prescribe (or invent) AK-47, or other drugs, all the pillars of salt eventually crumbled - Mother Nature/Science won out and A.I.D.S. and all gaiety was wiped out. The End.

 

Or rather it would have been the end, but one of the pillars bummed a monkey too, infecting the poor simian with gayness and A.I.D.S. - both remaining confined to the primate community for a few thousand years until the former reared its ugly head among humans after Oscar Wilde was bit by a chimp at Dublin Zoo, in the late eighties it was observed pillar of salt disease had automatically followed - claiming its first victim, Terrance Stamp, in 1988.

[DirtySanchez]

If you want to go historical, lets discuss the biblical record of Sodom and Gomorrah then.

 

Not from a religious viewpoint of course (you will never get that from me) but from a historical record standpoint where the historical recorders had limited ways of describing what they saw. 'Pillars of salt'? Aids victims?

 

It seems that science may have overcome Mother Natures first attempt.

Is the bible considered an accurate historical document then?

 

From someone who has no time for religion it seems an odd source for justification

 

You'll be using the Koran next

[MalcolmW]

Is the bible considered an accurate historical document then?

 

From someone who has no time for religion it seems an odd source for justification

 

You'll be using the Koran next

 

It is in the Koran too.

[Youri McAnespie]

My favourite story, erm...I mean my favourite scientific fact from religious texts is the one on how the white man, nude and shameless, was artificially created on the island of Patmos - by a big-head scientist named Mister Yakub...

 

(Nation of Islam).

Edited September 1, 2017 by Youri McAnespie

[tyldesley_white]

Where did the big-scientist come from ?, enquiring minds want to know ... well maybe not

[Youri McAnespie]

It's all detailed here in black and white fact...

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/africanspress.org/2016/09/27/yakub-the-black-scientist-that-created-white-people/amp/

 

He also has his own Wikipedia page.

[mickbrown]

If you want to go historical, lets discuss the biblical record of Sodom and Gomorrah then. 

 

Not from a religious viewpoint of course (you will never get that from me) but from a historical record standpoint where the historical recorders had limited ways of describing what they saw. 'Pillars of salt'? Aids victims?

 

It seems that science may have overcome Mother Natures first attempt. 

 

You have surpassed yourself. Well done.