Gay Rights

Annasopra

Annasopra

rsynnott

That baby frightens me.

Tar.Aldarion

Scared of commitment?

Cronus333

Firespinner wrote:

No the problem is that a larger percentage rape children, and they want to adopt children. (Remember they will likely be meeting many more gays than a normal child)

Incorrect. as a proportion more paedophiles are straight than gay.

woody

I'd say yes to them having equal human rights but no to marraige as it is simply not natural, as is the practice... That is my opinion and dont jump down my throat but we are being more and more acclimatised to the gay way and it is getting to the stage wrong is right... It is against nature,most religious beliefs and generally immoral...

God made man and woman not for two people of either sex to have sexual relations and it is against the law of the bible...

I wont hurt someone for being like that but I wont certainly condone it as it is pure and simple sick and unnatural...

BTW that is my opinion if you dont like it tough, I have no intention of changing it and know for a fact it is correct....

Freelancer

woody wrote:

I'd say yes to them having equal human rights but no to marraige as it is simply not natural, as is the practice... That is my opinion and dont jump down my throat but we are being more and more acclimatised to the gay way and it is getting to the stage wrong is right... It is against nature,most religious beliefs and generally immoral...

God made man and woman not for two people of either sex to have sexual relations and it is against the law of the bible...

I wont hurt someone for being like that but I wont certainly condone it as it is pure and simple sick and unnatural...

BTW that is my opinion if you dont like it tough, I have no intention of changing it and know for a fact it is correct....

Well done for posted such a piece of thick skulled bigotry on an internet discussion forum I particularly like the way you wont be swayed by facts argument or logic and are firmly entrenched in a position formed not by again, facts, arguments or logic, and refuse to budge.

What did you think you were going to achieve by writing the above? Gay rights campaigners are just going to realise you cannot be reasoned with and just give up?

rsynnott

woody wrote:

I'd say yes to them having equal human rights but no to marraige as it is simply not natural, as is the practice... That is my opinion and dont jump down my throat but we are being more and more acclimatised to the gay way and it is getting to the stage wrong is right... It is against nature,most religious beliefs and generally immoral...

God made man and woman not for two people of either sex to have sexual relations and it is against the law of the bible...

I wont hurt someone for being like that but I wont certainly condone it as it is pure and simple sick and unnatural...

BTW that is my opinion if you dont like it tough, I have no intention of changing it and know for a fact it is correct....

So do you have any basis for this opinion whatsoever? And, when most higher mammals indulge to some extent, how does the non-natural thing work?

Also, how do you know for a fact that your opinion is correct? Do you know what 'opinion' means?

As we are a secular state, the alleged opinions of this god person (or whichever version of him you're referring to) are really rather beside the point.

Tha Gopher

I think the fact posters here are more concerned about being seen to be tolerant and such at the expense of a childs social standing is actually quite scary. I havent read the whole thread seeing as its longer than the bible, but what I have seen beggars belief. Anyone who belives that a child raised by two men is just as likely to get picked on as the fat kid, the ginger kid, the only black kid, the English/spotty/glasses wearing/pick your unique bully target kid, is living in a dream world. You wont get any parents forbidding their children from hanging around with a ginger kid based on his hair colour. Unless the parents are crazed ra heads theyre not going to demand their kids cold shoulder the English kid. Unless theyre the Stormfront webmaster theyll have no problem with them palling around with the black kid. But in all honesty, in Ireland do you really think there are many parents who would, for example, allow their young son to sleep over with a kid whos parents are gay? Dublin is a place where goth kids are brutally beaten on a daily basis (and Ive no love for goths, but thats another point )- how the hell do you think a kid who has grown up for 15 years with two dads will get treated in that climate?

Ive said it once and Ill say it again- there are certain people on boards who, if they managed to get elected to office, would be a severe threat to the culture, traditions and freedoms of our country. Would you honestly want to be the child who is raised by gay parents, to put up with the taunts, the piss taking etc etc. To introduce both your fathers to your girlfriend/new mates? Having little/no contact with the mother, as many of the kids in this situation have. Before you get on a high horse about the whole thing ffs think about the consequences for the child.

RobEire wrote:

There is this strange misconception that all gays are paedophiles. True, quite a few paedophiles are gay......

This is another one that always made me laugh re the whole PC dimension, with one boards user on a thread years back claiming the two subjects had NOTHING to do with each other. Which is odd, as I recall a case where a man accused of abusing young girls used the defence that he was gay and would therefore have absloutely no interest in young girls. Presumably only a minority is allowed to use this defence- I somehow doubt that an adult would be allowed to take the stand in court and claim a defendant regarded by most people as straight was secretly gay, as it would prejudice the trial.

3% of priests who served in Dublin in the last 60 years have been accused of abuse, the vast majority involving boys. Of course, accusations are not proof, but considering that at the very most maybe 2-3% of males are gay (IIRC some study suggested the amount in the priesthood might be 30-40%), then a 10% rate of alledged deviancy is quite alarming. My point is not politically correct. Posting that foreign criminals are responsible for most Irish ATM scams is not PC. Neither is supporting the deportation of that Nigerian student who has managed to notch up a pretty bad arrest record in his short spell here. Nor is mandatory screening of new immigrants for potentially lethal contagious disease upon entry. Quite a few important issues arent PC, but it doesnt mean they should not be discussed. Recognise that rambling on PC nonsense is not big or clever, and in some cases is nothing short of dangerous.

Freelancer wrote:

In fact a Australian friend had a class mate who's mother was eaten by a shark. While cleaning barnacles off their boat, in front of her children; who were greeted on their first day back at school, by class mates running after them chanting the theme from Jaws.

Ah yes, but that story isnt actually true;) Sorry but ive heard more colourful stories to back up a PC arguement on boards then yiv had hot dinners

rsynnott

Tha Gopher wrote:

3% of priests who served in Dublin in the last 60 years have been accused of abuse, the vast majority involving boys. Of course, accusations are not proof, but considering that at the very most maybe 2-3% of males are gay (IIRC some study suggested the amount in the priesthood might be 30-40%), then a 10% rate of alledged deviancy is quite alarming.

Sorry, what do you think these numbers mean? What are you trying to say? The generally accepted theory is that paedophiles go for youth, not gender. Priests tended to have more access to boys, obviously. (In any case, the 'vast majority' is not at all accurate). Do you have any ACTUAL evidence of a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, of is it just something you like to imagine?

Freelancer

Tha Gopher wrote:

I think the fact posters here are more concerned about being seen to be tolerant and such at the expense of a childs social standing is actually quite scary. I havent read the whole thread seeing as its longer than the bible, but what I have seen beggars belief. Anyone who belives that a child raised by two men is just as likely to get picked on as the fat kid, the ginger kid, the only black kid, the English/spotty/glasses wearing/pick your unique bully target kid, is living in a dream world. You wont get any parents forbidding their children from hanging around with a ginger kid based on his hair colour. Unless the parents are crazed ra heads theyre not going to demand their kids cold shoulder the English kid. Unless theyre the Stormfront webmaster theyll have no problem with them palling around with the black kid. But in all honesty, in Ireland do you really think there are many parents who would, for example, allow their young son to sleep over with a kid whos parents are gay? Dublin is a place where goth kids are brutally beaten on a daily basis (and Ive no love for goths, but thats another point )- how the hell do you think a kid who has grown up for 15 years with two dads will get treated in that climate?

Again this is answered on two points;

1)where is your proof children of gay parents would be bullied worse than children of straight parents. It may have troubled and inconvenienced you but links to two studies about children adopted by gay parents have been cited on this thread already, and both studies stated children adopted by gay parents come out of it no less worse than children adopted by straight parents.

2)Do we allow small minded bigots to set the agenda and tone of social progress?

Ive said it once and Ill say it again- there are certain people on boards who, if they managed to get elected to office, would be a severe threat to the culture, traditions and freedoms of our country.

Pray tell what are they? And what Freedoms are you suggesting need defending? The freedom to be a small minded bigot?

Would you honestly want to be the child who is raised by gay parents, to put up with the taunts, the piss taking etc etc. To introduce both your fathers to your girlfriend/new mates? Having little/no contact with the mother, as many of the kids in this situation have. Before you get on a high horse about the whole thing ffs think about the consequences for the child.

We have and have cited two reports which suggest the children of gay parents turn out just fine.

This is another one that always made me laugh re the whole PC dimension, with one boards user on a thread years back claiming the two subjects had NOTHING to do with each other. Which is odd, as I recall a case where a man accused of abusing young girls used the defence that he was gay and would therefore have absloutely no interest in young girls. Presumably only a minority is allowed to use this defence- I somehow doubt that an adult would be allowed to take the stand in court and claim a defendant regarded by most people as straight was secretly gay, as it would prejudice the trial.

3% of priests who served in Dublin in the last 60 years have been accused of abuse, the vast majority involving boys. Of course, accusations are not proof, but considering that at the very most maybe 2-3% of males are gay (IIRC some study suggested the amount in the priesthood might be 30-40%), then a 10% rate of alledged deviancy is quite alarming. My point is not politically correct. Posting that foreign criminals are responsible for most Irish ATM scams is not PC. Neither is supporting the deportation of that Nigerian student who has managed to notch up a pretty bad arrest record in his short spell here. Nor is mandatory screening of new immigrants for potentially lethal contagious disease upon entry. Quite a few important issues arent PC, but it doesnt mean they should not be discussed. Recognise that rambling on PC nonsense is not big or clever, and in some cases is nothing short of dangerous.

Again the myths about links to paedophilia and homosexuality have demolished repeatadly on this thread, why don't you read the whole thread and education yourself.

Ah yes, but that story isnt actually true;) Sorry but ive heard more colourful stories to back up a PC arguement on boards then yiv had hot dinners

No it is and I have, and spare me the patronising "I've more life experience than yis" argument, it's weak.

rsynnott

Actually, exactly the same argument (the bullying thing) could have be used against allowing inter-racial marriage (still technically illegal in a few US states, although federal law trumps state law, and the last court case was in the 90s). Inter-racial marriage is now quite common, and the children of inter-racial marriages tend to be fine.

Tha Gopher

Freelancer wrote:

1)where is your proof children of gay parents would be bullied worse than children of straight parents. It may have troubled and inconvenienced you but links to two studies about children adopted by gay parents have been cited on this thread already, and both studies stated children adopted by gay parents come out of it no less worse than children adopted by straight parents.

2)Do we allow small minded bigots to set the agenda and tone of social progress?


We have and have cited two reports which suggest the children of gay parents turn out just fine.

Oh great, a study. I took a course in the university of life and came to a few different conclusions but hey, thats irrelevant because Im not a professor. Certain countries/regions are more liberal. Ireland isnt one of them. If you are happy to see some kid have a rough childhood in the name of political correctness you are one pathetic individual.

Freelancer

Tha Gopher wrote:

Oh great, a study. I took a course in the university of life and came to a few different conclusions

I work off the assumption that anyone who claims they "studied at the
university of life" is talking out of their arse. It's an assumption that has served me well and true.

but hey, thats irrelevant because Im not a professor. Certain countries/regions are more liberal. Ireland isnt one of them.

Compared to? We've completely overhauled our opinions on a great deal of things, one poster here claimed that gay bashing was an issue in ireland but couldn't find a shred of evidence about gay bashing in the republic.

But no seriously keep with the ill informed bigotry and patronising comments about how you've "been around the block" it's a really well thought out strategy and argument thats going to win over many converts.

rsynnott

Tha Gopher wrote:

Oh great, a study. I took a course in the university of life and came to a few different conclusions

This is a euphemism for "I made it up, or hallucinated it", yes?

robindch

> We have and have cited two reports which suggest the children
> of gay parents turn out just fine.

Further research suggests that well-formed gay marriages work much better than hetero marriages. Listen to this documentary from the USA which talks about traditional marriages, with a few interesting digressions into gay ones (where research is allowed, of course, as funding is almost impossible to get):

http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/04/261.htm

Makes sense to me -- men understand men and women understand women much better than either understands the other. Stands to reason that a loving gay couple will understand each other better than even very good hetero couple, and a stable, caring background is one of the vital ingredients for kids to grow up into well-balanced individuals.

> 2) Do we allow small minded bigots to set the agenda and tone of
> social progress?

As far as I can make out, small-minded bigots have been setting the social agenda more or less since human societies first took shape. It's only with the arrival of universal literacy, democracy and other recent fads and fancies, that the religious, authoritarian and military fools who've run most societies to date have been pushed kicking and screaming to the back row, unable to sustain their bigotry against the larger proportion of humanity who are decent, honorable and willing to live and let live.

Kuz_3040

No they shouldnt because they as someone already metioned give that right when they chose their lifestyle and the fact of the matter they have a high disposable income. The main benefits homosexuals couples want is to have more money and in my opinion is based on their own greed so that money should be given to those who need it. Fair enough people may cheat the system but at the end of the day these people hav given birth and gone through the various aspects of raisng a family. Homosexuals can only have children either by articial insemination or adoption insemination may constitute childbirth but adoption is not and many female homosexuals dont wish to have children or are unable to. Therefore why should homosexual couples have such rights when they dont really deserve and only want such rights so they can more money. Jst to reply to the comment about bigotry and wotever else that is simply not true other wise the same wcould be said about every society on the planet that they are all bigots etc because taking it to its extreme every person would be seen as a bigot simply down to the way we see people and the judgements we make about them. Honour has nothing to do with homosexuality

Freelancer

Kuz_3040 wrote:

No they shouldnt because they as someone already metioned give that right when they chose their lifestyle and the fact of the matter they have a high disposable income. The main benefits homosexuals couples want is to have more money and in my opinion is based on their own greed so that money should be given to those who need it. Fair enough people may cheat the system but at the end of the day these people hav given birth and gone through the various aspects of raisng a family. Homosexuals can only have children either by articial insemination or adoption insemination may constitute childbirth but adoption is not and many female homosexuals dont wish to have children or are unable to. Therefore why should homosexual couples have such rights when they dont really deserve and only want such rights so they can more money. Jst to reply to the comment about bigotry and wotever else that is simply not true other wise the same wcould be said about every society on the planet that they are all bigots etc because taking it to its extreme every person would be seen as a bigot simply down to the way we see people and the judgements we make about them. Honour has nothing to do with homosexuality

Hi, meet my friend, the paragraph.

Are you seriously suggesting that children are a money earner? Have you ever had children? They're like a black hole for disposable income.

Honestly of all the arguments put forth this is the most surreal......

rsynnott

Kuz_3040 wrote:

No they shouldnt because they as someone already metioned give that right when they chose their lifestyle and the fact of the matter they have a high disposable income.

Care to elaborate on choosing our 'lifestyle'? I don't remember signing a form. And why on earth do you think that all gay people have high disposable income?

Kuz_3040 wrote:

The main benefits homosexuals couples want is to have more money and in my opinion is based on their own greed so that money should be given to those who need it. Fair enough people may cheat the system but at the end of the day these people hav given birth and gone through the various aspects of raisng a family.

Or, y'know, maybe they want visiting rights in hospital, or something (in fact, marriage has minimal tax benefit where both partners work). Maybe they want formal recognition of their partnership. Is that so horrible? And heterosexuals can marry without having children. We even let post-menopausal women marry; imagine!

Zombrex

Kuz_3040 wrote:

Therefore why should homosexual couples have such rights when they dont really deserve and only want such rights so they can more money.

LOL .. Please please please please please please explain to me how you make money by adoption a child.

Maybe you should ask your parents how much money they made from rasing you for 18 years :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

By the way, why do heterosexual couples "deserve" to have children? What, do they all do a 2 week course and pay the subscription fee to "Good Parenting"?

rsynnott

Wicknight wrote:

By the way, why do heterosexual couples "deserve" to have children? What, do they all do a 2 week course and pay the subscription fee to "Good Parenting"?

As an aside, I've always thought a license should be required. So many people are just blatantly bad parents; in fact, they're bad PEOPLE. You should worry more about them bringing up kids than adoptive parents, who are rather heavily screened.

Freelancer

Wicknight wrote:

LOL .. Please please please please please please explain to me how you make money by adoption a child.

You mean you're not sending yours to work a 16 day down the salt mine?

I can't believe you didn't get the manual "exploiting children for fun and profit"

woody

Political Correctness = Facism a Subtle form but simple as that.

I think that is one of the points here...

woody

rsynnott wrote:

So do you have any basis for this opinion whatsoever? And, when most higher mammals indulge to some extent, how does the non-natural thing work?

Also, how do you know for a fact that your opinion is correct? Do you know what 'opinion' means?

As we are a secular state, the alleged opinions of this god person (or whichever version of him you're referring to) are really rather beside the point.

My Basis for this is that it is against Nature and God's Law and was illegal up to recently and IMHO should have stayed that way...

woody

Freelancer wrote:

Well done for posted such a piece of thick skulled bigotry on an internet discussion forum I particularly like the way you wont be swayed by facts argument or logic and are firmly entrenched in a position formed not by again, facts, arguments or logic, and refuse to budge.

What did you think you were going to achieve by writing the above? Gay rights campaigners are just going to realise you cannot be reasoned with and just give up?

Actually I am not a biggot and far from it, your the biggot as everyone dare not have an anti-gay opinion, well I do and F*ck the begrudgers...Again it is my opinion and I will stick to it..........

Freelancer

woody wrote:

Actually I am not a biggot and far from it, your the biggot as everyone dare not have an anti-gay opinion, well I do and F*ck the begrudgers...Again it is my opinion and I will stick to it..........

"some people don't love their fellow man, and I hate people like that"
- Tom Leher.

You're not bigoted you're just anti gay, and won't let facts or argument sway you, sure...............

rsynnott

woody wrote:

My Basis for this is that it is against Nature and God's Law and was illegal up to recently and IMHO should have stayed that way...

Forget god. He has no place here. Take it to Christianity, if you're interested. Now, nature. How, precisely, is homosexuality against nature? Can you make some points, or do you specialise in empty rhetoric?

And PLEASE do learn to spell bigot, and possibly also to use it correctly.

Freelancer

woody wrote:

My Basis for this is that it is against Nature and God's Law

Of course thats ignoring gay horses, gay dolphins and gay penguins not to mention a host of other animals that exhibt homosexual tendancies.

As for the "aganist God's law" not living in a theocracy we are free to make up laws and decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.

and was illegal up to recently and IMHO should have stayed that way...

Right you're not anti gay you just want to see them locked up for acting out on their "unnatural" urges.

Political Correctness = Facism a Subtle form but simple as that.

I think that is one of the points here...

No you're free to hold your opinion and we're free to tell you how small minded and bigoted it is.

woody

rsynnott wrote:

Forget god. He has no place here. Take it to Christianity, if you're interested. Now, nature. How, precisely, is homosexuality against nature? Can you make some points, or do you specialise in empty rhetoric?

And PLEASE do learn to spell bigot, and possibly also to use it correctly.

Here let me see it is WRONG.... And as for my spelling get a life.....

Again here we go WRONG.............


By the way I am more Jewish that Christian so dont make assumptions...



And again it is against nature the same sex are not supposed to be together if they were nature would have dictated....

Man + Woman = Normal
Man + Man = Not Normal
Woman + Woman = Not Normal

Pure and Simple, then again the world today is getting more and more like wrong is right...

Give it a few years and paedophilia will be the Norm and so will murder and so on...

woody

Again your the bigot as my your saying I should'nt have an opinion but I will not be PC for anyone and as Tommy Tiernan says " F*ck the Begrudgers" if you don't like it get back on the bus to oblivion.........

rsynnott

woody wrote:

By the way I am more Jewish that Christian so dont make assumptions...

Oh, yep, that was you. For the record, I supported that forum, and am somewhat disappointed to see that it hasn't materialised. Anyway, the fact remains that vague religious statements don't really have a place here.

woody wrote:

And again it is against nature the same sex are not supposed to be together if they were nature would have dictated....

Man + Woman = Normal
Man + Man = Not Normal
Woman + Woman = Not Normal

I see. How did nature tell you this, precisely? Do you have conversations with trees much, at all. Again, this personification of nature is a weird pseudo-religious practice and not really a sensible argument. There is no objective evidence that nature is sentient.

woody wrote:

Pure and Simple, then again the world today is getting more and more like wrong is right...

Give it a few years and paedophilia will be the Norm and so will murder and so on...

No, the fundamental difference here is that homosexual relations hurt no-one and are between consenting adults. By definition a child cannot consent, and murderees rarely consent to their murder.

rsynnott

Kuz_3040 wrote:

Sorry i didnt mean for it to sound as though that children are a money earner because they clearly are not what i am sayin is that the rights that i have heard complained about is the fact the gay couples dont gain the same financial benefits as hetrosexual couples in terms of housing and marital. The reason Homosexuals have a higher disposable income is because they do not have children nor a family to take care of in many cases i do acknowledge that some homosexuals do have childrens and families. I do also agree whole heartedly with woody who stated that it shud of remained illegal to have a civil cermony. To answer the ****ing retard who wanted me to elaborate on lifestyle homosexuality is how people live their life its their own stupid choice in my opinion and therefore constitutes a style of life you ****ing idiot

Why, thank you. Your 'opinion', as you call it, is clear nonsense. No-one chooses to be gay. Did you choose to be straight? Are you suggesting gay people should pretend to be heterosexual?

Now, are you aware that it is possible for heterosexuals to marry without children, and indeed that it is possible for sterile heterosexuals to marry?

Not sure what you're talking about with the civil ceremony. For these purposes , marriage IS a civil ceremony; religions are entirely entitled to choose whether to conduct their own ceremonies in conjunction.

And do at least TRY to post in English. It really isn't that difficult.

The_Minister

woody wrote:

My Basis for this is that it is against Nature and God's Law and was illegal up to recently and IMHO should have stayed that way...

I disagree they should be able to do whatever between themselves. Its only when they involve a helpless third party that it becomes undesireable.

Even though they may not breed it doesn't mean its nessacerily unnatural. It may be that in primitive times that functioning adults were needed for hunting etc. but for population reasons were not allowed to breed or it could be a way for evolution to get rid of genetic dead-ends.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

Compared to? We've completely overhauled our opinions on a great deal of things, one poster here claimed that gay bashing was an issue in ireland but couldn't find a shred of evidence about gay bashing in the republic.

There are no figures out there for the Republic so the poster (me) could not have proven it due to government laxity. That does not disprove my point.
Someone (was it you?) on the LGBT forum set up a short thread on this (got PM'd on it) the posters said that many gays would not report attacks or the attacks would just be classed as normal attacks. They seemed to think there was quite a few.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

There are no figures out there for the Republic so the poster (me) could not have proven it due to government laxity. That does not disprove my point.
Someone (was it you?) on the LGBT forum set up a short thread on this (got PM'd on it) the posters said that many gays would not report attacks or the attacks would just be classed as normal attacks. They seemed to think there was quite a few.

You cannot prove something. You make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. If homophopic violence was at the level you suggest it is, there would be some proof. The Gay community in Ireland isn't up in arms over homophobic violence so unless you can provide evidence you are clearly talking BS.

Insinuating I'm writing threads on LGB board and talking about pm's you got is just more of the pathetic arguments we've grown used to hearing from you.

woody wrote:

Again your the bigot as my your saying I should'nt have an opinion but I will not be PC for anyone and as Tommy Tiernan says " F*ck the Begrudgers" if you don't like it get back on the bus to oblivion.........

Profound and eloquent woody, I'm not the one suggesting people get locked up because of their sexual orientation. I'm not the bigot here, you are.

Man + Woman = Normal
Man + Man = Not Normal
Woman + Woman = Not Normal

Pure and Simple, then again the world today is getting more and more like wrong is right...

Again lots of animals exhibt homosexual tendancys, but good for you to ignore facts and reason and keep your opinion in the face of it.

Boston

Freelancer wrote:

You cannot prove something. You make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. If homophopic violence was at the level you suggest it is, there would be some proof. The Gay community in Ireland isn't up in arms over homophobic violence so unless you can provide evidence you are clearly talking BS.

How do you know that? There's definitely allto mroe fear out there now.

rsynnott

LiouVille wrote:

How do you know that? There's definitely allto mroe fear out there now.

Still less fuss being made over it than the bloody blood ban, tho.

rsynnott

LiouVille wrote:

How do you know that? There's definitely allto mroe fear out there now.

Still less fuss being made over it than the bloody blood ban, tho.

Boston

rsynnott wrote:

Still less fuss being made over it than the bloody blood ban, tho.

I don't know that that true. I don't know that a "fuss" actually achieves anything. There have been a nubmer of arrests, people are being more carefull, haven't heard of attacks in awhile (few months). Something is actually happening on this front, nothing is happening on the blood ban front.

Zombrex

woody wrote:

Man + Woman = Normal
Man + Man = Not Normal
Woman + Woman = Not Normal

It may shock you to learn this but there has been very little "normal" about sex in the last 10,000 years. There is very little biologically natural about sex for pleasure, yet heterosexual and homosexual humans have been doing that since civiliasation began.

Can we assume you practise what you preach and only ever have sex to produce a child, never for pleasure and do not make any attempt to enjoy it, since its only purpose should be to produce off spring and is not normal for animals to enjoy sex, have sex for pleasure or heaven forbit have sex without attempting to produce a child naturally (those satan worshiping masses call them "condoms")

Fair play to you if you do, God would be proud that you are not preverting this evolutionary necessary funtion with little things like enjoyment, pleasure and birth-control

woody wrote:

Give it a few years and paedophilia will be the Norm and so will murder and so on...

Well actually statistically gay men are much much less likely to murder someone (or crime in general for that matter) and has already been pointed out homosexuals aren't be paedophilies.

So they querier the world gets the safer it will be for ourselfs and our children.

Tha Gopher

rsynnott wrote:

This is a euphemism for "I made it up, or hallucinated it", yes?

Ah yes. My opinion is irrelevant because I dont agree with you. Freelancers story of Australians getting eaten by sharks is gospel because he shares the same views as you

I ask this question to any straight poster here- do you really think that you would like to have been raised by two gay men? Forget surveys and studies conducted in California or Holland, do you really think that you would have got barely any abuse in your Irish national and secondary school?

If so, post the name of the schools, as the places clearly deserve some recognition for their anti bullying policy if you believe that a child with gay parents would suffer minimal hassle at these places.

Zombrex

Tha Gopher wrote:

I ask this question to any straight poster here- do you really think that you would like to have been raised by two gay men?

I got raised by two heterosexual parents and I hated secondary school. It was full of bullying. Most of my friends (all raised by heterosexual parents) hated secondary school, because it was full of bully. Secondary school is just full of bullying People who don't think so were probably the ones doing the bullying.

And yes I understand that argument is "well its going to be a hundred times worse if the person has gay parents". That, as they say, is nonsense, and shows a lack of understand of what bullying is and what causes it.

I knew a kid in school who came home ever day crying like a baby. He would sit up at the top of the bus quiet and sad and sometimes crying. For 6 years Why? Were his parents gay? Were his parents black? Was he black? Was he gay? No, he was a little fat, and a little sensative, and an hugely easy target. And the kids in school ripped him to pieces. There were even reports of physical abuse (some of the kids in my school were total scum bags nutters)

The thing is is it isn't going to matter what sexual orientation the kid is, or his parents, its going to matter about the kid him/herself and how they handle themselves.

There was a guy at school who everyone knew his dad was gay and had left his mother, there was loads of gossip about it with my parents, but none of the kids batted an eye lid, because the kid was in the "cool" crowd. I think one kids slagged him once that started a fight and that was the end of that. And then this poor other guy was going through hell for 6 years simply because he was over weight and could not stick up for himself. Nothing to do with his parents, who were a perfectly average family. And the rest of the normal kids where fighting a constant battle not to say anything stupid or be on the recieving end of any of the dished out abuse. And we were all from average familys.

Its all very well to say we should try and protect these children from possible bullying in school, but it doesn't work like that in real life. The logic is flawed, and missing the fundamental reason kids get picked on. It isn't because of an actual logical reason, it is because some of them are precieved as weak and unable to stand up for themselves. It is going to have very little to do with the orientation of their parents. To a bully that is no more valid a reason to stick someone in a coat room lock the door and walk of for the rest of the day than the fact they simply want to (yes that happened to me). Why were they slagging me at that time? Because I was wearing a "funny" shirt.

So are we going to stop adoptions to parents unless they can prove they are "cool" and are going to raise children that are also "cool"?

rsynnott

Also, again, mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean) kids tend not to have problems, and didn't even when it was almost unheard of.

Freelancer

Tha Gopher wrote:

Ah yes. My opinion is irrelevant because I dont agree with you. Freelancers story of Australians getting eaten by sharks is gospel because he shares the same views as you

Nope just spouting about how you "studied at the university of life" makes you sound like an ass. The stories true, children bully children over the slightest and worst things.

I ask this question to any straight poster here- do you really think that you would like to have been raised by two gay men? Forget surveys and studies conducted in California or Holland, do you really think that you would have got barely any abuse in your Irish national and secondary school?

If so, post the name of the schools, as the places clearly deserve some recognition for their anti bullying policy if you believe that a child with gay parents would suffer minimal hassle at these places.

Again children bully children, claiming that children of gay parents will be bullied worse without any evidence to back you up, instead you spout stuff life "having studied at the university of life" may get you some kudos when you're talking down the pub but doesn't really cut the mustard when talking to people armed with facts.

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean) .

Better than half-caste.

The OP

rsynnott wrote:

mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean)

What's disgusting about it? I thought that was the correct term, no?

Freelancer wrote:

lots of animals exhibt homosexual tendancys

Are you comparing gays to animals? Otherwise, what's the relevance?

Zombrex

The OP wrote:

What's disgusting about it? I thought that was the correct term, no?

Not really, since biologically (the "correct" bit) it is a pretty much meaningless term based on our current understanding of race and genetics. It is working on old (classical as they say) ideas of race that don't really hold any more. It also defines a person based on these out of date definitions.

The OP wrote:

Are you comparing gays to animals? Otherwise, what's the relevance?

Homosexual humans are animals. All humans are animals.

I think his point was the homosexuality occurs naturally in a lot of other animal species, so where anyone got the idea that it is something abnormal to humans, or a mental illness effecting humans that can be cured or fixed, or a life style choice unique to humans, is beyond me.

Do gay horses or mice "choose" the gay life style?

Not that it really matters. If it was only a life style choice who cares. I make a life style choice to have birth control protected sex with a woman who is on the pill. When it comes to sex that is about as biologically natural or normal as landing on the moon. Hell I make a life style choice to recieved oral sex for pleasure (if I've been very good), which is something unique to humans (and dolphins afaik)

There is nothing biologically "normal" about that. Yet I don't see the Christian right screaming that I am preverting natures laws :rolleyes:

The OP

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

Blub2k4

The OP wrote:

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

The human being is a part of the animal kingdom, we are not mineral, we are not vegetable that means that we are animal, or do you have some other classification that you would like to share with us?

Zombrex

The OP wrote:

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

Not to get off topic, but in biology an animal is any organism that falls into the kingdom of Animalia, which includes mammals, which includes Homo Sapiens. This is true in all versions of the kingdom system.

There is not a seperate kingdom only for Homo Sapiens. And obviously we don't fall into Protista, Fungi or Plantae. We are simply very advanced animals. Biologically we are not that special compared to any other advance mammal.

In plan English "animal" does sometimes mean not human, but I doubt that was the context that was being used here.