Gays want to take over the rest of Society?

LeixlipRed

woodoo wrote: »

Its hardly off the wall to consider man woman and child as the ideal family unit. We have thousands of years of human history to go by. Its that where we have come to... where to hold that view i'm an outdated biggot :rolleyes:

The human race is a million years old first of all. Second of all do you even know when the man/woman/child formulation became prevalent? Only after the industrial revolution really, it's a creation of the system. The most effective child producing machine. That's 250/300 years. Out of a million. You can do the math.

senordingdong

What a cabbage.

Maybe the editor only works Mon - Fri?

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Now, if you want to elaborate on your views, then go ahead. Otherwise, why are you still here if you have nothing more to add?

Maybe you should take a look back at the OP. I don't recall this thread being solely about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage and adoption. I'm free to post here if i like. You don't decide that. And i will continue to do so as i please.

I will add that if we are asked to vote in a referendum on the issues of gay marriage or adoption i shall be voting NO. I dare say many more will do the same.

donfers

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Sorry, all i took from that is that you feel people should be able to read something and disagree with it without posting about it...but you yourself post about what you disagree with.

Kind of hamstrings the argument for me...if you didn't post i'm sure i would agree with you though.

well then you completely missed and misunderstood the point i'm afraid

people can post about what they like and disagree with what they like

it's how they do it and what impact it has that concerns me

and i'd say at times it's over the top and it has very little real-world impact and maybe the two are connected and people feel they can be over-zealous because they know their opinions are of little consequence

but never let it be said i don't recognise the appeal of venting, as your pst hints at, i have been guilty of it myself but ultimately that's all it is, hot air and i hope we all realise that

Squall19

woodoo wrote: »

He doesn't agree with gay marriage or gay adoption and there are alot of people out there that agree with him.

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Newsite

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yes I know what homophobic means. It was a homophobic article because it made negative generalisations about an entire section of the population.

It means 'fear of homosexuals'. You have no evidence to accuse him of such, he is voicing an opinion to which he is entitled.
What about this journalist's right to offer his opinion?

My name is URL

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Yeah.. in a social housing estate with no income to support them! :rolleyes:

4leto

Newsite wrote: »

It means 'fear of homosexuals'. You have no evidence to accuse him of such, he is voicing an opinion to which he is entitled.
What about this journalist's right to offer his opinion?

What about our right to criticise a journalists opinion.

Spunge

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Why is it sick ?

Delirium

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Do you also hold the same contempt for parents who use IVF?

Newsite

4leto wrote: »

What about our right to criticise a journalists opinion.

You have that right, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post on this thread, such as thread wouldn't exist probably. But people have been advocating that this article shouldn't have been allowed to have been printed!

pragmatic1

Newsite wrote: »

It means 'fear of homosexuals'. You have no evidence to accuse him of such, he is voicing an opinion to which he is entitled.
What about this journalist's right to offer his opinion?

Yes thats the literal interpretation. But when people use the term thats not whats meant, is it. Can you show me where in any of my previous comments I said that the journalist wasnt free to express himself. If you do, give me your address and I'll fcukin mail you a tenner.

woodoo

koth wrote: »

Do you also hold the same contempt for parents who use IVF?

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo. They have the male and female influence growing up. They see that family unit as the norm and hopefully will go on to raise their kids in the same type of family unit. Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

4leto

Newsite wrote: »

You have that right, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post on this thread, such as thread wouldn't exist probably. But people have been advocating that this article shouldn't have been allowed to have been printed!

I do find the article objectional, but I would never have agreed to that, he has a right to express his opinion and I am glad I live in a country that allows that.

But it is not a particularly good article, so on those grounds if I was the editor with standards (but it is the sindo) I would not have published the article.

donfers

Dudess wrote: »

It's utterly retarded to say people support gay rights in order to be fashionable/liberal. Yet even some intelligent people still say it.
And I love the reverse PC brigade who defend a person's right to post unsubstantiated drivel. Maybe if they bothered to support a word they say they wouldn't be jumped on. But oh no... it's "liberal" bullying... ****ing joke.

I can't find any reference to anybody saying "people support gay rights to be liberal/fashionable" so not sure who you are venting against

i agree wholeheartedly with your post just before this one which took issue with the article not so much because of the opinion it expressed but how it expressed it and the you acknowledged that both sides can be ott, radicals radicalise their own group and the opposition - again completely correct, a fair comment

however then this post which i think is ott

comments like "utterly retarded", "unsubstantiated drivel", "****ing joke" and on top of that the wholly speculative assumption that the reverse pc brigade don't support a word they say, i'm not sure that kind of language is necessary or helpful and it slighly contradicts the earlier point that tone is key and we should be mindful of it

it also perhaps points to the groupthink element that fuels radicals on either side i.e. people feel more free to adopt a more aggressive tone if they see others in their proximity (Virtual or otherwise) who share their view

usually in my opinion you are quite reasonable and open-minded so do you agree with me?

Spunge

woodoo wrote: »

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo. They have the male and female influence growing up. They see that family unit as the norm and hopefully will go on to raise their kids in the same type of family unit. Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

Good old Christian family values

Delirium

woodoo wrote: »

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo. They have the male and female influence growing up. They see that family unit as the norm and hopefully will go on to raise their kids in the same type of family unit. Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

but they didn't conceive the child the "proper" way. And you're also presuming things there. Gay or lesbian couples can use IVF with the help of a sperm/egg donor to conceive a child. And the child would then be raised by a gay/lesbian couple.

The norm is a very subjective thing btw. If you grow up in an area of high poverty, it is highly likely that the family unit that is seen as the "norm" is a single mother raising the kids by herself.

Sonics2k

woodoo wrote: »

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo. They have the male and female influence growing up. They see that family unit as the norm and hopefully will go on to raise their kids in the same type of family unit. Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

What about couples that use sperm donation? Or have to have another woman carry the child because the "mother" is unable to.

BBDBB

woodoo wrote: »

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo. They have the male and female influence growing up. They see that family unit as the norm and hopefully will go on to raise their kids in the same type of family unit. Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

I think you need to take a long hard look at that figure you just plucked out of the air to give your view some credibility

Logical Fallacy

donfers wrote: »

well then you completely missed and misunderstood the point i'm afraid

Okay.

seems like the most intelligent thing to do would be to ignore it and not dignify it with a response

MrStuffins

woodoo wrote: »

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo.

Should eh? Still don't want to tell us WHY you feel they should?

You seem to want to air your opinions but don't want people to know the reasons for these opinions.

I'll ask again, do you hold these opinions through actual critical thinking? I suspect that you do not. I suspect that you are a vehicle for generic opinions and listen to anything just because it's "normal".

"99.9% of the world says this, I must say it too to seem normal. No thinking for me".

Elaborate, go on. Give yourself some credibility. Because right now it seems to me that you are just a sheep who believes anything you are told and regurgitates whatever it is you think you should be seen as saying!

woodoo wrote: »

Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

Not even 99.9% of my street has a family unit with a man, woman and child. You're talking nonsense. Again, just talking for the sake of it without thinking!

woodoo

BBDBB wrote: »

I think you need to take a long hard look at that figure you just plucked out of the air to give your view some credibility

Single parents would change that figure no doubt. Its still man and women creating a child. Not man and man or woman and woman.

But two gay parents wouldn't dent that figure much.

MrStuffins

woodoo wrote: »

Single parents would change that figure no doubt. Its still man and women creating a child. Not man and man or woman and woman.

But two gay parents wouldn't dent that figure much.

Hold on............ do you think that when 2 gay people adopt a child that somehow this child hasn't been created by a man and a woman?

You know the adopted child would have been conceived in the normal way right? :rolleyes:

saywhatyousee

Sonics2k wrote: »

What about couples that use sperm donation?

Cheaters!!!!

Newsite

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yes thats the literal interpretation. But when people use the term thats not whats meant, is it. Can you show me where in any of my previous comments I said that the journalist wasnt free to express himself. If you do, give me your address and I'll fcukin mail you a tenner.

I never said you did and I don't want your money. I'm asking a question.

The man is voicing an opinion which is doubtless held by a large % of the population. But you don't hear about it so often because people have become too afraid to speak out, lest they be seen as being 'un-PC'.

Super-Rush

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Take your hatred elsewhere.

Do not post in this thread again.

BBDBB

woodoo wrote: »

The natural parents are still raising the kid in that case. They have a male parent and a female parent as it should be imo. They have the male and female influence growing up. They see that family unit as the norm and hopefully will go on to raise their kids in the same type of family unit. Much the same as 99.9% of the planet.

woodoo wrote: »

Single parents would change that figure no doubt. Its still man and women creating a child. Not man and man or woman and woman.

But two gay parents wouldn't dent that figure much.

so the figure is innaccurate, Im glad you see that.

single parents - yes
foster parents?
adoptive parents?
kids in care homes?
kids on the street?
kids who are orphaned?
take a long hard look around the planet at the poverty and the kids in need of care, any kind of care, just someone who gives a damn if they live or die today and take your view of what constitutes "the norm" and ask if those kids wouldnt be better off with someone who loves them and takes care of them regardless of their sexual preference.

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Should eh? Still don't want to tell us WHY you feel they should?

You seem to want to air your opinions but don't want people to know the reasons for these opinions.

I'll ask again, do you hold these opinions through actual critical thinking? I suspect that you do not. I suspect that you are a vehicle for generic opinions and listen to anything just because it's "normal".

"99.9% of the world says this, I must say it too to seem normal. No thinking for me".

Elaborate, go on. Give yourself some credibility. Because right now it seems to me that you are just a sheep who believes anything you are told and regurgitates whatever it is you think you should be seen as saying!




Not even 99.9% of my street has a family unit with a man, woman and child. You're talking nonsense. Again, just talking for the sake of it without thinking!

I'm talking about the ideal family unit. A blueprint that has worked down the years. Man and women create child, rare that child. Male parental influence and female parental influence. Minimal outside influence or help from sperm doners and what not. Less chance of being bullied. Other families may work practically but they are not what i'd call ideal.

If you don't believe children with gay parents wouldn't get bullied you would be wrong. I've had to correct my son from homophobic remarks he picked up at school. He is 12 and is repulsed by homosexuals and his friends are too. I remember the same at school. You can't wish that away. The world is not as you wish it to be.

I don't ever see a time where gay marriage and adoption are accepted around the world.

donfers

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Okay.


"seems like the most intelligent thing to do would be to ignore it and not dignify it with a response "

err...............taking one half-sentence out a post does not necessarily equate to illustrating the point of it, however we are in danger of getting into a pedantic tit for tat here

you think my post was a giant contradiction, that's fair enough, I understand why some would see elements of hypocrasy there

however I would argue the point of my post was, as I previously stated, that a true liberal should strive always to be more tolerant of others views no matter how bigoted and to register their dissatisfaction in more effective and intelligent ways than writing an angry post on an internet forum

paddyandy

A man can never have maternal qualities that only a Mother has.Any Widower left with young children knows that fact very well.The Brazen arrogance of people to argue the contrary is to spit and insult the wisdom of many generations gone by.Women have a natural style with making a house a home and men can never do that no matter how good as fathers they are.It's something intrinsic in a woman's spirit.I have seen homes become like mausoleums after the Women died but it survives the demise of the man and there is no easy explanation for it.

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hold on............ do you think that when 2 gay people adopt a child that somehow this child hasn't been created by a man and a woman:

Of course they are that is perfectly natural

Logical Fallacy

donfers wrote: »

that a true liberal should strive always to be more tolerant of others views no matter how bigoted and to register their dissatisfaction in more effective and intelligent ways than writing an angry post on an internet forum

I'll agree with you on that.

Chips Lovell

paddyandy wrote: »

A man can never have maternal qualities that only a Mother has.Any Widower left with young children knows that fact very well.The Brazen arrogance of people to argue the contrary is to spit and insult the wisdom of many generations gone by.Women have a natural style with making a house a home and men can never do that no matter how good as fathers they are.It's something intrinsic in a woman's spirit.I have seen homes become like mausoleums after the Women died but it survives the demise of the man and there is no easy explanation for it.

Too right! We should take widowers' children into care and give them to lesbian couples for adoption.

Gorteenman

I just read the article about an hour ago before logging on or seeing this thread, I was really shocked to read such a negative article in a national newspaper. I have no idea who the journalist is or what his issues are but I have learnt (as a homosexual of a certain age!!) that people who use the phrase "some of my best friends are gay" usually follow it with some vicious attack! What amazed me was his attitude to gay marriage and adoption. I have no wish to adopt a child but if I was a single gay man I could at least apply to do so, as half of a gay couple thats not an option....And as one half of a gay couple I have no interest in civil partnership...if we are not allowed to get married then every other thing offered by civil partnership we can arrange in a solicitors office...Any straight man ever feel moved to get down on one knee to ask someone to become their civil parter?? Not exactly romantic!!! His whole gay press argument simply highlights the diversity of gay life ...or indeed life in general..in my naievity I had hoped those days were over but indeed they are not...wonder if a gay president would have changed that or was ever a real possibility!!!

K-9

Newsite wrote: »

I never said you did and I don't want your money. I'm asking a question.

The man is voicing an opinion which is doubtless held by a large % of the population. But you don't hear about it so often because people have become too afraid to speak out, lest they be seen as being 'un-PC'.

Yet that article got printed in the best selling newspaper in the country, the same one Myers writes for and there are plenty of threads on here dissenting with "liberal" topics.

Personally I think hetrosexual society is too sexualised and free today. Loads of people disagree with that but I don't think they are "pc, liberals" or I think it's an "un-PC" thought.

Logical Fallacy

woodoo wrote: »

Of course they are that is perfectly natural

What makes something unnatural?

pragmatic1

woodoo wrote: »

I'm talking about the ideal family unit. A blueprint that has worked down the years. Man and women create child, rare that child. Male parental influence and female parental influence. Minimal outside influence or help from sperm doners and what not. Less chance of being bullied. Other families may work practically but they are not what i'd call ideal.

If you don't believe children with gay parents wouldn't get bullied you would be wrong. I've had to correct my son from homophobic remarks he picked up at school. He is 12 and is repulsed by homosexuals and his friends are too. I remember the same at school. You can't wish that away. The world is not as you wish it to be.

I don't ever see a time where gay marriage and adoption are accepted around the world.

My nephew is 12. He doesnt have any problems with gay people and certainly never said he was repulsed by a gay person or any other human for that matter. Maybe its the way he was raised.

People didnt see a time when women could vote, when people of different races could marry or when homosexuality could be decriminalised, but the world changes all the time. It was a very different world 20 years ago and it'll be a very different world 20 years from now.

woodoo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

What makes something unnatural?

Not being natural.

MrStuffins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

What makes something unnatural?

Some people don't seem to realise that gay people were created inside nature the same way they were.

But seriously, this guy has put absolutely no thinking into his views and opinions. He just thinks this way because he always has. he has at no point given any reason as to why he believes what he does.

I seriously think there's no point addressing him anymore.

Delirium

paddyandy wrote: »

A man can never have maternal qualities that only a Mother has.Any Widower left with young children knows that fact very well.The Brazen arrogance of people to argue the contrary is to spit and insult the wisdom of many generations gone by.Women have a natural style with making a house a home and men can never do that no matter how good as fathers they are.It's something intrinsic in a woman's spirit.I have seen homes become like mausoleums after the Women died but it survives the demise of the man and there is no easy explanation for it.

As someone who was raised by a widower, I can safely say you're talking out your ass. Nothing more than out-dated gender stereotyping crap.

MrStuffins

woodoo wrote: »

Not being natural.

Amazing!

Logical Fallacy

woodoo wrote: »

Not being natural.

Expand please, i am merely curious and neither trying to change your mind or belittle a point. I'm just having a hard time fully understanding the point you are trying to make between the obvious limitations on the procreational act and the reason for hoisting these limitations on the possibility of the child having a caring home.

I just find it interesting that people would rather see a child homeless through tragedy when the opportunity is there to have them living in a loving and caring environment.

woodoo

pragmatic1 wrote: »

My nephew is 12. He doesnt have any problems with gay people and certainly never said he was repulsed by a gay person or any other human for that matter. Maybe its the way he was raised.

No not the way he is raised. Never a homophobic word has come out of my mouth. And i have never discussed gay marriage and gay adoption with my 12 year old son.

Squall19

My name is URL wrote: »

Yeah.. in a social housing estate with no income to support them! :rolleyes:

Money huh, who cares.

At least its nature

Two loved up guys holding a new born, sorry but that's just wrong.

Poor child, imagine growing up like that:o

Parent teacher day, who's mammy?

Imagine the embarrassment for that poor child.

Gorteenman

woodoo wrote: »

No not the way he is raised. Never a homophobic word has come out of my mouth. And i have never discussed gay marriage and gay adoption with my 12 year old son.

Why not?? Is it such an alien concept?/

Logical Fallacy

Squall19 wrote: »

]Imagine the embarrassment for that poor child.

Indeed, better to have the child in an orphanage or some large and impersonal care home.

MrStuffins

Squall19 wrote: »

Money huh, who cares.

At least its nature

Gay people are nature too you know. Do you think they were created in some lab?

Chips Lovell

Squall19 wrote: »

Money huh, who cares.

At least its nature

Two loved up guys holding a new born, sorry but that's just wrong.

Poor child, imagine growing up like that:o

Parent teacher day, who's mammy?

Imagine the embarrassment for that poor child.

What embarrassment?

MrStuffins

Squall19 wrote: »

Money huh, who cares.

At least its nature

Two loved up guys holding a new born, sorry but that's just wrong.

Poor child, imagine growing up like that:o

Parent teacher day, who's mammy?

Imagine the embarrassment for that poor child.

Also, is that the best argument you've got? Parent teacher day? it's pretty poor!

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Some people don't seem to realise that gay people were created inside nature the same way they were.

But seriously, this guy has put absolutely no thinking into his views and opinions. He just thinks this way because he always has. he has at no point given any reason as to why he believes what he does.

I seriously think there's no point addressing him anymore.

Yeah invalidate anyone who doesn't agree with you. Where have we seen that before. I've given you my reasons. And its not just because things have always been like that. I prefer male and female influence raising a child under the one roof. I'm amazed i have to justify believing in the nuclear family.

You continue on wishing the world was a fairly-tail or even a fair place. Its not.