Stop 'pinkwashing' our nations.

And therein lies the difference between straight and gay families - there is no such thing as an unwanted gay pregnancy, every child is planned, every child is desired. That's not to say same-sex families couldn't be abusive, but I think the likelihood is far, far less.

It's clear that gay people have a role to play in society and in rearing children, people like Jack just can't accept that.

 

I see no reason why the law should have preferences on sexual habits and of course nobody should be persecuted because of them .

Homosexuals in many cases (and in countries where the majority doesn't care) are overreacting, i mean look : i am a member of BDSM community , i have met people with really extreme tastes and i understand that placing advertizements like "SOME PEOPLE LIKE SLAVE BRANDING DEAL WITH IT " is not the way to make our practices normal because as much as they are normal to us they look like abominations to others.
Gays like us or fans of bestiality , fetishists and others are not the majority and there is no way to win the sympathy of the majority in an act that everybody does and believes that his/her way is the best way so better be discrete about it .

 

It should be clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that "homosexuals" are not a monolithic entity. Therefore its impossible for their views to be contradictory; some may be happy to be "left alone" and some may go further and want it to be normalised and widely acknowledged. I don't really see what you're complaining about? Should the gay community "make up its mind" and choose a single, uniform goal for all gay people?

You know, for someone who makes countless lengthy posts on a political forum, you are very uninformed. You seem to love to write but hate to read and that's probably why your posts are such poorly thought-out, poorly-structured garbage.

 

I would not wish them to. It would be nice however if you, on occasion, could debate reasonably, on topic, etc.

That would be lovely.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep up man - the lead story yesterday was a BIGOTED PUB MACHINE. Oooooooooooooh the persecution.

 

Spot on.

All of it.



- - - Updated - - -

Well it's not the 'norm', but I see no harm in that, esp if circumstances dictated it.

 

Fella, I have heard this flawed argument before.

Why is it flawed? Because it always begins from this fake comparison between an imaginary homosexual couple who are GREAT people v an imaginary hetrosexual who are "violent and abusive".

On this issue, you will find many very middle of the road members on here agree with me.

One has a name that rhymes with Spoon.

The other has a name that rhymes with Shout.

I know for a fact both 100% agree with me on this matter here. I have read them say so.

- - - Updated - - -

That's bigotry.

It's okay though, I won't run out and protest.

 

Common sense type post.

 

But it isn't 'natural' Jack, and isn't it the 'unnaturalness' of a non-traditional, male/female situation which you're so insensed over? Or do you just want to single-out gays and lesbians bringing up children as unnatural?
Circumstances, for some gay and lesbian couples, dictate to them through their desire to raise a child, and their biological inability to give birth 'traditionally', that they will seek-out a child to adopt.
What's best; for a child to spend the rest of it's life, until it reaches the age of majority, going from institution to institution, never knowing what a home is, or living with two loving and caring same-sex parents?

 

Why is the argument flawed? Would you like some statistics of child abuse and the numbers of orphans in institutions, because the 'traditional' home failed them? Two people agree with you? Impressive stats, Jack.

 

I am assuming your daughter was the product of a marriage or what not.

I am assuming that circumstances led you to being on your own with her.

This is not 'unnatural'. That is circumstance, and you did your duty.

Period.

 

http://www.baaf.org.uk/res/statengland

 

Because, as I said, it begins in a loaded manner.

A more fair comparison would be to ask...

If you were a child, would you rather have a mother and father or two 'dads'?

Without painting either as good or bad people, which loads the question. And if you were being honest, you would sooner have a mother and father. As would anyone.

 

Did you seriously just compare sexual orientation to sexual fetishes?

 

Frankly I couldn't care less. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

Many young children are far too immature to be able to make an informed, educated opinion as to what is in their best interests. What a child needs is loving, caring and nurturing. Whether this comes from heterosexual or same-sex homes is immaterial.

 

I don't particularly freaking care.

 

Well, if you couldn't care less, why dog the thread man?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you a child?

 

I was responding to a hypothetical question that you yourself posited.

 

Okay. You don't care. Fine. The fact is, if given a choice, every child would rather have a mother and father.

And no, I don't have a 'link'.

 

BDSM is a fetish ?
The fact that some people like dead chicks is a fetish ?

come on....

 

Well perhaps you should, before making an unsubstantiated assertion. That way we'd be sure you didn't just make it up.

 

They don't breed, so the only way to increase their numbers is by recruiting...hence the billboards and adverts.

 

Yes, it involves fetishisation.

 

Ask a one year-old infant what he'd rather have. Can you guess what he'll say-if he can even form a coherent sentence?

 

I think you don't know what you are talking about but as i posted earlier we have to be discrete so i will leave the explanations out .

 

The OP seems to boil down to "Gays are OK, as long as they are quiet about it and don't make me feel uncomfortable". What an "understanding" viewpoint!