Gay marriage thread

[amateur51]

I must say, scottycelt, I admire the fact that you are prepared to stand up for your beliefs on this forum, despite the vicious invective that is spewed your way. It seems to me that many who complain about prejudice and intolerance would do well to look in the mirror once in a while.

Anything good on Sky Arts today, Mr Pee?

[amateur51]

Never a truer word said. In my life, I've found left-field people are anti-democratic and extremely intolerant. Such bullies too.

What a sad life, then Beefy. You must feel beleagured.

[Sydney Grew]

I will believe in the permanency of "homo-sexualistic wedlock" only when his Majesty the King is permitted - and indeed encouraged - to utter the words "My husband and I."

[Resurrection Man]

What a sad life, then Beefy. You must feel beleagured.

And the above post nicely proved Beef Oven's point quite succinctly....

[amateur51]

You know what I mean.

Edit: Actually, you probably don't. Re-read my post and you'll see it's got nothing to do with same-sex parents.

I never expect you to adddress the topic in hand Beefy, so you're ok. But I think that Julien Sorrel has caught the gist of your argument' (pace scotty )

[amateur51]

And the above post nicely proved Beef Oven's point quite succinctly....

Oh here he comes, the biggest bully on the board

[Julien Sorel]

You also appear to want me to say that children are automatically 'at risk' from homosexual couples. I never suggested such a thing, and never would, though by the simple law of averages some well might be at risk.

I don't want you to say anything. I'm not trying to trap you; I'm trying to find out what you think. Similarly you say you are

trying to keep religion and any talk of 'sin' out of this

but if religion and sin (or 'sin' - again, why?) are a reason for your being opposed to same sex adoption why are you reluctant to say so?

I don't see why "natural procreation" is significant beyond itself - bringing up a child isn't the same as conceiving a child. Are you saying that same sex couples should never be allowed to adopt children?

And I still think it very odd to consider eating utensils a metaphor for adoptive parenthood. It's more efficient (if you use knives and forks rather than chopsticks, say - I've always been hopeless with chopsticks ) to use a knife and a fork because each has an obvious use. Is the idea that a different sex couple have specific uses or responsibilities in bringing up a child?

Out of curiosity - is it OK for an unmarried different sex couple to adopt?

[amateur51]

To me, your post #121 appears to be as much about your distaste of my mentioning knives and forks in illustrating an appropriate 'pairing' and my use of inverted commas rather than being particularly 'concise, polite and to the point'.

My position is quite simple. Children are brought into this world through heterosexual not homosexual relationships. That is the 'natural' (according to Nature) order of things. It is certainly not Scottycelt's Order it is simply the 'natural' one.

I believe a child's best interests are served by having both a male and female parent present. In my own wider family there exists a single-parent case and another where a husband's sister helped raise the children due to the premature death of his wife, the natural mother. So I'm well aware that the 'ideal' is not always possible, and of course kids can be abandoned at birth by their natural parents, hence adoption into another family is both necessary and thoroughly desirable.

It's just that I believe that having a mother and father is the undeniable 'natural' way of things for any child and therefore any adoption arrangement should reflect that simple reality. This is not just a religious issue, as I know quite a few atheists who might put well share my views on the matter.

I trust that answers your query?

Scotty I understand your concerns and distress but you do have to understand that the world has been changing in this area for forty years and more rapidly so in the last ten years, much to my surprise and delight.

By all means keep up the endless challenge but resign yourself to the fact that the cause is lost.

[MrGongGong]

Never a truer word said. In my life, I've found left-field people are anti-democratic and extremely intolerant. Such bullies too.

Whereas the so called "right-field" folk are supporters of "democracy" in the form of the Royal Family, Bishops and unelected peers in the HOL then ?

And do "left field" people include stJohn of the Dairy ?

come on matey
the whole "left" vs "right" nonsense is so 1980's

[amateur51]

the whole "left" vs "right" nonsense is so 1980's

But beloved on this Board by scotty, Resurrection Man, Simon (of fond memory), Mandy - oh I think I've said enough

[Pabmusic]

...the whole "left" vs "right" nonsense is so 1980's

I'm ambidextrous.

[scottycelt]

I don't want you to say anything. I'm not trying to trap you; I'm trying to find out what you think.

Isn't my thinking already clear enough for you?

... but if religion and sin (or 'sin' - again, why?) are a reason for your being opposed to same sex adoption why are you reluctant to say so?

'Sin' because I'm directly quoting you!. I've already explained why it is pointless referring to 'sin' or sin, if you prefer. It serves no purpose for the sake of this debate. I am not a lay preacher and, in any case, we may have quite enough frustrated Bible-Bangers on this forum already ..

I am, however, opposed to same-sex adoption for the reasons outlined. I have now said it again in the clearest way possible. Hopefully, there will be no further confusion.

And I still think it very odd to consider eating utensils a metaphor for adoptive parenthood. It's more efficient (if you use knives and forks rather than chopsticks, say - I've always been hopeless with chopsticks ) to use a knife and a fork because each has an obvious use. Is the idea that a different sex couple have specific uses or responsibilities in bringing up a child?

Yes, I can see you are having a little bit of a struggle over my logic analogy. I would have thought that each person forming a heterosexual union has specific 'uses or responsibilities' as they are of a different gender and generally more naturally (sorry!) accomplished at different things and, somewhat crucially, they can only produce children in such a relationship.

That's a good enough reason for forming the union, I would have thought, just like the knife and fork have separate roles but together tend to produce a rather more user-friendly eating experience?

Out of curiosity - is it OK for an unmarried different sex couple to adopt?

Not as far as I'm concerned. That should only be offered to those who have officially committed to a lifelong union.

OK?

[Ferretfancy]

I've always enjoyed the old Irish joke ( with asterisks! )
"Paddy! Have you heard ? Saun's a homosexual !
" Well there's a thing! I've been ******* him for years, and thought he was an electrician ! " (I'll get me coat )

[Julien Sorel]

You keep putting words in single quotes; had you written "sin" then I'd have recognised it as a quotation.

"I would have thought that each person forming a heterosexual union has specific 'uses or responsibilities' as they are of a different gender and generally more naturally (sorry!) accomplished at different things and, somewhat crucially, they can only produce children in such a relationship."

But we're talking about adoption, so what has biological reproduction to do with it? By the rest of your explanation do you mean Mummy can teach cooking and washing and ironing and Daddy football and commuting to work?

I'd agree that different sex couples should have the right to enter into a civil partnership. But would I be correct in deducing you think different sex couples shouldn't "produce children" if they are unmarried? Or shouldn't deliberately do so? Or shouldn't be having sex in the first place?

Ferretfancy

[amateur51]

Not as far as I'm concerned. That should only be offered to those who have officially committed to a lifelong union.

OK?

Oh that auld con?!

Why should the commitment of two women, for example, be any less valid than that of a man and a woman?

According to official data Office of National Statistics):

• 34% of marriages are expected to end in divorce by the 20th wedding anniversary
• The number of divorces in 2011 was highest among men and women aged 40 to 44
• The average marriage is expected to last for 32 years

Anyone for a life-long union?