Gay marriage thread

[scottycelt]

The point is that there is evidence to show that he is, factually, wrong.

For that reason I do not think

Sorry, jean, that's just the way your post turned out in the 'bubble' ...

The claimed 'evidence' that one is wrong surely does not preclude that person from having an opinion to the contrary, however badly phrased?

Only a few years ago if anyone had suggested that, in the huge majority of cases, the natural mother and father were the 'best' people to raise their own child no one would have batted the proverbial eyelid.

So exactly what has changed in the interim to change the natural order of things ... ?

[jean]

The claimed 'evidence' that one is wrong surely does not preclude that person from having an opinion to the contrary, however badly phrased?

It's not the phrasing of the opinion that I'm questioning, but the fact that in holding it he discounts the evidence that exists that gay people can be good parents - or 'claimed evidence' as you put it, presumably because you don't consider it proper evidence at all?

Only a few years ago if anyone had suggested that, in the huge majority of cases, the natural mother and father were the 'best' people to raise their own child no one would have batted the proverbial eyelid.

Nor would they now.

But when children are adopted, they are by definition not the children of the huge majority of natural parents.

Their parents have failed in some way, and the children need someone else to parent them. And there is plenty of evidence that gay people have done it very well, just as well as the straight couples who've taken on that role.

(The idiot is now claiming to have said merely that gay people can't procreate, though even that is only partly true.)

[Ferretfancy]

Thank you jean, you have put the rational argument very well.

[Barbirollians]

Sorry, jean, that's just the way your post turned out in the 'bubble' ...

The claimed 'evidence' that one is wrong surely does not preclude that person from having an opinion to the contrary, however badly phrased?

Only a few years ago if anyone had suggested that, in the huge majority of cases, the natural mother and father were the 'best' people to raise their own child no one would have batted the proverbial eyelid.



So exactly what has changed in the interim to change the natural order of things ... ?

Your postings on the other hand suggest you are a bigot - namely a person whose personal prejudices blind them to the evidence - you describe the evidence as " claimed " where is there any evidence that gay parents cannot provide a warm and secure environment for children ? There isn't any - he is plainly a bigot .

If he had said my religious beliefs lead me to think that it is wrong - that is one thing a question of a statement of his personal mores which he is perfectly entitled to make and hold - to state that gay parents cannot provide a warm and secure environment for children is using an expression of prejudice to justify his personal beliefs - a characteristic which you appear to share .

[scottycelt]

It's not the phrasing of the opinion that I'm questioning, but the fact that in holding it he discounts the evidence that exists that gay people can be good parents - or 'claimed evidence' as you put it, presumably because you don't consider it proper evidence at all?


Nor would they now.

But when children are adopted, they are by definition not the children of the huge majority of natural parents.

Their parents have failed in some way, and the children need someone else to parent them. And there is plenty of evidence that gay people have done it very well, just as well as the straight couples who've taken on that role.

(The idiot is now claiming to have said merely that gay people can't procreate, though even that is only partly true.)

' Nor would they now' ...

So you concede that, in the vast majority of cases, the natural heterosexual parents (mother and father) are the 'best' people to raise their children? In the case of adoption a suitable heterosexual couple are therefore surely the closest to that ideal and so therefore preferable to a homosexual couple? Inevitably, a child is going to ask where he/she came from and, at least, the heterosexual model is the more consistent with the natural reality of a mother and father, even as substitutes?

Your use of the word 'idiot' is unfortunate. This is the sort of unnecessary abuse that I referred to earlier, and I'm genuinely surprised that you have now resorted to such 'unparliamentary language'.

I do not find it at all 'idiotic' to suggest that two gay people alone (which was always the intended meaning) cannot procreate.

Up until now at least I have always considered the scientific and anecdotal 'evidence' somewhat overwhelming.

[Julien Sorel]

Inevitably, a child is going to ask where he/she came from

Is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Ve...0958871&sr=1-1 what you have in mind?

[scottycelt]

Is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Ve...0958871&sr=1-1 what you have in mind?

Well, I kind of remember I had a Mummy 'n' Daddy (in living memory) but if you have any sort of 'evidence' to the contrary do please let me know ...

[amateur51]

' Nor would they now' ...

So you concede that, in the vast majority of cases, the natural heterosexual parents (mother and father) are the 'best' people to raise their children? In the case of adoption a suitable heterosexual couple are therefore surely the closest to that ideal and so therefore preferable to a homosexual couple? Inevitably, a child is going to ask where he/she came from and, at least, the heterosexual model is the more consistent with the natural reality of a mother and father, even as substitutes?

Your use of the word 'idiot' is unfortunate. This is the sort of unnecessary abuse that I referred to earlier, and I'm genuinely surprised that you have now resorted to such 'unparliamentary language'.

I do not find it at all 'idiotic' to suggest that two gay people alone (which was always the intended meaning) cannot procreate.

Up until now at least I have always considered the scientific and anecdotal 'evidence' somewhat overwhelming.

I love the way that scotty objects to the use of certain terms and then refers to opther people's views as 'hysterical'.

Mote and eye, scotty, mote & eye

[Barbirollians]

' Nor would they now' ...

So you concede that, in the vast majority of cases, the natural heterosexual parents (mother and father) are the 'best' people to raise their children? In the case of adoption a suitable heterosexual couple are therefore surely the closest to that ideal and so therefore preferable to a homosexual couple? Inevitably, a child is going to ask where he/she came from and, at least, the heterosexual model is the more consistent with the natural reality of a mother and father, even as substitutes?



Your use of the word 'idiot' is unfortunate. This is the sort of unnecessary abuse that I referred to earlier, and I'm genuinely surprised that you have now resorted to such 'unparliamentary language'.


I do not find it at all 'idiotic' to suggest that two gay people alone (which was always the intended meaning) cannot procreate.

Up until now at least I have always considered the scientific and anecdotal 'evidence' somewhat overwhelming.

You really are out of the Ark Scottycelt ? Do you know any gay people let alone any gay parents ?

I know three children brought up by gay parents - all in very warm and secure environments and it would probably horrify you to hear that the two who have reached adulthood are in heterosexual relationships .

What by the way are unnatural heterosexual parents I wonder ? Unmarried ? adulterous? Not in love anymore ?

Why would a heterosexual couple with good parenting skills be better than a gay couple with the same skills ? The only possible albeit misconceived reason is that the children might face the prejudice of bigots .

[amateur51]

Tell me scotty. Who do you believe would be best placed to bring up a well-balanced young lesbian or gay man? A heterosexual couple or a lesbian or gay couple? Or any couple who could show them love, acceptance and offer them sound parenting?

[amateur51]

You really are out of the Ark Scottycelt ? Do you know any gay people let alone any gay parents ?

I know three children brought up by gay parents - all in very warm and secure environments and it would probably horrify you to hear that the two who have reached adulthood are in heterosexual relationships .

What by the way are unnatural heterosexual parents I wonder ? Unmarried ? adulterous? Not in love anymore ?

Why would a heterosexual couple with good parenting skills be better than a gay couple with the same skills ? The only possible albeit misconceived reason is that the children might face the prejudice of bigots .

- I cross-posted - thanks for this Barbi!

[Julien Sorel]

Well, I kind of remember I had a Mummy 'n' Daddy (in living memory) but if you have any sort of 'evidence' to the contrary do please let me know ...

I believe you . But I don't understand why you think a same sex couple can't explain reproductive biology to a child as satisfactorily as a mixed sex couple. Explaining the virginal conception might be more of a problem, but again I can't see that any type of couple has an explicatory advantage over any other.

Surely the main thing is that an adopted child's parents love and care for them?

[MrGongGong]

Come on Scotty
just give it up
you know your church is wrong on this
and it really isn't such a big deal
so just stop fretting about it
no one is going to make you into a homosexual
and the daft cardinal isn't going to be pope
so open another bottle of Bucky and enjoy the evening

[scottycelt]

Tell me scotty. Who do you believe would be best placed to bring up a well-balanced young lesbian or gay man? A heterosexual couple or a lesbian or gay couple? Or any couple who could show them love, acceptance and offer them sound parenting?

In the huge majority of cases, the natural heterosexual parents of the 'well-balanced young lesbian or gay man', amsey ... it is their child after all, what business is it of yours or mine to pontificate on 'sound parenting', whatever the sexuality of the child?

Heterosexual parents are the natural order of things, I'm afraid ... don't blame me, take it up with the God Creation/God Evolution (delete as preferred).

[amateur51]

In the huge majority of cases, the natural heterosexual parents of the 'well-balanced young lesbian and gay man', amsey ... it is their child after all, what business is it of yours or mine to pontificate on 'sound parenting', whatever the sexuality of the child?

Heterosexual parents are the natural order of things, I'm afraid ... don't blame me, take it up with the God Creation/God Evolution (delete as preferred).

I'll grant you your use of the word 'pontificate' in the Cathoilc sense, scotty but what an arrogant thing to say. I was brought up by one bigot and a fairly reasonable father and I wish I had been in a more supportive educated environment.

You really don't know much about people, do you scotty. When in doubt fly to 'natural'. Are you saying that lesbians and g\ay men are not nautral? After all, by your lights, the same God created them as created you and she created them in her image, I understand. Which surely means that God is a lickle bit (at least) lesbian and a lickle bit (at least) gay. Just humouring you, y'understand

The number of married and bisexual men who use gay dating/chatlines scotty - you'd be amazed!