Monday, August 24, 2009

"Can a man milk his new born son milk from his tit? No he can not."

Like Oscar Wilde said, the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.


Should gay couples be able to adopt?

adam (Kingsland): My initial gut feeling to this question is no. But then I see so many couples having children that I think should never have been aloud to bread that I soften my views. I guess it comes down to whats in a their hearts as to wheather or not a couple make good parents.

I think the fears of many that it will bread a generation of gay people is unfounded. If that were the case then a straight couple would never have thrown a gay child in the first place.
Perhaps we need more controls on whom we alou to bread. People are throwing children all over the place.
Dagoth Pie (New Plymouth): Ok, so I'm a Christian, and I find it disgusting that people can insult Christians, call us bigoted, play on stereotypes, and try to use the views of a portion of the populace as an excuse, bluntly, yes, the bible is against homosexuality, in fact, if anything is pro being asexual, I'm probably only just old enough to say thats about the easiest way to go.
If it's good enough for single-cell organisms, it's good enough for us. But if you really think that binary fission is easier than sex, you're doing it wrong.
Fatboy (Fairdown): Why on earth do Gays want to be dragged down with the responsibilities, experiences and expences of child care? Kids aren't useless little dogs with inane names that will fit into your hand bags but costly, time consuming little ratbags that will be a drain on soul, spirit and the bank balance. And then come the teenaged years.

Perhaps some sort of weekend swap program can be started where Gays can "adopt" a child for weekends from hetreosexual couples so they can have a period of realising what a pain in the arse kids will be. The hetros will be also released albeit briefly to live it up on more ready cash, finer food, travel, fancier clothes, hedonistic orgies and eclectic nightschool courses.
Fatboy seems to be slightly confused, basing his view of "Gays" on notorious lesbian Paris Hilton. "Eclectic nightschool courses"? Methinks Fatboy doth protest too much.

Jake (Howick): Does the child want to grow up in such family? Ever thought of the kid when he goes to school, friends would make comments about "mum and dad". its hard for some adults to accept the homosexual concept but they know how to keep their mouth shout even if they find it hard to accept but Kids wouldn't know what to say and what not to, they'll just say it out and it would truly hurt the childs feeling.

The child may become isolated at school leading to an abnormal childhood. I'm not saying it would definitely happen, but you know kids eg if your surname is woodcock or dick, they would mock you.

Good thinking. Ban parents with hilarious last names from having children immediately.

TomG (Canada): I say "No" purely because it would be impossible for gay people to have a child in nature so maybe it is not intended to be. This not a malicious statement as many will no doubt try to make it - I just think if nature didn't intend it then maybe we shouldn't be doing it?

But don't worry - Nature definitely intended you to sit around pounding inane rubbish on a keyboard and submitting it to an online forum from halfway around the world.
Billy (Singapore): So called gay couples should stick to poodles.
No kid should be suffer the indignity of being brought up by homosexuals.
Would you let your son sleep over at a friends place who has 2 dads?
If their parents were gay they wouldnt be here!
Why encourage these freaks.

Now I will be called homophobic! And proud of it.
Classy. This is what happens when a newspaper fires all the people who moderate online content. Nice hate speech, Herald! You should be proud.
james (Victoria) [...] This is not an equality issue, its an issue of whats best for the kid. A gay relationship is NOT a natural family unit. A gay relationship is NOT the equivalent of a hetro relationship and therefore NOT deserving of the same recognition.

How can we say the relationship types are equal when one is vitally important to human survival and the other is not. Thats biological fact, not bigotry.
The biggest obstacle to worldwide human survival at the moment, of course, being a shortage of babies.

Andrew (Te Atatu South): No way. I am not against gay and lesbian people, but I am very very staunch when it comes to parenting - which should be MAN and WOMAN. Who am I to judge? But if it was my decision, I would not let homosexual couples adopt and bring up children. Children need a strong father figure in their life, aswell as a supporting mother.

I love this guy. When most people say, "Who am I to judge?", they tend to mean that they should not judge other people's actions and situation because they don't know enough about it, or because it would be hypocritical - "Judge not lest ye be judged", "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Andrew, however, simply seems to mean that he is not in an executive or judicial role with oversight of this particular area.

Logan (Auckland): Why do homosexuals always accuse others of discrimination, intolerance and hatred just because people have different views? Why is there such a great need for acceptance and affirmation by the wider community if they are truly comfortable with their own morality.

[...] Homosexual relationships are a lifestyle choice between 2 (maybe more) consenting adults, however unnatural and perverse that may be.

[...] Children should NOT be used by adults to fulfill their fantasy whether it is of a sexual nature or otherwise.

Poor Logan. He's sick of the constant slurs being thrown his way. Perhaps he should go and adopt a child to take his mind off things. Anyway, I hear that some homosexual couples contain up to seven adults who can't reach sexual fulfillment without adopting a baby.

Relaxed in Taurang (Greerton): No, they shouldn't. Aside from the religious views, the rights and the wrongs that go with this debate, I believe that a child needs a father and a mother as role models. Dads and mums fill different needs in a child's life and having two parents of the same sex is not going to help a child. Call me old fashioned.

Okay. You're old-fashioned.
Karen (Sunnynook): Perhaps my experience is limited in only having known 6 gay guys in my life and maybe the same number of lesbians, but I think that until we know more about the physiology and resultant psychology of homosexuals then with our most vulnerable, namely orphaned children, we should err on the side of caution.

I remember seeing a documentary on a homosexual scientist who studied the brains of known homosexuals using MRI scans and on post mortem and he was able to show demonstrable differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual individuals.
I've heard rumours that gay people have three kidneys! More to the point, surely we can't trust the research findings of a gay scientist until we know more about the physiology and resultant psychology of homosexuals.

------------------------------

I'm sweating and my breathing is irregular, and I'm only a quarter of the way through. Feel free to do your own research and post it.*

*Unless you're homosexual and we don't have enough information on your physiology and resultant psychology.

64 comments:

  1. I'm damn sick of this bigoted mockery. Adam from Kingsland is clearly of the Italian persuasion (I can tell from his fine use of "it comes down to whats in a their hearts") and as such his idiosyncracies in English grammar and spelling should be gently overlooked, not mocked on a scurrilous website such as this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm just glad Adam from Kingsland has stated once and for all that those niggling fears I have always had about 'bread' and 'generations of gay people' is 'unfounded'.

    I was terrified.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You could turn this into an awesome drinking game. Every time a Your Views poster says:

    "Ok, so I'm a Christian..."

    Drink.

    "This not a malicious statement"

    Drinking more.

    "Who am I to judge?"

    Two shots.

    "Call me old fashioned"

    Drink.

    "Perhaps my experience is limited"

    Five shots.

    "I am not against gay and lesbian people, but.."

    Drink all the alcohol in the office/your house/Wellington while banging your head against you desk/fridge/the bar.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "has anyone tried securing two pieces of wood/metal together with two bolts or two nuts? or just a bolt, or a nut?

    Isn't it much more secured with a bolt and a nut?"

    Of course! It all makes sense now!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You really should count up the times the line "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" was busted out. So many people chucking out their divine inspiration gleened from the pulpit.

    Also "New Zealand is a nation based on Christian principles". Damn, you're really going to get mind screwed if your friendly local homo is atheist too.

    How did New Zealand come to this? I thought we were better than Texas...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I, for one, am wildly in favour of homosexual couples adopting kids. Close your eyes and picture a typical pair of gays or lesibians that are keen on adopting a baby. These people, men or women, are most likley highly educated, financially secure, and have made a consious decision that they want to start a family with their loved one. Compare that to the 'family' that is adopting the child out- in my mind, I'm seeing a teenage mother that got knocked up by some older guy she hasn't seen since the night, and didn't tell her parents until it was too late to do anything else but have the child. Which is a better situation for a child to grow up in?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'most likely well educated'

    'financially secure'

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This may be defeatist, but the debate is practically pointless in reality. More scare-mongering from Your Views.

    In New Zealand even being a high-income, high-education, heterosexual Christian couple is no guarantee that you will ever get to adopt one of the extremely small number of children put up for adoption each year.

    Single people may adopt, apparently, but I am under the understanding that this has happened precisely once, ever. While I am all for adjusting the law to make it equitable for homosexual couples, perhaps the voices of hysteria on Your Views would be muted by the understanding that rather than susceptible orphans being snapped up left and centre by Adam and Steve, for all practical purposes, gay adoption in New Zealand is likely to occur only under the most extraordinary of circumstances, and probably in the context of a family-related adoption, where it quite possibly already takes place without formal recognition.

    Also of interest: male lactation can indeed be achieved, purely through dedicated stimulation of the nipples.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My computer stopped letting me read the thread after a while, saving me from more pain.
    Some of the 'gems':

    Man in Hat “when I come across the results of a road accident I am naturally revolted by what I see, in the same way I am naturally revolted by what they do. It isn't a phobia, it's just a natural reaction.”

    WelshJerry "Just suppose Richie McCaw and Dan Carter got together - how many kiwis would still object to them adopting?"

    Snuggles "The only type of homosexual that I truly can't stand is the kind that is not content to just play the woman, but has to play mummy as well."

    PC refugee “Bear in mind, before long the defective gene will be found and a cure made available, so the question will be irrelevant."

    janak1 "If my wife and I were going overseas for a month, would I leave my kids in the care of a gay couple? Probably not."
    And
    Jolza37 "This country seriously needs Jesus"

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, and this is a feeling that I have always cultivated."

    Oscar Wilde would have looovvvved Your Views

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'most likely well educated'

    'financially secure'

    WTF?

    Zero marks for comprehension. I wasn't painting them as the typical gay couple, but as the typical gay couple that was pursuing an adoption. I cant imagine a un-educated, financially insecure couple of LBGTs (or heteros for that matter) realistically pursuing an adoption. Or am I barking up the wrong bush here?

    While I'm here though, I was surprised Fatboy didn't get any love for his obviously tongue in cheek comment. Or maybe I just liked that he used the term 'gays' after last weeks brouhaha on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Boganette! Let's play "Anti-gay Bingo"!

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizhenry/3184751461/in/set-72157612897466679/

    ReplyDelete
  13. WelshJerry "Just suppose Richie McCaw and Dan Carter got together - how many kiwis would still object to them adopting?"

    I'm just disappointed they can't conceive a child naturally. Imagine the rugby GOD their genes could produce!


    Jolza37 "This country seriously needs Jesus"

    Jesus? Or The Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fatboy got love from Karlos of Kaiapoi
    "Haha! It's funny because it's true!"

    ReplyDelete
  15. And drink for any use of the terms PC or nanny state

    ReplyDelete
  16. "has anyone tried securing two pieces of wood/metal together with two bolts or two nuts? or just a bolt, or a nut?

    Isn't it much more secured with a bolt and a nut?"

    Maybe all you need is one good, rigid, 12-inch nail. Hammered in real hard.

    Or a pair of dovetail joints, real tight so they rub right up against each other. Then you just put a little paste on the crevesses and bang them together.

    --

    James, I'm not sure if we should applaud you for venturing where talkback listeners fear to tread, or whether we should stage an intervention...

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'I wasn't painting them as the typical gay couple, but as the typical gay couple that was pursuing an adoption. I cant imagine a un-educated, financially insecure couple of LBGTs (or heteros for that matter) realistically pursuing an adoption.'

    So why point it out then?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous (the last one): I think JP's point was that the typical gay couple pursuing adoption was going to be exactly the same demographically as the typical straight couple pursuing adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  19. tell me, once you've bread a child, do you fry or grill it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jesus Christ this is actually my favourite Your Views comment EVAH. It has all the required components: evolution, gays, and dietary preferences:

    "If all the hetrosexual couples who want to adopt children have been able to do so then maybe some consideration could be given to gays. However gays need to understand that they are living a way of life that does not permit them to have children.

    We all make decisions that exclude us from doing things. Gays, like Vegans, can be considered the modern parasites on evolution. The meat eating hetrosexuals assisted mankind to develop over centuries and now the work has been done the 'lazy' groups want to reap the benefits.

    Evolution had no place for gay genetics. The status of the 'hetrosexual couple' needs to be protected and promoted as essential to the continuation of humanity and groups like gays need to be recognised for what they are, minorities, trendy and overly noisey.

    The instability of homosexual couples is well known for its fragility and the visious nature of break-ups, let along the 'unnatural' lifestyle that exists. The ability of society to understand and cope when hetrosexual relationships breakdown is well known and children survive unlike the confusion after gays split. Marriage is for hetrosexuals, the gays need to make their own 'title' for their union.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks for the clarification, Jimmy, that was the point I thought I made.

    However, I'm not sure who I was offending, as neither anonymous really offered a point of view. Were they heterononymous contributors with strong right wing values that were offended that I suggested that a GBLT might be educated and wealthy? Were they homonomynous contributors with left wing leanings offended that I had painted all potential GBLT adoptive couples with the same brush?

    I dont really care that I annoy or offend people, but it does irk me if I dont know how I've managed to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Social conservatism is, and has always been, inherently wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  23. After reading all these Views and absorbing their compelling arguments I thought it might pay to put together a list of all other groups of people that shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Just so we can make sure there's "one rule for all" and aren't seen to be discriminating just against gays - we should be equally discriminating against ALL minority groups!

    People who should not be allowed to adopt, because the kid would get teased at school:
    - Midgets
    - Jews
    - Asians
    - Other immigrants
    - the Disabled
    - Gingers

    People who should not be allowed to adopt, because they do not follow God's law:
    - anyone who fails to sacrifice a bull to the Lord on the reg
    - anyone having contact with a woman during her period of menstrual uncleanliness
    - anyone who works on the Sabbath
    - eaters of shellfish

    People who should not be allowed to adopt because their lifestyle does not propogate the species:
    - anyone who does not have kids of their own

    And finally, people who should not be allowed to adopt for reasons that should be self-evident:
    - anyone whose sexual organs are not analogous to a long straight object and a hole-like object
    - anyone who makes me feel "icky" with their mutant genetics and undetermined psychology and man-on-man kissing
    - anyone I don't understand because I'm a close-minded bigot who wishes everyone would stop challenging my 1950's morality
    - two men because it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

    ReplyDelete
  24. The comments on the Your Views section are disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I have gay friends, but..." Your gay friends are not "friends" - they're a convenient tool to assuage your bigotry. No "friend" would let anyone hold that sort of opinion about their purported inferiority.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This shit makes me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Foreign Spy (Albany)
    Would a child's mind become just a tad warped when he sees his divorced dad now putting his tongue down the throat of another bloke on the couch - instead of his loving mum's?

    He would grow up thinking life was a sexual smorgasbord. Would he be just slightly embarrassed at PTA meetings?

    It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Bonnie and Clyde, not Ronnie and Clyde. Jack and Jill, not Jack and Bill, and so on.

    I don't think gay couples should be allowed around pets either.


    Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree that gingas should not be allowed to adopt but I also believe they should not be permitted to have a child of their own as doing so would only propagate the ginga gene. And we don't need that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. forcing a child to live in a closed, exclusive minority group which - out of choice - largely operates outside of mainstream society, is not what is best for that child.

    and i'm talking lifestyles here, not sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Semen ConfidentialAugust 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM

    JP Rocks - perhaps a touch unfair to stereotype the anti-gay brigade (imagine THAT parade) as right wing. I'd argue it's socially conservative, which can live anywhere on the political spectrum.

    Other than that, just a few comments.

    1. I thought life was a sexual somrgasbord.
    2. I'm fairly certain any child would dry heave if they busted their parents tonguing on the couch, regardless of gender.
    3. Kids don't attend PTA meetings.
    4. There's a fair bit of research to show that homosexuality does perform a function in nature, with female relatvies of "the gays" actually reproducing more and "the gays" playing a role in group bonding (or is that bondage?) and nurturing of young.
    5. Homosexual couples have more "vicious breakups"? Maybe the put-downs are just better.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does social conservatism and right wing political ideology not generally go hand in hand? Is that really an unfair stereotype? If so, maybe my stereotyping ability isn't as good as I think it is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. JP, there's probably a weak correlation but also plenty of classic liberal & libertarian counterexamples.

    Interestingly there is a correlation between happiness and tolerance of homosexuals

    ReplyDelete
  34. 'I don't think gay couples should be allowed around pets either,' EITHER!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm guessing Foreign Spy was attempting a Poe troll.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Helpful piece of information from nzherald.co.nz:

    'A trillion is a lot of zeroes.'

    ReplyDelete
  37. @gazzaj

    I guess it only makes sense that a persons level of happines (gaiety) directly effects that persons tolerence towards the gaiety (bumming) of others.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "forcing a child to live in a closed, exclusive minority group which - out of choice - largely operates outside of mainstream society, is not what is best for that child.

    and i'm talking lifestyles here, not sexuality."

    So we should remove children from church groups such as the Exclusive Brethren, then? Is that what you're saying, other anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I assume that's what Anon was talking about, other Anon... cos I sure don't know of any gay people who "largely operate outside of mainstream society"!

    Unless the gay people I've met at work, school, uni, etc etc are only *pretend* gays and all the real ones are living a secret, closed underground life...

    In other 1950's stereotyping news, women should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery.

    ReplyDelete
  40. remove no.

    force into such a situation, no.

    gazzaj. if you are a heterosexual, you are considered different by gays. in social situations you will be treated differently and in some instances you won't even be allowed to attend.

    why is that such a problem the other way round?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "why is that such a problem the other way round?"

    Because there's actually a difference between not getting invitations to parties and not getting equal treatment under the law of the land? Just maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  42. From what kinds of social situations are people barred due to their sexuality?

    ReplyDelete
  43. "why is that such a problem the other way round?"

    Oh Jesus H Keerist, I'm so tired of the "Victimised white man/hetero/christian/leading power" reverse -ism rhetoric BS. They exclude YOU (asshat leading power) because they're sick of being treated like less than human. Now you're crying victimisation because you see their protectionism as exclusion? When you've been treated like crap for generations, you tend to circle the wagons a little.

    White Man Chrstian Hetero is not the minority in this world, so you can't possibly conceive of what it's like to be opressed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The only gay-only events I'd be excluded from - and none spring to mind - would be ones I wouldn't have any reason to go to, not being gay.

    Excluding gay people from something they DO want to do - like adoption - that has nothing to do with their "lifestyle" - is *completely* different.

    And I don't get the "being treated differently by homosexuals" thing at all... this might be surprising but if you stop treating people as if they're "different" you'll get the same courtesy back.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I know a lot of it was pre christian, so there may be a counter argument there, but have all these people forgotten about the Romans - those dirty buggers.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 'you tend to circle the wagons a little.'

    which is a very good argument for not letting homosexual couples adopt. thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  47. this is not about what is best for the gay couple. it is about what is best for the child.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hey look, we've started our own your views

    ReplyDelete
  49. "in social situations you will be treated differently and in some instances you won't even be allowed to attend."

    You're probably not invited to parties because people don't like you. Maybe you're boring. Or annoying. Or a bigot.

    I highly doubt the lack of party invitations is because you're heterosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So black people in the US in the '50's shouldn't have been allowed to adopt white kids, right? I mean, they kept to themselves, even had their own schools and sat with their own kind at the back of buses.

    Jews, too, always going to their temples, marrying their own kind, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt normal christian kids either.

    The deaf keep to themselves... so much so they even have their own secret language! Can't let them adopt either.

    I hate to break this to ya, but a good proportion of the normal people you meet every day are actually gay. Including your kids' teachers, and your proctologist.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "...and your proctologist".

    Thanks for the laugh, but there is now coffee on my keyboard and running out of my nose. I hope you're happy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "and your proctologist."

    Indeed, clever. I'm sure there's a few red blooded bigots who secretly wouldn't mind the idea of a lesbian as a gynocologist...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Yes well, the problem is not so much the few "spare" children up for adoption, there are other areas. Like - I have a brother who has two small children. Were anything to happen to him and his wife, I as a lesbian in a Civil Union with my partner of 23 years, could not adopt those children. They would have to be adopted outside the family, unless there was some more distant relative who could adopt them.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I find it very interesting indeed that I've written quite a few responses in that YV thread since my original earlier in the week...yet they haven't got through. Intriguingly enough, it's still stuffed with bigoted rhetoric, and the odd lone voice in the darkness.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @gazzaj

    "Jews, too ... they shouldn't be allowed to adopt normal christian kids either."

    That's your 'normal', not mine. Of course they shouldn't, if the child is a practising Christian. I would have thought it was obvious that this is not in the interests of the child.

    "The deaf keep to themselves... can't let them adopt either."

    It would be impractical for a deaf family to adopt a child with hearing, and I doubt it happens unless there are extenuating circumstances.

    Black families adopting white children - can I invoke Godwin's law for this sort of ridiculous comparison?

    ReplyDelete
  56. can I invoke Godwin's law for this sort of ridiculous comparison?

    Nope, because Godwin's law applies to Nazi references.

    Re my other tongue-in-cheek points, yep CYFS do discriminate on religious and medical grounds. Which are both fair enough, as you say. I imagine if the child is old enough and the adopters are relatives, being deaf or a different religion wouldn't matter so much.

    But the racial discrimination point is perfectly valid - if you think it's ok for a white couple to adopt a Maori child, or vice versa, how is that any different to a gay couple adopting a straight child, or vice versa?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Well you got a mock disparaging Jew reference in there so it's a half-Godwin.

    "how is that any different to a gay couple adopting a straight child, or vice versa?"

    Because sexuality is a far more powerful issue for children, gazzaj.

    Imagine what the child would go through at school. Can't? Let me make it clear: Ha you're adopted and your two dads butt fuck each other. Which also makes you a lezza / gaybo.

    Children pick up on the weaknesses and exploit them. Simple as.

    Would this be healthy for the adopted child's state of mind? I very much doubt that it would.

    A couple of my school mates were bullied for their supposed sexuality and, irrespective of their actual preferences, it made their school days a living hell.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Disparaging Jew references were not exclusive to Nazis, so it’s still a non-Godwin

    ReplyDelete
  59. Kia ora Anon et al.,

    You say that some of your mates were bullied for their supposed sexuality. That's horrible. If they weren't brought up by gay parents, does that mean that kids will be bullied about their supposed sexuality regardless of their parents sexual orientation?

    Isn't that more of an issue about what the perceived gender rolls of the 'mainstream culture' are?

    I also disagree that culture is a less powerful issue than sexual orientation for children.


    Much of the debate around gay couples adopting children, talk as though these are the only role models that these children will have, their entire life. However, i assume, we all know that it takes a whole community to grow a well integrated child. The outcome of adopting children into families of completely different backgrounds might increase acceptance of differences in peoples in AO/NZ.

    Love.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 'does that mean that kids will be bullied about their supposed sexuality regardless of their parents sexual orientation?'

    that's an interesting point but it's not really an argument. you don't reduce bullying by giving the bully more ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  61. So let's get this straight:

    1) Children with gay adopted parents might get teased at school

    2) Therefore, no gay couples should ever be allowed to adopt children

    Surely you can see how tenuous that is? To labour the point - and yeah, it's ridiculous, but the same argument - ginger kids get bullied, but we don't sterilise people who carry the gene.

    Try this then: a kid's parents die. There's a choice - do they go to live with their gay aunt and her partner, or with a straight couple who are complete strangers?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yes gazzaj, you can throw all the scenarios and ridiculous examples of Swedish-style eugenics you want.

    I've made my position clear and none of your trivilisations will disguise the fact that the interests of the child are far more important than a social vanity project.

    On a case by case basis, the vast majority of children would not be served by being adopted by gay people.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yeah, we're clearly not going to reach any agreement.

    I guess the difference is that I was raised to believe that homosexuality is biologically natural, while you were probably taught that it's morally degenerate.

    As soon as Gen X is running things the law will be changed and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about. I reckon most kids today would be surprised to learn that sodomy was still illegal 25 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That's a big assumption of someone, gazzaj. But given your record on hyperbole, I'll let it slide.

    ReplyDelete