Gay Marraige For or Against

Status
Not open for further replies.
jaybird said:
Ok, a simple question for those with this opinion.

If the ideal family is Mother, Father and children, what is the order of importance if this is not available/breaks down etc?
Is a single mother better or worse than 2 lesbian parents? And better or worse than 2 gay parents?
Is a single father better or worse than 2 lesbian/gay parents?
Is a single mother on welfare better than 2 rich gay parents? etc etc

I'd like to know what the order of preference is?
Click to expand...
Why not try and keep to the core of the debate?
 
Chocks away said:
How on earth do you know?
Click to expand...

I know that I would be happy simply being in a family unit. That is my opinion.

Again going back to the adoption thing. There are plenty of kids in care, orphanages, on the streets. Should gay couples not be allowed to bring these in either?
 
jaybird said:
"A gay man won't have a child with another man no matter how hard he tries"

Yet. Apparently the cloning process is nearly complete for humans, who knows how long it will be before men can in fact have children? Or perhaps next will be ectogenisis?

Whatever way people have children, accidentally, on purpose, via IVF, surrogacy, adoption, why does the sexuality of the parent have any bearing whatsoever on what kind of parent they would make? There are plenty of heterosexual married couples that make for terrible parents, they haven't got any qualifications purely because they can easily produce a child.
Its nothing more than narrow minded prejudice against gay people, hiding behind concern for possible children.
Click to expand...

Have an opinion that is different to yours doesn't make me narrow minded just different, isn't the irony of it great though!
 
MrMan said:
Pique tried to crudely put a slant that if people are not liberal enough to accept gay marriage and adoption then they are basically homphobe cavemen.
Click to expand...
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Remember folks, no-one is prejudiced against homosexuals here, they just think gay/lesbian couples have to abide by different rules because they're homosexuals, and not because of the 'content of their character'. :rolleyes:

If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.
 
Btw I don't think anyone is narrow minded. I just asked the question to see what peoples opinions are.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions after all.
 
Pique318 said:
OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.

Jack & Jill get married and have children.
Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.

Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?
Click to expand...

Its a spanner in the works for poor Jack alright because he lost his wife, but he is the childrens father and has a legal and moral right to raise those kids. If he enters into a gay relationship then the consuqeuences (plus or minus) will have to be considered by him alone.
 
Pique318 said:
If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

prej⋅u⋅dice
–noun 1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.3.unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.4.such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.



:)
 
Cappucino and bikkies anyone? OK! Follow me to the kitchen :)
 
Chocks away said:
Still no answer to the above question. To those who advocate homosexual/lesbian adoptive parents, why the silence?
Click to expand...
Hhmmm, let me see. 2 parents or one....yup, I'll take 2 ! Any 2, as long as they love me and aren't bad parents. Gender, race, religion matters not a jot.

Chocks away said:
Somebody is playing the colour card. Why bring it up - it is irrelevant to this discussion. Why muddy the water.
Click to expand...
It's far from irrelevant. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation versus that based on race. One is OK, the other is not ?

Chocks away said:
And to the PC/moral high ground brigade - watch out for vertigo :)
Click to expand...
Don't worry, the air is nice and fresh up here :)
 
Pique318 said:
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Remember folks, no-one is prejudiced against homosexuals here, they just think gay/lesbian couples have to abide by different rules because they're homosexuals, and not because of the 'content of their character'. :rolleyes:

If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Nice spin. I believe that a family unit consists of mum dad and kids, I don't see dad, dad and kids being acceptable. My view may not be socially acceptable but its my view. I don't need an interpreter for my posts, I try to keep it plain and simple.
 
MrMan said:
Its a spanner in the works for poor Jack alright because he lost his wife, but he is the childrens father and has a legal and moral right to raise those kids. If he enters into a gay relationship then the consuqeuences (plus or minus) will have to be considered by him alone.
Click to expand...
The question was,
Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?
Click to expand...
 
MrMan said:
Nice spin. I believe that a family unit consists of mum dad and kids, I don't see dad, dad and kids being acceptable. My view may not be socially acceptable but its my view. I don't need an interpreter for my posts, I try to keep it plain and simple.
Click to expand...
And so say all of us. Well, possibly, er, some of us.
 
Pique318 said:
But Hitler himself was a devout Christian...

So your point is ?
Click to expand...

I was answering a post by Smashbox she said if you had 2 loving and wonderful parents who were gay wouldn't that be better than 2 bad parents.

The point had had to be made that not all gay people are good people I know 99% of them are fine good people just like straight people.

Pique318 said:
If all anyone can say against homosexuals adopting is that;
a. The kids may get bullied about it (lamest excuse ever...sure leave them in an orphanage then, they'll be better off:rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

There is a very large waiting list for adoption it should be only families with a mammy and daddy. This is my view I don't believe it is unreasonable.

Pique318 said:
b. A 'Family' is Mammy & Daddy and kiddies...that's the way it's always been;
then the argument is lost.

It reminds me of the old story about monkeys in a cage
Click to expand...

What does training monkeys got to do with adoption?

Pique318 said:
OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.

Jack & Jill get married and have children.
Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.

Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?
Click to expand...

Jack is the childrens father so what choices he makes will affect his children for the rest of their lives I would hope he would choose wisely.

jaybird said:
Ok, a simple question for those with this opinion.

If the ideal family is Mother, Father and children, what is the order of importance if this is not available/breaks down etc?
Is a single mother better or worse than 2 lesbian parents? And better or worse than 2 gay parents?
Is a single father better or worse than 2 lesbian/gay parents?
Is a single mother on welfare better than 2 rich gay parents? etc etc

I'd like to know what the order of preference is?
Click to expand...

Whatever is best for the child but it should be mother father first preference.

Pique318 said:
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Remember folks, no-one is prejudiced against homosexuals here, they just think gay/lesbian couples have to abide by different rules because they're homosexuals, and not because of the 'content of their character'. :rolleyes:

If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Pique nobody has mentioned character at all.......except you.

Chocks away said:
Cappucino and bikkies anyone? OK! Follow me to the kitchen :)
Click to expand...

Do you have any low fat bikkies I'm putting on a bit of weight here so I'm trying to cut down.
 
jaybird said:
Not all opinions are equal, "its my opinion" does not mean that is as valid an opinion as the next persons.
If your opinion seeks to restrict the freedom of others to live their lives, you need to be able to robustly defend that opinion. Just because some prejudices and intolerances are still more socially acceptable than others does not make them not prejudices.
Click to expand...

It isn't restricting others to live their lives it is restricting them from having control over the lives of another. It is not a legal right in this country so i would suggest that you would need to disprove what is considered right as of now and not the other way round. Consistently calling differing opinions prejudices and intolerances is cynical and does not add to a debate, which is what this is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top