Gay couples adopting , or bringing up kids

yes I have and you are labelling them all the same

do you know how many go abroad to watch football every year, do they all go intent on causing trouble

Mr Hill 10 Nov 13:05


ffs charles, i have never said a **sexual couple would not love or care for a child like any other couple, but it IS unfair on the child, i dont know what kind of school you went to, but it is fact that children are cruel, and scar very very easily, you need to think about these things, the human element, not just the selfish politically correct views of the middle/ upper classes........

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

we had a down syndrome kid in our primary, and his life was utter hell tbh. kids dont draw distinctions like that, it is the simple fact of being 'different' - they are too young to understand the concepts of sexuality and disability.

the point is your supposed only reason is about the flak the kids might get, i am saying they will get this for numerous things, like disability, race, weight, even jobs of parents ffs (i know this to be true - my dad was a fishmonger!).

should every parent with a flaw that kids might take the **** out of, be stopped from having children? no? so why just gay couples?

when you look at it like this, it suggest more that you just dont like the idea of gay people with kids.

Mr Hill so your argument is kids "MIGHT" be bullied at school so we must not allow gay people to bring up kids. I see.

yes mr hill....we know the chavs bring up kids who are little shi%%...that cant be stopped...what can be stopped is kids being victims of the chav bully tactics and mental scarring...it can be stopped by gay couples not being selfish

the arrogance of some on here, makes me smile.

you do not know me, or anything about me, you not where ive been, or where im going,, i do not insult you, so do not insult me.

grow up, and learn how to communicate properly....

leethere bingo - you've just proved my point perfectly well thanks. You are happy to label all foreigners who come to Britain as unrespecting of our culture yet don't like it when all football fans are labeled the same - cheers.

Coming up for 2 hours of my life wasted.

Mr Hill I haven't insulted anyone (although admittedly I may have called leethere thick but fair comment imo...)

yes surrey you could of filled out another application in that time ;)

ok ill rephrase, children WILL be bullied, this is fact, if you think its not, then .... well i really dont know

classic thread!!

mrhill your argument has been shot down in flames many times. Let us enlighten you.

*offers hug"


"waits for **phobic comment"

so arrogant you cant even see your rudeness....lol

Mr Hill 10 Nov 13:08


grow up, and learn how to communicate properly....

----------

There is a post above where i am directly countering one of your points from earlier. Why is it being studiously ignored?

I'm afraid that may well be true, but kids will be bullied for any number of reasons and it is up to our society to remove prejudice and the only way to do that is to tackle it head on, NOT make rules for one section of society because "it might cause problems"

Mixed race couples 10 years ago might have caused bullying in schools and look how far that has come.

Because it shoots theirs down in flames. And they will not change their beliefs.

oh dear......

I'm disappointed in myself for actually getting frustrated by this.


There is no hope for the human race.


PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD JOIN HANDS

START A LOVE TRAIN!

right, I'm leaving this thread now - mission failed.

Just remember, people stick to their own kind as it's comfortable and they have a fear of the unknown. We are all human.

again the mixed race thing is regurgitated, what is wrong with you people, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RACE, racism is vile, **phobia is vile, i happen to believe a child has more chance of being a stable , well rounded individual being bought up in a conventional family, rather than a **sexual one.... that is my view, i appreciate your view, i do not call you any names.











now ** off please

Surrey 10 Nov 13:14


Because it shoots theirs down in flames. And they will not change their beliefs.

Again you have categorized everyone who disagrees with your opinion into one convenient pigeon hole rather than perhaps thinking that they are probably form a variety of backgrounds and with varying outlooks.

Now tell me who the bigot is?

Mixed race was brought up as an example of a couple that has had to encounter negative opinions from people and who have since shown that those negative opinions are misplaced. HTH.

you? lol

sad mr.hill,after al lthe debate,u tell everyone to fck off.a little childish really.

This never would of happened under the NAZIs!

mad paddy, i did say please lol

typical surrey - no sensible reply. Can only vilify those that disagree with his one-dimensional views

I assume that most posters on this forum were reared by heterosexual couples.
When I see the level of maturity, manners & general conduct that is the norm on here, it is hard to believe that any other group would be likely to do the job less well.

i wondered how long it would take for surrey bring nazi into the forum

redrich, surrey may or may not be a bigot but he is most certainly a hypocrite.

KILBOWIE KELT 10 Nov 13:21
I assume that most posters on this forum were reared by heterosexual couples.
When I see the level of maturity, manners & general conduct that is the norm on here, it is hard to believe that any other group would be likely to do the job less well.




nice 1

no he is a bigot. And a hypocrite!

redrich 10 Nov 13:18


Surrey 10 Nov 13:14


Because it shoots theirs down in flames. And they will not change their beliefs.

Again you have categorized everyone who disagrees with your opinion into one convenient pigeon hole rather than perhaps thinking that they are probably form a variety of backgrounds and with varying outlooks.

Now tell me who the bigot is?

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

tbf it is my opinion he refers to! and i am not trying to catgorise anyone, just searching for a logical answer to my point - but it is being ignored in such a manner as to suggest there isnt one.

and mr hill, you started this thread, people have tried to offer reasoned debate, but you do not seem to be interested.

[Irony]Yeah I am I hate fags disgusting practice[/IRONY]

he also comes across as a bit of a thicko tbh

pmsl, kilbowie kelt makes an excellent post and mr hill congratulates him

bacontrout - I will read your point and respond, Wat time did you post it?

KILBOWIE KELT 10 Nov 13:21
I assume that most posters on this forum were reared by heterosexual couples.
When I see the level of maturity, manners & general conduct that is the norm on here, it is hard to believe that any other group would be likely to do the job less well.


That's how it should be done. In out and the idiots too stupid to realise they have been merked.

Something tells me surrey doesn't undertand how he is being hypocritical. Considering he is better educated than the rest of us this is surprising.

redrich 10 Nov 13:25


bacontrout - I will read your point and respond, Wat time did you post it?

---------

lol, cheers, it is the 13:07 one, but its a bit out of context now, iv posted it three times!

http://api.ning.com/files/TAQisU8LBDTC4tC2heaDQOeZS-Rrz2YNGCp-ALFZ1sJzULMurk...

yes maverick i agree whole heartedly with him

That's how it should be done. In out and the idiots too stupid to realise they have been merked.
translates as

I'm leaving the debate because I've been exposed as a bigoted hypocrite

I'm leaving this debate, your intelligence and wit are too much for me. You are fine examples of what makes people in this country so proud to be British.

I am an idiot for thinking that **sexuals are equal to heterosexials. I can see my mistake now.

The love people of the same sex!!! lol.

I'm so glad you have shown me the light.

I would like to thank Jesus for this thread.

Charles1980 10 Nov 13:03
Mr Hill I posted to Templeton with a completely valid point and got no response (mainly because he will be aware that there IS no response that is acceptable)

Hmm, I haven't responded because I was constructing a book case and then deciding on which order to place the books. I'll carry on reading but so much has been written since your statement that it may be irrelevent. I've also not had lunch and am hungry.

Mr Hill - I don't think you do tbh. Try reading it slowly

Again a retort of what he perceives to be comedic ironic responses when infact he has for the umteenth time refused to respond when he has been found out.

the only people being rude on this thread are the politicaly correct, selfish, idealistic prats who just havent got a clue, with no thought for the child itself...

im getting dragged down to their level now, so am off for some lunch down the blue oyster with my cross dressing friend


toooodle doooo

maverick hes referring to the forum as a whole i believe, not taking one side over another....

ok, try and have someone else read it to you

mr hill hes actually saying if heterosexual couples raised the nutters on here, then surely gays cant do any worse of a job!!

KILBOWIE KELT 10 Nov 13:21
I assume that most posters on this forum were reared by heterosexual couples.
When I see the level of maturity, manners & general conduct that is the norm on here, it is hard to believe that any other group would be likely to do the job less well.


That's how it should be done. In out and the idiots too stupid to realise they have been merked.

As expected, there's little to comment on as it's becoming name calling.

Charles, was your point the one about the black people adopting because black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime? I think black people should be allowed to adopt. I expect a check into their criminal background will be done by the agency.

There is not one reason for **sexuals to not adopt, there are a number of reasons which accumulate to be the reason why they shouldn't be allowed. You can give an analogy to each point but not to the whole.

For what it's worth, I think the age of having a child should be an enforced 21 and there should be a huge cut in the benefits system. This will be one of many necessary steps in trying to create a better society for both those in it and those being born into it.

Surrey 10 Nov 13:29


I'm leaving this debate, your intelligence and wit are too much for me. You are fine examples of what makes people in this country so proud to be British.

I am an idiot for thinking that **sexuals are equal to heterosexials. I can see my mistake now.

The love people of the same sex!!! lol.

I'm so glad you have shown me the light.

I would like to thank Jesus for this thread.

Surrey - you really are a showing yourself up as a prise idiot. Since when have I said that **sexuals are not equal to heterosexuals. You are labelling people as bigots, nazis, **phobes merely for disagreeing with you. Grow up ffs!

bacon - i will respond to you shortly

its very wrong

Templeton Peck

Take this test. Step off the tube 20 times. Count the number of immigrants who barge on before you get off and count the number of whites. You'll be amazed. They have no manners.

For the benefit for the forum i will take the test over the next 2 weeks. Why that long you ask?

Well 1stly i think we need a greater sample size than 20.

2ndly we have to factor in what tube stop i am getting off and on 20 times vis a vi demographics.

So if you see someone on the underground behaving rather oddly, waiting for trains but seemingly not that will be me.

I'll report back as i go

Templeton Peck

Take this test. Step off the tube 20 times. Count the number of immigrants who barge on before you get off and count the number of whites. You'll be amazed. They have no manners.



oops

:0

r0yst0n y0u live in L0nd0n, why d0 y0u supp0rt man u then?

will you have time to interview everyone to determine their place of birth before the train leaves?

Eh? The relevance being? Or did you just want my results? I must admit I've not kept a written record but I do check it each time I use the tube and what I stated has continued to be the case over the last couple of weeks.

Templeton Peck 10 Nov 13:39


For what it's worth, I think the age of having a child should be an enforced 21 and there should be a huge cut in the benefits system. This will be one of many necessary steps in trying to create a better society for both those in it and those being born into it.

---------

Regardless of what i think of your other points, I agree wholeheartedly with this, there is not really an argument against it imo.

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

Templeton Peck 10 Nov 13:39

Charles, was your point the one about the black people adopting because black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime? I think black people should be allowed to adopt. I expect a check into their criminal background will be done by the agency.

There is not one reason for **sexuals to not adopt, there are a number of reasons which accumulate to be the reason why they shouldn't be allowed. You can give an analogy to each point but not to the whole.

--------

however, would you not similarly argue that **sexuals (along with everyone else) would also have checks involving psych tests, history of sexual diseases etc, in general their suitability to have a child (stable home life etc) - if they ARE found suitable, what distinction is left? purely their sexuality?

Maverick, please read the thread from where it came. Context and answers can be found there.

Bacontrout, nice to see someone who can agree with some points and not others from the same forum user.

I don't hold much trust in psych tests. And, like I said before, there are a gamut of reasons and it's the reasons as a whole rather than individual ones (such as whether they have an std) which matter.

I think it's a case of putting the rights of the **sexual couple first rather than the child. I know if I was a kid then I wouldn't want to be brought up by two gay dads. Unfortunately, the kid won't have much choice.

Bacon:

Whether or not there is a bullying issue with regards to a child being brought up be a gay couple is a side issue.

My point is that we should be basing our policies on gay adoption on the welfare of the child rather than liberal prejudices in favour of **sexuality. It is my view that the latter seems to be taking precedence.

The fact that children are sometimes born into dysfunctional heterosexual families has absolutely nothing to do with whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt or not. Suppose it's ok to adopt a child into a family that can barely afford the weekly food bill on the basis that other children are growing up in impoverished families or in famine ridden countries?

We cannot stop bad parents from having children, but we can look out for the child's welfare (social services). As for single parents it might not be the most ideal of upbringings, but the fact remains that the child does have at least have one biological parent which is far better than being adopted into a different family. It is still natural.

Putting a child into the care of a **sexual couple is a decision which is should not be taken lightly. It is good for a young mind to have a mother and a father. The human race has been largely based on the nurturing of the young by both parents and to rewrite this evolutionary trait for the sake of political correctness is a big mistake in my view.

I am not anti gay adoption for the sake of it. I just do not personally believe it is good for a young mind to grow up and be taught that being **sexual is the norm. Because it isn't. Moreover, I do not think we should be rushing to allow for widespread gay adoption based on the evidence provided. It is something than needs far more consideration than it has been given.

its one of the worse traits in a discussion, to dismiss everything someone says because you dont agree on a certain point.

i guess i just take issue with gay even coming into it. i concede it can be hard to ignore, especially if you ever see an instance of a stereotype being 'confirmed' (for instance, there is undeniably a higher prevalence of stds in **sexuals, i would not agree with mental instability opinion however) - but surely it should be much more down to the suitability of any individual person, rather than who they choose to bring to their bedroom.

There are so many different walks of life in the world, with normal sussed people and insane nutters in equal measure, it seems unfair to single out any one minority group.

Templeton Peck 10 Nov 13:39

For what it's worth, I think the age of having a child should be an enforced 21 and there should be a huge cut in the benefits system. This will be one of many necessary steps in trying to create a better society for both those in it and those being born into it.

---------

Regardless of what i think of your other points, I agree wholeheartedly with this, there is not really an argument against it imo.

How would you police this? Forced abortions? Human rights? Would it stop dysfunctional families? Does being 21 mean that someone is going to be a good parent? Would you deny welfare to a child who needed it?

There's SIX arguements against it already

How does the gay couple explain the birds n bees to there adopted kid , lets call him Elton.

Elton when a man loves a woman they have natural sex, which can result in a baby, as god intended.

When me and your other dad have sex , he puts his bits up me bum.

Thats gonna be one confused little Elton.

bacontrout. 10 Nov 14:05


its one of the worse traits in a discussion, to dismiss everything someone says because you dont agree on a certain point.

Explain?

no should not be allowed

next thing you will be saying its ok for women to play football(sorry attempt to play football)

redrich sorry, that last post was to templeton, just answering yours now..

PC gone MADDDD i tell ya... no ifs or buts it's not right to put a kid into a gay family.. END OF....

so in ur logic of a kid needs a mother and father, should single parents not be allowed to bring up kids aswell?

bacontrout. 10 Nov 14:05

There are so many different walks of life in the world, with normal sussed people and insane nutters in equal measure, it seems unfair to single out any one minority group.

It's not really a case of singling out a minority group, it's more a case of what are the advantages to a child of being raised by a **sexual couple over a heterosexual couple and what are the disadvantages. I can think of no advantages and a number of disadvantages. I'd ask "what would the child want?"



redrich 10 Nov 14:06
Templeton Peck 10 Nov 13:39

For what it's worth, I think the age of having a child should be an enforced 21 and there should be a huge cut in the benefits system. This will be one of many necessary steps in trying to create a better society for both those in it and those being born into it.

---------

How would you police this? Forced abortions? Human rights? Would it stop dysfunctional families? Does being 21 mean that someone is going to be a good parent? Would you deny welfare to a child who needed it?

How would I police it? If someone's pregnant and under 21 then the foetus would be aborted, assuming this girl had not managed to hide it from society for so long.

Forced abortions? Yes.

Human rights? The rights of the many outweight the rights of the individual.

Would it prevent dysfunctional families? No. But it would most certainly lead to a huge reduction in them.

Does 21 mean you'll be a good parent? No. But you're more likely to be a better parent at 21 than at 17. You're more likely to stay in education. You're less likely to be a burden on the taxpayer. You're more likely to be able to add something to society.

Would I deny welfare to a child that needs it? Big question. Very wide ranging. I'd want to know why a child needs benefits. If an adult has a child and is unable to care for said child then I'd classify it close to the child abuse end of the spectrum.

Oh bugger. Just noticed I've slotted in my bookshelves back to front. Thankfully they just slide in.

this is a gay fred....

im talkin to a bunch of **its....

what planet you live on Templeton Peck?

arsenaleon 10 Nov 14:21


so in ur logic of a kid needs a mother and father, should single parents not be allowed to bring up kids aswell?

Covered this a few posts back

redrich 10 Nov 14:06

How would you police this? Forced abortions? Human rights? Would it stop dysfunctional families? Does being 21 mean that someone is going to be a good parent? Would you deny welfare to a child who needed it?

There's SIX arguements against it already

---------

lol, i meant no argument against it morally! obviously, practically it would be a nightmare. many laws dont make much sense when read as stated - by this argument why have the age of consent at 16? why not 15 and 364 days? its a conundrum, but the idea presented would imo, be an improvement on how it is now.

as to your previous post, that is a very very good post, and you can read my post above that (to templeton) as at least part of my answer.

I appreciate you are not so much talking about the suitability of a gay parent (my previous post was a response to mr hill, who did have this issue), but the childs welfare, and you present your argument well.

What I think we will differ on (and what the two opposing camps will differ on presumably forever) is what is 'natural'. I never got taught heterosexuality was the norm, but it turns out I am, as I found out at whatever age it was I started noticing girls. You can't 'train' this out of a kid. In fact I would argue that a lot of the problems stem from **sexuality being such a taboo, such a badge of shame for people. If it was just as much the norm as being straight, then obviously this argument wouldn't exist, and there would any kids in the world who would feel a) worried about having gay parents, b) the need to ostracise those that do.

I'm not gonna tell you that my view is the more enlightened or worthy, it is just different, and believe me i can competely understand where youre coming from. I just think there would be less marginilisation if people focussed on the ways in which we are all similar, rather than different.

*there wouldnt be any kids in the world

I never got taught heterosexuality was the norm

Were you brought up by heterosexual parents?

My point here is that so much of the development of the human race, and any advanced speicies for that matter, is based upon knowledge and customs passed form the parents to the young.

You assume we differ on our views about **sexuality in general but it is just the adoption issue that I have a problem with.

What I do notice is that sexuality itself tends to be singly the most important issue in a homsexual person's life. You don't get heterosexual people going on and on about being 'straight' and going on 'straight pride' marches etc. I think sexuality as an issue could be given far too much airtime in a family with gay parents and that it would form a bias is such a household.

i was yes, but then that discount kids who turn out gay, when raised by heterosexuals, surely theyve done this IN SPITE of their parents?

I can understand your last line, that makes sense. sometimes i think though, that the popular perception of a gay person, the media representation, is way out of line with the gay people I know, and count as my friends.

but cheers for the debate. i have been putting off lunch for 2 hours now though so i must leave it!

What I do notice is that sexuality itself tends to be singly the most important issue in a homsexual person's life. You don't get heterosexual people going on and on about being 'straight' and going on 'straight pride' marches etc. I think sexuality as an issue could be given far too much airtime in a family with gay parents and that it would form a bias is such a household.

What you notice is probably what you see in the media. What you don't notice is the majority of gay people who don't make a big issue of their sexuality. And of course you wouldn't notice the silent majority, because there is nothing to notice.

How does anyone notice this supposed silent majority when there is nothing to notice?

Exactly.

straight people haven't had an uphill battle to be accepted in society - christ almighty some people are stupid.

go and watch the film Milk - I hope this does help.

keliwah

Point is, how do you know this supposed majority exists?

Because I'm just that clever.

I rest my case

What next, f***ing Paedo rights?

Get a grip. Having Children is a privilege, nothing to do with human rights ffs.

It's not about being anti-gay, it's about what is most wholesome for the children.

**sexuals raising children is just as misguided and selfish as the countless idiots who have children 'on a whim' and then one of the two parents decides it's not for them.

Paedo rights may sound ridiculous but many moons ago so did **sexual rights. There's plenty of Paedos who actively campaign for 'equal rights' for themselves and their kind. I really fear for where we are going to end up as a species.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the first UK**couple who were allowed to raise a child themselves get convicted for Child Abuse of children aged 8-14?

As a society, and particularly in the UK, we are treading down some very dangerous paths.

oh dear

The one thing above all else i find disgraceful about adoption is the ridiculous rule whereby to be able to adopt a family has to be able to offer a child their own bedroom. WTF !! A family is stopped from giving a child in desperate need of love a home and a family atmosphere because the child may have to share a bedroom :0 so instead they are left in care with dozens of other children sharing bedroom with umpteen others until they leave at 16. how sad !!!!

Your perceived view of **sexuals is very strange.

What about 2 straight guys adopting a kid?

Daddy, what were you just doing to Daddy, and why is there a man dressed all in black with a zip in the mouth

Surrey 10 Nov 16:09
Your perceived view of **sexuals is very strange.

What about 2 straight guys adopting a kid?





surrey, you really are without doubt, the biggest plank on here by a country mile

maverick sums up my feelings about this perfectly at 11.24 10 Nov

If me and my missus were killed in a car crash today, I would rather have my son brought up by two gay men who could provide a loving family atmosphere, than a man and a woman who were total **wits like some of the families I see day to day.

I'm not racist,(I have a black cat) but I can't be doin with all these foreign types that we have in this country nowadays.

**sexuality is the future of mankind, bring it on. By 3000, we all will be Bisexuals.