| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2007 07:39:10 PM |
| Object: |
Homo (male) couples adopting children |
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
Is this wise?
Given that a significant majority of the population feel utter disgust,
is it right to put children through this?
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
Think of the poor children.
With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each others
bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...
The biggest problem is not the nuclear arms race. Forget China's
missile blowing up the satellite. What is far more dangerous is world
being over-run by AIDS infected butt fucking queers.
ignore:
Macintosh Slur Penalty ADMIRE crank exclamation
.
|
|
| User: "News Group" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 05:13:32 AM |
|
|
<chrisholland2007@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
Is this wise?
Given that a significant majority of the population feel utter disgust,
is it right to put children through this?
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
Think of the poor children.
With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each others
bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...
The biggest problem is not the nuclear arms race. Forget China's
missile blowing up the satellite. What is far more dangerous is world
being over-run by AIDS infected butt fucking queers.
For a non-homophobe you certainly don't 'mince' your words! We must all bend
over backwards to stop this rot!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "thedarkman" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 08:50:57 PM |
|
|
News Group wrote:
<chrisholland2007@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
Is
For a non-homophobe you certainly don't 'mince' your words! We must all bend
over backwards to stop this rot!!!
Better than bending over forwards!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Legal" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 12:40:33 AM |
|
|
<chrisholland2007@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
"Of course, there are potential problems for the children brought up in
unconventional families, but these are as nothing to the problems of
children brought up in care homes. What is more, many of these problems
arise from traditional attitudes to gay people, and would be diminished by
the spread of tolerance."
<http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2171587.ece>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 05:09:13 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1169343550.112261.269680@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear
some legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to
adopt children.
Really? I'm not homophobic either, and I heard that too!
Is this wise?
Of course it is.
I work with a gay gentleman, and I would have no concerns about him
looking after kids - why should I?
About the only down side I can see to gay people adopting is that the
children will cop a hell of a lot of hassle at school, but personally I
don't think that will do them nearly so much damage as being raised in a
chidren's home...
So long as a couple are both caring individuals, I really don't have a
problem with this.
If I may, I suggest you spend a little more time with homosexual men
should the opportunity arise - and I'm not being sarcastic there. You'll
find that they only person troubling themselves with sexual issues, or
indeed even considering them, is likely to be you.
I've worked with my colleague for four years, and I've never felt
uncomfortable around him once. I know his preferences, he knows mine,
and our paths just don't cross on those issues...
Given that a significant majority of the population feel utter
disgust, is it right to put children through this?
A "significant majority" - LOL!
I admit a lot of people will feel disgust, but this is because they
haven't taken time to understand this section of the community - they
just continue merrily along living under their own little prejudiced
view of the world - much as you're doing now...
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
Can't say as I've ever actually noticed gays on the street, holding
hands and kissing...
Think of the poor children.
Indeed. Read up on the lives of people who've been in children's homes,
and then think of them again.,,
With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each
others bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...
Ah, so you're not up for a serious discussion then - unable to defend
your bigoted views?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "enquiring minds" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 01:00:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
Is this wise?
Given that a significant majority of the population feel utter disgust,
is it right to put children through this?
Well, let me use my heterosexual parents whom adopted me as an example.
My father was gone
about 5 out of the 7 days a week and my mother slept until noon every
day, bought fast food for dinner and then hurried off to bingo 5 out of
7 nights a week. The children suffered no harm but being
heterosexual has no relationship to being a good parent - not remotely
related.
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
You are free to vomit whenever and wherever you like. My eyes well up
with tears
when I see a a parent and child doing something together, even after 50
years, like
sports, sailing, skiing.
I never stop feeling the pain when I see young people sleeping in the
streets. What
did society do to these children to have them suffer so?
Think of the poor children.
Sadly, children love their parents and don't know any better until it is
much,
much too late.
Why do you think that men and women who are mistreated by family, and
society in
generaly, would want their offspring to suffer for one second. By what
you have written, it is
not clear what you would do to a son or daughter if you learned they
were homosexual. But disowning
them sounds like your first option? Sad.
With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each others
bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...
Most heterosexual marriages suffer an incident or two or more of
infidility
whether the spouse ever learns of it or not during the length of the
marriage
and seems plausable in view of the fact that slightly less than 50
percent of
all marriage end in divorce.
I know of a mother who told me her little one year old said to her "Look
at me when I talk to you!"
Such a statement from a mother and from the mouth of a 2 year old tells
you how the child is
being raised. In spite of all my parents shortcominings, no one ever
spoke to us that way.
The courts both family and crimial cases are full of examples of
mistreated children being
raised by heterosexuals so again heterosexuality is no guarantee of
being a good parent.
Most homosexuals being raised today learn to downplay their ability to
"camp" and simply
try to fit into society which has given them same sex marriage. But
even 2 daddies mincing
around really does no harm as long as the two daddies attend the kid's
soccer games, and
do everything a very good example of a non-mincing daddy does. Nothing
kill's a kid's pride than
a parent staggering around drunk in front of his peers and we all know
of the billions of heterosexual
parents who are staggering around drunk heterosexuals.
The biggest problem is not the nuclear arms race. Forget China's
missile blowing up the satellite. What is far more dangerous is world
being over-run by AIDS infected butt fucking queers.
Sadly, again you are wrong. Homosexuals have been around since the
beginning of time. They
are the most hated individuals on the planet or of the human race. But
in spite of such hate
they lead for the most part the same wonderful lives that other
minorities live.
Since the beginning of time about 1 to 10 percent of the population has
proven to be homosexual, so the
part of society that has been and continues to make the world "far more
dangerous" as you describe it, remains heterosexual. Are there any
leaders of any country who are homosexual?
It is doubtful that you have a wife and children because usually it has
been found that most individuals whom are so hung up on homosexuals or
homosexuality, equally have problems dealing with authority, women,
peers, just about everybody they come in contact with. They often
drink a lot of alcohol or are extremely religious which is just the
opposite.
Sadly, you remain far more interesting than any homosexual could hope to
be because something happened to you
that makes you preoccupied with homosexuality. Most heterosexuals are
so involved with their girlfriend, wife, children, taking their children
to soccer, dance classes, music lessons they just simply fall into
bed after sipping tea with their spouse and watching the late night
news. No time in their lives to hate anyone - way, way too tired and
too busy - too busy loving their family.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gareth Slag" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 02:51:26 PM |
|
|
In article <45B461C6.714F977@braindead.com>
enquiring minds <braindead@braindead.com> wrote:
chrisholland2007@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
Is this wise?
Given that a significant majority of the population feel utter disgust,
is it right to put children through this?
Well, let me use my heterosexual parents whom adopted me as an example.
My father was gone
about 5 out of the 7 days a week and my mother slept until noon every
day, bought fast food for dinner and then hurried off to bingo 5 out of
7 nights a week. The children suffered no harm but being
heterosexual has no relationship to being a good parent - not remotely
related.
Watch it laddie. leave my folks out of this!
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
You are free to vomit whenever and wherever you like. My eyes well up
with tears
when I see a a parent and child doing something together, even after 50
years, like
sports, sailing, skiing.
Jesus, 50 years? When are those slackers leaving home?
I think there's nothing more touching than seeing a Dad having a pint and a
fag with his son or daughter at the local.
I never stop feeling the pain when I see young people sleeping in the
streets. What
did society do to these children to have them suffer so?
They shouldn't have let them live at home 50 years. Sarah Balfour has done
it 30 years, only 20 to go.
Think of the poor children.
Sadly, children love their parents and don't know any better until it is
much,
much too late.
Yes, they should have left home earlier.
Why do you think that men and women who are mistreated by family, and
society in
generaly, would want their offspring to suffer for one second. By what
you have written, it is
not clear what you would do to a son or daughter if you learned they
were homosexual. But disowning
them sounds like your first option? Sad.
Now that's silly. Chris takes precautions and would never sire an unwanted
offspring.
With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each others
bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...
Most heterosexual marriages suffer an incident or two or more of
infidility
whether the spouse ever learns of it or not during the length of the
marriage
and seems plausable in view of the fact that slightly less than 50
percent of
all marriage end in divorce.
I think marriage should have term limits.
I know of a mother who told me her little one year old said to her "Look
at me when I talk to you!"
Such a statement from a mother and from the mouth of a 2 year old tells
you how the child is
being raised. In spite of all my parents shortcominings, no one ever
spoke to us that way.
The courts both family and crimial cases are full of examples of
mistreated children being
raised by heterosexuals so again heterosexuality is no guarantee of
being a good parent.
My Dad used to say, "Look at me, you little *****." He was such a good
soul. I miss him so much. Now I'm sorry I stabbed him.
Most homosexuals being raised today learn to downplay their ability to
"camp" and simply
try to fit into society which has given them same sex marriage. But
even 2 daddies mincing
around really does no harm as long as the two daddies attend the kid's
soccer games, and
do everything a very good example of a non-mincing daddy does. Nothing
kill's a kid's pride than
a parent staggering around drunk in front of his peers and we all know
of the billions of heterosexual
parents who are staggering around drunk heterosexuals.
My Dad was a very good mincer, even while drunk. I had the best of both
worlds.
The biggest problem is not the nuclear arms race. Forget China's
missile blowing up the satellite. What is far more dangerous is world
being over-run by AIDS infected butt fucking queers.
Sadly, again you are wrong. Homosexuals have been around since the
beginning of time. They
are the most hated individuals on the planet or of the human race. But
in spite of such hate
they lead for the most part the same wonderful lives that other
minorities live.
Just look at Elton John.
Since the beginning of time about 1 to 10 percent of the population has
proven to be homosexual, so the
part of society that has been and continues to make the world "far more
dangerous" as you describe it, remains heterosexual. Are there any
leaders of any country who are homosexual?
You mean other than Tony Blair?
It is doubtful that you have a wife and children because usually it has
been found that most individuals whom are so hung up on homosexuals or
homosexuality, equally have problems dealing with authority, women,
peers, just about everybody they come in contact with. They often
drink a lot of alcohol or are extremely religious which is just the
opposite.
You didn't mention the animal kingdom and ghosts in your list. Not that
you're given to over-generalizations.
Sadly, you remain far more interesting than any homosexual could hope to
be because something happened to you
that makes you preoccupied with homosexuality. Most heterosexuals are
so involved with their girlfriend, wife, children, taking their children
to soccer, dance classes, music lessons they just simply fall into
bed after sipping tea with their spouse and watching the late night
news. No time in their lives to hate anyone - way, way too tired and
too busy - too busy loving their family.
Sipping tea with your spouse, watching the late night news, and falling in
bed too tired for some slap and tickle? I think I'd prefer being gay!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TimB" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 03:16:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination) but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
<snip>
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
Think of the poor children.
With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each others
bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...
The biggest problem is not the nuclear arms race. Forget China's
missile blowing up the satellite. What is far more dangerous is world
being over-run by AIDS infected butt fucking queers.
Your first sentence appears to have been written by a different person
to the rest of your post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gort" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 08:07:03 AM |
|
|
Your first sentence appears to have been written by a different person
to the rest of your post.
He's still in two minds about it.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 02:47:55 AM |
|
|
In message <1169343550.112261.269680@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
chrisholland2007@yahoo.com writes
I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination)
By the standards of uk.politics.misc. alt.bible and soc.men, this may
well be right. The standards of normal people are a different matter.
but I hear some
legislation is going through parliament that would allow g*ys to adopt
children.
Is this wise?
It would be foolish not to.
Given that a significant majority of the population feel utter disgust,
That is not a given at all. I have never understood how some people can
get so worked up about who other people choose to sleep with.
is it right to put children through this?
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
And how often do you see that? Unless you live in Brighton, I am
guessing the answer is never.
I dislike seeing any couple snogging on the street, straight or gay.
Think of the poor children.
I am. I would rather see them brought up by a gay couple in a loving and
high net worth home than in care with the high probability of being
sexually abused and end up a drug-addicted criminal.
If you think it is better for kids to end up as raped, drug-addicted
thieving whores, that is not the Britain I want, upm, it is not very
Christian, ab, and it would at least ensure a steady stream of people
willing to blow a goat for fifty bucks on the Internet for your
amusement, soc.men.
--
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cynic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
25 Jan 2007 01:29:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:47:55 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
And how often do you see that? Unless you live in Brighton, I am
guessing the answer is never.
I resemble that remark! I live in Brighton, and have very seldom seen
same-sex couples holding hands in public, let alone snogging. In fact
the only time was on the pier during "gay pride" amongst a very drunk
group of men who were probably from out of town. I expect that it
happens in certain areas at certain times, such as gay bars etc., but
IME there is no difference between Brighton and any other similar size
city. IMO it has a somewhat larger-than-life reputation in that
regard.
ISTM that public snogging & ostentatious affection is carried out
mainly by teenagers. There are very few openly gay teenagers IME.
--
Cynic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
25 Jan 2007 03:27:53 PM |
|
|
In message <7svhr2dj10mhcvi8s409499jsv9s82sa72@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> writes
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:47:55 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.
And how often do you see that? Unless you live in Brighton, I am
guessing the answer is never.
I resemble that remark! I live in Brighton, and have very seldom seen
same-sex couples holding hands in public, let alone snogging.
I don't live there, but I have visited from time to time, and I have
seen same sex couples holding hands. Not snogging, that I can recall
though.
In fact
the only time was on the pier during "gay pride" amongst a very drunk
group of men who were probably from out of town. I expect that it
happens in certain areas at certain times, such as gay bars etc., but
IME there is no difference between Brighton and any other similar size
city. IMO it has a somewhat larger-than-life reputation in that
regard.
ISTM that public snogging & ostentatious affection is carried out
mainly by teenagers. There are very few openly gay teenagers IME.
Fair comment.
--
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "halle" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 02:21:38 PM |
|
|
The queer Richard Miller seethed:
It would be foolish not to.
How come?
That is not a given at all. I have never understood how some people
can get so worked up about who other people choose to sleep with.
That's because you're a *****, Richard Miller. You like willies yourself,
so how could you ever comprehend what the heterosexual population thinks...?
I am. I would rather see them brought up by a gay couple in a loving
and high net worth home than in care with the high probability of
being sexually abused and end up a drug-addicted criminal.
If you think it is better for kids to end up as raped, drug-addicted
thieving whores, that is not the Britain I want, upm, it is not very
Christian, ab, and it would at least ensure a steady stream of people
willing to blow a goat for fifty bucks on the Internet for your
amusement, soc.men.
Children given into the "care" of sodomites will adopt their values.
Homosexuality is natures answer to the question: "How do we stop this shitty
individual from breeding?"
Thus they should not be given children. If you are a gay, you forfeit any
rights to having children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Cargill" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 04:03:38 PM |
|
|
"halle" <halle@kalle.nalle> wrote in message
news:rVPsh.9555$yI6.5526@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
The queer Richard Miller seethed:
That is not a given at all. I have never understood how some people
can get so worked up about who other people choose to sleep with.
That's because you're a *****, Richard Miller. You like willies yourself,
so how could you ever comprehend what the heterosexual population
thinks...?
I actually had to laugh at that sentence.
I am. I would rather see them brought up by a gay couple in a loving
and high net worth home than in care with the high probability of
being sexually abused and end up a drug-addicted criminal.
If you think it is better for kids to end up as raped, drug-addicted
thieving whores, that is not the Britain I want, upm, it is not very
Christian, ab, and it would at least ensure a steady stream of people
willing to blow a goat for fifty bucks on the Internet for your
amusement, soc.men.
Children given into the "care" of sodomites will adopt their values.
Homosexuality is natures answer to the question: "How do we stop this
shitty individual from breeding?"
No it isn't. Homosexuals are more than capable of breeding - it is sterile
people who cannot breed.
Thus they should not be given children. If you are a gay, you forfeit any
rights to having children.
What do you think is a better thing:
- A child being looked after by a caring homosexual couple
- A child being born into a broken family and ending up in various youth
institutions where he is bullied, beaten, unloved and uncared for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PeteM" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 06:36:16 AM |
|
|
Michael Cargill <fickle@fickle.abc> posted
What do you think is a better thing:
- A child being looked after by a caring homosexual couple
- A child being born into a broken family and ending up in various youth
institutions where he is bullied, beaten, unloved and uncared for?
When I was a schoolchild, there was a favourite game called "Would You
Rather?", played as follows. Little Johnny goes up to Little Davey and
says (for example): "Would you rather have sex with my granny, or have
your willie sawn off with a blunt rusty knife?" Little Davey replies
"Ooh that knife sounds horrible. I think I'd rather have sex with your
granny." At which Little Johnny runs around the playground triumphantly
shouting "Ha Ha! Listen everybody! Davey wants to have sex with my
granny! Davey wants to have sex with my granny! Ha Ha!"
It was, of course, considered poor form for Little Davey to respond to
the initial question with "Er, actually, I don't see why I have to
choose either."
It is a favourite game on Usenet as well as the playground. But we don't
have to stick to the same rules, of course.
--
PeteM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "halle" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 04:33:52 PM |
|
|
Michael Cargill seethed:
What do you think is a better thing:
- A child being looked after by a caring homosexual couple
- A child being born into a broken family and ending up in various
youth institutions where he is bullied, beaten, unloved and uncared
for?
That is a ridicilous straw man argument. How about this:
Require a license for anybody to have children and make the requirement a
steady home with a man and a woman and mental stability of both parents
along with financial stability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Cargill" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 02:57:41 PM |
|
|
"halle" <halle@kalle.nalle> wrote in message
news:pRRsh.9668$xU7.7692@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
Michael Cargill seethed:
What do you think is a better thing:
- A child being looked after by a caring homosexual couple
- A child being born into a broken family and ending up in various
youth institutions where he is bullied, beaten, unloved and uncared
for?
That is a ridicilous straw man argument. How about this:
Require a license for anybody to have children and make the requirement a
steady home with a man and a woman and mental stability of both parents
along with financial stability.
It isn't ridiculous at all. It is a simple question - can you answer it?
At what point are you going to stop choosing the straight couple over the
gay couple on principle?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanG" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 05:01:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:33:52 +0200, "halle" <halle@kalle.nalle> wrote:
Michael Cargill seethed:
What do you think is a better thing:
- A child being looked after by a caring homosexual couple
- A child being born into a broken family and ending up in various
youth institutions where he is bullied, beaten, unloved and uncared
for?
That is a ridicilous straw man argument. How about this:
Require a license for anybody to have children and make the requirement a
steady home with a man and a woman and mental stability of both parents
along with financial stability.
Oh Dear!
<godwin>
Nazi *****
</godwin>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cynic" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
25 Jan 2007 02:20:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:33:52 +0200, "halle" <halle@kalle.nalle> wrote:
That is a ridicilous straw man argument. How about this:
Require a license for anybody to have children and make the requirement a
steady home with a man and a woman and mental stability of both parents
along with financial stability.
Which may sound reasonable until you figure out how such a law would
have to be enforced.
And what do you do when, 2 years after the birth of the legally
licenced child, the husband gets made redundant and becomes bankrupt,
which leads to the couple arguing and eventually getting a divorce?
--
Cynic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
25 Jan 2007 02:53:02 PM |
|
|
Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:33:52 +0200, "halle" <halle@kalle.nalle> wrote:
That is a ridicilous straw man argument. How about this:
Require a license for anybody to have children and make the requirement a
steady home with a man and a woman and mental stability of both parents
along with financial stability.
Which may sound reasonable until you figure out how such a law would
have to be enforced.
And what do you do when, 2 years after the birth of the legally
licenced child, the husband gets made redundant and becomes bankrupt,
which leads to the couple arguing and eventually getting a divorce?
Wow! What an amazing amount of extra work for lawyers, after we've left
the Commons! <ISIRTA> Oh, what a giveaway </ISIRTA>
Let's do it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "enquiring minds" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 01:44:42 AM |
|
|
halle wrote:
Michael Cargill seethed:
What do you think is a better thing:
- A child being looked after by a caring homosexual couple
- A child being born into a broken family and ending up in various
youth institutions where he is bullied, beaten, unloved and uncared
for?
That is a ridicilous straw man argument. How about this:
Require a license for anybody to have children and make the requirement a
steady home with a man and a woman and mental stability of both parents
along with financial stability.
Well, if it wasn't so funny! A young couple recently said to me that
they can't
understand why all these married couples are having a problem because
they just go
to the gym or dance class in the case of the wife when things get
tense. Well, 10 months
later with the husband and wife getting no sleep, she has painfully sore
breasts from the kid
wanting to be feed every hour. Can't go anywhere much longer than an
hour, etc. The excitement
of a new child is everywhere in the air, but they are beginning to
understand that neither can leave
the house for long.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elder" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 03:57:38 AM |
|
|
In article <rVPsh.9555$yI6.5526@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
halle@kalle.nalle says...
Thus they should not be given children. If you are a gay, you forfeit any
rights to having children.
UIf you are infertile you forfeit the right to have children, yet
infertile couples are allowed to adopt. Obviously as they are infertile
God didn't want them to raise children. Why should society go against
the word of God?
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Creaming Jesus-quiet
.
|
|
|
| User: "halle" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 04:11:40 AM |
|
|
Elder:
In article <rVPsh.9555$yI6.5526@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
halle@kalle.nalle says...
Thus they should not be given children. If you are a gay, you
forfeit any rights to having children.
UIf you are infertile you forfeit the right to have children, yet
infertile couples are allowed to adopt. Obviously as they are
infertile God didn't want them to raise children. Why should society
go against the word of God?
I don't care much for "god".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 04:01:45 PM |
|
|
In message <rVPsh.9555$yI6.5526@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, halle
<halle@kalle.nalle> writes
The queer Richard Miller
That would be news to my fiancee.
seethed:
It would be foolish not to.
How come?
Because there are too many children in care who need carers, and not
enough carers for them.
That is not a given at all. I have never understood how some people
can get so worked up about who other people choose to sleep with.
That's because you're a *****, Richard Miller. You like willies yourself,
so how could you ever comprehend what the heterosexual population thinks...?
I'm not, I like my own and nobody else's, and the fact that you cannot
comprehend a straight person who sees nothing wrong with gay couples is
a sad indication of your own personality.
I am. I would rather see them brought up by a gay couple in a loving
and high net worth home than in care with the high probability of
being sexually abused and end up a drug-addicted criminal.
If you think it is better for kids to end up as raped, drug-addicted
thieving whores, that is not the Britain I want, upm, it is not very
Christian, ab, and it would at least ensure a steady stream of people
willing to blow a goat for fifty bucks on the Internet for your
amusement, soc.men.
Children given into the "care" of sodomites will adopt their values.
Why?
Homosexuality is natures answer to the question: "How do we stop this shitty
individual from breeding?"
Or a by-product of nature's answer in the genes to making women more
fertile.
Thus they should not be given children. If you are a gay, you forfeit any
rights to having children.
Why?
--
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maria" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
21 Jan 2007 04:11:23 PM |
|
|
Richard Miller wrote:
In message <rVPsh.9555$yI6.5526@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, halle
<halle@kalle.nalle> writes
The queer Richard Miller
That would be news to my fiancee.
seethed:
It would be foolish not to.
How come?
Because there are too many children in care who need carers, and not
enough carers for them.
But not a sufficient shortage to prevent heterosexual couples who
disapprove of gay adoption from being chucked off the list or
prospective adopters?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430087&in_page_id=1770
'Advice from the councils' umbrella body, the Local Government
Association, has praised authorities that encourage gay adoption and
instructed social workers to strike off from their list of potential
adoptive parents anybody who disagrees with gay adoption.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 01:05:41 AM |
|
|
In message <1169417483.465296.122840@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Maria <info@tajarts.co.uk> writes
Richard Miller wrote:
But not a sufficient shortage to prevent heterosexual couples who
disapprove of gay adoption from being chucked off the list or
prospective adopters?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article
_id=430087&in_page_id=1770
'Advice from the councils' umbrella body, the Local Government
Association, has praised authorities that encourage gay adoption and
instructed social workers to strike off from their list of potential
adoptive parents anybody who disagrees with gay adoption.'
That's taking things too far if true. I agree that the rules for
heterosexual adopters are also too strict. But bigotry is not a sign of
a good potential adopter.
--
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanG" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 05:13:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:05:41 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1169417483.465296.122840@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Maria <info@tajarts.co.uk> writes
Richard Miller wrote:
But not a sufficient shortage to prevent heterosexual couples who
disapprove of gay adoption from being chucked off the list or
prospective adopters?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article
_id=430087&in_page_id=1770
'Advice from the councils' umbrella body, the Local Government
Association, has praised authorities that encourage gay adoption and
instructed social workers to strike off from their list of potential
adoptive parents anybody who disagrees with gay adoption.'
That's taking things too far if true. I agree that the rules for
heterosexual adopters are also too strict. But bigotry is not a sign of
a good potential adopter.
No catholics or Ulster protestants then
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 06:15:27 AM |
|
|
In message <t079r21rue7i0qd6673butakhv3v3m1jkj@4ax.com>, AlanG
<plant@invalid.com> writes
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:05:41 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That's taking things too far if true. I agree that the rules for
heterosexual adopters are also too strict. But bigotry is not a sign of
a good potential adopter.
No catholics or Ulster protestants then
That sort of bigotry is just as damaging - more so in fact, just look at
the number of lives it has cost in Ireland over the years.
--
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanG" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 07:20:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:15:27 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <t079r21rue7i0qd6673butakhv3v3m1jkj@4ax.com>, AlanG
<plant@invalid.com> writes
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:05:41 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That's taking things too far if true. I agree that the rules for
heterosexual adopters are also too strict. But bigotry is not a sign of
a good potential adopter.
No catholics or Ulster protestants then
That sort of bigotry is just as damaging - more so in fact, just look at
the number of lives it has cost in Ireland over the years.
Are you falling into the trap of saying all devout catholics or
protestants are not fit to adopt? Not fit to raise children?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 07:55:59 AM |
|
|
In message <vce9r211d9jj8srd5ec6qhevd7fcttd9uo@4ax.com>, AlanG
<plant@invalid.com> writes
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:15:27 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <t079r21rue7i0qd6673butakhv3v3m1jkj@4ax.com>, AlanG
<plant@invalid.com> writes
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:05:41 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That's taking things too far if true. I agree that the rules for
heterosexual adopters are also too strict. But bigotry is not a sign of
a good potential adopter.
No catholics or Ulster protestants then
That sort of bigotry is just as damaging - more so in fact, just look at
the number of lives it has cost in Ireland over the years.
Are you falling into the trap of saying all devout catholics or
protestants are not fit to adopt? Not fit to raise children?
No.
--
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maria" |
|
| Title: Re: Homo (male) couples adopting children |
22 Jan 2007 02:36:55 AM |
|
|
Richard Miller wrote:
In message <1169417483.465296.122840@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Maria <info@tajarts.co.uk> writes
Richard Miller wrote:
But not a sufficient shortage to prevent heterosexual couples who
disapprove of gay adoption from being chucked off the list or
prospective adopters?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article
_id=430087&in_page_id=1770
'Advice from the councils' umbrella body, the Local Government
Association, has praised authorities that encourage gay adoption and
instructed social workers to strike off from their list of potential
adoptive parents anybody who disagrees with gay adoption.'
That's taking things too far if true.
Well it certainly goes some way to negate the argument that any
adoptive parent is better than the state.
I agree that the rules for
heterosexual adopters are also too strict. But bigotry is not a sign of
a good potential adopter.
Can sexual preferences amount to bigotry, if a person tends to keep
ones opinions to oneself?
Should natural parents be screened for bigotry and have their children
removed? It could happen if the distinction between private and state
parenting becomes any blurrier than it is already has!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
Help with raising vegan children Re: Should children be protected from the bible and christianity? Re: Abortion has NO Effect on Children... ALL of which have been BORN... Re: Eritrean children locked up for having Bibles Every day they murder one or two Palestinian children on their way to school Governor Schwarzenegger has AGAIN demonstrated that he is the best man for the job as he protects our children from violent VG's! the loving, caring god, busy as usual, killing children - 147 Northern Uganda's War-Sick Children Move into the Media Spotlight
| Re: God and Children THE CHILD-PROTECTING CHRISTIAN GOD, BUSY AS USUAL, WATCHING CHILDREN GET RAPED - 400 " Little children, keep yourself from idols. Amen. " 1 John 5:21 Re: Cutting Off Arms and Crushing Children's Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom FIREFIGHTERS SAVE CHILDREN FROM THE COLD-HEARTED ***** CHRISTIAN GOD WHAT IS BUSH-REGIME HIDING??! - "... control the Senate, the White House, and the courts, and you're still getting busted for bribery, stalking children, and money laundering, then something is really sick at the Republican core. THE COLD-HEARTED CROCK OF CRAP CHRISTIAN GOD, BUSY AS USUAL, MURDERING CHILDREN - 616
|
|
|