Mr1chop Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Is this a joke or did you really mean to type that? On what grounds do you claim gay couples would 'screw some kid up in the mind'? Lesbians don't there's no evidence that single gay men who've been adopting kids for some time do why would the addition of another gay male to a household make any difference? Seeing as the choices here are that kids remain in 'care' which has a proven track record of messing kids up in many ways or we open the pool of potential adopters up to include gay couples which will take some children out of 'care' and into loving families how can you seriously oppose gay adoption? Why should we let notional potential problems that we have no reason to think exist prevent us from removing children from situations proven beyond any doubt to damage them? There would be no need to open adoption up to gay people, just change the strict adoption policies they have now. I understand that it is really difficult for straight couples/single to adopt as it is. And just because someone doesnt agree with you the does that mean they are a Homophobe...Please… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr1chop Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Yeah lets 'play safe' by leaving children in care 1. Chapter 1 sets out the shocking statistics on the education of children in care. Only 11% of children in care attained 5 good GCSEs in 2005 compared with 56% of all children, and similar performance gaps exist at all ages both before and after Key Stage 4. 2. The long-term outcomes of children in care are also devastating. They are over-represented in a range of vulnerable groups including those not in education, employment or training post-16, teenage parents, young offenders, drug users and prisoners. Source So realistically there will always be a need for local care of children (Gay couples could not take all the children) whether there is gay adoption or not, so you really gave a solution to the problem; the care establishment need fixing first before any risk known or not could be inflicted upon a child. If you do not agree with this then I presume you would not put the welfare of a child 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Given that you're so fond of pointing out possible sources of bias, is this the same Family Policy Network whose motto is 'Informing Christians and Confronting the Culture On the Important Moral Issues of the Day'? Didn't you say in a previous post that this wasn't a religious issue? It shows how disreputable these people are and the depths to which lesbians will stoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 It shows how disreputable these people are and the depths to which lesbians will stoop. Let me just check; you're joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Where does it say my beliefs, there you go trying to twist peoples words again. If you look at my previous responses that is not my belief or view, I am posting an opinion which is until there is absolute proof that there would be no detriment to a child then it is better to play it safe for the sake of the children. You said and I quote - ''nobody knows the effects of a gay (male) couple of parents would have on certain children, and I would rather all gay couples went without children rather than screw some kid up in the mind.'' So it was an utterly reasonable question to ask. Again, what possible grounds do you have for thinking that homosexuals would ''screw some kid up in the mind?'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 How terribly, all us nasty rationalists repressing you poor bigots and intimidating you with our nasty facts You mean your twisted fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Plekhanov? Why do you assume he's gay? Plekhanov isn't gay. Even the word is a corruption of the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 People who oppose gay adoption are quite rightly 'branded as homophobes' as there are no reasons other than homophobia to oppose it.Reasons being the unnatural behavior of two women attempting to have sex with each other, perverted behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoeshine Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Plekhanov isn't gay. Even the word is a corruption of the English language. I remember the word gay meaning something different, Grahame, until I looked it up in the Chamber's Online Dictionary recently.... gay adj (gayer, gayest) 1 homosexual; relating to, frequented by, or intended for, homosexuals • a gay bar. ETYMOLOGY: first attested in the 1930s, though it may have been in use earlier; now the principal sense, so much so that to use gay in any other sense causes raised eyebrows or a titter. Compare queer adj 1 happily carefree. 2 bright and attractive. 3 fun-loving or pleasure-seeking. noun a homosexual. gayness noun the state of being gay, especially in the sense 'homosexual'. Note: words in bold type have been highlighted by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Reasons being the unnatural behavior of two women attempting to have sex with each other, perverted behavior. If Jesus could hear you saying that he'd tell you off you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts