[GiRTh]

Ok for those who agree with Winston maybe you can answer the question - why is it abuse for a same sex couple to adopt? Please be specific and highlight why exactly it would be abuse.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Ok for those who agree with Winston maybe you can answer the question - why is it abuse for a same sex couple to adopt? Please be specific and highlight why exactly it would be abuse.

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

I don't see an issue so please explain why its bad?

[Will.]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

Just because someone is female doesn't make them a perfect mother, i can think of a lot of child abuse cases where mothers have been the spawn of satan (and i'm not religious).

Just as long as a child has caring parents whether they be a gay couple, a single parent, or those with religious beliefs, as long as the child will be loved and cared for in a secure and loving home, what does it really matter?

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

They don't have a mother in a care home either. And as someone who knows a gay man who's adopted a child, I can assure you that there is plenty of 'forethought'. No one just wakes up one day and says 'I think I'll adopt a kid today, and yipee i'm gay so they won't have a mum'. Life's not a fairy tale mate, and any child in care would be lucky to have a loving home to go to, regardless of how many parents and what gender/sexual orientation they are.

[sungrass]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

They don't have a mother in a care home either. And as someone who knows a gay man who's adopted a child, I can assure you that there is plenty of 'forethought'. No one just wakes up one day and says 'I think I'll adopt a kid today, and yipee i'm gay so they won't have a mum'. Life's not a fairy tale mate, and any child in care would be lucky to have a loving home to go to, regardless of how many parents and what gender/sexual orientation they are.

Aye - having worked with kids that have been in care in a vocational college- truthfully they just want a family that loves them, they couldnt care less about them being gay, care is awful and lonely. However Winston was used by CBB and it was a witch hunt, in his culture thats how things are - its like my old nan, she is NOT politically correct! and its like nan - you musn't say that - but shes just an old woman. You should watch a bit of "it was alright in the 70's" - if you ever work with older people the things they will say will really shock you!

[jet]

Originally Posted by sungrass

Aye - having worked with kids that have been in care in a vocational college- truthfully they just want a family that loves them, they couldnt care less about them being gay, care is awful and lonely. However Winston was used by CBB and it was a witch hunt, in his culture thats how things are - its like my old nan, she is NOT politically correct! and its like nan - you musn't say that - but shes just an old woman. You should watch a bit of "it was alright in the 70's" - if you ever work with older people the things they will say will really shock you!

Winston is 62, not 82. His formative years were during the 60's which was quite an age of enlightenment. I don't personally know many people under 70 who has views like Winston. Over it, yes, I know quite a few who are scandalized by homosexuality but also others that aren't. Age isn't always an indicator by any means.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jet

Winston is 62, not 82. His formative years were during the 60's which was quite an age of enlightenment. I don't personally know many people under 70 who has views like Winston. Over it, yes, I know quite a few who are scandalized by homosexuality but also others that aren't. Age isn't always an indicator by any means.

Also, as a politician he should be expected to be in touch with how society currently is, regardless of his age. He should be held to different standards to other older people who aren't trying to be representative figures for the current population. If he's unable to move with the times then frankly, he's in the wrong job.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

Would you rather they stay in a childrens home with no mother or father?

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by MrWong

Would you rather they stay in a childrens home with no mother or father?

No. I would rather they went to a mother and father.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

No. I would rather they went to a mother and father.

Its not even worth trying to explain something to you, its obvious you are stuck in your ancient discriminating ways and seem to pride yourself on deciding that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, you're probably one of those imbeciles who think gays shouldn't be allowed to donate blood incase they spread gayness

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

Its not even worth trying to explain something to you, its obvious you are stuck in your ancient discriminating ways and seem to pride yourself on deciding that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, you're probably one of those imbeciles who think gays shouldn't be allowed to donate blood incase they spread gayness

Nice strawman.

If you are going to make up arguments I have never said then I think we will leave it there.

You said this would be fun so I had high hopes for a decent debate with you. Boy, was I disappointed.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Nice strawman.

If you are going to make up arguments I have never said then I think we will leave it there.

You said this would be fun so I had high hopes for a decent debate with you. Boy, was I disappointed.

I did have fun actually, it was a right laugh reading you clutching at straws trying to prove to me why adoption by homosexual couples was child abuse, maybe we should meet next week for more fabby fun

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

If a mother was deceased or couldn't handle children and the dad was on his own it would be child abuse?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

Can you explain how children have the choice to be born to a home to a heterosexual couple? To a single mother? To a single father? I have a feeling that you already know that you're talking **** because you want some attention but i'd be very interested to hear your answer

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Withano

Can you explain how children have the choice to be born to a home to a heterosexual couple? To a single mother? To a single father? I have a feeling that you already know that you're talking **** because you want some attention but i'd be very interested to hear your answer

I didn't say they have a choice.

My point is that when you, as the authorities, are choosing where to place a child then you want to place it with a mother. Mothers are quite important.

I keep hearing that "heveryone has the right to adopt, the right to be happy, the right to a child." What a selfish viewpoint. The only person whose happiness is paramount is the child. Robbing a child of a mother from day one is not healthy.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

I didn't say they have a choice.

My point is that when you, as the authorities, are choosing where to place a child then you want to place it with a mother. Mothers are quite important.

I keep hearing that "heveryone has the right to adopt, the right to be happy, the right to a child." What a selfish viewpoint. The only person whose happiness is paramount is the child. Robbing a child of a mother from day one is not healthy.

...the child's happiness and the best family for them is always considered as the first priority, though...and in that priority gay couples are able to adopt because they are felt to be preferential parents, to be able to offer what that child needs..there is no 'robbing' by adoption agencies of anything a mother could provide because in some cases it's the biological mother herself who has 'robbed'...robbing her child(ren) of love, safety, trust and of a committed, responsible and stable home and maternal parent...and instead, damaged them in some cases with abuse...children..(I don't mean babies..).. that are adopted are often and mostly very 'damaged' children and very mistrusting, for obvious reasons.... they can and often do, have extreme behaviour issues...and where a mother herself has been the issue/the reason for their being adopted and the reason for their 'damage'...they can also have no trust with females in their lives/who then become the 'targets' for their emotions, through their fear and mistrust of them and it certainly wouldn't be in their best interest to place them with one... but for instance..two males could be exactly what's needed to provide that happiness...there is not 'one size fits all' child to be adopted as the reasons for them being adopted/their lives are entirely different and equally there is not a one size fits all parenting for that child(ren)...it's not selfish at all to give a child happiness and a family who can best provide that, to give them everything, they've already been 'robbed' of before adoption, I would say it's the exact opposite of selfishness...it would be robbing a second time, to deny them that if it was available to them...


..but equally, if a male/female parenting is what that child(ren) need, that's indeed exactly what they get...always what will provide them with what they've been 'robbed' of in their lives...

[Withano]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

I didn't say they have a choice.

My point is that when you, as the authorities, are choosing where to place a child then you want to place it with a mother. Mothers are quite important.

I keep hearing that "heveryone has the right to adopt, the right to be happy, the right to a child." What a selfish viewpoint. The only person whose happiness is paramount is the child. Robbing a child of a mother from day one is not healthy.

In whos opinion, yours? It is easy to argue that growing up with two fathers leave the child in a much healthier position (they certainly would not grow up as ignorant as Winston and wouldn't possess yours and his shared views, so thats one, nil to same sex couples right there) but it is obviously something that you've grown into and not something you are willing to grow out of.

I do believe that you would personally be upset with a same sex couple as parents but you should understand that most people are likely to not give a **** because that is the way Britain is evolving, your only argument is I'm less evolved than most of Britain so listen to me and Winston because **** you. and that's not a good argument.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Withano

In whos opinion, yours? It is easy to argue that growing up with two fathers leave the child in a much healthier position (they certainly would not grow up as ignorant as Winston and wouldn't possess yours and his shared views, so thats one, nil to same sex couples right there) but it is obviously something that you've grown into and not something you are willing to grow out of.

I do believe that you would personally be upset with a same sex couple as parents but you should understand that most people are likely to not give a **** because that is the way Britain is evolving, your only argument is I'm less evolved than most of Britain so listen to me and Winston because **** you. and that's not a good argument.

So you are saying that only your opinion is right?

Do you actually know what an opinion is?