[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

[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.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Because y'all can't handle the truth. (his truth)

[Shaun]

For someone so against the gays he sure can't give a straight answer

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

For someone so against the gays he sure can't give a straight answer

[Paul Kersey]

Gay mafia does not allow any other point of view.

[Shaun]

*arranges for a unicorn head on Paul's pillow*

[cheapbbfan]

Why does he have to? He does not need to justify his view on gay adoption to anyone on this show. He explained himself. People didnt like his answer. There is NOTHING he can say on the subject that people will like so why even bother?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by cheapbbfan

Why does he have to? He does not need to justify his view on gay adoption to anyone on this show. He explained himself. People didnt like his answer. There is NOTHING he can say on the subject that people will like so why even bother?

Its polite to answer a questions when asked. Especially as when asked if he stood by what he said. he said as I recall 'Hell Yes' If he's that adamant he should be able to explain why he takes this stance.

[cheapbbfan]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Its polite to answer a questions when asked. Especially as when asked if he stood by what he said. he said as I recall 'Hell Yes' If he's that adamant he should be able to explain why he takes this stance.

he explained himself in the house. If Emma wanted answers, she should watch the tapes. He was being goaded into saying more controversial stuff so this show would have further material to attack him with. If you give an idiot a rope, they'll hang themselves. He did his best not to let them put him in a position to do that bc anything he would have said would have been met with scrutiny. Opposers of him may want to deny that but you know its true

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by cheapbbfan

he explained himself in the house. If Emma wanted answers, she should watch the tapes. He was being goaded into saying more controversial stuff so this show would have further material to attack him with. If you give an idiot a rope, they'll hang themselves. He did his best not to let them put him in a position to do that bc anything he would have said would have been met with scrutiny. Opposers of him may want to deny that but you know its true

No. HE started waffling on about boxing, his support for the homeless, all Emma did was get him back on track.

As for giving him enough rope to hang himself? No one forced him into saying what he said so I dont get that he was lead in any way or baited. He made his comment with little provocation and failed to stand by them.,

[cheapbbfan]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

No. HE started waffling on about boxing, his support for the homeless, all Emma did was get him back on track.

As for giving him enough rope to hang himself? No one forced him into saying what he said so I dont get that he was lead in any way or baited. He made his comment with little provocation and failed to stand by them.,

Because he didnt want to answer and he should have been straight forward with that. If I were him, Id have told Emma straight up that I no longer wanted to talk about that subject. We can discuss my time in the house. Next.

he never said that in the house. It was completely irrelevant to the game and should have never been brought into this. He has NO reason to justify anything he said or did outside of this house. Had he been going around telling that comment to others in the house, it would have been a different story but he chose to keep his opinions to himself till BB forced this upon him. He doesnt need to respond to that

[Paul Kersey]

Originally Posted by Will1999

He starts rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with it.

Wanna kill him? Hang him?

[Jason.]

It's because he's a politician. Most of them do the same thing. Having irrelevant answers to questions so they don't look as bad.

[Will.]

I'd love to have gay parents, they always seem to bring there children up in such a pleasant manner and go the extra mile.

ALL YOU NEED IS 2 LOVING PARENTS! IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER ABOUT THEIR GODAMN SEXUALITY, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

[Vicky.]

Its not just this, he doesn't give a straight answer to anything from what I have seen, always rambly. Very...politician like

[joeysteele]

He won't give a straight answer because likely the real truth and real answer is he does hold the view that gay adoption is child abuse.
Also that he stands firmly by his distorted and prejudiced comments which by the fact he will not retract any part of it, shows the quote is in fact totally his.

[smudgie]

I want to know why nobody asked him the correct question.he had already answered that he does believe it's wrong and that it could cause child abuse.
Surely the question that should have been asked is what exactly does he mean by abuse?
Is he of the old fashioned opinion that such children would face ridicule and bullying at school and from their peers.
If so, then he needs to understand that the only way to stop this happening is to make it more normal for same sex parenting.
Children are cruel, if a child loses one of its parents due to bereavement they can end up being bullied as well, it is purely down to the ignorance of the other children, they don't like anything different or out of the ordinary that they don't understand, so surely the more they see that it is quite normal and ok for same sex parents the better.
If he is on about any other kind of abuse then I don't have a clue where he gets that skewered idea.
I can understand his Christian upbringing saying its not allowed for man to lay with man etc. in the bible, but I have never heard anything about child abuse in the bible.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I want to know why nobody asked him the correct question.he had already answered that he does believe it's wrong and that it could cause child abuse.
Surely the question that should have been asked is what exactly does he mean by abuse?
Is he of the old fashioned opinion that such children would face ridicule and bullying at school and from their peers.
If so, then he needs to understand that the only way to stop this happening is to make it more normal for same sex parenting.
Children are cruel, if a child loses one of its parents due to bereavement they can end up being bullied as well, it is purely down to the ignorance of the other children, they don't like anything different or out of the ordinary that they don't understand, so surely the more they see that it is quite normal and ok for same sex parents the better.
If he is on about any other kind of abuse then I don't have a clue where he gets that skewered idea.
I can understand his Christian upbringing saying its not allowed for man to lay with man etc. in the bible, but I have never heard anything about child abuse in the bible.

Why should he have to justify his views to anyone?

I certainly wouldn't. I would have said "Its my opinion." And those would have been my last 3 words on the subject.