Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Political Correctness


Fat-Pat
 Share

Recommended Posts

How does this jive with your opinions on homosexual couples adopting?

 

(Sample quote: "As far as homo adoptions go, it's just plain wrong.")

 

 

Because one issue is about child welfare and whether that form of adoption is what is best for the child, and the other issue is about whether the laws and morals dealing with racism and racist abuse should be applied equally to everyone.

 

Are you very young because it shows naiveity (sp) that you cannot draw a distinction between the two subjects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate all these PC shit but if some white newsreader called Trevor a fat black bastard they would be sacked and crucified by the media.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6987536.stm

 

Did you not gauge the tone of the joke?

 

 

"In the case of this programme, Sir Trevor McDonald obviously, and intentionally, drew on Bernard Manning's own style of humour, which frequently played on the real or apparent prejudices of his audience.

 

"The comments were clearly intended to parody Manning's own comedy, where he claimed he was not himself racist, but simply made 'jokes' based on racial stereotypes,"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how much you try to remove inequality, it is always going to be there with the extremists of each religion and race. There will be always a minority wanting to go against the grain, there will always be a collective in the middle seeing both sides, and then you have the pro lifers, people who think they can make the world a better place and everything will sing in perfect harmony. Its a vicous cycle.

 

To quote the master that is Bill Hicks

 

It's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.

 

 

Largely agree. However, racism like most forms of prejudice has it's roots in human instinct. However unpalatable it sounds these instincts are within us all. Some control it entirely, others limit it to jokes about nationality, disablement, sexuality, race etc. How many of us have never told an Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman joke? Others cannot control it and allow their instinct to manifest itself violently.

 

These instincts will never be removed from the human psyche. If aliens landed tomorrow and tried to be our friends and live amongst us, there would still be people ripping the piss out of their pointy ears. We have to depend on education to reduce violence but it will never be eliminated. Which is why it makes me cringe when you hear the government and public authorities claim they intend to eradicate racism etc. Mission impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because one issue is about child welfare and whether that form of adoption is what is best for the child

 

Yeah, you didn't actually give any evidence that one was worse than the other. That other thread is only on page two if you want to post your evidence there...

 

Are you very young because it shows naiveity (sp) that you cannot draw a distinction between the two subjects.

 

So sue me if I fail to see a difference between arbitrarily discriminating against a person based on one immutable and inconsequential characteristic and arbitrarily discriminating against a person based on another immutable and inconsequential characteristic.

 

PS it's "naivety" or "naivete"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you didn't actually give any evidence that one was worse than the other. That other thread is only on page two if you want to post your evidence there...

 

 

 

So sue me if I fail to see a difference between arbitrarily discriminating against a person based on one immutable and inconsequential characteristic and arbitrarily discriminating against a person based on another immutable and inconsequential characteristic.

 

PS it's "naivety" or "naivete"

 

You're quite right. You have failed so spot the difference. But don't worry about it - I didn't expect you to.

 

Keep trying matey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're quite right. You have failed so spot the difference. But don't worry about it - I didn't expect you to.

 

Well I keep asking you for the evidence that you use to "spot the difference" but you've been a little backwards in coming forward with it. If it's so obvious, I'm sure you won't mind pointing it out to little old me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah like slavery; that's never going to be abolished is it?

 

Did I use the semi colon correctly?

 

Not sure I follow you. Slavery is more as a result of elitism than racism. The Romans enslaved pretty much everyone. Far easier to abolish slavery than abolishing instincts.

 

To allow the pedant in me to rise to the surface, shouldn't 'semi-colon' be itself hyphenated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I keep asking you for the evidence that you use to "spot the difference" but you've been a little backwards in coming forward with it. If it's so obvious, I'm sure you won't mind pointing it out to little old me.

 

Now you're confusing your threads. 'The difference' you and I were taking about was the difference between the two issues, not between the different types of adoption. But it is late and past your bedtime so I'll let you off.

 

Just to shut you up I will state the obvious to you. A child adopted by a same-sex couple is being intentionally deprived of the close personal intimate influence of parents of both sex. All in the name of modern thinking - political correctness if you like. You don't I'm sure need me to provide evidence of how mercilessly cruel children can be. And they would be to a kid with two daddies or two mummies. Unless a kid is a particularly strong character, they are going to suffer for it. All in the name of modern thinking.

 

Most children from loving homes have enjoyed the benefit of a relationship with their mother and their father. It's the right of every child.

 

I don't give a shit if this sounds homophobic or not but a child should not be brought up thinking that homosexual relationships are the norm. Children should learn about this in their years of sexual maturing and only then learn that it is a lifestyle choice open to them. Yes I know younger kids call each other 'gay' or 'queer' but how many of them are using the words because they really know what they mean? How many are using them just to be little gits like most of us did?

 

Whether you accept it or not, nature decreed that children will have a mother and a father. It did this for a good reason. Because having both bringing up a child is what is best.

 

I have never said that same-sex parents would be bad parents. I have never said they cannot provide a lot of love for a child. A mate of mine at work and her 'wife' are trying for a baby through a sperm donor. They would make very caring parents I have no doubt but I still don't think it right. I have said that it is not the best form of adoption for a child. There can't be many people out there who would rather give a child to a suitable same-sex couple than to a suitable male/female couple.

 

I'd have thought most of that was obvious but as you didn't seen to know it, there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow you. Slavery is more as a result of elitism than racism. The Romans enslaved pretty much everyone. Far easier to abolish slavery than abolishing instincts.

 

To allow the pedant in me to rise to the surface, shouldn't 'semi-colon' be itself hyphenated?

 

I was referring to the defeatist attitude. And yes, I believe it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to shut you up I will state the obvious to you. A child adopted by a same-sex couple is being intentionally deprived of the close personal intimate influence of parents of both sex.

 

As is a child adopted by a single parent. Are you therefore against single parent adoption too?

 

Of course, you've yet to actually show that a child needs the "close personal intimate influence" of a mother and a father. But I'm sure you'll come up with some evidence later in your post.

 

You don't I'm sure need me to provide evidence of how mercilessly cruel children can be. And they would be to a kid with two daddies or two mummies. Unless a kid is a particularly strong character, they are going to suffer for it. All in the name of modern thinking.

 

Let's assume for one kerrazy moment that the narrow-mindedness of other people is a valid reason to remove rights from an individual that are enjoyed by others. Do you have any evidence that children with gay parents suffer more taunting than, say, children of fat parents? Children of ginger parents? Children of black or Asian or mixed parents?

 

Hey, maybe we should ban adoption to all of these other groups too, just to make absolutely sure that no adopted child suffers anything so dreadful and life-shattering as a few extra playground-based insults

 

Most children from loving homes have enjoyed the benefit of a relationship with their mother and their father. It's the right of every child.

 

If it's a child's right to enjoy a relationship with both a mother and a father, then presumably you'll be in favour of taking children from single parents into care and handing them over to happily married couples? Maybe "right" wasn't the word you were looking for here.

 

I don't give a shit if this sounds homophobic or not but a child should not be brought up thinking that homosexual relationships are the norm. Children should learn about this in their years of sexual maturing and only then learn that it is a lifestyle choice open to them.

 

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Let me ask you: who in their right mind would actively choose to be gay?

 

Whether you accept it or not, nature decreed that children will have a mother and a father. It did this for a good reason. Because having both bringing up a child is what is best.

 

Nature didn't "decree" anything. That implies some kind of structure or order to the world. Children have a mother and a father, not because it's necessarily "best", but because that's what biology dictates. I reckon it would be "best" if I was 8 feet tall and could uncork wine bottles with my bare hands, but it's not in my biology. The limits of biology aren't necessarily what is best.

 

There can't be many people out there who would rather give a child to a suitable same-sex couple than to a suitable male/female couple.

 

Well, maybe not, but that says more about them than it does about same-sex couples. Of course, it's worth nothing that same-sex couple are more willing to take in children that hetero couples would not - children with HIV or behavioural difficulties, for example. How wonderful that you would deny these unfortunate children a home because you don't think it 'right' that gay people should adopt.

 

I'd have thought most of that was obvious but as you didn't seen to know it, there it is.

 

Most of your post was conjecture. I didn't actually see much in the way of evidence.

 

Do you actually know what evidence is? Let me help you out.

 

This is evidence. It's from a report by the American Psychological Association:

 

[T]here is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. [R]esearch has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

 

This is also evidence. It's from a report by the Canadian Department of Justice:

 

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.

 

Now be careful. Obviously you don't want evidence like mine, since my evidence goes directly against what you're trying to prove. What you want is evidence that supports your point of view. Not mine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fucking hell. Here we go again...

 

As is a child adopted by a single parent. Are you therefore against single parent adoption too?

 

Yes of course I am, as a general rule. That's just common sense.

 

Of course, you've yet to actually show that a child needs the "close personal intimate influence" of a mother and a father. But I'm sure you'll come up with some evidence later in your post.

 

You need me to evidence how a child needs the "close personal intimate influence of a mother and father"? Now you're just being a cock.

 

 

 

Let's assume for one kerrazy moment that the narrow-mindedness of other people is a valid reason to remove rights from an individual that are enjoyed by others. Do you have any evidence that children with gay parents suffer more taunting than, say, children of fat parents? Children of ginger parents? Children of black or Asian or mixed parents?.

 

I am not concerned with the "rights" of the prospecive adopters but with the welfare of children. You have made your priorities obvious during this thread and many others.

 

As far as this evidence about taunting that you seek, I have no doubt that were I to trawl the internet for long enough I would find a few people's accounts in a few blogs somewhere. I can think of a few of my friends I would devote this time for and maybe even a few others on here. I wouldn't devote any of that energy in your direction when you are clearly, well... an objectionable tit.

 

 

Hey, maybe we should ban adoption to all of these other groups too, just to make absolutely sure that no adopted child suffers anything so dreadful and life-shattering as a few extra playground-based insults?

 

Staedy now. You're being a cock again.

 

 

If it's a child's right to enjoy a relationship with both a mother and a father, then presumably you'll be in favour of taking children from single parents into care and handing them over to happily married couples? Maybe "right" wasn't the word you were looking for here.

 

Okay, go on then. Be a cock.

 

 

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Let me ask you: who in their right mind would actively choose to be gay?

 

You don't know that many homosexual people do you? If you did, and you said this to them, you could expect a black eye.

 

 

Nature didn't "decree" anything. That implies some kind of structure or order to the world. Children have a mother and a father, not because it's necessarily "best", but because that's what biology dictates. I reckon it would be "best" if I was 8 feet tall and could uncork wine bottles with my bare hands, but it's not in my biology. The limits of biology aren't necessarily what is best.

 

Eh?

 

 

Well, maybe not, but that says more about them than it does about same-sex couples. Of course, it's worth nothing that same-sex couple are more willing to take in children that hetero couples would not - children with HIV or behavioural difficulties, for example. How wonderful that you would deny these unfortunate children a home because you don't think it 'right' that gay people should adopt..

 

I have worked for and alongside many foster parents over the years - single parents and married couples. Including same-sex couples. Basically chum, you have just made that up. Absolute poppycock.

 

 

 

Most of your post was conjecture. I didn't actually see much in the way of evidence.

 

Do you actually know what evidence is? Let me help you out.

 

This is evidence. It's from a report by the American Psychological Association:

 

 

 

This is also evidence. It's from a report by the Canadian Department of Justice:

 

 

 

Now be careful. Obviously you don't want evidence like mine, since my evidence goes directly against what you're trying to prove. What you want is evidence that supports your point of view. Not mine.

 

 

Do you actually know what 'conjecture' means? It means to guess. Speculation. What is guesswork about my earlier post? Certainly a lot of opinion but guesswork?

 

 

Look chum. There are some people in life who you just cannot reason with. I don't mean agree - I mean that they will always twist what you say to suit their agenda. You are one of those people. You consistently make posts that go completely off at a tangent from the subject, or put words in my mouth, make bizarre assumptions which are completely unreasonable when you have based them on my quotes/opinions and are irrational. For some recent examples, see above where I have called you a 'cock'. That's evidence. Which is why I tire of this to-ing and fro-ing with you. You can't argue reasonably. So, come back at me if you must but unless you're sensible I am unlikely to reply.

 

You don't like me and I don't like you. That seems fair. What I will say, however, is that I will take no lectures on humanity from you when you find it so easy to poke fun at a disabled baby and not bat an eyelid when someone points out how in poor taste it was. It is rather notable that while not actually criticising same-sex couples my interests are clearly in the welfare of the child. Yours are in the rights of the same-sex couple. A sign of someone with somewhat cock-eyed priorities but not surprising coming from you - judging from your posts in several previous threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course I am, as a general rule. That's just common sense.

 

Common sense to deny single people the right to adopt? Well, okay, if you say so. I'm sure many will disagree.

 

You need me to evidence how a child needs the "close personal intimate influence of a mother and father"?

 

Um, yes actually, I do. If you're going to venture an opinion like that, you ought to be able to back it up with evidence that it's not just something you pulled from your rectum.

 

Now you're just being a cock.

 

no u

 

I am not concerned with the "rights" of the prospecive adopters but with the welfare of children. You have made your priorities obvious during this thread and many others.

 

Well you see, the problem is you're continually failing to show how the welfare of children is harmed by gay adoption. I'm still waiting.

 

As far as this evidence about taunting that you seek, I have no doubt that were I to trawl the internet for long enough I would find a few people's accounts in a few blogs somewhere. I can think of a few of my friends I would devote this time for and maybe even a few others on here.

 

So if you try hard, you think you might be able to rustle up a little anecdotal evidence. Well I'm convinced.

 

I wouldn't devote any of that energy in your direction when you are clearly, well... an objectionable tit.

 

And you're one of the stupidest cunts I've ever encountered. The biggest advert for contraception this side of the Mississippi. We can hurl insults at each other all day but I'm sure it does nobody any good.

 

Also, I love your reasoning here - "I won't find evidence to rebut your points because I don't like you". Brilliant.

 

Staedy now. You're being a cock again.

 

Okay, go on then. Be a cock.

 

I assume "You're being a cock" is slang for "I have no answer for that"? It sure looks that way.

 

You don't know that many homosexual people do you? If you did, and you said this to them, you could expect a black eye.

 

Are you kidding me. I can't think of many reasons why someone would choose to be gay, would choose to be discriminated against, would choose to have gobshites like you trying to tell them what they can and can't do.

 

I have worked for and alongside many foster parents over the years - single parents and married couples. Including same-sex couples. Basically chum, you have just made that up. Absolute poppycock.

 

PDF, 547K

 

A study by UCLA Law School's Williams Institute found that forbidding qualified gays and lesbians from adopting or fostering children could cost the United States between $87 million and $130 million per year. The study noted that gays and lesbians often take in children heterosexuals do not, including those who are older, disabled, HIV+ from birth, or who have a history of misbehavior; the study claims that finding suitable heterosexual couples willing to care for hard-to-place children would be difficult, a potential problem given the issues faced by children in long-term foster care.

 

Made it up have I? No, some of us have ammunition in our guns.

 

Do you actually know what 'conjecture' means? It means to guess. Speculation. What is guesswork about my earlier post? Certainly a lot of opinion but guesswork?

 

Well, you seem to be guessing at reasons why adoption by homosexual couples is a bad thing. You've taken a position against it, and then looked for reasons to justify that position. Whereas scientifically-minded people like myself examine the evidence and then come to conclusions based on that evidence. That's why I don't come off sounding as thick as pigshit when I talk about the subject.

 

Look chum. There are some people in life who you just cannot reason with. I don't mean agree - I mean that they will always twist what you say to suit their agenda. You are one of those people. You consistently make posts that go completely off at a tangent from the subject, or put words in my mouth, make bizarre assumptions which are completely unreasonable when you have based them on my quotes/opinions and are irrational. For some recent examples, see above where I have called you a 'cock'. That's evidence. Which is why I tire of this to-ing and fro-ing with you. You can't argue reasonably. So, come back at me if you must but unless you're sensible I am unlikely to reply.

 

I take it that's an admission of failure to back your argument up with evidence then?

 

You don't like me and I don't like you.

 

Don't flatter yourself; I don't care enough about you to have an opinion either way.

 

What I will say, however, is that I will take no lectures on humanity from you when you find it so easy to poke fun at a disabled baby and not bat an eyelid when someone points out how in poor taste it was.

 

This coming from the guy who, in the previous paragraph, bemoaned the fact that I "make posts that go completely off at a tangent from the subject".

 

It is rather notable that while not actually criticising same-sex couples my interests are clearly in the welfare of the child. Yours are in the rights of the same-sex couple.

 

Clear nonsense. The welfare of the child is paramount. But you've failed to provide a single reason how the child's welfare is damaged, failed to provide a single reason why being shunted from foster home to foster home is a better option for a child than permanent adoption by a loving homosexual couple.

 

A sign of someone with somewhat cock-eyed priorities but not surprising coming from you - judging from your posts in several previous threads.

 

Fuck off and don't waste any more of my time you utter, utter cretin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear mr TheChap, would it help if I clarified that you have provided nothing in the way of evidence for your opinion about gay fostering? You do a good line in bickering, but when repeatedly asked for something more concrete than 'its wrong because I think its wrong' you've turned up nada.

 

Can you at least concede that the 'playground bullying' objection is flimsy at best, based on the expert testimony of Paul over on the fostering thread? And this is the crux of your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear mr TheChap, would it help if I clarified that you have provided nothing in the way of evidence for your opinion about gay fostering? You do a good line in bickering, but when repeatedly asked for something more concrete than 'its wrong because I think its wrong' you've turned up nada.

 

Can you at least concede that the 'playground bullying' objection is flimsy at best, based on the expert testimony of Paul over on the fostering thread? And this is the crux of your argument.

 

It's not. Please read my posts in their entirety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...