Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
was not practical? bwahahahaha, It was because no one ever recognised the legitimacy of same sex marriage in any culture in the entire history of humanity. It was as absurd a proposition then as it is now. Let us look at the arguments, firstly, how such a relationship may have a bearing on children of same sex marriages, practically!

1. Same sex ...[text shortened]... the case of two males. The child will always be deprived of either a mother or a father figure.

mother figure as in someone that would cook and clean? father figure as in someone that earns the income and gets his clothes cleaned by the mother?

what century do you live in?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
mother figure as in someone that would cook and clean? father figure as in someone that earns the income and gets his clothes cleaned by the mother?

what century do you live in?

i used to live in that ancient and revered continent of India. Girls after they finish their careers, whether in acting in bollywoopd films or being a doctor or a lawyer, turn their attention after marriage to home making. It is an art form all of its own and it is of no surprise that India has the lowest divorce rate in the world, for guess what, it works. Your western secularism cannot touch this, they are beyond your reach and such simplicity openly mocks your pretensions of progress and sophistication.

will you deny a child a father figure, a child a mother figure in the shameful perpetuation of your secular materialist façade? shame on you. If it was good enough for the son of God, its good enough for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i used to live in that ancient and revered continent of India. Girls after they finish their careers, whether in acting in bollywoopd films or being a doctor or a lawyer, turn their attention after marriage to home making. It is an art form all of its own and it is of no surprise that India has the lowest divorce rate in the world, for guess what, ...[text shortened]... rialist façade? shame on you. If it was good enough for the son of God, its good enough for me.

do you think its better for a single mother to raise her child alone or give the child up for adoption to a husband and wife?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you think its better for a single mother to raise her child alone or give the child up for adoption to a husband and wife?

a mother needs to express her love and a child thrives on a mothers love. another thing wrong with gay marriage and adoption, you are depriving a child of loving its natural biological parents, at very best, only one parent can ever be a biological relative.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a mother needs to express her love and a child thrives on a mothers love. another thing wrong with gay marriage and adoption, you are depriving a child of loving its natural biological parents, at very best, only one parent can ever be a blood relative.

so which is better?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so which is better?

biological parents must always be better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
biological parents must always be better.

so a biological father in a gay couple is better than being adopted by a hetrosexual married couple.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no reasonable gay would try and force a religion to accept him.

I think it's eminently reasonable. The US civil rights movement showed that stubborn traditionalists must be dragged kicking and screaming down the road to progress, if the society wants to make progress at all.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so a biological father in a gay couple is better than being adopted by a hetrosexual married couple.

no don't be silly, you seem to have missed out the defining criteria, two biological parents are the standard. In the absence of two biological parents one is better, in the absence of one, a man and a women are better, in the absence of a man and a women, your gay couple come last for even though one may be biological you are depriving the child of ever having a mother or a father figure, even in one parent families this can be remedied at some point if the parents meets someone else, but never in a gay relationship.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
none

Not even "an orphan now has parents"?

Gah. Why bother posting. This stuff stopped being a surprise long ago.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think it's eminently reasonable. The US civil rights movement showed that stubborn traditionalists must be dragged kicking and screaming down the road to progress, if the society wants to make progress at all.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Not even "an orphan now has parents"?

Gah. Why bother posting. This stuff stopped being a surprise long ago.

chin up old chap, we are only just beginning 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no don't be silly, you seem to have missed out the defining criteria, two biological parents are the standard. In the absence of two biological parents one is better, in the absence of one, a man and a women are better, in the absence of a man and a women, your gay couple come last for even though one may be biological you are depriving the child of ...[text shortened]... n be remedied at some point if the parents meets someone else, but never in a gay relationship.

what about a single gay biological parent. rule no#2 of your list states - "In the absence of two biological parents one is better"

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what about a single gay biological parent. rule no#2 of your list states - "In the absence of two biological parents one is better"

nah, no single gays, sorry.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nah, no single gays, sorry.

meaning what? there is no such thing as a single gay or rule 2 only applies if you are straight?


if a child is in the care system from aged 2 to 13 with nobody showing an interest in them and then a gay couple wish to adopt the child would that be acceptable to you? or would you rather the child stayed in care?