Three wise former gays

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you stuck in a nonsensical loop???

if the 120 kids usually adopted by gays get adopted by straight couples........what happens to the 120 kids that would have originally been adopted by the straight couples.

its simple maths. there are a limited amount of people wanting to adopt. removing any of them regardless of sexuality just means less children will be adopted. you dont seem to want to face the reality of the situation.

I have changed my stance I oppose same sex unions of the basis of extreme ickyness! eweeeeee

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have changed my stance I oppose same sex unions of the basis of extreme ickyness! eweeeeee

i oppose people who vote tory, id still let them adopt children though. just because you dont like something or find it 'icky' doesnt give you the right to say if they can have children or not. proof of being a bad parent is the only thing that can do that.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i oppose people who vote tory, id still let them adopt children though. just because you dont like something or find it 'icky' doesnt give you the right to say if they can have children or not. proof of being a bad parent is the only thing that can do that.

I oppose people who vote tory, id still let them adopt children though.

Thankyou. So kind.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I oppose people who vote tory, id still let them adopt children though.

Thankyou. So kind.

say it aint so googlefude!!!!!! man-crush officially over.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
say it aint so googlefude!!!!!! man-crush officially over.

I've voted Lib-Dem, Green, and Tory in different elections.

The Tory vote was less, lets get the Tories in, that'll be awesome.
More a case of 'for the love of god can we get rid of the labour party ffs'.

The green party is probably closest to me ideologically... But with a grand total
of one MP they were never going to be a threat to labour, and they have some
crucial actual policies that I can't agree with.

So I am basically stuck, with no party actually anywhere close to me ideologically
I actually agree with that I could vote for.

And until there is such a party, the greens being the best candidates, my voting
is always for the least bad option, and not for anyone I can get excited about
voting for.

I was heavily into the anti ID/database state movement, and the Tories were the party
which promised to scrap the ID cards and assorted rigmarole that actually had a chance
to win. And while I tend towards the economics of the left, labour has shown itself
incapable of effectively managing the economy, and was trying to build a police state.

They had to go, and right now have to stay out.

If that means voting Tory. So be it.


Maybe if people were more prepared to vote on issues and not be steadfast in allegiance
to one party we would have parties that respected the electorate more, and didn't have
2/3rds of their seats in their pockets because they are so entrenched and safe.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I've voted Lib-Dem, Green, and Tory in different elections.

The Tory vote was less, lets get the Tories in, that'll be awesome.
More a case of 'for the love of god can we get rid of the labour party ffs'.

The green party is probably closest to me ideologically... But with a grand total
of one MP they were never going to be a threat to labour, an ...[text shortened]... nd didn't have
2/3rds of their seats in their pockets because they are so entrenched and safe.

a vote for the tories is a vote for the ruling elite. its a vote for the iron fist and not the helping hand............that being said i cant blame you for being pssd off at the labour party (they shouldnt be allowed to keep the name labour, its should be tory-lite). i respect your green vote and i snigger at your lib dem vote. at the moment i just put a line through my ballot paper.

Originally posted by Proper Knob

That's for the thorough explanation. Now as for my question, would your answer be to leave a child in care or give them to a same sex couple? Former or latter?

It is vain for you to invent cleverly worded questions to attempt to place into my mouth my "Stamp of Approval" on same sex couples. Concerning homes of children I might tolerate particular hypothetical situations. This does not constitute my general Stamp of Approval upon them.

What I might reluctantly tolerate if there were no better situation is not what I would promote. I would be for government promotion of responsible heterosexual marriage and child rearing.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i oppose people who vote tory, id still let them adopt children though. just because you dont like something or find it 'icky' doesnt give you the right to say if they can have children or not. proof of being a bad parent is the only thing that can do that.

icky meter gone through da roof!

Originally posted by sonship

[b]That's for the thorough explanation. Now as for my question, would your answer be to leave a child in care or give them to a same sex couple? Former or latter?

It is vain for you to invent cleverly worded questions to attempt to place into my mouth my "Stamp of Approval" on same sex couples. Concerning homes of children I migh ...[text shortened]... te. I would be for government promotion of responsible heterosexual marriage and child rearing.[/b]

Are you going to answer the question?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you going to answer the question?

What I might reluctantly tolerate if there were no better situation is not what I would promote. I would be for government promotion of responsible heterosexual marriage and child rearing.

You should be able to understand this reply.
If not, why not ?

Originally posted by wolfgang59

Those stats are meaningless - how about comparing single-parent
families with two-parent families from the [b]same socio-economic groups?

Then, and only then, can you support your claims.[/b]

You will probably work to invalidate whatever statistics I provided which you did not like.

I think the statistics given are helpful in indicating the problems of kids with absent dads. Knowing that, and knowing that homosexual marriages will result in more absent dads, we can get a handle on what to expect.

However, the results of social trends take time to develop. And it may be a few more years before good stats on how same sex fatherless marriages have effected the US.

I am looking at statistics of different types and considering the sources. I suspect that you would move the goalpost elsewhere, if you saw other numbers you didn't like.

I will say this. I am considering the objectivity of sources of information and how much pressure may be applied to them in a political way. Academics are now under fear of political and employment repercussions.

Someone aptly said "Truth is the new hate speech."

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Those stats are meaningless - how about comparing single-parent
families with two-parent families from the [b]same socio-economic groups?

Then, and only then, can you support your claims.[/b]

You will probably work to invalidate whatever statistics I provided which you did not like.

I think the statistics given are hel ...[text shortened]... and employment repercussions.

Someone aptly said "Truth is the new hate speech." [/b]

or as our friend stellspalfie reminded us, 'the truth is irrelevant'.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Those stats are meaningless - how about comparing single-parent
families with two-parent families from the [b]same socio-economic groups?

Then, and only then, can you support your claims.[/b]

You will probably work to invalidate whatever statistics I provided which you did not like.

I think the statistics given are hel ...[text shortened]... and employment repercussions.

Someone aptly said "Truth is the new hate speech." [/b]

Did you miss my response to you near the top of page 21?

I'll repost it here:
Thanks for attempting to directly addressing one of the germane points. Before I comment on what you posted here, how about addressing the other germane point (which is in bold below)?

Matthew 7
12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

With that in mind, you should ask yourself what harm a homosexual couple in a loving, caring relationship does to anyone else. You should also ask yourself if you would have others coerce or otherwise force you out of your sexual orientation (in your case heterosexuality).

Add this to my so-called tangential replies above.

They weren't just "so-called" tangential replies. Compare what you wrote in this last post of yours and your previous replies. In your previous replies, you went off on tangents that didn't address the germane points. You can try to deny it, but they are what they are.

Originally posted by sonship

What I might reluctantly tolerate if there were no better situation is not what I would promote. I would be for government promotion of responsible heterosexual marriage and child rearing.

You should be able to understand this reply.
If not, why not ?

Apologies, skimming over posts before I left this morning.

So it's the former.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Those stats are meaningless - how about comparing single-parent
families with two-parent families from the [b]same socio-economic groups?

Then, and only then, can you support your claims.[/b]

You will probably work to invalidate whatever statistics I provided which you did not like.

I think the statistics given are hel ...[text shortened]... and employment repercussions.

Someone aptly said "Truth is the new hate speech." [/b]

I am looking at statistics of different types and considering the sources. I suspect that you would move the goalpost elsewhere, if you saw other numbers you didn't like.

could you show us your statistics please? also im interested to know how you arrive so positively at the conclusion that children of single parents do badly due to the lack of a father. how can you rule out so surely that its not just because there is only one parent rather than two?


do you think the children of same sex couples do better or worse on average than the children of mixed sex couples in the poorest housing estates in america?