Political correctness & other nonsensical rubbish

[Panthera tigris FC]

:rofl :rofl
Are you serious?
If EVERYONE turns gay then I will put my last dollar on it that the human race WILL eventually die out.......and I'd love your statistics that disagree with that.....show me....I look forward to reading them.

Who is asking whom to 'turn gay'? Those that are naturally gay would just like the equivalent rights as homosexuals. Are you really so concerned about the future of the human race....are you scared that the homosexual population is going to 'infect' the upstanding heterosexuals?

That is why Disco referred to your comment as bigoted.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

And that is why the partnership between a man and a woman, and the marriage between a man and a woman will ALWAYS be held above any other relationship....and why other relationships are not afforded the same rights when it comes to marriage and adoption.

This is a bigoted position that you have decided to take on the matter...not some indisputable truth. So by your reasoning an abusive home with a mother and father is preferable to a loving home with two fathers (or mothers)? The former deserves greater rights than the latter?

As for "ALWAYS", well we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Six Pack]

True colors been shown tonight I think?

 

[Disco08]

And that is why the partnership between a man and a woman, and the marriage between a man and a woman will ALWAYS be held above any other relationship....and why other relationships are not afforded the same rights when it comes to marriage and adoption.

What a load of rubbish. So children with same-sex parents are to be disadvantaged so your antiquated view of the world can be upheld?

Is it safe to assume you think that any country that recognises same-sex marriage has got it completely wrong?

 

[Liverpool]

You realise science can make babies without the need for people to actually have sex now right Livers?

Yeah....but I think you still need SOME input from a male, don't you?

Who is asking whom to 'turn gay'? Those that are naturally gay would just like the equivalent rights as homosexuals. Are you really so concerned about the future of the human race....are you scared that the homosexual population is going to 'infect' the upstanding heterosexuals?
That is why Disco referred to your comment as bigoted.

Oh, I don't let that bother me.....anything that goes against the politically correct minority groups to the left are labelled bigoted, redneck, racist, and a few other interesting words.
Heard it all before.... :yawn

Anyway, who said anything about "turning gay"?
And I'm certainly not worried about the human race dying out because of homosexuality......I don't know where Sixpack got that wild idea from....but while homosexuality is classed a minority and will always be a minority due to the fact that is is NOT a normal/natural urge for the majority of the population to contemplate, then the only thing we all have to worry about isn't whether gays have the same rights as heterosexual couples...it is whether we are diminishing the superior union of a man/woman relationship by even contemplating having them ALL equal.

To me they will NEVER be equal until a man pops out a baby......and until that day happens, a man/woman relationship is superior to any other relationship you want to throw at me.

 

[Six Pack]

The union of a man and woman is always above anything else that exists and should be kept that way as it is the only way that the human race can survive .

this is where i got yr amazing claim from, Livers. Your implication is that we won't survive if there are gay people. Statistically that's clearly a nonsense.

 

[Disco08]

Disco,
For the child to exist there had to be a union between a man and a woman.
A child is born from this union.
The man is then the father....the woman is then the mother....and the child is the child.
THAT is the family.
What happens after that.....parents are killed, child adopted, or whatever hypothetical you throw up will not change the fact that the original family was the mother, the father, and the child.

This is obviously wrong too. The family is the unit which lives together, supports eachother and most importantly loves eachother. The make up of it is irrelevant.

Your 'theory' would seem to say that, by some perverse reasoning a child living with her mother and a step father because her natural father died is somehow less of a family than a child and both their natural parents. This is utterly insulting to any family not conforming to your disgusting definition.

 

[Liverpool]

This is a bigoted position that you have decided to take on the matter...not some indisputable truth. So by your reasoning an abusive home with a mother and father is preferable to a loving home with two fathers (or mothers)? The former deserves greater rights than the latter?
As for "ALWAYS", well we will just have to wait and see.

We're not getting into social aspects at home....i could go and say that homosexuals could abuse the child as well...

Let's say that on equal standing....a loving mother/father relationship with their child will ALWAYS be better than a loving father/boyfriend relationship with the father's child.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[Liverpool]

What a load of rubbish. So children with same-sex parents are to be disadvantaged so your antiquated view of the world can be upheld?

I don't know about "antiquated"....again, the one union that has lasted this long and has led to the continuation of the human race (and why YOU even exist) is still the union between a man and a woman.

And again...no such thing as 'same sex parents'.....only ONE of them is the parent , the other is a boyfriend/lover/[insert political correct name here]

this is where i got yr amazing claim from, Livers. Your implication is that we won't survive if there are gay people. Statistically that's clearly a nonsense.

I never said we won't survive if there are gay people....I said this:

The union of a man and woman is always above anything else that exists and should be kept that way as it is the only way that the human race can survive

....and quite plain for all to see that it states that a union between a man and a woman is above anything else because it is the ONLY type of union that can keep the human race going.
Just think about where you would be if your Dad was gay and it should answer this confusion for you...

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

On what basis actually, Panthera?

You see 'normal' is common...general...and typical....which homosexuality isn't.
They are a minority group.

As for 'natural'....well, I think if it was natural to have sex with the same sex, then surely the male anatomy would have provisions for such an act without resorting to....well, we both know don't we......, yet it seems the female anatomy is naturally matched to what a male has to offer.
It is simple biology and science.

So while I accept that it is people's right to have same-sex partners and I respect that.....nobody will ever convince me that it is normal and natural for humans to have sex with the same sex.

So by your definition, homosexual is abnormal in the same way that red hair is abnormal? Both represent minority biological traits. Should we lobby to infringe on the rights of red heads because they are abnormal?

I think if you asked a homosexual if the human anatomy catered for their sexual needs, you would find that they are probably quite content. Homosexual behaviour is not restricted to humans. Are other species acting unnaturally?

You blatantly state that you aren't willing to be convinced, so I question why you engage in discussion on the matter?

So you had a dad and a 'mum'.....that is still natural....yous till had a male and female in your growing-up.
How does it differ from a homosexual parent situation?
Well, obviously it does if the gay-lobby are pushing the word 'partner' instead of "Mum" and "Dad" and trying to fabricate a situation where parents are seen as 'genderless'.
What does a child say when asked who those two men are picking them up from school...."Oh, thats my Dad and his...?" ....can't say Mum...does he say 'boyfriend'....oh, thats right, that is one of the words the gay-lobby want banned.

Can you tell me the importance of having a male and female as your parents? Should single parents be discriminated against because they don't represent a 'real family'? Can you show me evidence demonstrating that children of loving homosexual couples are worse off than children with heterosexual parents? I think it would come down the ability of the parents rather than their sexual preferences.

The only reason that I can see that it might be difficult to be the child of a homosexual couple is copping the discrimination that would be spewed from mouths and actions of individuals with bigoted opinions on the matter. That is the why some homosexual parents might be worried about the 'Mum and Dad' issue. Everything else you say in that passage is as detached from the reality of the situation as is possible. Do you personally know homosexual parents that state these things, or is this just based on a Herald Sun article that really said nothing?

Again....you can't convince me that homosexuality is normal and natural when we are resorting to manufacturing social situations to appease them.

I'm certainly not one of the 'fags burn in hell' lobby.
I think most people accept that there are people that are different (like people have different religions).....and I think most people are happy to respect and tolerate this.....BUT, similar to Jehovah Winesses who run around hassling people...or Mormons who knock on the door and want you to join them....or Islams who resort to violence and the 'join us or die' attitude....people get pissed-off with gays trying to push their agenda and lifestyle onto everybody and expect US to change OUR morals and views to suit THEM.
Just get on with it.....if you want to have sex with another bloke, go ahead and do it....who gives a stuff....but don't try and indoctrinate me or others (especially kids) with the view that it is normal and natural, when it clearly isn't.

Indoctrinate? You are a scared person with a twisted perception if you feel you have to defend yourself against the tide of homosexuals trying to push their lifestyle onto you. Remember it is you that considers their actions abnormal and unnatural and not worthy of equivalent rights. That, by definition, is a bigoted position. Like it or not.

 

[Six Pack]

Poor Livers, methinks he doth protest too much!

 

[mld]

Issues like this highlight the bigotry that hides behind the cloak of conservatism, as true conservatism should be supportive of same-sex rights without judgment, as argued in this piece.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

We're not getting into social aspects at home....i could go and say that homosexuals could abuse the child as well...

Let's say that on equal standing....a loving mother/father relationship with their child will ALWAYS be better than a loving father/boyfriend relationship with the father's child.

Do you disagree with that?

Absolutely. I see both positions as equally acceptable and likely to produce a healthy, well-adjusted child.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Poor Livers, methinks he doth protest too much!

I was tempted to say something along these lines....but I restrained myself.

 

[Six Pack]

I was tempted to say something along these lines....but I restrained myself.

lol. i might have got it a bit back to front, but you know what i mean. :spin

 

[mld]

Absolutely. I see both positions as equally acceptable and likely to produce a healthy, well-adjusted child.

Yes, I'd say the qualities of the individual parents has more to do with upbringing than having exactly one *smile* in the relationship.

 

[Liverpool]

Your 'theory' would seem to say that, by some perverse reasoning a child living with her mother and a step father because her natural father died is somehow less of a family than a child and both their natural parents. This is utterly insulting to any family not conforming to your disgusting definition.

Like I stated earlier Disco.....the original union between the man and the woman created the child.
This is the original family.
And like I stated earlier.....any hypothetical you throw at me cannot change this fact.
You can label it disgusting, bigoted, diabolical, or any other adjective that you want to look up in the thesaurus.....but everybody has a mother and a father.
Situations may lead to a step-father, single parent, homosexual guadians, or whatever combination you can think of....but the original family will ALWAYS consist of a mother, a father, and the child from this union.
That is why you cannot convince me that homosexual couples are on the same level as a man and a woman.

 

[Six Pack]

That is why you cannot convince me that homosexual couples are on the same level as a man and a woman.

so if they are not equal, they dont need to be treated equally?

that's convenient, Livers.

 

[Liverpool]

So by your definition, homosexual is abnormal in the same way that red hair is abnormal? Both represent minority biological traits. Should we lobby to infringe on the rights of red heads because they are abnormal?

Panthera,
Pedophilia and beastiality would also be classed as "minority biological traits" as well, and they are rightly condemned as abhorrent.
Just because something is created 'naturally' doesn't mean it IS natural, IS the norm, or should be encouraged.

I think if you asked a homosexual if the human anatomy catered for their sexual needs, you would find that they are probably quite content. Homosexual behaviour is not restricted to humans. Are other species acting unnaturally?

I'm sure they are quite happy and good on them.
However without getting into mechanics and anatomy lessons....I don't think the point of that orifice is for that....if you know what I mean.
I think nature built that area for something completely different to what homosexuals decide to use it for.
Again....their bodies and more power to them...but I think the female has the matching part, if you ask me.

You blatantly state that you aren't willing to be convinced, so I question why you engage in discussion on the matter?

Because people keep asking me bloody questions, don't they? :hihi

I'll answer the rest later...I have to get my DreamTeam ready and that is more important than the complaints of the gay lobby and their supporters....back later!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Like I stated earlier Disco.....the original union between the man and the woman created the child.
This is the original family.
And like I stated earlier.....any hypothetical you throw at me cannot change this fact.
You can label it disgusting, bigoted, diabolical, or any other adjective that you want to look up in the thesaurus.....but everybody has a mother and a father.
Situations may lead to a step-father, single parent, homosexual guadians, or whatever combination you can think of....but the original family will ALWAYS consist of a mother, a father, and the child from this union.
That is why you cannot convince me that homosexual couples are on the same level as a man and a woman.

What I don't understand is why you can't separate the biological act from the act of parenting? It seems to me that you think the biological act is more important. A very perplexing position to take.

You can ignore the bigot claim by saying it is just a 'lefty label' but it has a very specific definition that your view fits into.