I'll just reply to myself here... and it looks like Derren has changed his mind on homosexuality.
[edit]....or has he?.....sorry about that!
Read here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...wn-longer-wants-control-mind--improve-it.html
Not quite true, explod, when you consider the law just passed in NZ gives these couples the right to adopt children, so it's not unreasonable for the discussion to include relationship of sexual orientation to the process of raising children.This thread is not about peodophiles, deviants or children.
Fine. But their kindness and generosity probably has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. I understand the point you're trying to make, however.The question is, should they be allowed to be married. I know a male couple who have been together for nearly 30 years, they run a business and one is also a minister of a religeon who still conducts services.
Such couples do no harm to anybody and are in fact generous and the first to help anyone in trouble, as a couple together too.
It makes no difference. Civil unions already confer all the same financial and social security benefits as marriage.Marriage brings with it security in later years and the benefits of the state.
So we could regard homosexual marriage as a positive budgetary measure.A married couple or couple together recieve overall less in Government benefits than does the combined amount of two singles.
A naive assumption here, explod. I'm sure every couple who is disposed to get married does so in the belief that it will bring them endless happiness. Looking at the divorce stats, it obviously doesn't. No reason to imagine that homosexuals who marry will be any happier than any other couple, is there?If by allowing them to marry we will have happier people which is a benefit to everyone.
Agree. There are simply no guarantees that any person or persons raising a child will do so well, whatever their circumstances and/or sexual preference.And of course the sanctity of a good marriage is the ideal for having children but it has never guaranteed their protection and could be argued that under the cover of a marriage a peadophile being one of the partners have been shown to get away with it till the children have often sufferred all the way to later adulthood when sometimes the perpetrator has passed on. How about the Father in England who had his Daughter locked up in a cellar for many years and had three children to her. He was married and his wife must have known. These are very very much more important issues but not part of this debate.
Definitely. Fortunately, the latter are a minority, many of whom have just passively fallen into parenthood through simple thoughtlessness. Hardly the greatest basis for a good outcome.I have friends who are a gay couple. They made the choice to have children by surrogacy at a very considerable cost. If you met the children out playing I doubt you'd even have the merest hint that they were being raised by a gay couple. They laugh and cry just as much as any other children. The oldest boy has a cheeky streak to him, while the younger ones are still in that shy phase till they get to know you.
This couple has made major changes in their lives to have the children. They invested considerable resources into designing their house so they can work from home and have a lot more time with their children. They had to make a CHOICE, unlike a lot of parents out there who you often wonder if they really want the children they have.
Can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?
Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes
I know the above is from Wikipedia, and no doubt those that have contrary views could find articles supporting their beliefs, but the above - especially the part I've bolded - sums up my views better than I could articulate myself.
If it is not right to deny a child the right to know its biological parents - should all adoptions be frowned upon, or only those made by same-sex couples?
There was a time when it was quite normal for daughters to marry whoever their fathers told them to, with little or no importance placed on their preference.
There was a time when it was generally accepted that only a man had the right to own property, and only men could earn money, hold jobs, be members of parliament etc.
There was a time when white people felt they had the right to sell other humans of a different colour as slaves.
There was a time when only men could vote, and many considered the very thought of this changing to be outrageous.
There was a time, not that long ago, that our own Australian aboriginal population were considered good enough to go to war for the country, but not good enough to vote or to be left to raise their own children.
There was a time when inter-racial relationships were considered to be scandalous.
There was a time when equal pay for women for the same job was extremely rare, and women had to resign upon marriage.
I firmly believe that one day our children and grandchildren will look back at this present debate and wonder "how could they think that was right", as I wonder how people in the past ever thought the above "norms" were right or acceptable.
Society evolves. Some wish to cling to the old ways, and they are just as entitled to their beliefs and opinions as anyone else, but in the end the beliefs of the majority will prevail - it's just a matter of time. Personally, I think it is wrong to deny a (growing) section of our community the same rights and privileges that fall to the rest of us.
No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?
I'm not averse to it, no one asked. Not that I think it's anyone's business, but I'm not gay. I don't see why one needs to be gay to support gay marriage anymore than one needs to be black to have supported the civil rights movement.
In 2009-10, 11% (1.9 million) of Australians aged 18 years and over were living in a de facto relationship, while 53% were in a registered marriage. De facto relationships were most common amongst younger people, with one fifth (22%) of people aged 20-29 years living in these relationships, compared with nearly one tenth (9.4%) of people aged 40-49 years. The proportion of people aged 20-29 years living in a de facto relationship has doubled since 1992, where one tenth (10%) were living in one of these relationships. The rate for people aged 40-49 years has also nearly doubled (up from 4.7%) during this time.
De facto relationships include those living in a same-sex relationship and in 2009-10 there were around 46,300 people living in a same sex couple. The majority of these couples had no children
You have made statements that want to denigrate marriage.
Sorry, that should have read:
You have made statements that they want to denigrate marriage.
Did I say that? Well, whether or not I had the foresight to predict that outcome, it seems to be coming to pass. See my previous post. While gays and their supporters are keen for them to take the marriage vows, it's popularity among straights is declining.
Are you saying marriage is declining because gays have denigrated the institution of marriage? I would attribute the decline to lots of other factors, such as (for Western societies):
1. Women becoming more affluent and independent, so no longer seek the "security" in marriage.
2. No longer a stigma to having children out of wedlock, so there is no pressure to marry to "legitimise" the child
3. The decline in religion means that younger people no longer see it as a "sin" to have sexual relations outside marriage, so less of a need to marry to be able to enjoy an active sexual relationship.
4. The pressures of modern society make it harder for couples to make marriage work, so it doesn't have the same positive connotations as previously. The trauma of divorce and the increased likelihood of divorce happening make many young people think the whole exercise is just not worth it.
I can't see how you could attribute the cause to gay marriages when they are not yet legalised and even the call to allow gay marriages has only become widespread in the last few years. The figures you posted are changes over a decade ending in 2009/2010, a decade when the concept of gay marriage was not even on the mainstream agenda but the above factors I listed were to the fore.
I'm saying that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, anymore than wanting to have sex with dead bodies or horses is.
Per wiki (yes I know not the most reliable source)...
If Wiki had been around fifty or more years ago, I doubt it would have offered a similar definition.Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category
No, it's not sad. It's a reasonable extension of the discussion.So you can basically be one of four types. Wanting to sexually assault children is not a sexual orientation anymore than a rapist could claim assaulting adult women is a sexual orientation. It's sad that these debates seem to always drag paedophilia and animals into them.
How do you know they do not abhor the aberrant drive they feel and fight just as hard to overcome it as once did homosexuals?
Nice to see you doctor!If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.
Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.
At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all.
At least try and keep something sacred for our children.
I couldnt care less about the adults - selfish is how I see them. No thought for the children or the future generations..
Yes, I see it as destroying the concept of marraige.
My view is alot of the children will be run by the state, it will become their responsibility.
My opinion
Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.
At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all.
At least try and keep something sacred for our children.
I couldnt care less about the adults - selfish is how I see them. No thought for the children or the future generations..
Yes, I see it as destroying the concept of marraige.
My view is alot of the children will be run by the state, it will become their responsibility.
My opinion
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?