Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[geoffr70]

can't see anything wrong with it - they've got the money, they paid the mum who obviously agreed to the deal - funny how the most strident capitilists are up in arms.......or is it that the parents happen to be gay? interesting.....what year is it again? 

i for one wish the happy couple and their new addition all the best 

I think it's peculiar to say the least.

Just my opinion, but if you want a baby you should go about it the natural way, then if that fails, let medicine lend a helping hand. Undecided about surrogacy. I certainly don't think two men should have custody of a baby in this way.

I have nothing against gay people. People are what they are, but exposing infants to certain lifetstyles isn't right IMO. Should they not have a balanced upbringing until they reach a certain age? When I say balanced I mean a parent of both sexes.

As said, just because they can doesn't necessarily mean they should. So what if they have plenty of money. Money doesn't make a person.

It seems like a selfish and vain act, with the interests of the baby second.

so is a couple in a stable, long-lasting relationship and comfortably well off worse than some kid on benefits bringing up a baby with little or no idea who the father is, and absolutely no intention of contributing to society or indeed have her sprog contribute?

homophobic nonsense 

It's not homophobic nonsense at all. I believe in live and let live. As Albs has said, it is not my business or concern what two consenting adults get upto behind closed doors, as long as it doesn't impact on me. I have nothing against gays.

I agree with what has been said about the word homophobic. It's like black and white, for or against and no inbetween. Which is wrong. I believe it is immoral and unnatural, and certainly shouldn't be celebrated, but as I said I have nothing against gays.

Whatever example you gave in your post is irrelevant, there's nothing to be gained in comparing to other people. (I don't really understand the point you're trying to make in your example anyway).

And I too was going to comment on your socialist views, but thought best not to. However for you to label it 'homophobic nonsense' in the typical way a socialist would abuse someone for disagreeing with them is wrong. This is the reason why the last shambles of a government was thrown out, because they're too damn bloody arrogant and can't accept other people's views without resorting to abuse.

Imagine having two middle aged men 'dads' as parents. I wouldn't like it.

There's too many sheep following this fashionable way of thinking, what's happened to traditional values, morals and ethics, politics aside?

those values saw people locked up for being gay - i think some of our less learned friends might like a return to that.

what i find immoral and unnatural is a prejudice against a person for being gay


"Imagine having two middle aged men 'dads' as parents. I wouldn't like it."

who asked you if you wanted to be brought up by 2 gay men?


i find it amusing that as someone who has no problem with it I'm told that calling someone homophobic is resorting to abuse.....these are the same people who deem words such as "grotesque" "immoral" and "unnatural" to be perfectly reasonable adjectives to describe a relationship between 2 consenting adults - very odd indeed 

it's rather like assuming someone who has tolerance and believes in fairness is a loony left socialist, be real nice if the world was that simple huh?

What values are you talking about that get people locked up? You've lost me. I think you are assuming too much and trying to judge someone by a few words on a computer screen.

If you know the definition of the word prejudice (I suggest you look it up), you will see I am not prejudiced. Anyway, prejudism is alot more natural than homosexuality. Many psychologists will tell you that.

You say "who asked you if you wanted to be brought up by 2 gay men?" This is what the whole thread is about, and as this is a public forum I will express my opinion thanks very much Banjax.

Unjustly and publicly saying that someone is prejudiced in anyway, like you did to me is worse than abuse. I think you should pick your words more carefully. What evidence do you have for this? I never used the word 'grotesque'.

As for being unnatural, well it is. I don't hide in the shadows to say what I think. The only reason behind sexual attraction and relationships is reproduction. Two people of the same sex cannot reproduce.

Who said that anyone who believes in tolerance and fairness is a 'looney left socialist'? It certainly wasn't me.

One thing that does strike me which has already been highlighted is that it is normally the very liberal among us who become the opposite when faced with someone who doesn't share their views. You are like this now.

If I believed in a god I would pray for this child.

[Banjax]

Thanks for the English lesson Geoff, you are prejudiced in that you, as I've noted in many of your posts, quite literally pre-judge a story based on a persons ethnicity/sexuality/colour.....the fact you seem completely oblivious to this is not your fault - it's mine for being so tolerant of ignorance 


ps - it was, until relatively recently illegal to be gay - thats the kind of attitude that leads to a moral collapse in society, not whether couple "a" or "b" want to adopt a kid 

[geoffr70]

Thanks for the English lesson Geoff, you are prejudiced in that you, as I've noted in many of your posts, quite literally pre-judge a story based on a persons ethnicity/sexuality/colour.....the fact you seem completely oblivious to this is not your fault - it's mine for being so tolerant of ignorance 


ps - it was, until relatively recently illegal to be gay - thats the kind of attitude that leads to a moral collapse in society, not whether couple "a" or "b" want to adopt a kid 

You prove my point in that you pre judge and make broad assumptions based on a few words on a computer screen.

Laws are made by man. Morality is higher than law.

Again you become abusive and declare me ignorant because I disagree with you and you're not capable of accepting that people have different opinions.

When have I said that John and Furnish shouldn't adopt/have a kid owing to their sexuality? Again you're pre-judging and making assumptions.

You cant put as many daft smiley faces as you want after your posts, it still doesn't re-enforce your point.

I'd be interested to know which of my posts I have showed prejudism towards someone based on ethnicity or colour. Please enlighten me, but be very careful before you make accusations on a public forum.

[hotel21]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding.....

Would the honourable combattants please retire to their respective corners, catch their breath, and come out talking, please, rather than hammering views at each other?

From forum guidelines:- Keep posts relevant, short, and on topic....

Eai Thenk you....   

[Mysteryman]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding.....

Would the honourable combattants please retire to their respective corners, catch their breath, and come out talking, please, rather than hammering views at each other?

From forum guidelines:- Keep posts relevant, short, and on topic....

Eai Thenk you....   

You're no fun Broocie, no fun at all

[Banjax]

Thanks for the English lesson Geoff, you are prejudiced in that you, as I've noted in many of your posts, quite literally pre-judge a story based on a persons ethnicity/sexuality/colour.....the fact you seem completely oblivious to this is not your fault - it's mine for being so tolerant of ignorance 


ps - it was, until relatively recently illegal to be gay - thats the kind of attitude that leads to a moral collapse in society, not whether couple "a" or "b" want to adopt a kid 

You prove my point in that you pre judge and make broad assumptions based on a few words on a computer screen.

Laws are made by man. Morality is higher than law.

Again you become abusive and declare me ignorant because I disagree with you and you're not capable of accepting that people have different opinions.

When have I said that John and Furnish shouldn't adopt/have a kid owing to their sexuality? Again you're pre-judging and making assumptions.

You cant put as many daft smiley faces as you want after your posts, it still doesn't re-enforce your point.

I'd be interested to know which of my posts I have showed prejudism towards someone based on ethnicity or colour. Please enlighten me, but be very careful before you make accusations on a public forum.

your morality or mine? or his or hers? law is a consensus of society not the whims of variable morality - its often wrong (law that is) but you wouldn't ask a creationist to impose their morality on us? or a communist or fascist? thats why its a democratic process and laws are brought in and passed by people we elect 

i think as usual, you need to read your own stuff back, you cant handle a counter viewpoint without quickly becoming rude and patronising in my opinion 

i'll withdraw any hint of prejudice on your part, however, as thats not fair of me to judge you - on that you've got a point  (apologies for the  at the end of that sentence but i love  their cute  :ylittle :yfaces )

i used to work with a Mackem - he was a royal pain 'en all - never backed down from his blinkered world view...........good guy and a brilliant laugh all the same and never shirked a round 

[PhilRich]

can't see anything wrong with it - they've got the money, they paid the mum who obviously agreed to the deal - funny how the most strident capitilists are up in arms.......or is it that the parents happen to be gay? interesting.....what year is it again? 

i for one wish the happy couple and their new addition all the best 

I don't like that word, it doesn't convey the meaning. They are homosexuals.

I don't like that word, it doesn't convey the meaning. They are Poofs!

[hotel21]

My finger is hovering on the lock thread button folks......

[Banjax]

OK i give up 

[Dishevelled Den]

A gay once kissed me at a party many years ago. - it was really lovely.

For the record I should say that the gay person concerned was called Trina who, at the time, had been in a long standing lesbian relationship with her lover.

I hope this clarifies the situation for the member who sent me an undraped photograph of their rather impressive form by way of PM earlier.

[geoffr70]

Thanks for the English lesson Geoff, you are prejudiced in that you, as I've noted in many of your posts, quite literally pre-judge a story based on a persons ethnicity/sexuality/colour.....the fact you seem completely oblivious to this is not your fault - it's mine for being so tolerant of ignorance 


ps - it was, until relatively recently illegal to be gay - thats the kind of attitude that leads to a moral collapse in society, not whether couple "a" or "b" want to adopt a kid 

You prove my point in that you pre judge and make broad assumptions based on a few words on a computer screen.

Laws are made by man. Morality is higher than law.

Again you become abusive and declare me ignorant because I disagree with you and you're not capable of accepting that people have different opinions.

When have I said that John and Furnish shouldn't adopt/have a kid owing to their sexuality? Again you're pre-judging and making assumptions.

You cant put as many daft smiley faces as you want after your posts, it still doesn't re-enforce your point.

I'd be interested to know which of my posts I have showed prejudism towards someone based on ethnicity or colour. Please enlighten me, but be very careful before you make accusations on a public forum.

your morality or mine? or his or hers? law is a consensus of society not the whims of variable morality - its often wrong (law that is) but you wouldn't ask a creationist to impose their morality on us? or a communist or fascist? thats why its a democratic process and laws are brought in and passed by people we elect 

i think as usual, you need to read your own stuff back, you cant handle a counter viewpoint without quickly becoming rude and patronising in my opinion 

i'll withdraw any hint of prejudice on your part, however, as thats not fair of me to judge you - on that you've got a point  (apologies for the  at the end of that sentence but i love  their cute  :ylittle :yfaces )

i used to work with a Mackem - he was a royal pain 'en all - never backed down from his blinkered world view...........good guy and a brilliant laugh all the same and never shirked a round 

I didn't know socialists knew what work was.

Now you're saying all mackems have a blinkered world view, is that not derogatory and stereotypical? How hypocritical of you! And who's a mackem? I'm not.

More assumptions and judgements from OOfs very own self styled bastion of tolerance and fairness.

All you're doing is copying the points I make about you now, so on that point I will victoriously move on 
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[CaptainZok]

A gay once kissed me at a party many years ago. - it was really lovely.

For the record I should say that the gay person concerned was called Trina who, at the time, had been in a long standing lesbian relationship with her lover.

I hope this clarifies the situation for the member who sent me an undraped photograph of their rather impressive form by way of PM earlier.

It's the only fun STMO gets nowadays.

[albitz]

Nah, that will be Dazzle. He,s a member who likes to show his bookies biro member.

Anyway, all I said at the start of this was "congrats on the new puppy". Didnt want to start a fight. Maybe we should let Catherine Tate have the last word.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifUQq5p5i2g

[PhilRich]

A gay once kissed me at a party many years ago. - it was really lovely.

For the record I should say that the gay person concerned was called Trina who, at the time, had been in a long standing lesbian relationship with her lover.

I hope this clarifies the situation for the member who sent me an undraped photograph of their rather impressive form by way of PM earlier.

  The only part of me that's 'impressive' is my belly, it leaves a concave dent in the mirror long before the rest of me is near enough to focus on it!

[Banjax]

Thanks for the English lesson Geoff, you are prejudiced in that you, as I've noted in many of your posts, quite literally pre-judge a story based on a persons ethnicity/sexuality/colour.....the fact you seem completely oblivious to this is not your fault - it's mine for being so tolerant of ignorance 


ps - it was, until relatively recently illegal to be gay - thats the kind of attitude that leads to a moral collapse in society, not whether couple "a" or "b" want to adopt a kid 

You prove my point in that you pre judge and make broad assumptions based on a few words on a computer screen.

Laws are made by man. Morality is higher than law.

Again you become abusive and declare me ignorant because I disagree with you and you're not capable of accepting that people have different opinions.

When have I said that John and Furnish shouldn't adopt/have a kid owing to their sexuality? Again you're pre-judging and making assumptions.

You cant put as many daft smiley faces as you want after your posts, it still doesn't re-enforce your point.

I'd be interested to know which of my posts I have showed prejudism towards someone based on ethnicity or colour. Please enlighten me, but be very careful before you make accusations on a public forum.

your morality or mine? or his or hers? law is a consensus of society not the whims of variable morality - its often wrong (law that is) but you wouldn't ask a creationist to impose their morality on us? or a communist or fascist? thats why its a democratic process and laws are brought in and passed by people we elect 

i think as usual, you need to read your own stuff back, you cant handle a counter viewpoint without quickly becoming rude and patronising in my opinion 

i'll withdraw any hint of prejudice on your part, however, as thats not fair of me to judge you - on that you've got a point  (apologies for the  at the end of that sentence but i love  their cute  :ylittle :yfaces )

i used to work with a Mackem - he was a royal pain 'en all - never backed down from his blinkered world view...........good guy and a brilliant laugh all the same and never shirked a round 

I didn't know socialists knew what work was.

Now you're saying all mackems have a blinkered world view, is that not derogatory and stereotypical? How hypocritical of you! And who's a mackem? I'm not.

More assumptions and judgements from OOfs very own self styled bastion of tolerance and fairness.

All you're doing is copying the points I make about you now, so on that point I will victoriously move on 
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

why on earth would you live in Sunderland if you weren't from there then? 

and i think i've made my point that all assumptions are spurious, dangerous and stupid........see what i did there?