The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Brendan O'Neill: defending the nanny state in the name of freedom > Comments

Brendan O'Neill: defending the nanny state in the name of freedom : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 5/5/2014

The desire to trivialise and divert attention from the compelling freedom-based case in favour of reform may be what has driven O'Neill to concoct a freedom-based case against.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
This issue is of importance to so few of us all this is of little significance.

In the wider picture so few care, regardless of the noise from the minority.

The vast majority of us will teach our children our values. The vast majority will absorb those and as the vast majority of us have, they will reject the notions of homosexuality. All natural parents will teach children the values, great pleasures of parenting and the interactions in male/female families.

It is my opinion sodomy is an unnatural and selfish behaviour but if a minority want to indulge and raise it to a par with heterosexuality ... well they can, but it will never rank equally in the opinion of the vast majority. That is a self evident truth.

I totally disagree with same sex parenting. Which of course once the aim of same sex marriage has been achieved will be the next aim of homosexual activists.

I think it won't be the state that draws that line. It will be drawn by natural parents.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 1:45:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rodney, the continued push to normalise homosexuality with full government assistance is an example of the tail wagging the dog. You may think that the lack of support for any desire to equalise homosexual unions with marriage is morally wrong. Plenty of gun owners I know think that disarming the population is morally wrong too. But in both instances, the problem is that both gun owners and homosexuals need to convince the public that the public's widely help beliefs are wrong.

Neither gun owners nor homosexuals can just say "we have a right to be as we are, and you are wrong to deny our rights."

If gun owners used government assistance to insist that we change the English language to label school shootings or massacres with innocuous euphemisms, the public would see through the subterfuge and get angry about what was being done to our language in order to push a pro gun agenda. But this is exactly what you homosexuals are already doing to our language, and it is also making the public angry because we can see the agenda that you are trying to force down our throats. Your position is increasing hostility towards homosexuals, not reducing it.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 4:10:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or between a man and up to four women .....
Jon J,
Not in the eyes of those who believe in marriage. What's next ? Marry your Pet , or a tree ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 6:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy