In the last post I stated “We-might-as-well-argue-that-a-money-might-be-able-to-bring-up-a-child” which should read “We-might-as-well-argue-that-a-monkey-might-be-able-to-bring-up-a-child”.

Anyhow, when was the last time you had a heterosexual procession of people showing of their butts, etc. We have this freak show called “MARDI GRASS” and then this is supposed to be about “normal people”?

Ordinary, we all had a biological father and a biological mother from which we are created and gay people seek to deny a child this. Even bathing a child retuning from a non-custodian parent to so to say get the smell of the gender away. This is freakish conduct that no child should be subjected to.

Basically, we are having children brainwashed that “gay” is in and it is normal! This is wrecking the children! Sure, gays conduct has been around for thousands of years but we seem now to have an epidemic that children are learning that being gay is normal and a medical condition. Well, if gay is a medical condition then why can a person on his own will suddenly decide no longer to be gay? Perhaps like smoking, drinking, etc, it is a matter of stamina to give it up.
But, if people want to live a gay lifestyle then let them not, so to say, shove it down my throat, by freak shows, etc.
Neither should children be denied their rights merely because some freaks desire to push it as their rights to have care of a child.

Murders, rapist, paedophiles, etc, all might in their own right be a good parent as gay people in their own right also might be, but that doesn’t mean that we then have to accept this as a society that we should not punish them for their deeds and consider that we hand over children to them!

A paedophile might abuse children but his/her own but we as a society still set moral standards. And this is what the tread is about if (despite what Col Rouge claims otherwise) Candy Broad seeks the law to be changed, and this I oppose.

MARDI GRASS the FREAK SHOW.

PROTECT CHILDREN!

Gerrit, what a non-argument: a monkey cannot offer a human child the family it needs; children need language and education and grow up in human communities if they are to become functional citizens in our society.

Who says that children have the right to have a father and a mother? Many children do not have that. There are many sole-parent families and single parents can do a good job bringing up a child, too.
There are many families that are not together as you know, or of which one parent has died.

If I use your logic about gays not being able to create a child between them, I could make the same argument for singles as well: a single person has never created a child by him/herself so there goes your argument out the window.
Infertile couples are also not naturally able to create a child between them- yet they can adopt or seek IVF help.
The same should be possible for homosexuals who want children.

If you don’t like MardiGrass then don’t watch it.
I’m not looking forward to the Catholic Pilgrims next year but I won’t protest, I’ll just accept that OTHERS want this freak show.
I have the choice to watch it or not.
Sometimes groups I do not belong to do things I don’t like, so what? Nobody’s safety is in danger.
We all have to give each other some space, we share the cities, and we don’t own or control them.

Gerrit, I see that you’re posting at the “Offended by Love” thread, so I might post the things I have to say to you about homosexuality there rather than here- it’s probably off-topic here and others might find it annoying to read off-topic discussions. I just want to shortly say that it’s nonsense that kids have been brainwashed that being ‘gay’ is normal; it’s the opposite: homophobes have been brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is wrong.

PS-stop-cheating-like-this-We-all-have-the-same-amount-of-words-This-is-a-rule.

Absolutely my last!

Shockadelic, you must have been a most useful Third Speaker in your school's debating team. You have a quick reponse and a sly change of subject. I admire the technique.

But it won't do here, and has no effect on me whatever, because my position, and that of others in this thread, like Celivia and Yabby and Col Rouge, is not about debating but a firm principle. That is, that a woman, and a woman alone, must be the final decider about what happens to her body in matters sexual. If I can speak for the others, we hold this position because (1) she is the one who must bear, and care for, any child that results from sex, and (2) the alternatives (that someone else decides what she should do) is demeaning of her and transgresses the principle of equality.

I guess that we would all agree that sometimes the woman will make a decision that we (and she) would later regret. She will have to live with that regret. But once you impose someone else's will (law) on her, all sorts of other bad things follow. This is especially the case if men decide what women must do (I speak as a man).

There are no perfect solutions in social matters. Ours is not perfect. But it is better, we think, than all the alternatives. Quite a lot follows from our position, like the need to educate all of our children in sexual matters and assist them to acquire useful sexual experience and knowledge. But all that has been said before, many times.

Celivia, your post is ignoring what I stated in the past. If a parent dies then I have no issue with a single parent bringing up a child as the child was born into a natural family. And, while I would rather see that women are in a marriage when having children, I accept however that even with single mothers the child is born into a natural family as it was created by a man and a woman, despite that the parents may have split.

Children who are reared by monkeys may for the monkeys conditions be deemed to be appropriately cared for, as gay people take the view of having a child cared for in their conditions, but I for one hold the position that neither monkeys (or other animals) or gays can be deemed a natural family!

Homosexuality as a lust has been around for thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean it has to be shoved down the throat of others.
As for religious, such as Catholic pilgrims, or Jews, or others, I do not regard that as a freak show as it is an expression of their belief, and I view they are entitled upon that and your comparison with gays hardly is appropriate.

Being it Lyn Allison with her gay changes of law she pursues or Candy Broad with her changing of laws as to abortion, both seek the community to go along with changes of law. I rather like to keep it the way it is.

As-for-the-Mardi-Grass,-I-do-not-watch-that-freak-show!
I was watching this show about Treachers Collins Syndrome and how remarkable the parents are that they fight for every bit of improvement for their children having such a condition. Now those parents show to value life! One woman was making known to be given the option to abort, but refused to do so, and she doesn't regret it!
If just others valued life also!

(Count-the-words-and-it-is-less-then-350,-even-without-the-hyphens!)

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “that Candy Broad wants the law to be changed!”

It is reasonable for that which is “not illegal” to be “decriminalized”.

The issue which matters is not the semantic nit-picking which seems to occupy your posts (along with extensive family homilies and apparent homophobic outbursts) but whether an abortion should be “illegal and criminal” or “legal and non-criminal”. Rather than the nonsense of what amounts to “legally criminal”.

As for your issue regarding “As gays cannot between themselves create a child they therefore cannot be deemed to be a natural family”

That has not been the issue on this thread.
We would more likely agree to the merits or otherwise of gay adoption and the naturalness of a “family” where the two parents did not represent both genders between them.

I suggest you keep such irrelevance for separate debate.

As for “MARDI GRASS the FREAK SHOW.”

That has nothing to do with gay adoption or abortion, I think your prejudices might be showing.

Oh and “Homosexuality as a lust has been around for thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean it has to be shoved down the throat of others.”

That should help you understand why those of us who believe in personal choice find ProLife efforts to change the law so as to “shove their views down the throats of others” as offensive as you find homosexual lust (at this moment I ponder question of reasons for what seems to be an unhealthy fixation and overreaction to the matter… ponder… ponder.. ah I think I can guess, now where is that closet door?).

Don Aitkin “Absolutely my last!”

Hope not Don, keep the faith, your views are identical to mine, it is not about the decision to abort but about who has the right to make that decision

Col Rouge, I would not call myself and never did call myself a pro life, pro-environment, pro-heterosexual, or whatever you may desire to come up with. I deplore the killing of another human being in an unjustified manner but I do accept that at times for special medical reasons an abortion may be justified.
Perhaps if everyone in the world was just living a gay life then there would be no children and we would not have to ponder about abortions either because the world would simply get rid of human being, and so wars, destruction, etc.
You were previously on about that I was out of date, so to say, and wanted the law to be changed. I did not at all pursue a change of law rather object to a change of law, including decriminalisation of abortions, using drugs, drink driving or whatever anyone else may pursue which I deem to be anti society!
QUOTE
As for “MARDI GRASS the FREAK SHOW.”

That has nothing to do with gay adoption or abortion, I think your prejudices might be showing.
END QUOTE
In my view it very much has to deal with the suitability of a prospective parent if they are going about in such manner and then professes to be perhaps better parents then heterosexuals, as their display hardly is appropriate.
I do not seek to make out that nudity in itself is offensive in family environment, regardless I did not practice this, but I do take the view that to participate in some FREAK SHOW has nothing to do with (so to say) civilised-nudity!

When we talk about abortion and profess there are other solutions, such as abortion then it is clearly part of the thread to consider the variety of abortions possible. Those who are contemplating “adoption” instead of abortion may not particularly desire to have some FREAKS getting their hands over the child!

When a child gives me the understanding contemplating suicide rather then being forced to continue to live with gay people, we hardly can claim we caring for the childs interest and welbeing!