That's odd. The gay people I know who are raising children seem to be doing a fine job. How peculiar.
Same. In fact, I'd say a lot of the people who are against gay couples raising children probably don't know any gay parents, or probably any gay people full stop!
Same. In fact, I'd say a lot of the people who are against gay couples raising children probably don't know any gay parents, or probably any gay people full stop!
Indeed and the more I think about what this man said the more confused I think he is.
He agrees with gay couples being able to adopt; but thinks only couples who can have their own children should be able to marry because marriage is important for the raising of children.
So effectively he is saying that marriage should be limited to people who want children and can have them together, using the 'industry standard' of the husband's sperm bumping into the wife's egg.
Not only is he making a value judgement about the relationship of gay people, but of straight couples where one or both is infertile or past the age of child bearing.
By extension he is also making a value judgement about the worth of any child not conceived and raised by the genetic parents. They apparently don't deserve to have married parents.
Same. In fact, I'd say a lot of the people who are against gay couples raising children probably don't know any gay parents, or probably any gay people full stop!
And trade in gender stereotypes. So they think 'this is the female standard' and 'this is the male standard' (all informed by traditional gender roles) and this is what we imprint our children with.
Indeed and the more I think about what this man said the more confused I think he is.
He agrees with gay couples being able to adopt; but thinks only couples who can have their own children should be able to marry because marriage is important for the raising of children.
So effectively he is saying that marriage should be limited to people who want children and can have them together, using the 'industry standard' of the husband's sperm bumping into the wife's egg.
Not only is he making a value judgement about the relationship of gay people, but of straight couples where one or both is infertile or past the age of child bearing.
By extension he is also making a value judgement about the worth of any child not conceived and raised by the genetic parents. They apparently don't deserve to have married parents.
As an adopted person and being from a one parent family, I often wonder how the damage I must do to society manifests itself, as compared to the industry standard, as you aptly put it!
It's just a joke really. He acts as though all heterosexual couples are suddenly given a "good parenting" chip the second the mother gives birth. When the fact is that most people, regardless of their gender or sexuality, have the ability to be good parents naturally.
What also really annoys me is when people who are against gay couples adopting/raising children say "well, we don't know the effects. We might find it out to our cost in 10 - 20 years time". I know Zach Wahls has been bandied about a lot, but he is living proof that being raised by two parents of the same gender had no negative impact on him. But they'd rather quote unsubstantiated fears than deal with cast iron evidence.
Indeed and the more I think about what this man said the more confused I think he is.
He agrees with gay couples being able to adopt; but thinks only couples who can have their own children should be able to marry because marriage is important for the raising of children.
So effectively he is saying that marriage should be limited to people who want children and can have them together, using the 'industry standard' of the husband's sperm bumping into the wife's egg.
Not only is he making a value judgement about the relationship of gay people, but of straight couples where one or both is infertile or past the age of child bearing.
By extension he is also making a value judgement about the worth of any child not conceived and raised by the genetic parents. They apparently don't deserve to have married parents.
Exactly! Just where are all the statements in the news saying that straight people who are unable or unwilling to have children should not be allowed to get married as that is what marriage is for?
Can anyone find just one example where that has been said?
No! What a big surprise that despite all their protestations about it not being homophobic, they (all of them) have never raised these objections, comments, observations or statements of opinion about anyone other than gay people.
The very fact that we have never heard a single thing about marriage being limited to people who want, can and must have babies between the married couple, before same sex marriage was talked about, says everything we need to know.
Do they really think we are that stupid? Do they really think that it is not bloody obvious at whom they are aiming their statements? And then to try and claim that they are not homophobes when they don't address the same complaints against straight people.
Personally, I do believe the problem is with gay people themselves and and most of the reasoning is just justification.
I listened to a programme last night which mentioned the case of Jeannine Gramick, a nun who was disciplined by the Vatican for her ministry to gay people.
Jeannine Gramick, a Roman Catholic nun, was born in 1942 and educated in Catholic grade and high schools in Philadelphia.
In 1977, along with Fr. Robert Nugent, she co-founded New Ways Ministry, a national, Catholic social justice center working for the reconciliation of lesbian/gay people and the church
In 1999, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith permanently prohibited her from any pastoral work with lesbian or gay persons.
In 2000, the School Sisters of Notre Dame ordered her to cease speaking about the Vatican investigation and about homosexuality in general. In conscience, she chose not to collaborate in her own oppression and continues to engage in lesbian/gay ministry. In 2001, she transferred to the Sisters of Loretto.
Incidentally, whilst I was looking for an article to post about her, I came across this article which included what the Pope has to say about women:
In 2004, the cardinal who would become Pope Benedict XVI wrote a Vatican document urging women to be submissive partners, resisting any adversarial roles with men and cultivating “feminine values” like “listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.
In the spirit of fairness, I've tried to find where Benedict actually says that and have seen some sites that say the journalist has taken the remarks out of context. Still looking for the original.
Gay male couples should only be allowed to raise male kids and Lesbos should only be allowed to raise female kids.
I'm gay and I don't think gays should marry.
You think the populace of a Greek island should only have female children? Isn't that a bit odd?
Or did you mean gay women?
Let's assume you did - why do you think that gay men should only have male children and gay women only female children?
How would you manage this in practice? I mean if a gay woman had IVF to get pregnant should she have an abortion if the foetus is male or just put it up for adoption?
I really don't think you have thought this through.
The same can be said for those who comment on the use of the term bigot, rather than actually discussing the subject of the thread... It's a convenient smokescreen for some.
Yeah, that's basically what I meant to say but I clearly didn't word it very well upon reading back. The crowd that complain about being called bigots and whinge about their freedom of speech (as if it only works one way) are just playing the persecution card, which is a clear sign of desperation for their argument.
Its refreshing to see a politician being honest about his views. People may dislike this one sentence out of a 25 minute interview but atleast they have an idea of his beliefs on the subject and his constituents know what they're voting for if they vote for him, unlike Cameron who blatantly lied for votes.
Its refreshing to see a politician being honest about his views. People may dislike this one sentence out of a 25 minute interview but atleast they have an idea of his beliefs on the subject and his constituents know what they're voting for if they vote for him, unlike Cameron who blatantly lied for votes.
I actually agree. I'd rather know where they stand - honestly - than a lot of lip service equality talk and no equality action or result.
Equality is very easy to say than to put into practice.
Of the 20% agin, about 90% can only be seen as expressions of crude prejudice and bigotry. The phrase “I am not homophobic, but...” sees to mean “soft or hard homophobic statement ahoy! But don't pick me up on it.”
So whether you like your prejudice genteel, hypocritical, or crude, there’s a carousel of possibilities out there... It is simply false to claim there is no homophobia in the Church. There is plenty of it, apparently, and if Church leaders do not wake up and act to tackle it, the Church will become, even more than it already is, a last ditch for soft or hard prejudice that has now faded elsewhere in society.
Comments
Same. In fact, I'd say a lot of the people who are against gay couples raising children probably don't know any gay parents, or probably any gay people full stop!
Indeed and the more I think about what this man said the more confused I think he is.
He agrees with gay couples being able to adopt; but thinks only couples who can have their own children should be able to marry because marriage is important for the raising of children.
So effectively he is saying that marriage should be limited to people who want children and can have them together, using the 'industry standard' of the husband's sperm bumping into the wife's egg.
Not only is he making a value judgement about the relationship of gay people, but of straight couples where one or both is infertile or past the age of child bearing.
By extension he is also making a value judgement about the worth of any child not conceived and raised by the genetic parents. They apparently don't deserve to have married parents.
What also really annoys me is when people who are against gay couples adopting/raising children say "well, we don't know the effects. We might find it out to our cost in 10 - 20 years time". I know Zach Wahls has been bandied about a lot, but he is living proof that being raised by two parents of the same gender had no negative impact on him. But they'd rather quote unsubstantiated fears than deal with cast iron evidence.
Exactly! Just where are all the statements in the news saying that straight people who are unable or unwilling to have children should not be allowed to get married as that is what marriage is for?
Can anyone find just one example where that has been said?
No! What a big surprise that despite all their protestations about it not being homophobic, they (all of them) have never raised these objections, comments, observations or statements of opinion about anyone other than gay people.
The very fact that we have never heard a single thing about marriage being limited to people who want, can and must have babies between the married couple, before same sex marriage was talked about, says everything we need to know.
Do they really think we are that stupid? Do they really think that it is not bloody obvious at whom they are aiming their statements? And then to try and claim that they are not homophobes when they don't address the same complaints against straight people.
I listened to a programme last night which mentioned the case of Jeannine Gramick, a nun who was disciplined by the Vatican for her ministry to gay people.
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=65
Incidentally, whilst I was looking for an article to post about her, I came across this article which included what the Pope has to say about women:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1&em
Feminine traits WTF??
I would have thought they were just the traits of, you know, a nice human being.
It just reads like he wishes he had a girlfriend to come home to for me.
Edit:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
https://twitter.com/alibi67/status/302759699638525952/photo/1
I'm gay and I don't think gays should marry.
Sorry I'm all out of troll food today.
You think the populace of a Greek island should only have female children? Isn't that a bit odd?
Or did you mean gay women?
Let's assume you did - why do you think that gay men should only have male children and gay women only female children?
How would you manage this in practice? I mean if a gay woman had IVF to get pregnant should she have an abortion if the foetus is male or just put it up for adoption?
I really don't think you have thought this through.
Yeah, that's basically what I meant to say but I clearly didn't word it very well upon reading back. The crowd that complain about being called bigots and whinge about their freedom of speech (as if it only works one way) are just playing the persecution card, which is a clear sign of desperation for their argument.
I'm pretty sure that if the pope did have a family to come home to, it would vastly improve his ability to avoid talking such nonsense.
ETA: Having said that it hasn't actually helped some MPs.
I actually agree. I'd rather know where they stand - honestly - than a lot of lip service equality talk and no equality action or result.
Equality is very easy to say than to put into practice.
I liked the joke off 8 out of ten cats, "tories defending the traditional idea of a marriage that it should be between a philanderer and a doormat".
On the subject of equal marriage, blog from the Bishop of Buckingham about his postbag:
http://bishopalan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/my-marriage-equality-postbag.html?spref=fb
I'm going to remember that one.
If all Bishops were that sensible I might even want to increase the number of them in the House of Lords.