Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3951669.stm

The above link is about a new TV channel dedicated to homosexual viewers and hopes to make the practice more acceptable.

My question - should homosexuals be allowed to get married, adopt children etc?

My view is that they should be allowed to be married, however I don't think they should be allowed to change religious regulations i.e. get married in Catholic or Protestant churches if this is the churches wishes.

 

Just look at the ridiculousness of that sentence. Is one gay channel the saviour of all French civilisation and foundation of great edifice of freedom yet to come to future generations? Come on, please. Do show some moderation. Am I not free and do I not respect people or am I not respected by people if I don't watch gay channels? Please. Let's be serious.

That's how I see the totality of the gay movement, as a matter of gross simplification, of course, but a true one, in its robust way.

As I see it, the channel will promote most of all sexual freedom in it's promiscuous form (shag whomever you want whenever you want wherever you want however you want, in teams if that's your preference) and earn bucks questionning traditional authorities and ethics to placate the masses yearning for the thrill of something new and unrestrained by the babbling of old bigots. Yeah.

Now, as to rights and allowances. No child adoption. No equal parental rights for gay couples. "Marriage" is a union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not "deprived" of the right to marry: they can marry a person of opposite sex and have children with that person as much as anyone else of legal age and sane mind in the society. Don't want that? Well, there are heterosexuals who live in concubinates, as well, why make homosexuals privileged and call that marriage which visibly is not?

Discrimination? Heck, that someone is gay it doesn't mean he will run around molesting men, or she will hit on every woman she sights. And if someone is gay, it doesn't mean he or she will be a bad teacher because of that and focused on making your children gay. In any case just the regular conduct regulations will be enough, if only they're applied justly, which means no compensational freedom of conduct for gay people. For instance, if we aren't appreciative of hetero couples making out in public transport, we shouldn't make an exception for gay couples just because they're gay.

To sum up, equal right: yes; special rights: no.

This essentially means no pro-gay propaganda where it doesn't belong. For instance, if I were the headmaster of, let's say, a Catholic school, I would still hire a gay teacher and I would ask the protesters to mind their own business. But any sort of unprovoked pro-gay rhetoric in the class would get the person fired.

 

Godless homos will burn in hell!. No questions please.

 

Or, to add to Ragusa's link some more "mainstream" evidence of sensible conservative opinion on homosexuality: a Hawaii Republican who would support the execution of homosexuals.

And, from Focus on the Family's James Dobson, how gay marriage "will destroy the Earth."

And from a pro-Bush 527, a tasteful advertisement about Kerry/Edwards and gay marriage.

So obviously Pink TV is a clear and present danger to all right-thinking people, no?

 

I'm all for Lesbian rights.

But all male homos should of course burn in hell, it's filthy.



What?

<vaguely serious> Let them do what they want, but don't let them dictate when they become a majority. Same as always.

 

They already have all rights to do as they please here in the Netherlands, they are allowed to get married, they are allowed to adopt children, they have all kinds of stupid national parades, they even had their own gay Olympics.... what more is it that they want ?

They are already accepted in our society, nobody thinks of them as freaks anymore, isn't that what they sought ? It's because of useless attentionseeking actions like his, that they place themselves right back out of society again. I'm just glad that this proposal wasn't made in the Netherlands where 75% of all showhosts, newsreaders, actors and singers is already gay to begin with. Any more queers on TV and i'll throw it out of the window.

 

I have no real problem with gays. I must confess to twinging whenever I see 2 blokes snogging or whatever. They are not hurting anyone I 'spose, leave 'em with it.

 

I know, and that is what makes me kind of pissed of. They want to be accepted? Sure, I have nothing against it, but gay olympics? I mean, it's like having afroamerican olympics or even female olympics.

IMHO, they can have children, adopted or not.
IMHO, they should have the same rights as everyone else.
IMHO, they should be allowed to marry BUT, and I repeat BUT, not in curches that don't want to. Each church votes, not just the elders but all members of the curch, and if they allow it, sure. But if they disallow it, find a new curch or have a civil marriage. Don't go crying to the goverment about it. Seperation of curch and state, y'now.

 

I'm amazed Caled -- what did they teach you in liberal sweden in your biology lessons ??!

 

Well there have been quite a few cases of gay women getting inseminated in one way or another. Heck, one even sued the guy who helped her after she broke up with her girlfriend for childsupport. He was kinda peeved.

It is funny how we all think FAGGOTS when the word gay is used. There are female gay people too.

 

Ragusa, you'll be surprised how many men find out at a much later age what their true sexual feelings are, and by the time they do, they have a wife and three children. So yeah, gay people don't necessarily have to adopt, all they need is a slow working mind. It might happen to you, so easy on the cynicism.

 

*sigh*

I support the right of any couple, no matter what their plumbing compactibility is, to be able to have the legal benefits of a marriage. (After all, marriage is all about finances... imho, that is)

Also, I think that same goes for adopting children.

and Chev? Sexual preference and promscuity does not go hand in hand.

 

That's basically what I said in:

However, the gay rights movement is full of promiscuity, as it promotes sexual freedom in all its randomness, as well as same-gender sex itself.

Adopting children is not about the rights of those who adopt, but about the rights of those who are adopted. There is a reason why not even all biological parents have custody.

 

Marriage? No.
Equivalent of marriage? Yes.

Equal rights? Who says they don't have them?

A homosexual channel? Great, good for them, just don't expect/demand government funding.

Children? I don't see why not. They couldn't do a worse job than many hetrosexual parents.

Gay Olympics? Can't they already compete in the normal Olympics? Are they implying that homosexuals are disabled in some way and are at a disadvantage competing with hetrosexuals? AFAIK no gays have been denied the right to compete in the Olympics because of their sexuality and no gays have been denied a medal unless they were proved of cheating.

Marriage in churches? The chuch has a right to deny them but there are many alternatives to religious marriage. Why don't they start a homosexual religion?

And my own question: will there be naked lesbians on PinkTV?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, they can have children, adopted or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm amazed Caled -- what did they teach you in liberal sweden in your biology lessons ??!

WHAT THE F**K is wrong with sweden, kid? it's probably better than the rock you're living on anyway. now you're a christian and you linked to Ford Chick the most gay man in the world. why would you do that??

god LOVED gay people. otherwise, he wouldn't have created so many a** holes, wouldn't he....

more to the point, how come so many priests are gay? molesting children? doing all kinds of UNCHRISTIAN things, child abuse ect. ect. explain that, ragusa

 

I wondered how long it would be before this old topic reared its tired head again.

Scary thing is, I agree with Barmy Army.....

In New Zealand, the people who protest against homosexual marriage are a group of nutters called The Destiny Church who wear black T-shirts and stomp around in big black boots waving flags outside parliament (when they should be at work) with their kids (who should be at school). In my opinion, these loonies are a bigger threat to society than homosexual marriage or same-sex parents.

 

Gay olympics is typically what I deem over-compensation (no pun). There is no more need for that that there is a need for all-black or all-women or all-whatever olympics.
So yeah, they can't be denied that because they were oppressed and stuff... pity.

Btw, Prime, I think Ragusa's posts were more humorisitic than anything.

 

why not get an all nazi olympics while we're at it? a good way of assembling all morons and then blow it sky high to kingdom come. then let in a special swat team massacre the burning remains?

Oxymore, ya think so? dunno, he could have been serious. better safe than sorry, just look in Max Payne. They shot that guy with a full clip then reloaded and shot some more. ain't that being on the safe side?

[ If you've got something personal to say to an individual poster, use PM. Read up on the rules sticky for the Alley of Dangerous Angles while you're at it. ] - Beren

[ October 27, 2004, 07:24: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Have said this on several boards, will say it again:

Gays and lesbians should have a right to REGISTER their relationship to gain equal stance (sharing of property, widow's rights, etc). About that I can agree, but they NEVER should have a right to normal, church weddings or to adopt children. They are abnormal. Dot.