Scathing poll for Blair...

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boddington's
What's your point?

It's an employer's choice who he employs.

Well if you aren't pro-gay marraiges, etc then you aren't pro-equal rights for all groups. And I didn't think you were...

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boddington's

Gays should not raise children.

Well, that sounds like equal rights for all groups

Do you say this stuff to your gay friends?

[Solly]

I'm pro-marriage for all suitable groups who want to bring up children.

Gays are obviously not suitable.

[Solly]

Originally posted by red_jon


Well, that sounds like equal rights for all groups

Do you say this stuff to your gay friends?

They don't go around forcing their sexuality upon others like people here do, so I won't be forcing my opinions on them.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boddington's


They don't go around forcing their sexuality upon others like people here do, so I won't be forcing my opinions on them.

And you believe they shouldn't be allowed to marry someone they loved? Wow, you must be a great friend...

[Sixchan]

I'm pro-marriage for all suitable groups who want to bring up children.

Gays are obviously not suitable.

Hey, I've gone from somewhat liking you to really disliking you in the space of a few posts. I doubt you care much thoutgh.

[Stefu]

Enlighten me, Bodna. Why are gays unsuitable to raise children?

[Solly]

Should children be handed over as trophies to the homosexual “rights” movement — adopting them into households where they’ll face dramatically higher risk of exposure to domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease and premature death? An environment which increases the chances they’ll engage in high-risk homosexual behavior themselves

“The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple,” write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter.

The Institute reports that “significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals.”

A major Australian newspaper reported February 4 on a British sociologist’s review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: “Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality.”

http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2.../n_glenn.shtml

The fact is, most social scientists are either gay themselves, or have strong leanings towards the "gay rights" movement:

"the authors of these studies wish to influence public policy to support samesex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexual couples. While the authors of these studies have every right to advocate this point of view, as do those who disagree with them, their wish means that the stakes in obtaining valid answers to these research questions are very high"
No Basis:
What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

I sometimes find it strange how it's the same left-wingers railing against GM foods using the argument "we don't know what tinkering with nature is going to lead to in the long-run" who are also wanting to change how children have been raised since year nought plonk without any reliable studies on how that might affect them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah, good. A poorly-thought through diatribe to dismantle.

Great sources, Spinky. The "National Association for the research and therapy of homosexuals" and "Concerned women for America". If that's the sort of balance you're looking for, why not just pick up some of the drooling rants on Stormfront?

Like most of those highly biased pressure organisations, what's interesting isn't the "figures" used, but the ones omitted and the slant placed on the ones used. Let's look at some examples.

"The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple,” write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter

I love the "mathematically double". Don't you? However I've more than a suspicion that they haven't based their research on every single couple on earth. There are also glaringly obvious possibilities omitted. Here are a few-
1- In gay relationships, perhaps the violence doesn't occur in a stable relationship? This draws up another point- if the relationship isn't a serious one, the violence is a lot more likely to be reported. Hence, tying in with the other points provided about gay people supposedly having more (non-serious) partners, the higher reported rate.
2- It isn't a "like-for-like" comparison where children are involved. Provide figures showing that violence is more likely to occur in gay relationship with children, in comparison with heterosexual couples with children, and you've got something more weighty than the vacuous tosh spouted here.
3- Men are more violent than women. Does this mean the ideal environment to bring up children is to have lesbian parents?

Next laughable babbling-

The Institute reports that “significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals.”

I used to drink a lot, smoke a lot and take loads of drugs. I don't do so any more. The reason for this is that I am now a father. Most people in gay relationships aren't parents. This really isn't rocket science, is it? It's practically grounds for encouraging gay people to have kids.
Next rampaging barrel of bollocks-

A major Australian newspaper reported February 4 on a British sociologist’s review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: “Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality.”

Sorry- I've read through that paragraph a few times, and I still can't see what the "major problems" are. Kleptomania? Leprosy? Collecting unexploded shells from army testing grounds?
The other way to read that paragraph is, of course, that children raised in same-sex relationships are much less likely to be closet cases. Should their sinful yearnings by healthily repressed by cold showers and sound whippings, like they did in the good old days?

The fact is, most social scientists are either gay themselves, or have strong leanings towards the "gay rights" movement:

What are "strong leanings towards the "gay rights" movement". Agreeing with it? Oh, how damned they are. Damned as sinful worms. Try teaching them to be honest and decent homophobes, in that case. You strike me as a boy who needs a hobby in the absence of a relationship.

I sometimes find it strange how it's the same left-wingers railing against GM foods using the argument "we don't know what tinkering with nature is going to lead to in the long-run" who are also wanting to change how children have been raised since year nought plonk without any reliable studies on how that might affect them.

I love it when you get historical, Spinky. This really isn't your strong point, is it?

So which historical way of raising children since "year nought plonk" is in favour in your household? Were you farmed out to a wetnurse? Were you sold to a mill owner? Were you raised by an extended stream of maiden Aunts? Were you sent to be fostered in the household of another Lord? Did you accompany another who did as a bonded page? Were you raised in a harem? Or any of it's equivalents?

Stick to your strengths. You haven't displayed any yet, but I presume you have at least one. It certainly isn't history, however.

Lovely. Dig more out, lightweight. I can shoot these down without breaking into sweat.

[Ned]

What would make you folks in England stand up and cheer, aside from winning the WC?

I was surprised when earlier in this thread, no one mentioned 1945, the year WWII ended in an allied victory.

[JohnIII]

Well, the reason for that is that we don't take you very seriously, Ned. I'm sorry it has to be this way .

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

1945? The economy was buggered, air was rationed. We were 20 years away from the sexual revolution and the anti-perspirant. To top it all, our new PM had a really bad moustache. It was a terrible year.

[Clear Skies]

We didn't cheer because we won the war. We thanked our lucky stars it was over, then started picking up the pieces. Not jubilation, just relief.

[Sixchan]

Well, I jumped for joy this Morning.

Right over his head!!

[JohnIII]

It was a fluke. Ronaldinho just mis-cued it and got his follow-through all wrong.

[Sixchan]

It all counts not a jot.

England are out, and that;s what matters.

[JohnIII]

And where were Scotland, eh?

[Stefu]

So which historical way of raising children since "year nought plonk" is in favour in your household?

Let's not forget that in year nought plonk ("year sword and shield", we say in Finland), it was considered good fun for parents to suddenly pull their male children's pants down and diddle around with their genitalia to provide amusement for onlooking guests, relatives or others who believed that sexual stimulation of children was a laugh riot.

[red_jon]

Bodders seems to be the classic example of a closet case. Textbook.

[Sixchan]

Perhaps you are right, jon.
It is very possible, it would seem.

3- Men are more violent than women. Does this mean the ideal environment to bring up children is to have lesbian parents?

In a word: Yes.