red_dog104

I don't agree with it personally. They ought to try sorting out legalities for hetrosexual couples instead. I don't want my son growing up in a world where it's considered ok for two men or two women to be 'married'. It's just not natural. AND before I get the 'what would you do if your son told you he was gay' question thrown at me, I would accept it as he's my son and I love him but that doesn't mean I will like it and it certainly doesn't mean i'd let him have his deviant 'freinds' stopping at my house!

I DO have gay friends and they know exactly what I think about their sexuality. They don't flaunt it infront of me and things are fine.

TurboKitty

Comparing single parent families with drink driving? Bwahahahaha! There are just so many holes in that analogy that it's hardly worth bothering.



If you are saying that single parent familes are *not* OK because sometimes the result is criminal and disturbed children, then *surely* this also applies to "traditional family units", as they also sometimes produce criminal and disturbed children.

unclebuck

BMW why don't you just shut up.

The mask has slipped, and there we have it in all it's glory... Politically Correct intolorence. The PC mob are the *true* bigots.

LOL

MarkO

UB, you seem to be fairly anti-PC. Do you think it's PC of me to disagree with red_dog's use of the word 'deviant' to describe gay people? Frankly, nobody (other than, perhaps, paedophiles) should have that word used to describe them.

IMO describing somebody as a deviant just because of their sexuality is verging on the same sort of values as the Third Reich.

What I do think is stupid is if they adjust the law so that homosexuals have different advantages to heterosexuals. There's little point in altering the legislation if it creates another (albeit different) inequality. Personally, there should be no legal distinction between unmarried gay or straight couples. The potential for marriage (or a legal equivalent) for gay couples is tricky, but really I don't see any reason not to have it. If anything, it might serve to try and reduce the image (and reality, to a certain extent) of promiscuity in the gay community in general.

[Edited by MarkO - 6/30/2003 5:20:23 PM]

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:41:32 PM]

unclebuck

I'm anti intolorance and the apparent attempts at thought control practiced by some on here (and many in the 'real' world) dressed up as 'Political Correctness'. It becomes an excuse to try to bully people.

As for deviant... dictionary.com says: One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

Seems reasonable to me. Certainly not '****' which BTW is another stock PC insult.

UB

unclebuck

After all, being PC means we don't call people *******, kikes, coons.

Might be the reason *you* don't. I never have used those words. I don't need some PC twit telling what I can and can't say either.

UB[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

MarkO

UB, I think the problem here is that your definition of 'being PC' overlaps (matches?) most peoples' definitions of being polite, forgiving, and generally open-minded. I dislike PC for PC's sake, but there are a number of traits of the 'PC mob' that a lot of others would do well to accept. Having said that, there are also a great many of the PC brigade who take things too far, and thereby render their opinions open to ridicule.

Not calling somebody a kike/coon/etc doesn't necessarily make you PC, but conversely being PC doesn't mean you have to have your head up your @rse.

BMW bikes

There are so many holes in my logic on the first point then please find one. The fact is I know many people who have driven drunk on many occasions and not crashed. This is surely irrelevant to the fact that if every one drove while drunk many people would suffer or die as a result. The same can be said for single parent families many people grow up from them and have happy productive lives; but fact is if the traditional family unit was abandoned society would suffer as a hole due to the reasons stated. It does not matter what the analogy is, doing something stupid does not always result in negative effects but accepting that behavior as the norm will in the long run produce the negative effects that caused that behavior to be considerd stupid in the first place.

Dastardly

How much is it seriously going to impact our lives?

I can't see any problem with it, let them get on with it I say.
We ought to concentrate our anger, energies and protests on people who need it like dirty paedophiles, rapist, murderers and such. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

weapon69

I wonder how many people on here actually know anyone that is homosexual? I doubt it by the look of the responses. If being politically correct means i live and let live then how terrible.not.

BMW bikes

As to the second point I have not made the claims you stated just that the statistics speak for themselves. Non tradional family units produce more criminal deviant and non productive members of society than tradional family units. There is a wealth of statistics to back this up in every country in the world. Get google out if you don't believe me. I am not claiming absolutes good and bad come from either but across the spectrum of society as a whole this is the case.

unclebuck

"I wonder how many people on here actually know anyone that is homosexual?"

I know a few. Sit about 2 metres from a gay chap here in the office, why do you ask? What difference does it make anyway?

UB

TurboKitty

Your argument against single parent families was that they produce criminal and disturbed children. You did not quote any statistics. It would be a fine argument *if* "traditional family units" did not create criminal and disturbed children. However, this is not the case.

If "traditional family units" can also produce criminal and disturbed children, it's not logical to blame problem children on single-parent families and use this as a basis to say that single parent families should not be acceptable. It's more complicated than that.

weapon69

So if gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples and can adopt children as easily etc then society is gonna go to ****? Is that what your saying?

MarkO

LOL. The ol' "lots of my best friends are gay" argument!

It always amuses me when people assume that unless you know lots of gay people (and are best friends with at least 3) you can't have an opinion on gay rights.

I don't know any gay people at the moment. I've known a few in my life. But it makes no odds anyway. I don't know any afro-carribeans, but it doesn't make me any less aware of the need for equality for ethnic groups.

weapon69

LOL this thread is making me laugh now.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

What I want to know is can my girlfriend and I just sign a bit of paper that makes us officially next of kin?

Because in my personal situation marriage would be too fooking expensive and we'd get no end of grief if we went to a registary office on the quiet

Thats whats this uproar's really about, if homosexuals can and hetros can't LOL

unclebuck

Mark, as I just said I don't think it's relevent. Anyway I'm not bothered by the issues in this topic at all.

As you correctly said earlier, it's OTT PC policing I object to.

UB

BMW bikes

Turbokitty it is hard to discuss things with people who can't read. I did not quote any statistics becuase If I can search the net then so can you. I said that children from non traditional family units are significantly more likely to be non-contributing members of society ie criminal, deviants ,unemployed; than children from traditional family units. 70 % of incarcerated males in American come from single parent families. I don't know the figure for here so why don't you find them.



Why has no one challenged my view point that children need definitive male and female role models in life. Adding these role models to communities with out them has proven in the long term to significantly reduce crime in those comunities.

TurboKitty

I'm hardly likely to bother to search the web to prove a point you are trying to make to me. If you want to convince me of something, you find the data to back it up, otherwise I'll continue to believe that you are merely stating your beliefs as if they were facts.

TurboKitty

You may have said that, but you also said

and that's what I am referring to.

You are implying that single parent families are not acceptable because some of them produce criminal and disturbed children.

My point is that if single parent families are not acceptable because sometimes they result in criminal and disturbed children, "traditional" families are also not acceptable because they also result in criminal and distrubed children sometimes.

[Edited by TurboKitty - 6/30/2003 6:50:42 PM]

TurboKitty

Because this is your argument and you can do your own research, except, you probably can't, which is why you're falling back on the, "if I can search the 'net so can you" line.

If you want to convince us that these are facts, rather than your opinions, best guesses, or things you've out-and-out made up, you'll need to present some evidence.

turboman786

TK..if you need statistics then you clearly live a very sheltered life. Get yerself down to yer local inner city and compare the product of single parent relationships and traditional marriages....

south-star

I think its common sense that "in general" children do better in two parent families.Not to decry single parents,because tbh i dont know how half of them cope with the day to day practicalities of life,but its not something i'd choose.
One income,no-one to stay at home while you drop one off at xyz,ones ill,everyone has to stay in,only one person to help with homework,the list is endless........not my idea of fun.

Ms S3

I'd rather be gay than be from Bradford

south-star

S3's are a bit gay anyway....

Ms S3

And anyway the whole point is that if you make an argument based on statistics then you should back up your arguments with those figures. If you have made them up, as with so many statistics, then maybe you should post them anyway and we can all take the p1ss some more…

Ms S3

Yeah but if it ain't your car why worry. In fact it isn't my car either so I don't care..

Ms S3

just been browsing some more threads and believe it or not someone has actually backed up an argument with some statistics. Good on you alanjack, shame some others around here can't do the same..