Labor party and gay marriage

lucifers angel said:
right ok....children need a mummy and a daddy (no i am not trying to be faschsious (not spelt right i know)
Click to expand...
I already know that you feel that way. My follow-up question is why? But I don't suspect you'll answer, so it's ok. You don't have to. Were you trying to say "facetious" (as in 'cheeky') or "fascist"?
if we start allowing homoseual mariage then we might has well let people do has they wish, some (not all) homosexuals want the age of consent lowered to i think its....15....letting them pray on young children who are frankly NOT READY for a relationship
Click to expand...
I already explained why this is a flawed argument. The age of consent isn't going to be lowered because a few people ask for it. And I'll bet that there are more heterosexuals pushing for the age of consent to be lowered than there are homosexuals.
 
lucifers angel said:
right ok....children need a mummy and a daddy (no i am not trying to be faschsious (not spelt right i know)
Click to expand...
So single-parent families should also be stigmatised?
Force single people with kids to get married to someone?

if we start allowing homoseual mariage then we might has well let people do has they wish
Click to expand...
Yeah, like giving women the vote led to the utter downfall of society...

some (not all) homosexuals want the age of consent lowered to i think its....15....letting them pray on young children who are frankly NOT READY for a relationship
Click to expand...
So that simply means that some (not all) homosexuals side with paedophiles (essentially).
Prey on young children?
Or is it that it's nominally under-age homosexuals that are lobbying for this?

Norsefire said:
It doesn't matter if it is 'ok' or not, you can't teach that. That's teaching an opinion.
Click to expand...
Wrong: if you teach that it's "okay" then you're teaching that it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Much like being left-handed was once heavily stigmatised in society (there are cases of pupils ending with severe psychological trauma after being forced [sometimes violently] to be right-handed).
If it's taught that it's a natural occurrence then at least the stigmatisation will stop.
After that it's an individual's choice as to whether or not they decide they "don't like gays".
 
Idle Mind said:
I already know that you feel that way. My follow-up question is why? But I don't suspect you'll answer, so it's ok. You don't have to. Were you trying to say "facetious" (as in 'cheeky') or "fascist"?

I already explained why this is a flawed argument. The age of consent isn't going to be lowered because a few people ask for it. And I'll bet that there are more heterosexuals pushing for the age of consent to be lowered than there are homosexuals.
Click to expand...


actually no most hetrosexuals want it to stay the same, when i have time i will try and find the page that was posted in
 
Teaching them it's 'nothing to be ashamed of' is teaching an opinion. Why not teach them it is something to be ashamed of?

After all, it's just as biased to do so.

Teach them it is natural and what it is, but don't tell them 'it's nothing to be ashamed of'. That's their choice to make.
 
Dywyddyr said:
So single-parent families should also be stigmatised?Force single people with kids to get married to someone?


Yeah, like giving women the vote led to the utter downfall of society...


So that simply means that some (not all) homosexuals side with paedophiles (essentially).
Prey on young children?
Or is it that it's nominally under-age homosexuals that are lobbying for this?


Wrong: if you teach that it's "okay" then you're teaching that it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Much like being left-handed was once heavily stigmatised in society (there are cases of pupils ending with severe psychological trauma after being forced [sometimes violently] to be right-handed).
If it's taught that it's a natural occurrence then at least the stigmatisation will stop.
After that it's an individual's choice as to whether or not they decide they "don't like gays".
Click to expand...

acutally now you've mentioned it. the women who go and get pregnant for the sake of the benefits should be stigmatised yes!!
 
Norsefire said:
Why do we need to 'combat' anything? That's a bias. We're assuming this 'anti homosexual rhetoric' is bad.

It's simply a point of view; don't teach point of views as correct in school.
Click to expand...
The same reason we should be combating racism.

I'm an accepting individual. You can think what you want, and what you are means far less than who you are. This is the approach I take with all my interpersonal relationships, online or in the real world. If you feel that homosexuality is not right, that's your choice and I respect your freedom to feel the way you do. However, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Since this discussion, however, is starting to become circular, I've decided that I no longer wish to participate -- I'll go back to my home in Biology and Genetics. Hopefully someone else takes up where I've left off.
 
Idle Mind said:
The same reason we should be combating racism.
Click to expand...
Racism is not the same as discrimination based on sexuality. The latter has a much deeper impact on the very way we think and a number of accepted truths

Regardless, like I said, leave it to the individual to decide, don't teach them your opinion

I'm an accepting individual. You can think what you want, and what you are means far less than who you are. This is the approach I take with all my interpersonal relationships, online or in the real world. If you feel that homosexuality is not right, that's your choice and I respect your freedom to feel the way you do. However, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I agree; point is, don't teach your opinion as facts in schools
 
Dywyddyr said:
What about widows/ widowers?
Couples that get a divorce?
Click to expand...

no i am just talking out girls who go and get pregnant for the benefits money. i am seperated from my other half and for good reason, i am just against benefit scroungers
 
lucifers angel said:
no i am just talking out girls who go and get pregnant for the benefits money. i am seperated from my other half and for good reason, i am just against benefit scroungers
Click to expand...
So you're saying I shouldn't generalise?
You know, a sort of don't stigmatise an entire group simply because of some of the people in that group.
Hmm...

Benefit scroungers: different category altogether and NOTHING TO DO with your comment about "kids need a mummy and a daddy".
Strawman.

Single-parent families should be stigmatised: yes or no?
 
Dywyddyr said:
So you're saying I shouldn't generalise?
You know, a sort of don't stigmatise an entire group simply because of some of the people in that group.
Hmm...

Benefit scroungers: different category altogether and NOTHING TO DO with your comment about "kids need a mummy and a daddy".
Strawman.

Single-parent families should be stigmatised: yes or no?
Click to expand...

i have just answered that question, they should be stigmatised if they go and get pregnant for the benefit money, there is a high rate of single mothers with two or more children for that very reason and yes they should be shamed! They get pregnant, get benefit money, get a house and the people who seperate from they're other halves, or are widowed get very little in the way of help.

If you can tell me otherwise i would be more than happy to listen
 
lucifers angel said:
i have just answered that question
Click to expand...
No: your original statement (used to support your anti-gay comment) was: "children need a mummy and a daddy".

Benefit scroungers are a separate category i.e. they're single-parent families because that's an easy to get the money, a consequence of the system not the actual state of the relationship.
In other words if those women could get money for being something other than single-parents they'd probably do that (especially if took less effort)...

So back to the question: Single-parent families should be stigmatised: yes or no?

Not air heads who take advantage of the system, not dozy tarts who don't think about the consequences, but single-parent families i.e. families with no mummy AND daddy.
 
Dywyddyr said:
No: your original statement (used to support your anti-gay comment) was: "children need a mummy and a daddy".

Benefit scroungers are a separate category i.e. they're single-parent families because that's an easy to get the money, a consequence of the system not the actual state of the relationship.
In other words if those women could get money for being something other than single-parents they'd probably do that (especially if took less effort)...

So back to the question: Single-parent families should be stigmatised: yes or no?

Not air heads who take advantage of the system, not dozy tarts who don't think about the consequences, but single-parent families i.e. families with no mummy AND daddy.
Click to expand...

if you cannot determine an answer from what i have said then i am not going to answer that
 
You're right: I can't work out what you mean.
Either you mean that children don't actually need a mother and father or that widows and divorcees etc. should be stigmatised.
I'm lost.
 
Dywyddyr said:
You're right: I can't work out what you mean.
Either you mean that children don't actually need a mother and father or that widows and divorcees etc. should be stigmatised.
I'm lost.
Click to expand...

children need a mum and dad, when relationships break down for wahtever reason then no they should not be stigmatised!

and if a spouse dies then no they should not be stigmatised!
 
lucifers angel said:
children need a mum and dad, when relationships break down for wahtever reason then no they should not be stigmatised!
and if a spouse dies then no they should not be stigmatised!
Click to expand...
Okay: so if children need a mum AND a dad why should we not stigmatise someone who doesn't do the correct thing by their children and get married again as soon as possible?
After all, they're simply being selfish and not thinking of the kids' needs.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Okay: so if children need a mum AND a dad why should we not stigmatise someone who doesn't do the correct thing by their children and get married again as soon as possible?
After all, they're simply being selfish and not thinking of the kids' needs.
Click to expand...

no...because....some women and men are escaping from an abusive relationship
 
Dywyddyr said:
So what?
Just tell them to get a new partner who isn't abusive.
Click to expand...

not that easy hunny!! some women do not want anouther relationship, and frankly they shouldnt jump into anouther relationship just so homosexuals can marry (which was the original point of the debate)
 
lucifers angel said:
not that easy hunny!!
Click to expand...
Beside the point.
If children need a father and amother theyn shouldn't single parents just take the first or second available single person (who likes kids of course) and just make do until the kids are grown up?
After all it's for the kids' benefit.

some women do not want anouther relationship
Click to expand...
They don't want?
They shouldn't be allowed to put their wants above the needs of the kids.

and frankly they shouldnt jump into anouther relationship
Click to expand...
Why not?
It's for the good of the kids.
Nothing to stop them having separate lives/ relationships (outside of the marital home) so long as the kids have mother and father.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top