Think you'll find there is, bigot.
Come back when you've thought about it more and have started to act like a civilised person.
The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Think you'll find there is, bigot.
Come back when you've thought about it more and have started to act like a civilised person.
I'm not sure whether to shake my head in disbelief at the ignorance in these posts, or whether to view them as genuine attempts to troll this thread, but either way I can't take you seriously.
What is with this archaic idea that all homosexuals spend their days mincing around like some sort of Little Britain or South Park caricature? Has it occured to you that actually the problem with homosexuality in Britain isn't with the homosexual population at all, but rather with the prejudice of a minority of people in the heterosexual community?
What on earth brings you to the conclusion that they couldn't raise a child well? As mentioned above, the care system is a tried and tested way to not bring up the next generation in a positive way, so what's the issue with two loving guardians? Maybe there is a solid argument why they shouldn't be parents, I'm someone who keeps an open mind, but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument in place of ill conceived prejudice.
Therein lies the definition of freedom and democracy. Good job we live in a country that appreciates and supports it isn't it...
/sarcasm (not aimed at you aaron)
If marriage is being redefined to something other than man marries woman then any other combination MUST be accepted too.
In other words, if a straight married guy is of the opinion that gays should be allowed to marry, then he shouldn't have an issue if his wife came to him and said she was marrying a second husband and would share herself between the two.
Tis madness.
In other words, if a straight married guy is of the opinion that gays should be allowed to marry, then he shouldn't have an issue if his wife came to him and said she was marrying a second husband and would share herself between the two.
Tis madness.
At risk of sounded ignorant myself I actually beleive it does as it is basically saying "ohh its wrong, think of the children" without bringing up any validation to back it up or looking at the facts.
There is nothing more male+female parents bring to a childs upbringing than say a male+male couple or a female+female couple. As long as parents are honest and upfront to the child and still explaing the concepts of life etc I dont see any differentiation between them. Good parents are good parents, bad parents are bad regardless of gender.
Also i find that with same sex couples they have so much to prove to the rest of the world that they try exceedingly hard to excel at being the best parents they can whereas the majority of parents nowadays just seem like they couldnt care less.
Does it make it ignorant and narrow minded if you still think that when all the evidence suggests that it is a perfectly natural and healthy environment for a child to be brought up in?
"Natural" is an emotive word, but I can't see how it not being a natural parenting environment (and I understand the biological angle you're coming from) is a negative? If you follow that line of thinking, then most of modern medicine should be condemned as preventing natural outcomes...
Your not one of these annoying people who think the use of stem cells etc is wrong because "its not natural" are you?
and if your not youve just invalidated your argument anyway, as its not natural but its still undeniably good. same with same sex parents.
yes so same sex relationships cant conceive. However whos to say the home enviroment when the child is growing up (which in my opinion is the most important thing) is going to be any better or worse.
so no matter how hard YOU try to twist it, just because it isnt natural dosnt mean its not as good if not better.
Are you religious?
Digging through a few bits of information, same-sex couples raising young doesn't seem to be unheard of in nature.
So it does seem to be "natural".
Marriage has nothing to do with having children and was was never originally a religious matter. Same-sex marriage was never a problem until religion waded in, particularly Christian emperors in the 4th century.
Nothing to do with medicine... it's the basic notion of something either being possible or not possible by nature.
Looking back at my childhood I can't bear to think what it would have been like without both a mother and father. If a child grows up in a single parent family the issue isn't with the fact of the gender that is looking after the child... the issue is that either father or mother isn't there. Depriving a child of a balanced family regardless of reason is terrible.
Edit: nothing against stem cell treatment - as long as the family unit that the child would grow up in is 'proper'.
Last edited:
I disagree, your previous post implied that you viewed the fact that homosexual couples couldn't naturally bear a child as a negative against them being parents. If I've misunderstood that point then I withdraw my argument, but if that's the point you're making, then it's exactly the same as interfering with a natural biological outcome via medicine.
Cancer, IVF, smallpox, prosthetic limbs....none of the medical activities associated with these could be deemed "natural" - are they therefore negative too?
But how does it present an imbalance, as long as all the facts are presented correctly I dont see how its an issue. Thinking back I beleive my dad could give me everything my mum could give me if nesscisary and vice versa.
As long as you have parents who are loving and provide all they can for you, I dont see how gender comes into it. As as I said i didnt gain anything from my dad that I couldnt from my mum, or from my mum that i could from my dad so i really dont see where your point lies!
The 'natural' way to raise children is, if we look at humanity over time, in a community driven environment.....where the community at large raise the children rather than the individual biological parents.....the family unit is relatively new to civilisation and is increasingly isolated from the original communal societies which could be thought of as our natural state.
In Native American Indians, raising Children was shared by the community, firstly by the women and then as the children grew their education was taken over by the relevant gender, boys taught how to be Warriors and so on.....the interesting thing for this thread is that homosexuals in most tribes were very revered, especially those who exhibited what we would refer to as 'camp' behaviour.....they were seen as closer to the Gods (due to their being of both sexes so to speak, like God) and were encouraged to help raise the children of the tribe because of this.
In Native American Indians, raising Children was shared by the community, firstly by the women and then as the children grew their education was taken over by the relevant gender, boys taught how to be Warriors and so on.....the interesting thing for this thread is that homosexuals in most tribes were very revered, especially those who exhibited what we would refer to as 'camp' behaviour.....they were seen as closer to the Gods (due to their being of both sexes so to speak, like God) and were encouraged to help raise the children of the tribe because of this.
In relation to a family unit, a woman can only ever be a mother, a dad can only ever be a dad. Messing with this balance I believe is negative for the children. The natural thing is obviously that way for a reason.
Yes man made cures for illness is perfectly acceptable as it can only be argued to be positive.
Well your childhood obviously was different from mine then. I'm a firm believer in the traditional family unit and the breakdown in society today is probably due to its breakdown - single parent familys are equally are negative.
Would you not say that a single parent family is not ideal/negative?