Same sex fostering is OK then?
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
From: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Originally Posted by Chip
It's called foreplay isn't it. Not unnatural , no.
Chip
Chip
lol.....so if you dont have "Normal" intercourse after a BJ it becomes "un-natural"?????
Originally Posted by Peanuts
because it is engaged by consenting adults it is not natural. Natural means "of the way of nature".
Originally Posted by unclebuck
Ah, I understand now. You have a vastly superior intellect to all of us 'normal' folks. Indeed so vast that it is clearly superior to that of Darwin himself.
No wonder we don't have a clue what you're banging on about.

No wonder we don't have a clue what you're banging on about.

Anne Robinson,
I think you might be amazed how many people would go along with the opinion you stated in your second to last sentence in Post No. 363. Not necessarily my opinion though.
Very poor attempt yet again Rannoch.
Les
I think you might be amazed how many people would go along with the opinion you stated in your second to last sentence in Post No. 363. Not necessarily my opinion though.
Very poor attempt yet again Rannoch.
Les
Originally Posted by Anne Robinson
Neither will I. I'm not doing anybody's leg work, sorry. 
Genetic in this sense, if we're being pedantic, doesn't necessarily imply hereditary, although whilst we're at it, there is *some* (sorry, couldn't resist) suggestion that there's a hereditary element to it too. Who knows. But take time to talk to a few homosexuals, Peanuts, ask them if they thought that being homosexual was just a trendy thing to do. Ask them, with the additional risks, stigmas, prejudices and so on that are involved, why it wouldn't be a whole lot easier to "accept" (in your world) that they are really heterosexual, and stop living a lie. Go on.

Genetic in this sense, if we're being pedantic, doesn't necessarily imply hereditary, although whilst we're at it, there is *some* (sorry, couldn't resist) suggestion that there's a hereditary element to it too. Who knows. But take time to talk to a few homosexuals, Peanuts, ask them if they thought that being homosexual was just a trendy thing to do. Ask them, with the additional risks, stigmas, prejudices and so on that are involved, why it wouldn't be a whole lot easier to "accept" (in your world) that they are really heterosexual, and stop living a lie. Go on.

Originally Posted by Anne Robinson
No-mark serial under-achiever. 

Once we unravel all that long winded, pro-nonce b0llocks we can see you are just a harmless, shrivelled up, bitter old (ex)muppet!
Originally Posted by Leslie
I used the word punishment in exactly the way I described later and in the way it is often used in other cases. Such as when a nutter of a driver driving at a stupid speed hits someone and causes serious injuries and then hits a lamp post and does himself a nasty injury as well. It is a common saying that he deserved that as a punishment.
If not then please explain your analogy.
Gary.
Thinking about the analogy.
What about the nutter who drives at stupid speed hits someone and kills them, whilst walking away themselves.
Did the third party suffer a punishment or was it an unfortunate consequence?
Or maybe the "stupid nutter of a driver" (non-judgemental words if I ever read them) was actually a father who had just learned that his only son was dying after an horrific accident and he was trying to get to see him before he took his last breath. Did he deserve to hit the lamp post as a punishment.
Strangely context is everything and to continually make statements without context is to have a very narrow view indeed.
Rannoch
What about the nutter who drives at stupid speed hits someone and kills them, whilst walking away themselves.
Did the third party suffer a punishment or was it an unfortunate consequence?

Or maybe the "stupid nutter of a driver" (non-judgemental words if I ever read them) was actually a father who had just learned that his only son was dying after an horrific accident and he was trying to get to see him before he took his last breath. Did he deserve to hit the lamp post as a punishment.
Strangely context is everything and to continually make statements without context is to have a very narrow view indeed.
Rannoch
Last edited by Trout; Jul 7, 2006 at 12:09 PM.
I have made my feelings plain enough. Your grandiloquent efforts to justify an undeniably and disgusting and unnatural action by vilifying me and attempting to denigrate my character for your own purposes have no grounds and could even be taken as purely trolling for your own peculiar reasons.
If you wish to indulge in that sort of sexual habit, that is your own affair and I could not care less.
In the meantime I will stand by everything that I said and I am as entitled to my own opinions as you are.
Les
If you wish to indulge in that sort of sexual habit, that is your own affair and I could not care less.
In the meantime I will stand by everything that I said and I am as entitled to my own opinions as you are.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; Jul 8, 2006 at 01:34 PM.
http://www.barrybeelzebub.co.uk/
"Guardian-reading, leather-elbowed, right-on social worker"
There's been a few too many of those types on this thread.
NOW I’VE nothing against poofs. I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that as long as they keep their deviant practices private, and don’t do it in the street and scare the horses, then it’s up to them.
Indeed, one of my oldest friends Drops Anchor In Poo Harbour, and when his obituary is eventually published in the Daily Telegraph, it will have those wonderful words “He never married” as the last sentence.
I’m also one of those tolerant people who doesn’t automatically assume that all homosexuals are predatory perverts. At a push, I’ll even accept that gay “marriages” fulfil a need in law, namely to safeguard both sides of a partnership.
But let’s get this straight – homosexuality is not normal. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And while the insistence of the Loony Left that gay couples must be accorded every right available to normal couples is usually just irritating, we should not ignore the tragic consequences that can occur when this pink bandwagon gets out of control.
We must head north, to Pontefract, West Yorkshire, where some Guardian-reading, leather-elbowed, right-on social worker decided that it was perfectly OK for gay couple Ian Wathey and Craig Faunch to become foster parents. No, really.
In fact, it probably wasn’t a conscious decision in favour of the idea; more likely a politically-correct, panic-stricken paranoia about the consequences of saying “No”.
So Messrs Wathey and Faunch became foster parents, and were subsequently fed a steady supply of vulnerable children, many of whom they went on to sexually abuse. They even specifically requested boys aged five to 12 years old, and still no-one twigged that something was amiss.
Last week the pair were sentenced to a total of 11 years in prison, meaning that they’ll be out in a fortnight or so. But there was someone missing from the dock at Leeds Crown Court - the idiot who thought it was perfectly alright for two gay men to become foster parents in the first place.
Let’s think about this logically. Vulnerable, damaged children need stability and normality. To me, that means a surrogate Father and Mother, and possibly some siblings as well. A normal family environment; one we could all recognise.
What they don’t need is to be abandoned to a life of sexual abuse just so some dimwit at Wakefield District Council can stand up at the next equality seminar and boast about how inclusive their policies are.
It’s not just me, is it? This absolutely stinks. Heads should roll, but don’t hold your breath. These brain dead drones tend to look after each other.
Indeed, one of my oldest friends Drops Anchor In Poo Harbour, and when his obituary is eventually published in the Daily Telegraph, it will have those wonderful words “He never married” as the last sentence.
I’m also one of those tolerant people who doesn’t automatically assume that all homosexuals are predatory perverts. At a push, I’ll even accept that gay “marriages” fulfil a need in law, namely to safeguard both sides of a partnership.
But let’s get this straight – homosexuality is not normal. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And while the insistence of the Loony Left that gay couples must be accorded every right available to normal couples is usually just irritating, we should not ignore the tragic consequences that can occur when this pink bandwagon gets out of control.
We must head north, to Pontefract, West Yorkshire, where some Guardian-reading, leather-elbowed, right-on social worker decided that it was perfectly OK for gay couple Ian Wathey and Craig Faunch to become foster parents. No, really.
In fact, it probably wasn’t a conscious decision in favour of the idea; more likely a politically-correct, panic-stricken paranoia about the consequences of saying “No”.
So Messrs Wathey and Faunch became foster parents, and were subsequently fed a steady supply of vulnerable children, many of whom they went on to sexually abuse. They even specifically requested boys aged five to 12 years old, and still no-one twigged that something was amiss.
Last week the pair were sentenced to a total of 11 years in prison, meaning that they’ll be out in a fortnight or so. But there was someone missing from the dock at Leeds Crown Court - the idiot who thought it was perfectly alright for two gay men to become foster parents in the first place.
Let’s think about this logically. Vulnerable, damaged children need stability and normality. To me, that means a surrogate Father and Mother, and possibly some siblings as well. A normal family environment; one we could all recognise.
What they don’t need is to be abandoned to a life of sexual abuse just so some dimwit at Wakefield District Council can stand up at the next equality seminar and boast about how inclusive their policies are.
It’s not just me, is it? This absolutely stinks. Heads should roll, but don’t hold your breath. These brain dead drones tend to look after each other.
"Guardian-reading, leather-elbowed, right-on social worker"There's been a few too many of those types on this thread.
Leslie,
you miss the point entirely.
And for anyone to criticise someone's depth of argument and to use a word like grandiloquent is a pretentious hypochrite.
What makes you assume I am trying to justify **** sex? All I have done is comment on your prejudicial thoughts expressed in the way you express yourself.
Whether I have **** sex or not is entirely irrelevant.
Here's the thing. If you had posted that you think it is abhorrent and not for you then I am sure most people, including myself would have thought, fair do's it is not Leslie's thing. However you chose to express this in prejudicial language and continue to expand your thinking using prejudicial language, even in the little analogous tale you shared.
Oh, and if you think you are being vilified you are either far more sensitive than you seem, or need to look up what that word means as well.
you miss the point entirely.
And for anyone to criticise someone's depth of argument and to use a word like grandiloquent is a pretentious hypochrite.
What makes you assume I am trying to justify **** sex? All I have done is comment on your prejudicial thoughts expressed in the way you express yourself.
Whether I have **** sex or not is entirely irrelevant.
Here's the thing. If you had posted that you think it is abhorrent and not for you then I am sure most people, including myself would have thought, fair do's it is not Leslie's thing. However you chose to express this in prejudicial language and continue to expand your thinking using prejudicial language, even in the little analogous tale you shared.
Oh, and if you think you are being vilified you are either far more sensitive than you seem, or need to look up what that word means as well.
"Grandiloquent" is a perfectly acceptable English word and describes your oh so deep posts very well.
I have not shown any prejudice in my posts, quite the opposite in fact.
So you were trolling after all then!
Les
I have not shown any prejudice in my posts, quite the opposite in fact.
So you were trolling after all then!
Les
Last edited by Leslie; Jul 9, 2006 at 11:16 AM.
Originally Posted by Leslie
"Grandiloquent" is a perfectly acceptable English word and describes your oh so deep posts very well.
Originally Posted by Leslie
I just thought they were a waste of time Rannoch. 
Les

Les




