Some classic comments on here now.
Single families making deviants out of us all, well one more reason to allow gay marriages then?

I think you will find that one of the major reasons (if not THE major reason) that full on Gay weddings are not allowed to happen is because of the power the church still wields and their outdated versions of what is and isnt right. What I find almost hilarious is that most of the people on here who are anti gay are basically basing it on this 2000 year old twaddle.

The basic of what has happened is that just like a "normal" hetrosexual couple they can now go to the local registry office and "get married". Wow! thats just a total disaster isnt it........ if your hetrosexual and been together a long time and decide not to get married its your choice, just because you are tooo scared to do it, or so frightened of mummy and daddy that you havent got the bottle to just do it shouldnt stop two other people who just happen to be the same sec from doing it.

Maybe just maybe if some of these hetrosexual couples were forced to get married they wouldnt split up so fast when children were involved and create these single parent families.

'Ms S3'....oh hoow strange that you are a newbie to scoobynet half way through this discussion.

As for Bradford, don't diss it 'luv' cos its a fine place. But I guess its a bit 'downmarket' for folk who have their heads stuck up their arses eh? Oh did I mention things stuck up arses...pardon the pun....

'Ms S3'....oh how strange that you are a newbie to scoobynet half way through this discussion.

As for Bradford, don't diss it 'luv' cos its a fine place. But I guess its a bit 'downmarket' for folk who have their heads stuck up their arses eh? Oh did I mention things stuck up arses...pardon the pun....

Are you offering to show me the fine place that is Bradford? I thought it was a crummie place in Yorkshire! But what would I know - I couldn't possibly see with my head up my arse could I?!!!!!!!

It would appear that Ms S3 doesn't like something about Bradford, much in the same way that many of the people on this thread have an aversion to that which they deem not the norm.

At the end of the day everyone is different and what I may deem offensive others may not. If you feel your opinions merit public discussion then post, otherwise please confine them to that dark and dingy corner of that neolithic club that some of you belong to.

Oh and BTW turboman, newbies we may be to this BBS but we have been voyeurs for quite a while.. I think if you take a step back you may be disturbed at what you see.

There used to be a time and place for this sort of thing, I hope one day that this world is free from it, alas I don't think I'll ever see it, or for that matter will my son either.

and we can all take the p1ss some more

we have been voyeurs for quite a while

We? Who we? I mean... we haven't been introduced. LOL and....WTF are you talking about anyway :confused:

UB:eek:

[Edited by unclebuck - 6/30/2003 11:17:29 PM]

There used to be a time and place for this sort of thing

What sort of thing?:confused: BBSs?

Sort out what you want to say before posting please.. :rolleyes:

UB;)

We - us newbies who felt compelled to register because of the emotive nature of the thread.

Time - Early 20th Century.

Place - Nazi Germany.

Hang on.. Who do these new rights really screw over? Could it be the Tax Man at the end of the day? And who really cares as long as the Goverment doesn't get more of our hard earned cash..

Ms S3...if you really want to see Yorksire I'd be happy to show you it.

But I guess this is way off thread topic, although my offer stands.

As for Play thing.WTF ARE you on about?

Voyeurs for a while maybe, pillocks for life , always.

Perhaps it is more interesting to observe the behaviour of others than to sink to the same level yourself.

[Edited by Play Thing - 6/30/2003 11:37:14 PM]

This gets funnier by the second

It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lights..

Surely this is where this thread belongs, or maybe just /dev/null

TK you are strangely silent?

I'm posting Shakespeare in Muppets.

Well, what else would you expect me to be doing at a quarter to midnight?

bros2

So you had a "good education" but no one taught you English grammar? :D LOL

You dont seem to understand: NATURE disqualifies gay people as parents, as they could not have children unless a society run by fools gives them the right and / or opportunity to get married and adopt children.

The underlying question here is this:

Would you like man to overrule nature's decision of homosexuals not being able to have and / or raise children?

Before you answer that, consider these points:

- last time someone overruled nature's decision, half of Japan blew up

- because humans do not learn from experience and always want to change the way nature works, we also have the human clone on the way

Is that bad enough or do we need to change and pervert the way things work on this planet further?

We're over-ruling nature all the time. Why should this be any different?

Examples, in no particular order:

Using medicine to prolong life/alleviate pain/end suffering
Genetically modifying food
Test-tube babies and infertility treatment
Research into areas such as being able to choose the sex of a child
Contraception
Abortion
Cosmetic surgery
Laser surgery to correct problems with vision


I'm not saying whether I think any of these things are good or bad, I'm merely pointing out that we do them; perhaps if going against nature is such a bad thing, we should not.

As we advance, and learn more about ourselves and the world around us, we are faced with an ever expanding range of choices, and it becomes increasingly important that we make our decisions wisely.

Adoption gives homosexual people the chance to have a family. I don't have a view on whether it should be allowed or not, because I don't know enough about it. I'd say that if it is shown that homosexual couples can raise healthy, well-balanced, happy children then they should be allowed to adopt. If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that children raised by same-sex parents are likely to be unhappy or be emotionally damaged in some way, then it should not be allowed. I'd say that the welfare of the children is the key thing to consider in this particular debate, over and above equality. However, I do think the situation would have to be investigated carefully. I do not believe that unsupported opinions, however forcibly stated as fact, have any place here.

Another thing I don't know is why on Earth I am posting at nearly half past two in the morning! I should have been in bed hours ago. :rolleyes:

Because you are located in the UK and if you were where I am, it would be half past three? ;)

I am implying nothing of the sort. I am implying that abandoning the traditional family unit and accepting single parent families as the norm will increase deviant behavior amoung people raised by these non-tradtitional family units.

this was a response to



Just for the record how many cultures don't have family units based on one man looking after his wife/wife's and or children.

How many of these 'plenty of other cultures' actualy have a real impact on the world compared to the advances in technology and science made by cultures based on what we consider a traditional family unit.

btw TK we diddn't choose for it to take a man and a woman to produce a baby it just happens like that maybe you need some biology lessons.


Why did you say

Then fail to highlight a single flaw in my logic other than to claim I was implying things that I clearly wasn't.