[ubermik]

@cas wrote:

I personally don’t think a ”perfect” as you put it, parent, exists.

As parents, we do our best…..I personally work in the licenced trade, i’m a Manager for a branch of Threshers. I see plenty parents coming in there, buying alchohol, I sell it to them, doesn’t make them bad parents, doesn’t make me a bad parent because I like to have a drink.

But Uber………….if it came to a choice of putting a meal on the table, or buying a bottle of alchohol, it would definately be a meal on the table,,,,,I can’t say the same thing for some of the customers who come into the shop. Who, having bought their alchohol and cigarettes, scream expletives at the child when it has the audacity to ask for a bag of crisps or a packet of sweets, with the words, ”I aint got the money for sweets!!!!!”

I have on many occassions given the child the sweets or crisps. So whether you like it or not, Sweet does have a very valid point.

But isnt that the exact same point I made?

That most people who are clinically classed as alcoholics arent drunken bums who never have food in for their kids? Look up the definition of an alcoholic, its simply someone who HAS to have a drink, cant do without it. Many of them have well paid jobs and can quite capably manage both and are often not even thought of as having a “problem” by anyone who knows them

But it CAN still have an adverse effect on their kids many years down the road as can many quite ordinary occurences in a household which are far LESS obvious than the likely negatives from growing up in a gay single sex parenting enviroment

The point I was making there is nobody bats an eyelid at theorising the possible harm any factor in a straight household might have, but try to get people to do the EXACT SAME thing where gay people are concerned and the “oooh you homophobe”, “your a gay basher” or “are you secretly gay” nonsense is wheeled out because people in general have been brainwashed into feeling its “wrong” to discuss or examine aspects of gay peoples lives that wouldnt be given a second thought if being done to straight people which is usually quite clearly shown when I wheel threads like this out for the first time on a message board as its a good one for seeing the thought behind peoples views

[ubermik]

@forumhostpb wrote:

I really don’t understand this ”Gay parenting” issue.

It strikes me that male homosexuals prefer to stuff it up each other’s arses and therefore they know that producing offspring is not on the menu.

Equally female homosexuals prefer sex between themselves and men are not included. As they prefer sperm-free sex then they should just get on with the pussy munching and accept that this lifestyle precludes having babies.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but what about when someone “comes out” (And I dont mean when they withdraw prior to goo splattering lol) when they are ALREADY parents?

Their “lifestyle choice” was either to not become gay till later life, to be bisexual then decide which side of the fence they prefer or to simply ignore their gay urges hoping it would vanish and then find it hadnt done?

Of course if being gay WAS ever found to be a genetic flaw that couldnt be fixed rather than majoratively a psychological issue we could then place known genetically gay kids with gay parents couldnt we? Which would surely be a good thing IF the child is going to be unnavoidably a turd tapper or kebab muncher later in life, therefore reserving genetically straight kids to be parented by straight parents?

But your comments also links to sterile people having IVF, their sex cant produce kids either

And women who choose a lifestyle based around a career but THEN want kids when they cant have them without the aid of IVF, how are they any different? So should they also be banned? Because although not a sexual lifestyle choice, it IS still a non procreative lifestyle choice just the same?

:lol:

[ubermik]

@cas wrote:

Errrr no. :roll:

Iv’e been shot down in flames for my opinions on gays adopting children before. It remains the same though. I think that they put their own needs, way above those of the child, or children in question, and I think that’s wrong.

It’s ok to say a child just needs to be loved and it’s in some ways true. A child also tho, doesn’t need to go through school, being villified by the school bully, cos every school has one :roll: because they have two dads.

I’m not saying by that, that they make bad parents, I just feel that they’re selfish parents, who, as I said, are thinking about themselves more.

Fairy snuff then (not a gay jibe btw lol, simply a play on the words “fair enough” lol :lol: )

Well that, rather than some homophobic reaction is the point of this thread, gays are as a group seemingly above discussion, scrutiny or examination in our current PC society

But once they are or want to become parents should that still apply?

Now I doubt very much that even if scrutinised they could collectively be seen as bad parents, infact I would bet that isnt going to be the case. But within the gay grouping there are quite distinct sub groupings such as the “mincer” who could psychologically have a potentially negative effect on the emotional and social development of male children, and the raging bull dyke man hating feminist type lesbian who could potentially have a severe negative effect on both male and female children (and yes, I do also accept the existence of severe man hating straight women too and mysoginistic male parents, but thats a different topic and would or should equally be a thing to be examined IMO)

But this thread was just to see how many people would even be cognitively able to entertain a) the thought gays, as with normal people SHOULD be allowed to be scrutinised, as PC doctorate leans towards suggesting they shouldnt be, as doing so is “homophobic” and b) how many people could actually contemplate possible downsides specifically linked to gay parenting which again is frowned upon in such a PC society, even tho no amount of scrutiny or theorising with straight parents gets so much as a batted eyelid

The basic premis is simply based on the widely known and acknowledged fact that parents do provide (usually) the bulk of the modelling criteria for a forming child, but that its also known they will model actions of parents they dont like (child abuse being one example, where the child often becomes and abuser despite logically knowing its wrong and disliking the act when they were the victim)

So a trail of repetition through subconcious modelling is known as well as the formative outlooks, values and expectations which are formed very early in life before effective cognitive dissection and assymilation is capable by the child

But this isnt even to do with whether a parent is gay or not, but more to do with the possible negatives that might be a result of early exposure to their lifestyle in the same way that a straight parent (male or female) who sleeps around a lot in plain sight or easily figure outable sight of their child can also have severe negative effects on their child long term the same way parents leaving or splitting can do when its time for them to form and maintain their own relationships

Many effects occurences in a childs formative years have arent visible till they are an adult and are facing similar situations themselves, so whether gay parenting does or doesnt have negative effects cant always be ascertained whilst they are still a child, and as far as I am aware no studies have been carried out re the further reaching possible consequences and nor has late life parenting or late life single parenting been examined as far as I am aware

Now excuse me if I dont accept those ponderances as being “homophobic” lol, but as far as I am concerned they are, as with the other comparatives I mentioned quite reasonable trains of thought worthy of at least being kicked around and wondered at EVEN tho its to do with “super dooper above averagely fabulatastic gay folks” as I dont see any reason at all why they need or should have any more special treatment than anyone else

Thats called equality btw lol

Theyre JUST gay, not special or any better than hetro folksies :D

[ubermik]

@sweetass wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@Mrs Clean wrote:

Children need to be loved, and as long as they have a secure and loving home, does it really matter?

I’m sure a lot of alcoholics and drug users “love” their kids wholeheartedly, so is love alone going to give their kids a good stable balanced start in life?

If not then yeah, course its important as we dont know what, if any negatives could be associated with being raised in a same sex enviroment and its not “PC” for anyone to try and find out at the moment

Thats a crock of shyte for a start .. if alco’s and junkies loved their kids, they wouldnt be either in the first place … stuff the pc friendly chat of them being diseased or its an illness… both know what they’re doing before they stick that filth in their veins or drink so much they cant’t function without it …… most drunks and junkies would sell their kids for the next high …… and thats personal experience talking having watched cousins and ex friends doing it …….. :twisted: :twisted:

You want sympathy .. go see bad, fasty and uber … not me :twisted:

What utter dross lol, soz but it is, absolute and utter dross

I dont know what youre seemingly limited exposure to alcoholics and drug abusers might be, but they arent all constantly strung out junkies or piss heads who sleep in a pool of their own vomit lol

Many of both arent even known by their closest friends and families to either have a drug or drink habit, but they ARE by definition still a junkie and alcoholic

And simply being either doesnt negate “loving” their kids, infact if scrutinised meticulously very few parents wouldnt have a series of things they do that some non real world do gooder couldnt claim wasnt in the best interest of their child and could then equally claim if they can do that THEY dont love their kids

Take a simple one, someone leaving a crap partner, someone cheating on an existing one, someone who has always been a single parent but starts dating, someone who makes, disiuplines a their child, someone who has ANY hobby at all that requires money that could otherwise be spent on the kids

All of which, could, by someone be claimed as a selfish act, one that COULD eventually negatively influence the child, and therefore IF that parent “loved” their child they wouldnt, in their opinion have done or be doing it. That can be applied to anyone who doesnt constantly revolve around their child, doesnt have any life or social life outside their kids and never ever spends any money at all on themselves other than bare necessity

Back to the point tho, many alcoholics and drug users DO quite successfully manage to not only raise kids but also hold down quite technical jobs, that doesnt mean they magically arent alcoholics or drug abusers, it also doesnt mean that their “hobby” doesnt or couldnt have a negative effect on their child

Same with lifestyle choices, it could just as easily be claimed that someone who enjoys hobbies like fishing could affect a child if the child doesnt like it by the virtue of their repeated absence, even someone who HAS to watch eastenders, brookside and all the other soaps and WONT be interrupted whilst doing so as kids needs dont magically fit in around tv scheduling, the fishing or football season etc but those people arent carte blanche accused of being incapable of loving their kids are they?

Infact how ludicrous a statement is that if someone isnt the absolute perfect parent they dont or simply cant “love” their kids lol, that would mean most people who have kids dont love them and would also include pretty much ever single person who is or has ever suffered from depression and has been popping pills for it, coz if they “loved” their kids they wouldnt have let themselves get depressed to begin with would they hahahaha

Coz alcoholism, drug abuse, depression and antidepressants are VERY often aspects of a similar psychosis, mental illness, personality type and set of enviromental factors

And antidepressant useage in this country is currently running at ridiculous near pandemic proportions which would mean NO parent who takes antidepressants loves their kids or is capable of doing so lol

Yeah right :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

@cas wrote:

Are you homophobic uber?

Well two points, firstly is ANYONE a “homophobe”? The word phobe, and phobic reactions are the “irrational fear” of something, so homophobia, which is an academic construct means the irrational fear of homosexuals

Do you know or have you ever met anyone who is “scared” of them? Many people find what they do disgusting the same way many find doggy fiddling, sadomasochism, rape, paedophilia, sheep shagging, swinging, severe bondage and many other forms of non “normal” sexual activities disgusting

So if you “dislike” any of those things does that mean you are ALSO “scared” of them? Are people rapistaphobics? Paedophileaphobics? Swingeraphobics?

So the term itself is a ludicrous one, chosen and employed to discourage anyone from talking about gays in anyway bar a fluffy homoworshipping way for fear of being called a homophobe. But for that fear to have any value the person has to be retarded enough to a) buy into the validity of the term to begin with and b) give a toss what a bunch of PC homoworshippers think in the slightest (if you can call blindly and without question following PC nonsense “thinking” at all of course)

and yet more dislike them, or what they do because of social moralities or religious morality, and then there are people who just dislike SOME gays because of their demeanour like the butch bull dykes and the minicing gays

So rather than being a “phobia” its, in most cases seemingly just a “dislike”

Anyhoo gramatics aside, why ask that anyway Cas? Do you see any discussion about gays that isnt worshipping their “gayness” and putting them on some homopedastal as “homophobic” then?

Do you think they, as a sub set of society are in someway above being discussed in anyway that isnt talking about their super fabulousness?

Do you think that whether or not a child being raised by gay parents has negative effects on that child it should simply be ignored and overlooked, never investigated simply because under PC directives gays are a protected species that are wanted to be above scrutiny of anykind?

Are you infact a “homo hugging gay worshipper” then? As that would seem a reasonable and equally oppositely nonsensical thing to ask seeing as you cant seem to grasp why anyone except a homophobe would discuss homosexuals in anything less than a bum lickey tone of utter adoration?

Actually, as a bit of irony, the people who want to talk about gays the most are infact the gays themselves, so working from your “logic” (I use the word very loosely) are all gays therefore homophobic?

And what about when people discuss things to do with hetrosexuals? Do you then quiz them as to whether they are hetrophobic?

If you cant grasp the concept of the thread, dont want to actually join in disussing the topic or arent quite “equiped” to discuss an intelligible topic that pertains to gays why not just say that instead of trying to hide the fact with such a moronic question?

[ubermik]

@sharongooner wrote:

@Bad Manners wrote:

On that note I’ve now started my 48Hr Sponsored McCann Silence. :-#

Shall I open a book on how long you will last? :lol: Im keeping stume till I think of something new to say. At the mo it is just going round in circles.

We need some more dodgy evidence or new leads to ramble about. Then between us we will solve it all. :wink:

I’m sure that the daily sport might have a new theory…..

“Breaking news, busty hot Kate Mcann and studly Mr Mcann could according to forensic experts actually be pod people from the planet Zorg. This groundbreaking revelation comes after the discovery of a seaweed like substance found on the tyre of a car they could have rented had the one they actually rented been broken,

Although this substance looks like seaweed the daily sport expert after several pints of lager said “Well look bud, the stuff MIGHT be seaweed, but it could also be the remnants of an alien pod that the Mcanns hatched from, which then proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that maddy could have been sold to elvis by slave trading aliens along with the rest of her family, but they might have only bought four pods with them to replace the whole family with, but I will only put my name to that exclusive expert opinion if you keep up your end of the bargain of a night with two of your topless models obviously”

Apparently this story has been confirmed from two independant sources as well, one being a tramp who confirmed it for the price of a burger and a 4 pack of carling, and the other being a whacked out junky found throwing up in the thames, both of whom claim to be very close friends of the family,,,,,,,and of elvis

So there ya go goony, how much more “factual” can things be?

Case closed

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

@sharongooner wrote:

All the rads are turned right down, the builders showed us that when we moved in. And to be honest we hardly ever have the heating on.

Its the electricity bill that is the problem :twisted:

Probably something to do with 5 tv’s, 2 pc’s an electric cooker, 4 clock radios, 3 stereos and too many lights (they are all energy saving ones though lol).

I do switch everything completely off when not in use.

As I said I will bin British Gas (who do my elec) when Im in credit and go elsewhere.

Cheers 8)

If you get a hglossy magazine (stolen from the doctors waiting room to save pennies) then selotape a few pages to the screen of each tv turning the pages randomly to give the impression of a programme to save having to turn them on, go to bed earlier so you dont need the alarm clocks, eat salads and cold meats to save using the cooker, hum out loud rather than have the stereo, and get a life to avoid using the PC you should be in credit and able to change suppliers in no time :lol:

Dont thank me tho, thank my mum for being a haggis :lol:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

These people are already in a place that none of us can imagine. Yet Still the Mob has to kick and kick.
It’s disgusting.

Nah thats not true, I’ve been to Liecester a few times so I can imagine it perfectly, and on that score they have my deepest sympathy :lol:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

Bum Likey. I like that word.

Your still a tw/at though.

Which word? Bum or lickey? :lol: :wink:

Yeah I know I can be a Tw At, but the upside to being one is that not only does it feel good when I lick myself, but I taste great too :lol:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

As opposed to the half-baked and unbelivable tosh that’s be in the Papers the past few weeks.
Im sure your Womans intuition still tells you there’s something there PB, but the case against the McCanns is collapsing faster than a row of Domino’s.

Now the Mob will change tactics and play the Negligence Card…

I think your head wasnt so far up your own rusty bullet hole you’d have realised that the “negligence card” has been pretty much weilded right from the word go actually as the issue of gross negligence isnt one that is in need of being theorised as its completely indisputeable even by the most bum licky kate mcann worshippers

As for a mob, I take it youre referring to a group of people who individually think theyre guilty yeah? A mob in the aame way theres a “mob” of Mcann fans” wanting to absolve the floor they walk on and pucker up to their mars bar dispenser just because they have lost a child? Or do they ALSO have their own opinions that just coincide with other bum lickey worshippers of child abusing parents (yep, neglect is also classed as abuse btw)

[Author]

Posts