It’s not about that – nobody has the right to have a child. This is about an illegal ban based on an arbitrary standard that has no bearing in the truth of adoption. Gay couples should have no more rights than straight couples, what is being asked is that gay couples have equal privileges to straight couples and nobody thus far has been able to put forward a secular, sound case as to why the ban should remain.

..one moonlite-night..

upon sighting ‘the k-ring’..the sodomite ..

gasped with delight..

..and said..bring me that thing..

..it looks oh! so tight..

..i will make it sing..

..and make k bow to my might…

and so it came to pass..

upon that moonlight night..

rent with screams and moans..

when kris k’s dreams all came true..

..and he met his (secretly) yearned for..

..sodomite..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

i bet you’ve got a
nice ‘ring’ to you, kris; that’s what
your boyfriend told me

In your version of democracy there are no checks and balances; all that is required are enough hands raised, and this doesn’t even have to be a majority eg the homosexual law reform. If enough people wanted to ‘marry’ the ‘family dog’ and raised their hands resulting in a law change, then this too could become ‘legal’. The thing is Ryan, does that make it right? And how would you tell?

I think you’ll find that most, if not all, truly democratic countries were originally founded upon Judeo-Christian values as espoused in the Old Testament/Bible.

Of course, as most of those same countries have now discarded that heritage, they now find themselves drowning in a sea of moral relativism with nothing to anchor themselves to. The classic NZ example being the decriminalising of homosexuality. Prior to 1986 our ‘democracy’ believed homosexuality to be wrong and unnatural.

There is a strong parallel between what a society is founded upon and the ‘laws’ and what is acceptable behaviour/beliefs within that same society. The fact that in several countries it is now a ‘hate crime’ to state that homosexuality is wrong/unnatural is a direct result of democracy falling apart at the seams, and of it having no moral foundation. So while it has become increasingly acceptable to say that homosexuality is just another ‘lifestyle’, we now persecute those that voice any opposition to it.
So much for democracy.

For example, in Canada I think it was, a pastor preached a sermon in his church where he mentioned that homosexuality was a sin. This wasn’t even street preaching, but in his own church; preaching to ‘the converted’. Someone heard about it, brought a lawsuit, and this same pastor is now serving time for his ‘hate crime’. As I said before; nothing surprises me any more Ryan.

“Kris, what do you say to those people who consider Christianity to be a perversion, and thus Christians shouldn’t be able to adopt?”

Must say I don’t know any personally. Do you? But if I did happen to cross swords I would probably give them the gospel, and remind them that their existence is reliant on a creator God.

I don’t know any personally, but I have read people’s suggestions that raising kids Christian is a form of child abuse. My point is that your position is not democratic, and this is a democracy. There is no place in its laws for either your anti-homosexuality nor another’s anti-Christianity. Hold the opinions, by all means, but unless you advocate a theocracy, with citizens being forced to live in accordance with the rules of one religion over others, your desire for the state enforcement of anti-homosexuality is not consistent with democracy.

I didn’t think decriminalising Homosexuality back in 1986 was going to happen either, but it did. Nothing in this perverted world surprises me anymore.

You must have at least been aware before 1986 that there were those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised. I can’t think of anyone proposing marriage between humans and pets – nor can I particularly imagine what that would even mean.

Must say I don’t know any personally. Do you? But if I did happen to cross swords I would probably give them the gospel, and remind them that their existence is reliant on a creator God.

“Do you have any reason for believing “marrying pets” is going to happen?”

I didn’t think decriminalising Homosexuality back in 1986 was going to happen either, but it did. Nothing in this perverted world surprises me anymore.

Absolutely agree Jack. I tend to use ‘homosexual’ for both the male and female variants [no one can accuse me of not being 'inclusive'].
But if just considering male homos, I prefer to use the biblical term ‘sodomite’. It is both descriptive and has a ‘better’ ring to it.

It sounds like it is you, Jeff, that lacks the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong. Being adrift in a sea of moral relativism must be both scary and unpredictable. And who knows what next week may bring – maybe a law change where one is able to ‘marry’ [or is that civil union now] the ‘family pet’.

Kris,

Do you have any reason for believing “marrying pets” is going to happen?

You’ve ‘outed’ me Dave [now I'll have to tell mum and dad]; homosexuality is a perversion. Hence the reason homos shouldn’t be able to adopt. Happy now?

Kris, what do you say to those people who consider Christianity to be a perversion, and thus Christians shouldn’t be able to adopt?

If lezzies are happy being called lesbians, why do poofs have so much trouble being called homosexuals?

It sounds like it is you, Jeff, that lacks the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong. Being adrift in a sea of moral relativism must be both scary and unpredictable. And who knows what next week may bring – maybe a law change where one is able to ‘marry’ [or is that civil union now] the ‘family pet’. After all, bestiality is outlawed in the Bible too, and therefore it must be acceptable by your reasoning. Or am I just being “redicolous”.

If you are an example of someone who is even “slightly enlightened”, then I would hate to meet with someone that holds your philosophical base who has attained full ‘enlightenment’.

[NB a little punctuation in your comment would help others to better understand and comprehend any points you may be attempting to make. May I suggest commas and full stops for now; we'll worry about colons and semi colons next time.]

I have sympothy for arguments such as BB and co who argue best interests of the child – which I am not sure is entirely accurate but thats by the by – but your argument that homosexuality is immoral, well you have more in common with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than anyone who is slightly enlightened.

For the record I truly don’t know my actual sexuality – I’m probably bi. We have a running joke in our family that gay men make perfect husbands. Dunno if its true or not but I digress.

An unwanted child should have a balanced influence from both genders, that is a mother and a father. They also need to be in a long fulfilling relationship (in a marriage or civil union), have good jobs as well AND an absence of a criminal record.

That said, gays should be allowed to adopt as long as they have their relationship set in stone (that is a civil union) and there is no other traditional couple that is more capable of raising the child. It should not be determined by the state. It makes me think of a phrase – “Social conservatives regulate the bedroom, Social liberals regulate everything else.”

It should be easy for any consenting couple but unfortunately you still have the social stigma of being gay and a child that may be raised by a gay couple will be continuously harassed by “normal” kids until they become suicidal. As much as I would love to change this, it will not go away, it’s a fact of life LGBT people will have to get used to.

No problem.. Keep it to themselves.

Do not thrust it upon some totally un-prepared young person.

All my peers as a child, had their fathers manning machine guns in the trenches.
Mine too of course !!.

How would you like to have to tell your school mates, ” Both my fathers love me ” .

YEAH RIGHT !!.