Urban Redneck (13) Says:
August 7th, 2012 at 3:10 pm

re gay adoption . . .

I find it highly doubtful that most homosexual males fancy the idea of being “parents” – it wouldn’t suit the lifestyle. Gay male promiscuity is phenomenal. A study published in the medical journal AIDS in 2003 found that most “steady partnerships” lasted 18 months at most, and in that time of “monogamy” each partner still managed to chalk up a further 12 conquests on average outside of the relationship.

Actually no. The study was not about the length of gay relationships at all but how stable relationships decrease the infection rate of HIV. It merely means that the average length of a steady relationship for the purposes of the study was 18 months.

You cannot draw any conclusions out of that study regarding length of gay relationships from that study.

And it doesn’t mean that gay men cannot have long lasting stable relationships.

Adopting children to male homosexuals is the height of insanity. I

Why? You give no reason other than that you don’t like it? Do you think a gay couple will not be vetted the same way or more than a straight couple?

There is absolutely no reason not to let male gays adopt if they wish to and are qualify to do so in the same terms as a straight couple does, i.e. the have a long stable relationship, can care for the child, are serious about it and know what they are getting into, stable income, etc. etc.

I find it highly doubtful that most homosexual males fancy the idea of being “parents” – it wouldn’t suit the lifestyle. Gay male promiscuity is phenomenal. A study published in the medical journal AIDS in 2003 found that most “steady partnerships” lasted 18 months at most, and in that time of “monogamy” each partner still managed to chalk up a further 12 conquests on average outside of the relationship. The vanguard of the global homosexual propaganda offensive, Marshall Kirk & Hunter Masden (who’s book After The Ball was a clarion call for hundreds of America’s gay and gay friendly media, entertainment and educational elites to immerse the culture in gay friendly propaganda) were quite candid about this. They wrote:

“The average gay male seeks novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; but eventually all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill.”

In other words, gay men seek sexual novelty in their number of conquests. Later on, when they are older and jaded, the thought of another fresh unexplored body no longer turns them on and the quest is on for more deviant sexual practices. Kirk & Masden also stated that:

“The cheating ratio of committed gay males given enough time approaches 100″

And from the herald a few months back – a puff piece on civil unions:

“It’s different for gay men. They tend to be less monogamous. Most of the boy couples we know have gentlemen’s agreements that they can have casual sex, with strict rules,” Ms Rands says.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10803395

Adopting children to male homosexuals is the height of insanity. I am much more sympathetic to lesbian adoption in fact – but they don’t really need it, one of them just needs to have a willing male friend fill up a turkey baster with cum.

It is just plane imaginary nonsense that “marriage” would be destroyed if the allow same sex marriages.

You would suddenly not be married anymore once the law is passed? What bollocks.

The fact is, that you don’t get it. You can define marriage for yourself whatever you like.
We, as a society, however do not have to agree on the smallest common denominator.

As Ryan said, gay marriage is already here. The law will merely recognise what is already reality.

NO, it isn’t.
Marriage is based on Natural Law. The State is affirming something that is already there. The Doha Declaration says the same.

Marriage will have to be destroyed and become something else – as Brendan Malone posted yesterday –

Marriage definitely exists, but gay marriage does not, so in order to create gay ‘marriage’, you would first need to completely abolish marriage in order to create a new form that you also call ‘marriage’, but which is actually completely different to authentic marriage in its form – the obvious problem with doing this is you’ve actually abolished marriage in the process, meaning that gay ‘marriage’ is not actually marriage in anything other than name only (because the form of marriage had to be destroyed in order to create gay ‘marriage’).

The difference between marriage and gay ‘marriage’ is that marriage is RECOGNISED by law, whereas gay ‘marriage’ is INVENTED by law – this is a vitally important distinction, as the state has no legitimate authority to impose itself in this way upon something which exists prior to, and which does not flow from the state.

Let me give you another example – your right to life does not come from the state, it is not granted to you by them, instead it is yours by virtue of your nature – that is, you are a human being. Your right to life was not invented by the state, but is definitely recognized by them and enshrined in law because the state has a duty to uphold the common good in order to provide the necessary just order that enables human beings to flourish.

So if the state was to suddenly start enacting laws which denied you, an innocent human being, your right to life, then the state would be imposing itself upon something that it has no legitimate right to impose itself upon, and thus it would now be working against the common good and acting in an illegitimate fashion.

So,, even gays wouldn’t be “married”, because ‘marriage’ wouldn’t mean the same any more.

And Fletch, why are you opposing a change in law if a change in law doesn’t change what marriage means to you?

You can still go on happily stating that you do not accept gay marriage and marriage is only between a man and a woman to yourself while the rest of us do.

The State can try to change what Marriage is in Law if it likes (and probably will), but it cannot change the essence of what it is in Truth – that can’t ever change.

Andrei…??

My friends we are in a demographic crisis because people do not raise enough children and haven’t been for the past forty years, that is the practical real world reason why this is a looney tunes idea.

How exactly is allowing gay marriage related to this? In fact it will mean more marriages, more families, more kids. You should be all over it.

A newspaper responsible for covering the nation’s capital, the equivalent of the Washington Post, have editors who have no idea how social engineering works in the political arena. It stretches credulity but there we have it in black and white folks. The innocent souls at the Dom Post don’t even understand how politics changes public perception over time so as to shift and change cherished social institutions.

What you don’t understand or accept, is that public perception has already changed. Politics is merely following, not leading.

And what you fail to make clear, is why this is such a bad thing?

Why is allowing 5% of the adult population to marry such a big drama?
Undermining the institution of marriage? How so? If anything, there will be more marriages. If they marry at the same rate, there will be 5% increase in marriages. That’s actually strengthening the institution of marriage.

Whether you like it or not.

Pucker up!

BWUUU-AAAH-HAAH-HAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!

There is also no reasonable explanation as to why gay weddings would undermine the sanctity of marriage. Each marriage is an individual union between two people. It stretches credulity to suggest that heterosexual couples will suddenly decide not to tie the knot, or to get divorced, just because gay couples have the right to marry.

I mean fancy that. A newspaper responsible for covering the nation’s capital, the equivalent of the Washington Post, have editors who have no idea how social engineering works in the political arena. It stretches credulity but there we have it in black and white folks. The innocent souls at the Dom Post don’t even understand how politics changes public perception over time so as to shift and change cherished social institutions. They just don’t get it. Now if they can’t even do this, then how pray tell does anyone think they could fulfill any of their role as guardians of the fourth estate? Maybe they should just admit they’re useless and simply stop publishing their rag for one fears it’s of no use to anyone, at least not while the current editorial team are at the reins.

Why do you post here?, are there not enough religious fuckwits and tea party moonbats over at your own site?

I am sure there might be another post about Obama’s birth certificate that you morons can work yourself into a lather about.

When you break them down they mean nothing.

This is the moment when the collapse of the West becomes inevitable because the Liberal elite who are almost entiely composed of people who have had everything handed to them on a plate and have always got their own way by stamping their feet have lost the plot.

My friends we are in a demographic crisis because people do not raise enough children and haven’t been for the past forty years, that is the practical real world reason why this is a looney tunes idea.

Spiritually of course this is a rebellion against God and we know where that leads or should

It’s about reshaping society from it’s Judeo Christian core, DPF is just running interference he understands that, just as he understands that adoption is next.

You think the hate is bad?
Wait, it is still coming, hold on to your jobs and children, you think the attacks on some families over smacking was bad enough…….