View Single Post
Old 05-06-09, 06:30 PM   #170
Henry Wood
Sparky
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Downloads: 57
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carotio View Post
Late comer to this thead, I had to add a few words too.

My country, Denmark, was if not the first, then one of the first countries to allow registred partnerships for homosexuals.
And discussions whether to allow marriage in churches, adoption or even insemination of lesbian couples are also on the agenda.

I'm all for the natural legal rights, and I don't mind homosexual couples or singles at all - as long as they don't hit on me... I have actually once had to kindly decline an offer...

But when it comes to marriage in churches - then I ask myself why? Okay, if they want and if a priest is willing to do so, then okay. But there's a paradoxe in this matter, since most religions are against homosexual marriage, so why even bother? Is it for the ceremony? Then ask a person from the local authorities to attend a ceremony in private surroundings such as a garden, a beach or whatever. And then again, what do I care... I never visit the churches anyway... except as tourist...

Adoption - well, they might may well be loving personalities, and inside their own four walls, they may have a nice family life, but children are cruel to eachother, and these children will be target for teasing. Besides, I have seen interviews with children from homosexual couples' families, and they did find it somehow odd to have either two mums or two dads. In most cases, it was two mums, and the boys really missed a dad to go out and do "man stuff" such as playing football or the like. So IMHO, I think the homosexual couples should just settle for a dog instead, and give their love to that instead.

Insemination of lesbians - NO WAY ever. At least, not at the cost of society. Two women can by definition of nature not have children in the natural way, and as such, they are not entitled to have the same right as hetero couples, who by definition of nature should be able to have children the natural way, but for an unlucky circomstance one of them can't without help. Plus the same reason as allready written for adoption.

My words on that matter.

I may oppose some demands of homosexual couples, but not their right to coexist around the rest of us. And for sure, I would never even dream about beating anyone up because of that. I'm amazed about the frequency of previous statements like that before action was made. It's an interesting paradoxe that such intolerance was treated with an extended tolerance.
I remember years and years ago when all of us in the "Underground" (before they changed the laws) said, Oh, we must move to Denmark! LOL!

As a gay man, I agree with every single word you say, and I go further and say any gay man who does not agree with your summary is maybe a deviant who needs to be watched.

I never, ever heard these stupid demands for the "right to have a family" etc., until the brazen feminist demands took hold, then these demands seem to spread out everywhere and to every Tom, Dick, Harry, Joan or Jane who wants to jump on board.

"Oooooohhhh! I want to have a child!"
"Why can't I have a child?"
"We must change the law so I can have a child!"

The main point I agree with you is for the sake of the children!

Their "friends" will be oh so cruel when they find out about Peter and his two daddies or Jane and her two mummies, and any silly, stupid, selfish gay couple who ignore this fact of life are not fit to be considered as caring adults.
Henry Wood is offline