Would you say this is a universal right?

[Drifterwood]

they certainly won't be invited to the coffee mornings hosted by the yummy mummies.

Where on earth do you this idea from?

 

[Kotchanski]

It's a bit weird seeing a single dad waiting for his kid to finish school everyday because it's a role that is normally undertaken by women (waits for the howls of "sexist" for pointing out the obvious), the mums would think he's a bit of a loser too and wonder why he wasn't out at work. Well times that by 10 and have a gay couple and their adoptive kid, they certainly won't be invited to the coffee mornings hosted by the yummy mummies.

I don't make the rules up, it's just the way it is.

Oh you have got to be kidding me?

Both my husband and I work at home, he takes the kids to school, picks them up and I stay at home finishing off my work, maybe if I finish early I'll do some housework or start dinner. Exactly what century are you living in? It certainly doesn't appear to be the same one as most of us...

My kids were recently invited to a birthday party, which my husband took them to, he stayed for the duration to help out. He also volunteers at the school when they have suitable after school clubs for his skill set (I'd die laughing if he volunteered to help out the football one!)

None of the other parents there take issue with it being him and not me. When I take them (it's rare, but happens) they all ask after him and fill me in on any gossip he may have forgotten to tell me.

You can dress it up however you like, but it's quite clear you're not speaking from experience and just coming up with anything you can in an attempt to defend what can only be described as the most moronic of stand points.

 

[Caelestis]

It's a bit weird seeing a single dad waiting for his kid to finish school everyday because it's a role that is normally undertaken by women (waits for the howls of "sexist" for pointing out the obvious), the mums would think he's a bit of a loser too and wonder why he wasn't out at work. Well times that by 10 and have a gay couple and their adoptive kid, they certainly won't be invited to the coffee mornings hosted by the yummy mummies.

I don't make the rules up, it's just the way it is.

Actually, I'm not the only father to collect his children from school. There are a lot of fathers there every day. It's not unusual. I don't get funny looks.

I don't *want* to be invited to the coffee mornings (read: pub) with the mothers.

You do make the stories up, it's just not the way it is.

 

[maxcok]

So you've finally admitted it then? Gay people in your own words are "discriminated against" on a regular basis and denied the "basic human experience", . . .
An adoptees' life is hard enough as it is, is there any need to make it even tougher by throwing them into environments where their carers find it difficult to live a normal life? . . .

This is as far as I'm going, Speculum, because you have once again deliberately misquoted me and spun my words out of context. Did I say gay people were discriminated against "on a regular basis"? Did I say gay people were denied "the" human experience? Did I say gay people were incapable of living "a normal life"? No, no, and no. If I am mistaken, prove me wrong.

Once again you have misquoted, taken my words out of context and added your own, disingenuously and intentionally exaggerated and distorted my meaning, all in a dishonest pretense of proving a point. The real intent though, is to try to goad a reaction. You have failed on both counts. You are nothing but a manipulative troll trying to wind people up, and I won't play your stupid games. I am done with you.

p.s. You might want to brush up on your spelling for a little more intellectual cred.

By that logic many other minorities should not be allowed to adopt either.

Is that what you are saying?

Adoption should only be for white hetro couples?

I'm waiting to see exactly how narrow his world view is. We already know he's a white supremacist and a homophobe. Sooner or later I figure we'll hit the trifecta with misogyny.

[Edit: Oh. My. God. He actually hit the trifecta while I was writing my post]:

It's a bit weird seeing a single dad waiting for his kid to finish school everyday because it's a role that is normally undertaken by women (waits for the howls of "sexist" for pointing out the obvious), the mums would think he's a bit of a loser too and wonder why he wasn't out at work. Well times that by 10 and have a gay couple and their adoptive kid, they certainly won't be invited to the coffee mornings hosted by the yummy mummies.

I don't make the rules up, it's just the way it is.

Forget what I said about 1969. Did you arrive here in a time machine from 1950?

 

[Speculator]

So everyone on this forum is a single gay dad living with 10 adoptive kids?

It's no wonder we're not seeing eye to eye.

 

[Speculator]

This is as far as I'm going, Speculum, because you have once again deliberately misquoted me and spun my words out of context. Did I say gay people were discriminated against "on a regular basis"? Did I say gay people were denied "the" human experience? Did I say gay people were incapable of living "a normal life"? No, no, and no. If I am mistaken, prove me wrong.

Once again you have misquoted, taken my words out of context and added your own, disingenuously and intentionally exaggerated and distorted my meaning, all in a dishonest pretense of proving a point. The real intent though, is to try to goad a reaction. You have failed on both counts. You are nothing but a manipulative troll trying to wind people up, and I won't play your stupid games. I am done with you.

p.s. You might want to brush up on your spelling for a little more intellectual cred.

You might want to brush up on your logic, when I point out how faulty it is your knee-jerk reaction is to call me a troll. I quoted all your phrases word for word and didn't take them out of context, it's just that when YOU say gay people have a hard time it's ok because you're the right sort of person, but when I say exactly the same thing I'm being discriminatory. Typical left wing hypocrisy shining through as usual. Well it's all there to be read (unless you've edited it of course) so there's no worming your way out of it now.

Sorry were you going to make a point or was it just another tirade of inflammatory remarks? It's been about 15 posts now over 3 different threads and I've yet to see a single on topic post.

 

[Drifterwood]

So everyone on this forum is a single gay dad living with 10 adoptive kids?

You need to say "everyone, apart from me,.....", otherwise you are included in "everyone".

It's no wonder we're not seeing eye to eye.

There's a joke here, but I daren't.

Besides, I have ten kids to collect soon.

 

[Kotchanski]

So everyone on this forum is a single gay dad living with 10 adoptive kids?

It's no wonder we're not seeing eye to eye.

So when faced with a straight couple who disagree with your view of life in the school yard, your defence is to mock, ignore all points made, and hope we all go away?

No wonder your opinion isn't prevailing when that's all the effort you put into it.

 

[Speculator]

So when faced with a straight couple who disagree with your view of life in the school yard, your defence is to mock, ignore all points made, and hope we all go away?

No wonder your opinion isn't prevailing when that's all the effort you put into it.

Is it really necessary for me to go incredible lengths to convince you that a straight couple provide a more conventional upbringing than a gay couple?

If you disagree then that's that, the debate is over.

 

[Kotchanski]

Is it really necessary for me to go incredible lengths to convince you that a straight couple provide a more conventional upbringing than a gay couple?

If you disagree then that's that, the debate is over.

I'm not debating that it would be more conventional... Straight couples are the conventional situation in which children are raised. I'm debating that conventional in no way means best, better or "The way things should continue"

Now surely you didn't think using the word conventional would make us all fall in line and agree with you did you?

 

[Drifterwood]

Now surely you didn't think using the word conventional would make us all fall in line and agree with you did you?

Shouldn't you be putting the tea on rather than worrying your pretty little head over these things?

 

[maxcok]

You might want to brush up on your logic, when I point out how faulty it is your knee-jerk reaction is to call me a troll. I quoted all your phrases word for word and didn't take them out of context,

Not true.

it's just that when YOU say gay people have a hard time it's ok because you're the right sort of person, but when I say exactly the same thing I'm being discriminatory.

I didn't say that. You're paraphrasing.

Typical left wing hypocrisy shining throw as usual. Well it's all there to be read (unless you've edited it of course) so there's no worming your way out of it now.

Hypocrisy like when you say "leftists have a greater propensity to immediately resort to name calling"? LOL.

Sorry were you going to make a point or was it just another tirade of inflammatory remarks? It's been about 15 posts now over 3 different threads and I've yet to see a single on topic post.

You're a liar and a troll.

 

[Kotchanski]

Shouldn't you be putting the tea on rather than worrying your pretty little head over these things?

Nah, I'm told we get punished if we don't do our wifely jobs!

 

[Drifterwood]

Nah, I'm told we get punished if we don't do our wifely jobs!

I'm so jealous. Is it in the wifely contract?

And please, they are duties, not jobs. Jobs implies some type of remuneration. :smile:

 

[Kotchanski]

I'm so jealous. Is it in the wifely contract?

And please, they are duties, not jobs. Jobs implies some type of remuneration. :smile:

It is in the contract, but you have to read the really really small print!

And you're right, I should have said duties but my small brain was too busy trying to work out how to fill the car with petrol :frown1:

Back on topic though...

I'm wondering if Speculator has the same issue with lesbian couples raising a child, and for that matter, what about bi-sexuals?

 

[Drifterwood]

I'm wondering if Speculator has the same issue with lesbian couples raising a child, and for that matter, what about bi-sexuals?

Bi and Lesbian women will be fine, just so long as they don't wear dungarees and have short hair.

Bi women are preferable for obvious reasons, :wink: nudge :wink: nudge

 

[Drifterwood]

And you're right, I should have said duties but my small brain was too busy trying to work out how to fill the car with petrol :frown1:

Interesting, I thought you drove a diesel.

 

[Tee&A]

It's not about YOU and YOUR civil rights, it's about the kid.
Straight couples don't come with all this emotional baggage.

Pardon me monsieur, but are you 'effin kidding me?
Are you stating that children raised by straight couples don't exist under the same roof as alcoholics, all manner of abusers (mental, emotional and sexual), neglecters, sick fucks who enjoy doing things like burning their children with cigarettes and tying them up in the basement, etc, etc? And to think, all this time--after years of working with children--I've been shown otherwise. Go figure.

So children raised by straight couples aren't privy to emotional distress as a result of their parents actions. Wow. Someone should contact the media post haste so this news can reach the widest dissemination possible. Wow.

 

[Speculator]

I'm not debating that it would be more conventional... Straight couples are the conventional situation in which children are raised. I'm debating that conventional in no way means best, better or "The way things should continue"

Now surely you didn't think using the word conventional would make us all fall in line and agree with you did you?

Maxcok has admirably explained why straight couples may find it easier to become good parents, gay people face systemic inequalities that heterosexuals don't have to deal with. We can ignore this fact and deal with the world how it ought to be, or we can face up to reality and use that as a guide for sensible decision making, I prefer the latter option.

If it was my family would I like to see the children taken into adoptive care by a gay couple? Over my cold, dead, body.

Sorry gays, but if it came to it I'd probably fight for your right to vote (although I wouldn't be that fussed if you lost it, you're all Labour voters anyway) but there's no way I'm allowing you to look after little Timmy. Not now, not ever.

 

[nudeyorker]

Maxcok has admirably explained why straight couples may find it easier to become good parents, gay people face systemic inequalities that heterosexuals don't have to deal with. We can ignore this fact and deal with the world how it ought to be, or we can face up to reality and use that as a guide for sensible decision making, I prefer the latter option.

If it was my family would I like to see the children taken into adoptive care by a gay couple? Over my cold, dead, body.

Sorry gays, but if it came to it I'd probably fight for your right to vote (although I wouldn't be that fussed if you lost it, you're all Labour voters anyway) but there's no way I'm allowing you to look after little Timmy. Not now, not ever.

You have just confirmed the reason adoption was not a good option when I was considering parenthood. I was convinced that it would be the child of Charles Manson or some stupid fuck like you!