ManxTaxPayer Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 And I'm starting to detect a whiff of bullshit about most of what you post on MF. Only just starting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 You're kidding? Well if you have such concerns then I seriously think all these straights that feel any compulsion to breed should be immediately sterilised! Why? Because there is a certainty that many straight Daddies will fiddle about with their kid - I mean, that's where most sexual child abuse is carried on, in the home. The risk really is too great to have such men get their wife pregnant because of their need to underwrite their desires. All the more worrying in view of the fact that straight men are more likely to kiddy fiddle if one considers the statistics compared to the relative incidence in proportion to gay men. The probability that a person with normal sexuality will engage in abnormal sexuality in the form of incest of any form is substantially lower than a person who already has an abnormal sexual deviation who will probably continue to follow deviant behaviour in other directions as opportunities present themselves. The fact that numerically most child sex abuse cases are by a close relative is inevitable as although most normal people are not sexual deviants nonetheless if n% of a very large number is greater than n*y% of a much smaller number the percentage of non-deviants though much lower than the deviants will result in a larger absolute number. But we are not dealing with absolutes here, we are dealing with probabilities, a very different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Most kiddy diddlers are religious types Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Most kiddy diddlers are religious types Evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Fuck's sake, all of a sudden a God botherer is interested in evidence? Just have FAITH in what I say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back to the Future Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Fuck's sake, all of a sudden a God botherer is interested in evidence? Just have FAITH in what I say :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lroberts25 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I've just read the whole of this thread and on the whole I do agree that Elton and David are older than the societal norm. However, does this fully diminish their capacity to love and care for a child, which at the end of the day is the most important aspect of any young child's life.Indeed you could even twist the argument on its head and say that young teenagers, who can conceive children naturally, are not fit to parent a child; partially because they are often still considered as children by society. Surely Elton and David have the benefit of life experience; experience that Elton has seen to put to good use- weeding Eminem off the drugs he was addicted to. The baby will never want for anything. The sexual orientation of the couple is completely irrelevant in this discussion, just because you are gay does not mean you do not have the capability to be a good parent, perhaps it could even give you a more liberal accepting, and even understanding way of parenting. As long as ideals (including religious ones) are not forced on this child I do not see what all the anger is about? Sure they're getting on, they're famous, they're gay and they paid someone to carry this baby for them? I think that in this case it is yet to be proven and any comments over how they may or may not parent this child can only be seen to be speculative. Surely you have to give someone the benefit of the doubt, because in the eyes of the law everyone is innocent until proven guilty... so they should be given a chance because you can not say how committed these two men will be to that baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The probability that a person with normal sexuality will engage in abnormal sexuality in the form of incest of any form is substantially lower than a person who already has an abnormal sexual deviation who will probably continue to follow deviant behaviour in other directions as opportunities present themselves. You made that up! And incest is not a sexuality. Are you referring to paedophilia in a family? The fact that numerically most child sex abuse cases are by a close relative is inevitable as although most normal people are not sexual deviants nonetheless if n% of a very large number is greater than n*y% of a much smaller number the percentage of non-deviants though much lower than the deviants will result in a larger absolute number. Of course the absolute number is far higher, but a few 'studies' that have been done do appear to indicate that in relative terms it is more likely that a man who describes himself as heterosexual will also have paedophilic tendencies. No studies point to homosexual men being more inclined. But then most paedophiles do not have an adult sexuality anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Fuck's sake, all of a sudden a God botherer is interested in evidence? Just have FAITH in what I say Best comeback of 2011 contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It was rather good. Inappropriate in this context, but nevertheless witty. As for homosexuality and child abuse, perversions are a bit like busses. They seldom come along individually, but as a collection all at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It was rather good. Inappropriate in this context, but nevertheless witty. As for homosexuality and child abuse, perversions are a bit like busses. They seldom come along individually, but as a collection all at once. You mean like catholic priests, anglican priests and bapstist ministers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Best comeback of 2011 contender. Definitely but it's early days.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Because they have spent £100k of their money to buy a child that they couldn't have without scientific intervention such as IVF when other options clearly existed. This is the part of your argument I have an issue with, or just don't understand. Are you saying that, regardless of age or sexual orientation, it is always wrong to use science to overcome infertility issues, regardless of the reasons for the infertility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Because they have spent £100k of their money to buy a child that they couldn't have without scientific intervention such as IVF when other options clearly existed. This is the part of your argument I have an issue with, or just don't understand. Are you saying that, regardless of age or sexual orientation, it is always wrong to use science to overcome infertility issues, regardless of the reasons for the infertility? I would say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Because they have spent £100k of their money to buy a child that they couldn't have without scientific intervention such as IVF when other options clearly existed. This is the part of your argument I have an issue with, or just don't understand. Are you saying that, regardless of age or sexual orientation, it is always wrong to use science to overcome infertility issues, regardless of the reasons for the infertility? I would say yes. Without wishing to be rude, I couldn't care less about your opinion - I was interested in OMF's point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.