Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Who dictates the correct term? Nobody. It is the term that is least likely to cause offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Nobody. It is the term that is least likely to cause offense. Who dictates what term is least likely to cause offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 We've already discussed the EDL on another thread and you only have to look to David Camerons speech to realise that he's on our side. Did you ignore my Cameron quote then? And the UAF membership list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I'm sure I read that the babies nursery had been built in a seperate part of the house, with live-in nanny quarters. Therefore this suggests that the nanny(s) will be the full time mum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Who dictates what term is least likely to cause offence? A person who is offended by a given term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Did you ignore my Cameron quote then? And the UAF membership list? I'm sure he now regrets signing up to UAF what with them being supported by Choudary and the rest of the al-muhajiroun lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 A person who is offended by a given term. What if I say i'm offended by being called white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 The 'coffee without milk' example is ridiculous. You can call someone black, in fact it's the correct description, as opposed to the quaint 70's term 'coloured' - which colour? Black or gay or Arab can all be used as descriptive terms, it's when they are used in a derogatory way they are unacceptable. Regarding EJ adopting. For me it's at the extremes of the norm given his age and sexuality, but it's not going to impact on my life and I wouldn't want to stop it if I was in a decision making capacity on the adoption panel, as I think that the kids will have access to the best of everything (that money can buy). It's true though, in some quarters this is considered a racist term. People complained about the Lion King FFS because they said the "bad" lion had a black mane and this was racist. It's mental. As for your comment about EJ, you seem to think It's all about the money. If this is the case then why dont every parents work 14 hours a day, stick the kid in a nursery and buy it all it's hearts desires and let it grow up a spoilt little brat? Little kids need their parents time and it is a fact that kids need a mother and father figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I'm sure I read that the babies nursery had been built in a seperate part of the house, with live-in nanny quarters. Therefore this suggests that the nanny(s) will be the full time mum. So it'll be a trophy child which they'll lavish in grifts, be "spotted" by the media out playing games for a few photos in the paper and showing it off but the full time nanny will do the cooking, cleaning changing nappies etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanh Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Who dictates the correct term? Obviously there is no one person or committee that decides. It's society and the conventions of linguistic development and behaviour that determine appropriate terminology. In the UK we have developed to a degree that we understand that racially discriminatory language and behaviour is inappropriate. Not everyone is as advanced in understanding that - especially older generations who grew up using different terminology, but look at behaviour in places like TV sitcoms and conversations that you hear in social situations such as pubs and offices. Where terms like 'darkie' and 'poofter' were commonly used in the 70's they broadly defunct now. That's not the case in all countries - just look at the behaviour of Spanish motor racing fans to Lewis Hamilton a couple of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I'm sure I read that the babies nursery had been built in a seperate part of the house, with live-in nanny quarters. Therefore this suggests that the nanny(s) will be the full time mum. Thousands of children have been raised the same way by professional parents, both men are very busy! I'm sure they won't be shirking their duties as parents, but if you can afford to have someone to help out when you are inexperienced as a parent and are leading the hectic lifestyle of a world-famous musician then I would say you're more than entitled to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Thousands of children have been raised the same way by professional parents, both men are very busy! I'm sure they won't be shirking their duties as parents, but if you can afford to have someone to help out when you are inexperienced as a parent and are leading the hectic lifestyle of a world-famous musician then I would say you're more than entitled to do so. Surely he should have thought about this before adopting then? Shouldn't kids be their priority, not something to fit around their careers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanh Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 What if I say i'm offended by being called white? Come up with an alternative that you are not offended by then fight against the conventions of society that all see you as white and want to call you that. That's essentially what all civil liberties groups do regardless of their cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I'm sure he now regrets signing up to UAF what with them being supported by Choudary and the rest of the al-muhajiroun lot. Sauce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Thousands of children have been raised the same way by professional parents, both men are very busy! I'm sure they won't be shirking their duties as parents, but if you can afford to have someone to help out when you are inexperienced as a parent and are leading the hectic lifestyle of a world-famous musician then I would say you're more than entitled to do so. Well surely in that case it's like having a dog and putting it in kennels all the time as you go swanning off around the world. Hardly the actions of people that want a child to care for, it's just an accesory because money is no object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 What if I say i'm offended by being called white? Well that would depend upon your race. If I assume that you are indeed white, and you are claiming to be offended by being called white, then you are a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Well surely in that case it's like having a dog and putting it in kennels all the time as you go swanning off around the world. Hardly the actions of people that want a child to care for, it's just an accesory because money is no object. Now if this is what is going to happen, this would be a legitimate reason to block the adoption. Sexuality isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I wouldn't say that, both have said that they're going to take their professional lives a lot easier now and concentrate on the child's upbringing. Thousands and thousands of parents around the world employ the services of a nanny to help look after their children - bear in mind as well that neither has had a child before either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Now if this is what is going to happen, this would be a legitimate reason to block the adoption. Sexuality isn't. Only because it's not polictically correct to use that as a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Do Elton and David have any pets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Do Elton and David have any pets? they have trouser snakes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I wouldn't say that, both have said that they're going to take their professional lives a lot easier now and concentrate on the child's upbringing. Thousands and thousands of parents around the world employ the services of a nanny to help look after their children - bear in mind as well that neither has had a child before either. Well if thats the case there would be no need for a live in nanny will there. They can do what most other people do that have a nanny or a nursery and drop them off in the morning and pick them up after work. I'm sure we'll get the standard Hello and Okay posing pictures and then a few in the paper with the mainstream media salivating how wonderful it is that our lovely Elton is playing daddy. I bet in 5 years time both of them still wont know how to change a nappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Well if thats the case there would be no need for a live in nanny will there. They can do what most other people do that have a nanny or a nursery and drop them off in the morning and pick them up after work. I'm sure we'll get the standard Hello and Okay posing pictures and then a few in the paper with the mainstream media salivating how wonderful it is that our lovely Elton is playing daddy. I bet in 5 years time both of them still wont know how to change a nappy. What's wrong with inexperienced parents getting help from a nanny? Almost every new parent gets help in the early stages from somebody - be it their own family or a hired professional. I would venture that you're just morally against same-sex couples having children. The words 'clutching' and 'straws' come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I think this is an interesting topic. Clearly in an ideal world where families consisted of a male and a female then the ideal is to keep children within that traditional setting. Obviously the world doesn't work like that and I see no reason why a gay couple cannot foster or adopt a child if the alternative for that child is worse than being adopted by a same sex couple (which may lead to some confusion or identity issues on the part of the child). However, in this case that is not the consideration. For a start, this just seems like some sort of publicity stunt or a new toy for Elton. Elton John is an extremely hateful individual, from being rude petulant and throwing childlike tantrums at photographers to his past drug abuse and feeling it appropriate to joke about his anal dildo in an interview from a couple of months ago he is clearly not a good role model for a child to have. On top of that, he is also an old man and it is unkind on a child to be raised by someone who may need someone to look after himself soon. I feel strongly that parents should be discouraged from having children later in life purely because it deprives the child of so much. So in summary, gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children IF they are the best option available (with a loving male female partnership being the ideal) but Elton John is too old and a terrible role model to adopt a child. If it was anyone else they would have been refused but because it is Elton it is allowed and that is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I think it's fine and not worth making a fuss about. Not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 What's wrong with inexperienced parents getting help from a nanny? Almost every new parent gets help in the early stages from somebody - be it their own family or a hired professional. I would venture that you're just morally against same-sex couples having children. The words 'clutching' and 'straws' come to mind. I am morally against it, for the reasons i have stated above. The reason i have formed this view is because of facts, not on what the media tell me or my silly little college friends. Science proves that kids are better off with a mother and father, the courts, 90% of the time in a custody case come down on the side of the mother because they realise the importance of the mothers role in a childs upbringing. It is a fact that women are more maternal than men. The only thing that suggests same sex couple parenting is equal is political correctness. Also the fact that he is 63 means it is wrong as well, he'll be lucky to see his kid reach 20, and this is nothing to do with him being gay, i thought the same about Micheal Douglas. Come on super mikey, back up your expert opinion with facts and not what you've been told to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I realise you're just a court jester (not a very funny one) and that you think you're funny, but this has nothing to do with homophobia. My views are centred on what is best for the child and quite clearly any child that was to be adopted would be better off with a mother and a father figure. As long as the child is loved, does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 As long as the child is loved, does it really matter? i'm sure the full time nanny will adore it, the £50k+ a year salary she'll probably get wont hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 ... ahr...'political correctness'... usually followed (certainly in the Daily Hate/Nazi) by 'gone mad' - trotted out usually in total ignorance. Its about time the term is consigned to the bin, because whatever its original centiments have been lost through media coruption of the term... remember 'Bah Bah Green sheep'... that story was actually made up, totally and utterly by the press at a time when they wanted to stick teh boot into Red Ken and his GLC... FFS, Gay couples adopting is a non issue.. What soem some of the more intelligent posters have stated already is the welfare of a child - how well it will be cared for, and looked after, loved and cherished and given values. Most kids get role models of both Male and female, either at home, in school, relations etc. And there is no guarrantee that a 'traditional model' of male/female brings up children in a stable and and solid way - you only have to look at those that grow up thugs, racists, bigots, criminals, who lack compassion, intelligence and any values/virtues to see that, or the numbers that are placed in care or for adoption because the traditional model sees parents not giving a flying feck, abuse their kids and neglect them to see that the 'natural' way has nothing to do with teh quality of the upbringing. This has feck all to do with 'PC' - its simply about a society being mature enough to recognise we are all individuals, who have the capacity or lack or it to be good parents regardless of sexual orientation. From an evolutionary biology perspective, its 'natural' anyway (and I happen to be a biologist) because homosexuality has evolved simply as a bi-product of humans highly evolved emotions, the abilty to love, pair bond etc... That comment that 'as long as they dont fiddle with them' is equally worrying - Firstly, becaue the overwhelming majority of abuse of children happens in the 'natural' setting, and secondly their is NO evidence anywhere that suggests homosexuals are more or less likley to be paedophiles than heterosexuals... Is Elton and his partner's world a good environment in which to bring up a child? Sure thats a fair question, and one that will be asked and followed up by social services under far more scrutiny than the 'natural' couples - often too young, too stupid and too ignorant to have given having a child and its consequences any thought whatsoever. The questions should refer to the media attention, the stabilty, education and standards of care and nothing else. Yes, its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but frankly if you dont come to the same conclusion, that IS bigotry based on ignorance of science, evolution, and importantly parenting, or plain old fashioned prejudice which is based on ignorance anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Surely he should have thought about this before adopting then? Shouldn't kids be their priority, not something to fit around their careers? I shouldn't think he'd ever have to work again if he wanted. How do you know how much time they are going to spend with the child? He's already said he spends hours just singing and talking to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I am morally against it, for the reasons i have stated above. The reason i have formed this view is because of facts, not on what the media tell me or my silly little college friends. Science proves that kids are better off with a mother and father, the courts, 90% of the time in a custody case come down on the side of the mother because they realise the importance of the mothers role in a childs upbringing. It is a fact that women are more maternal than men. The only thing that suggests same sex couple parenting is equal is political correctness. Also the fact that he is 63 means it is wrong as well, he'll be lucky to see his kid reach 20, and this is nothing to do with him being gay, i thought the same about Micheal Douglas. Come on super mikey, back up your expert opinion with facts and not what you've been told to think. What if the alternative was not a traditional male female relationship but a home or being passed from foster parent to foster parent? (Not having a pop Turkish because I largely agree with you, just interested in your thoughts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 As long as the child is loved, does it really matter? Erm well yes because there are more considerations than just a 'child being loved.' That is a part (a very important part.) but there are other factors to take into consideration. I'm not saying same sex couples should not adopt, just that loving male and female couples should be given preference over loving same sex couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 That might be the politically correct view, but science disagrees. I am sure some of you will just dismiss this as bigotry though. http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html DO NOT PRESENT THIS AS SCIENCE - Narth is a quazy religeous bonkers group that aim and present 'cures' for homsexulaity - that paper has no scientific basis whatsoever and is simpley NARTH propoganda... pls check the validity of any 'scientific paper' before you present it as science... Peer reviewed, high citation index quality journals, fine... Religeous fruitcakes in the US spouting this ****** is NOT science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 What if the alternative was not a traditional male female relationship but a home or being passed from foster parent to foster parent? (Not having a pop Turkish because I largely agree with you, just interested in your thoughts.) If it really was absolutely the only option other than a home then it would be the preferable option. Without wishing to sound patronising, I feel really sorry for kiddies that grow up in care or whatever and if this is the only other option then being brought up by a family is preferable. It is unlikely though, there are 100's of male/female couples that want to adopt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2011 DO NOT PRESENT THIS AS SCIENCE - Narth is a quazy religeous bonkers group that aim and present 'cures' for homsexulaity - that paper has no scientific basis whatsoever and is simpley NARTH propoganda... pls check the validity of any 'scientific paper' before you present it as science... Peer reviewed' date=' high citation index quality journals, fine... Religeous fruitcakes in the US spouting this ****** is NOT science.[/quote'] exactly what i said above, people will dismiss his findings as bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 If it really was absolutely the only option other than a home then it would be the preferable option. Without wishing to sound patronising, I feel really sorry for kiddies that grow up in care or whatever and if this is the only other option then being brought up by a family is preferable. It is unlikely though, there are 100's of male/female couples that want to adopt. That's really how I stand on the issue as well. TBH I think if you are a same sex couple and you deprive a loving male female couple of a child by adopting one then you are pretty selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 exactly what i said above, people will dismiss his findings as bigotry. FFS - this has nothing to do with 'dimissing his findings as bigotry, because he does not present any Findings - there is no data, no statisticak analysis, not peer review of scientific method... it is simpy NOT science so to call it science is WRONG. The second fact that he is associated with a right wing religeous nutter group in teh US is secondary but highly enlightening dont you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 DO NOT PRESENT THIS AS SCIENCE - Narth is a quazy religeous bonkers group that aim and present 'cures' for homsexulaity - that paper has no scientific basis whatsoever and is simpley NARTH propoganda... pls check the validity of any 'scientific paper' before you present it as science... Peer reviewed' date=' high citation index quality journals, fine... Religeous fruitcakes in the US spouting this ****** is NOT science.[/quote'] I think it is fairly clear that there is going to be at least some negative effects of a same sex couple bringing up a child no matter how small and no matter how much this effect is reduced. It's because of this that a comparable male female couple should always be preferable IMO. Don't need some scientific study (no matter how phony) to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Only because it's not polictically correct to use that as a reason. No, you are wrong, PC (or as I prefer to call it 'common decency') has nothing to do with it. This is only about how well two adults can care for a child. I can think of plenty of hetro couples who have failed to raise their children well (e.g. Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, most residents in Pompey, Walter and Daisy West etc). I conclude that you are merely trying to hide your homophobia behind some form of (flawed) morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 No, you are wrong, PC (or as I prefer to call it 'common decency') has nothing to do with it. This is only about how well two adults can care for a child. I can think of plenty of hetro couples who have failed to raise their children well (e.g. Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, most residents in Pompey, Walter and Daisy West etc). I conclude that you are merely trying to hide your homophobia behind some form of (flawed) morality. Psychological well-being of the child is also another factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I think it is fairly clear that there is going to be at least some negative effects of a same sex couple bringing up a child no matter how small and no matter how much this effect is reduced. It's because of this that a comparable male female couple should always be preferable IMO. Don't need some scientific study (no matter how phony) to know that. Yeah, who cares about science and other such bunkum eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 That's really how I stand on the issue as well. TBH I think if you are a same sex couple and you deprive a loving male female couple of a child by adopting one then you are pretty selfish. what about loan parents, are they allowed to adopt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Psychological well-being of the child is also another factor Might I ask for the source of this study into the 'psychological well-being of a child' you cite - or are you guessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 I can think of plenty of hetro couples who have failed to raise their children well (e.g. Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, most residents in Pompey). We all now know Joensuu thinks it's fine to stereo type gypsies. It's good to know how wafer thin the superior lefts morals really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 That's really how I stand on the issue as well. TBH I think if you are a same sex couple and you deprive a loving male female couple of a child by adopting one then you are pretty selfish. TBH, I think that if a child is deprived of having a excellent homosexual parents, and instead forced to make do with average hetrosexual ones, then that would be pretty selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 We all now know Joensuu thinks it's fine to stereo type gypsies. It's good to know how wafer thin the superior lefts morals really are. No stereotying here (referring to the characters depicted within the programme, and not extrapolating that to all members of the travelling community). Oh, and I'm a liberal, not always 'left' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 TBH, I think that if a child is deprived of having a excellent homosexual parents, and instead forced to make do with average hetrosexual ones, then that would be pretty selfish. Yes but I was talking about parents of comparable quality which is what I tried to convey in my answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Yeah, who cares about science and other such bunkum eh? Wow did you even bother to read what I was replying to? Franks Cousin was saying that the study he linked to was not scientific enough to be considered valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Do not see the issues, sex doesn't matter, quality of upbringing does. I know plenty of people who have been brought up in single parent households and have been just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2011 Share Posted 7 February, 2011 Might I ask for the source of this study into the 'psychological well-being of a child' you cite - or are you guessing? I like to think I have some knowledge in the area, considering my profession and also considering that I have an adopted sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now