Welcome to Gaia! ::

In my opinion, there is no debate about homosexuality. If you like sleeping with people of your own sex then that's fine. I don't care if you sleep with girls or boys, it does not affect me and it shouldn't affect anyone else. Why people make such a big deal, I do not know. It's none of my business and it's none of theirs.

Hah, oh yeah "exemption from DISCRIMINATION laws". I'm sorry, any agency wishing to be exempt from a law against dscrimination should not be allowed. Yes, respect for beliefs but also respect for other people too.

Indeed, not that I have much respect for adoption agencies that refuse to talk to homosexual couples in the first place.

They already have the right to descriminate - if they feel that a trait about one couple (such as an addiction to introvenous cleaning fluids that they believe help them speak to sexually aggrovated cat daemons) makes them less preferable for adopting children than another couple, they have the right to turn them down.

If they aren't given strict guidelines by the Government as to what does or does not constitute a suitable family, who the hell are the Government to be giving them orders? XD

Seriously, though - ask people now whether or not they are for Homosexuality and they'll all say how evil it is that people are descriminated against just because blah blah...

But 50 years ago, you go out and ask people whether or not they support homosexuality, and... well... you get the idea sweatdrop

So, I suppose I can only contribute the following;
1) I'm not really attracted to masculin things, and therefore am not homosexual myself.
2) I feel the urge to say that it shouldn't matter whether someone is homosexual or not.
Whether point 2 reflects what I've grown into Socially or what I feel deep down... I don't know!! XD

I'm actually on favour of adoption agencies not being so picky about what constitutes a suitable family for a child. It seems to me that they pay too much attention to trivial things when they should be paying far more attention to very important things, like not placing children with adoptive parents who are likely to be violent or abusive towards them.

I mean, it's wierd that there's no criteria a person needs to fufil before having a child the traditional way yet smokers, older people, people with low incomes and single parents etc. are looked down upon in the adoption process, despite the fact that they may well make good parents, (I'm going on the assumption here that it's better for a child to be in a family than in a children's home)...

As for changing attitudes, although I don't think the current attitudes of society can be completly blamed for an individual's prejudices (there have always been independant thinkers ahead of their time) it certainly has a major role. If asked 200 years ago whether black people were second class citizens and inferior to white people most (white) people would have said yes... most people would also have said woman were inferior to men... Whereas today (I hope!) most people would say no, we are all equal...

In my opinion, as long as homophobia, racism etc, exists, there is a necessary place for people to stand up and challenge those prejudices, wherever they occur.

Yeah - I mean, I don't really have any direct experience with the Adoption Services (thankfully), but from what I know of our social system they'd have to resort to ticking boxes at some point because of how many people they'd be dealing with (there's no way they'd have enough staff to look deeply into the parenting abilities of every single applicant), so it makes sense that we'd be seeing people with specific "undesirable traits" being put down...

I'm not sure what really can be done about it though - judging whether or not someone will be a good and reliable parent is difficult to do in alot of circumstances.

They'd also, if asked about ***** or rapists, most likely have alot of violent and provocative ideas of what should be done with them.
If we can say that people who can't help which gender they're attracted to shouldn't be hated for what they are, it's hypocrisy not to extend that to other people who can't control themselves.

Whilst it's likely that the idea that such people should be recieving proper psycological help instead of a violent retribution would be very dangerous for someone to have in our current political climate, I can't help but think that sometime in the future people will be looking back on us now in disgust.

Hell, what's everyone's opinion on people who like bestiality?

"Arrgh, that's just ******** perverts"
"grab you torches and pitch forks!!!"

You see?

Just like before, we call ourselves a perfect, enlightened society, but we still bias ourselves against those who can't help what they do or who they are.

It's always been like that and probably always will be - we base our morals around the common Social Views of the time, so if they are against a specific type of person... well...

What I mean is, 50 years ago, WE would have been racist.
200 Years ago (must as I hate the idea sweatdrop ) I would probably have been sexist.

Perhaps, then, we should learn not to hate people who "descriminate" against others, but to appresciate that they can't help what they've been taught to believe.


Yes, it's true that there is no place for active ***** or rape or what-have-you in our society, but surely by our own logic we should be out to help the people unfortunate enough to be addicted to such distinctly antisocial activities, not out to destroy them?

Well, rightly so, but at what cost to themselves?

Usually, these people are never popular at the time, even though they're often celebrated after their deaths for fighting for what the next generation believes in.

there is no difference from straight or gay couples!

i dont think someone should have to "come out" to their family or the public!

those are my small but wonderful thoughts!