That’s so gay
Good to see that the principles that Mandela once defined are now being eroded and before long South African political decisions will be again determined by the throw of some chicken bones in the dirt.
“You can take the African out of the bush, but you can’t take the bush out of the African…”
What a poorly titled article! I immediately assumed that it meant that the parents had asked somebody whether their parenting would turn their child gay. This is a really awfully worded title.
You don’t know how to read news titles, then. ‘Parents ask if child…’ would mean that they asked. If it says ‘parents asked’, it means that they were asked.
I not only know how to read newspaper titles, I know how to write them, and did write them or proof them at several times in my working life. This title is just what Matt said it is. Had you ever taught or tutored English (I’ve done both) you would know that what you wrote about the use of “ask” versus “asked” in a headline or title is incorrect.
In English, “were asked” makes “parents” the object of the sentence. “Ask” makes “parents” the subject of the sentence in question. Although headlines are permitted ungrammatical shortenings by leaving words out, such word elisions are not permitted if they are ambiguous or alter (in this case reverse) the intended meaning.
The rule for word-and-space constrained titles is that one must drop a different word (in this case “adoptive”) in order to avoid the reversal of meaning brought about by dropping the word “were.”
I read it that way too, it could have been put more clearly. Also, should be “whose” not “who’s” in paragraph 3. Is PN proofreader on holiday?
Okay. So what even if he does turn gay? Will it be worse for him than being homeless, malnutritioned, live on a street and become an alcoholic like his biological parents?!
That’s seems to be the logic behind the magistrate’s question.
‘Coloured’?! Does it mean that the child was dyed? Or that white is not a colour? Or that you can have a ‘proper’ skin colour or be labelled as ‘coloured’ if you happen to be not white?
Am I the only one how thinks that they use some outdated and racist vocabulary>
It is a legal “term of art” and definition in South Africa. A citizen of South Africa is “white” if descended from (only) European immigrants. A South African is “black” if descended (only) from pre-European-immigration residents of South Africa. A South African is “coloured” if (1) descended (only) from Indian immigrants, or (2) descended from a mixture of “white” and “black,” “white” and “(1) coloured,” “black” and “(1) coloured” and if descended from a mixture of “white,” “black” and “(1)coloured” ancestors.
I personally find ALL ethnic, regional and racial divisions or designations outdated. The South African classification offends me neither more nor less than Scottish and English and Welsh instead of British, or Ohioan and Mississippian instead of American. YMMV.
“I personally find ALL ethnic, regional and racial divisions or designations outdated.”
Right. Let’s drop all borders, all immigration, all governments. Lets just be one global village.
You naive twat.
What’s more damaging to a child’s wellbeing?
A) Homosexual parents.
B) Homeless alcoholic parents.
Evidently a serious question for at least one South African magistrate. It would be funny were it not for the fact that this is the same legal system that blamed the striking miners for getting shot by the police.
Well, nothing new there. Isn’t this part of the argument opponents of equal marriage use, that children grow up better in a heterosexual family? Red meat for the right wing religious nutters, not just in S. Africa but at home in the UK. The Christian Institute espouses those very views, on of the major players in opposition to equal marriage.
“FSM help me! I can handle my weak and ineffective and lying enemies by myself, though they be legion, but I need your noodly appendage to touch the heads of my well-intentioned friends and allies.” –me, in exasperated prayer.
A couple of people here have asked the question the other side would like to have debated (which is worse, being turned gay or suffering economic and social deprivation) without pointing out the BS of such a question. No study can scientifically show that humans can turn children gay through nurture. When one asks “which is worse” instead of saying “invalid question” one helps the enemy. Stop digging in their hole.
I agree the pertinent issue is whether any parent’s sexuality can ‘rub off’ on the child – and it has been shown not to be so. However, the other commenters are quite right in pointing out that the question itself betrays the underlying prejudice – that gay is less than straight. Why is it even necessary to be concerned whether it does or not!
My question to them would be, can these idiots explain why it is that almost all children growing up with two gay parents turn out to be straight? The won’t discuss it because they know what the answer will be.