Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

did i specifically target you ?

the religious fraternitys do tend to tell you that homosexuality is a sin.

i never suggested every person who 'turned' to religion or is religious will follow what they say, although in my experiance the latter is true.


well this is not an ideal world, if your looking for one i suggest you start looking long and hard.

freedom of expression IS allowed if you are gay you are well within your 'human right' to get married.


if the child starts to question why he does not have a father, you need to lie temporarily so that even if the child did and a huge may understand (dependant on the mentality) it would not drag on in to the school, where others would gain the knowledge and make life hell for the child.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Tell that to the ancient Greeks :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No. No you did not. But you referred to a section of society with which I'm connected.

No. They tend to tell you that homosexual sex is a sin.

Hey, just like you I was giving my opinion.

In your opinion.

Surely it would be better to avoid as many situations as possible where one would feel it neccessary to lie to your child? You won't know this yet but when you become a parent, the thought of deliberately deceiving your own child is not a prospect you relish.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Leading zoologist, human behaviour expert and author Desmond Morris has given cautioned support to same sex parents, saying he believes a lesbian or gay family unit is unlikely to be "damaging" to a child.

Speaking to the Guardian today, Morris adds that, although a child needs male role models if he has lesbian parents, or vice versa with gay male parents, modern society will provide these in other areas of life.

"The disadvantage, especially if it is a male baby, is that it will have no male figure in the family environment. But the baby should encounter males in other social contexts - teachers, or uncles, or friends of the parents," he says.

He argues, that in an evolutionary sense, "double parenting" is the ideal choice for caring for the child.

"In one sense that child is going to be better off because it is going to have double-mothering, which is something any child would obviously benefit from enormously," he comments.

In the case of lesbian parents, brought to the foreground of public opinion yesterday with arguments over whether they should have rights to IVF treatment, Morris says he believes two women could successfully rear a child, because they would have double the impact of feminine nurturing traits.

"We don't know enough about the effect of two lesbians bringing up a child. It's too new. But in theory, the child should receive more care, because women are more programmed for nurturing than men," he says.

"When you use the terms "masculinity" and "femininity", because we are in a culture that stresses sexual equality, there is a tendency to feel that you are making a distinction that is not politically correct.

"The point is that males and females are different but equal. Males are better at some things and females are better at others. And these differences aren't a matter of political opinion, but genetics."

The issue of gay parents has become topical once again, with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) chief Suzi Leather yesterday calling for a clause restricting single women and lesbians from receiving IVF because of the absence of a father to be dropped.

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5698

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I can't quite compete with Desmond Morris but I cannot see how anyone can say a child won't be disadvantaged in life without a strong male AND female parental role model.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am talking about the priests etc........



yes that is what i am against, as i have no problem with homosexuals.



yes and so was i, i pointed something which is factually correct.


NO its about doing the right thing, you are telling me you are denying someone the right to mariiage because they are homosexual, that to me is totally out of order.

and i still see no valid reason as to why this sould be.


did i ever say it was easy to lie to your own child ? you can give me talk about when i have my old children etc, but you are avoiding the issue and thats the threat that any information as to who the father or mother is at a young age, could infact be detremental to a childs welfare, when trying to make freinds and interact with pupils.

and i think your comment about 'avoiding situiations' was an excuse to bolster you argument about same sex parents not being able to have children.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I fail to see any specific trait that the child can only exclusively learn from either the male or single parent. As the article said, there are plenty of other sources that can be used as acceptable role models. I, in all honesty, cannot put a finger upon a specific skill or trait that I acquired during my upbringing that I can attribute as being from one parent or the other as a direct result of their gender.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Does anyone remember in the news about monkey mothers raising another's baby if its mother died?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well bluddy mention the word 'priests' next time!!!!!!!!! :D

Amen bruvvah, although again, that's not what you said first!!!!!

Just because you believe strongly in something does not make it 'factually correct'.

Yes I'm saying that because of what I view marriage to be for.


What you on about??? I'm saying would it not be easier to be in a situation where you don't 'need' to cover up what you are to a child???

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

very much true as a child grows up there asperations can grow from sources such as teachers, or another people 'around' them

it is about the atmosphere you are in, that can mould certain aspects of your actions

there are diffarent bonds between a mother and father, but i believe this will not impact the child long term.

whoever brought you up if they did a good enough job in nurturing you, you should be absolutely fine.

you see kids with a father and mother who have problems, so it works both ways.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

OK, go ahead, have it your way, let's have an entire generation of children brought up by homosexual parents (who, I believe will try to do a good job) BUT once the whole thing goes belly up and society crumbles who are you going to blame then? The Bible bashers who stood by and let it happen??

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

It won't be a whole society though will it. It will be a limited number of people and if they are that committed to finding partners to create these children then I would imagine that this commitment will carry on through the parenting.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well that's ok then.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Time and again, people in this thread have stated that there is no way (or at least all but the slimmest chance) that a child raised by a homosexual couple will turn out as "good" (for want of a better phrase) than those raised by a heterosexual couple. Now you've gone as far as to say that if this were common enough (and if the figures that 10% of people are gay that means that only about 10% of households would have homosexual parents, roughly speaking) that society would crumble.

What I fail to see are any specific examples about what is going to go wrong. Why is society going to crumble? All these dire predictions and warnings are vague to say the least. That does strike me as a rather fine example of paranoia in action.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No one has provided any reason why we SHOULD allow homosexual "marriages."