Bullets 'n' Babes

Ivan Drago wrote:The Daily Mail makes up so much rubbish, its unbeliveable. A dispicable paper

Examples please....

bradavon wrote:I'm hoping to learn Spanish this year, after my first attempt earlier in the year didn't work out too well.

Go for it man, I'm really enjoying learning Japanese

Markgway wrote:

Ivan Drago wrote:The Daily Mail makes up so much rubbish, its unbeliveable. A dispicable paper

Examples please....

The whole censorship campaign against horror movies for one. The constant use of Child's Play as a scapegoat everytime an underage crime is committed.

Are there more kids in need of adoption than prospective married parents? I don't know the figures, but probably.

That's a funny one. I think it depends what part of the country. There was a documentary on TV and you wouldn't expect it but many parents are being forced to look abroad, as there aren't enough kids to adopt. I think it said "in their area too".

But I believe married couples should get priority.

I see why you say that but again I don't. Marriage boils down to a piece or paper and yes commitment (to each other) but not good parenting. Everyone should get tested equally and only those who pass get a chance to adopt. Which I'd hope is what already happens.

But I've seen cases where a married couple gets turned down because their too old (over 50) or too fat (really) yet gay parents...? No problem. If you even dare to question the logic you're branded a homophobe.

I don't believe that happens. Religious reason yes, maybe not not homophobic reasons. I'm sure plenty of homosexuals are turned down too. Sure the weight of parents should be taken into consideration, if someone is obese, what sort of example is that showing?

Frankly I suspect that gays want it to be called marriage just to be bloody minded. I mean if the law recognises the union isn't THAT the point?

Of course it isn't. It's to be treated equally, calling it the same as everyone goes hand in hand with that.

Nah, the majority of the population still label themselves as Christian of some form.

A colleague at work is an agnostic but still puts COE on papers, he says he doesn't want to look pompous. I said he was stupid to put that but I bet a massive percentage are the same. I don't base any evidence as such, just a hunch. Religion is on the decline, not increase.

You think the headline hides the truth?

They most definitely can. I remember this case now:

* The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59 - Ridiculous, that's too young to be ruled out. In yours 70s, I'd say. Especially as they were their grandparents.
* The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them. - Good. There was clearly a reason the gay couple were more suitable than the straight couples. I don't recall that being explained.
* You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again. - An outrageous for thing for the adoptees or social workers to say.

It seems the grandfather was more annoyed it was a gay couple, than adopted overall. That definitely sounds like prejudice to me. Times change, gay people (who pass the tests) should have every right to be able to bring up children. Who you're attracted to, has no relevance whatsoever on how well you can be a parent. I know Mark, you've not said this.

The thing is, what you say Mark about, "when there are no married or non-maried couples left, gay people can adopt". Is obviously never going to happen. So you're effectively denying them to be able to adopt because they're gay. Especially when I come back to, why give a child to a couple who is less capable (i.e - a straight couple, whose failed some of the tests), purely" because the couple consists of a man and woman.

That sounds more harmful, than a gay couple who pass all tests but are single sex to me.

gasteropod wrote:Go for it man, I'm really enjoying learning Japanese

Thanks Gas.

How long have you been studying? How often? Do you work full time? How close to fluency are you?

I tried to do an evening calls in Spanish but was so tired after work I had to drop out. I will admit to copping out too. Which annoys me, so I must try again.

I do an evening class every Wednesday which started around October I think, and I was also doing a Pimsleur CD course on a daily basis but just lately I haven't been for some reason, I'll definitely get back into that though.

I technically work part-time, but usually have so much overtime that it's basically full. Often on my breaks at work I study Japanese in the staffroom, like practising my hiragana and katakana, and going over vocab lists.

That's dedication then! I wish I was more dedicated.

How close to fluency are you?

Yeah I think it's important to keep it in mind throughout the week, like there are various people in my class who just don't seem to study it outside the class very much and their progress is pretty limited.

I'm not close to fluency yet, the classes are pretty basic so far but I'm progressing nicely I think. A classmate and I are off to Japan for a fortnight in October so then I will see if my studying has paid off at all

Ivan Drago wrote:The whole censorship campaign against horror movies for one. The constant use of Child's Play as a scapegoat everytime an underage crime is committed.

That's ONE example. Hardly the kind of conclusive proof that justifies this comment: "makes up so much rubbish, its unbeliveable. A dispicable paper". I think you're just jumping on the lefty bandwagon of Daily Mail slagging without having actually read it. I remember on QT once an audience member called Mail readers "scum" and you know what Dimbleby said...? Absolutely nothing. It's fashionable to slag off The Mail (and to a lesser extent The Sun). Makes the politically inadequate simpletons feel good about themselves. Besides I also strongly disagree with the Mail's stance on horror movies/Child's Play (and have said so since 1994). I don't see how that one issue translates to the kind of nonsese you're spouting about making up stories (they would be sued if they did) and being dispicible (for having a different point of view).

bradavon wrote:

But I believe married couples should get priority.

I see why you say that but again I don't. Marriage boils down to a piece or paper and yes commitment (to each other) but not good parenting. Everyone should get tested equally and only those who pass get a chance to adopt. Which I'd hope is what already happens.

Obviously being married alone is not enough... other tests must apply to all prospective parents. But all things being equal I think married couples should get first consideration. It might be a bit of paper but it's a legal contract and a married couple is less likely to split than a cohabiting one.

I don't believe that happens.

It does. Do a search.

Religious reason yes, maybe not not homophobic reasons. I'm sure plenty of homosexuals are turned down too. Sure the weight of parents should be taken into consideration, if someone is obese, what sort of example is that showing?

Well, if you think it's OK to discriminate based on weight, is it then OK to disciminate based on sexuality? What kind of example are gay parents going to show a child? Or is gay OK, but fat is bad? Why is it OK to discriminate against some groups but not others?

Of course it isn't. It's to be treated equally, calling it the same as everyone goes hand in hand with that.

But they're not equal. Marriage is a religious-based union between a man and a woman. If a same sex couple create a union it's recognised in law but not by the church. You can't therefore call it marriage unless you want to change Christianity which is a whole other can of worms. In the eyes of the law a civil partnership is a binding union and that's what counts...

A colleague at work is an agnostic but still puts COE on papers, he says he doesn't want to look pompous. I said he was stupid to put that but I bet a massive percentage are the same. I don't base any evidence as such, just a hunch. Religion is on the decline, not increase.

Yes, religion is on the decline... but I don't think we can label Britain as non-Christian based on your hunch. It could be that many tick the Christian box out of habit. But we've no way of knowing that.

Ridiculous, that's too young to be ruled out. In yours 70s, I'd say. Especially as they were their grandparents.

Yes, both parties were well under retirement age. So you can work until you drop, just not raise a grandchild. Disgusting.

* The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them. - Good. There was clearly a reason the gay couple were more suitable than the straight couples. I don't recall that being explained.

Good? You really think that social services couldn't find a suitable heterosexual couple in that area? That the ONLY hope for that child was a gay couple? If you believe that you'll believe anything.

* You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again. - An outrageous for thing for the adoptees or social workers to say.

Yes, but how many left-wing papers do you suppose reported that? That's why Britain needs the Mail. You might not always agree (I don't) but you get the other side of the story - the side the liberals don't want you to see. Then you can make up your own mind.

It seems the grandfather was more annoyed it was a gay couple, than adopted overall. That definitely sounds like prejudice to me.

It's understandable. I would prefer my children being adopted by a heterosexual couple if for some reason I was unable to care for them. That's not the same as saying gay parents would do a bad job.

Times change, gay people (who pass the tests) should have every right to be able to bring up children.

But not at the expense of heterosexual couples.

The thing is, what you say Mark about, "when there are no married or non-maried couples left, gay people can adopt". Is obviously never going to happen. So you're effectively denying them to be able to adopt because they're gay.

Then that's how it has to be. The child must come first. When the rights of gay parents to adopt outweigh the rights of the child that's when I have a problem. Being a parent isn't a right... it's a responsibility. Nature dictates that you require a man and a woman to create a child... logicial follow through tells us that a man and woman are the best option to raise a child. I feel sorry for gay people who have the longing to be a parent, but that can't interfere with what's best for the child. And in the vast majority of cases that's adoption by a hetereosexual couple.

Especially when I come back to, why give a child to a couple who is less capable (i.e - a straight couple, whose failed some of the tests), purely" because the couple consists of a man and woman.

If a couple fail parts of the test then they should be put to the back of the queue. I'm not saying that "perfect" (in relative terms) gay couples should be passed over in favour of inadequate straight couples.

If a parent is fat, so what? It doesnt NECESSARILY mean the kid will be fat.

i certainly wouldn't want any kids of mine raised by a gay or lesbian couple.

grim_tales wrote:If a parent is fat, so what? It doesnt NECESSARILY mean the kid will be fat.

Exactly. Any more than gay parents will raise a gay child. But fat people are one of the few groups it's still OK to discriminate against.

Markgway wrote:That's ONE example. Hardly the kind of conclusive proof that justifies this comment: "makes up so much rubbish, its unbeliveable. A dispicable paper".

Fair enough I can see you're a fan of the Daily Mail but do we really have to keep coming up with examples, just so you're happy we dislike it?

Markgway wrote:I think you're just jumping on the lefty bandwagon of Daily Mail slagging without having actually read it.

And I think you just don't like to admit, not everyone likes it.

Markgway wrote:I remember on QT once an audience member called Mail readers "scum" and you know what Dimbleby said...? Absolutely nothing.

As he should. He's the chairman, he's not there to give an opinion.

Markgway wrote:Obviously being married alone is not enough... other tests must apply to all prospective parents. But all things being equal I think married couples should get first consideration.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were solely concerned with married vs. gay. I'm still not sure, given your other statements though.

Markgway wrote:It does. Do a search.

Obviously it "has happened" but the norm? I don't believe so.

Markgway wrote:Well, if you think it's OK to discriminate based on weight. Or is gay OK, but fat is bad? Why is it OK to discriminate against some groups but not others?

I said "obese parents", let's be clear. Not a little overweight. I've answered your point below, so won't repeat myself.

Markgway wrote:But they're not equal. Marriage is a religious-based union between a man and a woman. If a same sex couple create a union it's recognised in law but not by the church.

And we're supposed to all be Christians, go to church regularly, believe in Christmas/Easter as religious festivals above "time off from work" but since when did the Church (and all that stuff) have much thought for your average Agnostic and Atheist? Marriage is only a "religious" union if you get married in a church. Plenty of straight couples get married out of a church, where's the difference?

The crucial point where we differ, is no I don't believe marriage is religious for most people in The UK today. So the notion it has to solely be between a man and woman goes completely out of the window.

Markgway wrote:Good? You really think that social services couldn't find a suitable heterosexual couple in that area?

As I've already said, I don't believe there should be a distinction to start with.

Markgway wrote:That the ONLY hope for that child was a gay couple?

We have to assume, the gay couple were more suitable than the available straight couples somehow, as we don't frankly know the actual reasoning for giving her to a gay couple, it's all hear say anyway.

Markgway wrote:It's understandable.

Not in my world, not at all. I appreciate he's from an older generation but the grandfather comes across as prejudice. Obviously we do both agree, there doesn't appear to be a valid reason for the child to be adopted in the first place though.

Maybe I'm coming from a different perspective, as some of my closed friends are gay and I can see them being such good parents, and therefore should be given the chance. In your world this realistically would never happen. I don't know, just a thought.

Markgway wrote:But not at the expense of heterosexual couples.

Whoever is the "most suitable" should be given the choice, straight or care. So obviously I disagree.

Markgway wrote:The child must come first.

That's the thing, I disagree the child is being put first. You're advocating giving a child to a lesser parent because they happen to be married, straight or both.

Markgway wrote:When the rights of gay parents to adopt outweigh the rights of the child that's when I have a problem.

Oh it doesn't. You may be able to pull out "an example" but it's not the norm gay people get preferential treatment.

Markgway wrote:If a couple fail parts of the test then they should be put to the back of the queue. I'm not saying that "perfect" (in relative terms) gay couples should be passed over in favour of inadequate straight couples.

Everything else you've said, says otherwise.

Markgway wrote:Any more than gay parents will raise a gay child. But fat people are one of the few groups it's still OK to discriminate against.

WTF! Are you actually for real? One is part genetics, part personality and part "your surroundings". The other a sexual preference, you're born with! The two couldn't be any less comparable. Your parents have absolutely nothing, whatsoever to do with your sexual orientation. I cannot believe you actually just said that.

Of course there's a possibility (maybe a strong one) a seriously overweight parent will bring up a seriously overweight child but even the concept that a gay parent would bring up a gay child, is just ridiculous. As I said I'm talking about obese or seriously overweight people. Not just a bit tubby.

gasteropod wrote:Yeah I think it's important to keep it in mind throughout the week, like there are various people in my class who just don't seem to study it outside the class very much and their progress is pretty limited.

That was me. Partly why I stopped it.

gasteropod wrote:A classmate and I are off to Japan for a fortnight in October so then I will see if my studying has paid off at all

Definitely use it. It takes year to get remotely competent but as you're doing, it's all about not giving up. As I did (for now!).

Surely the most important thing for a child is that they grow up in a safe, loving environment IMO, not the sexuality of the parents. If they had said "When there are no white parents left, we'll look at mixed race/black parents wanting to adopt" that would be considered bang out of order, and rightly so. Maybe there are other factors in the decision we dont know about. We should be told.
46 and 59 are fairly young to be grandparents.

grim_tales wrote:If they had said "When there are no white parents left, we'll look at mixed race/black parents wanting to adopt" that would be considered bang out of order, and rightly so.

I imagine there's just a big percentage who would like their child adopted by someone of a different colour, nationality and religion. I know I wouldn't want a child of mine to be brought up by someone who is strongly religious.

grim_tales wrote:Maybe there are other factors in the decision we dont know about. We should be told.

It's not our business. Would you want your private life to be made public to the papers?

Of course not, but the article just made is it sound as if the grandparents didn't want to have the children brought up by family "X" just because they were gay, you can't say this is not prejudice. Maybe there is more to it.
I wouldn't want to go into a staunch religious family either or have a child exposed to that from a young age (you only have to look at some parts of America to see that scary shit), but if they get older and its what they decide, its their decision I guess

bradavon wrote:Fair enough I can see you're a fan of the Daily Mail but do we really have to keep coming up with examples, just so you're happy we dislike it?

A. I'm not a fan. I just like the alternate viewpoint that allows me to make up my own mind rather than be told what to think by an otherwise left-biased UK media.

B. Between the two of you you managed to come up with ONE example (which I agreed with!) Well done. Conclusive proof that the Mail is a rubbish paper. I bow before your superior knowledge.

And I think you just don't like to admit, not everyone likes it.

Why would I care what everyone likes? Opinions are like assholes: Everybody's got one. But you guys still haven't answered the question: Have you actually read it? Or is this just student union bullshit? Be honest.

As he should. He's the chairman, he's not there to give an opinion.

He's also there to prevent unfounded insults and cheap name-calling being directed to a significant proportion of viewers. That's not giving an opinion. Are you really that obtuse or are you doing this to wind me up?

Plenty of straight couples get married out of a church, where's the difference?

It's a union, but is it a marriage if it's performed outside the church? I know people call it that but I thought only true marriage was inside a church (or other religious institution). Gay people can say they're married to each other if they want. I don't know the actual ins and outs of the laws. I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing really. If there were no civil partnerships (as they're official called) I'd perhaps understand the contention. If I were getting married (don't laugh - it could happen!) I'd be happy with a civil partnership in a reg office. If we wanted to call it a marriage that would be up to us.

The crucial point where we differ, is no I don't believe marriage is religious for most people in The UK today.

So why do the vast majority of UK marriages take place in a Church? The ambiance?

As I've already said, I don't believe there should be a distinction to start with.

That's a matter of opinon then. But it's also not answering the question. Besides because YOU don't think there should be a distinction puts YOU in the minority.

Markgway wrote:We have to assume, the gay couple were more suitable than the available straight couples somehow, as we don't frankly know the actual reasoning for giving her to a gay couple, it's all hear say anyway.

We don't have to assume, because I don't believe it. The only possible reason for giving the child to a gay couple against the family's wishes was to placate a movement. You're naive if you believe otherwise. There are literally thousands a straight couples wanted to adopt. That council couldn't find a single one?

Not in my world, not at all. I appreciate he's from an older generation but the grandfather comes across as prejudice. Obviously we do both agree, there doesn't appear to be a valid reason for the child to be adopted in the first place though.

Well I guess both Sam and I (and the majority of Brits) are also prejudiced. We're all doomed!!

Maybe I'm coming from a different perspective, as some of my closed friends are gay and I can see them being such good parents, and therefore should be given the chance. In your world this realistically would never happen. I don't know, just a thought.

I understand your empathy. I've had gay friends in the past, but that really wouldn't sway my opinion on what's best for the child. I'm sure your friends would make good parents... but that's really not the point.

That's the thing, I disagree the child is being put first. You're advocating giving a child to a lesser parent because they happen to be married, straight or both.

I never have. Show me where I said that.

Oh it doesn't. You may be able to pull out "an example" but it's not the norm gay people get preferential treatment.

As a matter of principle they shouldn't. Occasionally I believe they do. Councils are frightened to say 'no' in case the PC brigade get on their case. So they pretend that gay and straight are equal. They're not. That's just how it is. It's no reflection on quality of character or decency. I'm not one of those people who believe gays are a sleazy and corrupting influence if that's what you're thinking of me.

Markgway wrote:If a couple fail parts of the test then they should be put to the back of the queue. I'm not saying that "perfect" (in relative terms) gay couples should be passed over in favour of inadequate straight couples.

Everything else you've said, says otherwise.

Not at all. Show me where.

WTF! Are you actually for real? One is part genetics, part personality and part "your surroundings". The other a sexual preference, you're born with! The two couldn't be any less comparable. Your parents have absolutely nothing, whatsoever to do with your sexual orientation. I cannot believe you actually just said that.

Like I said... it's still OK to discriminate against fat people. But dare question sexuality and liberals like you freak out. Assuming that an obese person will raise an adopted child to be obese is unfair and prejudiced. Genes aren't any part of it since ther adoptee and adoptive don't share any. You think an obsese parent is gonna shove cheeseburgers down a thin kid's throat? If they did that then the child would be withdrawn for it's own health. What I'm saying is that you can't just assume that fat parent equals fat kid (or vice versa) anymore than you can gay parent equals gay kid. And whilst I do believe most gay people are born that way... I don't believe it's out of the question that lifestyle and background can play a part. If you're raised to believe something (ie. being gay) is normal and routine it's not such a stretch that you might try it for yourself. Hell, you did! Basically what I'm saying is that you can't make assumptions based on the parents. You're doing that against fat people only because it suits your anti-fat fascist viewpoint.

bradavon wrote:I know I wouldn't want a child of mine to be brought up by someone who is strongly religious.

BIGOT!!!!!!!

Markgway wrote:He's also there to prevent unfounded insults and cheap name-calling being directed to a significant proportion of viewers. That's not giving an opinion.

He lets a lot slide. It's better to stay on topic than waste time telling people off, which he does if they don't move on.

Markgway wrote: Are you really that obtuse or are you doing this to wind me up?

There's no need for that.

Markgway wrote:It's a union, but is it a marriage if it's performed outside the church? I know people call it that but I thought only true marriage was inside a church (or other religious institution).

Don't they call it marriage at a registry office? No matter who gets married. I'm sure they do.

Markgway wrote:So why do the vast majority of UK marriages take place in a Church? The ambiance?

The same reason we still celebrate Christmas, tradition. My sister isn't religious (I'm pretty sure she's agnostic) but it was really important for her to get married in a church. Silly IMO but there you go.

I'd hate to get married in a registry office though. Somewhere that is important to us, makes most sense.

Markgway wrote:But it's also not answering the question.

I answered the question. There should be no distinction, so it's irrelevant if they could find a straight couple or not.

Markgway wrote:Besides because YOU don't think there should be a distinction puts YOU in the minority.

I know. History has proven many times the minority can be ultimately right.

Markgway wrote:The only possible reason for giving the child to a gay couple against the family's wishes was to placate a movement.

Or that they too agree with equal rights. Placate a movement! WTF!

Markgway wrote:Well I guess both Sam and I (and the majority of Brits) are also prejudiced. We're all doomed!!

Majority? You tell me off for going by hunches and you're using them yourself. But yes if you insist, people are.

Markgway wrote:I'm not one of those people who believe gays are a sleazy and corrupting influence if that's what you're thinking of me.

Nope never thought that.

Markgway wrote:Assuming that an obese person will raise an adopted child to be obese is unfair and prejudiced.

Maybe but it's a strong enough likelihood to be taking into consideration.

Markgway wrote:You think an obsese parent is gonna shove cheeseburgers down a thin kid's throat?

Why do you do this? Say such OTT things, knowing full well no one means that.

Markgway wrote:What I'm saying is that you can't just assume that fat parent equals fat kid (or vice versa) anymore than you can gay parent equals gay kid.

Oh you so can, for the reasons I said earlier but clearly you don't understand how sexuality works, so I won't bother explaining it to you.

Markgway wrote:And whilst I do believe most gay people are born that way... I don't believe it's out of the question that lifestyle and background can play a part.

As you honestly believe that I give up trying to explain, quite how wrong you are.

Markgway wrote:If you're raised to believe something (ie. being gay) is normal and routine it's not such a stretch that you might try it for yourself.

That is called experimentation, not what sexuality you're born with. For someone who is usually pretty intelligent, you're being momentously ignorant about this.

I don't think being gay is abnormal, inasfar as I haven't been brought up to believe that, I'd like to think I respect others. But I don't want to try it myself because I'm straight (AFAIK)

bradavon wrote:but clearly you don't understand how sexuality works, so I won't bother explaining it to you.

Awesome Bradness. I can't be bothered responding to the rest because we're just going around in circles. You have your opinions, I have mine. Neither is gonna change.

That is called experimentation, not what sexuality you're born with. For someone who is usually pretty intelligent, you're being momentously ignorant about this.

Why is it Brad that you're almost certainly the only male on this forum who's kissed other men? Are you genetically programmed to experiment? Are you special? Or... is it just possible that your liberal background has allowed you to indulge a curiousity that might otherwise have not reared its head? Gay parents do not make gay children. That's a fact. But it's entirely possible that a child raised in a lifestyle where homosexuality is considered normal would be more likely to develop a want for experimentation even if they're not inherently gay. The chances of a non-gay child raised by a straight couple experimenting is bound to be less... I don't pretend to have statistics or research to prove this. It's just my hunch based on common sense so feel free to disagree.... and I know you will.

Markgway wrote:I can't be bothered responding to the rest because we're just going around in circles. You have your opinions, I have mine. Neither is gonna change.

I was coming to the same conclusion. It's been fun though .

Markgway wrote:Why is it Brad that you're almost certainly the only male on this forum who's kissed other men?

I'm the only one to "admit" to it, as I admit to many things, most wouldn't and yes I am very special, very special indeed.

Markgway wrote:is it just possible that your liberal background has allowed you to indulge a curiousity that might otherwise have not reared its head?

Without fear of losing all/some contact with my friends and family yes. I still cannot believe parents disone their kids of this sort of stuff. A lesbian friend of mine told me, her mother once said "if I knew you were going to be gay. I'd have had an abortion". Naturally she doesn't speak to her mother any more or it's icy when she does.

Markgway wrote:Gay parents do not make gay children. That's a fact.

Now you're getting it, finally. I was starting to think there was no hope.

Markgway wrote:But it's entirely possible that a child raised in a lifestyle where homosexuality is considered normal

I thought we all largely considered it normal? Don't tell me, you think most people still think it's abnormal?

Markgway wrote:The chances of a non-gay child raised by a straight couple experimenting is bound to be less.

It certainly isn't. Millions of kids from straight families, experiment, to simply make that not how it goes.

As long as it's legal, you're not harming anyone and you take the necessary precautions, what's wrong with experimentation anyway?

bradavon wrote:I'm the only one to "admit" to it

So who else do you think has? My money's on Yi-Long.

I still cannot believe parents disone their kids of this sort of stuff.

I wouldn't. Having a gay child might not be on your wish list. But you have to love them just the same. If they're healthy and happy then that's worth celebrating.

A lesbian friend of mine told me, her mother once said "if I knew you were going to be gay. I'd have had an abortion". Naturally she doesn't speak to her mother any more or it's icy when she does.

That's terrible. Disgusting in fact. I would disown the old bitch.

Now you're getting it, finally. I was starting to think there was no hope.

What? I haven't change my position. You just weren't listening.

I thought we all largely considered it normal? Don't tell me, you think most people still think it's abnormal?

It's not "normal" it's acceptable. Most don't consider it "normal" but accept it as part of the human condition. That doesn't make it wrong or immoral. Don't confuse the two. I'm all for freedom of choice but let's not pretend that homosexuality is a natural choice on a par with heterosexuality. If it was the human race would be fucked.

It certainly isn't. Millions of kids from straight families, experiment, to simply make that not how it goes.

What's that second part meant to say?

How many guys do you know who aren't gay experimented with homosexuality when they were young? And of those how many come from similarly liberal pro-homsexual backgrounds such as yours?

As long as it's legal, you're not harming anyone and you take the necessary precautions, what's wrong with experimentation anyway?

Morally, nothing. Legally, nothing. Psychologically, culturally, who knows? Adolescents are a very confused bunch at the best of times, all hormones and hard-ons. Maybe among adults it's no big thing... but for a confused teen they could be more susceptible to misreading feelings and signals........ But I think this is getting away from the original discussion which was about gay parents. Gay parents don't equal gay children. But the absence of a male or female parental role model and nurturer must be considered a factor, even if it turns out to be only a minor one in terms of final development. It's about yin and yang. The balance of sexuality.