Apart from "Homosexual" and "parents" being a contradiction in terms , it's wrong.



Quote:

A LESBIAN mother was stopped from moving her daughter interstate after a court ruled her ex-partner had the same rights as other parents, despite no biological link. The 41-year-old mother had asked the Family Court to grant her sole parental responsibility for the four-year-old girl, conceived via an anonymous sperm donor, noting that her ex-partner was not listed as a parent on the child's birth certificate. But Family Court Justice Paul Cronin disagreed ruling that the women "had equal shared responsibility" for the child. In deciding whether to let the mother relocate the child from Queensland to NSW, Justice Cronin also took into account the girl's relationship as a sister to the second woman's eight-year-old daughter. It was decided the move would not be in the girl's best interests until she was old enough to understand and maintain a long-distance relationship with her non-biological mother and sister. The complex case highlighted the difficulties in dealing with separation of homosexual couples who have one or more children with differing biological relationships. "Much of the judicial history about "relocation" cases has focussed on heterosexual parents where biological connection was clear," Justice Cronin said in his judgement. "This case highlights the reality rather than the abstract of a breakdown of a same-sex relationship into which had been born children by artificial conception procedures to two different mothers." The court heard the mother and her 39-year-old former partner, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were in a committed relationship from January 2002 until early 2008 and lived together in Queensland. During that time the 39-year-old gave birth to a daughter, now aged 8, via IVF using a friend's sperm. Four years later, the 41-year-old woman gave birth to the four-year-old girl, conceived via an anonymous sperm donor. In ruling the women had shared responsibility for both children, Justice Cronin referred to a November 2008 amendment to the Family Law Act which states that if a woman becomes pregnant through artificial insemination and she has a spouse or defacto partner at the time of conception, then they are legally considered to be the second parent of the child regardless of biology. The law is applicable to both heterosexual and lesbian relationships is only considered not relevant if the woman's partner actively objected to his or her partner becoming pregnant. While they lived together as a family, the women both acted as parents to the girls with the children calling one mummy and the other mumma, the court heard. "There is no doubt that to the extent that they can understand the concept, the children not only love each other but also consider themselves to be sisters," Justice Cronin said. "Each child shows love and affection towards their non-biological mother." When the couple separated in 2008 each woman took custody of her own biological child, but the girls continued seeing the other parent on alternate weekends and during school holidays. Almost immediately after the separation, the 41-year-old woman told her former partner of her plan to move with the four-year-old girl to NSW for work and family reasons. But, following Justice Cronin's decision, she will be unable to do that until next year. Justice Cronin ruled that that is when girl, who will then be five-and-a-half, will be old enough to understand her parents separation and be capable of maintaining a relationship with her non-biological mother and sister who she will speak to weekly and visit several times a year. University of Sydney Law Professor Patrick Parkinson said the case was an example of "biology being irrelevant" when it comes to Family Law. "Emotional reality is very different to the legal situation," he said. "Where there isn't a biological connection (between the child and the other parent) it's very easy to say this is my child, not ours. "There are no easy answers to these issues." Professor Parkinson said there were more cases of homosexual couples with children separating coming before the court system. "But overall there are still only a small number of children living in families with same sex parents," he said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/historic-parental-win-for-lesbian/story-e6freoof-1226007262287

I don't have many prejudices, but I do find it hard to reconcile with gay couples having adoption rights. The whole idea seems wrong to me.

I guess you could argue the same about single mothers, but then life is not meant to be perfect.

I know that in this case she's the biological mother, but you'd have to wonder if the child's best interests have been served.  

The only case against homosexual parenting is homophobia. Homophobic views cloud the persons views towards what is best for the children.

For a change, try focusing on what is the best for children rather than the sexuality of parents/potential parents.

There are many same sex people very capable of giving children the very best start in life ... while there are same sex people not suited to parenting. Same as the heterosexual community.

Rather than stereotyping potential parents by their sexuality, it should be one by one, or couple by couple, without their sexuality helping or hindering.

I would put it another way and ask: what is the case for it?
What woody and others just can't see is that, regardless of the worthiness otherwise of the homosexual parent, there is one big strike against them. The question of role model.

muso wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 9:50am:

I don't have many prejudices, but I do find it hard to reconcile with gay couples having adoption rights. The whole idea seems wrong to me. I guess you could argue the same about single mothers, but then life is not meant to be perfect. I know that in this case she's the biological mother, but you'd have to wonder if the child's best interests have been served.

I agree totally.

A quick anecdote whilst here .. a former work colleague (an intelligent and highly qualified woman too I might add) whose lesbian partner underwent artificial insemination and conceived twin boys whilst they were a couple .. is currently in a very awful predicament.

Her partner and her have now split up .. and her partner has taken the twin toddlers interstate to live with a new lesbian partner. The move was made without her approval/consent. She is unable to see the children who she regards her own (even though biologically they are not hers).

As if that isn't enough .. the biological father is now on the scene and is involved in the bitter feuding and costly Family Law proceedings.

Bottom line? It's a very ugly, messy, confusing and costly affair. It's bad enough when 2 parents are fighting for custody .. can you imagine what it must be like for THREE parents fighting for custody of 2 toddlers who have no idea wtf is going on and who is who. There are 3 solicitors and 3 barristers involved now .. so the legal fraternity is doing well out of this tragedy.

The colleague in question is now a former colleague because she has since suffered a nervous breakdown on a/c of all the stress and is no longer able to work. She is presently on Centrelink benefits as a result and her career is on hold .. possibly for ever.

Food for thought.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

I would put it another way and ask: what is the case for it? What woody and others just can't see is that, regardless of the worthiness otherwise of the homosexual parent, there is one big strike against them. The question of role model.

Role Model, this is a homophobic view implying same sex people can not obtain a loving environment for a child to feel safe, loved and have the potential to blossom into a full functioning adult on all levels. Your post reveals your ignorance, bogard, considering some heterosexuals are not very good role models. It comes down to case by case, not just a big homophobic stereotyping.


If some posters where serious about what was in the best for children, they would of started a thread on child rearing rather than just a full on attack against all gay parents.

The question of role model:

Heterosexual couple with 3 kids. Mother on pension and father on the dole. kids range between 14 and 5.  Fat slag sits at home all day doing nothing except drinking grog and watching all the soaps. The kids live in a filthy house and are under feed and most of the time look like they just got out of bed.  The eldest daughter is so rough and wild that she would probably give you a blow job for $2.  The 2 little boys look like rats and are skittish. The old man is a crack addict.

Fantastic heterosexual role models.

look, the homos cant have kids.
nature states that, not me.
If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them

about 2 - 4 % of population are homo.
Few of that want kids.
What %age are we spending millions on to grant them something nature says "NO" to ?????

culldav wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

The question of role model: Heterosexual couple with 3 kids. Mother on pension and father on the dole. kids range between 14 and 5.  Fat slag sits at home all day doing nothing except drinking grog and watching all the soaps. The kids live in a filthy house and are under feed and most of the time look like they just got out of bed.  The eldest daughter is so rough and wild that she would probably give you a blow job for $2.  The 2 little boys look like rats and are skittish. The old man is a crack addict. Fantastic heterosexual role models.

And of course, no homosexual could be a dole bludging crack addict.

culldav wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

The question of role model: Heterosexual couple with 3 kids. Mother on pension and father on the dole. kids range between 14 and 5.  Fat slag sits at home all day doing nothing except drinking grog and watching all the soaps. The kids live in a filthy house and are under feed and most of the time look like they just got out of bed.  The eldest daughter is so rough and wild that she would probably give you a blow job for $2.  The 2 little boys look like rats and are skittish. The old man is a crack addict. Fantastic heterosexual role models.

You appear to know this family personally Culldav given you are posting so much detail. Right?

culldav prob haggles over the $2 quote

A cursory glance at his post reveals he knows the family in question Sprint; I'm waiting for him to confirm it.

You're wrong, sprintcyclist, about few wanting them.
They increasingly want them like they want to be married in Westminster Abbey because its a flag they can wave to say we're going to change this society to the way we want it.

I have a few gay friends with kids. They are without exception loving parents who dote on their children.

Sprint, are you against IVF for infertile hetero couples?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:27am:

look, the homos cant have kids. nature states that, not me. If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them about 2 - 4 % of population are homo. Few of that want kids. What %age are we spending millions on to grant them something nature says "NO" to ?????

Will you be applying the same to any person who wishes to conceive a child through unnatural causes?

it depends, kingsprintcyclist would have to look in a case by case basis.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:27am:

look, the homos cant have kids. nature states that, not me. If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them about 2 - 4 % of population are homo. Few of that want kids. What %age are we spending millions on to grant them something nature says "NO" to ?????

NO
We AREN'T  



Sydney IVF does not refuse treatment to women because of marital status or sexual orientation. Single women and lesbian couples are welcome and treated with care and respect.


Will Medicare pay?

Medicare covers the treatment of IVF for medical infertility. If your doctor deems that your treatment is not for medical infertility (as is the case for many lesbian couples), then you will not receive a rebate.
Some other treatments, such as surrogacy, are also not covered by Medicare. It's best to check with your doctor at the start.

Patients who are not Australian citzens or residents are welcome at Sydney IVF, but are not covered by Medicare.


http://www.sydneyivf.com/Assistedconception/InVitroFertilisationIVF/WhocanhaveIVF/tabid/384/Default.aspx

What's your attitude to adoption by homosexuals buzz, if you are prepared to share it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

culldav prob haggles over the $2 quote

Oh smacking LOL sprinty, thats actually funny. ;D ;D ;D Are you sure you're a kiwi?

First off, it depends of what your definition of “knowing” someone is.  The family live a few houses down from my nephews rented place, and they are well known with a substantial community reputation.  

These 2 adults in question should have been sterilised at birth, and didn’t deserve to have children. These 3 kids deserved to be raised in a loving caring home, not a hell hole.

My point was that heterosexual families are not the only beacon for role models for happy family units, and that there is good and bad in all society units.

Shouldn’t the emphasis be placed on who can provide a child with a happy secure loving home & environment regardless of sexuality?  

Even the most long-term loving relationships break up sometimes and the children of these families are left living in homes where there is only a male or female parent.

If children are raised in single male and female heterosexual homes, then what’s the difference with them being raise in same sex homes?

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 1:26pm:

What's your attitude to adoption by homosexuals buzz, if you are prepared to share it.

I don't have a problem with it

Fostering is encouraged - and not un-common
I've personally seen a couple of kids brought up by same sex parents
There are no "issues" that come up that don't come up with hetrosexual child rearing

If a same sex couple meet the adoption criteria, I see no reason for any further barriers

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

I would put it another way and ask: what is the case for it? What woody and others just can't see is that, regardless of the worthiness otherwise of the homosexual parent, there is one big strike against them. The question of role model.

Sorry, bogarde, but the overriding concern in adoptive or foster parents (or even biological parenting) is and should be the welfare of the child/children.....

And the question of 'role models' would still apply equally to a single parent family..

culldav wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

First off, it depends of what your definition of “knowing” someone is.  The family live a few houses down from my nephews rented place, and they are well known with a substantial community reputation.   These 2 adults in question should have been sterilised at birth, and didn’t deserve to have children. These 3 kids deserved to be raised in a loving caring home, not a hell hole. My point was that heterosexual families are not the only beacon for role models for happy family units, and that there is good and bad in all society units. Shouldn’t the emphasis be placed on who can provide a child with a happy secure loving home & environment regardless of sexuality?   Even the most long-term loving relationships break up sometimes and the children of these families are left living in homes where there is only a male or female parent. If children are raised in single male and female heterosexual homes, then what’s the difference with them being raise in same sex homes?

Yes, but they have to be able to provide a child with life in the first place.  

A gay male can provide sperm and a gay female can provide a egg, and the combination can create life, can it not?  

culldav wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

A gay male can provide sperm and a gay female can provide a egg, and the combination can create life, can it not?

Of course it can, if they can bring themselves to do the deed. I couldn't root a bloke no matter what, and I assume the sentiment is much the same to a gay bloke rooting a shiela.

culldav wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

A gay male can provide sperm and a gay female can provide a egg, and the combination can create life, can it not?

Happens fairly regularly at the moment anyway...Both ways too....lots of gay male couples use a gay female as a surrogate for adoption and lots of gay female couples use a gay male as a sperm donor for in vivo ( or in vitro) fertilisations...

So technically, gay couples CAN have children..as can sterile heterosexual couples..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:27am:

[quote]look, the homos cant have kids. nature states that, not me. If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them

When you get right down to it...'nature' says we aren't meant to do lots of things...

Nature states we aren't supposed to travel faster than 44.72km/h (the fastest human running speed) but we all travel at speeds over 100 km'h, in cars
Nature states we aren't supposed to fly, but we fly in planes..

Nature states we aren't supposed to live past 70...but we do, due to medical knowledge and surgery...

Nature says we aren't supposed to do lots of things, but our scientific skills allow us to....so why should reproduction be any different????

I personally think it entirely depends on the individuals, and everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but they should stay out of other people personal business and private decision making.

Nature is a fantastic teacher, but it also indicates that only 3% of the species on this planet are monogamous.  Being human being we something have to look out side the square.

I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :)
Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts.
There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments.
I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :)

I will never, ever, ever support homosexual people being allowed to be parents of children.

It is an intolerable situation and flies in the face of everything for which I stand.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

I will never, ever, ever support homosexual people being allowed to be parents of children. It is an intolerable situation and flies in the face of everything for which I stand.

Ok Andrei...thanks for being honest...
And for not using bogus arguments to try to justify it..

Andrei,

So what happens when a heterosexual family man suddenly turns gay? Does mean he should no longer be allowed to be a parent to his children? What happens when a heterosexual female turns gay? Does that mean she should be no longer allowed to be a parent to her children?

What exactly is your problem with gay people parenting children?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:37pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 10:27am: [quote]look, the homos cant have kids. nature states that, not me. If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them When you get right down to it...'nature' says we aren't meant to do lots of things... Nature states we aren't supposed to travel faster than 44.72km/h (the fastest human running speed) but we all travel at speeds over 100 km'h, in cars Nature states we aren't supposed to fly, but we fly in planes.. Nature states we aren't supposed to live past 70...but we do, due to medical knowledge and surgery... Nature says we aren't supposed to do lots of things, but our scientific skills allow us to....so why should reproduction be any different????

All those examples benefit us in some way.  What's the net benefit to homos reproducing aginst the will of nature?  Greater over population?Hardly beneficial.

skippy. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 10:34am: culldav prob haggles over the $2 quote Oh smacking LOL sprinty, thats actually funny. ;D ;D ;D Are you sure you're a kiwi?

Save your $2 culldav.

Skippy doing it  free. He needs the practice as the Mardi Gras is coming up.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :) Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts. There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments. I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :)

Is there any argument FOR gay marrtaige/breeding/adoption that doesn't rely on a compariosn between the best of gays and the worst of heterosexuals?  Be alot more convincing if we could compare apples with apples.

... wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:37pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 10:27am: [quote]look, the homos cant have kids. nature states that, not me. If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them When you get right down to it...'nature' says we aren't meant to do lots of things... Nature states we aren't supposed to travel faster than 44.72km/h (the fastest human running speed) but we all travel at speeds over 100 km'h, in cars Nature states we aren't supposed to fly, but we fly in planes.. Nature states we aren't supposed to live past 70...but we do, due to medical knowledge and surgery... Nature says we aren't supposed to do lots of things, but our scientific skills allow us to....so why should reproduction be any different???? All those examples benefit us in some way.  What's the net benefit to homos reproducing aginst the will of nature?  Greater over population?Hardly beneficial.

No, the benefit is (or might be) safer, better homes for the children in question...

All that is 'needed' is the same requirements for gay adoptive parents as are used for hetero adoptive parents...no more, no less...

Unless a gay/lesbian couple is trying to adopt/kidnap one of your kids I doubt it will ever effect anyone here, unless one of those kids becomes a surgeon and saves your life  :)
Where as the intergenerational unemployed kids will probabaly end up breaking into your house flogging the stuff you have worked hard for and using your car for a toilet/drug den.

I have no problem with any loving, hard working parents gay or straight bringing up kids but I would sterilise everyone living 20kms outside of all our capital cities unless of course they can produce evidence of a high income, good housing and a tertiary education   ;)

<<So what happens when a heterosexual family man suddenly turns gay?>>


Umm don't the p00fs claim to be born as p00fs not suddenly turn p00f.

whatsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

<<So what happens when a heterosexual family man suddenly turns gay?>> Umm don't the p00fs claim to be born as p00fs not suddenly turn p00f.

It depends on the age, societal position and family background....Lots of people realise, later in life, that they're gay and decide to move to a gay lifestyle...

Well Wesley I am trying to show that there are wealthy, poor, good, bad, loving, resentfull, selfish, giving, uneducated, educated, ignorant, invloved etc  parents out there and their sexuality has no influence on who they are as a person or a parent.

... wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:04pm: I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :) Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts. There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments. I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :) Is there any argument FOR gay marrtaige/breeding/adoption that doesn't rely on a compariosn between the best of gays and the worst of heterosexuals?  Be alot more convincing if we could compare apples with apples.

Wesley...WHY does there need to be???
The couple who can provide the 'best' life for the child should be the ONLY criteria...Which is better in your mind....a hetero couple, made up of an alcoholic mother and paedophile father, OR a gay couple made up of 2 loving, non addicted, non paedophillic parents (male OR female)???

You will find whatsforme that some gay/lesbian people struggle with their identity when they are young so they get married have kids etc.
They may for example be afraid of being judged, ostresised from their families etc
Its only as they get older and wiser that they feel they can be themselves/come out.
They are not suddenly gay/lesbian, they have just taken awhile to come to terms with their sexuality and to trust the people around them.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:25pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:04pm: I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :) Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts. There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments. I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :) Is there any argument FOR gay marrtaige/breeding/adoption that doesn't rely on a compariosn between the best of gays and the worst of heterosexuals?  Be alot more convincing if we could compare apples with apples. Wesley...WHY does there need to be??? The couple who can provide the 'best' life for the child should be the ONLY criteria...Which is better in your mind....a hetero couple, made up of an alcoholic mother and paedophile father, OR a gay couple made up of 2 loving, non addicted, non paedophillic parents (male OR female)???

Ahaaa but gays are 'just like you and I' aren't they?
So if that's the case, the gay couple are just as likely to be alcoholic paedophiles aren't they?

Let's face it, the 'queue' for adoption is waaaaay longer than the children available for adoption.  

Of course, if they can make their own child, how could I object?

adelcrow wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:36pm:

You will find whatsforme that some gay/lesbian people struggle with their identity when they are young so they get married have kids etc. They may for example be afraid of being judged, ostresised from their families etc Its only as they get older and wiser that they feel they can be themselves/come out. They are not suddenly gay/lesbian, they have just taken awhile to come to terms with their sexuality and to trust the people around them.

I can see your point but I would think buzz and greensnake would rather top themselves than end up in bed with a naked woman and have to do the deed.

... wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:33pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:25pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:04pm: I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :) Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts. There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments. I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :) Is there any argument FOR gay marrtaige/breeding/adoption that doesn't rely on a compariosn between the best of gays and the worst of heterosexuals?  Be alot more convincing if we could compare apples with apples. Wesley...WHY does there need to be??? The couple who can provide the 'best' life for the child should be the ONLY criteria...Which is better in your mind....a hetero couple, made up of an alcoholic mother and paedophile father, OR a gay couple made up of 2 loving, non addicted, non paedophillic parents (male OR female)??? Ahaaa but gays are 'just like you and I' aren't they? So if that's the case, the gay couple are just as likely to be alcoholic paedophiles aren't they?Let's face it, the 'queue' for adoption is waaaaay longer than the children available for adoption.   Of course, if they can make their own child, how could I object?

That's my point...Judge the prospective parents by their behaviour, not their sexuality...

If the parents are alcoholic,druggies or paedophilles, refuse them, irrespective of the parents sexual preferences...Why is it 'better' to allow drunk, or druggie or paedophile parents to adopt...JUST because they're heterosexual, when there are gay parents willing to adopt, who aren't alcoholics, druggies or paedophiles?????.....Do you see my point?? it's better to allow an upstanding, 'clean' couple to adopt, no matter their sexuality than it is to put the children at risk...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:33pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:25pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:04pm: I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :) Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts. There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments. I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :) Is there any argument FOR gay marrtaige/breeding/adoption that doesn't rely on a compariosn between the best of gays and the worst of heterosexuals?  Be alot more convincing if we could compare apples with apples. Wesley...WHY does there need to be??? The couple who can provide the 'best' life for the child should be the ONLY criteria...Which is better in your mind....a hetero couple, made up of an alcoholic mother and paedophile father, OR a gay couple made up of 2 loving, non addicted, non paedophillic parents (male OR female)??? Ahaaa but gays are 'just like you and I' aren't they? So if that's the case, the gay couple are just as likely to be alcoholic paedophiles aren't they?Let's face it, the 'queue' for adoption is waaaaay longer than the children available for adoption.   Of course, if they can make their own child, how could I object? That's my point...Judge the prospective parents by their behaviour, not their sexuality... If the parents are alcoholic,druggies or paedophilles, refuse them, irrespective of the parents sexual preferences...Why is it 'better' to allow drunk, or druggie or paedophile parents to adopt...JUST because they're heterosexual, when there are gay parents willing to adopt, who aren't alcoholics, druggies or paedophiles?????.....Do you see my point?? it's better to allow an upstanding, 'clean' couple to adopt, no matter their sexuality than it is to put the children at risk...

They don't!!!!! theres a rigorous screening process!

Double post.

oops

Actually you will find advertising agencies "profiling" of long term gay and lesbian couples show them to be on average higher achieving, highly educated, higher incomes, better travelled, happier with their lives and much more involved in community issues than the average straight couple. So in that sense they are a little different  :P

adelcrow wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 4:35pm:

Actually you will find advertising agencies "profiling" of long term gay and lesbian couples show them to be on average higher achieving, highly educated, higher incomes, better travelled, happier with their lives and much more involved in community issues than the average straight couple. So in that sense they are a little different  :P

You'll also find they are more probe to STD's, drug abuse and suicide....but we're not allowed to mention that.  

It is true to say that established loving gay/lesbian couples are less likely to be victims of spouse abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, suicide and venereal diseases.
In fact straight men in rurual areas have much higher stats when it comes to all of the above.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 4:55pm:

It is true to say that established loving gay/lesbian couples are less likely to be victims of spouse abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, suicide and venereal diseases. In fact straight men in rurual areas have much higher stats when it comes to all of the above.

Gay and Lesbian domestic violence
Data on domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships in Australia is
almost non-existent. McQuarrie (1995, p. 39) states, ‘although no research
has ever been done, guesttimates suggest that up to 25% of same-sex
relationships could be affected.’ Others have also commented that
prevalence rates are not dissimilar to those in heterosexual relationships.
Papers from the First National Conference on Violence and Abuse within
Lesbian Relationships (Irwin 1997) highlighted that it has been difficult to talk
about violence within relationships within the lesbian community, let alone the
broader community, and that there is little documented evidence available.
The NSW Police Service Out of the Blue report (Thompson 1995) provided
details of the experiences of violence of gay men and lesbian through a
survey administered at Mardi Gras Fair Day in 1994:
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Topic Paper:
Australian Statistics on Domestic Violence
13
• 5% of lesbians and 5% of gay men who responded to the survey,
stated they had experienced domestic violence within the previous 12
months.
• Barriers to reporting incidents to the police were highlighted with many
reporting that there was little they thought the police could do.
• Results also indicated that lesbians expressed higher fear levels about
sexual assault and domestic violence than gay men and that they were
twice as fearful of experiencing domestic violence than the general
female population.
http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDFfiles/Statistics_final.pdf

School's Out: Homosexuality, Bullying and Suicide

Heidi Gilchrist, Glennys Howarth and Gerard Sullivan

University of Sydney

Suicide is now the leading cause of death by injury in Australia ahead of car accidents and homicide, and it is the largest single cause of death in Australian men. In recent years, several reports have linked homosexual orientation to youth suicide. Studies estimate nearly 30 percent of gay youths attempt suicide (Nicholas and Howard, 1998), but the complex relationship between the two has not been studied. This paper, therefore, focuses on the cultural context of suicide and asks questions about how it comes to be constructed as an option for young people experiencing harassment due to sexual orientation. The data are based primarily on interviewee responses to a scenario that describes the experiences of Chris, a young person, who confides in a teacher that s/he is considering suicide due to the marginalization s/he feels as a result of a gay identity. This paper explores the views of young people, teachers, youth counsellors, parents and community leaders about the role of school communities and key actors within them in the development of this situation and their role in overcoming it. The paper concludes with an investigation of implications for pastoral care of gay youths and professional practice in schools.

http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/gil02454.htm

Alcohol and drug use among homosexual men and women: epidemiology and population characteristics.
McKirnan DJ, Peterson PL.

University of Illinois, Department of Psychology, Chicago 60680.

Abstract
Homosexual men and women have been described as at high risk for alcohol and drug abuse, due to psychosocial variables such as stress levels or the cultural importance of bar settings. However, there are few actual data in this regard. This paper presents the findings of a large (n = 3400) survey of a homosexual population regarding population characteristics and patterns of alcohol and drug use. Psychosocial variables that may account for substance use patterns both generally and in this population are discussed in an accompanying paper. Substantially higher proportions of the homosexual sample used alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine than was the case in the general population. Contrary to other reports, this was not accompanied by higher rates of heavy use, although homosexuals did show higher rates of alcohol problems. In the general population women consume less drugs and alcohol than do men, and substance use substantially declines with age. Neither of these patterns were found for the homosexual sample, thus creating overall higher rates of substance abuse. This may reflect differences between homosexuals and the general population in their adherence to sex-role stereotypes and age-related social role changes, as well as culturally specific stressors and vulnerability to substance use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589133

It all points to older gays and lesbians in stable loving relationships as being as good a parents as any straight couple.
What are the comparisons to men in rural areas where suicide, violence and drug and alcochol abuse are in almost epidemic proportions.

I dont usually pay much attention to stuff plucked from the internet because quite honestly two people could go back and forth for years posting opposing uni papers plucked from almost anywhere.
University papers are usually the worse way to prove a point..I dont know anyone who has a tertiary education who would wipe their bums with a paper that came out of a uni.
Unless of course it was by an internationally respected expert in the particular field, otherwise its just a lecturer or a student dribbling on looking for brownie points  :)
I am always happy to consider studies done by respected, experienced; experts in the field

oops..and only Australian studies  '
There are many factors in the USA that make their stats pretty useless when taken outside of the USA   :)

If you're going to make claims about how superior gays are, I don't need to look too hard to 'prove' otherwise.

They might be just as good PEOPLE, but as for being just as good PARENTS...well, one could debate whether they are really parents at all.

Quote:

They don't!!!!! theres a rigorous screening process

Yes THAT is exactly my point...as long as the SAME screening process is used, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter about the sexual preference...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

Quote: They don't!!!!! theres a rigorous screening process Yes THAT is exactly my point...as long as the SAME screening process is used, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter about the sexual preference...

Well if it came down to 2 'equally qualified' couples (whatever that means) one hetero, one homo, you'd hafta go hetero every time, for the childs sake.  And since the queue is so full with caring, stable heterosexual couples anyway, it'd be a very rare occurrence indeed for the homos to win out.

Of course, if history tells us anything, they'd just sue, claiming discrimination until they got their little trophy.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

I dare say Elton Johns child is going to have a far richer life than long term unemployed outer suburbs Bob and Brenda's kids  :) Being gay or straight makes no difference its the love of the parents that counts. There are highly educated gay's and lesbian's with good careers that are financially secure that have a far greater prospect of bringing up loved, well rounded and successfull children than the typical intergenerational unemployed bogans in the outer suburbs that pump out kids by the dozen for the welfare payments. I say lets ban the long term unemployed from breeding before we get stuck into the gay and lesbian community  :)

As someone who supports gays right to access IVF, you couldnt have used a worse example if you tried.  Elton is far to old to be having children, and his child faces a childhood with potentially without his father because Elton is entering the later stages in his life.

Eltons act was a selfish one.

He should have done it 20 years ago and his child would have been far richer for the experience.

But Verge - you are a christian & homosexuality is a sin.


Leviticus 20:

Quote:

13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

But Verge - you are a christian & homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 20: Quote: 13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

A Christian follows the word of Christin the Christian Holy Bible

Not the word of Jewish scholars in the Torah

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

But Verge - you are a christian & homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 20: Quote: 13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Who said I was a christian?

And who said christanity is always right?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 8:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 8:26pm: But Verge - you are a christian & homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 20: Quote: 13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. A Christian follows the word of Christin the Christian Holy Bible Not the word of Jewish scholars in the Torah

Sorry Buzz - the old laws in the Torah are still binding.
Jesus himself said so:

Matthew 5:

Quote:

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:

Quote:

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And this has WHAT to do with JC's stance on sexuality ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

Matthew 5: Quote: [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. And this has WHAT to do with JC's stance on sexuality ?

Jesus was upholding the old laws.

One of them is in Leviticus.

Leviticus 20:
Quote:

Quote:

13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

bobby - jesus upheld the law.
the law was, when a sin was committed, a penalty applied.

Everyone sins.
Except jesus, so he paid for the sins for everyone.
therefore, the law is not broken. it is fulfilled.
The penalty has been paid, sinners are not condemned to the penalty.

it's a bit broarder than you may think.
ask in the spirituality forum if you wish.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

bobby - jesus upheld the law. the law was, when a sin was committed, a penalty applied. Everyone sins. Except jesus, so he paid for the sins for everyone. therefore, the law is not broken. it is fulfilled. The penalty has been paid, sinners are not condemned to the penalty. it's a bit broarder than you may think. ask in the spirituality forum if you wish.

Bible bashers always argue  about what fulfil means
but some more passages drive the point home.



In answer to you I quote this:

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Quote:

“Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!”   New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:    I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations.  This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god.  Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes.  I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!  After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws. 1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so. 2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB) 3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB) 3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB) 3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB) 4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10 NAB) 5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7) 6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27) 7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18 8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17). 9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

whatsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:24pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 1:34pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 10:34am: culldav prob haggles over the $2 quote Oh smacking LOL sprinty, thats actually funny. ;D ;D ;D Are you sure you're a kiwi? Save your $2 culldav. Skippy doing it  free. He needs the practice as the Mardi Gras is coming up.

Roo boy has to compete with the skank up the road from my nephews joint, as she a tounge ring and swallows.   ;D

bobby - yes, the law of the jews is not broken.
it is still relevant, for jews.

christianity fulfils the law.
the law is not wrong, people do sin, and spiritually penalties apply.

member, often the penalty is the sacrifice of a lamb ?
jesus is termed "the lamb of God."
He is our sacrifice for our sins.
the law is correct and fulfilled.

start a thread in the spiritual forum, if it please you.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 12:02am:

bobby - yes, the law of the jews is not broken. it is still relevant, for jews. christianity fulfils the law. the law is not wrong, people do sin, and spiritually penalties apply. member, often the penalty is the sacrifice of a lamb ? jesus is termed "the lamb of God." He is our sacrifice for our sins. the law is correct and fulfilled. start a thread in the spiritual forum, if it please you.

Maybe - but really you didn't read what I posted
& I don't think anyone will there either.
I just wanted to remind christians about homosexuality -
it's a sin punished by death & eternal torment in hellfire & damnation - that's all.
I like to educate the misinformed - I should be paid for it.

Quote:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

matthew 7:1-3

what a peanut brained quote

how can i make sense of the world if i cant judge anybody

bible is garbage

I agree with you for once Abu, the bible does not exist in actuality, only in bs words.
Unfortunately for you, that premise also makes the quran redundant. What say you there?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

muso wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 9:50am: I don't have many prejudices, but I do find it hard to reconcile with gay couples having adoption rights. The whole idea seems wrong to me. I guess you could argue the same about single mothers, but then life is not meant to be perfect. I know that in this case she's the biological mother, but you'd have to wonder if the child's best interests have been served.   I agree totally. A quick anecdote whilst here .. a former work colleague (an intelligent and highly qualified woman too I might add) whose lesbian partner underwent artificial insemination and conceived twin boys whilst they were a couple .. is currently in a very awful predicament. Her partner and her have now split up .. and her partner has taken the twin toddlers interstate to live with a new lesbian partner. The move was made without her approval/consent. She is unable to see the children who she regards her own (even though biologically they are not hers). As if that isn't enough .. the biological father is now on the scene and is involved in the bitter feuding and costly Family Law proceedings. Bottom line? It's a very ugly, messy, confusing and costly affair. It's bad enough when 2 parents are fighting for custody .. can you imagine what it must be like for THREE parents fighting for custody of 2 toddlers who have no idea wtf is going on and who is who. There are 3 solicitors and 3 barristers involved now .. so the legal fraternity is doing well out of this tragedy. The colleague in question is now a former colleague because she has since suffered a nervous breakdown on a/c of all the stress and is no longer able to work. She is presently on Centrelink benefits as a result and her career is on hold .. possibly for ever. Food for thought.

lisa this is life..we see this played out all the time.. what makes anyone think homosexuals will never split I will never know..and this will be very much a female problem..as males are not so inclind to go the child route.

this judge got it right.

I too know of gay couples that are having these problems..not that one has taken the children out of the State.. but this business of stopping one partner having access. is becoming very common.. woman as we know can be very nasty and bitter.when it comes to stopping partners rights.

who puts the kids rights first?? we need a court to work that out.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 11:38pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:29pm: bobby - jesus upheld the law. the law was, when a sin was committed, a penalty applied. Everyone sins. Except jesus, so he paid for the sins for everyone. therefore, the law is not broken. it is fulfilled. The penalty has been paid, sinners are not condemned to the penalty. it's a bit broarder than you may think. ask in the spirituality forum if you wish. Bible bashers always argue  about what fulfil means but some more passages drive the point home. In answer to you I quote this: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm Quote: “Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!”   New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:    I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations.  This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god.  Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes.  I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!  After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws. 1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so. 2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB) 3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB) 3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB) 3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB) 4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10 NAB) 5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7) 6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27) 7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18 8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17). 9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Any thoughts?

test

Mate your buddy Lisa is a bible thumper.
What do you reckon about that?
She hates science mate.

Christianity - "The Religion of Convenience"



Feel free to "come out" on matters of sexual orientation

But it's back "in the closet" at the sight of a refugee

Cods, you hit the hail on the head again.  Courts have to start putting the rights and wellbeing of the child over the emotions turmoil of relationship separations when making their decisions.

Some gay people make brilliant parents and some heterosexual people make brilliant parents.  

Religion; the weapon of nut jobs.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 8:15am:

Mate your buddy Lisa is a bible thumper. What do you reckon about that? She hates science mate.

Lisa is not a Bible thumper - I am - when it suits my arguments.
Lisa loves science.
I am a scientist.

The Bible clearly states that all, homosexuals should be killed.
Read back in this thread for the proof.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 7:45am:

Any thoughts?

Yes, you have just as strong a grasp of theology as you have of planetary science.

- and you really have a strong fascination with religion. I recommend the priesthood for you.

bobby - yes, my thoughts are the same as last time.

the torah is still relevant . It applies to jews.

the law was still valid to jesus. he fulfilled all the laws.
the penalties for sins for everyone is paid.

it's as though you get fined by a judge, then someone else pays the fine.
By the judge, that's ok.

we need not be held to the spriitual death that sins bind us to.
jesus cleared that debt.

Thanks mate.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:08am:

bobby - yes, my thoughts are the same as last time. the torah is still relevant . It applies to jews. the law was still valid to jesus. he fulfilled all the laws. the penalties for sins for everyone is paid. it's as though you get fined by a judge, then someone else pays the fine. By the judge, that's ok. we need not be held to the spriitual death that sins bind us to. jesus cleared that debt. Thanks mate.

That might be true  but it still means that the old laws in the Torah are still binding!
The punishments still stand!

I dont see how the bible is relevant to the law, when there is clearly a separation between the commonwealth and christanity.

Its irrelevant.  The bible is so contridictory for a start that in itself is enough to know it isnt the be-all end all.

I found it fasinating that even father Bob came out and said he would perform civil unions happily, just not in the Church itself since they still have rules on it.  I say good on him, he has enough respect for the Church to not perform it in their house, yet enough self  respect to stand by his convictions and support equality.

Where is the issue? Two parents are raising a child, they split up and the court has granted them both access to the child.

It is irrelevant that they both happen to be females, if you ask me.

Vanessa wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

Where is the issue? Two parents are raising a child, they split up and the court has granted them both access to the child. It is irrelevant that they both happen to be females, if you ask me.

Not according to the principles of christians & muslims.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

Vanessa wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:30pm: Where is the issue? Two parents are raising a child, they split up and the court has granted them both access to the child. It is irrelevant that they both happen to be females, if you ask me. Not according to the principles of christians & muslims.

So who actually 'cares' about the principles of christians & muslims.......apart FROM christians & muslims, of course???

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:47am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 10:08am: bobby - yes, my thoughts are the same as last time. the torah is still relevant . It applies to jews. the law was still valid to jesus. he fulfilled all the laws. the penalties for sins for everyone is paid. it's as though you get fined by a judge, then someone else pays the fine. By the judge, that's ok. we need not be held to the spriitual death that sins bind us to. jesus cleared that debt. Thanks mate. That might be true  but it still means that the old laws in the Torah are still binding! The punishments still stand!

they are binding - to jews.
they are not binding to non-jews

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

Apart from "Homosexual" and "parents" being a contradiction in terms , it's wrong. Quote: A LESBIAN mother was stopped from moving her daughter interstate after a court ruled her ex-partner had the same rights as other parents, despite no biological link. The 41-year-old mother had asked the Family Court to grant her sole parental responsibility for the four-year-old girl, conceived via an anonymous sperm donor, noting that her ex-partner was not listed as a parent on the child's birth certificate. But Family Court Justice Paul Cronin disagreed ruling that the women "had equal shared responsibility" for the child. In deciding whether to let the mother relocate the child from Queensland to NSW, Justice Cronin also took into account the girl's relationship as a sister to the second woman's eight-year-old daughter. It was decided the move would not be in the girl's best interests until she was old enough to understand and maintain a long-distance relationship with her non-biological mother and sister. The complex case highlighted the difficulties in dealing with separation of homosexual couples who have one or more children with differing biological relationships. "Much of the judicial history about "relocation" cases has focussed on heterosexual parents where biological connection was clear," Justice Cronin said in his judgement. "This case highlights the reality rather than the abstract of a breakdown of a same-sex relationship into which had been born children by artificial conception procedures to two different mothers." The court heard the mother and her 39-year-old former partner, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were in a committed relationship from January 2002 until early 2008 and lived together in Queensland. During that time the 39-year-old gave birth to a daughter, now aged 8, via IVF using a friend's sperm. Four years later, the 41-year-old woman gave birth to the four-year-old girl, conceived via an anonymous sperm donor. In ruling the women had shared responsibility for both children, Justice Cronin referred to a November 2008 amendment to the Family Law Act which states that if a woman becomes pregnant through artificial insemination and she has a spouse or defacto partner at the time of conception, then they are legally considered to be the second parent of the child regardless of biology. The law is applicable to both heterosexual and lesbian relationships is only considered not relevant if the woman's partner actively objected to his or her partner becoming pregnant. While they lived together as a family, the women both acted as parents to the girls with the children calling one mummy and the other mumma, the court heard. "There is no doubt that to the extent that they can understand the concept, the children not only love each other but also consider themselves to be sisters," Justice Cronin said. "Each child shows love and affection towards their non-biological mother." When the couple separated in 2008 each woman took custody of her own biological child, but the girls continued seeing the other parent on alternate weekends and during school holidays. Almost immediately after the separation, the 41-year-old woman told her former partner of her plan to move with the four-year-old girl to NSW for work and family reasons. But, following Justice Cronin's decision, she will be unable to do that until next year. Justice Cronin ruled that that is when girl, who will then be five-and-a-half, will be old enough to understand her parents separation and be capable of maintaining a relationship with her non-biological mother and sister who she will speak to weekly and visit several times a year. University of Sydney Law Professor Patrick Parkinson said the case was an example of "biology being irrelevant" when it comes to Family Law. "Emotional reality is very different to the legal situation," he said. "Where there isn't a biological connection (between the child and the other parent) it's very easy to say this is my child, not ours. "There are no easy answers to these issues." Professor Parkinson said there were more cases of homosexual couples with children separating coming before the court system. "But overall there are still only a small number of children living in families with same sex parents," he said. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/historic-parental-win-for-lesbian/story-e6freoof-1226007262287

This is no different to heterosexual couples. Cuddy adopted a kid that House is getting attached to, even though he claims he isn't and is just acknowledging her skill in lying.

Homosexual parents? To be a parent requires the heterosexual 'congress of the antelope'. Homosexuals can't be parents unless they have first performed it. The homosexual 'congress of the (your image of degradation here)' is no substitute. It don't work, parenting-wise.

Soren wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Homosexual parents? To be a parent requires the heterosexual 'congress of the antelope'. Homosexuals can't be parents unless they have first performed it. The homosexual 'congress of the (your image of degradation here)' is no substitute. It don't work, parenting-wise.

What about those whose sexuality varies either on a short or long term basis ? There are several possible options here
- They started straight and went around a corner a bit later in life, or they sit on the fence (and I know that sitting on the fence on its own doesn't normally result in conception)
- or they skip from one side of the fence to the other depending on whether the moon is in the seventh house And Jupiter aligns with Mars.

We tend to have black and white views about subjects we're not familiar with. I do the same, but I doubt if it's as simple as we think.

You left out the turkey baster option. It is not completely unnatural.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 10:47am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 10:08am: bobby - yes, my thoughts are the same as last time. the torah is still relevant . It applies to jews. the law was still valid to jesus. he fulfilled all the laws. the penalties for sins for everyone is paid. it's as though you get fined by a judge, then someone else pays the fine. By the judge, that's ok. we need not be held to the spriitual death that sins bind us to. jesus cleared that debt. Thanks mate. That might be true  but it still means that the old laws in the Torah are still binding! The punishments still stand! they are binding - to jews. they are not binding to non-jews

Rubbish - you didn't even read what I posted.
See the link here again:

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

This time read it before you shoot your mouth off.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

You left out the turkey baster option. It is not completely unnatural.

I had to Google that - but yes, quite.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 3:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 10:47am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 10:08am: bobby - yes, my thoughts are the same as last time. the torah is still relevant . It applies to jews. the law was still valid to jesus. he fulfilled all the laws. the penalties for sins for everyone is paid. it's as though you get fined by a judge, then someone else pays the fine. By the judge, that's ok. we need not be held to the spriitual death that sins bind us to. jesus cleared that debt. Thanks mate. That might be true  but it still means that the old laws in the Torah are still binding! The punishments still stand! they are binding - to jews. they are not binding to non-jews Rubbish - you didn't even read what I posted. See the link here again: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm This time read it before you shoot your mouth off.

Ahhh yes, wer wer wer dot evil bible (one word) dot com, yes, that's where I go for all my unbiased bible information as well.

Just like I go to Stormfront for all my Holocaust information.

Life.

Quote:

Ahhh yes, wer wer wer dot evil bible (one word) dot com, yes, that's where I go for all my unbiased bible information as well. Just like I go to Stormfront for all my Holocaust information.

Believe me - that evilbible site  is amazing.
You should read it.
The forum was going for years & not one bible basher was able to
withstand the arguments put forward because they were backed up
with logic & quotes directly from the bible.
Many people even started up alternative sites to try & debunk evilbible
but their arguments are so weak that they are laughable.
The fact is that the modern world has moved  on vastly compared
with those old ridiculous laws contained in the bible - which were
clearly upheld by none other than Jesus himself.

Have a good read & see for yourself.
Only the muslims in places like Iran still follow those old laws
because muslims are so backward.

Believe me - that evilbible site  is amazing.
You should read it.

- Bobby

Not really. I had a look through that site Bobby. I PERSONALLY found it consistently boring, ignorant and not very mind/knowledge challenging at all.

Anyone can google Bible verses and then arrange them in such a way as to subvert the original context and intention. It isn't difficult to do and it's been attempted many times ... and on a comprehensive basis too.

Lisa - this is the first time we've ever disagreed.
This could have been divorce   ;D

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 9:34am:

Lisa - this is the first time we've ever disagreed. This could have been divorce   ;D

Ha! I very much doubt it Bobby. And I'm fairly confident that by the time I finished with you in real time .. you'd be a very happy husband too lol :)

You've got a very honest, enquiring and intelligent mind .. which I quite admire and find easy to respond to.  

Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time/emotional energy/trust to be able to seriously and thoroughly talk some things through. Message board posts don't cut it sometimes.

We best get back to homosexual parents and the case against them ... otherwise this topic's gonna get messy :)

Women Should Be In Comfortable Shoes and Pregnant

http://www.threedonia.com/archives/4749

A Massachusetts lesbian was arrested for domestic violence for trying to impregnate her wife with her brother’s semen.

   Jennifer A. Lighten, 33, told police that Stephanie Lighten, her wife, was “all liquored up” when she returned to their Lincoln Street apartment, where the defendant then allegedly tried to use a syringe to inseminate her, according to a police report.

   Jennifer told investigating officers that Stephanie “has been talking about trying to impregnate (her) for some time,” police said.

   According to a report by Pittsfield Police Officer Kipp D. Steinman: “Jennifer said that Stephanie had a ‘turkey baster and her brother’s semen in a sealed container.’ Jennifer said she told Stephanie that she didn’t want to get pregnant.” The device was actually a large syringe with a catheter tip, police said, and it was still in its original package when officers confiscated the item.

   That’s allegedly when Stephanie threw Jennifer on the couch, grabbed at her clothes and threatened to impregnate her, police said.

Aren’t a lot of wives liquored up when they’re impregnated? Wow! lesbian marriage is just the SAME!

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 9:34am:

Lisa - this is the first time we've ever disagreed. This could have been divorce   ;D

Quote:

Chris "Ali Baba" Thiefe is currently the Editor, Web-Site Designer, and author of most of the material that does not have a "by line" associated with it.  Chris lives in New York and can be contacted at Editor(at)EvilBible.com*.  However, due to the large amount e-mails I can not respond to every comment in a timely manner, if at al

Hmmm. Sounds respectable enough  ::)

In my experience Muso .. many respectable people have also been consistently boring, ignorant and not very mind/knowledge challenging.

muso wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 9:34am: Lisa - this is the first time we've ever disagreed. This could have been divorce   ;D Quote: Chris "Ali Baba" Thiefe is currently the Editor, Web-Site Designer, and author of most of the material that does not have a "by line" associated with it.  Chris lives in New York and can be contacted at Editor(at)EvilBible.com*.  However, due to the large amount e-mails I can not respond to every comment in a timely manner, if at al Hmmm. Sounds respectable enough  ::)

Chris Baba went up against: theologians, doctors of divinity, priests, ministers  
& the most intellectual people you could find for countless years on the forum.
The problem for all of them was that they couldn't argue against what
the Bible clearly said in black & white.
The only in road was say another verse which said the opposite -
& when that happened we were left with a Bible contradiction -
hardly a sound document when full of such contradictions.

That's all fine Bobby.

I still maintain (from what I have seen of his website) that his material shows ME he has thrown together a bunch of Bible verses from all over the place in a comprehensive manner to deliberately subvert the context of many things the Bible states. As soon as I noticed this .. I lost interest coz I find that sort of thing quite boring and most unchallenging. It's been done before. Nothing new there. That's all I'm saying.

Lisa,

Quote:

We best get back to homosexual parents and the case against them ... otherwise this topic's gonna get messy

I don't agree with homosexual parents.
The kids are going to see 2 daddies in bed together
& wonder where their Mother is & what their daddies are doing together.
Imagine the kids getting teased at school when they
are naive enough to tell the other kids?

Like Bobby I don't agree at all with same sex parents.

I think it is immoral and cruel and doesn't sit well with me at all.

Children can be subject to intolerable cruelty and putting them in an unnatural situation with abnormal make-up of families is not the best start in life.

It's something that just doesn't sit with me.
I even donated money in California to the movement to prevent same sex couples being allowed this kind of thing.

I just think we need to take a stand at times to prevent a complete breakdown in our moral social fabric.

I am fine with same-sex couples, just keep it to yourself, don't broadcast the fact in public and I am fine with it.
I am not fine with putting these relationships on the same level as normal ones.

It's a personal choice of mine. Not religion or party political related, simply what I believe.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Like Bobby I don't agree at all with same sex parents. I think it is immoral and cruel and doesn't sit well with me at all. Children can be subject to intolerable cruelty and putting them in an unnatural situation with abnormal make-up of families is not the best start in life. It's something that just doesn't sit with me. I even donated money in California to the movement to prevent same sex couples being allowed this kind of thing. I just think we need to take a stand at times to prevent a complete breakdown in our moral social fabric. I am fine with same-sex couples, just keep it to yourself, don't broadcast the fact in public and I am fine with it. I am not fine with putting these relationships on the same level as normal ones. It's a personal choice of mine. Not religion or party political related, simply what I believe.

Andrei & I can still agree on some things.

There is no reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Evidence suggests that kids raised by same sex parents are just as happy and well off as kids raised by straight parents.

Vanessa wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

There is no reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Evidence suggests that kids raised by same sex parents are just as happy and well off as kids raised by straight parents.

There are reasons Vanessa.
I just gave a few on the previous page.


Quote:

I don't agree with homosexual parents. The kids are going to see 2 daddies in bed together & wonder where their Mother is & what their daddies are doing together. Imagine the kids getting teased at school when they are naive enough to tell the other kids?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:33am:

In my experience Muso .. many respectable people have also been consistently boring, ignorant and not very mind/knowledge challenging.

I was having a snigger at the contents. That's all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Like Bobby I don't agree at all with same sex parents. I think it is immoral and cruel and doesn't sit well with me at all. Children can be subject to intolerable cruelty and putting them in an unnatural situation with abnormal make-up of families is not the best start in life. It's something that just doesn't sit with me. I even donated money in California to the movement to prevent same sex couples being allowed this kind of thing. I just think we need to take a stand at times to prevent a complete breakdown in our moral social fabric. I am fine with same-sex couples, just keep it to yourself, don't broadcast the fact in public and I am fine with it. I am not fine with putting these relationships on the same level as normal ones. It's a personal choice of mine. Not religion or party political related, simply what I believe.

That pretty well sums up my position too. Call me old fashioned, and maybe it is due to a lack of familiarity with that kind of domestic situation, but the concept doesn't sit well with me at all. Like you, I don't have any objection to homosexual couples, but I draw the line at children being involved.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Like Bobby I don't agree at all with same sex parents. I think it is immoral and cruel and doesn't sit well with me at all. Children can be subject to intolerable cruelty and putting them in an unnatural situation with abnormal make-up of families is not the best start in life. It's something that just doesn't sit with me. I even donated money in California to the movement to prevent same sex couples being allowed this kind of thing. I just think we need to take a stand at times to prevent a complete breakdown in our moral social fabric. I am fine with same-sex couples, just keep it to yourself, don't broadcast the fact in public and I am fine with it. I am not fine with putting these relationships on the same level as normal ones. It's a personal choice of mine. Not religion or party political related, simply what I believe.

and your views are completely normal and right, nothing wrong with what you said at all buddy

muso wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 11:21am: Like Bobby I don't agree at all with same sex parents. I think it is immoral and cruel and doesn't sit well with me at all. Children can be subject to intolerable cruelty and putting them in an unnatural situation with abnormal make-up of families is not the best start in life. It's something that just doesn't sit with me. I even donated money in California to the movement to prevent same sex couples being allowed this kind of thing. I just think we need to take a stand at times to prevent a complete breakdown in our moral social fabric. I am fine with same-sex couples, just keep it to yourself, don't broadcast the fact in public and I am fine with it. I am not fine with putting these relationships on the same level as normal ones. It's a personal choice of mine. Not religion or party political related, simply what I believe. That pretty well sums up my position too. Call me old fashioned, and maybe it is due to a lack of familiarity with that kind of domestic situation, but the concept doesn't sit well with me at all. Like you, I don't have any objection to homosexual couples, but I draw the line at children being involved.

Ditto

Surely if you really put the interests of the children first, you would seek actual evidence about what is the best domestic situation for them rather than confusing your own gut feeling for what is right. So far the evidence points to homo couples being no worse than heterosexual couples.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 7:43pm:

Surely if you really put the interests of the children first, you would seek actual evidence about what is the best domestic situation for them rather than confusing your own gut feeling for what is right. So far the evidence points to homo couples being no worse than heterosexual couples.

I guess this entire thread has been the case of broad generalities versus specific cases. When it comes to adoption or legal custody, a wide range of factors would almost certainly have to be considered on a specific case basis (not on the basis of statistics, broad generalities or gut feeling).

When it comes to the natural children of parents who have gone on to a homosexual lifestyle, it becomes a question of what's the alternative anyway?

I am only saying that I have a gut feel about it, and that it may be  no more than a prejudice. When it come down to actual legislation, a lot of injustices have been perpetrated as a result of blanket laws applied to families. We always need to consider individual case details.

So when it comes down to adoption or anything in that line, I am not advocating gut feeling as a determining factor. I think that all aspects of the case should be considered in great detail with the welfare of the children in mind.

In my view, with all other factors being equal, if it came down to a choice of custody between  heterosexual parents or  homosexual parents, the heterosexual parents would win hands down, because it's a much better environment from the viewpoint of role models and social stability for the child. Again there are obvious exceptions. The case of the lesbian relationship that Lisa brought up and the dysfunctional heterosexual  parents that another poster brought up are extreme cases that should be rejected for adoption, and obviously alternative custodial arrangements made for the children - with urgency.  The kids need to be taken out of that harmful environment. These are no brainers.

I think that's the valid point.

A lot of people tend to compare the WORST heterosexual parents with the BEST POSSIBLE homosexual parents.

In some ways that's like taking a Ford Focus and racing it against a Mercedes little A buggy car, then declaring all Mercedes Benzs to be crap when it loses.

The normal, everyday scenario should be what is best for a child.
That's a mother and father in a stable family unit. Like I had.

dont ban me again im amazing

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 7:43pm:

Surely if you really put the interests of the children first, you would seek actual evidence about what is the best domestic situation for them rather than confusing your own gut feeling for what is right. So far the evidence points to homo couples being no worse than heterosexual couples.

dw keep up the fight

you and your partner barry "the body" will be able to adopt a little kid one day

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:50pm: Vanessa wrote on Feb 18th, 2011 at 2:30pm: Where is the issue? Two parents are raising a child, they split up and the court has granted them both access to the child. It is irrelevant that they both happen to be females, if you ask me. Not according to the principles of christians & muslims. So who actually 'cares' about the principles of christians & muslims.......apart FROM christians & muslims, of course???

Well said. If Christians and Muslims are against gay marriage/adoption they don't need to take part.

I'm pretty sure it won't be mandatory.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

I think that's the valid point. A lot of people tend to compare the WORST heterosexual parents with the BEST POSSIBLE homosexual parents. In some ways that's like taking a Ford Focus and racing it against a Mercedes little A buggy car, then declaring all Mercedes Benzs to be crap when it loses. The normal, everyday scenario should be what is best for a child. That's a mother and father in a stable family unit. Like I had.

I'm going to leave that one alone.

At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves.

Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 8:12am: I think that's the valid point. A lot of people tend to compare the WORST heterosexual parents with the BEST POSSIBLE homosexual parents. In some ways that's like taking a Ford Focus and racing it against a Mercedes little A buggy car, then declaring all Mercedes Benzs to be crap when it loses. The normal, everyday scenario should be what is best for a child. That's a mother and father in a stable family unit. Like I had. I'm going to leave that one alone.

Yer, well...it's not like he's equipped with the functional capacity to compute anything that human beings might have to say on the subject...

:-X

Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves.

Indeed, and we'd still be weather-doG-fearing multi-skilled pack animals living together in large co-operative social groups and trading in tangible currencies - and not arbitrarily-isolated under separate roofs in small nuclear economic units of production who worship the Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money of the Growth Fairy and his evil twin, the Good Greedy Witch of the West...

It's a GIRL For Rufus Wainwright And Partner Jorn Weisbrodt
February 19, 2011

Rufus Wainwright and his long time partner Jorn Weisbrodt are parents to a beautiful baby girl!

The introspective 37-year-old singer took to his personal website to announce the arrival.

http://www.rufuswainwright.com/news/default.aspx#2b042ae6-9780-44dc-8358-c8e038aa81b6:640386

"Darling daughter Viva Katherine Wainwright Cohen was born on February 2, 2011 in Los Angeles, California to proud parents Lorca Cohen, Rufus Wainwright and Deputy Dad Jorn Weisbrodt," Rufus announced in a post on his personal website on Friday. "The little angel is evidently healthy, presumably happy and certainly very very beautiful.

As if that message didn't show his excitement and joy enough, he decided to offer up a celebratory cigar.

"Daddy #1 would like to offer everyone a digital cigar," Rufus wrote.

Loca, the child's mother is the daughter of the famed singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen. See, this little girl's already got the genetics to join daddy on tour one day and sing alongside him!

Wainwright himself comes from a very talented group of musicians. His parents are Kate McGarrigle and Loudon Wainwright III, who performed as folk singers. In addition, a 13-year-old Rufus spent some time performing with his mother, sister Martha and his aunt Anna under the group name "The McGarrigle Sisters and Family."

It seems only logical that little Viva Katherine, too will be destined to perform music.
Congrats go out to dear Rufus and Jorn on your beautiful little songbird!


http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979069881

Equitist wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 11:08am: At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves. Indeed, and we'd still be weather-doG-fearing multi-skilled pack animals living together in large co-operative social groups and trading in tangible currencies - and not arbitrarily-isolated under separate roofs in small nuclear economic units of production who worship the Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money of the Growth Fairy and his evil twin, the Good Greedy Witch of the West...

Are you a Satanist or something?  Why do you spell God backwards, does offending people actually make you feel important?  I admit to being an agnostic, but I would always try to not become so full of myself as to become abusive on the subject.  

Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves.

Killing your own children isn`t normal, homosexuals giving birth isn`t normal.  Take a hint from nature?  Or too arrogant?

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Equitist wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 11:16am: Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 11:08am: At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves. Indeed, and we'd still be weather-doG-fearing multi-skilled pack animals living together in large co-operative social groups and trading in tangible currencies - and not arbitrarily-isolated under separate roofs in small nuclear economic units of production who worship the Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money of the Growth Fairy and his evil twin, the Good Greedy Witch of the West... Are you a Satanist or something?  Why do you spell God backwards, does offending people actually make you feel important?  I admit to being an agnostic, but I would always try to not become so full of myself as to become abusive on the subject.

Noted - including the bit about you not being 'so full of [yerself]'...

;)



(PS You will note that I also use the term doGmatic to highlight the relevance of religion to most doGmatism - as separate from ideology!)

At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves.

Could the writer of this please explain what homosexuality has to do with "Coming out of the caves"?
Are homosexuals born or made?
What is natural; animals use sex for procreation, and that has nothing to do with religion, but perpetuating the species, so what is different with human beings.
Questions,questions......?

peronally i have absolutely no problem with anyone adopting a child or children. as long as said child/ren are loved, nurtured, provided with all the usual neccessities each child deserves. i do, however, have a problem, and do not understand how a "book" written and re written to suit agendas and social expectaions of the time has anything to do with it.

ash wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

peronally i have absolutely no problem with anyone adopting a child or children. as long as said child/ren are loved, nurtured, provided with all the usual neccessities each child deserves. i do, however, have a problem, and do not understand how a "book" written and re written to suit agendas and social expectaions of the time has anything to do with it.

Ditto!

Here are 2 happy parents.

---

and a lovely pair of parents we must all hope they will be :) bet a huge percentage of homophobes are in to g.o.g? what do other posters think about that?

hawil wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

Could the writer of this please explain what homosexuality has to do with "Coming out of the caves"? Are homosexuals born or made?

1. Probably nothing.
2. Yes - probably a bit of nurture and a bit of nature.
I think it's established that the brain is very plastic. If you had incredible sex with a girl with a long nose, it's not unusual to get a fixation on girls with long noses etc.

Another photo of the happy parents.

---

                                  ATTENTION MUSO

THIS IS LINKED TO THE AFL SO IT SHOULD BE IN THE RELATIONSHIPS SUB FORUM.

Elton John is good friends with Molly Meldrum and Molly is the number 1 St Kilda fan.

Still attempting to tell Moderators how to do their job eh Pansi?

You'd think you would have learned your lesson by now.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 9:06am:

ATTENTION MUSO THIS IS LINKED TO THE AFL SO IT SHOULD BE IN THE RELATIONSHIPS SUB FORUM. Elton John is good friends with Molly Meldrum and Molly is the number 1 St Kilda fan.

WOW!
Your dealer sure gives value!

Well if that's the consensus, I'll move it  :)

On second thoughts, it is a genuine political issue at the moment, so it's back on the general board.

Oh dear .. I'm beginning to feel sorry for Mod .. lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 11:20am:

Oh dear .. I'm beginning to feel sorry for Mod .. lol :)

Poor Lisa - now you have to deal with gay relationships    ;D

Well Bobby .. as a woman .. I can deal with anything .. smirk :P

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Well Bobby .. as a woman .. I can deal with anything .. smirk :P

I duuno Lisa - could you really deal with these 2 holding a baby?

---

Nope .. women hold babies better.

Then again .. women can do everything better than a man lol :P

Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves.

Well, you wouldn't recognise a rational argument if it was up your @rse, so this is not saying anything. To come out all lisping and scary-quoting against 'normal' and 'natural' is a rational argument only with the other media studies kids.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:04pm: Well Bobby .. as a woman .. I can deal with anything .. smirk :P I duuno Lisa - could you really deal with these 2 holding a baby?

Here ya go !

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/38245-meet-elton-john-and-david-furnishs-baby-boy/1295294410_elton-furnish-290.jpg

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 11:00pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Feb 20th, 2011 at 11:08am: At the end of the day, I have not seen any rational arguments to why homosexual couples can't adopt or marry, apart from the religious argument, or the appeal to what is normal or natural. If we only did what was natural or normal, we would still be in caves. Well, you wouldn't recognise a rational argument if it was up your @rse, so this is not saying anything. To come out all lisping and scary-quoting against 'normal' and 'natural' is a rational argument only with the other media studies kids.

You are an angry young man, aren't you?

I am sorry, was there a rational argument being made there? All I got was a very clumsy attempt at an insult.

But you keep at it, you're doing your mum proud.

PS: good to see you took my advice and removed Kirkegaard as your avatar (I am assuming that's what it is called), no need need to embarrass yourself any more than you already have, eh?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 11:45pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 7:02pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:04pm: Well Bobby .. as a woman .. I can deal with anything .. smirk :P I duuno Lisa - could you really deal with these 2 holding a baby? Here ya go ! http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/38245-meet-elton-john-and-david-furnishs-baby-boy/1295294410_elton-furnish-290.jpg

Wow - finally a picture of the happy couple with their baby!

It seems to have sacped peoples attention that the 'much younger partner' is 48 years old too - hardly a spring chicken.

Still, I'm sure they will hire a nanny or 3, and then give interviews about how the 5 minutes they spend with 'their' child each week is so enriching.

But I had to laugh at this:


Quote:

He tells WENN, "It's fantastic! I love the smell of nappies. It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling."

Who woulda thought a gay man would love the smell of poo!

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 11:45pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 7:02pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:04pm: Well Bobby .. as a woman .. I can deal with anything .. smirk :P I duuno Lisa - could you really deal with these 2 holding a baby? Here ya go ! http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/38245-meet-elton-john-and-david-furnishs-baby-boy/1295294410_elton-furnish-290.jpg

That is absolutely disgusting.

Well, they look happy, and the baby looks healthy...

So, Good Luck to the family....

Quote:

He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling."

Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?  
And no, milking David won't do at all.

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 2:25pm:

Quote: He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling." Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?   And no, milking David won't do at all.

And neither would it work for ALL the women who use formula from birth then....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 2:25pm: Quote: He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling." Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?   And no, milking David won't do at all. And neither would it work for ALL the women who use formula from birth then....

I didn't see him mention formula either, do you?  Nope, ALL a child needs is love and nurturing...Elton views on child rearing seem to be a lot like his supporters views on everything - all airy fairy ideals, but no substance.

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:16pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 2:25pm: Quote: He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling." Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?   And no, milking David won't do at all. And neither would it work for ALL the women who use formula from birth then.... I didn't see him mention formula either, do you?  Nope, ALL a child needs is love and nurturing...Elton views on child rearing seem to be a lot like his supporters views on everything - all airy fairy ideals, but no substance.

Umm YOU mentioned it...formula feeding is just as useful as breast milk...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:25pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:16pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 2:25pm: Quote: He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling." Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?   And no, milking David won't do at all. And neither would it work for ALL the women who use formula from birth then.... I didn't see him mention formula either, do you?  Nope, ALL a child needs is love and nurturing...Elton views on child rearing seem to be a lot like his supporters views on everything - all airy fairy ideals, but no substance. Umm YOU mentioned it...formula feeding is just as useful as breast milk...

Well, it's not REALLY as good is it?

I mean, some people say it is, but they only say that to avoid offending those who are too selfish to breast feed.  Thankfully, I have no such qualms about calling a spade a spade.

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:25pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:16pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 2:25pm: Quote: He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling." Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?   And no, milking David won't do at all. And neither would it work for ALL the women who use formula from birth then.... I didn't see him mention formula either, do you?  Nope, ALL a child needs is love and nurturing...Elton views on child rearing seem to be a lot like his supporters views on everything - all airy fairy ideals, but no substance. Umm YOU mentioned it...formula feeding is just as useful as breast milk... Well, it's not REALLY as good is it? I mean, some people say it is, but they only say that to avoid offending those who are too selfish to breast feed.  Thankfully, I have no such qualms about calling a spade a spade.

But there are still a lot of female heterosexuals who feed their child formula, rather than breast milk...So if it's ok for women to use formula, then it's ok for male couples to use formula too...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:31pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:28pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:25pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:16pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 2:25pm: Quote: He tells WENN, "It's fantastic!I love the smell of nappies.  It's been the most wonderful thing that's probably ever happened to me after meeting David. Surprisingly it's been very relaxing because this little soul that you're feeding and you're changing and you're bathing and you're telling bedtime stories to is a blank canvas and all it needs is love and nurturing and it's just the most wonderful feeling." Erm...aren't you forgetting a little detail called BREAST MILK!?   And no, milking David won't do at all. And neither would it work for ALL the women who use formula from birth then.... I didn't see him mention formula either, do you?  Nope, ALL a child needs is love and nurturing...Elton views on child rearing seem to be a lot like his supporters views on everything - all airy fairy ideals, but no substance. Umm YOU mentioned it...formula feeding is just as useful as breast milk... Well, it's not REALLY as good is it? I mean, some people say it is, but they only say that to avoid offending those who are too selfish to breast feed.  Thankfully, I have no such qualms about calling a spade a spade. But there are still a lot of female heterosexuals who feed their child formula, rather than breast milk...So if it's ok for women to use formula, then it's ok for male couples to use formula too...

well...just so long as he DOES feed them formula...or at least somehting other than love.

So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula????

The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing.

It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula????

Exactly. ;D

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin?

NOBODY knows how their offspring is going to turn out. If you reach a few "milestones" without hassles you can pat yourself on the back.

It doesn't mean that the little cherub who was so cute at 2 isn't going to turn out as a serial killer or a terrorist or even a wife basher.  You hope you have done a good job but nobody ever tells you that you did and it is pure LUCK if you get your snotty teenagers through to young marrieds with kids, without going insane yourself.  :o

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin?

LOL, Wes...dare I suggest that it could be your noggin that is malfunctioning or is otherwise deficient...!?

Seriously, what is it with the literal linear thinking!?

Either you do not have the lateral capacity to interpret metaphors and extrapolate - or you think it is funny to pretend not to...

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin?

HOW does Angelina 'feed' her children, when she hasn't been pregnant???

Angelina uses exactly the same 'method' to feed her kids, as Elton John does.......Formula...

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

Well, it's not REALLY as good is it? I mean, some people say it is, but they only say that to avoid offending those who are too selfish to breast feed.  Thankfully, I have no such qualms about calling a spade a spade.

Yes, it is not REALLY as good - but there are many reasons why women don't breast feed and 'selfishness' is not as high on the list as you might assume...




PS Both of my children were breast-fed for over 18 months.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin? HOW does Angelina 'feed' her children, when she hasn't been pregnant??? Angelina uses exactly the same 'method' to feed her kids, as Elton John does.......Formula...

No no elton, was quite clear ALL it needs is love and nurturing.  Show me where he mentions food, clothing, shelter...
But Iit's to be expected - decades of cocaine abuse, and the onset of senile dementia can give a man strange ideas about children exisitng on love alone.

Equitist wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:39pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:28pm: Well, it's not REALLY as good is it? I mean, some people say it is, but they only say that to avoid offending those who are too selfish to breast feed.  Thankfully, I have no such qualms about calling a spade a spade. Yes, it is not REALLY as good - but there are many reasons why women don't breast feed and 'selfishness' is not as high on the list as you might assume... PS Both of my children were breast-fed for over 18 months.

the midwives told me that no, there is no reason why any woman can't breastfeed, so long as they persist with it...But she was probably a misogynist, or didn't know what she was talking about.

Equitist wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin? LOL, Wes...dare I suggest that it could be your noggin that is malfunctioning or is otherwise deficient...!? Seriously, what is it with the literal linear thinking!? Either you do not have the lateral capacity to interpret metaphors and extrapolate - or you think it is funny to pretend not to...

But I was just trying to fit in - I thought that seizing on every frivolous idiosyncracy to score a point was the done thing on this site....

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:36pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin? HOW does Angelina 'feed' her children, when she hasn't been pregnant??? Angelina uses exactly the same 'method' to feed her kids, as Elton John does.......Formula... No no elton, was quite clear ALL it needs is love and nurturing.  Show me where he mentions food, clothing, shelter... But Iit's to be expected - decades of cocaine abuse, and the onset of senile dementia can give a man strange ideas about children exisitng on love alone.

It doesn't work Wesley....Any woman who adopts a child must use the very same method of feeding that a man who adopts a child uses....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:58pm:

... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:36pm: ... wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 4:47pm: So what exactly is the difference between Angelina Jolie, feeding HER adopted child on formula, and Elton John, feeding HIS adopted child on formula???? The difference is Angelina Jolie feeds her children, not like Elton who says, and I repeat ALL it needs is love and nurturing. It might seem obvious to you and I, but who know what the decades of drug abuse have done to his noggin? HOW does Angelina 'feed' her children, when she hasn't been pregnant??? Angelina uses exactly the same 'method' to feed her kids, as Elton John does.......Formula... No no elton, was quite clear ALL it needs is love and nurturing.  Show me where he mentions food, clothing, shelter... But Iit's to be expected - decades of cocaine abuse, and the onset of senile dementia can give a man strange ideas about children exisitng on love alone. It doesn't work Wesley....Any woman who adopts a child must use the very same method of feeding that a man who adopts a child uses....

LOL....Unless they don't feed it anything but love and nurturing...after all isn't that ALL a child needs?  Well, that's what elton reckons anyhoo...

A respectable black couple from Derby, England, called Mr. and Mrs. Johns, wanted to foster a child aged between 5 and 10. In the 1990s, they had already successfully fostered 15 such children and now, after a break, wanted to resume.

However, there was a stumbling block. No one ever suggested that they were other than decent and compassionate people; but, being evangelical Christians, they answered questions put to them by a social worker about homosexuality in a way that was deemed unacceptable. They did not know what they would do if their hypothetical foster child started to bully a homosexual child because of his homosexuality; they said that they did not think that homosexuality was morally neutral, believing it rather to be against the laws of God; and they admitted quite openly that they would not change their minds about this. On the other hand, they said that they would treat an individual homosexual with kindness: no doubt an attitude thought condescending.

The Derby social services and Mr. and Mrs. Johns went to court to seek advance clarification of the legal position should the Johns be denied the opportunity to foster children on the grounds that they did not fulfill their obligation to be non-discriminatory towards homosexuals and homosexuality.

Contrary to impressions given in many reports in the press, the court declined to rule; it said that the case was purely hypothetical, Mrs. and Mrs. Johns had not yet been denied the right to foster, and the court did not consider merely hypothetical cases. It therefore did not rule either that Mr. and Mrs. Johns had, or had not, the right to foster.

However, it did say that Christian views were entitled to no special protection in England (notwithstanding the fact that there is, at least for now, an established church). The law stated that the principle of diversity, under which various, though presumably not quite all, moral viewpoints were entitled to equal legal consideration and protection, was legally paramount, and therefore Christians were not illegally discriminated against if or when they were denied the opportunity to foster because they refused to teach their child that homosexuality was not morally inferior to heterosexuality. In such a case they would not be discriminated against religiously (religious discrimination being itself illegal), but correctly prevented from discriminating illegally against homosexuals. In other words, you can have any opinion you like, so long as it is ours.

I’ve known saner lunatic asylums than this. Surely any sensible person, religious or otherwise, would simply say ‘The Johns are very good people, they have an excellent record of fostering young children who need fostering: finita la commedia.’        

But no: in the modern world everything must be codified, and everyone must conform in the name of diversity. Let the heavens fall, so long as the boxes have been ticked
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261698/dismaying-johns-fostering-case-anthony-daniels

Quote:

They did not know what they would do if their hypothetical foster child started to bully a homosexual child because of his homosexuality

These are UNFIT PARENTS

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

Quote: They did not know what they would do if their hypothetical foster child started to bully a homosexual child because of his homosexuality These are UNFIT PARENTS

As I said, 40 years ago assophilia asked to be tolerated. Now it has to be liked - or else.

Kids adopted by inverts - every day they must feel like a bastard on fathers' day.

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 10:35pm: Quote: They did not know what they would do if their hypothetical foster child started to bully a homosexual child because of his homosexuality These are UNFIT PARENTS As I said, 40 years ago assophilia asked to be tolerated. Now it has to be liked - or else.

Let's change a word, or two, shall we ?



"They did not know what they would do if their hypothetical foster child started to bully a Jewish child because of his Jewishness"


I MEAN - according to Christians - aren't all Jews HELL-BOUND ?

"No one comes to the Father except through me."
-JCi

"they said that they would treat an individual Jew with kindness"

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 9:44am:

"they said that they would treat an individual Jew with kindness"

They just won't allow them in HEAVEN

The church of political correctness decrees:

Thou shalt not have thine own opinions except those decreed by the church.

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Soren wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 9:44am: "they said that they would treat an individual Jew with kindness" They just won't allow them in HEAVEN

What? Now you want to go to heaven as well???

The more that someone appeals to evilbible.com the more they discredit themselves as evilbible.com is saturated with fallacies of every sort and has been discredited.

Check out “Evilbible.com – accurate or fallacious?”

examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/evilbible-com-accurate-or-fallacious

I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation.

I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman.

Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays.

MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 12:31pm:

I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation. I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman. Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays.

That's interesting Kava, since in most primitive societies the 'model' was children raised by the whole tribe....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 12:31pm: I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation. I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman. Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays. That's interesting Kava, since in most primitive societies the 'model' was children raised by the whole tribe....

Sh!t, now you are angling for NOT just for gay couples but the whole smacking Village People adopting.

Soren wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 1:59pm: MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 12:31pm: I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation. I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman. Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays. That's interesting Kava, since in most primitive societies the 'model' was children raised by the whole tribe.... Sh!t, now you are angling for just for gay couples but the whole smacking Village People adopting.

That is true Gizmo, but in most primitive societies, there weren't these bogus notions of homsexuality being an equal or desirable condition either.

Soren wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 1:59pm: MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 12:31pm: I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation. I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman. Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays. That's interesting Kava, since in most primitive societies the 'model' was children raised by the whole tribe.... Sh!t, now you are angling for just for gay couples but the whole smacking Village People adopting.

Yeah, why not???

Only 3 members of the Village People were actually gay after all..

And back when I was a kid, the whole street ('tribe') looked after us kiddies......if we fell over and hurt ourselves, the people from the closest house did the first aid and comfort thing...including food and drinks...

Back then, a crying child attracted every adult within hearing, to help... sadly, that doesn't happen now...
But even then, it was still a case of one in ten people were homosexual, and it made NO difference...Homosexuals were just as quick to help injured children, as anyone else...

... wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 2:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 1:59pm: MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 12:31pm: I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation. I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman. Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays. That's interesting Kava, since in most primitive societies the 'model' was children raised by the whole tribe.... Sh!t, now you are angling for just for gay couples but the whole smacking Village People adopting. That is true Gizmo, but in most primitive societies, there weren't these bogus notions of homsexuality being an equal or desirable condition either.

But they still existed.....it was just that no one cared..

Sh!t, now you are angling for NOT just for gay couples but the whole smacking Village People adopting.... Soren

Great line Soren.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

. I gotta stop trolling. [edited]

MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

Actually the village idea is good, but I think the man and woman still bore primary responsibility for the children... In my opinion homosexuality is a form of personality disorder. I also don't believe 10% of males are gay, that is just propoganda to make them seem more common, more like 3-5%, simular to the rate of deranged personality disorders and mental illness... Hardly something that should be encouraged... I mean hey if you want to not discriminate against homosexuals, and celebrate their sexuality, then you should celebrate pedophilia, because its just as legitimate a sexual orientation, and if the person isn't molesting children, then they should morally be accepted. I have known two gays in my life, and they were both complete whackos, confirming that homosexuals tend to be more mentally unstable than hetrosexuals, on average. I don't hate homosexuals as people, I hate the advocacy of their sexual orientation. They have far enough bloody rights, bloody appalling the idea of fags having kids, as if the kids aren't at a much higher chance of being molested by them, and  the homos will try and "convert" them by deliberately sexualizing the children with their gayness. Gays = hypersexual lunatics.

I think you might need to re-write that as "I have known openly gay people....'' etc...

I've known considerable more than 2 gay people in MY life and most of them have been fairly well adjusted and 'normal' (allowing for the differences in sexuality)....And I've yet to find any reliable data in any study of child molesters to indicate that homosexuals are more likely to molest children.....quite the opposite in fact, most paedophiles are heterosexual, and something more than 80% are married or in long-term heterosexual relationships...
That is actually the problem...most child sexual abuse is committed by a family member (parent, grandparent, uncle/aunt) or step-parent (step-father, step-mother)...the adoption risk of abuse is also from heterosexual foster parents...

Earlier this arvo, I watched a heartwarming re-run of an Australian Story entitled 'Fathers Day'...

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/fathersday/default.htm


Quote:

29/05/2006 Over the last ten years Australian Story has featured many families of all sorts of background and make-up, but probably none as challenging as the extended household viewers will meet on Monday night. When Paul Van Reyk set out to have a child more than 20 years ago, he was trying to make a political statement. He says: "It seemed wrong to me that gay men and women were excluded from having children." So when a single, straight friend wanted to have a child, he agreed to marry her – 'to give the child legal protection' - but with no intention of helping to raise the child, a daughter, Mary. One thing led to another; other friends, straight and gay sought his help, and now Paul Van Reyk has six children with five different mothers - all part of one big extended family with Van Reyk at the centre. He suspects, there may be another half dozen children out there somewhere. Paul Van Reyk broke the news of his fecundity to his own parents on Fathers Day 2003. They knew about Mary, but not the other children. Paul Van Reyk says: "I said Dad, I've got a special present. I brought out the pictures of all the other kids and I just put them across the table and said 'these are your other grandchildren'. He was stunned but he just kept grinning..." PROGRAM EXTRAS Fathers' Day - Transcript

It can be watched at the above link - and probably on IView...

Equitist wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 5:10pm:

Earlier this arvo, I watched a heartwarming re-run of an Australian Story entitled 'Fathers Day'... http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/fathersday/default.htm Quote: 29/05/2006 Over the last ten years Australian Story has featured many families of all sorts of background and make-up, but probably none as challenging as the extended household viewers will meet on Monday night. When Paul Van Reyk set out to have a child more than 20 years ago, he was trying to make a political statement. He says: "It seemed wrong to me that gay men and women were excluded from having children." So when a single, straight friend wanted to have a child, he agreed to marry her – 'to give the child legal protection' - but with no intention of helping to raise the child, a daughter, Mary. One thing led to another; other friends, straight and gay sought his help, and now Paul Van Reyk has six children with five different mothers - all part of one big extended family with Van Reyk at the centre. He suspects, there may be another half dozen children out there somewhere. Paul Van Reyk broke the news of his fecundity to his own parents on Fathers Day 2003. They knew about Mary, but not the other children. Paul Van Reyk says: "I said Dad, I've got a special present. I brought out the pictures of all the other kids and I just put them across the table and said 'these are your other grandchildren'. He was stunned but he just kept grinning..." PROGRAM EXTRAS Fathers' Day - Transcript It can be watched at the above link - and probably on IView...

So, does it strike you as 'silly' or 'wrong' that a gay man...( which I assume Paul Van Reyk IS) has to use his own 'donated sperm' to father children....rather than just adopting unwanted children??

This guy seems to be fairly prolific breeder....so why shouldn't he be involved in his kids lives???

He seems happy to have children, and proud of them too...

... wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 2:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 1:59pm: MoreKavaPlease wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 12:31pm: I personally dislike homosexuals. I don't care what they do, as long as they keep away from me. Don't care if they marry whatever, but when it comes to children, I petty any child subjected to such sociological experimentation. I am afraid I believe in the evolutionary model for raising children- a man and a woman. Gay rights all the way, except I don't want to be exposed to gay sex acts, and I think the rights of children override the rights of gays. That's interesting Kava, since in most primitive societies the 'model' was children raised by the whole tribe.... Sh!t, now you are angling for just for gay couples but the whole smacking Village People adopting. That is true Gizmo, but in most primitive societies, there weren't these bogus notions of homsexuality being an equal or desirable condition either.

Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships" called motsoalle.[121] E. E. Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande warriors in the northern Congo routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands. The practice had died out by the early 20th century, after Europeans had gained control of African countries, but was recounted to Evans-Pritchard by the elders to whom he spoke.[122]

The first record of possible homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an Egyptian male couple, who lived around the 2400 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Among indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization, a common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex.

Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil

buzz,

Quote:

Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships" called motsoalle.[121] E. E. Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande warriors in the northern Congo routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands. The practice had died out by the early 20th century, after Europeans had gained control of African countries, but was recounted to Evans-Pritchard by the elders to whom he spoke.[122] The first record of possible homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an Egyptian male couple, who lived around the 2400 BCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality Among indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization, a common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex. Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil

You are folowing a fallacy there.
People have always murdered others, does not make it a good thing

Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil

Non of these exist any longer either.

Verge wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 12:01pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 10:27am: look, the homos cant have kids. nature states that, not me. If they cant have kids, they ain't meant them about 2 - 4 % of population are homo. Few of that want kids. What %age are we spending millions on to grant them something nature says "NO" to ????? Will you be applying the same to any person who wishes to conceive a child through unnatural causes?

Well, he'd HAVE to be
He'd be a HYPOCRITE, otherwise

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 5:26pm:

Equitist wrote on Apr 17th, 2011 at 5:10pm: Earlier this arvo, I watched a heartwarming re-run of an Australian Story entitled 'Fathers Day'... http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/fathersday/default.htm Quote: 29/05/2006 Over the last ten years Australian Story has featured many families of all sorts of background and make-up, but probably none as challenging as the extended household viewers will meet on Monday night. When Paul Van Reyk set out to have a child more than 20 years ago, he was trying to make a political statement. He says: "It seemed wrong to me that gay men and women were excluded from having children." So when a single, straight friend wanted to have a child, he agreed to marry her – 'to give the child legal protection' - but with no intention of helping to raise the child, a daughter, Mary. One thing led to another; other friends, straight and gay sought his help, and now Paul Van Reyk has six children with five different mothers - all part of one big extended family with Van Reyk at the centre. He suspects, there may be another half dozen children out there somewhere. Paul Van Reyk broke the news of his fecundity to his own parents on Fathers Day 2003. They knew about Mary, but not the other children. Paul Van Reyk says: "I said Dad, I've got a special present. I brought out the pictures of all the other kids and I just put them across the table and said 'these are your other grandchildren'. He was stunned but he just kept grinning..." PROGRAM EXTRAS Fathers' Day - Transcript It can be watched at the above link - and probably on IView... So, does it strike you as 'silly' or 'wrong' that a gay man...( which I assume Paul Van Reyk IS) has to use his own 'donated sperm' to father children....rather than just adopting unwanted children?? This guy seems to be fairly prolific breeder....so why shouldn't he be involved in his kids lives??? He seems happy to have children, and proud of them too...

Dunno why you addressed that to me, Gizmo, because I have expressed no firm opinion one way or another in relation to parental rights ...

I wouldn't presume the right to judge nor interfere in any particular case, where the best interests of the children are kept at the forefront of any decision making...

As for the unique extended-cum-communal family structure profiled in that Australian Story program, it seems to work very well for all of the individuals involved...

The program showed an atmosphere of mutual respect and positivity and the children seem particularly well-adjusted - hence I found the story refreshingly heartwarming (and it triggered my memory of this thread)...

Maeve wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 8:06pm:

Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil Non of these exist any longer either.

Still a lot of gays amongst the priesthood that replaced them though.

Grey wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Maeve wrote on Apr 17th, 2011 at 8:06pm: Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil Non of these exist any longer either. Still a lot of gays amongst the priesthood that replaced them though.

No not really Grey...you're confusing Paedophiles with homosexuals.... two entirely different things...

This is showing again - now on ABC News 24 - highly recommended...



Equitist wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 5:10pm:

Earlier this arvo, I watched a heartwarming re-run of an Australian Story entitled 'Fathers Day'... http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/fathersday/default.htm Quote: 29/05/2006 Over the last ten years Australian Story has featured many families of all sorts of background and make-up, but probably none as challenging as the extended household viewers will meet on Monday night. When Paul Van Reyk set out to have a child more than 20 years ago, he was trying to make a political statement. He says: "It seemed wrong to me that gay men and women were excluded from having children." So when a single, straight friend wanted to have a child, he agreed to marry her – 'to give the child legal protection' - but with no intention of helping to raise the child, a daughter, Mary. One thing led to another; other friends, straight and gay sought his help, and now Paul Van Reyk has six children with five different mothers - all part of one big extended family with Van Reyk at the centre. He suspects, there may be another half dozen children out there somewhere. Paul Van Reyk broke the news of his fecundity to his own parents on Fathers Day 2003. They knew about Mary, but not the other children. Paul Van Reyk says: "I said Dad, I've got a special present. I brought out the pictures of all the other kids and I just put them across the table and said 'these are your other grandchildren'. He was stunned but he just kept grinning..." PROGRAM EXTRAS Fathers' Day - Transcript It can be watched at the above link - and probably on IView...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

Grey wrote on Apr 17th, 2011 at 9:37pm: Maeve wrote on Apr 17th, 2011 at 8:06pm: Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil Non of these exist any longer either. Still a lot of gays amongst the priesthood that replaced them though. No not really Grey...you're confusing Paedophiles with homosexuals.... two entirely different things...

Yeah Grey, gizmo is spot on - You should NEVER confuse things

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing.gif