BARRSTARDS !!!!!!

[Space cat]

If you mean it will miss out on cuddles/kisses/hugs why should it?

No I certainly didn't mean that.

Problem: We use the word 'love' to mean many different things. Some people 'love' going to the seaside/movies/pub. Similarly parental love and sexual love are two very different instincts serving very different purposes. Most, if not all, mammals are driven to care for their young but few form pairs and only one uses sex for that purpose.

Cuddles, kisses and hugs are vitally important for a growing baby for more reasons than I know about. One that I do know about is that our early experience of the opposite sex parent will greatly influence our ability (or lack thereof) to form a fully functional sexual relationship as adults. As I said in another post, sex education begins the moment we pop out of the womb, if not earlier, and this is where a same-sex couple has the same disadvantage as the single parent.

But there's more. Children also benefit from seeing how their two parents, whether homo or hetero, relate to each other and that's where the single parent loses out.

And finally:

what do you mean by 'sexual' love

Better people than me - authors, poets, songwriters - have tried to describe sexual love but their best efforts don't really come close. The best answer I can give is "something that can only be experienced first hand" - and if you have then you'll know it without any shadow of a doubt. Nuff said!

The argument shouldn't be whether gays make al-right parents, but whether they are worse than care homes.

Good luck with that argument.

What argument? The care home is the last resort for children born to dysfunctional (heterosexual) parents who couldn't be bothered to not have children. The argument should be whether or not the care home is preferable to the mortuary slab. Sadly, there has often been a misplaced belief that children should be left with their natural parents even when any fool can see that those parents don't give a tuppenny dicky bird. The reason is perhaps easier to see if we rewrite it thus:

"There has often been a belief that natural parents should be made to keep their (unwanted) children --"

Or, as my grandmother might have put it: "They've had the sweets so now they must suffer the sours."

 

[LastMagicBean]

Are you seriously suggesting, that a child waking up and stumbling into the bedroom of his two 'fathers' tucked up in bed every morning, is preferable (psychologically), to walking into the bedroom of a single parent. ????

Nonsense.

How can you possibly even begin to assess the potential future psychological damage to the child, or in fairness any comparison.

Studies on heterosexual parenthood have been going on for centuries.
Same sex parenting is still in it's infancy.

You're living in a fluffy bubble.

 

[chapeau]

You don't have to agree with all the policies of a political party in order to vote for them. This particular UKIP policy is homophobia pure and simple, you need to weigh up whether that matters when you cast your vote.

 

[LastMagicBean]

homophobia pure and simple

Nonsense.

 

[Norcon]

They've had the sweets so now they must suffer the sours

Don't you mean the "scour" or yellow zorder as we used call it when one of the calves had the runs.

 

[calorific]

Plenty of loving heterosexual parents split up and are yet, still bloody good parents. Although labelled single parents.
How can you possibly compare..

Similarly, there a a shed load of terrible heterosexual parents. There are a load of diabolical single sex parents.

In fact, there are a load of a variety of different combinations that are both great and terrible. Statistically, you argument is shoite

Are you seriously suggesting, that a child waking up and stumbling into the bedroom of his two 'fathers' tucked up in bed every morning, is preferable (psychologically), to walking into the bedroom of a single parent. ????

Considering the alternatives, quite possibly

Nonsense.

based on what evidence other that your opinion?

How can you possibly even begin to assess the potential future psychological damage to the child, or in fairness any comparison.

You seem to have come to a conclusion based on fook-all empirical evidence, so what's the difference?

Studies on heterosexual parenthood have been going on for centuries.

Name these studies that are centuries old

Same sex parenting is still in it's infancy.

blox

You're living in a fluffy bubble.

You're living in a land of bifotry, self opinion and make believe.


Nothing personal - just a mild disagreement Lamby( )

 

[LastMagicBean]

No offense taken, like it or not.

Too many quotes to answer.

B*llocks to most of them.

Show me the evidence of potential damage(or not) to children with same sex parents.

You can't. There isn't any.

Many, many generations have to pass before anyone can make those sort of claims.

 

[calorific]

B*llocks to most of them.

That's my boy

Show me the evidence of potential damage(or not) to children with same sex parents.

You can't. There isn't any.

That's the point - you can't either, and so your claims are based on gut feeling rather than evidence. That's why the term "bigot" may (logically) be thrown at you.

Many, many generations have to pass before anyone can make those sort of claims.

All possible combinations have occurred over the history of humankind. Secondly, since, by definition, homosexual practices do not tend to lead to a continuation of a hereditary genetic lineage, I'm a bit confused as to where this "generations" of evidence will come from.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Complete b*llocks. I've made no claims as to anything.

I made the valid point that who know's what damage could be caused.
Do you know ???? Does anyone ????? NO is the answer.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Calling me a bigot in turn makes you a bigot by definition.

Bloody Bigots we get on here

 

[calorific]

Complete b*llocks. I've made no claims as to anything.

I made the valid point that who know's what damage could be caused.
Do you know ???? Does anyone ????? NO is the answer.

You keep referring to "damage". That's what your claim is.

Why assume the worst? Why not assume the good?

 

[LastMagicBean]

I'm a bit confused as to where this "generations" of evidence will come from.

Generations of children brought up in an unnatural environment.

How will they get on??? how will it effect them????

You don't know.

 

[calorific]

I'm a bit confused as to where this "generations" of evidence will come from.

Generations of children brought up in an unnatural environment.

How will they get on??? how will it effect them????

You don't know.

For a start, define "natural" and "unnatural".
Second, generations of children have been brought up under whole load of differing backgrounds - perhaps you'd like to select one or two to exemplify negative outcomes as opposed to positive ones. In fact, what would you mean by positive compared to negative?

 

[calorific]

Just browsing for murderous despots over the last century or so, it seems that most of them were brought up by heterosexual couples. Not exactly a great advert for what you think is the status quo

 

[LastMagicBean]

I'm a bit confused as to where this "generations" of evidence will come from.

Generations of children brought up in an unnatural environment.

How will they get on??? how will it effect them????

You don't know.

For a start, define "natural" and "unnatural".
Second, generations of children have been brought up under whole load of differing backgrounds - perhaps you'd like to select one or two to exemplify negative outcomes as opposed to positive ones. In fact, what would you mean by positive compared to negative?

F*ck me........... I'm making no claims as to negatives or positives.
Unnatural would be a child walking into the bedroom on a daily basis with two mums or two dads under the duvet. Unnatural .FACT

Show me the evidence otherwise.

In 100 years time this behaviour might be banned. Who knows