What's the point? I spoke of biological parents. Adoptions are always a sort of lottery and to be honest I'm not a fan of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
P.S. Who couldn't get on? The couple between them or the couple with the child?
Printable View
What's the point? I spoke of biological parents. Adoptions are always a sort of lottery and to be honest I'm not a fan of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
P.S. Who couldn't get on? The couple between them or the couple with the child?
The couple and the child. For me, I'd say the couple were not trying hard enough, but that is just an assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
I am sure the child was difficult, but that is to be expected isn't it?
It is backward — as in looking backward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezza
Did you never invite your mates round for tea?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
That implies the Bible is a fixed point, existing as a ready formed single document and unchanging through the ages, which clearly isn't correct. Like anything, it has changed to reflect the times it finds itself operating in. More often than not to enhance or preserve the power of those changing it, but that's another debate. I don't see people denouncing those with tattoos, yet that's right there in Leviticus. When I walk past my local church on a Sunday, I don't see anyone taking up serpents. Likewise, I don't know of anyone who keeps a slave, yet both are advocated in the Bible. People modify their interpretations depending on the society of the time. The change in social attitudes towards homosexuality is simply the latest manifestation of that process. To be honest, the religious aspect to the debate is a bit of a red herring anyway. The main issue is simply that homosexual couples should be afforded the same recognition in law as heterosexual couples. You don't have gay driving licences or gay passports, so why have specifically gay marriages in the form of civil partnerships? That's not equality, it's highlighting difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
My son has been exposed to school mates with 2 moms and 2 dads since he was very young.
It is natural for him.
Our son was adopted (my sunshine) and he has a mother and a father - the male and female influence which I believe to be the best scenario for a child.
And I say this totally approving the adoption for same sex couples which I'm sure will give the child all the love they can muster.
Just the fact that I prefer a child to have both a mom and a dad does in NO WAY demean the 2 dads or 2 mom scenarios. As a matter of fact, I celebrate them.
I also celebrate fatherhood. It's been the best and currently the toughest experience (teenager) in my life.
:)
Excellent post, if I may say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
But maybe on a divine level things are different....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Spirituality isn't necessarily related to practical effects.
Civil marriages can be ( and in time maybe they will be everywhere ) legalised by a human authority but nobody can impose a gay wedding to the clergy. In religion we don't have laws but dogmas.
Nobody is trying to impose a gay wedding on the clergy. I think (not sure) it's quite the opposite: the (human) law explicitely forbids gay marriage in the Church of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
It's as if the law were also to forbid woman catholic priests, for example. Why make a (human) law for it ? :rolleyes:
Absolute rubbish, absurd comparisons like always.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo