Hi Aimie,
Yes, my wording was a little wrong, I was really referring to what Nature had done genetically to some people, and yes, Nature does have a mind of her own, but I think that you generally got my drift.
Thanks for your post.

And you too, Lexi, your posts, as always are well written and informative.
Cheers,
NSB

Same sex marriages were legalised in Michigan, and now the divorces and legal battles for child custody begin.

This is the first, with the non-biological lesbian mother of the children claiming she is not being regarded as a parent after the divorce.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjnJ8iioAt4&feature=relmfu

Ironic for feminists, after their sustained attack on heterosexual marriage and natural fathers.

When I learned biology and botany in school 60 years ago - to produce children it took a man and a woman; that there were male and female organs. I have since proved it having children of my own. Gender is biologically complementary to the other to have children.

Most men and women even if homosexual are fertile and capable of producing children but certainly not with another of the same gender, unless evolution has changed the facts since I went to school.

Marriage was established to be for life and to give security and family environment to children. There has since develpoed registrations of convienience and for comport; but that does not define the actual term - "marriage". Marriage is a biological term meaning bringing together of two of different gender to produce a totally independent person. That they are registered by the State is not a register of who loves each other, but who has a responsibility for each other and who is their offspring.

I should inform you philo that the facts have indeed changed since you attended school 60 years ago. It is possible for same sex partners to produce children. Also the term marriage is not a biological term, never has and never will be. I believe you are confusing the term marriage with procreate.

There are many other things that have changed in the last 60 years, and it is not to late to enroll in the school of life to learn all about the world in the 21st century.

Fine, Loveday, I'll bite.

I will apologise for my charge of homophobia if you could please explain where this 'right' of a child TO KNOW AND BE CARED FOR BY HIS OR HER PARENTS (your emphasis) starts and finishes? Please particularly point out how that relates to same-sex couples, as opposed to the thousands of other permutations on parenting that science and society have enabled?

Please ensure you give us your take on how one defines a 'parent', donor sperm, donor eggs, surogacy, and blended families.

I can't wait!

My dear Kip (and Baz).

"Aime you will never know why same sex loving couples want marriage, until you walk a mile in their shoes,and experience what they have had to deal with in their lives"

Kip, with all due respect, I walk every waking minute in shoes far more uncomfortable than yours. At least you have a partner and you have places to go with him. You have someone to help keep you secure, safe, someone to hold during cold winter nights and frolic with on those long summer evenings.

Even though from all outward appearances, I'm a successful woman in my late 50's and in fine physical condition, I have none of the above. Apart from work and one or two good friends, I'm a recluse and for a very good reason. For me, life is spent trying not to think about how I'll manage in my twilight years for they'll be nobody to share them with me and a nursing home is not an option.

Strangely enough, I'm reasonably happy with my lot in life. I just wish I could have the opportunity that even gay people have and that's to find a soul mate so that we can live out our remaining years together, but it can never be!

Now Kip, who's shoes would you prefer to walk in?