suzeonline,
Please read my former posts. I truthfully uphold all natural biological evidence for birth. I do not pretend a lie of two fathers or two mothers like the PC, or immaculate conception.

Dear vanna,

Could you kindly supply some evidence that only one
marriage type is economically sustainable in our
society. Otherwise what you're presenting is merely
your opinion.
Whereas according to recent surveys and sociological
studies - various alternatives to traditional marriage
not only currently exist, they propsper quite well.

As a matter of fact - the great majority of gay men and
lesbian women form stable, long-lasting relationships
with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives.
And what is significant is the willingness of many courts
to grant custody of children to a gay parent.

For several years moreover, social welfare
agencies in New York and other large cities in the US have
been placing orhpaned or runaway gay teenage boys - who are
unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes - in the custody
of gay males, usually couples.

And of course as we know the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination:
if they so choose, lesbian women can become mothers
without having had any heterosexual relationships at all.

I'm afraid that you are somewhat out of touch with what's
happening in the real world. And you may not approve of any
of it - but frankly - what you approve of or don't approve
of doesn't matter one iota. And that's a fact!

Lexi
Have to work today (someone has to pay tax), so haven't the time to list links.

But note that 50% of children are born outside of heterosexual marriage in the UK, leading to what is thought the highest rate of child poverty in OECD countries (about 30% of children).

"And of course as we know the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination:
if they so choose, lesbian women can become mothers
without having had any heterosexual relationships at all." is the frightening part.

There would be less morality in IVF then in plastic surgery, and perhaps the same amount of morality in IVF as abortion clinics.

One of the reasons IVF is easier to obtain than adoption, is that IVF clinics will carry out IVF on just about anyone.

70 year old women have been given IVF, and also large numbers of women over 50, knowing full well that the baby is likely to be stillborn, or likely to be born underweight or prematuraely.

IVF clinics are also well known for treating sperm and egg donors as convenient human incubators, and they offer them minimal amounts for the sperm and eggs.

There are also IVF doctors now saying that there is money to be made in human cloning.

So the production of human babies is an industry, and humans are a commodity.

Feminists may love IVF, because the father can be elliminated before the child is even born, but IVF is an unnatural process that has no ethics or morality other than making a quick buck.

Trading in babies is as ethical as the slave trade; when homosexual men can employ surrogate mothers to have their babies for cash.

Marriage always has been between a man and a woman. There is an extensive body of research globally that confirms the value of conventional marriage to societies and children in particular. Gays use the old argument - its all 'behind closed doors'. Then they want Ernie and Bert to get married in front of our toddlers! What is it about marriage that homosexuals want that they can't already have if left to their own devices?
Genetics? I'd love to hear how the biological dead end of homosexuality ever made it through millions of years of evolution. And please tell me more about the health benefits of this supposedly normal lifestyle choice. I'm just not convinced. Any health professionals out there?

suzeonline, Lexi, McReal & Pelican etc, i see none of you have dared to comment on this thread,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215752

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215928

in which one of your colleagues successfully proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that fatherlessness & non traditional relationships is what caused the recent riots in Britain.

Why are fauxMANistas & the loony left completely incapable of ever admitting they may have been wrong?