Belly,
Said, "I honestly and totally do not give you or your God the right to set moral standards for me.

Well we now know that Belly prefers to operate immorally. I suggest we avoid any contact. She prefers to operate outside the laws of God. Thou shalt not kill - Thou shatl not steal - Thou shalt not commit adultery - Thou shalt not give false testimony - thou shalt not covet of your neighbours.

"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NLT)

"Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God hands them over to you and you take captives. And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month, mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her. But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NLT)

"Whoever is captured will be thrust through all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."
Isaiah 13-15,16

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I'm guessing that Belly can come up with some morals that are a lot better than those (and the host of others like them in that book).

R0bert

Nairbe, you have my upmost support on this one. Certain thing as simply not meant to be, it's just that certain people can't accept nature for what it is.

Bazz >>Picture yourself as the public servant who has to sign the paperwork
authorising the adoption by two male homosexuals of a young boy.

Would you give a thought that 20 years or so down the track you might
be sued by that boy for placing him such a dangerous situation ?

Simple answer, NO! Public servents, like pollies, are not personally accountable for thier actions.

The only people accountable for thier actions are company directors, Full stop!

Oh, so Phil ...

*Children are born with a father and mother and deserve to have a good relationship with both PARENTS.*
Phil, hello ... children up for adoption don't have any parents.

*Same sex couples forfeit their natural rights to children because of that lifestyle choice.*
What natural right to children are you referring to Phil? I don't remember seeing that rule anywhere in the great book of life. So, you're saying that same sex couples is a lifestyle choice? So if they make this choice then too bad it's their own fault and they forfeit any 'natural' rights to children? A bit harsh Phil. A bit homophobic Phil don't you think?

*Loving relationships of two persons of the same sex is not the criterion of parenting.*
In any meaningful relationship between two people it is about love Phil. You may not want to hear this, but it is about love (I didn't say sex, I said love, Phil). It's all to do with wanting love, wanting to give and to receive love. Fundamentally, good parenting is about love.

*Two sisters or two brothers can equally have a lifelong loving relationship that alone does not define then as the parents.*
We weren't talking about sisters and brothers so stay on track Phil.

Well i certainly opened a can of worms. With my second point so poorly expressed i managed to trigger the debate i was trying to avoid. This is not about morality or gay people. I wonder how many of the gay haters have gay friends. I know a few couples one of them parents and they are wonderful at the job. Their child is very much not gay and there are no issues in that way. I find the position of many really requires a lot more debating.
The point of my post was that the rights of the child need to override the rights of all others in adoption. You will note that i don't support singles being allowed to adopt. I made the point that i am a single parent and Bugsy felt i was worrying too much. You could be right but i was more airing my observations as a parent.
Suzie got it nicely that children emulate the adults that bring them up. This is not in a sexual way but how they develop as parents themselves and the learning of the interaction of the relationships in the house hold. By having two parents the same it is similar to being an only child and as this cannot and should not be controlled in the population, when it comes to adoption i saw that the child has the right to be placed in the best possible home involving the full balance possible. Their are not that many children available for adoption in this country so it should not be a problem.
I don't see it should be necessary for a non-genetic parent in a relationship to adopt, what exactly is the point of that beside legal; selfishness.
And Bugsy for the record, i don't agree with overseas adoption and though i am aware of the pain that couples go through when faced with being sterile, i am not a fan of IVF.
P.S. My wireless broadband is still on the fritz. 4 days now, bring on the NBN.

dotto,
You said, "children up for adoption don't have any parents". Then how did they get here? They were conceived by both genetic parents - they have a father and a mother. For other reasons like death, disability etc of parents they are up for adoption. They deserve a mother and a father figure in their upbringing.

Orphaned children were cared for by the next of kin. There were no gay male relationships as they were stoned to death for their unclean behaviour. I do not believe in stoning gays to death as the Muslims still do under shari'ah law.