While I understand the idealists calling for adopted children only to be given to the ideal 2 parent standard family, given the extreme shortage of kids for adoption and the priority given to the adoption agencies to choose "ideal" parents I find the whole debate about the rare parenting problems in gay couples to be trivial, especially considering the vast number of dysfunctional "ideal" families and single parent.

Lesbian couples normally don't need to adopt for obvious reasons, and generally raise as well balanced kids as normal nuclear families, and certainly far better than a large number of dysfunctional "normal" couples and most single parent families. Whereas gay male potential parents seldom wish to adopt, and even then very seldom manage to unless the biological parent chooses them.

I personally believe that the issue about gay adoption is another way to beat up on gay marriage.

Would I, Josephus?

<<With people like you AJ you would be telling the teenagers, try sex with both girls and boys and decide which one you prefer to see if you are homosexual.>>

What is it I’ve said that would suggest something like that? And how would the existence of people like me influence me to do something like that?

Or has my evidence-based approach just upset you?

<<So it all depends on the experience they have and not their physical reality.>>

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

I’m sorry, Josephus, but I don’t think that rational discussion is possible with someone who invents their own facts and ignores what the actual data has to say because they think the creator of the entire universe has informed them of the ultimate truth.

Virtually nothing you have had to say, that has anything to do with sexuality or marriage, has had any basis in fact.

runner,

"Susie as usual only interested in her dogma (very perverted). No doubt unlike the doctor recently sacked for speaking the truth and medical facts about sodomy, her career will be safe as long as she holds to the perverted dogmas. The bigots seem to be winning at the expense of the kids and others."

Do you think you could actually attempt to enlighten us beyond your penchant to call your opponents "perverted".

It's all you've got, buddy - and always delivered in a short run-by trolling comment.

How about showing us the depth of your intellect for a change...or is it beyond the bounds of credulity for some of us to surmise that it's there somewhere?

'Do you think you could actually attempt to enlighten us beyond your penchant to call your opponents "perverted".'

Again misrepresent me as usual Poirot. I called her views 'perverted'and you know it. Try a little honesty. Many of the feminist regressive ideas are also perverted (against the natural order of things). I dare say this medical doctor (urologist) has a little more understanding than Susie and even yourself Poirot but like you accuse so many others of you prefer to play the man.

AJ Philips,

Are you 'ughing' me? The practice and courtsey around here is to address the poster you are responding to.

As to your claim about knowing a "bit", I suggest you do know a bit about some things, and a whole lot about nothing. Don't try to teach your mother how to suck eggs, son.

runner,

"Again misrepresent me as usual Poirot. I called her views 'perverted'and you know it. Try a little honesty. Many of the feminist regressive ideas are also perverted (against the natural order of things). I dare say this medical doctor (urologist) has a little more understanding than Susie and even yourself Poirot but like you accuse so many others of you prefer to play the man."

That's a laugh - "playing the man".

You come onto this forum ad nauseam "playing the man". Nary a day goes by when you jump onto threads, bypass the actual subject, first port of call always being to smear and accuse your opponents of being 'haters" or holding "perverted views"...and you accuse me of "playing the man"!

Hypocrisy at its finest right there.

Here's a go - if I misrepresented you, I'll rephrase it.

"Do you think you could actually attempt to enlighten us beyond your penchant to call your opponent's views "perverted".

It's all you've got, buddy - and always delivered in a short run-by trolling comment.

How about showing us the depth of your intellect for a change...or is it beyond the bounds of credulity for some of us to surmise that it's there somewhere?

All better now?