Tory MP Julian Lewis on the lower of the age of consent for homosexuals…
When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply,” he said. “This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-olds into frontline situations in the armed forces, for example.”
Lewis highlighted that “one of the criticisms commonly made of gay relationships is that very often they do not last”.
OK. Fine. Do marriages/relationships between 16 & 17 year olds last any longer? No, they don’t. If it’s such a concern about young people why not raise the age of consent for hetersexuals instead?
Good ol’ Julian. His bigotry is only out of concern for the youth.
Nadine Dorries gets it wrong concerning the new law regarding names on birth certificates…
A function to attend mid morning and then the rest of the day peppered with interviews regarding the new law about to come into effect with allows lesbian couples to name who they wish on the birth certificate of a child they may have conceived and given birth to via fertility treatment.
A child with two mothers, neither of whom may have any DNA connection with the child.
So, lesbian couples are now allowed to name who they want on the birth certificate. That’s fucking great. If I was a lesbian couple, I would put on it put Batman and Marge Simpson. That’ll be something for the nipper to talk about later in life, wouldn’t it?
Seriously though, if two women are having fertility treatment, then there are two lots of egg, two uterii (*shrugs* I don’t know) and it’s gonna be highly unlikely that the treatment will involve nothing from the couple themselves, is it?
What is the difference between the women and a male and female couple having no DNA connection to their eventual offspring? Sorry, did you say something? No? Wouldn’t that make adoption for any kind of couple undesirable, regardless of sexual orientation?
…until this week was the strong and legal requirement issued by government that a birth certificate required the names of a child’s mother and father, a man and a woman.
To rephrase, until this week was the strong (wtf?) and legal requirement issued by government (it’s the law, yes?) that a birth certificate has the names of a childs’ mother and a male name. That male name could be Fred Fucking Flintstone for all the law cares, if it does actually care.
The evidence to prove that the traditional family structure, of mum, dad and children is the one which works best for a strong society is overwhelming.
The evidence may *prove* that the traditional family that Nadine suggests works best, but then it would’ve been not long ago that the traditional family structure of mum, dad, children and grandparents works best. Before that, the evidence would probably suggest that ot would be better to have lots of uncles and aunties living in the family too.
The evidence may suggest that mum, dad and the kids works best because of the lack of evidence of other family structures. What does the evidence say about kids with two mums or two dads? Does it say they grow up ok, mentally balanced and productive members of society or would the kids be turned into Teh Gays? Or is it growing up with homosexual parents going to make the young ‘un a axe wielding maniac or compulsive shoplifter?
I support civil partnership. I voted for it and I think it is fantastic that gay couples can be afforded the legal protection they were once denied and lived without. I also believe that those relationships deserved the protection, status and emotional support and comfort all marriages benefit from and enjoy.
Isn’t it nice how those gays can play at happy families now. They can even have a ceremony where they get a certificate at the end of it and everything.
However, when it comes to the nurturing and rearing of a child, that is a decision that has to be selfless.
But kids… whoa! That’s taking things toooooo far! Cos straight people never do things selfishly. Never have kids to try and save a doomed marriage and condemn a kid to an environment of backbiting and sniping, at best, in the family home. Those gays, all they think about is bumming each other and marching about the place dressed up, or down, to the nines in one of those Gay Proud marches.
The legislation about to come into effect delivers the message that the family unit which has underpinned a functioning society for thousands of years is de-valued in the eyes of the government.
Thousands of years? Hahaha! Twat.
How about looking at it the other way…it’s not de-valuing regular, straight-up marraige but saying other types of unions between two people that love each other are ok. How about we introduce a Love Test for teh Gays, just to make sure they don’t just selfishly want a fashion accessory that’s a little different from the usual toy dog hanging off their arm?
Nadine’s not usually a ‘glass is empty’ person, is she?
There is no evidence that lesbian couples stay together longer than heterosexual couples.
Do homosexual couples need to stay together *longer* than heterosexual couples? How long is long enough? I was under the impression hetero couples stayed together for 30, 40, 50 even 60 years, but I also understand that hetero couples also break up after 6 months, 12months, 2, 3, 4 years and all the years in between, too.
No evidence to show they make better parents…
There was no evidence Nadine would make a good MP either. Oh, hang on. That’s not helping my point is it?
We have many kinds of family today. I’m a single mum. We have families which consist of step-parents and children and lots of people working hard to make their new families work.
I bet Nadine really hates it when people suggest that she is a crap mother or she’s not bringing up her kids properly because she is a single mother. Is there a difference?
Some of those people wanting to work hard to make their family work just happen to love someone of the same sex as themselves. Is that wrong?