Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Three parents and a contract

HAYLEY MICK

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:47 PM EDT 29/05/07

A growing number of non-traditional families are drawing up legal agreements to formalize the ties that bind ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. jay bechtloff from Canada writes: I'm somewhat confused about this quote 'Without a name on the child's birth certificate or a genetic bond, they will not necessarily be recognized by the courts - regardless of whether they've been there through thick and thin.' What about the guy who tried to get custody of his child when the mom chose not to put him on the birth certificate and then put him up for adoption. There the genetic bond didn't seem to make a difference.
  2. Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: Interesting, VERY interesting.
    If one takes into consideration that in human history there is NO indication, NONE WHATSOEVER that humans are monogamic, this is a HUGE step forwards towards regaining our own humanity.
    Our right to be what we are!
    ONWARDS AND FORWARD! I SAY!!
  3. And So The Story Continues as Meg, the Moose and the Mountie.... from Canada writes: With a contract in place with its specific protections for the child not necessarily for the parents, the courts will be able to have a reference point mutually agreed by all three parties so if something unforeseen (at this point) such as the women breaking up or the man deciding that he would want his own partner to become part of the arrangement, the courts will always rule in the best interest of the child. Or at least they should and not be swayed by some 'politically correct notion' that they're reconstructing family law as it applies to gays and lesbians.
  4. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    ONLY THREE LAWYERS?

    Only three f**cking lawyers to make a family? How many will they need if they want to break the contract?

    Doesn't the baby get a lawyer? Doesn't she have a say?

    It's all about what I .. I .. I want want want, isn't it? None of them has the balls to be a real parent.
  5. Katie Marshall from Canada writes: Swans mate for life? That's news to me (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CEFDC143FF932A1575BC0A966958260).

    I'd like some data on lesbian couples please. Statements like 'lesbian relationships have a shorter shelf life' are worthless unless you have some proof to back it up.
  6. Sally Sousa from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'What about the guy who tried to get custody of his child when the mom chose not to put him on the birth certificate and then put him up for adoption. There the genetic bond didn't seem to make a difference.'

    The best interests of the child are paramount. I don't know the specifics of the case but if the provider of the sperm was not present for the pregnancy or the birth or did nothing to preserve his legal rights then perhaps the best interests of the child are not served by awarding custody to this fly by nighter. Many men don't seem to realize that each time they make a deposit of sperm, they may be creating an embryo. It might be prudent to pay attention over the next 9 months or so if they have any desire to be a parent.
  7. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Soon it will be 'uncool' to have just a dad and a mom - how, like, archaic. You mean your parents had only a doctor around when you were born, not a team of lawyers? trailer trash.

    'They're quite inspirational and moving, often,' Ms. Stacey says. 'I wish that all parents would think ahead of what it means to become a parent.' - Like providing a stable loving home with positive role models of both sexes and without institutionalized daycare? Yep, I agree.
  8. Arzie Chant from Canada writes: Sally Sousa, stuff your misandrist diatribe. Women can be just as selfish, coniving and vile as men can be, and many, many are. Look at those women who never tell me when they have fathered a child.

    The simple and inescapable fact of the matter is that when it comes to parental rights or reproductive rights, men don't have nearly the legal and societal advantages and rights that women do. Period.
  9. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: Katie Marshall: Yes not only swans but doves, American Bald Eagles and Canadian Geese mate for life. Least we not forget the penguin, whereby the male guards the nest while the females go out for a long walk, perhaps looking for places to shop?

    As for your NY Times source, dont make me laugh, about 75% of the editorial staff are gay, I can give you a source but try not to make me laugh to hard.

    Maybe you could provide a source where a society based solely on the GBLT lifestyle has lasted more than a generation?

    http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art10089.asp

    And guess what Ms Marshall, even lesbians are raped by their loving partners, oh for the love of humanity its true.

    http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n4/vickers.html

    Too bad, so sad.
  10. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    STANDARDS

    So... human rights advocates... when the little girl goes to school and learns that some children have a mother and father, others have just a gay mother, others have 2 fathers, others 2 mothers, and she has a father and 2 mothers brought together not by love, but by lawyers catering to personal wants and representing the ever-shifting politically-correct laws of the day, what will she have a standard?

    What will form her understanding of right and true?

    What will resolve the confusion that will lie deep and unspoken in her soul?

    Our society may be rich in human rights, but it is poor in standards.
  11. jiri Z from Canada writes: Soon our society will be able to rationalize every inhuman and despicable activity known it.
  12. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: Mein Gott in Himmell!!!

    Seems like one of my thoughtful posts was gunned down under the guise of 'tolerance'.

    So I looked up a certain Katie Marshall and lo and behold her name is equated with something called 'gender bendrification', oh my something sensitive and caring about mental illness.

    I am all and in favour of helping out the mentally ill, but I will decline their notions of society and family. On the farm if all the animals were gay, you can kiss your steak goodbye. Thankfully some of us know about the birds and the bees.
  13. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Among the membership, comprised of women who were abused by their mothers, less than 1 percent report that any intervention occurred. An article on the MDSA website cites reasons for that, such as "the extreme rarity of the offender seeking treatment, the victim reporting the abuse, or the authorities discovering the crime." Other reasons include the fact that "therapists, social workers, doctors, teachers, etc., know very little about this form of abuse and/or do not consider it a possibility." Also, "perpetrators overwhelmingly appear like 'normal' caring mothers." One MDSA member says about abuse by mothers: "I think that there is such a stigma to it. People don't want to hear about it and don't want to know about it. I think it must be really hard for people to hear that someone who is supposed to be so supportive of us can betray us so badly." A recent article by MDSA says "the conception of female children as victims of inappropriate male sexual behavior has dominated the research, and thus our understanding of child sexual abuse. However, recent research consistently reveals that females account for about one in four offenders," according to Patricia Pearson's 1997 study. In their introduction to the Journal of Paedophilia issue about women, Sax and Deckwitz go on to say, "When we embarked on this study we were also surprised that so little consideration had been given to the positive, fruitful side of relationships between adult women and minors. In conversations with female friends, we heard so many happy stories, related with genuine pleasure, that our feeling was strengthened that presenting a positive view of relationships between women and young people was indeed justified." === Big Sisters... The "Butterfly Kisses" site includes links to branches of the Big Sisters organization and Girl Scout websites, suggesting that these groups present good opportunities for women who desire sexual relationships with girls. (tbc)
  14. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Resources on the pro-pedophile site include articles under the heading of "Girl Scouts and Mentoring" with titles such as "Women Mentoring Girls," "Big Sisters," and "Lesbians are to Scouting as Sunshine is to Summer." In the site's reader forum, a participant identified as "Jean" posted a message Sept. 16, 2001, that said "this is the neatest forum. I have always been attracted to little girls (8-10 yr olds)." "Jean" said she is a volunteer swimming instructor and asked members of the forum for their advice on "making little girlfriends." The following day, "Poppy" wrote back and said, "You already have a convenient access to little girls as a swimming coach. Try showing them that you care about them more than your job asks you, i.e., help them with their daily problems, get to know them and become close with the girls who admire you." Like "Poppy," many of the voices on the "Butterfly Kisses" site insist that they engage only in consensual relationships with children. "Poppy" suggested to the swimming instructor that she could offer to give a little course in kissing to a girl who seems to be flirting with her. "But whatever you do," she advised, "don't force them to do anything they don't like. Good luck!" Sax and Deckwitz try to address the obvious argument that "because of the difference in ages, a relationship between a minor and an adult is necessarily characterized by too great a power imbalance. The basis of this objection is that young people cannot always foresee the consequences of their actions, and that creates an opportunity for adults to use, or abuse, them. The wishes of the child are subordinated to those of the adult." The authors object to that concern, however, arguing that "there is a power differential in every relationship. With children, great power differences play a role in their relationships with their parents, teachers, and even sometimes with their peers. We are dissatisfied with condemnations based on power imbalances." (tbc)
  15. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Asserting rights.... Like male pedophile advocates, many female promoters believe that children are being oppressed by adults who have taken away their right to fully express their sexuality in any way they see fit. "Butterfly Kisses" includes a section called "Rights Advocacy" with titles such as "Feminism, Pedophilia and Children's Rights," by Pat Califia, "A Child's Sexual Bill of Rights," "The North American Woman-Girl Love Association" and "Sexual Revolution and the Liberation of Children," by well-known feminist Kate Millett. Unlike the male homosexual movement, says researcher Reisman, author of "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences," "the feminist movement – and that includes the lesbian movement – has been vocal about 'It's not right to have sex with kids.'" Nevertheless, Millett, author of the 1970 feminist tome "Sexual Politics," said in a 1980 interview reprinted in the book "The Age of Taboo," that "certainly, one of children's essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well." "Do you think that a tender, loving erotic relationship can exist between a boy and a man?" Millett was asked. "Of course," she answered, "or between a female child and an older woman. Men and women have loved each other for millennia, as have people of different races. What I'm concerned about is the inequitous context within which these relationships must exist. Of course, these relationships can be non-exploitative and considering the circumstances they are probably heroic and very wonderful; but we have to admit that they can be exploitative as well – like in the prostitution of youth." (tbc)
  16. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: "Sexual Rights of Children," is an article published in 2000 by the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, which was founded by associates of famed sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, a pedophile, according to Reisman's carefully documented research. The article states that there is "considerable evidence" that there is no "inherent harm in sexual expression in childhood."

    While some believe they have "scientific evidence" to support that assessment, the wounded lives of members of Making Daughters Safe Again present a stark contradiction.

    "Too often, I prefer to be alone, because my heavy heart is too full of past pain," said one member. "My children get either a robotic mom, a sad mom or an empty mom. There are times when I meet their emotional needs, but there are times when I need to, want to and can't. I have to heal before it is too late."

    Another lamented that "as a child my body belonged to someone else and I had no boundaries. I never felt safe or whole. It almost feels like you are someone else. Almost as if you are the abuser. That you and her are one person."
  17. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: Great posts Karol;

    Just imagine and it will happen soon your 5 and 6 year olds will be coming home, shouting Mommy daddy, I wanna grow up to be a gay tranny, its a cool and healthy lifestyle thats what teacher sez.

    Once Nambla and their gay and sapphist cohorts scout out and defile the juveniles to satisfy their urges then its off to the children and then the cradle and then the family pet and of course we will allow it because it is the tolerant thing to do.....right?

    Normal hetero families will have to give up their children so the new normal can bring them up properly.
  18. scott thomas from Canada writes: How did this blog descend into a discussion on pedophilia? Because the clear facts of the matter are that self-identified heterosexual men are by far and away the largest group of perpetrators of child molestation, and that religious leaders are by far and away the largest risk group to place children with. So please, back on topic, homophobes.
  19. wddfwf dsffgeg from Toronto, Canada writes: Thank you for the voice of reason, Scott Thomas, but it's a losing battle - it's a full moon and all the raging homophobes are out in full force!
  20. elle ryker-lychkov from montreal, Canada writes: k.g bee always tries to equate homosexuality with pedophelia.
    k.g's twisted sexual fetishes overflow in to these discussions almost daily. on the weekend it was because of the gay bashing in russia...you should have seen the 'brilliant' comments/sex-driven trash...i don't believe this person ever thinks of anything other than kinkiness...
    as a transgendered person happily married and in a committed relationship, i fear for my future children being exposed to the mental and social deviances of hatred and intolerance-spewing warped individuals like k.g bee...
    Jezus help us all, being trapped down here with such cancerous mutants!
  21. Cold Clear Water from Canada writes: K.G. Bee, Heterosexual parents raise homosexual children, what makes you think homosexual parents are incapable of raising heterosexual children? Are gay parents anymore likely to commit incest than heterosexual parents? I think not.

    Contracts are a good idea. Like separation agreements, the clauses may not be worth the paper on which they are written, but any lawyer will make the contract stand in Family Court for the purposes of identifying those financially responsible for the child's well-being. Contracts are in the child's best interest.

    I admire everyone who makes and keeps the commitment to raising a child to the best of their abilities, and formal commitments--those in writing--are more likely to remain true commitments.
  22. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: scott thomas from Canada writes: How did this blog descend into a discussion on pedophilia? Because the clear facts of the matter are that self-identified heterosexual men are by far and away the largest group of perpetrators of child molestation, and that religious leaders are by far and away the largest risk group to place children with. So please, back on topic, homophobes.
    Posted 29/05/07 at 9:34 PM EDT

    Yes Mr. scott thomas, self-identified heterosexual men are by far and away the largest group of perpetrators of child molestation and on the face of this planet they consititute 99% of men that live, homosexuals on the other hand represent over 90% of sexual molesters of boys, that makes them more than 40 times more likely to abuse young boys. When it comes to lesbians and sexual abuse of girls this statistic is even more staggering when comparing to heterosexual women. I hope that this somehow addresses your very valid concerns. I wish that you would have enough guts to state for the public record that you are gay before you went on this very public trip, cheers.
  23. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Cold Clear Water from Canada writes: K.G. Bee, Heterosexual parents raise homosexual children, what makes you think homosexual parents are incapable of raising heterosexual children?
    Posted 30/05/07 at 3:05 AM EDT |

    Cold Clear Water, I am almost sure that pair of eagels are capable of raising a penguin. I am not quite so sure that a pair of pinguins could possibly raise an eagle, cheers.
  24. Chris Caldarelli from Canada writes: I wonder why this article doesn't mention the fact that, according to recent case law, a child in Canada can actually have three parents on his or her birth certificate. That approach certainly makes co-parenting much easier, particularly when dealing with medical authorities, schools, etc.
  25. Cold Clear Water from Canada writes: Karol Karolak, You miss the obvious point in your bizarre analogy. The baby penguin would remain a penguin, the baby eagle would remain a baby eagle. Survival for either would be improbable. Your variant species analogy is irrelevant to gender based human behavioral differences.

    Our children are as easily accepting and adapting as we are, or as we are not.
  26. Lisa Doherty from United States writes: Charlotte, as a teacher of middle school children, I would say that the problem you are facing is not how to explain the "intolerance" of your lifestyle to your child, but, rather, why it is that he/she is ostracized from others because of your choices. People rarely think these things through because they do not see how "alternate" lifestyles affect the child in its most formative years. Sure, you can preach "when we are all equal and when there is no prejudice against us" life will be great. But the cold hard fact is this: that doesn't mean ANYTHING to a child who can't invite friends to spend the night because other parents disagree with the lifestyle and do not want their children exposed to that. "So, we will invite only children of gay parents over, that way they will understand." Reasonable argument, some might say, but most parents know that you cannot force your child's friendships and they will inevitable resent your attempt to do so. Regrettably, your choice to have a child will one day build a lovely cottage or two for some lucky therapist. When a child suffers because the parent has made specific choices that will harm him/her socially and emotionally (the two go hand in hand), that is, in my humble opinion, abuse. In short, live your life to the fullest, but don't damage a child in the process.
  27. Eric of Windsor from Canada writes: Why do these people who detest the hetrosexual life of a man and woman want to copy every aspect of it right down to having children. Take away science and this life style is.........nothing.
  28. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Cold Clear Water let me put it to this way; homosexual relationships in adulthood are results of failing to establish positive emotional relationship between a child and a parent of opposite sex. When mummy hates her son that imprints little boy to seek love and acceptance among men and boy eventually turns into homosexual. When daddy hates his daughter that imprints little girl to seek love and acceptance among women and girl eventually turns into a lesbian. Let me try different analogy; two perfectly normal parents are capable of raising deaf and mute child on their own, two deaf and mute parents are unable to raise on their own a child capable of talking not even mentioning of a child capable of singing. Even if two lesbians are able to rise heterosexual boy this "normal" sexual orientation of a child is not considered an accomplishment by any standards of normal society. Raising a boy to become a man and eventually a loving father does not hinge merely on providing that boy with heterosexual orientation. Two lesbians are unable to provide that boy with proper role model of how to be a man. Having a gay man (father) to spend a weekend with such boy every six weeks does not amount to parenting and providing proper role model for such boy on how to be a man either. At the end of a day pair of penguins are unable to teach an eaglet how to fly. I find it quite bizarre that people that have failed to pass most elementary stage of emotional development and took a wrong turn by directing their sexual interest towards same sex are allowed to marry in this country and continue with their mental pathology. I find it reckless if not criminal that people that have failed to pass most elementary stage of emotional development and took a wrong turn by directing their sexual interest towards same sex are allowed to have custody of children in this country and are allowed to perpetuate their mental pathology onto a next generation.
  29. Cold Clear Water from Canada writes: Eric, good morning, your conceptual problem may be that the palate is filled with shades of grey, while you perceive mainly the black and white at the extremes.

    As to the science, as long as it is possible for men and women to procreate, they can and probably will, regardless of their sexual orientation.
  30. Charlotte Gabrielle from Ottawa, Canada writes: As a dyke planning to parent, the only thing I worry about is how to explain to my kids why some people hate me for no reason. But I guess this is a problem faced by Jewish parents, people of colour, etc. Sad the world has to be so full of hatred
  31. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: elle ryker-lychkov: Your child does have my deepest sympathies. It is difficult to grow up in a home when one or both parents are suffering from a debilitating mental illness. With a little luck maybe your child can escape the mental and emotional shackles you have willingly placed on him/her.
    =================================================

    Cold Clear Water: Be careful of what you wish for. It is not in society's best interest to promote alternative lifestyles as the new normal as the foundation in which to rear children.

    Lenin of the Soviet did experiment with the destruction of the traditional family and he realized very quickly the Soviet experiment would be fini kaput within a generation or two. So he then brought back props to promote the traditional family.

    The French after their revolution did the same as Lenin with somewhat similar painful consequences, until Napoleon restored order to promote the traditional family.
  32. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: ONTARIO COURT LEGALIZES THREE-PARENT FAMILY. There they go again. Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal, as usual, ignoring common sense and an objective analysis, and never thinking through the consequences of their decisions, recently decided that a child may now have three legal parents - two lesbian mothers and a sperm donor father. REAL Women, Focus on the Family, together with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Catholic Civil Rights League and the Christian Legal Fellowship, under the name Alliance for Marriage and Family, intervened in the case, raising realistic concerns about the elimination in law of the traditional definition of family: mother, father and child(ren). The case was argued last September, but we knew for certain the outcome of the case three days before it was argued when Chief Justice Roy McMurtry suddenly inserted himself as one of the judges on the panel. Why else was he there? Not even the brilliant arguments of a Clarence Darrow would have changed the outcome of the case. Seldom has the Ontario Court of Appeal had a case dealing with social issues that it hasn't used to re-design society and its laws according to the ideology of the liberal judges sitting on that bench. Hence, its decision in this case. The judicial activism of this court has, once again, created confusion, disruption and division in Canada. It's put Canada into dangerous unexplored territory. It is obvious that the court didn't think through the ramifications of its decision, in its haste to make a progressive "break-through" in family law. Even the liberal Globe and Mail, in its editorial of January 4, 2007, stated:… Family law requires certainty. Where there is uncertainty, separated or divorced parents will do legal battle; and where they do legal battle, the child's interests will usually be harmed. … The Ontario Court of Appeal did not answer this concern. … But unless the court has a crystal ball, it cannot foretell where its decision will lead. (tbc)
  33. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: The court, claiming that this arrangement was in the child's "best interests," changed the intent and the wording of the Ontario Children's Law Reform Act, claiming it was "filling-in" the gap in the legislation. However, if a child can now have three parents, why not four or six? Children born into marriages or common law arrangements which end in divorce or separation, may now be subject to multiple parents unrelated to them by blood or adoption having legal claims over them, as the adults in his / her life enter into other relationships. We already know the bitterness and hostility that arises over custody and access when biological parents separate. How much worse will it be when three, four or more adults are fighting for a piece of a child, i.e. the right to control that child's life? Controversial issues, such as religious upbringing, education and health matters, as well as custody, access and financial support, will all serve as fodder for battles among feuding parents of the child. In short, children are now pawns in an adult game promoting adult interests and satisfactions, but not necessarily the best interests of children. Moreover, multi-parent families will almost certainly lead to polygamy. That is, if a child can have three or more legal parents, how can a court deny all these parents legal marriage? The truth is, the courts were never established to decide these far ranging, controversial social issues since the courts can only decide cases on the narrow facts placed before them. Unlike Parliament, the courts do not have access to extensive research facilities, nor to all the social facts involved in the issue, nor can the courts make the compromises often necessary in such issues. (tbc)
  34. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Moreover, an appointment to the bench, usually made on the basis of political considerations, does not mean necessarily the acquiring of wisdom or common sense on the part of the judge. The courts, therefore, should defer these complex social issues to Parliament, since judicial activism leads to confusion, not only for the children involved, but also to the infrastructures in society, which are in place to protect children and others.

    Maybe a legislature would reach the same conclusions as the court, however, its decision would be the result of research, analysis and debate - not the personal philosophy of unaccountable judges. (Also, the public could throw them out at the next election, if they wanted to.)

    The Alliance for Marriage and Family, who appeared as interveners, is appealing this case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    Source; REAL WOMEN OF CANADA WEBSITE

    http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2007janfeb/article_7.html
  35. anonymouse N from Toronto, Canada writes: The one thing that stood out for me here (other than the blatant homophobia from K.G.Bee and Karol Karolac) is the concern for the child's acceptance in school. I noticed that no one addressed the fact that a child will not accept another child's unique family because he/she will be taught from HOME that homosexuality is "bad". So, by teaching your children your intolerance, hate and bigotry, YOU are ensuring that they make life miserable for the innocent children from homosexual families.

    As for those of you who think homosexuality is a "sin" or "abomination" or "abnormal" - it is found in nature, it's not a conscious/deliberate choice and it's NOT your business. If homosexuals are to be taxed, they deserve all the rights that I have as a heterosexual. Going by the abuse dished out to children in a heterosexual household, I'd say we have no rights to feign concern for children in homosexual households.

    BTW, bi-racial children and interracial adoptions were supposed to have same problems and those kids are thriving. Societies change as humans learn and advance.
  36. Ottawa Mens Centre.com from Ottawa Capital of Family Law Injustice, Canada writes: Canada has a decreasing birth rate that is largely contributed to by the failure of government to respect and enforce the institution of marriage between a man and a woman to promote a sufficent birth rate necessary for reasonable levels of contributions by society and to prevent the poverty of those facing retirement. Two people of the same gender cannot create children. Children need a real mother and a real father. Genetic parents generally make the best parents or society. The alternative is the "Gay Cookoo theory of reproduction" that whose motivation appears more political than of the desire to reproduce naturally. We need laws enforcing marriage as a contract with significant penalties if one party contravenes that contract. There are now virually no rules of marriage. Now we have "spousal support guidelines" that equate a marriage value to 2% per year, thats right, the longer you stay marriage the more one parties potential liability. Thats a great Gay incentive towards the destruction of marriage. Anyone with morals or a religious attitude towards marriage is in for a real shock upon divorce. Government needs to legislate a presumption of a lifelong contract absent a specific prenuptual agreement to the contrary. Specifially and most importantly, society needs a presumption of equal parenting after separation. Canadians spent billions on lawyers that would otherwise be productive money spent of the future of our children if it were not for the crazy feminist driven sharia type laws that give mothers an assumption of custody and financial support that gives them a life time of financial security while condeming fathers to a lifetime of poverty and severely limiting their ability to remarry and have more children. In sum, without a fundamental change in the legal view of marriage, and without a legal presumption of equal parenting after separation Canada is doomed to a future of a declining birth rate.
  37. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: anonymouse N writes: As for those of you who think homosexuality is a "sin" or "abomination" or "abnormal" - it is found in nature,

    Well the preying mantis and the black widow spider, kill their mates after breeding. Hamsters, mice and rats are known to eat their offspring when stressed. Does that mean we should condone and promote this type of behaviour, because it is found in nature. Nice try.

    Though the more cynical could equate the way the family court deals with fathers as condoning the black widow tendencies found in the females of the human species.
  38. anonymouse N from Toronto, Canada writes: K. G. Bee, good examples, except for a minor difference: the mate is killed. Does homosexuality kill in a way that heterosexuality can't?

    And before you bring up the issue of HIV, remember the millions of Asian and African heterosexuals infected with HIV.
  39. Lisa Doherty from United States writes: Annonymouse - it IS ok to teach children personal moral standards. Period. I would not send my children to homes where parents are known alcoholics or drug users. Likewise, I would not send my children to a home where they could be exposed to variant lifestyles with which I do not agree. That is not bigotry. That is wise parenting. The child from the homosexual home would be quite welcome in our heterosexual one. I hardly think that qualifies as teaching "hate." It also allows me a teaching moment within our family as to what values we hold.
    As for school, you obviously have either forgotten or have never seen how destructive children can be to those who are at the mercy of the selfish decisions of the adults in their lives. We as teachers attempt to guide, but there is only so much we can do before we have to shake our collective heads and wonder, "What were the 'parents' thinking????"
  40. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: anonymouse N from Toronto, Canada writes: K. G. Bee, good examples, except for a minor difference: the mate is killed. Does homosexuality kill in a way that heterosexuality can't?

    And before you bring up the issue of HIV, remember the millions of Asian and African heterosexuals infected with HIV.
    Posted 30/05/07 at 5:02 PM EDT |

    anonymouse N, just for your information; despite inherent risks of STD transmission heterosexuality is about creating new life, so there are risks and rewards to it. Homosexuality is only about risks of STD transmission with no upside to it.

    Your blatant heterophobia and your futile attempts to whitewash homosexual behaviour does not bode well for your dream of acceptance of sexualy deviant livestyles by general population. Human society is not some form of suicide pact, why should we accept or even tolerate some people who aspire to be members of human society and engage in actions that put all of us at risk of contracting deadly AIDS/HIV???
  41. Sue W from Canada writes: I guess the next logical step will be demands for governments and corporations to make their family-friendly policies more friendly by extending various benefits to the various additional family members.
  42. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: anonymouse N: Does homosexuality kill in a way that heterosexuality can't? And before you bring up the issue of HIV, ================================================ Well now that you mention it. The original term for AIDS/HIV was GRID. Gay Related Immune Deficiency. A condition as the name speaks was confined to practitioners of the gay lifestyle. Due to the gay fondness for promiscuity it spread like wildfire, which attracted the attention of the authorities and the unwelcome spotlight of the media. Naturally this lifestyle did strike many as morally and emotionally bankrupt. Gay militants taking a page on how they intimidated the American Psychological Association into delisting homosexuality as a treatable mental malady sought to change the name from GRID to AIDS and now HIV to remove the gay connotation to the disease. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence whereby infected gays sought to spread this illness to the straight population. The illness did spread through other means too such as blood transfusions. IIRC the first hetero subgroup infected in numbers were female prostitutes. When one studies the gay response and methodology to the delisting of their mental illness and their initial response to GRID, the lowering of the age of consensual sex, and even the pretense of marriage, one becomes circumspect at their motives, in every way shape and form.
  43. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: "An interesting phenomenon has developed in `gay rights' battles across America: the emergence of Nazi-style `shock troops' known as `Bigot Busters.' Where anti-`gay rights' speakers or petitioners gather, these `brown-shirt'- style homosexual mobs harass them -- and listeners and petition signers as well.
    "Perhaps the onset of `Bigot Busting' (which represents a conscious strategy devised by the militant National and Gay Lesbian Task Force, and is described in the NGLTF's Action Kit: Fight the Right (March On Washington Edition) should come as no surprise to us" (emphasis added).

    Source:

    http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc16.html
  44. anonymouse N from Toronto, Canada writes: Lisa, morals are not copyrighted by hetersexuals. Homosexuals have morals, as much as anyone else. The homosexuals I have come across have been highly successful, productive, giving members of society and as such I have the highest respect for them. Two looked after me when my parents had to be away and I have nothing but complete confidence in their child-rearing abilities. I have not forgotten how cruel children can be. However, that cruelty is fed by parents who poison their kids' minds and make them as bigoted as themselves.

    Karol, I am a heterosexual and most definitely have no "heterophobia" as you put it. Why should you accept homosexuals??? You can certainly accept their taxes. I don't see anyone refusing the cash that comes in. If they are not an accepted part of the society, why should they pay taxes?

    And K. G. Bee, once again, you take a snippet that suits your hate and expand but ignore the point of my post. What about the millions of heterosexuals infected with HIV? Mostly by men who have fooled around while women have stayed home - I am talking about Asia and Africa where female promiscuity is very low. But that would make it inconvenient to hate, of course.
  45. K.G. Bee from Canada writes: anonymouse N: I will decline to respond to your hyperbole. However you did confirm my original missive that promiscuity is a factor in the spread of GRID/AIDS/HIV. Though there are also other reasons for the spread of this disease in Africa and Asia which are irrelevant to this discussion. I merely kept the discussion within a western perspective since it is here and nowhere else the traditional norms of marriage are under assault and thats what this article is all about, isn't it? Despite the occasional and touching to perhaps to the more feeble minded, whereby a GBLT couple are held up as the new normal since they at least outwardly project a monogamous relationship. It seems marriage is used as a status symbol to marry a forbidden love and then under the cover darkness continue a life of promiscuity. Dont believe me, then google your favourite gay celebrity who has tied the knot and on occasion they let it slip out they may be looking for illicit love in the local public latrine or elsewhere even though they are married. There are some gays who have conceded that this marriage business is not all that it appears to be and is only being advanced in order to push the envelope in other areas of sexual acceptance or to create a new and larger market for their lifestyle, especially to attract new adherents, the younger the better they say.
  46. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: anonymouse N from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Karol, I am a heterosexual and most definitely have no "heterophobia" as you put it. Why should you accept homosexuals??? You can certainly accept their taxes. I don't see anyone refusing the cash that comes in. If they are not an accepted part of the society, why should they pay taxes?

    Posted 31/05/07 at 5:30 PM EDT

    anonymouse N, I guess All Capone held quite similar views to yours on taxation. Why did the IRS bust him is beyond me???

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top