Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Why is it a horrible trait, i dont think ive heard you say why it is, all i know is that you have said, my parents have brought me up to think is wrong. Whilst i know you are respecting you parents wishes, it doesnt look like you have an open mind towards life. As previously stated.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

indeed mr gavin well said

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes, well, conditioning can be a prime motivating factor.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

You still haven't answered one of my questions - what is wrong with homosexuals? "It's just wrong" doesn't really constitute an answer.

I don't really think all that much is censored in the western world. Certainly not as much as in China anyway.

Going back to that book, it says:

*Maomei is the name of the person who could well be the lost daughter of Chairman Mao. The people who wrote the book retraced the route of the Long March, and met with Maomei on the way.

How is the length of the long march, or the possibility of a surviving descendant of Chairman Mao, going to affect people's protection?

I have said before, and I will say again - you do indeed write extremely good English for a Chinese person. I regret that the most I can speak of Chinese is a few words. I am not trying to imply that you are a stupid idiot, certainly not. Nevertheless, I do think you are not as open minded as you could be. You seem loathe to accept any of the arguments presented to you. And I am not small minded. I also have been to good schools. I don't know what you based that claim on.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

also its becuase she thinks she is right and only her opinions matter.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I, in good conscience can not agree with or specify anything of the kind.

When a man marries a woman and vice versa it is a union designed to join mothers fathers brothers and sister...cousin Aunts and Uncles...It is also designed to preserve a future for both families.

It is litteraly a forge between families...people and potentially nations and thus the entire Earth.

True one man and one woman our Families began. You wish me to standarize any combination as a family. I can not.

A mother and a child or father and a child are broken families but ar still more of a family than two men. Why.

Because man and woman will always be the most ideal method to not only to expand the human family but to raise the human family. Homosexauls often veyr very often do not have the propper mental disposition to raise children. And it's unique. They've suffered from a type of abuse that is cyclic and cancerous: Prone to repetition. Most of this is never reported. We'd be fools to think that surveys are wholely acurate.

Exposing children to such a high risk of abuse is apauling. I would not do so with a heterosexual couple as a homosexual couple. Now we're dealing with a whole classification of individuals who have had a strong chance of abuse by their very sexual nature.

Children raised under this arrange will lack the proper perspective of the missing gender.

Offically I can not ever condone exposing a child to this risk.
Unofficially I must also recongnize that some of these homes have been better than the traditional family system.

For me this is merely the further decline of "family" arrangements.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Hah! "A, b and c happen, but nobody talks about it so there isn't any evidence. It still happens though. Honest."

Even if they adopt a daughter and a son? And children raised in a house where the mother or father is not there for whatever reason would also experience this, so it doesn't really count.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

iF You mean I have no empirical evidence you're right. I believe that evidence is flawed. I have only my own experiences and conversations with homosexuals which fit the facts.



I address that as calling them broken families. and Yes...those children will also have a disadvantage.

Untill recently adoption agency we've this as risky to place children in single parent families for that very reasons.

SO it does count.

There is a swelling of children to be placed. They simply had no choice but to do the best they could and monitor the situations.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Saquist has a point, exposing a child to homosexual sexual activity would be a bit awkward, and they wouldnt set much of a heterosexual example: "Daddy, how do people make babies?..."

But that is not a reason. There are exceptions, though by your thinking they cannot be called families either, because they are the exception to a very disturbing norm.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

But at least they used to be families...

That's why they're called broken familes....With people that never get married...it's not even called a family when a man a woman never get married. It's live it.

We don't even consider them at all related. That has a tendancy to set a precedent on what we call families.