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

[Datarock]

Originally Posted by Look at that!

the only thing you state i do not accept is homosexuals

and why should i accept such a horrible trait

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.

[SuperFantastic]

indeed mr gavin well said

[Mr. Pedantic]

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

[Rich19]

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

things are censored all over world for peoples protection, only westerners make a point out of it and say how diffrent it is when another country does it

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:

Originally Posted by The long march

I found the sensitivity about Maomei* more predictable. Journalists were simply nervous about anything that touched on Mao's private life.

*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.

Originally Posted by The long march

The fact that the 25,000 li belong to propaganda rather than historical fact is not completely supprssed in China... Any mention of the length is cut out of press or television interviews.

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 think you are small minded, i am not dumb, i have been to good schools, as you can see i can speak and write very good English, it is most proberbly that i am smarter than many people on here, so stop trying to always imply i am stupid and idiot

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.

[SuperFantastic]

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

[Dursk]

Originally Posted by Fez Boy

As long as you'll specify that a man and a woman are equally not a family, I'll be inclined to agree. However, I'm pretty sure that there are studies out there (that a less apathetic member than I could bring out) that point out that children are brought up better by two parents of the same gender. If anyone would like to procure this evidence, it would be most appreciated. Likewise, if anyone has refutory evidence I shall accept my incorrectness.

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.

[Rich19]

Originally Posted by Saquist

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.

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

Originally Posted by Saquist

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

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.

[Dursk]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Mr. Pedantic]

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?..."

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

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.

[Dursk]

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.