Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Last words on the matter. I still think that children should be brought up with both male ( masculine ) and female ( femenine ) influences, and not one sided .This is my opinion. Yours is different, which I acknowledge. I do not understand homosexuality and its place in nature. I do understand love. You are lucky to move in more diverse circles than me. The Valley Vegan.............. Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Peter >Whether you like it or not, in nature the female of the species give birth, males do not, and they have the instincts/hormones that go with that. From birth, their > emotional ties with their babies are stronger than the male. Males cannot give birth, their instincts are throughout evolution to find a mate and be the provider to > ensure the species continues and the stongest survive as with any male of any species.How can that statement be offensive or outdated or even disputed? The statement that females give birth and males do not is a clear fact (with the exception of seahorses), which I do not dispute. The inferences you make regarding emotional ties, finding mates and being providers is your opinion, it is not fact, and can be and *has* been disputed - that is the part that is outdated. >You continue to put words into my mouth which I find offensive and says a lot about you: >"because you clearly think that being homosexual is something which people should be disuaded from, and therefore you must think that it is somehow a less > worthwhile way of life than being straight." So, how else do you explain the statement you made regarding your "concern" that people may be encouraged to be homosexual. If you didn't perceive homosexuality as something "secondary" to heterosexuality, why would you be "concerned" at that? Please enlighten me as to how else your statement could be interpreted? >As for your sensationalisty comment on vegans not being alowed to adopt? cmon you know better than that. My comment was there are good and bad parents. Your initial comment was, and I quote, "homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children"... so my statement was a straight forward analogy, no more or less "sensational" than your statement. BB Peter Peter H All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Hi Peter I'm still intrigued as to what you actually classify as " masculine " and " feminine " , and why you think those traits are specifically linked to the genitalia people happen to have... BB Peter On 10/09/06, peter VV <swpgh01 wrote: Last words on the matter. I still think that children should be brought up with both male ( masculine ) and female ( femenine ) influences, and not one sided .This is my opinion. Yours is different, which I acknowledge. I do not understand homosexuality and its place in nature. I do understand love. You are lucky to move in more diverse circles than me. The Valley Vegan.............. Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Peter >Whether you like it or not, in nature the female of the species give birth, males do not, and they have the instincts/hormones that go with that. From birth, their > emotional ties with their babies are stronger than the male. Males cannot give birth, their instincts are throughout evolution to find a mate and be the provider to > ensure the species continues and the stongest survive as with any male of any species.How can that statement be offensive or outdated or even disputed? The statement that females give birth and males do not is a clear fact (with the exception of seahorses), which I do not dispute. The inferences you make regarding emotional ties, finding mates and being providers is your opinion, it is not fact, and can be and *has* been disputed - that is the part that is outdated. >You continue to put words into my mouth which I find offensive and says a lot about you: > " because you clearly think that being homosexual is something which people should be disuaded from, and therefore you must think that it is somehow a less > worthwhile way of life than being straight. " So, how else do you explain the statement you made regarding your " concern " that people may be encouraged to be homosexual. If you didn't perceive homosexuality as something " secondary " to heterosexuality, why would you be " concerned " at that? Please enlighten me as to how else your statement could be interpreted? >As for your sensationalisty comment on vegans not being alowed to adopt? cmon you know better than that. My comment was there are good and bad parents. Your initial comment was, and I quote, " homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children " ... so my statement was a straight forward analogy, no more or less " sensational " than your statement. BB Peter Peter H All new Mail " The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. " - PC Magazine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.