And plenty of single people have children with no thought of getting married.

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Plenty of heterosexual people don’t have children. Being gay or heterosexual does not determine whether ir not you have children or not.

I believe it would be interesting and relevant to know the truth because as I understand it Mr. Bean is promoting the holy state of matrimony and is claiming that same sex marriage is furthering the ongoing destruction and is an attack on the family unit. He even described it as “an attack on the foundation of civilisation and on life itself, and that’s the family unit”.

I would be at a loss to understand how someone who chooses to bring children into this world but does not choose to marry the mother of his children can accuse others of destroying the family unit if they were given the right to marry. What exactly does Mr. Bean mean by the words “family unit”. Does his definition include anyone and everyone who has children regardless of whether or not they are married. That might be seen by some is being rather hypocritical!

Let me put it into the perspective from which I am regarding his comments. Imagine for a moment that we are back in the early 1900s and Mr. Bean is a white man talking about interracial marriage.

I am HUGELY disappointed in Mr. Beans comments. My only consolation is that he has stated that his hate is personal and not the views of the PLP as a party.

Why he would want to share such hate-filled views with the general public is beyond me though.

So sad.

Some of the very people that conducted these homosexuality gene studies themselves have said and I quote “At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive.”

Here are a few of these studies and what the scientist said about their own studies.

1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon LeVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard – also a gay man – admits: “Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.

1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: “…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviours are genetically determined is “rudimentary at best.” He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviours they observed probably involved “environmental and social stimuli” and that the female-female courtship behaviour was abnormal – missing some key steps.

The 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behaviour. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said “it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation.”

More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations”

So clearly, using these very studies the case for a “gay gene” has not been made. Still at this very moment, the scientific evidence of being “born gay,” is in FACT (truth) inconclusive. Therefore, until this so called scientific evidence of a “gay gene” becomes 100% true then homosexuality, at its core,is matter of how one decides to act sexually – not a matter of biology or genes.

The reason why one claims that it not a choice, is after they were molested by a gay person, or there was some form of incest in theirs or their family tree. To say that gays are born that way is not an accurate statement. The inherited the sins of the fathers/mothers (whatever they were into) fall onto future generations. That being said, you can calculate what kind of tomorrow we are going to have if so many citizens choose to give in to the gay/lesbian agenda. Its like letting termites in your house cause they need protection, but then they turn and destroy your way of life by eating your house.

If we give this movement a foot hold, we have a high probability of loosing our future generations to its influence. Our sons will look for sons to court, and our daughters will look for women. We have a chance to loose all that previous generations fought to build. We are building our tomorrow today. We look for grandchildren to give us great-grandchildren. But if little Bobby, is allowed to feel comfort in his relationship with Steve and they live as a couple…… there can be no grandchildren.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305125/Gay-couple-accused-molesting-9-adopted-children-withdraw-guilty-plea-decide-trial-fight-allegations.html

And if someone earns the label ‘intolerant bigot’, like Marc Bean, they do that to themselves.

Gay is based on physical & mental attraction, not race.

You then bring God into this???

I will concede the point of concern about the impact of attitudes at school on a child who has parents same sex, and that is relevant as it relates to one generation passing on their bigotry to the next. The sad fact is that there will be children at school who will target those children of same sex couples or ridicule and probably bullying and violence because that is the intolerance they are taught by their parents. However, intolerance must be fought.

As far as living in a same sex household, what few studies there, show that they are no different to mixed sex households, it simple comes down to how you raise your kids. With the right support and encouragement, irregardless of the parental make-up, the children come out better prepared for success in the world.

Now to you last point that gay men are tend to be extremely promiscuous, well that stinks to high hell of prejudicial ignorance. I mean WOW, where I you pull that from, a 1950′s moral right film strip. Gay men are no more promiscuous then straight men. We need to be addressing the issue of how many of our youth are at risk because they don’t have a father figure to look to, and why, well because either mom does know who dad is, or dad was just looking for another tally to prove how much of a man he is and doesn’t want to take reponsibility for the reslts. Heterosexual couples are doing far more damage to the family structure than gay couples old achieve. At least with gay couples adopting, they would be vetted to some degree before getting a child and they can help take in the surplus of child being thrown aside by the increasing irresponsible heterosexual couples.

People often throw other species into the equation (for or against) as if other species are equal to us. So I was quick to comment, but I hope readers understand the context of my comment.

“So how does the world get populated. Even the animals have it right and we are supposed to be smarter!!!!”

He wasn’t making an argument based on the moral equivalency of animals and humans. Mazumbo was. And Bermewjan was rightfully refuting that.

And how many kids are born out of wedlock?

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with having children.

But don’t let facts bother you. Carry on…

I find it offensive to compare humans on a moral issue to other species that never have to justify their actions to other members of their community.