Philippa Perry - Sexual orientation has nothing to do with creating a strong, healthy family

bit.ly/VsGplus.
Watch Philippa Perry, the British psychotherapist and writer, debate 'The traditional nuclear family has had its day: gay parents, single parents, communes - anything goes', on Tuesday 29th Jan, 1900 GMT / 1400 EST / 1100 PST.
Join the debate on KZbin bit.ly/VsKZbin and Google+ bit.ly/VsGplus.

[@stumbling]

Good timing for us in the UK today as parliament published a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Why we need a vote on whether one arbitrary group of people should have the same rights as another is beyond me. I don't even like thought of lowering myself to the depths of a debate that is essentially about the acceptable ratio of penis:vagina to qualify as a legitimate relationship. If we want to deny gays the right to marry why not deny them healthcare, justice and a pension too? Pathetic!

[@ahtenakhte]

And she's a credible voice on this important issue based on... what?

[@AlienPsyTing1]

@Marianne Havisham You can get multiple opinions off multiple therapists - sorry no banana

[@stumbling]

I didn't say they were denied those things, I'm saying that they are just as entitled to gay marriage as those things.

[@dontmakelemonade]

Ah, refreshing logic.

[@stumbling]

You are arguing from antiquity, stating that the terminology can't possibly be changed because it hasn't been changed before. Why does marriage have to be defined explicitly as between a man and a woman? What is the importance of this distinction? Isn't the legal bonding of two people more relevant than their genders?

[@stumbling]

Oh dear. The validity of a statement does not depend on the speaker.

[@AlienPsyTing1]

Gay people are not denied a pension, healthcare or justice. This issue is dealing with whether the state recognises marriage between two members of the same sex, nothing more, conflating the above state provisions is stupid, just as stupid as some ppl on the other side of the pond conflating Gay Marriage with slavery - real dumb

[@AlienPsyTing1]

This is a very difficult subject to discuss - it raises hackles on both sides. This is about whether the state recognises gay marriage as being the equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Marriage has since time immemorial been between Men and Women, I'll grant you sometimes between more then one Man and Woman however to re-classify a gay relationship to be Marriage i.e. the union of OPPOSITES is plain crazy. Gay ppl already have a recognition of state protection in Civil Partnerships.

[@TheFakeyCakeMaker]

lol! Yeah okay Philippa.

[@AlienPsyTing1]

the rights of the child come first - end of. Children are naturally conceived (though not always) by a Man and a Woman. This is the primary thing that should be taken into account in issues of adoption.

[@AlienPsyTing1]

absolutely nothing

[@AlienPsyTing1]

You say "isn't the legal bonding more relevant than their genders" I would say in the case if a civil partnership (which gay ppl already have) yes - but gender is important, maybe not so much in civil partnerships but for marriage yes. Society's throughout history has only (except in a very small number of cases) recognised Male/Female unions. Male and female are complimentary, so in the case of adopting children I would only allow heterosexual couples to adopt. The child's rights come first.

[@AlienPsyTing1]

@Marianne Havisham A child should have a right to a normal family life, that needs stability, something mostly lacking in gay relationships

[@doogleisfat]

Or a really small woman?

[@shamusson]

Nice cat