Turkish

no difference. A kid needs a mother and father, not two of one.

Umm, yes it is. It is scientifically proven that children raised by their bioligical parents are happier, better at school and better behaved. Dont worry though, you keep arguing with years of scientific evidence and traditional moral values and trot out your nonsense.

And there it is, the homophobic comment. Utter nonsense. I do not agree with same sex parenting because it is a fact that children needs a mother and a father and a stable home enviornment to grow up as a balanced person. Obviously there will always be cases of bad parenting with hetrosexual couples, but how anyone can argue that it is correct for a baby to be raised by a 63 year old gay man is beyond me. And apart from anything else the bullying and ridcule at school a child of a gay couple will be subject too should be enough to put most gay couples adopting should be enough to put them off, if they care about the child that is and are not trying to make a statement about themselves.

If it really was absolutely the only option other than a home then it would be the preferable option. Without wishing to sound patronising, I feel really sorry for kiddies that grow up in care or whatever and if this is the only other option then being brought up by a family is preferable. It is unlikely though, there are 100's of male/female couples that want to adopt.

i'm sure the full time nanny will adore it, the £50k+ a year salary she'll probably get wont hurt either.

I am morally against it, for the reasons i have stated above. The reason i have formed this view is because of facts, not on what the media tell me or my silly little college friends. Science proves that kids are better off with a mother and father, the courts, 90% of the time in a custody case come down on the side of the mother because they realise the importance of the mothers role in a childs upbringing. It is a fact that women are more maternal than men. The only thing that suggests same sex couple parenting is equal is political correctness. Also the fact that he is 63 means it is wrong as well, he'll be lucky to see his kid reach 20, and this is nothing to do with him being gay, i thought the same about Micheal Douglas. Come on super mikey, back up your expert opinion with facts and not what you've been told to think.

Well if thats the case there would be no need for a live in nanny will there. They can do what most other people do that have a nanny or a nursery and drop them off in the morning and pick them up after work. I'm sure we'll get the standard Hello and Okay posing pictures and then a few in the paper with the mainstream media salivating how wonderful it is that our lovely Elton is playing daddy. I bet in 5 years time both of them still wont know how to change a nappy.

Only because it's not polictically correct to use that as a reason.

Surely he should have thought about this before adopting then? Shouldn't kids be their priority, not something to fit around their careers?

So it'll be a trophy child which they'll lavish in grifts, be "spotted" by the media out playing games for a few photos in the paper and showing it off but the full time nanny will do the cooking, cleaning changing nappies etc.

It's true though, in some quarters this is considered a racist term. People complained about the Lion King FFS because they said the "bad" lion had a black mane and this was racist. It's mental. As for your comment about EJ, you seem to think It's all about the money. If this is the case then why dont every parents work 14 hours a day, stick the kid in a nursery and buy it all it's hearts desires and let it grow up a spoilt little brat? Little kids need their parents time and it is a fact that kids need a mother and father figure.

But they are again products of a society that allows this. The last 20 years has turned a lot of people in this once great country into a bunch of lilly livered, pathetic wierdos who are comsumers, by-products of a lifestyle obsession and brow beaten by the media into what they should believe. ANyone that disagrees with the mianstream is accused of being a bigot. For the thickos in this country they are better off financially not working, how can this be? If we were a bit tougher on these lazy arses and made them undergo strict medicals if they claimed sick benifit and do community service whilst they look for work and take away benifits if they dont then they'd soon buck their ideas up.

I dont.

It's true though. We live in a PC society where if anyone speaks out against what they are told to believe by the media they are branded a bigot. Some changes in society over the past 20 years or so have been positive, much less racism then there was in the 80's for example, but when you have to ask for "coffee without milk" instead of a "black coffee" then it's going too far. My own personal view point is that same sex, homosexual parenting is wrong, especially when one of the parents will be drawing their pension in 2 years. I have this opinon for the reasons stated above, many of them are facts, but i'll probably be branded a bigot with caveman views for it.

I did. I dont think it's fair on the kids. I dont have any but would be ashamed of myself if i could take my kids for a walk in the woods or play football with them because i didn't have the energy. My dad was in his 50's when i was a teenager and i dont mind admitting i was jealous of some of my mates with dads in their thirties and early 40's.

That might be the politically correct view, but science disagrees. I am sure some of you will just dismiss this as bigotry though. http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

Oh come on BTF, dont think about this with your politically correct head on. It is a fact that women are naturally more maternal than men, of course there are some great dads about, the bloke opposite me for example who's wife died last year leaving him with two young kids. But the courts recognise that kids are generally better cared for their mums, when deciding custody issues its rare for them to side with the man is it not?

Also add to this that Elton John in his 63 surely this is just plain selfish. if he is lucky he'll live to see the kid enter its 20's. I get the feeling this child is going to be more treated as a celebrity trophy, that our lovable gay Elton can have his cake and eat it. Not being funny and i know this isn't the politically correct view and will no doubt be shouted down on here as a bigot but a 63 year old gay man should forget any ideas of having a child.

And why are they employing a female nanny? Why are the vast majority of nannies women? Because a woman has natural insticts with children that men simply dont have.

I wonder if the kid will say the same when he wonders in 10 years time why all his mates have got mums and he hasn't?

a kiddie. What are peoples view on this and generally on homosexual couples adopting children then?

apart from the winner tuesday night you mean?

How utterly ridiculous, you seriously think not winning one game in February means we can write off automatic promotion? We wont win every game for the rest of the season, but guess what? Those around us wont either. Bournemouth and Huddersfield play each other in two weeks time, they cant both win. 6 points from the next 3 games would give us 10 over the last 5, 2 a game, decent return in my book. What is important is we dont lose to the teams around us and IMO i think we need to win around 13 of our last 19 games. We can probably afford 3 defeats and those around us will lose as well.

Yes, really worried, He signed on the 20th of January, he has played 3 GAMES since then, one at home v Man United where he was pretty good and two away, dont know about Tranmere not great on saturday. WE should get shot of him asap and Forte, he did nothing in the the 10 minutes he was on the pitch on saturday, get rid now, we dont need these slackers.