Lighthouse

Now at Skonto Riga, where he has managed to pick up a Latvian passport.

Why state it though, what relevance does it have? Lots of perfectly acceptable practices were outlawed in the past and many are still outlawed abroad. I assume you are refering to the strongly Islamic countries, who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds. Countries where you can get beaten for being drunk, women can't drive cars and the lives of Christians are valued at litterally half that of Muslims. As for this case, it's tricky and it really comes down to the individuals concerned. If they are just like any other normal couple then it isn't really much of an issue. If on the other hand a person just has surgery and cross-dresses out of some freaky sexual fettish they clearly aren't good candidates for raising a child. In this particular case it's the "man" who has given birth to the child, which is a little odd. I don't agree with it because if you're going to have a sex change then make your mind up, one or the other. Does this mean they shouldn't be able to raise the child? Not nescessarily, but it depends on the individuals concerned.

Wow. There was me thinking there was no danger of Newcastle wanting Lambert and they go and sign Shefki Kuqi. It reminds me of a few years ago when Bolton sold Anelka to Chelsea and brought in Rasiak to replace him.

Kids get bullied at school for being fat, ginger, wearing glasses, being from different ethnic backgrounds... many things. Yes there is a chance a child MIGHT get bullied but I don't think that should prevent gay people from adopting children. As for having his picture in the paper, I refer again to the Beckhams, Brad and Angelina, the Royal Family etc. If Elton's child is in the paper it's as much because he is famous as he is gay. 'Elton adopts baby' wont be news forever. Also I'm not making silly points, I'm drawing comparisons which you can't seem to comprehend. And what questions haven't I answered?

Thanks, had DMG down but stuck him in the wrong line. I know it's Andrei, but I stuck him in the 'Andrew' bracket because I think (correct me if I'm wrong Russian Saints) it's the Russian version of Andrew.

Can you put together a team with the same name (international variations permitting)? I've been wrestling with a few lists, haven't got an XI yet though. The best I've got is 7 Daniels and 6 Michaels. Chris - Baird, Makin, Marsden, Perry, Lucketti Paul - Telfer, Williams, Jones, Wotton, Smith Alan - Blayney, Shearer, Bennett, Ball Alex - Ostlund, OC, Pearce Dean - Hammond, Richards Michael - Channon, Svensson, Mills, Antonio, Nilsson, Adams Daniel - Harding, Seaborne, Butterfield, Guthrie, Petrescu, N'Guessan, Higginbotham Joseph/Jo -Mills, Tessem David - Connolly, Beasant, Peach, Prutton, McGoldrick Matthew - Oakley, Le Tissier, Patterson, Mills Jason - Puncheon, Euell, Dodd John - Viafara, Forte, Sydenham Steven - Crainey, Mills, Moran, Williams Andrew - Surman, Davies, Kanchelskis Kevin - Davies, Phillips, Keegan Peter - Madsen, Shilton, Crouch, Rodrigues, Osgood Lee - Todd, Holmes, Barnard, Molyneux James - Beattie, Magilton, Case, McCalliog, White

I vaguely remember a few games when we had 3 midfielders in the defence, namely Wright, Euell and Skacel.

That's the whole point of a metaphor, it's different to what you're trying to explain. Tedious point, which I can't be arsed explaining any more. How about a pet dog. Two humans are not capable of conceiving a dog, so does that mean they are therefor incapable of caring for one? How about single parents? A person, male or female, cannot conceive on their own, so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to raise children on there own? P.S. I'm not saying you're homophobic, but having gay relatives doesn't imunise you from being a homophobe.

Yep. Darren Kenton too.

I notice the URL for that picture is from imageshack, meaning you have this picture saved on your hard drive. Dirty boy.

I thought he was excellent in several games in midfield. Ran the show infact. Hull away when we won 4-2. There was a home game against Leicester when he scored (think that was the game that nearly got called off). He was also pretty good in the play second leg in midfield with Guthrie. Also he is not the worst CB we've ever had, not by a very long way. Darren Powell was worse, as were Jackobsson, Lancashire, Davenport and Lundekvam mk.05.

It seems this simple metaphor has gone way over the heads of some people, so I will go back to the basics. The ability to conceive a child and the ability to raise a child are two completely different concepts. You only have to look at examples like the Baby P fiasco to see that. Some woman got knocked up and 9 months later a baby fell out of her. Brilliant. Does that mean she is a suitable mother? No, of course not. Between this woman (I forget her name) and her boyfriend they neglected and beat a baby to death. It's the most tedious of tedious links. What you are saying is that a straight father raising a child is natural, but a gay farther isn't. Why? Because a straight father can conceive a child "naturally". In other words a straight father is a suitable parent because he sh*gged some woman 9 months ago, but a gay father isn't because he didn't. I don't normally agree with Deppo, but he makes a valid point here. We do thousands of things in every day life which aren't "natural". Your car, your TV, your ipod... you go on holiday flying isn't natural. You get there and disagree with the Spannish food, the doctor gives you antibiotics, that's not natural. The list is endless. Let's put it another way. Single parent families. There are loads of people out there, be it single mums or single dads, who raise a kid on their own. If a man can raise a kid on his own, why can't two men? I've got a friend who shares a flat in London with his brother. Should they be banned from having kids because 2 men living together isn't natural? Where exactly is the problem? A man can raise a kid without a mother in the house, no problem. Two men can share a house, that's no problem. Is it simply the fact that the two men have a sexual relationship that is the problem here?

I can't build a car, are you saying I shouldn't drive one? I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I'd say most lads are pretty close to their mums, same as most girls are pretty close to their dads. I'm not knocking single parent marriages here. I'm saying you shouldn't deliberately put a young kid into a world where they have no contact from a relative of the same gender.

I did think of you when I said that Mike, but like I said it doesn't have to be a mother and father living together. For a start three of yours have an older sister to look up to and I believe they all see mothers an aunties fairly regularly. I'm talking about if there are two gay men together, in which case there would be no woman involved at all.

There's a minefield of issues here, I can't be arsed going through them all. In summary: Gay people adopting kids - Fine Old people adopting kids - Wrong People getting kids due to wealth - Wrong Kids not having a role model of the same sex - Wrong The mental image of Elton bumming - Very very wrong

And I'd agree with that, assuming of course the couple does have the money to provide a comfortable upbringing. You've just told me it's half the problem, then said it shouldn't be an issue. Make you mind up.

Again, money is a different issue to homosexuality. I don't particularly have an issue with a child being born into poverty having a rich upbringing. I'm sure he will be spoiled, but it's better than being unwanted on the streets. It's not as if this isn't an issue with straight parents either. Look at the Royal Family, Beckhams kids, whichever African tribe Madonna has adopted this week.

Age - That's a different issue and one which I have more of a gripe with that the homosexuality. I'm happier with a 30 year old gay couple adopting that a 63 year old straight couple, simply because it's going to be unfair on the kid having to look after ageing parents. I think boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model. Not nescessarily in the same house, but a role model in some capacity, even if they only see them on weekends etc. I think half the problems in society stem from a lack of direction and discipline as a child. Half the scumbags on the Jermemy Kyle show got there because they didn't have a strong father figure as a child. Someone to whack them accross the arse and say, "don't do that, go and finish your homework". Kids need someone they can identify with and respect. This from the bloke who doesn't have any. You can moan about being PC if you want. I'm hardly a PC happy clappy leftie type. I just don't see a problem with any of this.

I don't see any problem with it personally. There are plenty of kids out there who either don't have a a mum or don't have a dad. I'm sure it will be different for the kid, but I don't think it will be a problem as such. At least you know with Elton he's going to get the best upbringing money can buy. His childcare, education, healthcare etc. will all be far better than he could have had in Ukraine. The problem would be if they were adopting a girl. I don't entirely agree with that because she wouldn't have a female rolemodel in her life.

Niemi's triple save was the season before. I think Blayney's actually won the Sky Sports save of the season, not just ours.

You have a strange diet.

How is that the point? We're talking about issues which could effect the club and it's finances at the top level and you're more worried about getting a 2 page spread in the Dailly Heil?

I call 'myth' on that one. Guly - Can't remember the date he signed, but our last 4 games have been against Tranny, Manure, Exooharr and Posh. Man Utd is always a tough gig and in the other 3 fixtures Saints played fairly poorly as a team. I'm sure when we improve our overall game, Guly will come good again. Saga - After signing him on a permanent deal, Burley pulled off the tactical masterstroke of not actually playing him. I remember Saga scoring in that God-forsaken curtain raiser against Palace, then scarcely being seen again until about February. I remember one midweek match (think it might have been against the Us) when he came on with 45s of injury time left. Madness. You can't exactly call him lazy either, he put in more effort than Stern John, BWP and Rasiak combined (although that really isn't saying much).

You're probably thinking of Le Fondre, who a lot of people thought was out of contract in summer. ALF is contracted till 2012 and has said he wont re-sign. No idea about CMS.