CSA are rubbish! Sorry if wrong forum.

[KareninsGirl]

Aaarrrrggghhhhh!!!

Seven years it's taken them to review my ex's wages. SEVEN YEARS! And they still haven't done it, despite fortnightly contact.

I want to scream, cry, shout...I'm at my wit's end. Will they backdate?!

The children's society report suggested that children do best when they have a large extended network of adults who are emotionally invested in their welfare. This significantly reduced the incidence of abuse and negative changes in circumstance due to the check and balances inherent. To some extent, you could argue that the nuclear family is a mistake and we should all return to old-fashioned extended family set-ups.

Personally, I think that a child born by sperm donor to a single mother will do better than a child born into a dysfunctional marriage where both adults are convinced they need to stay together for the sake of the children.

Stability and relationships with adults seems to be what counts I agree. However, I think that judging the presence of those traits by marriage is a misnomer. Marriage may make people less likely to split, but it doesn't mean their relationship is any less likely to be unhealthy than a cohabiting or live-out one.

Interestingly, homosexual couples seem to provide the best outcomes for children, rather than heterosexual ones. Arguably they are more committed to parenthood because they have to jump through more hoops to make it happen, whereas more than half of pregnancies in the UK are apparently unplanned. I'd like to see that changed for sure.

With regard to your first point, I don't thik it's a case of "either" "or" The nuclear family can (and does for man) exist within an extended family set-up.

Second para: Yes, they probably would, but what as a society we should measure is "Does a child brought up in a stable and happy marriage do better than a child born to a single mother" controlling for everything else. I'm a proponent of marriage, but I accept that it's not for everyone.

Third para: I agree. Intelectually, it shouldn't make any difference, but somehow it seems to (or so the evidence suggests).

Fourth para: I'm realtively liberal, but still haven't managed to totally reconcile homosexuals raising child. Not becasue I think they make bad parents (I'm not convinced they're any better or worse than anyone else) but rather becasue I always thought that being homosexual (by definition) meant that you were precluded (biologically) from parenthood. Definitely agree that it's a disgrace that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. Come on ladies..........

I hope I don't sound humourless because I know your means you are joking, but sadly it would appear that most people do think it's down to the woman when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Possibly a debate for another day though.

I don't see why you would produce the inability for homosexual couples to have children as a reason for why you have trouble reconciling them as parents. Do you do the same for couples with fertility problems who have IVF, surgery or adopt? Surely if it's about happening 'naturally', the same rules apply.

Of course, it's not just down to a woman when an unplanned pregnancy occurs; however, it's (often) down to the woman when an unplanned birth occuurs. I'm uncomfortable with abortion being used as contraceptive, but not as uncomfortable as I would be if the freedom of choice was removed. This is one of the most fundamental rights woemn have, but with that right comes responsibility. Fractionally more so than a man (because of the right to choose).

I think it's because all else being equal, a man and a women could reproduce. FOr homosexuals, it's a biological impossibility. I'm not satying they shouldn't be parents, but rather, in the natural order of things, they're precluded.

If men and women were equal I'd agree, but they're not. 1 in 9 women will be raped and 1 in 4 sexually assaulted. The exercising of control over sex and reproduction remains one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship and 1 in 4 women will experience one of those. If women are to be held to greater account because of their right to choose, men should be held to greater account over their responsibility to determine enthusiastic consent.

Back on the subject of homosexuality, I don't see how the natural order of things is an excuse. The natural order of things mean many women would die in childbirth and their children be raised by others - whether a single father or an aunt. What's so unnatural about someone sharing this task with a person of the same sex? Especially when the evidence seems to show they do a better job of it than many heterosexual couples.

And the natural order of things - people dying through lack of antibiotics, fathers abandoning women who get pregnant, only the fittest and most powerful having rights, famine - is not necessarily a good thing.

I agree.

It's not particularly an excuse. Itellectually, I'm not particularly against homosexual people parenting. It's not the raising of children that's the issue, but rather the biological impediment to concieving them.

No, you're right, it's not necessarily a good thing - but for better or worse, it's got us to this point.

I should also point out that whilst I enjoy debate and taking contrary points of view, I am not homophobic. That said, despite considering myself to be relatively liberal/enlightened (you're all pissing yourselves laughuing I'm sure) I'm not afraid of my own prejudices to the extent that I won't challenge them.