Lord Maginnis slams Tory think-tank on same-sex marriage as perverse

I take exception to the last sentence of DeanJackson's post. I think that a child who was heterosexual would be confused by having 2 same sex parents, not one who was homosexual. This confusion, however, would not change his/her orientation. A boy would still like girls, as a girl would still like boys.

"A man (ie male/masc/noun/sing) shall leave his father (male/masc/noun/sing) and mother (fem/noun/sing) and shall cling (or cleave) to his wife (fem/noun/sing). And the two shall become one flesh. And shall go forth and multiply." A precendent quoted in the world's best selling publication. What's complicated about it?

I can confirm that Ken Maginnis's so-called "senior party colleague" is someone who has never achieved anything in his own right, capitalised on the work done by Ken and others during 40 difficult years when, mostly, he wasn't even in N.I. and that he has been substantially rejected by the Party when it comes to enhancing his "anything goes" ambitions.

Oh dear third cousin Ken in trouble again. While I think same sex marriage a bit odd as it relates to the "traditional" concept of marriage I think same sex couples should have a right to marry each other.