Not a fan of gays but I am also not a fan of a government big enough to tell you that it is illegal to do something that hurts no one.

Marriage is a religious institution and therefore the idea of a civil union is more palletable for same sex couples. Lets face it folks. They are out of the closet like it or not and they have no intentions to go back in. Give them their civil union rights so that as a couple they can enjoy the same benefits a hetrosexual couple enjoys. That is what they are wanting. No government should be allowed to make laws excluding those simple rights.

As far as the adoption thing goes, I am opposed to that as a child needs both a mother and a father.

You are entitled to your opinion and I have mine.

Men and women ARE different and children need both! Kudos to the French for proclaiming what should be obvious to everyone. Vive la difference!

"Not a fan of gays" ...... ha ha ha ha (after that anything you say is completely worthless no matter the content)

Davefromdana: what the protestors are saying is that it hurts children, not 'no one'. We feel the same on the adoption thing: WHY does a gay couple need to have children? If you find yourself attracted to the opposite sex because of biology (no fault of your own) then naturally you aren't going to have children (no fault of your own).

I support gay rights to a point: why do I say point? Some things AREN'T fair for the rest of us: consider that I cannot get my live-in girlfriend (of three years now) on my insurance at work because we AREN'T married. IF she were my wife, then I could cover her with insurance. IF SHE WERE A MAN I COULD COVER HER UNDER MY INSURANCE. So its okay if I'm living with another man unmarried, but since I'm living with a woman and unmarried, the insurance won't allow me to put her on my policy. THAT IS FCKED.

I'm glad that gays have gained the rights they have, but they've also left some of us wondering HOW in the hellfire we 'run-of-the-mill' people don't have the same rights that they do. I am in favour of anyone having a civil union: but lets get some EQUAL TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE.

Equal rights means *equal*. Not sort of equal, not kind of equal, but *equal*. I have no problem with gays raising children. Most of the gays I know are extremely intelligent, loving and kind people. It's the 21st century folks. Get with the program.

Not fan of blonds as they are all dumb as sticks.

Traditional assumptions take a long time to break.

Dave from Dana... Do you know how many children today have only one parent? Are they all lost? Kids need a loving parent and gays have proven that they can provide that, single or married!!!

AlexTheBlade,

You made quite a straw man argument there. Thing is, though, one doesn't have a thing to do with the other. Fact remains that you have the option to get legally married, with all the rights, privileges and protections that entails. Gays, for the majority of state and for all federal purposes, do not. So, when companies decide to give them the option to insure their domestic partners, those companies are trying to level the playing field.

Since you have the option to marry, your argument that it's unfair that someone who doesn't is still given at least some semblance of equal treatment makes you look like a whiny, spoiled brat, at best, since you're complaining that you aren't being given more than gays (even though you actually are). It's as if you think that there absolutely shouldn't be any equality for gays, since you're insisting that you still receive everything they're given while getting to keep all you already have that they don't.

You really oughtta be ashamed.

To ALextheBlade:

The right to put our domestic partner on our insurance was given to some gay folks in some situations/states as a half measure because we are DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY. You can make the woman that you live with your wife, and then she will be eligible to share in all the benefits of that. We, except in certain states like my own, are denied the right to marry so there have been some half steps given. In Washington State, the right to have a Domestic Partnership has now been revoked now that Same Sex Marriage is legal. In Washington now, gays must marry to have the state rights of Marriage. The half step rights like putting unmarried domestic partners on your insurance are revoked here. Its get married or nothing.

Alex,

That is the point I am making. Let them have their civil union and then if they want a divorce, let it sting just as bad as it does for a hetro couple. I am not for giving them special rights nor am I proposing to force a religious institution to honor their wishes. Take away the discriminatory special rights they get as you described in that they get to put each other on their insurance without a union and you don't because you are a hetro (actually in California a straight couple can do exactly that). But if they are committed to each other in a civil union then that would allow one to have the ability to dictate the medical care the other needs and gives them legitimate visitation rights if one is bed ridden in a hospital. As it stands now they are not allowed those rights that hetros get to enjoy (ie; power of attorney). I would extend the civil union rights to hetros as well. No one is excluded. To me, Marriage is a religious sponsorship of a union between a man and a women, period, but a civil union is between two individuals no matter what their sex. As far as the gov is concerned there should be no extra rights granted by what you call it or for who is involved. My wife and I were wedded in a Meadow in the Sierra mountains, not a church. Does that mean I should be given or denied any rights as opposed to some couple who were married in a church? I should think not. Get the government out of it and half the problems would disapear right away.

Definitions need to be made clear and simple.

If a man wanted to marry a hermaphrodite who recognizes themself as a women is that ok with the church as opposed to him wanting to marry a hermaphrodite that recognizes them self as a man but still looks like a woman? How about vice versa?

Being a Blond and female... I find it quite strange and unique that France is finding morals....

Frankly, I think that it is ridiculous that we are even debating or voting over the issue. These rights are constitutional under the equal protection clause. Nobody should VOTE to give some other person their rights.

"You are entitled to your opinion and I have mine."

Ah, the last refuge of a person who has absolutely no facts or convincing arguments on their side. It's ironic that you embrace the kind of relativism that gay marriage opponents typically reject. It's incumbent on you to explain why your opinion is the correct one and your opponent's is incorrect.

Troll elsewhere and have a nice day.

ptownz,

I don't agree with a lot of things but I don't try to impose my beliefs on others thru a religious perspective or thru an agenda perspective as you do. I have seen your post from the past and if you can't back up your argument then you resort to a bunch of childish name calling and bullying to get your way. It is obvious that you are gay and in the closet but you refuse to just come out and say it. You want everything to go your way or the highway. With that low mentality you will get nowhere on the issues. That makes you irrelevant.

davefromanapointca,

"Marriage is a religious institution"

That's the whole point with these demonstrations, I think. France is a predominantly Catholic country, and the Catholic Church is officially opposed to homosexuality and to gay marriage. They are the ones who gave the word "conservative" its meaning. The fact that they are willing to ally themselves with the far right wing Front National party is even scarier. There are many who still believe to this day that the Catholic Church was behind the Nazis and Mussolini's fascist's during WWII, although that's debatable.

They don't call it gay paris for nothing

I am not for giving them special rights nor am I proposing to force a religious institution to honor their wishes.

Dave, what "special rights" are you referring to? The right they are demanding is for ANY consenting adult to marry ANY OTHER consenting adult, regardless of their respective genders. Moreover, "marriage" is not a religious institution -- you, like all "good" bigots, are confusing the civil contract that is "marriage" with the religious rite that is "holy matrimony". The government is only interested in marriage, not matrimony.

BTW, the word is "heterosexual," not "hetrosexual" -- or "hetero(s)," not "hetro(s)".

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that "separate" is not "equal" -- and civil unions/domestic partnerships are expressly prohibited in many states, and/or people in such arrangements are prohibited by law from receiving the same benefits as married couples.

DYFR.

Jean-Francois Cope is behind this right wing group which doesn't even have a party leader - 2 months after their blatant cheating in the election. There are plenty of single parents raising children, so the assertion that a child "needs" or "is entitled to" two parents (much less two parents of different sex) is absurd.

It is absolute nonsense to argue that children brought up in a gay-marriage household will be psychologically harmed specifically because of the gay union.

First of all, thus far, there cannot yet be any evidence of that, can there? Nor will every gay couple decide to raise children.

And do remember that, thus far, all of today's troubled, maladjusted children stem from supposedly non-gay living environments, so the negative statistics point ONLY to straight unions.

Oui ahhh..Oui ahhh..Oui ahhh

I luv french fries,french toast and french dressing.

G Dog,

Chicago is a prime example of the lousey job single parenting is doing. A ton of single parents there either burying their kids or visiting them in jail where they will remain for life.

Erin,

In some liberal bastion states, like California, gays were given special rights that straight people couldn't get like domestic partner benefits. That went on for a few years until it went to the state supreme courts. The final ruling came out that the state had to extend those benefits to the hetros (I know that words makes your head explode so I will continue to use it) or drop those benfits altogether.

DYFR and STFU you Jersey BIOTCH.

Dave,

Seriously??? Heterosexuals couldn't enter into domestic partnerships that do NOT carry the same amount of privileges and benefits, because they COULD enter into marriages. That's like complaining that the white people couldn't use the black people's water fountains.

So you want yours, theirs, and the right to tell them they can't have yours.

In some liberal bastion states, like California, gays were given special rights that straight people couldn't get like domestic partner benefits. That went on for a few years until it went to the state supreme courts. The final ruling came out that the state had to extend those benefits to the hetros (I know that words makes your head explode so I will continue to use it) or drop those benfits altogether.

DYFR or STFU, because your ignorance is totally underwhelming. The In Re Marriage cases in California found that civil unions/domestic partnerships fall under the "separate" is not "equal" category, which is why you bigots found it necessary to enact Prop H8.

What a moron.

ErinNJ

Last time I checked the US constitution has little legal standing in Paris.

Sarah,

Go all the way back to my original comment. I support the right to Gay civil unions and for government to get out of it completely. I might not agree with the gay life style but I disagree more with government telling us what we can and cannot do with our own lives. As I stated in 1.2 you will see where I stand. But I guess I will be chastised by both the rabid liberals and the taliban religious right because I do not toe the line of either party.

Oh the bain of being a free thinker.

Erin,

Take the time to read what I said in 1.2 you ignorant idiot. Does that sound like I voted for prop 8? your stupidity is deafening.

Timothy

There was a Harvard Study released in the last year proclaiming that children in same sex homes get better grades than heterosexual homes. Knowing a number of gay an lesbian people I would have thought this to be true.

HOWEVER, from further reviewers of the study, instead of taking the numbers at face value, some reviewers added up the scores and found that a mathlematical error pushed the same sex homes ahead of the heteralsexual ones.

I think while one does better than the other, you could say same sex couples children don't do quite as well, the assertion is far from outrightly harming the kids until a study insures that the like social/economics class were clearly know. It is possible that the wealthy heterosexual couples benefited from better education more so than same sex couples of a lesser wealth.

And your stupidity was as obvious then as it is now. You referred to marriage as a "religious institution," which is false. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in this secular nation, legal marriage is and has always been strictly a civil contract. Then you talk about conferring "special rights" on them, which is also false.

You are another one who personifies ignorance and bigotry.

Marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other- that's true of same-sex couples, too. Straight and gay couples want to marry for the same reasons, to build a life with the person they love. Both need the security and legal protections of marriage that help make this possible.

Go French Government. You know whats up. Kids are better off with two loving gay parents than an orphanage, a third world country where they will live in poverty, or get shot by a gang. The Catholic church knows nothing and the Muslims? Well, lets just say their main nations are always in war and they know nothing about peace and love. Of course there are those that do. And they normally are the ones that are normal and chill towards such matters, not tagging everyone as infidels.

In other words, it's none of their business who marries who and who adopts who until the kid is proven to have been abused by straight or gay parents, that's when the government should truly act. It's not like you'll lose "heaven points" or whatever if two same-sex strangers get married.

France for the French!! From what I hear they are a fairly old country and should be more than capable of deciding for themselves. What the hell do we have to say about it?

Dave, I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up your ass -- and yours is too tightly wedged in there.

gosh erin. Do you always vote for your own comments?

Dave,

I did read your original comment. It's flawed in three places. First, marriage has never been religious, that's matrimony. This is why anyone of us could get married tomorrow without invoking a single God and/or religion, or stepping foot in a church. Second, civil unions are not equal to marriages, as they lack interstate and international, both of which marriages grant. They also do not bestow the 1,000+ benefits that marriages grant. And finally, many children lack either a mother or a father, why only focus on that issue in reference to gay people?

AlexTheBlade

I support gay rights to a point: why do I say point? Some things AREN'T fair for the rest of us: consider that I cannot get my live-in girlfriend (of three years now) on my insurance at work because we AREN'T married. IF she were my wife, then I could cover her with insurance. IF SHE WERE A MAN I COULD COVER HER UNDER MY INSURANCE. So its okay if I'm living with another man unmarried, but since I'm living with a woman and unmarried, the insurance won't allow me to put her on my policy. THAT IS FCKED.

Alex don't worry, once Obamacare kicks in, all your marriage issues will be solved for you by the government.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates reveal that Obamacare is creating a massive new marriage penalty. They estimate that only 14 percent of tax filers who claim the subsidy will be married. About half of the beneficiaries will be single individuals without dependent children. The reason for the marriage penalty is two-fold.

First, the subsidy is linked to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), which is estimated to be $45,600 for a one-person household and $61,600 for a two-person household in 2014. The result of linking the tax credit to the FPL is that two individuals who make between $61,600 and $91,200 in 2014 will not benefit from the tax credit if they decide to marry, but both individuals can qualify for the tax credit if they remain unmarried or if they decide to divorce.

Second, a recent HHS rule prevents families from accessing the subsidy if either parent has an offer of coverage at work — but in cases where only self-only coverage is offered, the rest of the family cannot claim a subsidy. Essentially, Obamacare treats otherwise identical individuals very differently, depending on the source of their health insurance rather than the quality of it.

See, we did have to pass it to know what’s in it.

I hope everyone enjoys paying more for health care just because you’re married.

davefromdanapointca - Marriage is a religious institution

Not in France or in the US. In both countries marriage is just a secular legal contract. You've obviously confused the legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony".

And in France, no marriage can be performed in a church. Everyone gets married at a government office.

Marriage is a religious institution

I wish I understood why people continue to flaunt this blatantly untrue ridiculous notion.

Marriage existed long before religion, and essentially started as a property contract. If anything, marriage should remain with the state and religious institutions should issue "spiritual unions," if we're going to remain historically and socially accurate...

I have plenty of friends who are not religious and have a wedding and call themselves married. The supreme court has specifically made it clear religion is NOT a basis for banning same sex marriage.

Also research states it is important to have TWO parents the sex of which appears to be irrelevant

.

That last part is telling: even some "gay" people oppose same-sex marriage.

In the US, 25% of self-described "gay" men vote Republican; and many of them oppose same-sex marriage. And for good reason. Same-sex marriage is a VERY BAD idea.

Just like any minority group has some members who oppose progress for their group. "If I had to stuggle, then they have to also!"

No, Doug -- it's that people disagree about what "progress" means.

Sane people understand that demanding legal recognition for every *self-identified* (!!) trait or behavior is not "progress". These self-declared and so-called "gays" are not a race.

...effing religions.

All the same.

All concerned with power and control.

Porter-3297415

Same-sex marriage is a VERY BAD idea.

Please explain why it is "a VERY BAD idea"

If religions don't want to marry their parishiners then don't! But let me marry whomever I want in a civil ceremony of MARRIAGE, not civil unions! Separate has never been mistaken for equal!

Porter-3297415

We're not going to cover any new ground there.

In other words you have no good rational argument, just your bias that holds no real facts, just your excuses for your uninformed bigoted hatred. I wonder how many in your family can't be honest with you because of your fear and bias.

Well well.... The "open minded" French know something that we should realize in the US... Same sex marriage (no such thing) is a Ruse, deception... all smoke and mirrors. Psychologist and other fields have studied the institution of marriage.. When 1 man and 1 woman are commited to each other in marriage.. the children benefit... What the studies have shown (and the LeGiBiT community doesn't like this) is that same sex couples can only do as good as but not better and often times worse... not that they "mistreat" no... nothing of the sort. The kids often end up no better than those of single parents... in other words.. not as good as "traditional marriage"... It is clear that the same sex community want "equality" They could care less though about the ramification on children:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/gay-parents-study-kids-social-scientists_n_1589177.html

This study is the most comprehensive so far.. the science is sound... but I must say it not surprising... This intrinsically is all ready known... but if you fight for "equality" You don't want the negatives to be known.. you want to appear... "normal".... but every one here knows that you are "forcing kids" (the adopted do not have a choice) in a situation that a group is trying to "normalize."

You see... the reason some gays speak out against this ( much to there vilification) is because they understand that the life style is a choice. and it is NOT normal. Drug addiction 3x the average, suicide twice the average.. The social ills (they have pro gay sites devoted to these) is not just symptomatic... it is rampant.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529619_2

"Reality is a mirror that never lies... no matter how you change the image"-Flame

Flame

I'm glad you brought up the notion of normal. Throughout our lives, we fight an internal conflict between how we identify ourselves, alone, and how we should identify ourselves in a social context. It is unfortunate that such a conflict must exist due to external pressures. Some of those pressures serve to keep us from harming ourselves and others, but most serve only artificial and vain purposes.

The charge against gay marriage is, in fact, not about marriage at all. It's not even about gay sex. It's about what is perceived as 'normal' and how everyone should strive to achieve it. The issue is mired in gender roles and behavioral expectations. "Masculine" vs. "feminine". "Strong" vs. "weak". Unfortunately, children grow up buying into this dichotomy as it is constantly reinforced by parents, peers, the media, and the broader community. It is often assumed that such traits are intrinsic to each gender and that it is the natural or normal way of things. In other words, most tend to assume that male and female behaviors and preferences are not learned. But in fact, they are, and it starts as early as infancy.

Genetics and biology play a role, of course. I'm not disregarding that. I know, for example, that I didn't choose my sexual preference. I never decided to be heterosexual, I just am. Does this mean that this must apply to everyone? Absolutely not. My psychological characteristics were highly influenced by environment, but my sexuality was largely determined before I was born and in fetal development. It is highly likely that those identifying as gay never felt like they choose to be so. Hormones that a fetus is exposed to in the womb can drastically effect development, as is common knowledge. It is possible, just as hermaphrodites are possible, that an otherwise anatomically male or female human being is predisposed to same-sex attraction by means of simple biology. Of course, even if you accept this, you will argue that they still have a choice to somehow ignore those impulses and instead act as if they aren't homosexual.

I italicized and bolded act for a reason. This is because we have gone full circle and are suddenly back to the notion of normal. You and others who share your position, throw up a phony defensive stance over the issue of marriage when IN FACT IT IS ABOUT FOLLOWING LOCKSTEP WITH GENDER DICHOTOMY. Anyone, gay or straight, is subject to ridicule from people like you when they express their true, internal identity in the face of a phony, vain sense of societal pressure.

Take your sense of "normal" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Flame 77, you say that suicide and drug abuse are higher in the gay community and you're right. What you don't stop to consider is WHY it's higher among gay people than straight ones. Imagine if you lived a life where you were ridiculed and persecuted on a daily basis, a life where your parents disown you for being honest with them about who you are, where you're called an abomination. If you had a life like that, wouldn't you be more likely to turn to drugs or alcohol? Wouldn't you be more likely to want to kill yourself? The other option you have is pretending to be something you're not for the rest of your life. If you're going to have to do that, why bother living? Is it better to live your life as a lie?

And before you respond that being gay is a choice, two things. One, WHY ON EARTH would someone willingly choose to live that life? If you could avoid the hate, and anger and bigotry so easily, why would you choose to deal with it? Two, please tell me, as specifically as possible, when you "chose" to be straight. Did you wake up one day and go, "Gee, I'm a guy. I think I'll be physically attracted to women"? I highly doubt it.

There are thousands of children in foster care that NEED homes. What, besides religion, do you have against two people in a committed relationship raising a child that no one else wanted?

I was raised in a lesbian household. My mother was artificially inseminated, and she and her partner raised me. When I was growing up, I never wondered if I was a mistake. I never questioned the fact that my parents (BOTH of them) loved me more than anything. I was secure in the knowledge that no matter who I was or what I was, my parents and family would always love me. I was taught that you should accept people for who they are and learn to see their strengths. I had more male role models than most "nuclear family" children have. I was taught that God was a divine, loving parent who accepted you for who you were. After all, God made all of us, right?

I also learned what it felt like to have your church sanctuary searched by bomb dogs on Easter and Christmas. I learned that there are "good Christians" out there who make serious death threats against a pastor's infant children, just because he's the head pastor of a large, openly gay friendly church. I learned that there are cowards who hide behind white sheets so they can protest the anniversary of that same church. I learned what it felt like to be denied Communion and called an "abomination in the eyes of God" by a man shouting about what a good Christian he was at the top of his lungs. I learned that I had to lie to friends about my parents so I wouldn't loose them.

My parents split up when I was 13. Was it hard? Yes. I'm still dealing with issues from that today, but those issues stemmed from the fact that I couldn't really talk to anyone about it. Very few people knew about my family, and they were supportive, but it was different. A kid who's mother and father are getting a divorce can go to school and discuss it openly with a large group of their peers; I couldn't. I couldn't because I was worried about the reaction I would get from bigots like you. I was in enough pain, I didn't need some narrow minded hatemonger making it worse.

You claim that growing up in gay household has a negative impact on children. I grew up in the gay community and the only negative thing about it was the hatred and fear I saw from "good Christians". I learned to never judge, never be narrow minded. I learned that even if you don't agree with what someone does, if it doesn't directly impact your life, why should you be concerned about it?

I would like someone, anyone, to tell me how two women getting married is going to DIRECTLY impact your life? Is it because your children will be exposed to it? Guess what, it's not society's job to raise your children. It's not their responsibility to pass on morals. That's your job. If you don't like it, explain it to your children. Don't limit someone's rights just because you don't have the time or inclination to instruct your own children.

I know all of this will go in one ear and out the other, but I felt like I had to say something about it. You say you're worried about "damaging marriage", but I think the 70% plus divorce rate has already ruined that anyway. No one is asking you to jump up and down and be tickled pink about gay marriage, but you should understand that no one is asking for "special rights". We're asking for EQUAL rights. In America, legal marriage is a secular distinction, not a religious one. America is supposed to be based on religious freedom. If you truly support the Constitution, then you CAN NOT use religion as a basis to limit someone's civil rights.

CalvinOR - you are very correct. That which society accepts as masculine or feminine is that which is imprinted by the society. I remember in the 50's and 60's, that it was very unmasculine for a man to be in the kitchen cooking or to do house work. That was woman's work. Well in today's society, we have found that cooking is enjoyed by both sexes and sometime non-traditional roles are assumed by both males and females inorder to make a house hold work smoothly - such as the child care, the cleaning, the cooking, the financial support roles, and the types of jobs they hold. About 25% of our military are women with children and spouses at home. The roles of men and women are moving to a more gender neutral environment. Most of us encorage our friends to seek employment they enjoy as well as what they preform well at and make a living. And who of us can tell someone whom we really care about that they do not deserve to marry the person they choose. The divorce rate in the US is about 50%. More than one third to the children born in the US were born to unmarried females. Based on these two facts, I would bet that 60% or more of the children alive today do not live with both their biological parents in the same household. If they have two parents in the household, perhaps one is their biological parent. Is this a good thing? Depends on who your parents are. If they both love you and are giving you the things to become a responsible adult, then it doesn't matter if they are your biological parents. Besides, there are no restrictions on marriage for those folks who do not want or are unable to have children. Marriage is not about children. Its not about religon. Marriage is a personal intimate decision between two people to be bonded in a public way for love and support. It is the single most important decision an individual makes in his life and it is the most self-defining decision a person will make as to who they will marry. No other decision in one's life is so important to their self identity and their future as whom they will marry. This is universal in all cultures and religions and societies. How can those people who believe in the freedom to pursue happiness and live one's life as one chooses provided you don't infringe on the rights of others, the right to choose one's spouse and marry that person?

Steve has it exactly backwards. Homosexual marriage should be allowed in his church (if it so wants) but shouldn't be allowed to be conducted in the civil setting, PRECISELY because of his rationale--that he should be allowed to marry whomever he wants.

I don't care, Steve, who you love. I don't care who you sleep with (so long as they are of the age or mentality of consent). But I do care about marriage and how it was and is designed to benefit the larger society. I'm troubled by this idea among Americans--mostly leftists--that marraige is a narcississtic act as opposed to an act expressed in front of your community and for the betterment of it. Someone above asked how marriage for homosexuals is bad. It's a fair question in some ways, but it really misses the larger point.

If you want to alter our culture then it is the burden of those proponents to make the positive case for change. If marrying whomever you want is the new standard, then marriage has no limits at all, save possibly some proscription based upon age. Is this what we want? I hope not. Still, the question, which is a question advocates of homosexual marriage will not answer (let alone ask), deserves an answer.

Marriage was designed to advance the interests of society, not the interests of your love life. The goal is to produce children within the most stable and positive environment possible, all other things equal. Some heterosexual couples cannot, or will not, have children. But these couples are the exception to the rule. The reality is that for homosexuals there is no way to produce a child from within the union. They are not an exception to the rule at all, they simply violate it in EVERY instance. This may not matter to you, and it's a fair position to hold if it is sincere on your part, but that doesn't negate the centuries of trial and error experience which produced what we have had, up until today anyhow.

Still, it should be the duty and burden of the advocates for the change to make the case that society is benefitted by allowing homosexual marriage. If no benefit can be identified, and the desire to alter our culture remains, then it can't be a sincere object of advocates to advance marriage, but instead is more likely a disingenuous effort to undermine the exclusionary nature of heterosexual marriage.

Copy and pasted from the last thread, because it's still relevant to this one.

Question... How does gay marriage effect heterosexual marriage? It's not like it cheapens it. With an over 50% divorce rate, heterosexual marriage has nothing to brag about. Look at your own kids, how many step parents, half siblings, step siblings, does your kids have in their lives?

Is this REALLY about 'the kids' or your own prejudices?

No, if you truly support the US Constitution then you would not want the feds involved in making homosexual marriage more possible, or impinging on a state that wants to do just that. It's not a federal matter. If your state constitution regards marriage as a right to be granted to all people regardless of the object of their marriage desires, then of course homosexuals should have the "right" to marry. In your state only though.

But if, as is the case of my state (California), if there is no stated "right" to marriage then homosexuals should have no grounds on which to stand on so long as the application of the law is not capricious. That is, so long as similarly situated persons are not treated differently. If they can persuade voters through the political process to support homosexual marriage then the law can and should be changed. Until then, please don't simply assume that a right to marriage exists (it doesn't in any state I am aware of PRIOR to the recent cases and votes on the issue), or that within that right (if you assume one does exist) that no restrictions on its application are present (many are).

A little less emotion, a little more reason. How nice it would be.

Hi Angela,

Two responses, both related to the subject. First, altering the laws regarding marriage and divorce which have helped to increase the numbers of divorces shouldn't then be used to proclaim marriage a failure. Most marriages are successes, but divorce remains high. The thing is that people who divorce are more likely to divorce again if they marry again, and so the numbers are skewed towards a higher divorce rate even though it's a smaller percentage of the people who marry who end up getting divorced. Mathematically it's more simple to show. Someone married for the third time, for instance, means they divorced twice. This is a 67% rate of divorce. If there is a couple who married and remained married then the two couples together equal a 50% rate. It is a fact that many people have more than two marriages and so it becomes a mathematical fact that if the rate of divorce is 50% that a majority of people who marry remain married after the first ceremony. This should be a good thing, not something you deride and then use as fodder to justify homosexual marriage.

Which brings up the second point. Even if heterosexual marriage were as flawed as you claim it doesn't stand to reason that adding yet one more variable to the mix would make it better. Society has determined through centuries of trial and error, if not also direct intellectual examination, that children are best raised within a home where a man and woman are married, all other things equal. This doesn't mean that every heterosexual marriage is better than all homosexual unions in terms of raising children. What it simply means is that we should not refuse homosexuals to love one another, or live together, or even raise children together, but that we should give the greater societal benefit to the heterosexual marriage model since on average it produces the best results.

Unless the goal is to weaken society? I hope this isn't the case for any homosexual marriage advocate.

Big deal a 40% divorce rate (which I found by Google (and find myself having a hard time believing), feel free to try and refute me) is nothing to brag about, and the divorce rate for those marrying a second, third time or beyond is even higher. The rate for those who've never married (which now constitutes a larger number than those who marry) and have children is even higher than that...what's your point?

Everything else you wrote is pure manure as well...

Rich, I never said that the Constitution gives people a right to marriage. It gives people the right to religious freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being married to your spouse and having the same rights and responsibilities fall into that category. It's really no more different than the arguments and debates that erupted when interracial marriage was illegal. No one is saying that it should be a free for all, do whatever you want thing. We realized years ago that interracial marriage wasn't the evil demon it was portrayed to be. This is the same thing, it just has to do with gender instead of skin color.

Flame, you seem to think that letting two men get married will cause some sort of cultural chaos. Why, besides religion, should there be restrictions on marriage? As long as everyone involved is of legal age and consents, what's the harm? No one is telling you that you have to be a part of it or belong to a church that supports it. I answered your question, now answer mine: what DIRECT impact will gay marriage have on your life? No one on here, facebook, or in conversation has ever given me an answer that doesn't involve religion. We have religious freedom in America, so as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't be used as an argument. You say that straight couples who can't have children or choose not to are exceptions to the rule. If you make an exception for them, why not for gay couples? Do you want people to have to undergo fertility testing and take an oath that they'll have kids before they can get married? If the whole purpose of marriage is to produce children, then why is there an exception for those couples, and not others?

Times change. Using the excuse "it's always been this way" just makes you sound like you have no valid, logical reason for what you're saying. Just because we did things a certain way a hundred years ago doesn't mean it's acceptable today. Look at slavery, child labor, or women wearing pants. When those issues came up for debate, society eventually realized that it was wrong and we, as a species, took steps to correct it. I hate to say it, but eventually, it will be legal in the US. It's following the same path that interracial marriage did. Just because you don't like change doesn't mean you have the right to restrict another person's (who has no bearing on your life at all) life.

Angela,

Sorry, but you lose! You lack the mental capacity to understand what Rich... was trying to explain which should be enough for anyone, including yourself, to realize that you probably shouldn't be raising children or even considering entering into a complex arrangement like marriage.

SaraBlack1

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. Very persuasive and well written.

Martha

Precisely. Personally, I'm not an advocate for marriage, but allowing for the free choice to do so in no way harms society.

The late 40's through the early 60's, I understand to be excessively restrictive in terms of gender expectations. While we have gradually shifted away from that, I think that many people, even younger generations, experience the residual effects from that time period and beyond. But what it means to identify as male or female, even in a more permissible culture, is far from fading away. That, I think, will take several more generations to achieve gains toward neutrality.

RT Stone,

Nope, I understood him. I just don't agree with him and neither do the facts. I actually took the time to use my computer for more than being a keyboard warrior and Googled his examples. However, if you think I'm the one who's 'wrong', then be my guest...link, cite or whatever word you want to use to 'try' and make his point for him.

Good luck with that by the way...Oh and thanks for the name calling, keep up with staying classy. (snark)

Marriage is in fact considered a right under Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, that part that says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren said,

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

The federal government has been far more instrumental in assuring that US citizens have equal civil rights than the states have, witness the Civil Rights Act. If we'd left the civil rights of certain races to the individual states to decide on, black people still wouldn't have the vote in Mississippi, for instance.

If supporters of gay marriage have to explain how it will not harm society, don't opponents have to explain how it will harm it? I have yet to hear an explanation other than 1) it's against religion, 2) it's icky or 3) that's how it's always been so let's not change it. None of those are very convincing arguments, so what else have you got? Contrary to these French protestor's beliefs, there is no evidence that it harms children. A previous commenter linked to an article that discusses a study that purports to find that same-sex parenting harms kids, but the article only references the study to discuss the many methodological flaws that render the study's conclusions suspect.

The only harm to children of gay parents comes from those who hate gays, not from the parents themselves. Why does the government have to be involved in the first place? Who decided that we needed the government to tell us who we can and cannot marry?

Porter-3297415

Same-sex marriage is a very bad idea.

Please explain why it is "a very bad idea"

How?

We're not going to cover any new ground there. Marriage has a traditional and very positive purpose. Giving a bunch of perverse, unhealthy, subversive, farcical people greater access to the mainstream is not that purpose.

I don't know. George Takei and his husband Brad (how long have they been together? 30 years?) don't strike me as perverse, unhealthy, subversive (well, not in your way) and farcical.

I see more destructive heterosexual couples that ruin children all the time.

Is that somehow okay?

Exactly - you can be the worst drug addled, alcoholic, brain dead couple in the world and in some people's eyes you'll make a better married couple than two well educated, prosperous people in a stable, long term same sex relationship. Makes no sense.

Porter-3297415

Just what I expected, no answer, just deflection.

Porter-3297415

Which "traditional marriage" do you wish to apply? The one that allows a man to marry as many women as he chooses? The one that says a man must marry his brother's widow? The one that allows a man to be betrothed to a child in exchange for cattle or land? It wasn't that long ago that marriages were arranged for political or social purposes. Times change and it is now time for new traditions to prevail. We are in an era of civil equality and the world is evolving to include the rights of gay people wherever they live. I hope the USA continues to press each of the states to pass equal rights amendments for all. And I hope France follows in the footsteps of her European neighbors to grant that equality. Children are not going to be harmed any more that they are in families who prey on the weaknesses of others. In the US, we have learned that there is a risk to the few making civil rights decisions for the many.

How is someone loving another a bad idea? Let's all just toss love out the window. Nobody needs it, it's so yesterday. That was a ridiculous comment and you had no points to even back it up.

Love is for everyone and nobody has the right to define it to only a man and woman.

not just a bad idea, but sick...

I think what the French are saying here, and I am not fluent in French but just yesterday I did an RSVP, is that if you are a guy, you should only be allowed to get married to someone who has a pussy.

The mariage vow in France is, I now pronouce you dick and pussy.

In every major events throughout history, the one vocal strongly against them all are the same. Can you guess which one?

About 10 % of the people in France are muslims.
Are muslims into same sex marriage?

Show me one child who has been hurt by samesex marriages and I will show you atleast 12 children that have been hurt by "Traditional" marriages.

I think anyone can be a care giver. Sexuality does not affect this.

But I can think of one rather awkward situation: lesbian decides to conceive. Does it with a sperm from a test tube. Father is unknown. Kid is born. No name listed next to Father on birth certificate. Mommy crosses out Father's Day on the calendar. When kids gets older, asks mommy, who is my daddy? Mommy says, none of your damn business. Kid has no father. He cannot know his father. Sad.

When kid grows up and has children, his kids ask, who is my grand father? Your grand father was a test tube.

Davey, I was that child you're asking about. When I asked my parents, they explained to me the basics of the process and what that meant. I didn't understand some of what they said, so I asked my grandmother to take me to the library and help me look it up. There is no name on my birth certificate under "father", but don't take that to mean that I had no male role models. I actually had quite a few, different people from different walks of life. One taught me how to handle a gun properly, one taught me how to fix my computer, one taught me how to use a table saw, and one encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on and form my own opinions on things.

I celebrated Father's Day. That was the day that I gave Cindy (my biological mother's partner) a card and a gift. As I got older, I use that day to silently thank the anonymous medical student from Dallas that made the donation that made my life possible.

I don't feel like I was somehow slighted because I never actually met him or really knew anything about him.

When I have kids, I'll do the same thing my mom did when I asked about my "father". I'll explain it to them the best I can and let them make up their own minds.

Please don't think that a child growing up in a gay household is lacking for role models. Most gay people I know who have kids also have a large extended family. The person I call my younger brother was adopted by a single gay man when he was two days old. Originally, there was a private adoption in place, but when he was born and wasn't white, the original couple didn't want him. So my mother's friend adopted him. He spent a lot of time with my mother and I while he was growing up, along with the huge group of kids at the church we all attended. When he was about six years old, he asked me a question. He said that he knew Mimi (my mother) was his godmother, and since I was her daughter, what did that make me to him? I told him that I always considered him my younger brother and asked if he felt the same. He thought about it and said he did. He's my brother and always will be.

I've seen a lot of kids grow up in the gay community. They're all just as well adjusted as kids raised in a straight household. They approach life with an open mind, and are slow to judge. They all have a large support network and know that there are a lot of people who care about them.

Nothing about that is sad. Nothing about that is harmful to a child.

Is a child better off with or without a father?

Is a child better off with or without a father?

There's no evidence either way. I know some kids who would have been way better off without the father they got, and would've been more than happy to have two loving moms. In fact, some did, because a parent doesn't always need to be the legal or biological one...just the one who cares for them like it.

I'm not necessarily talking about a father than is present in the home. I'm talking about a father known to the child. A person with a name. A name on the birth certificate. An actual person that the child might meet and know someday, and can think of as 'daddy', for the rest of the child's life.

Is it better for a child to have that, or to not have that?

Well, I guess the answer is obvious.

A name on the birth certificate.

This has actually always been able to be legally blank, or filled with "unknown". Many states that allow invitro also allow for same-sex couples to list both of their names in the slots, some have changed the fields to be more inclusive.

Is it better for a child to have that, or to not have that?

I don't think its necessary at all. Beyond genealogy, if I were born invitro I wouldn't waste my time worrying about it.

I did not ask if it was necessary.

I did not ask about the legality of the birth certificate form. (Parent #1 and Parent #2 :-) Why not Parent #3? No, really, why not parent #3? or 4?, or 5? Let's get really inclusive!

I asked if it was better for a child to have a father. If you are having some difficulty with this question, try asking some children.

I asked if it was better for a child to have a father. If you are having some difficulty with this question, try asking some children.

You're asking an unanswerable question. Argumentum ad misericordiam, no less (appeal to pity).

I don't believe it makes a positive difference either way, so long as the child is informed as to why (IE: blind donation, or even "mom's a slut who slept around").

There is also the extreme case of someone who is fathered through rape: I do not believe it is better for them to know until they are older; there are extreme psychological damages that can result, regardless of the mother's support for the child.

Not sure why this question is unanswerable. I can answer it. The answer is 'yes'.

(Although, when you hit me with that Latin, I said, 'whoa'!)

Most children have fathers, yes? You know kids, if one has something the other one wants it.

You don't believe that a good father makes a positive difference?

You don't believe that a good father makes a positive difference?

A good father only. However, them being a "father" is unnecessary. The role can equally be filled (with equal effect) by any role model.

I think that's the primary difference. Parents are not so much mother/father as they are role models and caregivers. Or should be. If I had never known my real parents but had individuals who filled those roles, I would be no different.

Well, I think you are affected by the people who raise you. So, being raised by different people will make you a different person.

Anyway.

And you are right again when you say that if you were given by your birth parents to other caregivers to be raised, you would have a good chance of being a decent person.

But you would always wonder who your real mother is. And your real father. And you would be glad to know it. And you would go to great lengths to connect with them, if you had the chance. Same for your siblings.

We humans do not have much instintive behavior. But I think that true family is something we instinctively understand.

Hm?

davey,

now you are justifying it - you stated "good" father. That opens up a whole new can of worms like:

what constitutes a "good" father ? one who is around but doesn't bother with the child ? one who isn't around but provides everything for the child that he can ? etc.

as for just a father - the question is unanswerable. It depends on the child, it depends on the situation, it depends on how the situation without the father is handled and that's the point allswell is making. You can't answer the question if its better for the child to have a father or not.

A child can be just as well off having two mothers and not having a father present in his/her life. A child can be just as well off having two fathers and not having a mother present in his/her life. A child can be just as well off having one mother and no father or vice versa.

And, the same is true for the negatives as well. You are asking a question that has too many variables for it to be accurately answered. A child can grow up with two mothers and be well adjusted, how do measure if that child would have been better off with a father instead ? nobody has a time machine and nobody can tell if that father would have been a "good" father or not..

so you are asking an unanswerable question.. and now most certainly with you classifying it as a "good" father, it remains even further unanswerable.

davey-526272 - About 10 % of the people in France are muslims.

Are muslims into same sex marriage?

I don't know about France per se on this issue but in the US there are gay-friendly mosques, just like there are gay-friendly churches, synagogues, and entire denominations. Not all believers are dumb bigots.

Also, 2/3rds of all Muslims in France are largely secular.

Not all believers are dumb bigots.

Hey Shrek buddy, if I was you, I'd be a little more respectful. Look at 1.40. Erin from New Joisey got her butt suspended for one week for being so high and mighty and superior and calling everyone names.

hate to see that happen to you :-)

But you would always wonder who your real mother is. And your real father. And you would be glad to know it. And you would go to great lengths to connect with them, if you had the chance. Same for your siblings.

See, now you're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. You are attempting to proact what I would feel, despite knowing nothing of me. You are basing what everyone else feels on what you feel...which is also the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority (yours).

The only reason I would care about my birth parents in such a situation is for genealogy and to determine genetic inheritance risks. Why should I care to connect with them at all?

so you are asking an unanswerable question.. and now most certainly with you classifying it as a "good" father, it remains even further unanswerable.

Look, just about all the babies in this world are brought about from a mommy and a daddy laying together and getting it on.

Most of those children will have their best chance in life by staying with their families and being raised by their parents. In a country like Russia where children end up as orphans, life is not so good. The child is at risk when separated from their parents.

Now, yes, we have modern science and we have committed people who want to be parents and a bunch of other people pointing to them and saying, 'see, it can work like that'. But that is not the future of reproduction in mankind. It's an interesting little sideshow to human evolution.

Focus on the family: mommy, daddy, and baby. That's what's happening in the world.

Got to do some work today. If I reply to you anytime in the next 12 hours, I'm a bad boy.

Most of those children will have their best chance in life by staying with their families and being raised by their parents. In a country like Russia where children end up as orphans, life is not so good. The child is at risk when separated from their parents.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, also know as "correlation does not imply causation".

Focus on the family: mommy, daddy, and baby.

Irrelevant conclusion. Studies have proven that the gender of the parental guardians is irrelevant to the development of the children. All that was shown to matter was the presence of more than one (further studies link this to 'continual' presence, IE when one parent works).

Davey,

Look, just about all the babies in this world are brought about from a mommy and a daddy laying together and getting it on.

incorrect, i will agree that it may be the majority of babies in this world, but not about all. with IVF, there is a pretty good percentage that are not brought into this world as you described.

Most of those children will have their best chance in life by staying with their families and being raised by their parents. In a country like Russia where children end up as orphans, life is not so good. The child is at risk when separated from their parents.

you really think so ? so what about all the cases of deadbeat dads ? how about the cases when the mother or father is addicted to drugs ? how about cases when the mother or father is neglectful for any reason ? how about cases when the mother or father is into bad situations like prostitution or gangs ? all these situations are very real and you are advocating that the children will have their BEST chance in life by staying with parents like these ?? really ???

Now, yes, we have modern science and we have committed people who want to be parents and a bunch of other people pointing to them and saying, 'see, it can work like that'. But that is not the future of reproduction in mankind. It's an interesting little sideshow to human evolution.

now that is purely your opinion on the matter on whether or not it is the future of reproduction in mankind. we honestly don't know for sure one way or the other, nobody knows the future in that respect, but what people are saying - there are options and alternatives for those people who are committed and want to be parents. there is nothing wrong with saying that and nothing wrong with implementing solutions like those for the thousands of orphaned children already in existence.

Focus on the family: mommy, daddy, and baby. That's what's happening in the world.

that is purely conjecture, a family comes in a variety of different ways now and you cannot state otherwise. if both parents are dead and the baby is raised by aunts and uncles or grandparents, then you just stated they are not a family since it is not mommy, daddy and baby. get my point ? family is the unit and its one or two parents (caregivers, legal guardians who act the role of parent are included, no gender specified) and the child (or children).

Got to do some work today. If I reply to you anytime in the next 12 hours, I'm a bad boy.

have a great day :)

Hey Shrek buddy, if I was you, I'd be a little more respectful. Look at 1.40. Erin from New Joisey got her butt suspended for one week for being so high and mighty and superior and calling everyone names.

hate to see that happen to you :-)

So you think that veiled threats will get YOU respect?

What a small man.

Davey, again, I think I'm more qualified to answer your question than you are. I'm assuming that you were raised in a "traditional" family, with a biological mother and father. Therefore, how are you qualified to say that your situation was better than mine? I have men that filled the role of a "father" for me. Why should it matter if they lived in the same house or were biologically related to me?

And you're wrong when you say "you would go to any lengths to meet them". I wouldn't. I've been offered the chance to find my "biological father", but why would I want to? I have enough role models and a big enough family. I've never felt a "need" to meet him or even know his name. My younger brother, the one adopted by a single gay man, has told me that he has no interest in finding his "biological" parents. Again, why does he need to? He says he has enough parents, and if they didn't want him when he was a baby, why should they care now?

The situation I was raised in was (I think) better for me than the situation my mother was raised in. She knew who her father was, there's a name on her birth certificate. She also remembers that he wanted nothing to do with her. That's much worse than having a variety of role models and caregivers.

What a small man.

Thanks so much for jumping in.

Alrighty then...

Let's go back to where this started, for me.

But I can think of one rather awkward situation: lesbian decides to conceive. Does it with a sperm from a test tube. Father is unknown. Kid is born. No name listed next to Father on birth certificate. Mommy crosses out Father's Day on the calendar. When kids gets older, asks mommy, who is my daddy? Mommy says, none of your damn business. Kid has no father. He cannot know his father. Sad.

I said that was a sad situation. It may come as a complete surprise to you, but I still feel that way.

OK, no one asked why I felt that way, but I'll tell you now...How many children know who their father is? A lot. +90%? Maybe more. Not really sure. So, if there is a kid who does not know his or her dad, that is sad. Such a child is in an undesirable situation, not of his or her making. How undesirable? Well, listen to the words of one such unfortunate child,

"When I asked my parents, they explained to me the basics of the process and what that meant. I didn't understand some of what they said, so I asked my grandmother to take me to the library and help me look it up. There is no name on my birth certificate under "father"..."

and

"I celebrated Father's Day. That was the day that I gave Cindy (my biological mother's partner) a card and a gift."

and

"As I got older, I use that day (Father's Day) to silently thank the anonymous medical student from Dallas that made the donation that made my life possible."

To me, that is sad. A child wishing for a daddy.

Some of you suggested that not having, not knowing a father is no biggie.

"if I were born invitro I wouldn't waste my time worrying about it."

and

"A child can be just as well off having two mothers and not having a father present in his/her life. A child can be just as well off having two fathers and not having a mother present in his/her life. A child can be just as well off having one mother and no father or vice versa."

and

"The only reason I would care about my birth parents in such a situation is for genealogy and to determine genetic inheritance risks. Why should I care to connect with them at all?"

Sure are a lot of adults here telling me that kids don't need no daddy.

What do kids say? When you ask a kid 'where's daddy?' Does the child say, 'I don't need no daddy."? "I'm just as well off without a daddy!"?

When a child looks around and sees so many children with daddies, or children who know their daddies, it has to be a source of pain to not have a daddy. Kids want what the other kids have. And daddies are fun.

Anyway.

Wondering, when a non-traditional couple, two women for example, raising a male child who has no daddy, well, I wonder if that boy child is getting the same message that you are giving me. Ahem, 'Boy, time for you to learn the facts of life. First, you ejaculate into a plate. Then, a woman who you will never know will inject your sperm into her vagina, conceiving a child. You will never know that child. That child will never know you. That child will have male role models. But you won't be one of them. Somebody else gonna teach that child how to play baseball. Daddies ain't necessary."

I don't understand that at all.

The world is a better place when the people who make babies raise those babies, in the vast majority of pregnancies. You can make a case that two women school teachers from the 1950s (now those were good role models) would be better parents than the biological parents of any child. But you know what? We are in very short supply of people like that. There are a lot of orphans in the US, where is the army of non-traditional couples, who will give exquisite parental care, to adopt those children? Well, there ain't no such army of non-traditional couples who will give exquisite parental care to many children. The best, most realistic hope for the vast majority of children in this world is to have their biological parents care for them. Of course, not all children will have such a home and in those cases, it's fine with me if someone else wants to step up and be a care giver. But those situations will be the exception and not the rule. Mommies and daddies who made the babies are the rule and the best hope we have now to take care of children. So, start supporting mommies and daddies and enough with this nonsense that daddies don't matter.

I have to tell you, there is something else going on here that I don't think folks who think like you like, but you haven't spoken up yet about it....Why two parents? If you are breaking the mommy/daddy paradigm, why stay with two 'parents'? Why not have three parents? Four? More? You are implicitly guided in this by the mommy/daddy paradigm. Mommy+daddy=2. But if you do not have biologic caregivers, why be restricted to two 'parents'?

You continue to fall into trap of using appeal to pity logical fallacies. You also fail by claiming 90% of children know their father, while being unwilling to admit that there are probably a great number of them who wish they didn't.

When you mention about asking a child about a father, you are making total conjecture, you have nothing to back up your statement. I have met children who will flat out say they don't have and don't need a father. I have met children with fathers who will flat out deny they have them. You are so focused on the positive fathers you completely ignore the sheer numbers who are less than even ambiguous in regards to their children.

Your "lesbian education" comment is worthless because it holds no value. It is once again an appeal to pity fallacy that serves to show you have no idea what you're talking about. It has been proven that children raised from same sex couples are no more likely to be homosexual or to make use of invitro. All children, no matter what parents they have, will decide for themselves what gender role models they will have--for many it isn't even their parents at all. How many male children with fathers decide to use some other male as their role model? A lot more than you're willing to accept with your conjectures.

And then you bring up orphans, and further dig your own grave. Are you completely clueless? Do you have any idea the sheer masses of same-sex couples who would give anything to adopt children? People like you decided they can't. They are legally barred in several states, and any "Christian" based orphanage will also bar them. Idiotic strawman.

Lastly, you attack an idiotic strawman with bringing up the polygamy argument. This is not the discussion at hand, but I've already answered you: the reason determined through studies for a 2+ parent household is to resolve the continued presence of a parental person in a child's life, such as situations where one parent works full time.

Everything you have stated so far is based upon your exceedingly narrow view that every child must be exactly the same, and that you feel a same-sex couple will be cold and harsh to a child who asks these questions. The reality is far, far different, but it shatters your fragile worldview so it must be hidden from.

But you and yours can't hide forever. Reality is coming.

Davey, you took my words out of context and missed the point. I don't consider myself unfortunate, and you have no clue about how to explain something to a child. You don't seem to understand that you can explain things to children without making them feel like idiots or slighted. I said what I said because you seem to think that every child should have a traditional family. Those days are behind us now, regardless of how you feel about it. I never looked around at my friends and thought, "Gee, I wish I had a daddy just like they do". I had enough fathers, I didn't need anymore.

As for the vast amounts of children who are in the foster care system, I personally know a lot of homosexual people who would gladly adopt a child. The majority of people I know who've actually managed to adopt a child are willing to take any child of any age with any issues. They're willing to give a child no one wants a home, but bigots like you keep them from doing so. Take that into consideration when you comment about how many children need homes. The amount of red tape and the number of hoops you have to jump through to adopt a child as a same sex couple is a nightmare. More same sex couples would be more than happy to adopt, if you made the requirements the same for them as you do for straight couples.

As far as the multiple parent thing goes, where's the issue? My pastor has two children. One adopted, one conceived through artificial insemination. He has been with his partner for over 30 years. Their best friends (a lesbian couple, Shelia and Tina) wanted to adopt a child. They were willing to take any child, regardless of whatever issues it might have. After trying for a couple of years, they were essentially told that they could do whatever they wanted, but they would most likely not be able to adopt. They asked Mike (my pastor) if he would be willing to be their donor. He and his partner agreed and the four adults decided that Mike and Bill would share custody of the child. Shelia was pregnant when the state contacted them and said they had a child they could adopt if they were still interested. Again, the four adults sat down and talked about it. Mike and Bill wanted to a part of the adopted child's life. Both of those girls have grown up with four parents, and are both very well adjusted, happy young ladies. I can see no harm that was done to those girls because they had four parents.

I never said I wished I had a father. I have four of them, why do I need another? When I was young and someone asked me where my father was, I was honest. I just said, "I don't have one". You make a father seem like a toy. Yes, if one child has something, another usually wants it, but I have never thought to myself that, "my friend has a daddy, I want one". As far as I was concerned, I had a daddy, multiple ones, they just didn't live with me.

You've never been in that situation. You seem to think that different is bad. That's not always the case.

A boy being raised by two women or a girl raised by two men won't be "confused". There are other role models in a child's life besides their parents. If anything, they'll be a more well rounded adult. Being raised by an extended family benefited me greatly.

Please don't take my statements out of context. I never said I wished for my father, I never said I was unfortunate. You think I was because I didn't have a Normal Rockwell type family, but I'm not. Unless you've been in that situation, you can't tell me you know what it was like. You know what you think it's like, but you have the mindset that there's only one positive way to raise a child.

davey-526272 - The world is a better place when the people who make babies raise those babies, in the vast majority of pregnancies.

I'd say the world would be a far better place with parents who love and want their kids. Whether you got your DNA from your parents seems entirely irrelevant.

One thing that separates gay and straight couples is that many gay couples hurdle large barriers when they decide to be parents - and those who do adopt get screened very carefully for financial and emotional stability. In contrast many straight couples end up with kids accidentally regardless of whether they wanted them or are capable of caring for them, and many kids end up unwanted.

Straight people are the #1 reason there are kids who need to be adopted.

I think everyone seems to be missing the point. We are really talking about freedome here, and where we draw the line over where the government has control. So let me ask you this one question... do you want your government to have the power to tell you who you can and cannot marry? Or is that something you want to decide for yourself?

They stood their ground......

After the catholic church covered up the fact that their priests played with the alter boys is when they became irrelevant.

Yup. And not to mention their support of anti-semitism for centuries perhaps even after Hitler when the Vatican acted as a conduit for Nazis looking for a home in Catholic Argentina. Remember, there was tacit approval of Nazism by the Catholic Church to ward off the atheist Communist threat from Russia, which Hitler was determined to defeat (but for is own purposes). The Church has essentially been on the wrong side of its Savior's teachings for over 2000 years. Nice living, though, if you can get it.

B707320C: And there are a lot of good things the Catholic Church has done over the last 2000 years. Hmmm hospitals, schools, social services just to name a few. I know some Catholics and they have good values and care about people.

@!$%# the church! Let them whip-up the bigots and dupe the ignorant: they've already lost their unjust cause. Same-sex marriage will soon be law in France.

Believe'nAmerica

No some Catholics have done that, not the church, the Vatican, you must be kidding, the only charity the Vatican is interested in is itself.

Bear in mind Mother Teresa was from that same "church" the truth is Political institutions have had those type of "records" before.... does not stop you (or me) from voting... It doesn't erase the good the church has done nor does it, nor should it, prevent them from taking up a worthy cause. And I'm not even Catholic

Mother Teresa is a perfect example of anyone affiliated with the Catholic Church. She was, in fact, a very cruel women and a fraud...

motherteresawasafraud.blogspot.com/

www.newstatesman.com/node/151370

www.challies.com/articles/the-myth-of-mother-teresa

postmodernquaker.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/the-darkness-of-mo

howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/the-truth-about-mothe

Absolute rubbish. Most parents who neglect, abandon and kill their children are heterosexuals. If anything, homosexuals are more prepared , educated and willing to do the right by their children.

alumette: the VAST majority of gays do not HAVE children to neglect, abandon and kill. Ergo, there is no scientific fact that you can point to in upholding your opinion that homosexuals are more 'prepared, educated and willing to do right' by their children.

Let me tell you what ol son: the gay man living on my block is quite the child-hating "get your f'ing brats off of my street (not just the sidewalk)", has more partners than any man I've ever known and can knock back a pint quicker than me (hats off to him - and I think he's a great guy). Funny, witty and a good fellow that would give you the shirt off his back. But HE certainly doesn't fit your assumptions at ALL (more power to him). He can't STAND kids.

AlexTheBlade:

Gays have been raising kids in the United States for decades. Gays have been chosing to NOT raise kids for decades. I wish that more Straights would choose NOT to have children that they have no intention of actually RAISING.

the VAST majority of gays do not HAVE children to neglect, abandon and kill.

Is that based on your "VAST" amount of "scientific research"?

FYI, the medical and scientific communities disagree with you:

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus non-heterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006

ErinNJ: Only stands to reason there are more straight couples raising kids than gay couples.

Alex, the gay man you described could be a perfect description for most of the straight men I know. There are plenty of straight guys who have different girls over every night, and hate children. Does the fact that he brings home women make it okay or make him anymore qualified to raise a child?

It takes a lot for social services to remove children from homes. My sister in law and her younger sister weren't taken from their parents until their older brother died of malnutrition. Just because they were of opposite sex does not make them good parents. Gender doesn't make you a good parent, loving your children unconditionally makes you a good parent. Anyone who adopts in the US has to jump through so many hoops and deal with a ton of red tape, gay couples even more so. These are parents that want a child to love and take care of. They've proven they're stable, and can provide for a child. What other qualifications do you need?

Saying children do better in a home with two parents is correct, but it doesn't matter what gender the parents are. If you firmly believe that, then you should work on passing a bill that says single mothers (or fathers for that matter) have to get married or the state takes your kids. It would make as much sense.

The first Frenchman to America swam across the ocean: all of the others walked over on the dead fish. :)

These are the same people who were against the french wine and french fries....these people are against abortion, same sex marriages, scientific progress....etc....they are your basic undereducated and brainwashed Christian radicals. They are in the US and they also exist in France and elsewhere. They have no tolerance. Islam is not the only religion that has radicals....but we know that. There is no irony there.

Good post

alumette,

Trouble is, not all places allow for gays to adopt. And when they do adopt, in many places, only one parent can actually adopt and the other parent is left without rights or legal decision making ability. I am a strong advocate for gays and lesbians to adopt. Matter of fact, I am hoping to do so one day soon.

Oh boy, you must never have tried to adopt. Friends who just did it paid $53,000.

@alumette I would agree with you to a point, there is something to be said about giving birth to your own flesh and blood. I have some close friends who are currently going through it. Her parents wanted someone who would continue their blood lines. They told themselves that for every child she gives birth to, they will adopt at least one. Currently they have 4 kids. 2 of their own and 2 adopted. They also give a home to 3 foster kids who are later on in years(mid teens) so that they have a place to call home rather than bounce through group homes and the system. They both work and make the money to be able to support this family. I think something like that should be encouraged, but not mandatory. After all, they do have rights.

For enacting legislation that proves the minority position of these bigots? Yeah, I agree.

So you think we have nothing to fear from Islam?

LMFAO.

Except that Islamophobia serves a purpose and is a blanket term for self and cultural preservation against Islamic extremism.

Gay people don't advocate 'convert or kill' and don't suicide bomb markets.

They don't have a 'book' that directs them to advocate terrible things to spread their 'beliefs'.

Muslim radicals are about as representative of Islam as abortion clinic bombers are of Christianity.

jwight - I'll believe that when I see, globally, 'moderate' or 'more representative' Muslims rooting out their extremist brothers and putting a stop to the slaughter.

Still waitin' on that one.

Pete, I'm still waiting for Christians to root out their extremist brothers. But so far all we see is Southern Baptists, Mormons, and the Catholic church donating millions to anti-gay hate groups which fund lobbying efforts to suppress civil rights in the US, and to support things like Uganda's "kill the gays" bill.

And then of course we see what happened in France where Opus Dei Catholics, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Muslim extremists united in their common hatred of gays.

Les gens commencent a parler!

peteMT, moderate Muslims do speak against radicals, in some cases endangering themselves in the process:

Anouar Boukhars, a Moroccan graduate student at Old Dominion University, has written this war is ultimately ''not a clash between Islam and the West. The real battle is taking place within a Muslim civilization in severe internal crisis, and the stakes of that battle are high indeed."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/18/the_real_muslim_moderates/

Another moderate is Zuhdi Jasser, a doctor and US Navy veteran who launched the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in 2003. The forum's stated purpose: ''to take back the faith of Islam from the demagoguery of the Islamo-fascists." Writing after the London bombings last month, Jasser argued forcefully that it is not enough for well-meaning Muslims to issue ''empty condemnations" of the extremists.

''As Muslims we must help bring these barbaric Islamists to justice and assist in dismantling the systems that create them," he wrote. ''We can publicly embarrass radical imams and organizations . . . We can publicly expose the twisted interpretations of the Koran . . . We need to force a public debate with the Islamists, not run from it . . . It is time to . . . teach Muslims to dismantle terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah . . . The war against Islamo-fascism has many fronts, and moderate Muslims need to be leading the struggle."

Other anti-Islamists include Mansoor Ijaz, who says Muslim communities should form ''watch groups" to monitor the activities of Islamist radicals; Ahmed al-Rahim, who calls for a ''Million Muslim March" -- a massive denunciation of the jihadis and their teachings; and Kamal Nawash, who declares bluntly: ''Throughout the Islamic world, we must acknowledge that we have a problem of fanaticism, we have a problem of terrorism, and it is our responsibility . . . to stop this."

http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-baltimore/leading-american-islamic-scholars-speak-out-against-extremism-and-violence

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/French-Imam-Teaching-Tolerance-and-Inclusion--104869274.html

http://emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/muslim-responses-to-extremism/

Since marriage is about legal rights about property and kinship, I'm not sure how you avoid it being a legal issue.

Actually the government is on the side of equality - the Hollande government was elected in part on its pledge to enact marriage equality, which Sarkozy opposed. It was a big issue during the campaign last spring. Hollande promised yesterday that the bill will be passed next month, and it looks like the vote in parliament will be easy.

It's only the far right-wing in France that's protesting, because they're desperate.

Why do you assume all gays would be loving couples?

Judging by the gays who post here they are no more tolerant than anyone else.

Hypothetical, MC, but taking a stab at the 'straight' people who I presume are marching.

One thing in favor of Gays raising kids. They will never have children by accident. It will always be intentional, and planned. That is not to say it will always match societies idea of "successful" . Raising of children is fraught with all kinds of bumps in the road and it will be for gay folks too. But it, by definition, can not be accidental for them.

jchastn:
You made a better point than all of mine put together, but back to the winning the argument, children are not part of the decision to allow same sex marriage. To go down the raising children road of debate is to lose or at least become lost in the woods, since tradional people still outnumber gay/lesbians in government and are typically biased to favor their own, meaning they will argue traditional marriage is better for raising children. The real debate is if we can love whomever we want to love, and have the right to marry that person.

On track to hell. Hate gets the Catholic nowhere in the direction their lord intends for them to go. Love all. 11 countries and many US states have same-sex marriages and they are doing perfectly fine. Gays raise kids on purpose and not on accident while some straights have sex and a baby pops out, sometimes while they were teens. Gays are at least prepared and ready to love and take care of all their kids.

Nah only the religious right are living in the 18th century. But then again don't take my word for it ask a real liberal, whatever that is, I just vote for good leadership and genius level intellect as well as a 100% american heart and soul, like President Obama.

FedUpInNYS - Wait a minute...I thought the liberals always scream that the US in backwards and prudish.

France has always had its share of dumb bigots and fascists.