Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundiNevermind, I'll remind myself why: Religion.

Separation of church and state, people. Get this concept through your brainwashed minds.

These people have just as much right to marry the person they love as you do. Discriminating against someone's sexual orientation is no more morally right than discriminating against someone's skin color.

Leave these people alone, already. Jesus Christ. They are harming absolutely NO ONE! What this boils down to is one group trying to force their beliefs on another group. Just sit down, shut up, and let them live their lives the way they want to.

But isn't the state forcing the church to recognize marriage...a violation of the separation of church and state? If either of them do it, it's a breaking of that rule...I say just let the churches recognize marriage individually or within their denomination, and let the state just recognize unions for tax purposes. I don't think anyone has a problem with people doing what they want, what the issue is...exactly you said before, and then contradicted: the separation of church and state.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well let's answer those questions shall we?
Thanks for the response and I wish you all the best. But....

Like the right to have a mother and a father?

"If they never know what having a mother is, then why is it required?"

What kind of logic is that? If you are born a slave does that mean you dont need to be free? If you are born blind does that make sight unnecessary? No offense, but you are using the logic of 1984,double speak,double think. It sounds more like indoctrination or brainwashing.

Should a pedophile be allowed to buy a baby because he can afford one?

"What does that have to do with anything? Another one of those, let's compare pedophiles to gays?"

Pedophiles arent always gay. Lets just say MJ is the Strawman in the Wizard of Oz. The point is are babies available to anyone who can buy them? Dont they have rights?

Can anyone or a group buy a baby or just adopt one because they feel like it?

"Why not? If those people love and provide a nurturing environment, what possibly could the problem be?"

You are creating a Utopian view of the world as a tribal society where there is no discrimination and we are all one big family. This doesnt exist.

Perhaps the nuclear family is a product of capitalism and therefore is a distortion of reality and should be done away with. Yet you are also at the same time trying to create a new nuclear family based on same sex couples, not groups.

Is it legal now for gays to buy babies because they cant make their own?

"Ahh, it's called adoption....."

Adoption being a form of acquisition sanctioned by the state. Surrogate buying is another.

Can a man ever be a real mother?

"Having raised my kids in a same sex marriage, yes, we can provide all the things a woman could, emotionally anyway."

Is a mother unnecessary?

"A mother figure is very necessary in the lives of any child, but it's not absolutely necessary. There are other ways of being a "mother" to a child".

Can a women ever be a real man?
Is a father now unnecessary?

"Same response as above, either can be subjective depending on the individuals involved."

~Keeper

My original point is that the child has a right (perhaps inalienable) to a mother and father. This is the natural order of things. Perhaps in an alternative reality people could live together in tribes and the homosexuals could thus participate in raising children if that is what they want.

The issue of how children turn out is not proof that gays can raise kids but that IMO it is genetics that determines most of how they turn out.

Lets just take a survey. Ask adults who they would prefer to be adopted by if they were a baby. Do you think straight people would really rather be raised by gay couples?

The issue being raised is whether having children and raising them is a right or a privilege. If it is simply a right of adults than anyone , single,pairs or groups should be allowed to buy babies and raise them.

I think it is in the child's best interests to be raised by a mother and a father (man and woman). It exposes children to a variety of traits and characteristics of the opposite sex, and guides them in the journey of their own sex as they grow up.

However, it is better for a child to be raised by two loving members of the same sex than a mum and dad that are not loving or supportive of their children. Also, some may find this view strange, but I believe two female parents would better at raising a child than two male parents. Just the mother's instinct I guess. It is all about balance and experience in my not so humble opinion.

Personally, I think it's still a social experiment and we won't know the full outcome for many years yet. The jury is out as far as I'm concerned. Before anyone flames me, I have no problem with gay people. None whatsoever! Many of my friends are. I simply have concerns for the children. I think if a child can be provided a mother and father, then this should always be the first priority for that child... instead of catering to the whims of adults.

IRM

Originally posted by heyo
hi deaf.

Good for him. Self-proclaimed nice-guy. Either way, it's fine, but this article kind of shoots gay marriage in the foot a little bit, probably unintentionally. While outlining how strong these kids were, it inevitably seemed that the kids went through a lot of inner torment due to having homosexual parents. No birthday parties? Ashamed of being ashamed? These are the kinds of things that leave lasting impressions, and form future mannerisms.

Yeah, but WHY is it they have inner torment?

It's becauce unaccepting people cannot deal with these "kids of same-sex families", and immediately condemning them as "gay" and "weird". If they weren't shunned by their friends or insulted, they would have no problem in life otherwise. If his friends didn't ask him "Why are both your parents women?" and made fun of him "Are you gonna marry Billy?" he might have thought it was perfectly normal for two women to get married - and it IS.

He could have grown up not knowing any wiser until he was 11 and old enough to learn about sex.

But the stigma WAS existing - that made him and other children of gay couples feel tormented within.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by KarlG]

Gay people are the kindest and most beautiful people on this planet.

I salute all gays, and all children adopted by gays.

Originally posted by spellbound
Gay people are the kindest and most beautiful people on this planet.

I salute all gays, and all children adopted by gays.

Really? I've met plenty of gays who were insecure, bitchy and a general pain in the arse, and every lesbian I've ever met has been incredibly fat and generally unattractive.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but not everyone lives in California...

I just want to take this chance to say not all religious people are anti-gay.

I am Christian and entirely pro-gay, any one who uses religion to 'prove' gay people are wrong is damaging their religion.

Love thy neighbor people, even if hes gay. Theres is not one little thing wrong with it.

I'm just curious - which would be harder on children in the long run?

Being raised by same-sex parents, or growing up parentless, and possibly in an orphanage?

Seriously. I know there are more options than the two, but that's pretty cut and dry.

So, there are lots of people who want to have kids and can't, and thousands of kids who want to be wanted, and loved, and have no one.

Wait. There's a simple connecting logic here that's escaped me.