Gay Marriage and Raising Children: The Elephant in the Room

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

When gay couples get asked by their raised child how babies are made, I wonder how they will respond? Or when the child becomes a teenagers how the gay parents will explain practicing safe sex.

The same way hetero Christians explain their own in vitro fertilization (IVF).

And YES - - even hetero Christians sometimes have to buy a sperm or an egg.

Originally posted by davjan4

I'll just mention one recent thing and leave it at that rather than writing a book about it: The head of a fast food restuarant voices support for traditional families. Several city governments publicly state that they do not want this restuarant in their city, so disgusted are they at the mere mention of support for the traditional family.

So we must deny a few (what was it? 3) public officials their free speech. Got it.

They were quickly chastised by their own - - that they can not stop any business that complies with regulations.

With Christians having a 52% divorce rate - - - maybe they should spend the BILLIONS of dollars used to deny others in fixing their own.

Traditional family is an excuse. So is: "We're doing it for the children"

Originally posted by davjan4

A penis does not belong in a rectum. Rectums are designed for fecal matter. But hey! Let's cal it "gay" (used to mean carefree and happy) and wrap it all in a rainbow!!

I know gays who do not have anal sex - - because they agree with you. That is not what the rectum is for.

I know heteros that do engage in anal sex.

Next.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are subject to the exact same law. The difference is that homosexual desires lie outside that law while heterosexual desires do not.

And, to be fair and equitable to gay people, the law must be changed to include them. Some states have made laws expressly to exclude homosexuals by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. These laws, in my opinion, violate the US Constitution, Amendment 14. Some states don't exclude them.

In the 1830s, married women's desires to own property lay outside the law. The law was changed to be equitable to women. In the 1940s, people's desires to marry different races lay outside the law. The law was changed to be fair and equitable to all races. There are MANY examples. Timeline of Civil Marriage Law

I think the law needs to change because it is discriminatory, whether it's an "expanded definition" or a removal of restrictions and selective language.

If marriage is a religious institution (as I consider it), it should not be recognized by the state for anyone.

That gets into huge changes to marriage (which I would support), but AS IT IS NOW, the law needs to change to include all consenting adults.

Of course, that concept is one of those which immediately brands me a "homophobe".

Yeah, well, we all get called names for our beliefs. It's a consequence of being an outspoken person.

Shall we repeat the lesson and keep those pockets of anger around for gays as well?

There will ALWAYS be people who don't approve of homosexuality, just as there are people who disapprove of blacks, Muslims, feminists, atheists and Christians. Human beings are judgmental and fearful of things that are different then them.

Because something is, it does not follow it must be... or should be.

I agree completely. But I know from experience, as do you, that in a free society (which ATS represents in a way) there are always going to be those whose desire is to throw barbs and hatred... I guess it makes them feel good.

I do not support hateful, intolerant people. Why does that have to then be divided into gay and straight? Why? Is there nothing more important to those who support gay rights than sex? Is their entire life defined solely by their private parts? And further, are you seriously insinuating that all straight people are such or that all religious people are such?

My interpretation of your post was this: You said that after reading this thread, you can't support gay marriage because you don't think children should be subjected to such hatred. My point was that children in MANY homes are subjected to hatred. Not just gay homes. If a kid wears glasses, is fat, poor, ugly or has a handicap, they are subjected to hatred. I developed early and had breasts at an early age. You cannot imagine the hatred I was exposed to. Disallowing gay marriage does not make a dent in the hatred and bullying that kids experience. It wasn't my intention to separate into gay and straight, but gay marriage IS what we're discussing.

Oh, but they can.
...
History is rife with examples of oppression of various peoples... and it shows that all people of all races and origins are at risk.

No one can violate your right to believe as you chose. Oppression is an action. Belief is untouchable. You can believe whatever you want. Allowing gay people to get married by law doesn't affect your right to believe that it's wrong.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

That gets into huge changes to marriage (which I would support), but AS IT IS NOW, the law needs to change to include all consenting adults.

Right!

Changing an existing process - - prior to giving a minority the same equal right to that process - - is pretty damn sneaky. I don't wear blinders.

I find it extremely annoying those who think gays should compromise and call it something other then marriage. Equality should never be a compromise.

Then "they" try to reverse it - - making it the gays fault for wanting Equality.

Fact: the official government marriage license was enacted to prevent inter-racial marriage. At this point - - government officially took marriage out of the church and made it a secular government contract.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

And, to be fair and equitable to gay people, the law must be changed to include them.

Now that statement I can agree with, especially if "them" at the end is changed to "their lifestyle" or "their needs".

Where I get frustrated is when people try desperately to make what I see as a fairly simple issue into something more. It's more about inclusion than discrimination. We have discovered (yes, I know some have known for a very long time; I mean the majority of people) that there is a lack in the way the marriage law affects a segment of the population. Ergo, simply fix the problem.

That gets into huge changes to marriage (which I would support), but AS IT IS NOW, the law needs to change to include all consenting adults.

It doesn't have to be all that huge...

One small bill which removes the words "marriage", "married", etc. from all legal references and replaces it with "discombobulativity", "discombobulated", etc., states that a religious wedding ceremony sanctioned by any religious order when executed with a discombobulation license is automatically a discombobulation, and states a legislative intent to simply rename legal marriage to legal discombobulation would fix the entire problem. It doesn't matter what word is used; what is important is that the single large concern among the majority is eliminated in one fell swoop.

Lets face it: the problem is not that gays cannot legally get married; they can, anywhere in the USA, as long as they find someone to perform a ceremony. All that is being argued here is the recognition of that marriage by government, and no marriage should be required to be recognized by any government. That alone sounds like sacrilege to me.

Yeah, well, we all get called names for our beliefs.

Tell me it doesn't get old, especially from the same individuals.

There will ALWAYS be people who don't approve of homosexuality, just as there are people who disapprove of blacks, Muslims, feminists, atheists and Christians. Human beings are judgmental and fearful of things that are different then them.

Exactly my point. So why would anyone want to continually focus on their differences instead of their similarities? Masochism?

Or perhaps sadism, since so many who browbeat others on this issue are so adamant about the 'fact' they are not gay...

...there are always going to be those whose desire is to throw barbs and hatred... I guess it makes them feel good.

And it is the duty of the rest of society to call them on it.

It wasn't my intention to separate into gay and straight, but gay marriage IS what we're discussing.

I didn't think it was, but go back and read it again. I think you will agree it did indeed sound that way. Oh, and technically we are discussing adoption/IVF by gay couples, not gay marriage.

But see, this illustrates one of the major problems. I worded that post to specifically not target anyone over sexual preference, instead targeting them over hatred and intolerance. That includes both some gays and some straights. But immediately it gets twisted to read the exact opposite of what I said. The gay marriage issue does this to people... and I blame the constant rhetoric and fanaticism shown by so many on both sides.

And yes, if supporting gay marriage means also supporting discriminatory practices against me (or actually against any other group), then no, I will not support it. I will only support gay marriage if it does not come packaged with more discrimination.

No one can violate your right to believe as you chose. Oppression is an action. Belief is untouchable.

But action can be, and has been, taken against peoples because of their beliefs. One can indeed believe whatever they wish regardless of actions, but I think you will agree that jailing or killing of individuals because of their belief (which has happened) is still wrong.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
And yes, if supporting gay marriage means also supporting discriminatory practices against me (or actually against any other group), then no, I will not support it. I will only support gay marriage if it does not come packaged with more discrimination.

What discrimination comes with gay marriage?

And I didn't "twist" your words... Comprehension isn't always 100% in real life, much less on the internets. My point was that disallowing gays to marry won't prevent children from experiencing hatred.

Wouldn't it hurt children of gay parents - - - that their parents union has to be called something other then marriage?

You know children of opposite sex parents are going to say: Neener Neener - - my parents are married - - yours never will be.

Only EQUAL - - all the way is acceptable.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

What discrimination comes with gay marriage?

Apparently, based on the rhetoric I have heard in similar threads:

The right to disagree with anyone who is gay (or claims to support gays)

The right to practice any religion which does not claim being gay is totally acceptable... or superior?

I realize you do not see that, but that is because you unconditionally support the movement. As soon as you have any disagreement, no matter how small or insignificant, with the gay rights movement, you will receive the same treatment. So will anyone else.

Bottom line is, my mind is made up. I will voice my opinion at every political rally and in every election that, sadly, we are not ready for gay marriage. I will lobby against it, protest against it if need be, and in short do everything in my power to prevent it from becoming law until the haters find another cause to wrap their intolerance around. Then I will do everything to support it.

That's the way it is now.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

But that belief means I cannot support gay marriage in the US at this time, much less gay adoption/conception, because it is painfully obvious to me that those arguing in this thread, as well as the even greater number of similar individuals not on ATS, are interested more in punishing me for perceived wrongs by violating my right to believe as I choose. Because that is what this is really about for the majority of supporters: revenge, not equality.

What is it for the majority of the other side?

I think in this case you are looking at a 'perceived wrong' on the supporter side as well. I don't feel this 'revenge' is necessarily mutually exclusive to supporters truly wanting equality. Actually I don't feel revenge is necessarily mutually exclusive from wanting equality in just about any other scenario... but that's another topic.

Overall I think something that needs to be appreciated is this. It just goes without saying when your entire community is constantly being related to mental disease, pedophilia, necrophilia.. Told we cannot parent and are not even capable of real love. It just goes without saying some civility will be lost in discussion. Especially considering the persistence of those attacks. So again, I don't think the varying emotional reactions (however knee-jerk or over the top) to that necessarily means the person doesn't truly want equality. We can agree to disagree on this point. But to say the majority of LGBT supporters don't want equality is no less offensive then if you had said we are all mentally diseased.

**Edited: to add

But action can be, and has been, taken against peoples because of their beliefs. One can indeed believe whatever they wish regardless of actions, but I think you will agree that jailing or killing of individuals because of their belief (which has happened) is still wrong.

To be clear you're talking about when those beliefs are acted out?

In that case surely you would agree sometimes jailing those individuals is right.

That is what this is about...belief manifesting itself into oppressive actions. (not suggesting anti-gay be jailed)

Bottom line is, my mind is made up. I will voice my opinion at every political rally and in every election that, sadly, we are not ready for gay marriage. I will lobby against it, protest against it if need be, and in short do everything in my power to prevent it

If you were to hold up a protest sign, what would you write on it? If you don't mind me asking. I assume you don't mind me asking considering what you just said

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Absolutely I don't deny we have long term data Hell I related stories about my friends, have read all the posts here, and had some members u2u me info. I was really just trying to relate to Ladygreeneyes

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Sexuality wasn't spoken of in front of me regularly. I was pretty sheltered coming up. When something came on tv that related to or depicted sex, I had ears and eyes covered or was told to leave the room. One thing that always gets to me is when having these types of discussions is when people always make it about sex. Sex of course is a big part of the discussion, but so is attraction. I developed along the same pace as my classmates. I had attractions to female classmates, tv personalities and musicians just like other kids. Just because I had an attraction to (a crush) some of them doesn't mean that I was ready to have sex with them lol. Do you recall your first crush? Did you want to have sex with them or did you just really like them? The point I was trying to make was about being in a hetero-centric environment. My mom told me that I could have my first boyfriend when I was sixteen. She would ask about boys that I was friends with. Having a boyfriend was the way it was supposed to be and in my household, having a girlfriend wasn't even an option. That felt horrible and led to quite a bit of unhappiness. My folks weren't trying to do that to me. It was just all they knew.

No child should have to feel like they are forced into being something that they are not. That goes for gay kids being raised in straight homes, straight kids being raised in gay homes, and kids that fall somewhere on that spectrum being raised by parents that fall somewhere along that spectrum. And no child should be involved in or near any inappropriate conversations with adults. I'm sorry your friend had to go through that, but it sounds the problem wasn't that they were lesbians. The problem was that they didn't shelter her from inappropriate conversations.

As for your comment about someone saying that their gay friends always talked about sex...I'm not sure if I can relate to that one. My friends definitely talk about sex (what group of 30-somethings don't touch upon that topic) but it is not ALL we talk about. There is talk of current, events, careers, politics, random topics.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

The OP simply stated that, as we didn't know what would happen in single parent homes, we don't know the long term effect of gay parent homes, either, and we should, for the sake of the children.

We do. You don't. You have a very different fundamental view of gay people. When you understand completely that they are simply people. The 'long term effects' are indeed predictable. Some will be great parents and some won't. For all the same reasons..all the same co-factors as heterosexual parents. That's it, it's that simple.

And again I have 2 close friends that were raised by same-sex and they are in their upper 20s. I am way more involved with that then the negative accounts you related. Does this knowledge impact you at all or do you only fish out negative cases to support a made-up mind?? I myself expect to hear both positive and negative cases. When you view LGBT as equal you will expect it too.

As a society, we don't know for certain. In the case you discuss, sounds like well-adjusted people, and that is a very good thing. Yes, there are people that are better or worse as parents, based on many factors, and certainly sexual preference is only one factor among those many. I don't think of homosexuals as something other than people, either. Just people with some confusion over certain issues. Parenting is complex. There are many outstanding single parents out there, that raise successful children, but even those can have issues due to the single parent factor. We have decades of cases to look at on such families, and we don't yet have that for families with two same sex parents. While single parents are not "bad" for being in that situation (very often not by choice), neither would homosexual parents be bad, even if there are negative factors, simply because of that. Not everything that happens that can negatively affect our children is always under our control.

And, no, I don't avoid the good cases. Have not heard of many (and none I have personally seen), but any reputable study of the issue should include ALL the cases, not just all-positive, or all-negative ones. Unbiased research, and clear results, with nothing altered or downplayed, is vital for any research project. My hope would be that any loving family would be good for a child, but that isn't always true. I was a single mom for awhile, and even though I sacrificed a ton of personal time, and gave up a lot, to be there for my oldest, get her everything she needed, and make sure she knew she was THE priority in my life, she was still affected by her biological father leaving as he did.

And, yes, the ridiculous divorce rate among traditional couples IS a huge issue, and I don't like it a bit. It wasn't something I planned to be a part of (he abandoned up with no notice), and I know firsthand the problems that can cause with a child. Reports on homosexual couples seem mixed, and at this stage I don't think we have enough data to know if divorce rates will be similar for such couples, so the question is whether other factors will affect the children. How much will individual personality matter, as opposed to issues caused by the child missing a parent of one gender?

I don't see it as "anti-gay" to want to study the matter, as the OP suggested, and see what the long-term data shows, as we now have for single parent homes.

Everyone wants to talk about "research" and "studies"... Kids have been raised by gay parents for such a long time. It is not a new thing. The reason why you don't know of any kids of these households is because they are regular, everyday people. Nothing happens to make them stand out from anyone else in a heterosexual household. The reason that the results that you find are mixed is because you have results from the pro side and results from the against side. There really is no difference. And no child is going to be in an environment that is strictly mono-gender unless they are completely isolated from the outside world.

In an earlier post, I mentioned a friend that was raised by gay parents and she is successful in her career and in a straight relationship and generally is happy and well-adjusted. That is just one case that I mentioned. I have friends (lesbians) with kids. The kids are happy and well behaved and pretty much the only time I see them looking unhappy is when they can't get their way. (And we all have seen unhappy children or families that raise tons of red flags, and these families and kids are not those)

reply to post by TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Apparently, based on the rhetoric I have heard in similar threads:

The right to disagree with anyone who is gay (or claims to support gays)

The right to practice any religion which does not claim being gay is totally acceptable... or superior?

What? You will lose NO rights. I'm sorry, what you've said here makes no sense to me. At best, it's hyperbole. You have and always will have the right to disagree with it, AND to practice your religion just as you do now.

An example: I "disagree" with abortion - I wouldn't have one unless my life was at stake and I believe life starts at conception... Yet I support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. I support a woman's right to her own body, as I have a right to mine... A woman's choice for abortion is between her and her "God". It's not for me to judge and rally against it, just because I feel differently about it.

I realize you do not see that, but that is because you unconditionally support the movement.

You're right that I do not see that, but I don't support "the movement". I support EQUAL treatment under the law. I have said that a hundred times on these boards, but you clearly don't believe me. That's OK. Because your right to believe what you believe cannot be taken away. And if we frame this argument around equality (which is what it's about), then it's very uncomfortable to go against it. It's easier to fall back on religions dogma and nonsense about losing YOUR religious rights... never mind that there's a whole group of society whose rights are being denied because some people are "uncomfortable" with them...

As soon as you have any disagreement, no matter how small or insignificant, with the gay rights movement, you will receive the same treatment.

What "treatment"? People disagreeing with me? I can take it. You ALREADY have people disagreeing with you. So do I. I don't have to disagree with equality to get this "treatment". Agreeing with it gets me that "treatment". The legality of gay marriage is not going to change that. People disagree. It's not a violation of your rights to disagree with you! See? I disagree! And you're still standing, your rights intact.

Bottom line is, my mind is made up.

Yes, I see that. You are against equal treatment under the law of a group of citizens. That's your right and I support you to hold and express your belief. Once again, we disagree and BOTH of our rights AND religious freedom are intact. Disagreement is nothing to be afraid of. It's healthy actually. We are all different and we can coexist and respect each other. Of course, there are those who will make judgments against us both - that is the way of the world and it cannot be escaped. I am criticized and judged for my support of equality. But I can take it, because I know where I stand and I know exactly why.

I will voice my opinion at every political rally and in every election that, sadly, we are not ready for gay marriage. I will lobby against it, protest against it if need be, and in short do everything in my power to prevent it from becoming law until the haters find another cause to wrap their intolerance around.

I had a similar discussion recently with another perfectly reasonable ATS member and after pages of him claiming to "almost" understand and "almost" agree with the equality issue, he suddenly found another reason to disagree with the idea. He decided that gay people were going about their quest for equality in the "wrong way" - he knew a better way... So, for that reason, he pulled back any and all support and came out just as against it as he was before. Even said he would support it if they went about it "his way". When pressed to really think about the equality issue for what it is (instead of focusing on HIS beliefs and fears about homosexuality), it scared him and he did just what you have done: voiced his disagreement stronger than ever.

I find this an interesting phenomenon.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You are against equal treatment under the law of a group of citizens.

You are free to believe that.

I simply see the issue now as a decision between freedom for one group vs. freedom for another; rather than an expansion of freedom to be more inclusive (which I could support), it is more a choice between which group will achieve their freedoms and which one will lose it. This restriction of choice is not my doing, nor my desire. It is the result of how proponents of the gay rights movement have couched their arguments.

I feel similarly about the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement: I support them as long as they seek equality and not superiority. When superiority or oppression is the goal, equality cannot be.

Since I don't have to worry about diplomacy any more (what a wonderful feeling!), here's the crux of the argument in a nutshell: in the Christian religion, homosexuality is considered a sin under the Old Testament. We are not under that law any more since the New Testament, so there are no more stonings and we are told to reserve judgement of others. That means that although it is still considered a sin, that becomes irrelevant for non-believers. But for believers, homosexuality is to be avoided. If gay becomes a civil rights minority, it leaves the door open for legal persecution of any church which does not change that tenet.

And please do not tell me this is irrational fear. Read any thread on the subject and count the number of posts which show a desire for religious freedom to be removed. It is literally rampant!

My religious freedom is important to me, just as I am sure gay marriage is important to others. Would that we could have both. But since I see no way to achieve both, I will protect my rights first. Is that selfish? Yes, but in this type of confrontational society, that's how it must be. I will support your rights, but not in order to allow you to remove mine.

I find this an interesting phenomenon.

I am sure you will continue to find it such, for I am not the first to change my mind in such a manner, nor will I be the last. Recently a stir was raised that attempted to demonize a businessman for speaking his mind openly in a religious setting. Multiple attacks were made on this man, ranging from threatened boycotts to public demonstrations to threatened legal retaliation on his business. The result was that, once the public realized the choice they had to make, his business was flooded with such a show of support from the public that it was the most profitable day in their history and many stores closed early because they ran out of food from the demand!

The threatened attacks, if they ever actually materialized at all, were drowned out by the show of support.

People are waking up to what the true agenda is. The result, as I predicted long ago if things did not change, will not be pretty.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Since I don't have to worry about diplomacy any more (what a wonderful feeling!)...

I'm sorry you feel that way. And I apologize if my thoughts and beliefs have offended you. I did not set diplomacy aside, and as far as I can tell, neither have you. We simply disagree on this issue, having our own thoughts and beliefs on the matter. I'm OK with that. It doesn't mean we can't be civil and diplomatic.

I don't wish to offend you further.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I'm sorry, BH... I should have made myself clearer. You have not offended me in any way. I am not even really offended, as much as I am saddened by the choices I have to make.

You are one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful people I know, and while we often disagree on issues, I have never found you to be disagreeable. The issue lies with others besides yourself; the fact we are still discussing this issue attests to that.

Please accept my apologies for not being clearer.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

If gay becomes a civil rights minority, it leaves the door open for legal persecution of any church which does not change that tenet.

And please do not tell me this is irrational fear.
Read any thread on the subject and count the number of posts which show a desire for religious freedom to be removed. It is literally rampant!

As rampant as the LGBT community getting compared to the worst of offenders. If you're concerned about Churches being burnt down (hyperbole for a point), and that's a rational fear, then LGBT should just as rationally fear the same repercussions pedophiles and necrophiliacs and murderers face. As it's just as rampant that their sins are equivocal to pedophiles, necrophiliacs, people having sex with animals, and sometimes murderers. So all the churches are going to be burnt down, and LGBT are going to be beaten in prison. Just as rational (or irrational) as your belief here.

Personally I think most of the people that call for religion to be done away with, are venting emotion, and wouldn't vote as such. If someone says I am no better than a necrophiliac and God is going to kill me again after I die for that unrepentant sin, chances are I am going to give that persons god the middle finger in discussion. It's more or less just an emotional reaction. A fair one.

I feel similarly about the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement: I support them as long as they seek equality and not superiority. When superiority or oppression is the goal, equality cannot be.

Couldn't agree more.

Which is currently the goal of the anti-LGBT proponents.

You can argue the concern that if LGBT is granted more rights they will run with it and seek superiority and to oppress, but it doesn't change that currently in place in our society is superiority and oppression against LGBT.

It seems to me that someone who opposes oppression should fight against the ones already in society and not the hypothetical. That should be dealt with when it actually occurs.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

If you're concerned about Churches being burnt down, and that's a rational fear, then LGBT should just as rationally fear the same repercussions pedophiles and necrophiliacs and murderers face.

Expect both.

Not from me, of course, and I would assume not from you. But whenever both sides feel threatened, as is the case here, and no compromise can be reached, as has been stated multiple times in crystal clear language over this issue, the result is always violence.

So yes, I am concerned about churches being burnt down... as I am concerned about gays being beaten and/or killed, churchgoers being beaten and/or killed, gay establishments being burnt down... everyone has this line they cannot be pushed beyond, and the rhetoric is pushing some people pretty close to it already.

Personally I think most of the people that call for religion to be done away with, are venting emotion, and wouldn't vote as such.

I hope you are correct, but from my vantage point it sounds like they are serious. as a matter of fact, my impression is actually that the rhetoric seems to be spiraling toward violence pretty quickly. Perhaps you have seen FYI: Those that think Christians can't be the victims of "hate" crimes in the US... Think again?

If you think what happened with Chik-Fil-A was bad, wait until you see the reaction when a group of little old ladies are hurt in an attack on a church.

You can argue the concern that if LGBT is granted more rights they will run with it and seek superiority and to oppress, but it doesn't change that currently in place in our society is superiority and oppression against LGBT.

One does not level a table by turning it on the other side.

It seems to me that someone who opposes oppression should fight against the ones already in society and not the hypothetical. That should be dealt with when it actually occurs.

I disagree.

What you are describing is a reactive, almost Pavlovian response. Humans have the ability of forethought for a reason. We are better served by watching for danger signs and anticipating events rather than by waiting to react. No goal has ever been reached, no exploration has ever been successful, no war has ever been won without forethought as to future consequences. Should I see the concerns above as a remote possibility, perhaps I could agree with you, but I see them as a virtual certainty at this point in time and plan to waste no time in preparing for them.

As a friend, I suggest you do the same.

TheRedneck

Gay couples can adopt children without being married so I view this thread as a moot point. I know more gay and lesbian couples that have children than couples that want to get married. One is not a condition of the other.