NationStates Jolt Archive

You would have to be living in a cave not to know that this is a big issue right now. Or, at least it was before I moved into my cave. But I think we are looking at the wrong question.

It should not be "Should gays be allowed to marry?", but rather "Why is the government deciding who is allowed to get married?"

By giving the State power to license marriage, we are effectively giving them the power to say that any given person cannot marry. Just because the marriage laws have not changed for years doesn't mean that they won't, in fact that is what we are looking at right now. Instead of worrying about whether or not two men should be allowed to get married, we should be wondering why any two people should need the government's permission to affect a social contract.

I suggest we remove government from the equation entirely. If someone wishes to marry then they can, by mutual consent, consider themselves married.

*groan*

Inasmuch as marriage is a public contract, it is up to public authority to decide its terms, and to make all those decisions...

Contractual law 101...

Haven't we had enough answers to this debate?

So basicly you wan't to make marriage less meaningful.

Haven't we had enough threads on this debate?

Fixed.

:rolleyes:

*groan*

Inasmuch as marriage is a public contract, it is up to public authority to decide its terms, and to make all those decisions...

Contractual law 101...


not to sound rude..but fuck the public!

they cut me off everyday on the way to work...the cops are more interested in writing tickets to generate revenue,,,then catching bad guys...i say fuck the public...sour..perhaps...rality..hell yea.

i would be more then happy to never again interact with the "public" again...as my anger management is getting thin...

some people are cool,but most just simply suck...

You do know that there is a difference between an emotional or spiritual marriage and a judicial one?

The reason why the government is involved is because those that get married get legal benefits.

Technically, yes, you could just make some sort of ritual (or no ritual) and declare yourselves married and nobody could care less. However, if you want the legal benefits of being considered a family, then you need the government or some other authority to recognise it.

On a somewhat unrelated note:
In fact, if I remember correctly, it was quite easy to get divorced in viking society, because all it required was that the woman say something to the effet of taking everyone in the vicinity as witnesses that she is divorcing herself from her husband.

and please dont get me started with the know it all judges and the whole i know better then you crowd...i do not want to projectile vomit on my computer

Why don't we just ban marriage altogether? It woud make my life easy. Nothing to look forward to, only fame and power, I could just commit suicide now.

You do know that there is a difference between an emotional or spiritual marriage and a judicial one?

The reason why the government is involved is because those that get married get legal benefits.

Technically, yes, you could just make some sort of ritual (or no ritual) and declare yourselves married and nobody could care less. However, if you want the legal benefits of being considered a family, then you need the government or some other authority to recognise it.

On a somewhat unrelated note:
In fact, if I remember correctly, it was quite easy to get divorced in viking society, because all it required was that the woman say something to the effet of taking everyone in the vicinity as witnesses that she is divorcing herself from her husband.


what...they just did not behead her for...i dont know..having an orgasm?

yep...society has really progressed

not intended towards the poster...just a reflection of my disdain for the world in general

You do know that there is a difference between an emotional or spiritual marriage and a judicial one?

The reason why the government is involved is because those that get married get legal benefits.

Technically, yes, you could just make some sort of ritual (or no ritual) and declare yourselves married and nobody could care less. However, if you want the legal benefits of being considered a family, then you need the government or some other authority to recognise it.

On a somewhat unrelated note:
In fact, if I remember correctly, it was quite easy to get divorced in viking society, because all it required was that the woman say something to the effet of taking everyone in the vicinity as witnesses that she is divorcing herself from her husband.


Maybe we need to rethink the benefits, and how they are applied. What, exactly is so important that we would allow so much intrusion into private choice?

Pish. Why do you want to get married anyway? Surely there's nothing getting married can do for you as a couple that a little rejigging of the financial process of the courts couldn't take care of? The state should, rather than giving homosexuals explicit permission to marry, give all formally declared couples the same benefits for as long as they are a couple. That way the whole marriage issue is out of the government's hands and becomes solely an issue of personal ceremony and sentiment. Plus, it takes the pressure off of both straight and gay/lesbian couples to push on into something they might not be ready for.

Very few religions seem to embrace gayboyism. We should listen to our religious traditions.

Very few religions seem to embrace gayboyism. We should listen to our religious traditions.
Okay, sure thing. Wait right there, I'll go grab the sacrificial virgin and incense.

Maybe we need to rethink the benefits, and how they are applied. What, exactly is so important that we would allow so much intrusion into private choice?

The two most important legal aspects of marriage are power of attorney (you can make decisions on behalf of your partner if he/she is not able to, and those override the decisions of your partners biological family) and shared responsibility/property (if your partner messes up, you can be held accountable).

Both are pretty important for society.

Marriage sucks. If I got married to my boyfriend right now, he most likely wouldn't let me go to Africa because it would be "endangering my health." That's my life dream!!! No, conflicting opinions in marriages are quite a negative aspect.

Marriage sucks. If I got married to my boyfriend right now, he most likely wouldn't let me go to Africa because it would be "endangering my health." That's my life dream!!! No, conflicting opinions in marriages are quite a negative aspect.

He might be right.
However,it's still up to you,and if it's your life dream he shouldn't have much of a say.
But it shows he cares and he is right,your likely to be shot or die of disease.

I think this debate is simple. The government has no place ruling who and who cannot "marry" (in the religious sense).

If a religion lets say Roman Catholic decides it will not let their priests marry homosexuals thats cool, its their crazy religion they can make up whatever rules and commandments they want.

Civil partnerships or legal marrage should be avalible to anyone who wants to marry someone else (either gender) by consent. I suppose age restrictions should still apply and you can't marry those in your immidiate family but after that enjoy!

Marriage sucks. If I got married to my boyfriend right now, he most likely wouldn't let me go to Africa because it would be "endangering my health." That's my life dream!!! No, conflicting opinions in marriages are quite a negative aspect.

You might not feel the same in ten years or so, or if you find a partner that supports you in your ambitions. My husband and I have our disagreements but we have always found ways to work it out. That's what you do when you're in a loving and mutually compatible relationship (married or not).

And yes, he might be right, but assuming you have the appropriate vaccinations, malaria prevention treatment etc and take reasonable precaution then you'll be avoiding most risks. Where in Africa do you want to go? Not all areas of the vast continent are dangerous, plenty of people go there and come back just fine.

As for the main point of the thread, the government has no business deciding who does and does not have the right to marry. The legal ramifications of marriage are important, but the authorities have no right to discriminate beyond age and familial ties etc. Maybe it's easier for a Brit to say that (we at least have the Civil Partnership - although not the same as marriage) as we are a somewhat more secularised society than the USA.

I think this debate is simple. The government has no place ruling who and who cannot "marry" (in the religious sense).

Nor does it do such a thing in the religious sense.

I believe that most have lost the real sense of what a marriage is... The marriage is a way to build "A FAMILY".. a natural ambient for to make grow up our childrens, and not for to satisfy any other egoistic necessity of sexual self-determination. If gay couple need to live togheter, nobody wont to ban them, but please! Dont call that kind of union MARRIAGE! Dont give that the same meaning! There are other way to guarantee a form of mutual solidarity beetwen homosexuals couples. But we must give at the marriage all the respect it deserve.

I believe that most have lost the real sense of what a marriage is... The marriage is a way to build "A FAMILY".. a natural ambient for to make grow up our childrens, and not for to satisfy any other egoistic necessity of sexual self-determination. If gay couple need to live togheter, nobody wont to ban them, but please! Dont call that kind of union MARRIAGE! Dont give that the same meaning! There are other way to guarantee a form of mutual solidarity beetwen homosexuals couples. But we must give at the marriage all the respect it deserve.
Name a time MARRIGE has been a purely religious term and not a contract between members of a society.

I believe that most have lost the real sense of what a marriage is... The marriage is a way to build "A FAMILY".. a natural ambient for to make grow up our childrens, and not for to satisfy any other egoistic necessity of sexual self-determination. If gay couple need to live togheter, nobody wont to ban them, but please! Dont call that kind of union MARRIAGE! Dont give that the same meaning! There are other way to guarantee a form of mutual solidarity beetwen homosexuals couples. But we must give at the marriage all the respect it deserve.

Where do you get the ridculous idea that a homosexual couple would not wish to raise children ? It is not like there is a shortage of adoptable orphans on this planet...

Name a time MARRIGE has been a purely religious term and not a contract between members of a society.

*thinks* patriarchical times in the Bible. Total absence of public law in that era.

*thinks* patriarchical times in the Bible. Total absence of public law in that era.
Really total absence of public law? How was Jesus tried by the roman magistrate then? I mean he was crucified at the same time as other CRIMINALS how does one become a criminal without a governing body declaring it such?

Nor does it do such a thing in the religious sense.

Actually.. I may be forced to withdraw this statement.

Can anyone confirm that in the USA a marriage performed by a Christian priest has legal value without the involvement of a government employee ?

I doubt it, since it would be a blatant violation of the US constitution, but hell -many people seem to think that is a piece of toilet paper anyway.

Infact, I strongly believe that homosexual couples want to adopt children for to satisfy a grim desire to imitate a pseudo normality at their unions. The big problem is tha is not respectful of baby needs. A child need to grow with a masculine and female model in their family..

The two most important legal aspects of marriage are power of attorney (you can make decisions on behalf of your partner if he/she is not able to, and those override the decisions of your partners biological family) and shared responsibility/property (if your partner messes up, you can be held accountable).

Both are pretty important for society.

Yes, those are important. But, the State can recognize a contract between two people without being in a position to give permission for that contract. Both of these issues can be handled outside of marriage. That would be done with a contract. Marriage, at its simplest is just that, a contract. There is no need for that to change. But it needs to be a two-party contract, me and my husband. Not a three-party contract, me, my husband and the State.

Infact, I strongly believe that homosexual couples want to adopt children for to satisfy a grim desire to imitate a pseudo normality at their unions. The big problem is tha is not respectful of baby needs. A child need to grow with a masculine and female model in their family..
Yeah it is much better to let them rot in a foster home then it is for a loving couple that happens to be of the same sex takes care of them

Really total absence of public law? How was Jesus tried by the roman magistrate then? I mean he was crucified at the same time as other CRIMINALS how does one become a criminal without a governing body declaring it such?


Patriarchical times.
Pre-mosaic.
Abraham.
Isaac.
Jacob.
That lot...

Infact, I strongly believe that homosexual couples want to adopt children for to satisfy a grim desire to imitate a pseudo normality at their unions. The big problem is tha is not respectful of baby needs. A child need to grow with a masculine and female model in their family..

Why ?
Must the family be mommy, daddy, children - or are constructions like mommy, grandma, daddy, nephew and his wife and children, children also acceptable ?
Or mommy, daddy, daddies girlfriend, children ?
Are single parents allowed to exist ?
Is being raised by a loving gay couple worse than being raised in an orphanage ?

Patriarchical times.
Pre-mosaic.
Abraham.
Isaac.
Jacob.
That lot...
Ahhh mis-interpreted it, and what makes you believe it was still not a societal contract at that time as well?

There are so many straight couples that desire to adopt a children that there is a solution for all the orfan of the world!! the problem is tha tha law of the most of nations are too much prolix

Ahhh mis-interpreted it, and what makes you believe it was still not a societal contract at that time as well?

Because the first time it was supposed to happen, Society consisted of the 2 person known as Adam and Eve. There was no one else. So much for the biblical exegesis, and back to track:

Anyway, my point is that religious law antedates public law.
If anything, Contracts and Covenants appear to be more of a religious invention than a public one.

Actually.. I may be forced to withdraw this statement.

Can anyone confirm that in the USA a marriage performed by a Christian priest has legal value without the involvement of a government employee ?

I doubt it, since it would be a blatant violation of the US constitution, but hell -many people seem to think that is a piece of toilet paper anyway.

How would that violate the Constitution?

There are so many straight couples that desire to adopt a children that there is a solution for all the orfan of the world!! the problem is tha tha law of the most of nations are too much prolix

You are VASTLY underestimating the number of adoptable children on this planet.
You also have not answered the following questions:
1. Why should the family contain a mommy and a daddy ?
2. Which other forms of family are allowed ?

How would that violate the Constitution?

If participating in a religious ceremony gives legal benefits if it is performed by religion X, but not when it is done by religion Y or Z you are de facto establishing a state religion. Which is not allowed.

If however you require a brief visit to a government official, or if the priest has a second job as a government official there is no problem.

Why ?
Must the family be mommy, daddy, children - or are constructions like mommy, grandma, daddy, nephew and his wife and children, children also acceptable ?
Or mommy, daddy, daddies girlfriend, children ?
Are single parents allowed to exist ?
Is being raised by a loving gay couple worse than being raised in an orphanage ?

Is not the same because al this kind of familys are the conseguence of the spread of problematic unions, split-up, relationships out the marriage!! That is caos! We dont have no more the capacity to realize durature relationships so we are convinced that that's new models of enlarged family is the right answer, but we are wrong. That kind of family is only a surrogate were a children risk to live lost after pseudofathers, pseudomathers... ecc.

If participating in a religious ceremony gives legal benefits if it is performed by religion X, but not when it is done by religion Y or Z you are de facto establishing a state religion. Which is not allowed.

If however you require a brief visit to a government official, or if the priest has a second job as a government official there is no problem.

What if the ceremony could be performed by any religious leader, or none. If the ceremony was a celebration of a personal contract. There is no reason for a contract to be considered invalid simply because it was witnessed by a religious leader. My question is why do we need government permission to enter into a personal contract?

Because the first time it was supposed to happen, Society consisted of the 2 person known as Adam and Eve. There was no one else. So much for the biblical exegesis, and back to track:

Anyway, my point is that religious law antedates public law.
If anything, Contracts and Covenants appear to be more of a religious invention than a public one.
No religious law antedates public law, if you believe the creation myth. Not something I would blindly do.

Have any sans-biblical proof of your claims?

You are VASTLY underestimating the number of adoptable children on this planet.
You also have not answered the following questions:
1. Why should the family contain a mommy and a daddy ?
2. Which other forms of family are allowed ?


when the fate realize situation not optimal in a normal family related by blood, nobody have noting to do something.. but wen we must build a artificial family, where a children is adopted, we must guaranteee for him the better situation possible!! With a mum (woman), a dad (man).. a grandma.. a grandpa...

Is not the same because al this kind of familys are the conseguence of the spread of problematic unions, split-up, relationships out the marriage!! That is caos! We dont have no more the capacity to realize durature relationships so we are convinced that that's new models of enlarged family is the right answer, but we are wrong. That kind of family is only a surrogate were a children risk to live lost after pseudofathers, pseudomathers... ecc.
Please for the love of god tell me that you are not a native English speaker. I am sorry I am not a spelling/grammar nazi but for the love of GOD

WOW!

Another gay thread.

Wasn't the Big Gay Thread enough?

Guess not.

This obssession with homosexuality isn't healthy.

Please for the love of god tell me that you are not a native English speaker. I am sorry I am not a spelling/grammar nazi but for the love of GOD

Sorry, I'm Italian... if you dont like my english you can simply ignore me

1. Why should the family contain a mommy and a daddy ?

Because that is what nature intends.

All things being equal;

A straight couple is best for a child.

Followed by a gay couple.

Followed by a single parent.

Sorry, I'm Italian... if you dont like my english you can simply ignore me

Thats-a-one-spicy-meatball!

when the fate realize situation not optimal in a normal family related by blood, nobody have noting to do something.. but wen we must build a artificial family, where a children is adopted, we must guaranteee for him the better situation possible!! With a mum (woman), a dad (man).. a grandma.. a grandpa...

Children raised by their biological parents are, as a general, not better off than those raised by adoptive parents. Think of it this way: to adopt a child, you have to pass some checks. This is not the case if you just give birth to a child, which the government is mostly unable/unwilling to control. That way, a child who grows up with biological parents may be abused by his hard-drinking, wife-beating father, while an adopted child would stay away from such parents.

No religious law antedates public law, if you believe the creation myth. Not something I would blindly do.

Have any sans-biblical proof of your claims?

Eh?
Public Law came last.
Dead last.
We don't hear about public law previous to chaps like Hammurabi.

What if the ceremony could be performed by any religious leader, or none.

That would be perfectly fine. Of course, then there would be no problem with gay marriage either - one can just start the church of pinkness and start marrying. However, if you say that every religious marriage is valid and government is not allowed to set any standard whatsoever, the same would be true for pedophile marriages, polygamy, bestiality, marrying a rock etc.

For this reason a government should set standards if benefits are going to be granted. Currently those standards do not allow gay marriage. However (contrary to e.g. pedophile marriages and bestiality) there is no decent non-religious argumentation as to why this is the case - and so people are arguing that the standards should be adapted.



My question is why do we need government permission to enter into a personal contract?
To make it legal ?

So basicly you wan't to make marriage less meaningful.


LOL, I think the divorce rate takes care of that. I think 60% infidelity rate doesn't help either....


Adultery is so old, been around for SO long, that it's actually a commandment in the Bible.



Less meaningful? I don't know how it could be.

Because that is what nature intends.

All things being equal;

A straight couple is best for a child.

Followed by a gay couple.

Followed by a single parent.

Why limit it to a couple though ? Many animals raise children in herds. Many people share their home with other family members. Some people live in cults or polyamorous relationships.
Are those all inferior to just 1 mommy and 1 daddy ?

How about everyone marries me. There, simple and done.

Why limit it to a couple though ? Many animals raise children in herds. Many people share their home with other family members. Some people live in cults or polyamorous relationships.
Are those all inferior to just 1 mommy and 1 daddy ?

Yep, they are.

And now that the whining about alternative lifestyles is over,

would you kindly explain to me how you propose to remain respectable without strict conformity?

Children raised by their biological parents are, as a general, not better off than those raised by adoptive parents. Think of it this way: to adopt a child, you have to pass some checks. This is not the case if you just give birth to a child, which the government is mostly unable/unwilling to control. That way, a child who grows up with biological parents may be abused by his hard-drinking, wife-beating father, while an adopted child would stay away from such parents.

I'm totally agree with you, and I include that a gay couple is another kind of problematic model of family, not the best for a children healtcare. Not like hard-drinking, wife-beating father peaple.. but anyway really problematic.

He might be right.
However,it's still up to you,and if it's your life dream he shouldn't have much of a say.
But it shows he cares and he is right,your likely to be shot or die of disease.
Gee, thanks. Everyone says this, I'm too hard-headed to listen.

I'm totally agree with you, and I include that a gay couple is another kind of problematic model of family, not the best for a children healtcare. Not like hard-drinking, wife-beating father peaple.. but anyway really problematic.


Of course, we may read absolutely nothing into the fact that just last week,
the very first gay UK couple to adopt children did...
have a run-in with the Court about.... child-molestation, wot?


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1096050.ece

Why limit it to a couple though ? Many animals raise children in herds. Many people share their home with other family members. Some people live in cults or polyamorous relationships.
Are those all inferior to just 1 mommy and 1 daddy ?

If all other things are equal.

Yes.

To make it legal ?

Do I have to ask permission of the government before I enter into any other contract? The last I checked I didn't need a license to buy a house. Or anything else of the sort.

I will get back to you on the first part of that post, I think. It often takes me a bit of time to formulate my thoughts, and I am a little distracted right now.

And yes, he might be right, but assuming you have the appropriate vaccinations, malaria prevention treatment etc and take reasonable precaution then you'll be avoiding most risks. Where in Africa do you want to go? Not all areas of the vast continent are dangerous, plenty of people go there and come back just fine.
I plan on going to West Africa first, pick up some native languages and use French to do so. Then I'll go North, learn Arabic. Possibly work in Sudan. Then I'll go south to East Africa and use what little Swahili I know to learn more Swahili. It's a linguistic trip. And possibly medical, if I get my degree by then.

Of course, we may read absolutely nothing into the fact that just last week,
the very first gay UK couple to adopt children did...
have a run-in with the Court about.... child-molestation, wot?


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1096050.ece

"Gay foster couple jailed for abusing boys in their care "

That's weird! I'm not surprised to read about a new like this

"Gay foster couple jailed for abusing boys in their care "

That's weird! I'm not surprised to read about a new like this
I would be even less surprised to hear about a strait couple abusing their children like this.

Do I have to ask permission of the government before I enter into any other contract? The last I checked I didn't need a license to buy a house.

Intruiging. I had to visit a notary to formalise things like property transfer, the ownership of the land etc. Extensions and dramatic changes of the appearance also require a lot of paperwork.

Do I have to ask permission of the government before I enter into any other contract? The last I checked I didn't need a license to buy a house. Or anything else of the sort.

I will get back to you on the first part of that post, I think. It often takes me a bit of time to formulate my thoughts, and I am a little distracted right now.
There are plenty of things that require government sanction … For example private sale of a car still requires title transfer.

Land transfer requires public approval as well.

Zoning laws … I can not just make a contract to sell a plot of land of any size to someone it requires government approval of the use AND the size of the lot (for example our farm could not be broken down to less then 40 acre chunks)

In some states there ARE some cities and states that require a permit to live in a home (occupancy permits)

Let them marry and be happy. Pursuit of happiness, anyone? Seriously, it's not like it will be the end of the world if a gay couple marries.

Let them marry and be happy. Pursuit of happiness, anyone? Seriously, it's not like it will be the end of the world if a gay couple marries.

DONT CALL THAT KIND OF UNION MARRIAGE PLEASE!!!

DONT CALL THAT KIND OF UNION MARRIAGE PLEASE!!!
What, you mean two gays happily married? Or two lesbians in love having a marriage ceremony?

DONT CALL THAT KIND OF UNION MARRIAGE PLEASE!!!
In my book if it is love and a lifetime commitment between two consenting adults it is Marriage

I would be even less surprised to hear about a strait couple abusing their children like this.


who abuse of their children is peaple scored by a terrible abnormality and persevity... The gay peaple are "not necessarily" members of that club... but "not necessarily" is near enough to "often".

In my book if it is love and a lifetime commitment between two consenting adults it is Marriage

Marriage is pleadge in presence of god and/or of all the peaple of your community... A marriage imply right and duty between the couple and with the community too.. the intrest of the community is the wellbeing of society and the respect of value of family, the care of children... are you sure that a union of gay couples meets thats requisites? I believe that Gay peaples are free to build any kind of "contract" of mutual assistence.. but not that kind a contract that I call MARRIAGE

who abuse of their children is peaple scored by a terrible abnormality and persevity... The gay peaple are "not necessarily" members of that club... but "not necessarily" is near enough to "often".
Stop spouting hate speech. Take a look at some statistics and you'll figure out that gays are no more, and no less, likely to abuse of children than straights are.

In fact, there are about 10 times fewer cases of abuse from gays and lesbians... simply because there are about 10 times less of them than straights. Proportionnally speaking, it's all the same.

There are good parents, and fucktards who abuse their kids. Sexual orientation does not influence in which category you fall.

Marriage is pleadge in presence of god and/or of all the peaple of your community... A marriage imply right and duty between the couple and with the community too.. the intrest of the community is the wellbeing of society and the respect of value of family, the care of children... are you sure that a union of gay couples meets thats requisites?

Yes.

I believe that Gay peaples are free to build any kind of "contract" of mutual assistence.. but not that kind a contract that I call MARRIAGE
Separate but equal has been disproved. A marriage is a marriage. Period.

Yes.

Separate but equal has been disproved. A marriage is a marriage. Period.

Instead I believe NO... clearly....steadly.....perentorily.. NO!!!

Stop spouting hate speech. Take a look at some statistics and you'll figure out that gays are no more, and no less, likely to abuse of children than straights are.

In fact, there are about 10 times fewer cases of abuse from gays and lesbians... simply because there are about 10 times less of them than straights. Proportionnally speaking, it's all the same.

There are good parents, and fucktards who abuse their kids. Sexual orientation does not influence in which category you fall.

Your interpretation sound like an absolution for absence of evidence.... the statistics talk about a sample not enougth rilevant.. there arent not many gay couples that have a child.. but I dont want to raise the sample for to prove that I am right.

Okay, sure thing. Wait right there, I'll go grab the sacrificial virgin and incense.

Good Luck, aren't virgins on the endangered species list. Even if you could find one the EPA fines would be attrocious :)

Instead I believe NO... clearly....steadly.....perentorily.. NO!!!
The fact of the matter is, no matter how you might *believe* the answer is no, the fact remains that yes, gay couples do meet all those prerequisite. Of course, it comes to mind that you probably don't know any gay couples, so you can't really answer anything other than what you were taught on the question.

I propose you actually go out, find a gay or lesbian couple who wnats to get married, and ask them questions on what concerns you. The answers will most probably open your eyes, if you're not too close-minded to consider them.

*snip*
but I dont want to raise the sample for to prove that I am right.

Then SHUT UP, unless you are prepared to face the facts and not cover your ears like a 4 year old screaming "No, I don't wanna listen, no, no, no, no, NO!!!"

Your interpretation sound like an absolution for absence of evidence.... the statistics talk about a sample not enougth rilevant.. there arent not many gay couples that have a child.. but I dont want to raise the sample for to prove that I am right.
No, it doesn't. There are many gay coupls who have children. Again, your assumption to the contrary proves you haven't done your homework and researched on it. You're just throwing unjustified accusations without verifying your facts.

And those many gay couples who take care of children do not have abuse rates any higher than straight couples. Nor do they lower rates of abuse, either. Like I said, it all boils down to either good parents, or bad parents. The gender of the parents and the gender they like to fuck is irrelevant.

I propose you actually go out, find a gay or lesbian couple who wnats to get married, and ask them questions on what concerns you. The answers will most probably open your eyes, if you're not too close-minded to consider them.

You are wrong.. I know many gay peaple, and my analisys dont change... They can bee good person.. but they can't be potentially considered good parents.. the reason of that is only one.. a children needs a male model and a female model for to grow up normally.. and nobody can change this reality

You are wrong.. I know many gay peaple, and my analisys dont change... They can bee good person.. but they can't be potentially considered good parents..

To this I call : bullshit. A racist guy saying he's not racist because he knows lots of black people is still a racist. Likewise, just knowing gay persons don't make you tolerant or free from prejudice. You obviously have never discussed the topic of parenting with any gay or lesbian if you freely make sweeping generalisations of the kind of "they can't be potentially considered good parents" just because they like to boink people of the same gender.

Parenthood is not about who you like to fuck. It's about taking care of the child, satisfying its material, emotional, and psychological needs. It's about nurture and education.


the reason of that is only one.. a children needs a male model and a female model for to grow up normally.. and nobody can change this reality
This reality, as you call it, is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Children are raised on a daily basis with only a male or a female parent in single-parent households. They do not grow up screwed up just because their mommy did the education by herself. They do not lack male role-models, either, because the child has uncles, grandfathers, teachers, idols, and male friends of his mother to look up too.

The same can be told of a child who has two mothers of two fathers instead. Parents are far from being the only potential role models out there. In fact, few children actually idolize or look up to their own parents during adolescence: they get other role models because they're at odds with their parents because they're in a rebellious phase.

Your narrow view of the atomic family reeks of religious conservatism and could have been taken right out of the 1950's. The fact that such families haven't been the norm for over half a century without the world coming to an end should be taken into consideration.

And I wont to add.. that the only reason that make me so severe about that argoment is because the life of every child on a planet deserve caution.. often we use more caution fo things less important... is not sure that to smoke a cigarette will cause me a cancer.. but I dont smoke.. Is not sure that a bier wil cause me an accident with my car.. but I dont drink and drive.. at the same way.. is not sure that a couple of gays will be bad parents and will spoil a children life... but I DONT RISK!!

And I wont to add.. that the only reason that make me so severe about that argoment is because the life of every child on a planet deserve caution.. often we use more caution fo things less important... is not sure that to smoke a cigarette will cause me a cancer.. but I dont smoke.. Is not sure that a bier wil cause me an accident with my car.. but I dont drink and drive.. at the same way.. is not sure that a couple of gays will be bad parents and will spoil a children life... but I DONT RISK!!
Then you should also not risk two heterosexuals having a child, because there is also an EQUAL risk that they will abuse of their children.

So let's stop reproducing altogether. Never mind the fact that our specie will die out after the current generation. :rolleyes:

Okay, sure thing. Wait right there, I'll go grab the sacrificial virgin and incense.


Very few religions are all about the sacrificial virgins and incense is pretty darn harmless. However, most religions seem to oppose sex brtween men. Furthermore, it seems from my reading of Leviticus that nations that tolerate gayboys are vommited out of their land.

Besides, many gays vote Democrat and talk like they are from Los Angelos. I am not sure that we want them marrying and adopting children and teaching them progressive values. They are subversives trying to subvert American society with their filty perversions.

Then you should also not risk two heterosexuals having a child, because there is also an EQUAL risk that they will abuse of their children.

So let's stop reproducing altogether. Never mind the fact that our specie will die out after the current generation. :rolleyes:

That's a retoric form called in italian "iperbole".. I dont know what the exact traslation terms is. but is a tecnique for to get down a pron theory, simply overacting what the other is tryng to explain... I tell only one thing.. be carefull.. We live in a society were is in use destroy every "normal" model of life in behalf of alternative that we call anyway marriage, family... The adults are free to do that choices.. but when there is a children life in play... We must think

would it be possible to talk about this without religion? u know, good ol' separation of church and state...besides just because YOUR religion is homophobic dosent mean that everyone else is closed-minded too. the government has no right to ban gay marrage for religios reasons and neither does anyone else

would it be possible to talk about this without religion?

No, because if one did that there would be no ground to argue against gay marriage - which would upset the opponents.

No, because if one did that there would be no ground to argue against gay marriage - which would upset the opponents.

lol very true

You would have to be living in a cave not to know that this is a big issue right now. Or, at least it was before I moved into my cave. But I think we are looking at the wrong question.

It should not be "Should gays be allowed to marry?", but rather "Why is the government deciding who is allowed to get married?"
To stop people marrying children, animals, or more than one person.

Skaladora
You'll believe me or not.. I'm not racist.. But if you need to keep hold to this belief for to give strength to your ideas, I'm desolate for you..
Is easy to discuss with well read argument about the rigth of Gays couple of to be managed like straight couples in favour of tollerance.. But you are only deflecte from the real core of the discussion.. That is rigth to expose at danger the children life and to upset the sense of family in name of that tollerance? Sorry but today nobody have convinced me that the answer is yes.

To stop people marrying children, animals, or more than one person.

aside from marrying children, whats wrong with polygamy (sp?) as long as everyone involved consents?

My question is why do we need government permission to enter into a personal contract?

Because the government is the enforcer of contracts. While many informal contracts may never use the government to enforce them (i.e., you lend your friend $500 and he agrees to pay you back within a year), there are many other more complex contracts that the government must enforce, or set limits on, etc.

When you sign a lease agreement, for example, that's a contract between you and your landlord. What the government does (or should do) is make sure that the place you are renting is safe, decent, and sanitary; the government's courts is where you can go to force your landlord to fix the plumbing if the landlord refuses; the government's courts is also where you go to appeal your landlord's decision to evict you.

The government is involved in contracts because the government is where we go to have our legal contracts enforced.

Hope that makes sense!

aside from marrying children, whats wrong with polygamy (sp?) as long as everyone involved consents?


The Bible is full of polygamy and apparently it is ok by mormonism. Outlawing polygamy seems to me to be oppressive of people's right to practice their faith.

would it be possible to talk about this without religion? u know, good ol' separation of church and state...besides just because YOUR religion is homophobic dosent mean that everyone else is closed-minded too. the government has no right to ban gay marrage for religios reasons and neither does anyone else

I do not understand where you are going with the "separation of church and state" angle. We do not have any public tax dollars going to pay the wages of mininsters, rabbis, or what have you. In America you are free to believe in any religion or no religion. Furthermore, as long as no religions are restricted from their right to harmlessly practice their faith, there is nothing wrong with religious voters voting on ethical issues after consulting religious texts.

It seems that you think that a religious person should not vote according to their conscience. That seems strange to me. And what does it mean to be close minded. I consider myself to be fairly educated and open to new ideas. It just so happens that I have reached a different opinion than you. I do not think that your love of gay marriage makes you close minded.

From another thread:


Okay, just for clarification from all the "fundies" here, if you can prove to me where it says in black and white (or black and yellow in the case of the bible) that being homo is a sin, I will completely respect your point of view.

However, because I have reason to doubt that being homo is a sin which has been explicitly stated in the bible, I request that you kindly discontinue citing the bible as your manual for how you treat others. People that are homosexual are still people, and unless they grow a tail, loose 1 1/2 arms, and are no longer able to reason, they are still human.

You are taught to respect your fellow man, because, in your belief, no matter how poor, old, straight, fucked up, or evil they are, you will still have to face judgement day, and that is inescapable, no? So why belittle your fellow man in the little time you have on earth to begin with. Nobody gets out of life until death, you cannot cheat in the overall game of life, your on your path, and death is the only way off the board, so be kind to your fellow man, and respect him, although he may have different views from you.

Meet with one gay couple, and ask questions about thier life, and if you think you have it hard, or you cant get far in life, think about these people. Are they not all, according to you, "God's children", and does the saying "God loves everyone" (which you engrain in your children from a young age) not apply to gays? What about black people, mexicans, jews, hindus, the poor, the rich, the old, the young, the healthy, the weak? Are some of those exceptions also?

So in other words, don't belittle your fellow man because of your beliefs, he or she has just the same rights as you. God does not hate, and neither should you. You don't have to participate in rallies, or wear rainbow clothes everyday, but please respect (or at least tolerate) these people. They try to struggle through life just like you, and you hurting them in both physical and emotional ways does not help.

Oh, just as an after thought, I wish gayness was a disease, because then we could infect more people with it.

PS: Guess what, I'm straight and Athiest!

I do not understand where you are going with the "separation of church and state" angle. We do not have any public tax dollars going to pay the wages of mininsters, rabbis, or what have you. In America you are free to believe in any religion or no religion. Furthermore, as long as no religions are restricted from their right to harmlessly practice their faith, there is nothing wrong with religious voters voting on ethical issues after consulting religious texts.

It seems that you think that a religious person should not vote according to their conscience. That seems strange to me. And what does it mean to be close minded. I consider myself to be fairly educated and open to new ideas. It just so happens that I have reached a different opinion than you. I do not think that your love of gay marriage makes you close minded.

by separation of church and state i ment that the government shudnt do stuff for religios reasons. i dont think ur closed-minded necessarily, but i think that people who refuse to be open to the idea that gays are equal to straights are.

he or she has just the same rights as you.

And who care about the children rigths?

(Don't start a sentence with 'and') Who cares about the childrens rights?

Learn grammar, first off.

Secondly, nobody cares about childrens rights. I may be hypocritical for saying this, but nobody does. This is a shame, because children born to any parents (I don't care who you are), or small infants which can be adopted have no hate whatsoever. We would be much better off if there was no hate from people like you, and more acceptance, like from 80-90% of this forum.

And who care about the children rigths?

The agencies that decide if the couple is allowed to adopt ? It is not like they just hand them over.

I do not see you objecting to people getting children in the natural way, without ever being screened and tested for parental capability. Do the children of those couples have no rights according to you ?

Learn grammar, first off.

Secondly, nobody cares about childrens rights. I may be hypocritical for saying this, but nobody does. This is a shame, because children born to any parents (I don't care who you are), or small infants which can be adopted have no hate whatsoever. We would be much better off if there was no hate from people like you, and more acceptance, like from 80-90% of this forum.

Sorry.. I'll take some lesson English for your pleasure.. And now.. I'm tired to hear one more time that I'm racist or that i hate somebody.. I dont offend you so please you dont offend me... There are too much straight couples that are waiting to adopt a children for to justify the necessity of to give a children to a Gay couple... We have the duty of to give at a children all the opportunity to have a "normal" life.. I don't tell that isnt impossible for a gay couple to be good parents.. But is not prudent to put a children life in a problematic ambient of grow!

But why is it up to you to determine what is "normal" and what is not? In that regard, what is normal?

Sorry.. I'll take some lesson English for your pleasure.. And now.. I'm tired to hear one more time that I'm racist or that i hate somebody..

Then please back your statements up. You keep saying that a gay couple is less suited to raise a child than a straight one. Show some evidence.
You keep saying children should be raised in a normal family. That is scaringly similar to the sentiments people had when black and white people first wished to have children; so it is not that strange people confuse you with a racist.

So.. show them wrong. Show them why you are right.

So.. show them wrong. Show them why you are right.

There is a book that unfortunately, I believe that never will be traslated in your countries.. That book exits in bookcase 7 Wednesdays june "Wants one mummy and a papà. Homosexual couples, atypical families and adoption "of Giovanna Lobbia and Lisa Trasforini (Still Publishing), third volume of the series Friends of the Children, cured of the from Milan association who from 20 years occupies of international adoption, entrusts and support at a distance. Recently some western Countries have recognized to the homosexual couples the right to adopt a minor. "Straight" that often it comes expected and screaied from the adults. And the rights of the protagonist, that is the child? According to the authors - two psychologists - it is not right that a child, that has already endured the trauma of the abandonment from part of the own parents, comes private of the right of being adopted from one "normal family". Without to enter in issues anthropological or cultural, Lobbia and Trasforini assert - with motivations that they are born from the 20 years old experience of the association -, than if the children in attended of adoption could say theirs, without doubt they would say, even softly but than heart, "I want one mother and a papà".

There is a book that unfortunately, I believe that never will be traslated in your countries.. (That book exits in bookcase 7 Wednesdays june <-- I'm not sure if it's just me, but what exactly do you mean by this sentence) "Wants one mummy and a papà. Homosexual couples, atypical families and adoption "of Giovanna Lobbia and Lisa Trasforini (Still Publishing), third volume of the series Friends of the Children, cured of the from Milan association who from 20 years occupies of international adoption, entrusts and support at a distance. Recently some western Countries have recognized to the homosexual couples the right to adopt a minor. ("Straight" that often it comes expected and screaied from the adults <-- Again; huh?). And the rights of the protagonist, that is the child? According to the authors - two psychologists - it is not right that a child, that has already endured the trauma of the abandonment from part of the own parents, comes private of the right of being adopted from one "normal family". Without to enter in issues anthropological or cultural, Lobbia and Trasforini assert - with motivations that they are born from the 20 years old experience of the association -, than if the children in attended of adoption could say theirs, without doubt they would say, even softly but than heart, "I want one mother and a papà".

Again, see the parts in bold that aren't comments, what exactly is "normal" and "atypical"?

Again, see the parts in bold that aren't comments, what exactly is "normal" and "atypical"?

I can easily tell you that normal is what is not far from the centre of the Gauss curve but youll' say that this is only a cold theory...

But if you read whitout bias what I have written before you should learn that normal is what the childrens wants!

There are too much straight couples that are waiting to adopt a children for to justify the necessity of to give a children to a Gay couple...

In truth, there are many straight couples waiting in line to adopt a healthy, white infant. Very, very few will adopt children over the age of about one. Very, very few will adopt children with health problems or, God forbid, drug addictions brought on by their mothers. Most of those children remain wards of the state until they reach the age of 18.

It should not be "Should gays be allowed to marry?", but rather "Why is the government deciding who is allowed to get married?"

Maybe because it is the government who grants a marriage license. It is really only the government that can recognize two people as a single entity if they choose to live that way. It is only the goverment that can effectively enforce the agreements made between those two people. Thus, the government grants marriage licenses to those who choose to make that decision. Of course, right now, it grants them only to some such people.

By giving the State power to license marriage, we are effectively giving them the power to say that any given person cannot marry.

Not really. Gay couples get married all the time. They simply cannot get government recognition of that marriage in most places. And it really is only the government that can grant government recognition.

Instead of worrying about whether or not two men should be allowed to get married, we should be wondering why any two people should need the government's permission to affect a social contract.

Because it isn't just a social contract. It is a monetary one as well. It involves everyone who you or your spouse owe money. It involves ownership. And so on.....

I suggest we remove government from the equation entirely. If someone wishes to marry then they can, by mutual consent, consider themselves married.

Just so you know, this is already true. Anyone can already, by mutual consent, consider themselves married. Hell, you don't even need mutual consent. I can consider myself married to a coke can if I want.

Skaladora
You'll believe me or not.. I'm not racist..

This has nothing to do with racism. Racism is prejudice or contempt for people whose skin color is different.

This has to do with homophobia, fear of or prejudice against people of differing sexual orientation.

But if you need to keep hold to this belief for to give strength to your ideas, I'm desolate for you..
Is easy to discuss with well read argument about the rigth of Gays couple of to be managed like straight couples in favour of tollerance.. But you are only deflecte from the real core of the discussion.. That is rigth to expose at danger the children life and to upset the sense of family in name of that tollerance? Sorry but today nobody have convinced me that the answer is yes.
This is not about tolerance, nowhere in any of my posts have I made an appeal to your tolerance. I simply destroyed your assumptions that homosexuality is somehow damaging or dangerous for children. It's not. There is not a single shred of credible evidence from any serious source that it is.

Gays and lesbians have children. They always have had children. Some are foster parents, some adopt, some have biological children with a previous opposite-sex spouse, some arrange for sperm donors or a lesbian friend to carry the baby.

None of those children have suffered more because of their paren't sexual orientation. You don't have a leg to stand on. Your position is not about protecting children: it's about pushing your own prejudices upon others.

Actually.. I may be forced to withdraw this statement.

Can anyone confirm that in the USA a marriage performed by a Christian priest has legal value without the involvement of a government employee ?

I doubt it, since it would be a blatant violation of the US constitution, but hell -many people seem to think that is a piece of toilet paper anyway.

Actually, a marriage performed by any ordained minister of any religion can carry legal weight, if it meets all other requirements. A couple generally has to go and obtain a marriage license, but a minister can act as a justice of the peace in order to sign off on it. It's really a matter of convenience for those who have religious weddings - it allows them to get the minister to sign off on it, without having to go back down to the courthouse and have another little ceremony (yes, most jurisdictions do their own justice of the peace ceremony, complete with "By the power vested in me....").

It isn't really a violation of the Constitution because no particular religion is placed over another. You can get ordained into a church online and perform a marriage.


I believe that most have lost the real sense of what a marriage is... The marriage is a way to build "A FAMILY".. a natural ambient for to make grow up our childrens, and not for to satisfy any other egoistic necessity of sexual self-determination.

First of all, a family need not involve children. Are you lobbying to keep those who are sterile from marrying? How about women past menopause? If you are not, the "OMFG, Marriage is for the children!" argument is spurious.

Meanwhile, a homosexual couple is every bit as much "a family" as any other couple. A homosexual couple raising children is every bit as much "a family" as any other couple or single parent raising children.

I can easily tell you that normal is what is not far from the centre of the Gauss curve but youll' say that this is only a cold theory...

But if you read whitout bias what I have written before you should learn that normal is what the childrens wants!
Cause we know children want only what is good for them :rolleyes:

Cause we know children want only what is good for them :rolleyes:
And that they'd rather have no parents at all and spend all their life up to majority in the care of social workers in an orphanage. :rolleyes:

First of all, a family need not involve children. Are you lobbying to keep those who are sterile from marrying? How about women past menopause? If you are not, the "OMFG, Marriage is for the children!" argument is spurious.

Meanwhile, a homosexual couple is every bit as much "a family" as any other couple. A homosexual couple raising children is every bit as much "a family" as any other couple or single parent raising children.
THANK YOU.

I would like just a little bit of goddamned respect for the monogamous, loving, committed couples who are childless by choice. Plenty of people do not want to be parents, and, therefore, it is very responsible and reasonable of them to not have children. I see absolutely no reason why these relationships deserve to be spat on, as they are every time people insist that a "real marriage" is all about making babies. Fuck that noise.

My question is why do we need government permission to enter into a personal contract?

You don't. You need government permission to get government recognition of your personal decision.


Because that is what nature intends.

Nature doesn't "intend" anything.

All things being equal;

A straight couple is best for a child.

Followed by a gay couple.

Followed by a single parent.

That's quite a generalization. What "all things" are we talking about?

Cause we know children want only what is good for them :rolleyes:
When my kid brother was a toddler, he used to shove pea gravel up his nose until he got nose bleeds. I guess having a bloody nose full of rocks is "normal," now, and we should have just left the little stones up there.

Do I have to ask permission of the government before I enter into any other contract?

Basically, yes. The government is the body that enforces contracts. If it chooses not to or decides that your contract falls outside of the law, then your contract will not be enforced. Thus, when it comes right down to it, if you want enforcment of *any* contract, you need government permission.

The last I checked I didn't need a license to buy a house. Or anything else of the sort.

You generally can't buy a house without spending two or three hours signing documents in at least triplicate - in some jurisdictions, in blue ink. Then, your deed is registered with the government. If the government does not register your deed, then, from a legal standpoint, you do not own the house. If someone else already had that deed, and they are not the ones who sold it to you then, legally, you do not own that house.

The government has an awful lot to do with you buying a house. It may not be a license, but it is quite a bit of involvement.

Of course, we may read absolutely nothing into the fact that just last week,
the very first gay UK couple to adopt children did...
have a run-in with the Court about.... child-molestation, wot?


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1096050.ece

First of all, there is nothing in your article to suggest that this couple adopted any of the children. They were foster parents (who, unfortunately, get a lot less scrutiny than adoptive parents in most cases).

On top of that, I'm wondering where you got the impression that this was the first homosexual couple to take in foster children?

Marriage is pleadge in presence of god and/or of all the peaple of your community...

In truth, it just needs to between two people and, if they believe in God, God. In order to get legal recognition, it certainly is a pledge before the people of the community as well. Of course, many people are married without government recognition. In fact, this is where many gay couples fall right now.

A marriage imply right and duty between the couple and with the community too.. the intrest of the community is the wellbeing of society and the respect of value of family, the care of children... are you sure that a union of gay couples meets thats requisites?

Absolutely. There is nothing about a homosexual couple to keep them from meeting all of those.

I believe that Gay peaples are free to build any kind of "contract" of mutual assistence.. but not that kind a contract that I call MARRIAGE

Their "contract" is exactly the same as that of heterosexual couples. Thus, they are both the same thing. Thus, they are both marriage.

You are wrong.. I know many gay peaple, and my analisys dont change... They can bee good person.. but they can't be potentially considered good parents.. the reason of that is only one.. a children needs a male model and a female model for to grow up normally.. and nobody can change this reality

Actually, a child needs many male and many female role models. The parents are the closest to the child (generally), and should certainly be good role models. However, no child should be restricted to parental role models alone. Just as a single mom or dad can ensure that their children are exposed to responsible adults of both sexes, a homosexual couple can do the same.

Your narrow view of the atomic family reeks of religious conservatism and could have been taken right out of the 1950's. The fact that such families haven't been the norm for over half a century without the world coming to an end should be taken into consideration.

And, in truth, the nuclear family wasn't the norm until the '40's or '50's. Most children were raised by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, etc. all living on or near the same land - sometimes even in the same house. When families started becoming more nuclear, the older generation thought the world was going to end.


aside from marrying children, whats wrong with polygamy (sp?) as long as everyone involved consents?

There is nothing wrong with polygamy, per se. However, the current marriage law wouldn't work for it, as it was designed specifically for two people. In order to have government recognition of polygamy (in which case, every union would be very different), another construct would be necessary. The most likely candidate is incorporation - in which however many people want to be married could essentially incorporate themselves.

I do not understand where you are going with the "separation of church and state" angle. We do not have any public tax dollars going to pay the wages of mininsters, rabbis, or what have you. In America you are free to believe in any religion or no religion. Furthermore, as long as no religions are restricted from their right to harmlessly practice their faith, there is nothing wrong with religious voters voting on ethical issues after consulting religious texts.

There is if they are voting to restrict the rights of other citizens - to deny equal protection to other citizens - just because of their religious views. Enforcing your religion upon another person is every bit as much establishing a government-sponsored religion as paying the church out of government coffers would be. In truth, it is a larger invasion into the person's right to practice their own faith, as a different faith is being forced upon them.

Legislating against gay marriage on religious principles is logically no different from legislating against interracial marriage on religious principles, or legislating that women must wear burquas on religious principles, or legislating that businesses cannot be open on Sundays, or any number of ways a religious view might be enforced on another.

It seems that you think that a religious person should not vote according to their conscience.

Of course they should. But they should not force their own religious views upon others - as that infringes upon the others' right to freedom of religion.

I would like just a little bit of goddamned respect for the monogamous, loving, committed couples who are childless by choice. Plenty of people do not want to be parents, and, therefore, it is very responsible and reasonable of them to not have children. I see absolutely no reason why these relationships deserve to be spat on, as they are every time people insist that a "real marriage" is all about making babies. Fuck that noise.

Indeed. I accidentally left that out of my list.

And, in truth, the nuclear family wasn't the norm until the '40's or '50's. Most children were raised by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, etc. all living on or near the same land - sometimes even in the same house. When families started becoming more nuclear, the older generation thought the world was going to end.

Yeah, don't you love how the "traditional family" has been redefined to mean "the nuclear family," which has only been tradition for one, maybe two, generations? Talk about re-writing history.

Cause we know children want only what is good for them :rolleyes:
In this case they absolutey know what make them unhappy!

Every of you are not thinking by the children side... you can show mountains of evidences that demonstrate that there is not a difference between one gay couple and one straight couple in the cure of a child. but you cannot demonstrate what that every pedagogue of this world asserts: The children WANTS one mummy and a papy. And the childrens ridhts are SUPERIOR at every other consideration.

Every of you are not thinking by the children side... you can show mountains of evidences that demonstrate that there is not a difference between one gay couple and one straight couple in the cure of a child. but you cannot demonstrate what that every pedagogue of this world asserts: The children WANTS one mummy and a papy. And the childrens ridhts are SUPERIOR at every other consideration.

"Fuck The Childen." -George Carlin a.k.a. Mr. Conductor.

THANK YOU.

I would like just a little bit of goddamned respect for the monogamous, loving, committed couples who are childless by choice. Plenty of people do not want to be parents, and, therefore, it is very responsible and reasonable of them to not have children. I see absolutely no reason why these relationships deserve to be spat on, as they are every time people insist that a "real marriage" is all about making babies. Fuck that noise.

Nobody tell that are weddings without dignity... but they often are the expression of a culture that only attends to that it convene to the single one. forgetting that chosen they influence negatively condition all the society that instead would live better thanks to a social structure where the families work well. Without increase zero (as it happens in Italy), without the supermarket of the separations and the divorces that destroy to the community creating moral and economic costs. and all this in name of presumed raights of the single one. Single that by now becomes more and more egocentric, egoist and blind of what we would have to hold equally to heart. our duties in toward the others. Therefore I ask to you at least in this case, do not forget that we have a duty in toward of a subject particularly weak, the child. :headbang:

Every of you are not thinking by the children side... you can show mountains of evidences that demonstrate that there is not a difference between one gay couple and one straight couple in the cure of a child. but you cannot demonstrate what that every pedagogue of this world asserts: The children WANTS one mummy and a papy. And the childrens ridhts are SUPERIOR at every other consideration.
Really? Because my godson wants both his mommies. My three cousins love their Poppy and Daddy more than anything in the world, and wouldn't trade them for a gajillion candybars.

I guess that pretty much ends your argument, huh? Since these kids want a Mommy and a Mama, or Poppy and Daddy, then you have to shut up and quit trying to take away what they want. Right?

Nobody tell that are weddings without dignity... but they often are the expression of a culture that only attends to that it convene to the single one. forgetting that chosen they influence negatively condition all the society that instead would live better thanks to a social structure where the families work well. Without increase zero (as it happens in Italy), without the supermarket of the separations and the divorces that destroy to the community creating moral and economic costs. and all this in name of presumed raights of the single one. Single that by now becomes more and more egocentric, egoist and blind of what we would have to hold equally to heart. our duties in toward the others. Therefore I ask to you at least in this case, do not forget that we have a duty in toward of a subject particularly weak, the child. :headbang:
....?

"Fuck The Childen." -George Carlin a.k.a. Mr. Conductor.
Agreed. They're getting entirely too much attention.

Agreed. They're getting entirely too much attention.

They should be seen - and not heard. Nor buggered.

"Gay foster couple jailed for abusing boys in their care "

That's weird! I'm not surprised to read about a new like this


First gay couple in the UK to be allowed to adopt.
Aaaaand... immediate screw-up, wot?

But we're not supposed to be surprised at all.

First gay couple in the UK to be allowed to adopt.
Aaaaand... immediate screw-up, wot?

But we're not supposed to be surprised at all.

What's your point, exactly?

What's your point, exactly?

My point was ( and remains ) that in the case of homosexual couples adopting children ( a practice that I have supported and still support ) more than the normal amount of care should be taken ( by Social Services and similar organisations ) to ensure that nothing out of line happens.

That was most definetely not done in this case.
The presumption was made in some quarters that any amount of scrutiny was discriminatory.

Lack of oversight is a pretty good guaranty for fiddlestick-ups...

( Read the Schlesinger Report on just how Abu Ghraib was enabled...)

I do support gay couples as possible adopters.
I don't support the notion that it is every bit as good as an archetypical couple.

My point was ( and remains ) that in the case of homosexual couples adopting children ( a practice that I have supported and still support ) more than the normal amount of care should be taken ( by Social Services and similar organisations ) to ensure that nothing out of line happens.

Given that heterosexual couples are disproportionately likely to abuse children, why should homosexual couples be the ones that receive increased scrutiny?

If we're going to play the odds, then any couple that includes a heterosexual male should receive the maximum scrutiny, since heterosexual males are by far the most likely to abuse or molest children.

Really? Because my godson wants both his mommies. My three cousins love their Poppy and Daddy more than anything in the world, and wouldn't trade them for a gajillion candybars.

I guess that pretty much ends your argument, huh? Since these kids want a Mommy and a Mama, or Poppy and Daddy, then you have to shut up and quit trying to take away what they want. Right?

Be serius.. a child want a "normal" family..and that's all.. what the gays couple ask, come from a egoistic desire to represent a species of normality that not is love towards a son.
what I represent you is what that says all the experts of pedagogia of all the world. A whichever child asks for having around if one Father and one Mother. That is a pedagogical postulate, than you unfortunately try to tame for requirements that no have no relation with the interest of the children

Be serius.. a child want a "normal" family..and that's all..

Again, these children want the families they have. You may find this shocking, but you are not, in fact, personally in control of deciding what all children want.


what the gays couple ask, come from a egoistic desire to represent a species of normality that not is love towards a son.

I see, so it's not "love" for a loving, committed couple to have children and rear them as a family.


what I represent you is what that says all the experts of pedagogia of all the world.

Cite your sources.


A whichever child asks for having around if one Father and one Mother. That is a pedagogical postulate, than you unfortunately try to tame for requirements that no have no relation with the interest of the children
Cite your sources, and for pity's sake fix your grammar.

Be serius.. a child want a "normal" family..and that's all.. what the gays couple ask, come from a egoistic desire to represent a species of normality that not is love towards a son.
what I represent you is what that says all the experts of pedagogia of all the world. A whichever child asks for having around if one Father and one Mother. That is a pedagogical postulate, than you unfortunately try to tame for requirements that no have no relation with the interest of the children
Tink o teh famlies!!!1 ZOMG!!1 kidz wan a mama n pa. natur!!!1 OMG gats!!!jst wana tuch teh kidys!!

Come on the "it ruins families argument" is shit, you know homosexual animals help other members of their group raise children and feed mouths?

Given that heterosexual couples are disproportionately likely to abuse children, why should homosexual couples be the ones that receive increased scrutiny?

If we're going to play the odds, then any couple that includes a heterosexual male should receive the maximum scrutiny, since heterosexual males are by far the most likely to abuse or molest children.

Given how? I'd say it is EXACTLY the other way around.
*thinks*
Right - that party in the Netherlands that was pro-paedophile.. what was their sexual orientation again?

Given how? I'd say it is EXACTLY the other way around.
Wheres your proof?

Clinical psychologist, Ken Adams states that "a common myth is that overt incest is the exception not the rule in America. This is not the case." He quotes researcher Mike Lew's estimate that there are over 40 million American adults who as children were victims of sexual abuse

Do you think 40 million americans have been sexually abused by gay couples?

Do you think 40 million americans have been sexually abused by gay couples?

Nope. I'm thinking this is about a research-universe of 40 million americans, regarding the incidence of sexual unpleasantries in their history.

I think you have a few things to learn.
'Show us your proof is' not exactly the right tone for a.. VERY inexperienced person. Unless yours is claim to pluralis majestaticus.

Be serius.. a child want a "normal" family..and that's all.. what the gays couple ask, come from a egoistic desire to represent a species of normality that not is love towards a son.
what I represent you is what that says all the experts of pedagogia of all the world. A whichever child asks for having around if one Father and one Mother. That is a pedagogical postulate, than you unfortunately try to tame for requirements that no have no relation with the interest of the children

First off, children don't neccesarilly know what they want. It's entirely possible (and common) for children to want what they are taught by society to want. Many adults are the same. I know I am, it's something about myself that I really dislike but is not easy to change (e.g. I want a 52 inch LCD TV, that I can't afford, and a nicely decorated, large house, that I can't afford, and various other trappings of a desirable lifestyle that many many people believe they want, it is to do with competitiveness and a false perception of what is normal)

Secondly, as already stated by Bottle, not all couples want children. Marriage is still marriage without children. Are you honestly saying that any couple (gay or straight) without children - either by choice or not (this may shock you, but there are straight couples incapable of bearing children for medical reasons) are not legally or morally married?!

Funny, because I got married two years ago, we don't have children and won't until we are both ready, emotionally and financially. Are you saying that we're not actually married? I think the law and every sane person would disagree with you.

In Britain, because we unfortunately have a state religion, a CofE vicar is authorised by the state to marry couples, any other religious ceremony is not legally binding, you have to have a civil ceremony for the legality to kick in.

We now have a thing called a "Civil Partnership", anyone can have one, gay or straight, but it doesn't afford quite the same rights as marriage (please don't ask for a source, I don't have one and can't actually remember the differences off the top of my head) and is not called a marriage so as not to upset people like you. It is a step in the right direction for rights for gay and lesbian people, however.

Marriage is not just about children, it is first and foremost about publically declaring your love and commitment to one person. It provides various legal protections to both parties, mostly to do with finances and assets. Now, on these grounds, why should two people of the same gender not be allowed to do this? Leave religion out of it, we don't all follow one religion, therefore it must be left out of legal matters.

Next, unmarried people have children all the time, as long as two people love and respect each other and their child(ren), marriage is not neccessary. Marriage only becomes important if the couple split up, marriage protects both parents and the child in the case of divorce, where unmarried couples have a messier time of it with custody etc. (As my brother can testify, as an unmarried father, whose ex-partner has since married and had a secon child - very messy).

Life can be ugly and complicated for anybody, regardless of gender or sexuality. Straight couples split up as do gay ones, children can be involved or not with both. You can't deny gay people the right to marriage solely because of what may or may not be best for any children that may or may not come along, they are entitled to not have any and would still be married by any rational view. So, removing children from the eqation, what grounds are there for forbidding gay marriage?

Please be sensible, rational and reasonable.

Nope. I'm thinking this is about a research-universe of 40 million americans, regarding the incidence of sexual unpleasantries in their history.

I think you have a few things to learn.
'Show us your proof is' not exactly the right tone for a.. VERY inexperienced person. Unless yours is claim to pluralis majestaticus.
Show me your proof was fine, if your going to claim pedophilia and homosexuality are linked you could at least show some proof.

Show me your prof was fine, if your going to claim pedophilia and homosexuality are linked you could at least show some proof.

That would come up between Bottle and me - as he claimed the contrary first.
We do go a while back and are used to eachother.
Now, please be quiet, and BEHAVE.

original post: Originally Posted by Bottle
Given that heterosexual couples are disproportionately likely to abuse children, why should homosexual couples be the ones that receive increased scrutiny?

If we're going to play the odds, then any couple that includes a heterosexual male should receive the maximum scrutiny, since heterosexual males are by far the most likely to abuse or molest children.


Given how? I'd say it is EXACTLY the other way around.
*thinks*
Right - that party in the Netherlands that was pro-paedophile.. what was their sexual orientation again?

Show me your proof was fine, if your going to claim pedophilia and homosexuality are linked you could at least show some proof.

well, we had one gay couple adopting children, and one gay couple getting convicted for childmolestation.
That makes for a 100% case, doesn't it?

well, we had one gay couple adopting children, and one gay couple getting convicted for childmolestation.
That makes for a 100% case, doesn't it?
I believe they were foster carers, unless your not talking about the one that was the other day?

I believe they were foster carers, unless your not talking about the one that was the other day?

So, in our exhaustive survey of Gay Adoption in the UK, we found a 100% childmolestation-rate. I just proved it, right?

Anyway, perhaps you'd better butt out of this.

So, in our exhaustive survey of Gay Adoption in the UK, we found a 100% childmolestation-rate. I just proved it, right?

Anyway, perhaps you'd better butt out of this.
If i have a bag of 99 green balls and 1 red ball there is a 1 in a hundred chance i will pick the red...

I said i thought they were foster carers, you didn't answer, and i'm certain there are other homosexual foster parents, not to mention people who have children then leave their partner for someone of the same sex. Don't suppose you have stats on those too?

Dear Lay Land..

Believe me or not, but I am agree with you on the most of the things that I am absolutely in favor of the solidarity pacts, but for the love of God, we must maintain perfectly clear the difference between wedding and the other type of union. Just for this I assert one incompatibility for the Gays couples to obtain one adoption. When we speak about adoptions, we must comprise that the adoption must be made in the interest of the Child and not in the interest of the aspirants parents.
Infact the couples of aspirant parents are carefully estimated in order to establish if they are suitable or not. I am not racist (pray you, believe me), but I am convinced that to give a child to a Gay couple is not in harmony with those instinctive and primary needs that every baby have. True is that the life is ugly, and just for this, when it is possible to operate one chosen against a cruel child fate, is important to create for him the best, and "normal", living conditions. Because we cant risk in this case in name of tollerance.

Dear Lay Land..

Believe me or not, but I am agree with you on the most of the things that I am absolutely in favor of the solidarity pacts, but for the love of God, we must maintain perfectly clear the difference between wedding and the other type of union. Just for this I assert one incompatibility for the Gays couples to obtain one adoption. When we speak about adoptions, we must comprise that the adoption must be made in the interest of the Child and not in the interest of the aspirants parents.
Infact the couples of aspirant parents are carefully estimated in order to establish if they are suitable or not. I am not racist (pray you, believe me), but I am convinced that to give a child to a Gay couple is not in harmony with those instinctive and primary needs that every baby have. True is that the life is ugly, and just for this, when it is possible to operate one chosen against a cruel child fate, is important to create for him the best, and "normal", living conditions. Because we cant risk in this case in name of tollerance.

The bolded part is exactly the kind of unsupported statement i expect from the religious right.

Be serius.. a child want a "normal" family..and that's all..

If we were going to be absolutely serious, we could say that what a child sitting in an orphanage or in foster care wants is a permanent family - period. "Normal" or not, what that child wants and needs is a permanent, loving home.

Given how? I'd say it is EXACTLY the other way around.

Unfortunately, the data do not support your assertion.


*thinks*
Right - that party in the Netherlands that was pro-paedophile.. what was their sexual orientation again?
Irrelevant to the subject at hand, I'm afraid. The simple fact is that heterosexual males are, by far, the most likely to sexually abuse children.

=
I think you have a few things to learn.
'Show us your proof is' not exactly the right tone for a.. VERY inexperienced person. Unless yours is claim to pluralis majestaticus.
Asking for evidence before reaching a conclusion is the right tone for any honest individual, regardless of "experience" level. If you make an assertion, it is for you to support your assertion. There's no point in trying to insult people for expecting you to behave in an honest manner.

Right - that party in the Netherlands that was pro-paedophile.. what was their sexual orientation again?

All three men were pedophiles. One preferred boys, two did not really care.

Unfortunately, the data do not support your assertion.


Irrelevant to the subject at hand, I'm afraid. The simple fact is that heterosexual males are, by far, the most likely to sexually abuse children.

The simple fact is that we treat ANY new fangled invention as very suspicious, and doubly so when we're operating on the Council-Social Services level.

We expect such Services to work with the guilty-until-proven-innocent assumption.
They dropped the ball.
Not surprisingly, it blew up right into their faces.

Have you any idea how strict the protocols we have for dealing with such matters as, eg. providing services to vulnerable groups as, let us say, homeless drug-addicted ( possible) prostitutes?

I can't even bring a girlie her shopping bag that she forgot in a shelter without proper and documented chaperoning, for the Protocols make ( imho correctly ) the assumption that both she and me are up to no good, and treats us as guilty-unless-PROVEN-innocent.
And doing things this way saves everyone a lot of heartache.

You have your professional protocols for dealing with chemicals.
You treat, I suppose, every bottle as dangerous unless it has been verified that it is safe!
I have mine ( professionally!) for dealing with possibly unconventional individuals.
Those protocols treat everyone as guilty as hell until PROVEN to be safe!

We're dealing, in this case, with unconventional adults, and exceptionally vulnerable children.
Protocols should be extremely tight!
I don't tell you how to do your job - don't tell me how to do mine.

PS: what has it got to do with the debate?
We should ( imho ) seriously consider gay-couple requests to adopt.
We haven't got nearly enough standard-couples volunteering for adoption, so we need extras wherever we can get 'em.
We also should be working with the assumption of guilty-until-proven-innocent when monitoring such queer couples.

We're dealing, in this case, with unconventional adults, and exceptionally vulnerable children.
Protocols should be extremely tight!
I don't tell you how to do my job - don't tell me how to do mine.
Oh come on, its about as unconvential as being left handed.

PS: what has it got to do with the debate? We should ( imho ) seriously consider gay-couple requests to adopt. We also should be working with the assumption of guilty-until-proven-innocent when monitoring such queer couples.
No, we should have that thinking with EVERY couple.

Oh come on, its about as unconvential as being left handed.

Have you got field-experience?

Have you got field-experience?
Have you? other than your 3000+ posts

Have you?

*nods* It's pretty much my daily work, after I retired from my previous carreer.

*nods* It's pretty much my daily work, after I retired from my previous carreer.
So your an expert on homosexual metality and how so many of them are pedophiles? I know enough gay people to know they would be at least as good at parenting than some other people i know.

The simple fact is that we treat ANY new fangled invention as very suspicious, and doubly so when we're operating on the Council-Social Services level.

Homosexuality is not a new invention. Gay parents are not a new invention. Homosexuals adopting children is not new.


We expect such Services to work with the guilty-until-proven-innocent assumption.
They dropped the ball.
Not surprisingly, it blew up right into their faces.

It is always tragic when social services fail to protect children from abuse. However, based on existing information, children are at significantly more risk when placed in heterosexual families. I don't see why we should ignore our existing data and place heavier focus on the families that are less likely (statistically) to be abusive.


Have you any idea how strict the protocols we have for dealing with such matters as, eg. providing services to vulnerable groups as, let us say, homeless drug-addicted ( possible) prostitutes?

I can't even bring a girlie her shopping bag that she forgot in a shelter without proper and documented chaperoning, for the Protocols make ( imho correctly ) the assumption that both she and me are up to no good, and treats us as guilty-unless-PROVEN-innocent.
And doing things this way saves everyone a lot of heartache.

You have your professional protocols for dealing with chemicals.
You treat, I suppose, every bottle as dangerous unless it has been verified that it is safe!

All of which is perfectly reasonable when dealing with child services. And none of which provides any reason why homosexual couples should be regarded as more dangerous that heterosexual couples.

Also, do keep in mind that no such procedures exist for monitoring heterosexual couples who produce biological children. Kind of odd, no?


I have mine ( professionally!) for dealing with possibly unconventional individuals.

In the United States, we have a fascinating trend when it comes to "conventional" individuals. Regions of the country that best adhere to "traditional" views of America are also the regions with the highest divorce rates, highest spouse abuse rates, highest rates of sexual assault and abuse, and highest homicide rates. Conventionality does not appear to provide any protection whatsoever.


Those protocols treat everyone as guilty as hell until PROVEN to be safe!

A standard which should be applied to all people equally. Or are you suggesting that heterosexuals should simply be given babies without being proven to be safe parents?

We're dealing, in this case, with unconventional adults, and exceptionally vulnerable children.
Protocols should be extremely tight!
Protocols to protect children should always be tight, and no less so for "conventional" adults.


I don't tell you how to do my job - don't tell me how to do mine.
If I believe that your actions are endangering the welfare of children, I will speak up about it. Your personal feelings are less important to me than the safety of children.

So your an expert on homosexual metality and how so many of them are pedophiles? I know enough gay people to know they would be at least as god at parenting than some other people i know.

Nope. I am, however, reasonably up-to-date on working within Protocols for dealing with ANYTHING that does not fit the archetype.

If you'd like some experience as well, I'll be happy to get you in touch with Barnardo's, Lifeline, Mind, or Hope Foundation.

1. Homosexuality is not a new invention. Gay parents are not a new invention. Homosexuals adopting children is not new.


2. It is always tragic when social services fail to protect children from abuse. However, based on existing information, children are at significantly more risk when placed in heterosexual families. I don't see why we should ignore our existing data and place heavier focus on the families that are less likely (statistically) to be abusive.


3. All of which is perfectly reasonable when dealing with child services. And none of which provides any reason why homosexual couples should be regarded as more dangerous that heterosexual couples.

4. Also, do keep in mind that no such procedures exist for monitoring heterosexual couples who produce biological children. Kind of odd, no?


5. In the United States, we have a fascinating trend when it comes to "conventional" individuals. Regions of the country that best adhere to "traditional" views of America are also the regions with the highest divorce rates, highest spouse abuse rates, highest rates of sexual assault and abuse, and highest homicide rates. Conventionality does not appear to provide any protection whatsoever.


6. A standard which should be applied to all people equally. Or are you suggesting that heterosexuals should simply be given babies without being proven to be safe parents?

7. Protocols to protect children should always be tight, and no less so for "conventional" adults.


8. If I believe that your actions are endangering the welfare of children, I will speak up about it. Your personal feelings are less important to me than the safety of children.

1. What year was it legalised?
2. What data would that be? Oddly enough, it wasn't presented at the Crown Court. Defense merely mumbled vaguely about innocent-unless-proven-guilty.
3. Unless you have data proving so, accepted by the various Quango's, you have to make the presumption that the untested is highly dangerous.
4. Bulldust! Perhaps in the US, but not under Council Soc. Services monitoring. In fact, normally seen as fanatic.
5. By now, we've grown HIGHLY suspicious of US data. Your researchers fudge too often from our POV.
6. That is the kind of silly reasoning we're used to hearing from those who argue for budget-cuts. No, thanks!
7. *shrug* equality is absolutely NO consideration. It was applied in that case I postewd about. With the expected FUBAR-results.
8. If I could not put my personal feelings aside, I would have refused that kind of work. As you may imagine, the natural feelings or instincts of even a very liberal evangelical would not be conducive to providing the maximum amount of care possible for, say, a female smackhead-cum-wino with an ASBO who alternates between shoplifting and prostitution. Especially when there are nicer clients that you could chose. We don't bitch, but just get the job done, without letting the personal feelings getting in the way.

ok, the answer here is plain and simple.

People need to BACK OFF!

Seriously, if two guys want to get married, or two girls, then people should respect that. I asked it once, and I'll ask it again, what is America so afraid of? The definition of marriage being broken? I think divorced couples and fighting in relationships do that enough.

Is it because everyone knows that the definition of marriage is "One Man and One Woman?" Definitions can be changed you know. Hell, they can do it easily with the bible, so why not with just a general definition?

I think it's time America GREW UP and left the Government outside of a person's love life.

1. What year was it legalised?
2. What data would that be? Oddly enough, it wasn't presented at the Crown Court. Defense merely mumbled vaguely about innocent-unless-proven-guilty.

A few of them: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Of course, most websites tend to be biased.

A few of them: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Of course, most websites tend to be biased.

Not being churlish, but the entire research-base of that 'study' was a series of attacks ( justified or otherwise ) on other folk's research.

I quote the conclusion:
Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

In conclusion, this study argues that there is no evidence either way.
That is pretty much the kind of 'research' that I consider to be fudging.

The bolded part is exactly the kind of unsupported statement i expect from the religious right.

and in fact, I am pollitically at left and I am catholic but a absolutely not practicing.... here of right there is only your preconcepts versus of who accept the homosexual unions but perceives however one DIFFERENCE

and in fact, I am pollitically at left and I am catholic but a absolutely not practicing.... here of right there is only your preconcepts versus of who accept the homosexual unions but perceives however one DIFFERENCE
What i quoted was a typical religious right statement, whether you are or not is of little to no relevence. If your going to say babies have insticts towards wanting a mam and a dad you could at least support it.

What i quoted was a typical religious right statement, whether you are or not is of little to no relevence. If your going to say babies have insticts towards wanting a mam and a dad you could at least support it.

Check your own kids.

In conclusion, this study argues that there is no evidence either way.
That is pretty much the kind of 'research' that I consider to be fudging.

Why ? It is an excellent scientific answer.

Why ? It is an excellent scientific answer.

Excellent? That was, frankly, pathetic. What was excellent about it?

Unfortunately, the data do not support your assertion.


Irrelevant to the subject at hand, I'm afraid. The simple fact is that heterosexual males are, by far, the most likely to sexually abuse children.

the pedofiliy in the heterosexual adult men is often expression of homosessuality unexpressed to a conscious level....

By dott. Willy Pasini

Check your own kids.
They only think that because every kid is normally brought up with a mam and a dad and generally at school the favourtie insult is gay. Your argument is invalid.

the pedofilia in the heterosexual adult men is often expression of homosessuality unexpressed to a conscious level....

By dott. Willy Pasini
Such a well know quote that his name doesn't even appear on wikipedia. His research must be so much better than kinseys!

EDIT: Also i'm sure he spelt everything better than that...

They only think that because every kid is normally brought up with a mam and a dad and generally at school the favourtie insult is gay. Your argument is invalid.

They prefer mommies and daddies cuz they're prejudiced.

I think I'll call just you a simpleminded teenage tosser who considers himswelf openminded. Bit of an Assis, but withour the spell-checker.

Such a well know quote that his name doesn't even appear on wikipedia. His research must be so much better than kinseys!
Check this! http://www.willypasini.it

Check this! http://www.willypasini.it
WOW his very own site! that so proves his research is class!

Louis CK said it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd-pqRhskMI&mode=related&search=Louis%20CK

They prefer mommies and daddies cuz they're prejudiced.

I think I'll call just you a simpleminded teenage tosser who considers himswelf openminded. Bit of an Assis, but withour the spell-checker.
I'll take you saying that as proof you can't prove me wrong.

WOW his very own site! that so proves his research is class!
God, pardons they why they do not know what they say

Willy Pasini,
of Milan, gotten married, with two children, Knight and Commander of the Italian Republic. Teacher of psychiatry and medical psychology at the Faculty of Medicine of the Geneva University. Founder of the European Federation of Sexology.


From 1973 he has worked as expert in the World Health Organization (WHO) for the programs of Family Health and Sex Education. Author of seventeen books (among which the last nine bests sellers Mondadori) translated in ten languages and of two hundred scientific publications. His teaching, searches and publications are in relationship with psychiatry, tmedical psychology, psychosomatic gynecology, clinical sexology, psychosomatic illnesses and psychotherapy.

Check your own kids.

more like Check the media. Why? Because kids watch Television, and what is it they see there? Heterosexual couples, heterosexual parents, etc...

But what do they not get to see? A homosexual parent set, etc...

We teach our kids by television that it needs to be a mom and a dad. I was thinking about it earlier, and there are absolutely NO Kids shows or cartoons that have homosexual couples, etc... None whatsoever!

In America: We’re still arguing about gays serving in the military and gay marriage.

In Spain: “Two gay privates in Spain's Air Force will marry this summer the ETA news agency reported on Tuesday. The wedding will be the first same-sex marriage for the country's military.”

Oh noes downfall of society imminent :rolleyes:

God, pardons they why they do not know what they say

Willy Pasini,
of Milan, gotten married, with two children, Knight and Commander of the Italian Republic. Teacher of psychiatry and medical psychology at the Faculty of Medicine of the Geneva University. Founder of the European Federation of Sexology.


From 1973 he has worked as expert in the World Health Organization (WHO) for the programs of Family Health and Sex Education. Author of seventeen books (among which the last nine bests sellers Mondadori) translated in ten languages and of two hundred scientific publications. His teaching, searches and publications are in relationship with psychiatry, tmedical psychology, psychosomatic gynecology, clinical sexology, psychosomatic illnesses and psychotherapy.
Then wheres his endorsements from other scientists? And surely at least his ideas would be well known? Therefore i consider the fact his ideas aren't on wikipedia proof that that his work is not supported.

Even if it was, doesn't it prove gay people need more acceptance? Therefore there wouldn't be as much suppressed homosexuality.

oh please, save us, the gays are serving in our military and getting married!

So basicly you wan't to make marriage less meaningful.

marriage is meaningless anyway, why would your love be worth more, by writing it on a piece of paper?

marriage is meaningless anyway, why would your love be worth more, by writing it on a piece of paper?

It's not meaningless. Being able to stand up there with your lover, and declaring your love and your wish to be with them forever in a church with all of your friends and relatives actually means something. It's not just writing it on a peice of paper.

Which is why I argue that Gay marriage should be allowed, because gay or not,they should have as much right(even though technically love and rights have nothing to do with each other) as any other couple to express that same feeling of a wedding.

Infact, I strongly believe that homosexual couples want to adopt children for to satisfy a grim desire to imitate a pseudo normality at their unions. The big problem is tha is not respectful of baby needs. A child need to grow with a masculine and female model in their family..
What about widows or widowers with children? or single parents? or divorced people? should they be allowed to keep their children?

I believe I can prove that wrong easily.
There are three pedophiles on NS that I'm aware of.
I think(correct me if I'm wrong) one (Dark Shadowy Nexus) is gay.
Since he is gay, he can't be supressing homosexuality.
So your theory is wrong.
Not only that, but there are far more people who aren't completely straight then there are pedophiles.
(Also, there are male pedophiles solely attracted to little girls, you know. Even more disproof of this.)
EDIT:I seem to have come later in the discussion then I would have hoped.

What about widows or widowers with children? or single parents? or divorced people? should they be allowed to keep their children?

yes, but it puts an unwanted stress on the children for the divorced couples

What about widows or widowers with children? or single parents? or divorced people? should they be allowed to keep their children?
don't be stupid!!! These are cruel situation created by the fate... when we want to give a children to a gay couple we make a choice!

don't be stupid!!! These are cruel situation created by the fate... when we want to give a children to a gay couple we make a choice!
?Then why are single people allowed to adopt and foster?

A choice that is monitored by whoever is giving them the child.
This would mean that if they do it right, there should be no bad gay parents.
Even if they don't do it right, there should be significantly more good gay parents then bad gay parents due to that.
Quite a bit better for the child then otherwise, actually.

?Then why are single people allowed to adopt and foster?
Not in all the nations of the world.. and the reason is always the same.. a children want a mummy and a papy

well of course divorce puts stress on kids, why wouldn't it? And why do you say that Homosexuals want kids just for that reason Salentinia? I want kids because I would love to raise one to grow up the way that they should, being able to be their own person and not care what others think, etc...

But since I'm homosexual you're saying that I only want to do it to "imitate a pseudo normality?" That's utter bullcrap.

Not in all the nations of the world.. a the reason is always the same.. a children want a mummy and a papy

A child also wants to skip school. To have more sweets. To not eat their veggies. To stay up till 12.
However, what a child wants is not the same as what a child needs.

Not in all the nations of the world.. and the reason is always the same.. a children want a mummy and a papy
Your nation might not, that doesn't mean you are right. Also your wrong, i was raised by just my dad, i never wanted a mother.

1. drive-by wedding chapels in Las Vegas
2. pretty high divorce rates
3. teens having crazy sex and making crazy babies

sanctity? I think not...

well of course divorce puts stress on kids, why wouldn't it? And why do you say that Homosexuals want kids just for that reason Salentinia? I want kids because I would love to raise one to grow up the way that they should, being able to be their own person and not care what others think, etc...

But since I'm homosexual you're saying that I only want to do it to "imitate a pseudo normality?" That's utter bullcrap.

what you want unfortunately is not what a child wants ..., in spite of the honesty of your intentions and of all the persons like you

The well-being of a child depends on the parents. It can be a mother father, or mother mother, or father father.

Because no matter what it is, if the parent isn't a good parent, then of course the child is going to be brought up badly. If the child is abused, then yep, don't be surprised.

But if it's two fathers/mothers raising the kid, being brought up the right way and treating them right, then chances are 99% of the time, they'll be the same as if they were if they had a mother and a father.

Your nation might not, that doesn't mean you are right. Also your wrong, i was raised by just my dad, i never wanted a mother.

Well you are an exception, not to be offensive at all.

what you want is not what that wants a child unfortunately..., in spite of the honesty of your intentions and of all the persons like you

It doesn't matter what a child wants, more of what they NEED. And it's not like I'm going to say "Sorry, you can't ever do what you want or have what you want." Because my intentions aren't to treat them like a project or something like that. Of course I'll give them what they want at times, and be there for them like a normal parent.

I would just rather see my child grow up with an open mind and whatnot, instead of turning into a close minded arrogant adult like you're acting.

i say we make a rebilion everyone iz so pissed of wid the govenmant so y not have no govenment go for an socialism and proper socialism non of that labour crap!

A child also wants to skip school. To have more sweets. To not eat their veggies. To stay up till 12.
However, what a child wants is not the same as what a child needs.

it's a pity that to ask a mother and a father is not like expecting a candy bucket. maybe that is a kind of demand that deserve of being listened

it's a pity that to ask a mother and a father is not like expecting a candy bucket. maybe that is a kind of demand that deserve of being listened

Depends. Does the child really need them ?

Not in all the nations of the world.. and the reason is always the same.. a children want a mummy and a papy

Actually, single parents can both adopt and have foster children in most of the US. Interestingly enough, as it stands right now, *single* homosexuals can generally adopt, but *homosexual couples* cannot. WTF?


Well you are an exception, not to be offensive at all.

Everyone has their own experiences, thus, everyone is an exception. I experienced both married parents and life without my father for a time. In truth, in my situation, I was better off with just my mother. There were many male role models in my life -most of them better models than my father.


it's a pity that to ask a mother and a father is not like expecting a candy bucket. maybe that is a kind of demand that deserve of being listened

Of course, it's a demand I've never heard. Most children waiting to be adopted would be perfectly happy to have just a mommy, must a daddy, a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, two daddies, etc. as long as what they got was a loving family. In my own case, I was better off with just my mom. A friend of mine was better off seeing her mom very little, and spending most time with her dad. And so on....

Actually, single parents can both adopt and have foster children in most of the US. Interestingly enough, as it stands right now, *single* homosexuals can generally adopt, but *homosexual couples* cannot. WTF?



Everyone has their own experiences, thus, everyone is an exception. I experienced both married parents and life without my father for a time. In truth, in my situation, I was better off with just my mother. There were many male role models in my life -most of them better models than my father.



Of course, it's a demand I've never heard. Most children waiting to be adopted would be perfectly happy to have just a mommy, must a daddy, a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, two daddies, etc. as long as what they got was a loving family. In my own case, I was better off with just my mom. A friend of mine was better off seeing her mom very little, and spending most time with her dad. And so on....

Amen.

Example? A girl I work with at the elementary school named Kasey. Not only were her and her sister adopted, but she has a mom. But you know what? I've seen a child just like her with both parents. She doesn't seem to be taking the no dad thing at all. Sure, maybe when she gets older she'll ask about it, most kids with single parents usually do.

But the point is, she is as happy as a kid that had both parents.

The two most important legal aspects of marriage are power of attorney (you can make decisions on behalf of your partner if he/she is not able to, and those override the decisions of your partners biological family) and shared responsibility/property (if your partner messes up, you can be held accountable).

Both are pretty important for society.

However you can have both those things without a marriage. I was trying to avoid this thread and in fact I'm going to Never mind. :)

However you can have both those things without a marriage. I was trying to avoid this thread and in fact I'm going to Never mind. :)
There are over a thousand 'rights' associated with marrige. If you spend years, and thousands in legal fees you may one day manage to fight your way into something aproximating it.

Of course, it's a demand I've never heard. Most children waiting to be adopted would be perfectly happy to have just a mommy, must a daddy, a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, two daddies, etc. as long as what they got was a loving family. In my own case, I was better off with just my mom. A friend of mine was better off seeing her mom very little, and spending most time with her dad. And so on....

Is a demand that you never heard because you dont have the same tools that a pycologist have my dear...

In Italy a couple of psicologist many famous, who work for the children abandoned waiting for an adoption, have written a book on this subjet.. and and they assert just that that I am trying of explain to you.. a children ask (to conscious or instinctive level) to have both the parents (a mumy and a daddy)... when this lacks, that child will have problems..

Look this link please http://www.aibi.it/default_gb.asp

There are over a thousand 'rights' associated with marrige. If you spend years, and thousands in legal fees you may one day manage to fight your way into something aproximating it.

personally I'm happy that anyone decides to assassinate a wedding must PAY.. evidently expenses are not real problem, if we consider "the too many" separations (often for idiot reasons) that we see every day...

By Paul Cameron

Insight on the News - Fair Comment

Posted Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002
Issue Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002



The main reason gay-rights activists have been so successful is because they've managed to close down debate on their issues, silencing responsible opposition. In 1970, using forged credentials, they crashed the American Psychiatric Association (APA) convention in San Francisco and demanded that the organization take homosexuality off its list of mental disorders. In 1973, after further intimidation, the APA complied.

Today gays don't always resort to hooliganism. Their position has become politically correct. Opposing views routinely are suppressed by the establishment. This happened recently at a convention of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), which I attended.

A question before the delegates was: Should the organization endorse homosexual adoption? According to established procedure, public-policy issues are reviewed first by the Reference Committee, discussed in open forum, then put to a vote of 100-plus official delegates.

With the Reference Committee meeting on Monday, Oct. 14 — and with a gay caucus already lobbying delegates — two physicians and I put together a one-page flier summarizing four scientific studies on the subject that illustrated the risks of homosexual adoption. We began passing out copies to delegates, inviting them to obtain complete texts at our hospitality room.

Eventually I offered a flier to one of the two nonvoting members of the eight-person Reference Committee.

"I'm sorry," he said. "Our chairperson has ordered committee members not to read anything she hasn't given us." At that moment, I suspected the worst.

However, I distributed fliers for a while longer, then returned to our hospitality room to meet with interested physicians. My colleagues continued to hand out fliers. After an hour, they returned to the room.

They'd been threatened with arrest. The AAFP commissars had barred distribution of printed materials on the issue of gay adoption, and since the organization had rented the hotel the management enforced their prohibition. We effectively had been gagged.

What information did the AAFP find so subversive? One of the four abstracts summarized the largest comparative study on the subject of homosexual parents. The survey focused on 58 children in each of three groups: those raised by cohabiting homosexual couples, those raised by cohabiting heterosexual couples and those raised by married couples. Teachers reported that children of married couples almost always scored best, children of cohabiting heterosexuals almost always scored second best and children of cohabiting homosexuals almost always scored worst —academically, socially, in parental involvement at school, in parental expectations for their children's lives and in getting help at home.

A second study, published a few months ago, analyzed the testimonies of 57 children who had been raised by homosexuals. Most reported significant problems. Such studies are crucial to a balanced discussion of homosexual adoption, yet even their summaries were outlawed.

At 2 p.m., a general debate took place. "Don't worry," said one of my physician friends. "AAFP steers clear of divisive subjects. They won't touch this one." Given the aura of political correctness permeating the convention, I wasn't so sure.

At the beginning of the debate, the chairwoman ruled that only members of the AAFP could speak. A pre-emptive strike, I concluded. My colleagues protested, saying I had published a number of articles in referenced scientific journals and could bring important evidence to the floor. The chairwoman said she didn't care.

Each delegate was given two minutes to speak. Opponents of the resolution argued only that it would be too controversial. Not one cited the relevant studies.

The next day, the Reference Committee presented its resolution to be approved or rejected by the voting delegates: "Resolved: that the AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation." Two delegates spoke against the resolution; seven spoke in favor. After an inconclusive voice-vote, the delegates stood to be counted. The resolution passed.

So it goes in meeting after meeting, confrontation after confrontation. Otherwise intelligent people, hearing only one side of the debate, accept the politically correct view of homosexuality. And if the scientific literature tells a different story, who cares? Certainly not the AAFP.

Paul Cameron is the chairman of the Family Research Institute, a think tank in Colorado Springs, Colo., and can be reached at www.familyresearchinst.org.

Getting the Facts: Same-Sex Marriage

Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that endangers the health or safety of the community. Because of this, homosexual liaisons have historically been forbidden by law. Homosexuals also do a poor job of raising healthy, well socialized children.
Homosexuals contend that their relationships are the equivalent of marriage between a man and woman. They demand that society dignify and approve of their partnerships by giving them legal status as ‘marriages.’ They further argue that homosexuals should be allowed to become foster-parents or adopt children.
The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society’s stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general and children in particular. A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community and children’s well-being.
Traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children. Homosexual coupling undermines its participants’ health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.

The Facts About Homosexual Marriage
Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived.
When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.

In a study [1] of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that “living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not.”
A 1970 study in San Francisco [2] found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.

In 1977, the Spada Report [3] noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover.

The same year [4] over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: “Do you consider or have you considered yourself ‘married’ to another [homosexual]?” Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said “yes.” The authors noted that with “gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of ‘categories’ emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged.”

In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample [5] of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7 for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.

Variety Over Monogamy
Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships
more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage.

In 1987, only 23% of gays in London [6] reported sexual exclusivity “in the month before interview.”

In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada [7] said that they were in monogamous relationships.
In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays [8] were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous
relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only “casual sex.” The authors reported that “there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them.” [emphasis added]

In 1993, a study [9] of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners.

In 1994, the largest national gay magazine [10] reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship.

Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical ‘rules.’ Only 69% of Dutch gays [11] with a marriage-type ‘partner’ actually lived together. The average number of “outside partners” per year of ‘marriage’ was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.
Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages?
At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many ‘divorces.’
At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.
These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years — both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.

The Scandinavian Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 3% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. [12] The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay ‘marriage’ is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.
Though only about 3% of gays get married in Norway and Sweden, gay marriages more frequently result in divorce. In these countries, divorce is about 50% more likely in male homosexuals, and 200% more likely in lesbians. Furthermore, reversing the usual excuse of ‘staying together for the sake of the kids,’ divorce was more common if children lived with the same-sex couple. [13]

Fact #2: Studies show homosexual ‘marriage’ is hazardous to one’s health.
Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that ‘committed’ or ‘coupled’ homosexuals are more apt than ‘single’ gays to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices. As a consequence
of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.

In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco [14] who claimed to be in “monogamous relationships” were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous vs. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% vs. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex.

In 1989, Italian researchers [15] investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners vs. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that “to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk.”

During 1991-92, 677 gays in England [16] were asked about “unprotected anal sex.” Those who had ‘regular’
partners reported sex lives which were “about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as ‘casual/one-night stands.’” Sex with a regular partner “was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour.”

A 1993 British sexual diary study [17] of 385 gays reported that men in “monogamous” relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that “gay men in a Closed relationship... exhibit... the highest risk of HIV transmission.”

In 1992, a sample [18] of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that “gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse.”

Similarly, a 1993 sample [19] of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick-ups.

Even a 1994 study [20] of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that “the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,... was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew."
Why is homosexual ‘marriage’ a health hazard?
While married people pledge and generally live up to their vows of sexual faithfulness, participants in both gay and lesbian ‘marriages’ offer each other something quite different. They see shared biological intimacy and sexual risk-taking as a hallmark of trust and commitment. Being exposed in this way to the bodily discharges of their partner increases the risk of disease, especially so if that partner was ‘married’ to someone else before or engaged in sex with others outside the relationship.
The evidence is strong that both gays and lesbians are more apt to take biological risks when having sex with a partner than when having casual sex. The evidence is also strong that gays disproportionately contract more disease, especially AIDS and the various forms of hepatitis, from sex with ‘partners’ than they do from sex with strangers.
Like male homosexuals, ‘married’ lesbians are more apt to engage in biological intimacy and risk-taking. However, death and disease rates for unpartnered lesbians appear to be as high as among the partnered.

Fact #3: Homosexual ‘marriage’ has the highest rate of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid ‘battered women’ have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples. [21]
In 1996 [22], Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said that “domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.”
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey [23] of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report [24] higher rates of violence — a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:

In 1987 in Georgia [25], 48% of 43 lesbian couples, and 39% of 39 gay couples reported domestic violence.

In 1988, 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study [26] of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward because only one partner in the couple was reporting (i.e., the researchers got “only one side of the story”), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.

In 1989, 284 lesbians were interviewed [27] who were involved “in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship” during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reports by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.

In 1990, nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported [28] domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in “violent” and 11 in “nonviolent” relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.

Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.

Homosexual Domestic Violence A Bigger Problem Than ‘Gay Bashing’
Gay activists and the media are quick to assert that discriminatory attitudes by ‘straight’ society lead directly to violence against homosexuals (i.e., ‘gay bashing’). In fact, evidence suggests that homosexual domestic violence substantially exceeds — in frequency and lethality — any and all forms of ‘gay bashing.’ That is, the violence that homosexuals do to one another is much more significant than the violence that others do to homosexuals.
In 1995, a homosexual domestic violence consortium conducted a study [29] in six cities — Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco — where reports of anti-homosexual harassment or same-sex domestic violence were tabulated.
The harassment incidents ranged from name calling (e.g., ‘faggot,’ ‘queer’) to actual physical harm or property damage. Homosexual domestic violence, on the other hand, referred only to incidents in which actual physical harm occurred or was seriously threatened (i.e., met the legal standard for domestic violence).
The results? Nationwide, [30] as well as in these cities, around half of anti-homosexual harassment reports in 1995 involved only slurs or insults, thus not rising to the level of actual or threatened physical violence. In San Francisco, there were 347 calls about same-sex domestic violence and 324 calls about anti-homo-sexual harassment. In three of the five other cities there were also more calls reporting same-sex domestic violence than anti-homosexual harassment. The same ratio was reported for the study as a whole.
Given that half of the harassment reports did not rise to the level of violence, while domestic violence meant exactly that, if the data gathered by this consortium of homosexuals corresponds to the underlying reality, the physical threat to homosexuals from same-sex domestic violence is at least twice as great as the physical threat they experience from ‘the outside.’
Rather than being a ‘shelter against the storms of life,’ as traditional marriage is sometimes characterized, being homosexually partnered actually increases the physical dangers associated with homosexuality.

Fact #4: Empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexuals make poor parents.
Fewer than 40 comparative studies on the effects of homosexual parents have been published. Only one [31] was based on a random sample, and another [32] followed the children for 14 years. The rest were based on small samples of volunteers, and those usually with children under the age of 10. These studies seldom addressed traditional concerns — for instance, molestation, or recruitment by parents or their lovers. Nor did they tend to consider the effects on teenagers. Instead they were ‘snapshots’ of a particular moment in the lives of these children. Yet the empirical evidence supports what common sense would expect.

Molestation and Incest
In the one random survey,[31] 28 (0.6%) of 4,600 children with non-homosexual parents reported sex with their parents or stepparents. By contrast, for children with homosexual parents, 3 of 6 sons reported sex with their father (2 of the 3 said they were homosexual as adults) and 2 of 11 daughters reported sex with a stepmother.
In the only other relevant study, [33] 1 of 11 adult sons with homosexual fathers reported having been seduced by him.
A review of 78 appeals-court cases (through 1998) involving one homosexual and one heterosexual parent — contesting custody of 142 children — revealed 4 cases of molestation involving homosexual parents, but none involving the heterosexual parents. In another 154 custody cases involving heterosexuals used as a study control, one stepfather molested his stepdaughter. [34,35] In one of the five clinical studies of children of homosexuals, [36] a client complained that his lesbian mother had forced him to have his first sexual experience with a homosexual.
It is difficult to obtain facts regarding the nation’s foster children. Nevertheless, in 2003, responding to a Freedom of Information request, the state of Illinois reported that from 1997-2002, of 270 foster- or adoptive-parents who engaged in “substantiated” sexual abuse, 34% were homosexuals. [37] An exhaustive review of the 50 largest-circulation newspapers and wire services from 1980 through 2003 found that 169 foster parents had sexually abused 351 foster children. [38] Of these, 88% were men and 53% of these men practiced homosexuality.
The same study found that in 21 “group home” stories, the molestation was homosexual in 71%. Also, at least 334 of the 349+ victims in group homes were boys. Findings from both individual placements and group homes indicate a disproportionate homosexual footprint in the sexual molestation of foster children.

School and Family Life
Children with homosexual parents lead troubled lives. The only randomly drawn sample[31] found 17 who reported a homosexual parent. These 17 were more likely to report sex with a parent, to engage in homosexuality for their first sexual encounter, to be sexually molested, to become homosexual, and to report dissatisfaction with their childhood.
The largest comprehensive comparative study was based upon teacher-reports as well as interviews with the students and their parents. [39] 58 elementary school children being raised by homosexual couples were closely matched (by age, sex, grade in school, and social class) with 58 children of cohabiting heterosexual parents, and 58 children of married parents. Children with married parents did best at math and language skills, second-best in social studies, were most active in sports, experienced the highest levels of parental involvement at school and at home (their parents also most closely monitored them at home), and had parents with the highest expectations for them.
Children of cohabiting heterosexuals were in-between, while children of homosexuals scored somewhat higher in social studies, lowest in math and language skills, were least popular (often socially isolated), most restrained and formal, experienced the lowest levels of parental involvement both at school and at home, did more household tasks, and were more frequently tutored. Their parents less frequently expressed high educational and career aspirations for them. In fact, teachers said children of homosexuals were ‘more confused’ about their gender.

Corroborating Court Cases
Through 1998 [40], 142 children with homosexual parents were involved in 78 custody disputes. According to the court records, parents who lied, engaged in criminal activity, or practiced homosexuality were more apt to be recorded as harming their children. Again according to the record, homosexual parents more frequently lied and/or engaged in criminal activity.
Parents or their associates were recorded as having exposed their children to “harm” in 70% of homosexuals, as opposed to only 5% of heterosexuals. “Harm” in this study included neglect, violence, seduction, and hypersexualization. Overall, homosexuals were held responsible for 97% of the 115 recorded harms to children.

Homosexual Parents More Likely to Have Homosexual Children
In a 14-year study [32] comparing 25 children of 18 lesbian mothers against 21 children of 16 single mothers, when asked what they thought their mother wanted them to become, 40% of the lesbians’ children but none of the children of divorced heterosexuals said that they believed their mother wanted them to be homosexual. Not surprisingly, 67% of the daughters and 57% of the sons of the lesbian mothers vs. 13% of the heterosexual mothers’ daughters and 20% of their sons said that they would consider homosexual relations. Also, 29% of the daughters of lesbians and 13% of their sons (but none of the children of single mothers) reported a homosexual relationship. In fact, two of the lesbians’ daughters said that when it came to sex, they primarily enjoyed homosexuality.
Adding together the various studies of children of homosexuals published through 1999, at least 19% of 115 daughters and 16% of 120 sons said that they themselves engaged in homosexuality; that is, 17% of 235 offspring. In the comparison groups that were employed in these studies, only 2% of 66 children of heterosexuals said they practiced homosexuality. [34]

Children of Homosexual Parents Suffer Embarrassment and Isolation
When one researcher [41] interviewed 39 adult children of gays, 56% “expressed some concern over the burden of keeping a part of their lives secret,” and 44% “stated that they had felt that their parent’s sexuality had placed special demands or constraints upon their friendships.” Children’s “positive responses” to a parent’s homosexuality declined as the child became an adolescent. The study noted that “[o]ver half of the sample reported having gone through a period when they feared the ostracism or ridicule of their peers.”
Gay parenting advocates like to respond that even if children raised by homosexuals experience greater social difficulty, it is only because homosexual marriage is not yet legal. If it were, the basis for the ridicule and ostracism would cease. While there is no doubt that legalizing gay marriage would place a ‘stamp of approval’ on homosexual relationships and their ‘families,’ the problems such children will face are unlikely to evaporate.
For one, the worst excesses of homosexual behavior — promiscuity, bizarre and dangerous sex acts, sexual disease transmission, alcohol and drug abuse — occur most frequently in those places where homosexuality is most tolerated and accepted, such as San Francisco or Key West, FL. [42] Rather than practicing more responsible behavior in ‘non-discriminatory,’ tolerant environments, the reverse typically occurs. For another, many of the harms children experience at the hands of homosexual parents have very little to do with social isolation or rejection, especially when it comes to parental neglect, seduction, or violence.

Assessing the Facts: What Can We Conclude?
Homosexual marriage is a bad idea. While traditional marriage delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, ‘gay marriage’ harms everyone it touches — especially children. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence.
Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments in which to raise children. Those who support legalizing homosexual marriage include the same ‘compassionate’ people who championed the right of singles to become parents. We know the results of that campaign: a third of the nation’s children do not have a father. We also know that children without fathers much more often do poorly in school, get in trouble with the law, and become dysfunctional parents themselves.
It would be foolish to tamper with something as vital to personal and social health as traditional marriage in order the placate the same troubled souls that pushed for our current cultural mess.

[1] Weinberg MS, Williams CJ Male homosexuals: their problems & adaptations. NY: Penguin, 1975.
[2] Bell AP, Weinberg MS Homosexualities. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
[3] Spada J. The Spada report. NY: Signet, 1979.
[4] Jay K & Young A The gay report. NY:Summit, 1979.
[5] Blumstein P, Schwartz P American couples. NY: Morrow, 1983.
[6] Hunt AJ et al. Genitourinary Medicine 1990; 66:423- 427.
[7] Orr, K, Morrison K Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto & Laval Universities, 1993.
[8] Kippax S et al. AIDS 1993; 7:257-263.
[9] Osmond DH et al. Amer J Public Health 1994; 84:1933-1937.
[10] Lever J Advocate, Issue 661/662, August, 23, 1994; 15-24.
[11] Deenen AA et al. Archives Sexual Behavior 1994; 23:421-431.
[12] Wockner R Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997; Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychol Rpts 1998; 83:847-866.
[13] Andersson G, Noack T, Seierstad A, Weedon-Fekjaer H Divorce-risk patterns in same-sex ‘marriage’ in Norway and Sweden. PAA2004 Annual Meeting, Boston 4/13/04.
[14] McKusick L et al. Amer J Public Health 1985; 75:493-496.
[15] Franceschi S et al. Lancet 1989; 1:42.
[16] Dawson JM et al. AIDS 1994; 8:837-841.
[17] Coxon APM et al. AIDS 1993; 7:877-882.
[18] Hoff, CC et al. J Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 1997; 14:72-78.
[19] Wang J et al. Soc Sci & Med, 1997; 44:469-77.
[20] Stevens, PE Soc Sci & Med, 1994; 39:1565-1578.
[21] Cameron P Domestic violence among homosexual partners. Psychol Rpts 2003; 93:410-416.
[22] Holt S Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay & Lesbian Times, 9/26/96, 39.
[23] Sorenson J et al. Amer J Public Health 1996; 86:35-40.
[24] Ellis D Violence & Victims, 1989; 4:235-255.
[25] Gardner R Method of conflict resolution & correlates of physical aggression & victimization in heterosexual, lesbian, & gay male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988.
[26] Waterman CK et al. J Sex Research 1989; 26:118-124.
[27] Lockhart LL et al. J Interpersonal Violence 1994; 9:469-492.
[28] Coleman V Violence in lesbian couples: a between groups comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych, LA, 1990.
[29] Merrill G Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco & various interviews in November 1996 with senior author Merrill, Jerri Lynn Fields in Chicago, & Bea Hanson in New York.
[30] Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995. Horizons Community Services. Self published.
[31] Cameron P & Cameron K Homosexual parents. Adolescence 1996; 31:757-776.
[32] Golombok S, Tasker F Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Developmental Psychol 1996; 32:3-11.
[33] Gottlieb AR Sons talk about their gay fathers: life curves. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press, 2003.
[34] Cameron P Homosexual parents: testing common sense. Psychol Rpts 1999; 85:282-322.
[35] Cameron P, Cameron K Homosexual parents: a comparative forensic study of character and harms to children. Psychol Rpts 1998; 82:1155-1191.
[36] Schwartz MF, Masters WH The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. Amer J Psychiatry 1984; 141:173-181.
[37] Cameron P Molestations by homosexual foster parents: newspaper accounts vs. official records. Psychol Rpts 2003; 93:793-802.
[38] Cameron P Newspaper accounts of foster-parent molestations: 1980-2003. Psychol Rpts, in press.
[39] Sarantakos S Children in three contexts: family, education and social development. Children Australia 1996; 21:23-31.
[40] Cameron P, Harris DW Homosexual parents in custody disputes: a thousand child-years exposure. Psychol Rpts 2003; 93:1173-1194.
[41] Paul JP Growing up with a gay, lesbian or bisexual parent. Unpub Doc Dis, U Calif Berkeley, 1986.
[42] Madigan N Key West suddenly shy, puts pasties on its party. NY Times, Oct 20, 2004.

There is so much improper science in these posts, I don't even know where to begin. It is incredibly obvious that the author of both were heavily biased. The first was from FRI, which is pretty much a joke, specifically because they take no measures to remove their obvious bias from their "scientific" studies.

You have someone complaining that studies don't address the "traditional" concerns that homosexual parents will "recruit" their children. Maybe this is because there is no way to "recruit" someone into a sexuality.

You have a bunch of bullshit about homosexual couples who are monogamous engaging in "riskier" activities. I've got news for you, heterosexuals in monogamous relationships do the same. The longer two people have been together in a monogamous relationship, the less likely it is that they will use condoms. They are more likely to engage in other forms of sexual stimulation - also generally without protection. The fact that the author would attempt to claim this as a purely homosexual phenomenon is ridiculous. How many married couples do you think generally use condoms, dental dams, etc.?

Most of the rest of the statistics give nice pretty numbers (without the more relevant information on how they were obtained - one even says it was scaled without giving any type of formula or how it was derived), but do not give numbers for the same things in heterosexuals. How many age-matched heterosexuals would have reported more than one partner in a year, previous relationships, etc.? Do you have any evidence that they would be different? (I am largely ignoring all the statistics from the 60's and 70's, as all such statistics would have excluded a large portion of the homosexual population - those who were too afraid to come out publicly - and involve a society in which homosexuals really *couldn't* have long-term relationships. It was much too dangerous to do so).

Under molestation, completely improper terminology is used, calling the entire thing into question. The article refers to "homosexual" molestation, as if a pedophile who targets same-sex children is necessarily a homosexual. In reality, most pedophiles, whether they target male or female children, are heterosexual in their adult sex-lives.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that homosexuals are somehow incapable of lifetime committments is bigotry - pure and simple. Tell that to the first lesbian couple to marry in San Fransisco a few years ago - two women who had been together for over 50 years. Tell that to all the gay couples who have lived as married for decades. Go ahead and tell them that their relationships don't last as long as Britney Spear's 50 hour marriage.

There is so much improper science in these posts

When Americans great companies of the tobacco were strong, they were able to exercise large-capacity of controll of media and information, The studies about relationship beetwen smoke and cancer was simply refuted with hypothesis of not scientific authority of data sources...
Anyway is clear that my last post are make with the intention to provoke.. Because it is a result of a cut and paste by a P. Armstrong article, who is one of worst rigth-wing pseudo scientist anti gay marriages.
But there are many other scientific source, surely not from reactionary area, that put in guard from problematic regarding the adoption of children by Gay couples and singles.. so be very carefull...
The information is always conditioned by strong powers, for example the americans food companys tries to convince the peaple that a diet low carbohydrates is the ideal (while in the rest of the world all know that this is a diet that will kill you with the cholesterol)... Perhaps somebody want makes you believe that who puts you in guard from some dangers is not authoritative. Is good to be tollerant, but when we talk of children we must consider the entire panorama of scientist comunity opinion. You will be surprised of many "open minded" peaple is very warried about the implications to regard the phenomenon of atypicall familys and of the effects of this kind of unions on the society structure (the adoptions first). (sorry for my bad English)

I have not developed an aspect: why would to be an strong interest that protect gays interest in this historical and cultural moment? The reason more immediate understanding is that the America has always tried to hide a spirit sometimes extremely reactionary (capital punishment, wild Capitalism, insensibilty towards the ambient problem like kyoto Protocol, wars) with a beautiful image themes that taste of freedom, democracy, tolerance. and now the opening about the Gay weddings theme, that is only a comfortable way for increase this image of democracy distracting peaples from worse evils.

Is good to be tollerant, but when we talk of children we must consider the entire panorama of scientist comunity opinion. You will be surprised of many "open minded" peaple is very warried about the implications to regard the phenomenon of atypicall familys and of the effects of this kind of unions on the society structure (the adoptions first). (sorry for my bad English)


I think you'll find taht in my country, the picturesque mom, dad, and 2.3 children, the traditional "nuclear" family, is becoming more and more rare.
Millions of famlies are sharing children between divorced parents, or single parents are becoming more and more common.
There isnt quite the social taboo on such familes as there was even 20 years ago.

Given this, could a married gay couple be much different or any more unusual?

I think there are fewer "atypical" familes out there than you think.

I have not developed an aspect: why would to be an strong interest that protect gays interest in this historical and cultural moment? The reason more immediate understanding is that the America has always tried to hide a spirit sometimes extremely reactionary (capital punishment, wild Capitalism, insensibilty towards the ambient problem like kyoto Protocol, wars) with a beautiful image themes that taste of freedom, democracy, tolerance. and now the opening about the Gay weddings theme, that is only a comfortable way for increase this image of democracy distracting peaples from worse evils.


Well, if you mean that America attempts to distract its global nations with smaller evils, while undertaking other evils, yes thats true.
Its the "red herring" trick.

However, remember that were still a very young country, and havent had a couple thousand years to get out act together.

I would like to think that the people in this country are realizing that electing radical politicians on either side only leads to trouble, like the current war we find ourself stuck in.
I believe were due for a lean to the left, wich if nothing else, will remove some
rotten humans from thier elected offices, and replace them with slightly less crazy, somewhat less rotten bastards.

Sadly this is what must pass for progress in my country.

The Gay marriage issue is a tougher one, becuase it deals with Christianity's adamant stance against it, and theres an awful lot of bible-thumping homosexual hating Christians in elected office.

Hopefully, the next national election will reduce that number somewhat.

Ideally, more and more people will realize that thier pre-conceived ideas of what is "moral" may not actually apply to everyone, and that despite thier own ideas of what is, and is not love, people have a right to live with equal treatment and given the same rights to prosper as anyone else.

I think you'll find taht in my country, the picturesque mom, dad, and 2.3 children, the traditional "nuclear" family, is becoming more and more rare.
Millions of famlies are sharing children between divorced parents, or single parents are becoming more and more common.
There isnt quite the social taboo on such familes as there was even 20 years ago.

Given this, could a married gay couple be much different or any more unusual?

I think there are fewer "atypical" familes out there than you think.

if the evil by now has become epidemic, tha means that we must take part against it with greater attention! Moreover America (and other similar nations) is not all the world! In Europe there are nations (Italy like) where the divorce is considered a tragic choice and the traditional family a big value. Sorry, but for our point of wiev, your society seems to prefers to surrender to this social phenomena , instead to adopt corrective measures, and that in name of a liberalism absolutely crazy!

deja moo - i've heard all this bs before - from both sides

Because that is what nature intends.

All things being equal;

A straight couple is best for a child.

Followed by a gay couple.

Followed by a single parent.

Who are you to say what is best for a child?

I have a very healthy, high spirited and intelligent 8 year old daughter as a result of two people coming together and discussing and planning things so as to have a child which ordinararily would not be possible. When it is said that gay people don't think about the needs and wants of the child have no idea what they're talking about.

My daughter will always have a man and woman as her parents but she can happily co exist with our partners also. She is more loved than most children (with the extended grand parents and families - even if they're not blood related). She knows she came to be via special means and can never imagine herself as an accident or an unwanted child like some children can be from 'regular,' couples....

I believe that anyone wanting to take care of a child should be commended and assisted in doing so however they can.

All a child needs is love and security, from many or a few but as long as they have it, they will become the people we want and need them to be. Open, caring, without prejudice, respectful, strong and loving.

All the people out there speaking out against this debate, would it really change your life if gay couples were permitted to marry and have families should they choose to do so? What impact would it have and why?

We should be thinking of an age of equlity and that is all we should be thinking of.

if the evil by now has become epidemic, tha means that we must take part against it with greater attention! Moreover America (and other similar nations) is not all the world! In Europe there are nations (Italy like) where the divorce is considered a tragic choice and the traditional family a big value. Sorry, but for our point of wiev, your society seems to prefers to surrender to this social phenomena , instead to adopt corrective measures, and that in name of a liberalism absolutely crazy!


Wich social phenomena are you reffering to?

Homosexuality, or divorce?

Becuase neither is exsclusive to either of our countries.

Neither are family values, its just that we realize "traditional family values" must occasionally change.

What praytell, would you consider to be "Corrective measures" against divorce, or homosexuality?

would it be possible to talk about this without religion? u know, good ol' separation of church and state...besides just because YOUR religion is homophobic dosent mean that everyone else is closed-minded too. the government has no right to ban gay marrage for religios reasons and neither does anyone else

Keep your hatred of religion out of it. Besides separation of church and state isn't what you make it out to be. Read the US constitution and it'll tell you exactly what it means. Stop being close-minded about this.

No, because if one did that there would be no ground to argue against gay marriage - which would upset the opponents.

Actually, natual law can answer this without bringing up religion. That means again you would be wrong.;)

In my book if it is love and a lifetime commitment between two consenting adults it is Marriage

That's great, according to God's Book, it isn't. I'd prefer God over anyone.

Because that is what nature intends.

All things being equal;

A straight couple is best for a child.

Followed by a gay couple.

Followed by a single parent.

Bang on bud. Facts show this unequivocally.

Who are you to say what is best for a child?

I have a very healthy, high spirited and intelligent 8 year old daughter as a result of two people coming together and discussing and planning things so as to have a child which ordinararily would not be possible. When it is said that gay people don't think about the needs and wants of the child have no idea what they're talking about.

My daughter will always have a man and woman as her parents but she can happily co exist with our partners also. She is more loved than most children (with the extended grand parents and families - even if they're not blood related). She knows she came to be via special means and can never imagine herself as an accident or an unwanted child like some children can be from 'regular,' couples....

I believe that anyone wanting to take care of a child should be commended and assisted in doing so however they can.

All a child needs is love and security, from many or a few but as long as they have it, they will become the people we want and need them to be. Open, caring, without prejudice, respectful, strong and loving.

All the people out there speaking out against this debate, would it really change your life if gay couples were permitted to marry and have families should they choose to do so? What impact would it have and why?

We should be thinking of an age of equlity and that is all we should be thinking of.


Here, here! Well said.

Certain people on this thread are obsessed with the child issue and have completely ignored those of us trying to bring the discussion back to the central issue.

Those opposed to gay marriage on the grounds of adoption (a separate, though related issue): Please answer this question, in this day and age, when we know the facts about homosexuality, i.e. that it is not a choice, is perfectly natural (appears in other animals), that all homosexuals are human etc, why should homosexual couples be forbidden from making a public and legally binding committment to each other?

Would also like to point out that a wedding does not have to take place in a church, not all people are Christian, therefore Christian doctrine has nothing to do with this. Whether gay marriages should be allowed within Christianity is also a separte debate.

Answer the question without resorting to "Think of the children!!!" As stated previously, not all people want kids, having children is no longer (if it ever truely was for ordinary folk) the central reason for marriage. Heterosexual couples who have been married but are without children for whatever reason, are still married. Therefore homosexual couples should be entitled to the same situation, to be married.

The adoption issue comes later, cross that bridge when we come to it. Ok? But for right now, answer my question.

Wich social phenomena are you reffering to?

Homosexuality, or divorce?

Becuase neither is exsclusive to either of our countries.

Neither are family values, its just that we realize "traditional family values" must occasionally change.

What praytell, would you consider to be "Corrective measures" against divorce, or homosexuality?

I was refering to the divorces, here in Italy we are assisting to a painful increase of the divorcie and I do not hide you that there is who accuse of that phenomena the intrusiveness of americans cultural models. Thi is what we call the "soap opera" culture. Against that kind of culture we search to conserve some principles second which necessary to use the divorce only in cases there aren't other solutions for the recovery of the familiar ties, also through the support of psychological advisings. Because it is desired to maintain in our culture the conviction that the wedding is an important tie, that divorce is not always the unique solution. The divorce harms every person is touched by the event, the couples, the sons, the comunity, with great economic and moral costs. About the homosexuality we dont have corrective measures, because I was talking only about the gay wedding argument.. I tell only 2 simply things

1) the pacts of mutual solidarity must have a role distinguished from the wedding. and the wedding must conserve a ground privileged in the interest of the community.

2) the homosexual couples (or singles) can't adopt a child. We must respect the children rigth to have a mummy and a daddy, exists scientific studies that would demonstrate that, if we not create this condiction, the children will have problems.

Here, here! Well said.

Certain people on this thread are obsessed with the child issue and have completely ignored those of us trying to bring the discussion back to the central issue.

Those opposed to gay marriage on the grounds of adoption (a separate, though related issue): Please answer this question, in this day and age, when we know the facts about homosexuality, i.e. that it is not a choice, is perfectly natural (appears in other animals), that all homosexuals are human etc, why should homosexual couples be forbidden from making a public and legally binding committment to each other?

Frist of all, please state where you get the facts that it isn't a choice? As far as I know science hasn't proven that there is a homosexual gene as has been purported. Who says that homosexuals aren't human beings??? Quote please.

Would also like to point out that a wedding does not have to take place in a church, not all people are Christian, therefore Christian doctrine has nothing to do with this. Whether gay marriages should be allowed within Christianity is also a separte debate.

Answer the question without resorting to "Think of the children!!!" As stated previously, not all people want kids, having children is no longer (if it ever truely was for ordinary folk) the central reason for marriage. Heterosexual couples who have been married but are without children for whatever reason, are still married. Therefore homosexual couples should be entitled to the same situation, to be married.

The adoption issue comes later, cross that bridge when we come to it. Ok? But for right now, answer my question.

Frist of all, please state where you get the facts that it isn't a choice?
Please describe how and when you decided to be heterosexual.

Answer the question without resorting to "Think of the children!!!" As stated previously, not all people want kids, having children is no longer (if it ever truely was for ordinary folk) the central reason for marriage. Heterosexual couples who have been married but are without children for whatever reason, are still married. Therefore homosexual couples should be entitled to the same situation, to be married.

The adoption issue comes later, cross that bridge when we come to it. Ok? But for right now, answer my question.
Exactly. When discussing gay MARRIAGE rights, this whole tangent about children is completely irrelevant. We allow heterosexuals to get married regardless of whether or not they plan to have children, so clearly procreation is not a requirement for matrimony. If you want to debate ADOPTION or PARENTING by homosexuals, start a thread about that.

Frist of all, please state where you get the facts that it isn't a choice? As far as I know science hasn't proven that there is a homosexual gene as has been purported. Who says that homosexuals aren't human beings??? Quote please.


First of all "not a choice" does not equate to "There is a homosexual gene." Many human traits are not completely genetic, but are not choices either. Not to mention, that even genetic control need not be a single gene.

Correlation studies result in more correlation between genetics and sexuality than one would expect if there were no genetic factors involved. There is also evidence that a male is more likely to be homosexual if he has older brothers - the chance of being homosexual increases by something like a factor of 3 for every male born to a woman after the first. Hormones in the womb have been shown to affect sexuality.

Meanwhile, the fact that the neural structure is different in homosexuals than in heterosexuals points very clearly to the idea that, environmental or not, it is not a choice.

On top of that, the only logical way you could suggest that any sexuality is a choice, is to state that all sexuality is a choice. So tell me, at what point did the sexuality fairy visit you and give you a choice of what sex you would or would not be attracted to? What criteria did you use to make that decision? What did you choose? Can you choose to change it again?

First of all "not a choice" does not equate to "There is a homosexual gene." Many human traits are not completely genetic, but are not choices either. Not to mention, that even genetic control need not be a single gene.

Example: I have a cold at the moment. I did not choose to get a cold, nor am I choosing to continue having the cold. I would love very much to not have a cold right now. However, this cold is not caused by any genetic element that I possess.

Golly, look at that! Something that is both not a choice, and also not determined by genetics! Will wonders never cease...

Correlation studies result in more correlation between genetics and sexuality than one would expect if there were no genetic factors involved. There is also evidence that a male is more likely to be homosexual if he has older brothers - the chance of being homosexual increases by something like a factor of 3 for every male born to a woman after the first. Hormones in the womb have been shown to affect sexuality.

Meanwhile, the fact that the neural structure is different in homosexuals than in heterosexuals points very clearly to the idea that, environmental or not, it is not a choice.

I think part of the problem is that human beings have perhaps more control over the EXPRESSION of our sexuality than any other life form we know of. This should not be confused with having conscious control over our sexuality itself, but it often is.


On top of that, the only logical way you could suggest that any sexuality is a choice, is to state that all sexuality is a choice.

No, see, you don't get how this works. Everybody is born heterosexual, but some people hate Jesus so much that they decide to be gay. Either that, or the feminists get a hold of them, and turn the nice heterosexual boys into limp-wristed girly-men. :P


So tell me, at what point did the sexuality fairy visit you and give you a choice of what sex you would or would not be attracted to?

Okay, I totally have to go doodle a cartoon of the sexuality fairy now...:)

Please describe how and when you decided to be heterosexual.

I dunno.
I'm sorta guessing that all those chaps who decided to come out must have had the chance to decide summat else too.

I dunno.
I'm sorta guessing that all those chaps who decided to come out must have had the chance to decide summat else too.
Sure, they had the chance to decide whether or not to tell people that they were gay, just like you have the chance to decide whether or not to tell people you are straight.

Again, if you feel that individuals choose their sexual orientation, I am eager to hear how and when you made your decision.

Sure, they had the chance to decide whether or not to tell people that they were gay, just like you have the chance to decide whether or not to tell people you are straight.

Again, if you feel that individuals choose their sexual orientation, I am eager to hear how and when you made your decision.

I'd say you make that decision by the first 'hump' you do.

I'd say you make that decision by the first 'hump' you do.
So you did not have a sexual orientation until after you had sex the first time? You were not heterosexual until after you got laid?

EDIT: Another thought occurs...if your sexuality is "decided" by "the first 'hump' you do," then does that mean that a man should be considered heterosexual if his first sexual experience was with a woman, even if every subsequent sexual experience is with another man? And what about priests, or individuals who remain celebate?

I'd say you make that decision by the first 'hump' you do.
Bullshit. You feel attraction before you hump for the first time.

Nobody controls who they're attracted to. It's that simple.

EDIT: Another thought occurs...if your sexuality is "decided" by "the first 'hump' you do," then does that mean that a man should be considered heterosexual if his first sexual experience was with a woman, even if every subsequent sexual experience is with another man?
Or vice versa. If a man explors his sexuality with a gay friend, finds out he's not into that, and fucks women the rest of his life, by that definition he's still gay...

Bullshit. You feel attraction before you hump for the first time.
Let's not assume. Sure, I felt attraction long before I decided to have sex (and I wouldn't have had sex in the first place unless I felt attracted to the person in question), but maybe BogMarsh did not experience sexual feelings until after having sex for the first time. Who knows?

I'd say you make that decision by the first 'hump' you do.

Thats crap. I've been attracted to more than a few girls, several seriously. And I'm a fucking virgin.

I'm a fucking virgin.
I want that on a t-shirt.

Thats crap. I've been attracted to more than a few girls, several seriously. And I'm a fucking virgin.
I rest my case, your honor.

I want that on a t-shirt.
Make one for me, too. I heard you revert back to being a virgin after more than a year of celibacy, anyway. :(

Thats crap. I've been attracted to more than a few girls, several seriously. And I'm a fucking virgin.

Attraction = sexuality?
*surprised*

So you did not have a sexual orientation until after you had sex the first time? You were not heterosexual until after you got laid?

EDIT: Another thought occurs...if your sexuality is "decided" by "the first 'hump' you do," then does that mean that a man should be considered heterosexual if his first sexual experience was with a woman, even if every subsequent sexual experience is with another man? And what about priests, or individuals who remain celebate?


AH :) The essence of my... beliefs... on this, so to speak.
It's only sexuality if you act upon it.
*shrug* And I see no reason to build permission, license or right, on the impulse to act.

Exactly. When discussing gay MARRIAGE rights, this whole tangent about children is completely irrelevant. We allow heterosexuals to get married regardless of whether or not they plan to have children, so clearly procreation is not a requirement for matrimony. If you want to debate ADOPTION or PARENTING by homosexuals, start a thread about that.

When discussing of MARRIAGE rights tangent about children IS RILEVANT! The wedding concept is strictly connected to the family comcept: the two spouses form a familiar nucleus biological destinated to expanded with the sons. the choice of not to have sons, if it is not dictated from problematic physiological, is a chosen that it must remain free, but for some aspects is blameworthy because contrary to the natural and social laws.The wedding is a prerequirement in order to create a family, than usually it constitutes a constructive brick of one a community or society. Therefore, the wedding not only serves the interests of two individuals, but also the interests of their sons and the society of which they make part. So dont call the other kind of union Marriage.. And do not create for the two types of union the same laws.
That union betwen homosexual couples want only to obtain formal and social respect for theyr sentimental contents, is not the same things, a wedding is a type of engagement much most onerous, we must maintain one clear distinction in honor of the good sense.

Attraction = sexuality?
*surprised*
Who you're attracted to = sexual orientation

Who you hump = sexual behaviour


Some gay men have been known to marry out of societal pressure and hump their wife. They were still attracted to me. Some heterosexuals have been known to explore their sexuality with a member of the same gender; they were still attracted to females. Some bisexuals choose(the only ones to have a choice, really, since they're attracted to both genders) to pick one gender over the other to form relationships; they're still attracted to the other gender.

The point is: you don't choose who you're attracted to. All you can choose is to act on your attractions and live a happy life for being with someone you love, or choose not to act on your desires and live a unfulfilling lie for the rest of your life.

The best choice seems evident enough.

AH :) The essence of my... beliefs... on this, so to speak.
It's only sexuality if you act upon it.
*shrug* And I see no reason to build permission, license or right, on the impulse to act.
Sexual orientation =/= sexuality.

And you see a reason to try and repress the impulse to act only on others who do not share the same sexual orientation than you?

This reeks of hypocrisy and double standards, if you forgive my saying so. And even if you don't.

Every one of these threads makes me become less patient with homosexuals.

Sexual orientation =/= sexuality.

And you see a reason to try and repress the impulse to act only on others who do not share the same sexual orientation than you?

This reeks of hypocrisy and double standards, if you forgive my saying so. And even if you don't.

Not so. I see no reason whatsoever to grant anyone the license to act upon their impulse, unless they got a nice religious permit. Have a nice day.

When discussing of MARRIAGE rights tangent about children IS RILEVANT! The wedding concept is strictly connected to the family comcept: the two spouses form a familiar nucleus biological destinated to expanded with the sons. the choice of not to have sons, if it is not dictated from problematic physiological, is a chosen that it must remain free, but for some aspects is blameworthy because contrary to the natural and social laws.The wedding is a prerequirement in order to create a family, than usually it constitutes a constructive brick of one a community or society. Therefore, the wedding not only serves the interests of two individuals, but also the interests of their sons and the society of which they make part. So dont call the other kind of union Marriage.. And do not create for the two types of union the same laws.

Bullshits. LOTS of married, fertile heterosexual couples CHOOSE not to have any children. They are still married, and nobody ever said anything about them having to annul their marriage or anything. Children are NOT part of the marriage contract. Period.

Granted, children are often conceived out of a marriage, but they're in no way a necessity. For example, a house is also often bought to accomodate married couples, but it's not a necessity and some married couples sometimes keep renting. A lot of other things often happen when people marry, but none of these are a prerequisite for marriage.

Don't confuse the cause and the consequence.


That union betwen homosexual couples want only to obtain formal and social respect for theyr sentimental contents, is not the same things, a wedding is a type of engagement much most onerous, we must maintain one clear distinction in honor of the good sense.
No, we must not. A marriage is a marriage. Period. Separate but equal was bullshit in the 60s, and it's still bullshit not.

Not so. I see no reason whatsoever to grant anyone the license to act upon their impulse, unless they got a nice religious permit. Have a nice day.
So, you actually push for no one being able to have the license to act on their impulses unless they got a nice religious permit? I'm certain you're not trying to push your own religion in doing so,because that would be another hypocritical double standard, right?

According to the gospels of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can all act on our impulses.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change..

Have a nice day too :)