Marriage is a civil right in the US

I just wanted to point out to you that earlier you said these people can live the way they choose and then you proceed to express a desire to deny them the opportunity to live the way they choose. If that's the way you are and you're comfortable with this sort-of weak justification for persecution, then that's fine with me. I know I couldn't live like that. I don't really know if this is the case. I know that I consider myself a leftie and this is not my position. But this could just mean that I'm not a true leftie. Anyway, if it is the case this is dumb. There are good reasons to prohibit people from things. What are the good reasons for prohibiting gay men or women from adopting? Well, I don't think that having people go through some degree of screening before they adopt kids is a bad idea. I remain unconvinced that gay women and men should be prohibited from adopting children. Are there reasons I should know about?

Every single study ever performed has found that children raised by homosexual parents are just as well adjusted as those raised by hetero parents.You seem to have a lot of opinions about children... unfortunately they are uninformed opinions. Gay parenting has been studied for many years and the results speak for themselves.As long as there are unwanted children we need all the adoptive parents that we can get.Faith, the reason you are called a bigot is that you are a bigot. I don't consider that an insult. I am a bigot about some things myself.

Really I think gays should get no benefits whatever. They should live as singles live, as roommates if they like, with absolutely no special accommodations. However, I appreciate the argument that a person should be allowed to have whoever they like visit them in the hospital, so I say if that is not allowed then rules should be changed to permit it. This does not necessarily have to involve anything to do with marriage or any particular kind of relationship. And if they don't want their blood relations in their lives, which I understand is frequently the case, they should be permitted to prohibit them from involvements that by law they are normally entitled to. Again, this has nothing to do with marriage. As far as spousal benefits like shared insurance goes, I think the claim is ludicrous. Why should they benefit from their unnatural relationship when singles must go without such benefits? But if insurance companies want to accommodate this sort of thing, and are going to be forced to if gay marriage becomes legal anyway, then ANYBODY should be able to pay for insurance for anybody of their choosing, and again, this has nothing whatever to do with marriage or the sort of relationship. If I have the money to help out a poor person of my acquaintance and would like to include that person in my health insurance, I should be allowed to. It makes just as much sense as gays wanting to help each other out. I do NOT agree that homosexual relationshiops should be legally recognized. Perhaps my previous paragraph will make it clearer. I'm trying to think of ways to accommodate the most common complaints that they say marriage will cure without the slightest concern about the nature of the relationship. I would have thought I'd made that clear time and time again. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELGIION OR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION. ALL CULTURES IN ALL TIMES have had some form or another of marriage, which is a uniting of male and female (I include polygamy) and a setting apart of those to each other from the rest of the culture, which is recognized by the culture as a permanent union. I have understood that they often want to, not that they should. They hate having blood relatives have the right to visit them in the hospital instead of their gay partner, and to be their natural heirs, and that sort of thing. I doubt it's a huge deal but this is what I've heard in other debates on this subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Would that we all had your power to read the real truth behind everyone's feelings.
God, I wish I knew how to quit reading you.

So, adoptive parents are worse parents? Huh, that's funny - I was under the impression that it makes no sense to choose the circumstances when they aren't your kids.I'm pretty sure that raising a kid steeped in the bigotry and intolerance and hatred you exude is a lot worse for kids. We'll be sending somebody around shortly to pick up yours. You just make this stuff up, don't you? Like you don't even bother to check. You're so sure that it's so reasonable and common to hate gay people that you just assume that everybody else always has.People aren't like you, Faith. Thank goodness. Ah. So, when you said you didn't support taking away the kids of gay people, you were lying. When you told me I was making that up, you knew I was actually right. Gotcha. Do they even deserve to live? You know, maybe we should castrate gays, so there's no possibility at all of them having children.

AS I SAID!!! Gays should be allowed to adopt WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS!Don't try to whitewash the word "bigot" The way it is used here is clearly a violation of Rule 10. Yes, you are a bigot and so are all the others who call me a bigot. Thank you for recognizing that much.Gays can do all right raising children in many cases. I never said they couldn't. I said children should ideally have both sexes for parents and only when there is no choice should gays be considered.

And you read that as "they're rather be visited by nobody than be visited by their family?"

"Living the way you want" NEVER means to any rational intelligent person not having any restrictions at all!

Why? I used to feel like you until I did some research and found out my opinion was based on prejudice and not facts. Once I found out the facts I had no reason to oppose gay parents anymore.Then again, I try to base my opinions on facts and reality. But that's just me

Criticize the argument, not the person.

---

"Research" is not "facts and reality." If I thought gays would do some kind of irreparable damage to children I wouldn't even be in favor of their adopting when there is no other choice. The fact that children grow up OK is not the point. Ideal is both sexes. This is obvious. Hang research. Research is only as good as its definitions and it will only measure the roughest indicators anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why should heterosexual couples benefit from their relationship when singles must go without such benefits? What's the difference? But I'm still having trouble indentifying exactly what line you refuse to cross and for what reason. You agree that at it's core marriage is a legal contract. So why should homosexuals be barred from making this contract? Homosexuality is not illegal, so why shouldn't their relationships be legally recognized?

Double post.Edited by RickJB, : Double post.

For one thing, because women have historically needed the protection and support of men, and children are the natural issue of heterosexuals and need the protection of parents. This is in the nature of things. In our modern societies these facts of nature tend to be blurred. The need for protection is no longer quite so clear, and there are other ways of getting the protection when needed. Single mothers get the protection and support of the State instead of a husband, and so on and so forth. However, the basic natural situation is only one of the reasons for heterosexual marriage but it's a big one. The idea that two MEN need any kind of protection of each other is ridiculous. If that's the case then ANY two singles of the slightest acquaintance should be allowed to form some kind of mutual protection society. Where did I say that marriage is a "legal contract?" It's a cultural institution. Some cultures don't require any kind of legal anything. It's just a relationship that is recognized as exclusive and binding in the eyes of the community. This may or may not be officially legally established.I don't care what kind of contract homosexuals make between themselves, but society should not be required to treat them as a married couple. This is a CULTURAL thing. They do not deserve some kind of CULTURAL RECOGNITION of their unnatural relationship, benefits, percs etc. If they want to protect each other in various ways legally, no problem, they should do this on their own, and maybe some laws can be changed to make it easier, I don't know. But that's between them alone, and it does not involve the whole society, the rest of us, in being forced to regard their relationship as normal or right or anything of the sort.

So basically, so far, the folks for gay marriage have the following in their favor:-Facts
-Research
-EvidenceAnd the anti-gay marriage group has:-Intuition
-A hankering for the good'ol days that never existed
-An old book
-And an 'iky' feeling about the whole debateWho's the winner? You decide!PS:
Some random arguments that pop into my head while reading this debate. The constitution was written with rich, white, male, land-owners in mind. Shouldn't we interpret everything by this guideline?After all, it's all this mushy liberal thinking that says social mores should advance along with the times. All our laws should be written through the original goggles the founders war.Rights are for white men, who own land, and are wealthy. What's wrong with this? I mean, certainly there are plenty of right-wingers who fall into this categoryAs to the questions of which societies had gay marriage as an institution. Try, Sparta! And ancient Greece in general.Pederasty and homosexuality were considered healthy and natural. In fact, male/female relationships were considered only useful for social reasons and procreation. Even the women were encouraged to have female lovers.In any case, I think so far the 'anti' people are looking pretty silly. Keep it coming, I'm laughing off my chair Edited by Yaro, : spelling