Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Veyrlian]

"states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship"

That's one of the most assinine things I've ever read.

I agree.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It has been already brought about by other posters in this thread no reason to bring these sources again up....

On the contrary, there are 821 posts in this thread, and your citation (if one exists) could be in any one of them.

During my searches, I did find a few good soundbites by you:

"...there was no "homosexual" personality or identity in the ancient times but only people performing homosexual acts like Sodoma [sic] and Gomora [sic]..."

"...mulsims are allowed to pray at certain schools but Christians are not......how about that?"

"These are all one sided agenda driven translations..."

"...the homosexual agenda does wants us to believe that if a child has homosexual tendencies or acts queer is already a homosexual..."

"...it is proven that domestic violence that gets unreported is hgher [sic] indeed than that of heterosexual couples and the list goes on with how many years a homosexual couple stays together the AIDS /HIV cases and so forth..."

====================

Anyway, your citation is 6 years out-of-date: the latest report is found here. Did you even read the study 2001, at all? My thoughts are that you didn't.

For instance, when it (the webpage you cited) stated that "Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims;", you responded "* thus findings are skewed*". Well, no, actually: the NCVAP hosts a national (USA) phone line, where victims of IVP can report and get help with domestic abuse. Geared toward helping the LBGT community, the report acquires its statistics from those callers. Legal semantics are moot.

Now, no one denies that same-sex relationships are different from opposite-sex relationships, and that those differences put LGBT persons in slightly greater risk of domestic abuse than their heterosexual counterparts. BUt the question remains: so what? How does that give us any right to tell us what relationships can and cannot form?

It should be noted that the increased risk comes from things like the 'double closet', the greater arsenal batterers wield over LBGT persons (outing, etc), and so on, not the inherent immorality or instability of same-sex couples. The increased risk is unfortunate, but incidental: the underlying cause is common to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

and the end result will be to "poisong the well" like numerous times before such methods were used to 'defend' homosexual families as "healthy".

I think the bigger fallacy is not bothering to read your own citations.

Like you posted that four decades are not adequate time to counteract the thousands years of recorded history. It is indeed a today's phenomenon both single parenthood and homosexual families.

Then you might want to actually take a look at what history recorded: homosexuality (people being attracted to and sleeping with persons of their own sex) has existed since antiquity and beyond, and extends into over 1500 species of animal (include humans, of course). It evolved as a means of strengthening social bonds, and providing childless couples that could raise any 'spare' children (orphans, runts, etc).

And please, you really think single-parenting only began to exist recently? Have you never heard of divorce? Widowhood? Bаstards? Children out of wedlock?

Do you really think the traditional, 1940s approach to the family is what humanity has always practised the world over since its inception?

 

[b&wpac4]

"In that fashion."

I like you, but yes. I have seen nothing from you to indicate that you are not a committed anti-Christian.

My friend, I believe in Jesus. Do you not understand? I am not an idiot. I have had all the discussions people here bring up. I am aware of the issues.

Yes, "in that fashion". I hold different beliefs than you, and I fully believe that there will come a day that Christianity goes away. Not through the legal system or persecution, as some would like to say, but through other changes in the world. If that makes you uncomfortable, keep in mind that you believe my beliefs will change as soon as Jesus comes back, so it isn't like I have some wild idea that no Christian could ever think of, as it's right there in your scripture.

What, pray, does a committed anti-Christian do? I mean, were I so behind an agenda, shouldn't I be marching in the streets, burning churches, throwing eggs at priests? Holding different political and philosophical beliefs does not make someone anti-whatever. To hold such beliefs makes me believe that you, yourself, are anti-non-Christians because we usually project our own feelings onto others. Is that how you want to see yourself?

 

[beechy]

There is no evidence that "proves" it gets reported actually there is evidence that proves homosexuality is such a 'high risk" lifstyle that yes it makes sense that the family that children are raised from would be at risk of been raised with similar problems or related to problems

My female partner and I are in a monogamous relationship (we are one of the 18,000 couples that got married in California between the S.Ct. decision and Prop. 8). We don't use drugs or smoke, and probably drink an average of 3-4 glasses of wine every week. We have full time jobs, own a home, and have been together for 4.5 years. We are in good health, and neither of us is clinically depressed or suffering from any other mental illness. There isn't anything even close to domestic violence happening in our household. The most high risk thing we do is commute to the office every morning. Do you think that when we have kids we're suddenly going to start shooting up, beating each other, and throwing orgies in our living room?

 

[Philothei]

Okay let us say you are fit "parents" to be... Sure with one role that of mother. Where would the "fatherly" model come from? Your father? their grandpa? How fair is that for that child to be robbed from their exposure to a father/mother family model?
They will be in a disadvantage to be raised in an enviornment that if he/she grows up straight (slim case) would not be deciding "on her/his own but because of their environment. Those children are in an "experimental" "artificial family setting" that you and others have no clue as what these children's identity or direction would take.... Psychologically these children would be guinea pigs for the next generation. The responsibility of our society to allow such an experiment is tremendous...

Other implication is this:

When one of you gets pregnant from an "unidentified" male through anomymous donor do you realize this child can marry in the future his sister or brother? Have any of you thought what a danger exists in such practice? Especially for Lesbian couples? Since most of them do not "want" to know the father or they do not care to know him. Wanting it or not biologically this is not a family. IMHO the biological father should never be anonymous in these cases... It is a total selfish act to want to have a child and to deny them their genetic information. The implication of such actions will be obvious not now but in the decades to come.... How irresponsible to create a family like that for bringing up a child that does not know their biological parent.... I do not think that is fair to the child.... I know that this method is also used for heterosexual couples and before you bring it up as a "proof" it is okay... I do not agree either. So please do not bother.

These practices are dangerous AND they are defenately used for cases as Lesbian couples. Now how right is it to bring about a child that you deny them their genetic information never mind their biological parent?

 

[b&wpac4]

These practices are dangerous AND they are defenately used for cases as Lesbian couples. Now how right is it to bring about a child that you deny them their genetic information never mind their biological parent?

From your point of view, how is it right for God to kill the parent of a child and deny them the right to a biological parent? Don't give me "God can do what He wants" as an answer unless you are willing to accept "People can do what they want" as an equally powerful retort.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm curious, what is it exactly people object to about homosexuals? Humour me.

The act is a perversion of the usefulness of sex. Sex isn't just about the two individuals. Sex is very much about the being such an act maybe procreating.

Sex for sex sake is an evil and homosexuality is the most obvious manifestation of a selfish behavior pattern which places sex at the center of one's need, desire, and interest without any concern for procreation.

 

[Skaloop]

Okay let us say you are fit "parents" to be... Sure with one role that of mother. Where would the "fatherly" model come from? Your father? their grandpa? How fair is that for that child to be robbed from their exposure to a father/mother family model?

What exactly are the "fatherly" and "motherly" models? What can a father provide that a woman could not?

They will be in a disadvantage to be raised in an enviornment that if he/she grows up straight (slim case)

Citation needed. Got any info to support your assertion that children of gay couples are less likely to grow up straight, let alone that is is a slim chance? And how is it a disadvantage to grow up straight?

would not be deciding "on her/his own but because of their environment. Those children are in an "experimental" "artificial family setting" that you and others have no clue as what these children's identity or direction would take

The same could be said of religion. One can never ever know how their kids are going to turn out; parents with the best intentions and best family practices can turn out troubled kids, and horrible parents can end up with great, well-balanced kids. But most are just going to end up being regular people, with their strengths and weaknesses, regardless of the specific make-up of their families.

 

[Mercy Medical]

The act is a perversion of the usefulness of sex. Sex isn't just about the two individuals. Sex is very much about the being such an act maybe procreating.

Sex for sex sake is an evil and homosexuality is the most obvious manifestation of a selfish behavior pattern which places sex at the center of one's need, desire, and interest without any concern for procreation.

So you are trying to tell me that a married heterosexual couple that has sex should only be having it to procreate?

Aren't there passages in the Bible regarding how God made sex for us to enjoy it and that it wasn't created just for procreation?

 

[Philothei]

From your point of view, how is it right for God to kill the parent of a child and deny them the right to a biological parent? Don't give me "God can do what He wants" as an answer unless you are willing to accept "People can do what they want" as an equally powerful retort.

That is not our topic. This is a "red herring" response. Thus irrelevant to our talk. Just because you "think" God "kils" a child's biological parents ...it makes it OK for people to straight out lie to the child who their biological father or mother is? *scrathes head*

ARe we Gods? That we "decide" for that child's future? Or God zaps their genetic information? What you say does not makes too much sense... in both accounts..

 

[b&wpac4]

That is not our topic. This is a "red herring" response. Thus irrelevant to our talk. Just because you "think" God "kils" a child's biological parents ...it makes it OK for people to straight out lie to the child who their biological father or mother is? *scrathes head*

ARe we Gods? That we "decide" for that child's future? Or God zaps their genetic information? What you say does not makes too much sense... in both accounts..

Avoidance, it's what's for dinner?

Darn, I forgot to add a few emoticons just to get my "point" across.

Look, you say that a child has a right to two biological parents. Why? Why is this a right? There are many, many cases where this is impossible due to death or impossible due to one leaving.

You really anger me with your avoidance and arrogant answers.

 

[beechy]

Okay let us say you are fit "parents" to be... Sure with one role that of mother. Where would the "fatherly" model come from? Your father? their grandpa? How fair is that for that child to be robbed from their exposure to a father/mother family model?

We both have brothers, as well as male friends. To quote our Secretary of State, it takes a village to raise a child -- and we don't plan on raising ours in some "women only" cave. I definitely want our kids to be exposed to role models of varying ages, genders, and occupations ... and that would be true even if one of us was a man.

Plus, it goes without saying that not all fathers are good role models. I have an ex- boyfriend whose father modeled the useful qualities of being a charming, flakey, lying womanizer. To his mother's credit she divorced the guy, but that didn't stop him from leaving a lasting impression on his son. Thankfully, most of the dudes in our lives are cut from a different cloth.

They will be in a disadvantage to be raised in an enviornment that if he/she grows up straight (slim case) would not be deciding "on her/his own but because of their environment. Those children are in an "experimental" "artificial family setting" that you and others have no clue as what these children's identity or direction would take.... Psychologically these children would be guinea pigs for the next generation. The responsibility of our society to allow such an experiment is tremendous...

Why do you think our kids only have a slim chance of being straight? Both my partner and I (and every other gay person that I personally know) are not straight despite having straight parents. I do think that kids raised by same-sex couples probably feel more free to explore the side of themselves (insofar as it exists) that may be attracted to the same sex, but I don't think that's a bad thing. If my kids are totally straight, great. If they're totally gay, cool. If they're somewhere in between (which I think most people are to some degree), that's fine too. So long as they're good people.

Also, when you talk about children not being able to "decide on his/her own", I'm not sure what you mean. Children generally don't get to decide who their families are. Kids don't get to choose, for example, to have the dad who is interested in football instead of baking; or the mom who can help you do your hair and makeup for prom instead of being a tom-boyish mechanic; or to not be the only child; or to grow up in a big house instead of a cramped one bedroom apartment for a family of 5; or to not have the parents who are dwarves; or to not be in a family with a disabled sibling who demands most of your parents' time, attention, and money; or to not have a parent who is clinically depressed; or to grow up in a Christian household instead of a Muslim one. There is an infinite variety of familiy situations a kid can find himself in which don't have the benefit of comprehensive studies to tell us how, statistically speaking, the kid is likely to turn out. But it is in an impractical and dangerous path to start trying to legislate away anything that varies from the 2.5 kids, white picket fence family. Life is messy, and it makes us who we are. My kids will be loved, cared for, and protected by two stable parents -- which is more, sadly, then can be said for many children today. Will they grow up without challenges? Of course not.

Other implication is this:

When one of you gets pregnant from an "unidentified" male through anomymous donor do you realize this child can marry in the future his sister or brother? Have any of you thought what a danger exists in such practice? Especially for Lesbian couples? Since most of them do not "want" to know the father or they do not care to know him. Wanting it or not biologically this is not a family. IMHO the biological father should never be anonymous in these cases... It is a total selfish act to want to have a child and to deny them their genetic information. The implication of such actions will be obvious not now but in the decades to come.... How irresponsible to create a family like that for bringing up a child that does not know their biological parent.... I do not think that is fair to the child.... I know that this method is also used for heterosexual couples and before you bring it up as a "proof" it is okay... I do not agree either. So please do not bother.

These practices are dangerous AND they are defenately used for cases as Lesbian couples. Now how right is it to bring about a child that you deny them their genetic information never mind their biological parent?

Adopted children (whether adopted by a single person, or a straight couple, or a gay couple) often face all of the issues you've cited above, and sometimes with even less information. We plan on using a donor who is willing to be known and contacted, at the child's option, when (s)he turns 18. And there are sibling registries online to keep track of people with shared donors.

 

[LittleNipper]

So you are trying to tell me that a married heterosexual couple that has sex should only be having it to procreate?

Aren't there passages in the Bible regarding how God made sex for us to enjoy it and that it wasn't created just for procreation?

They should be well aware that their act may bring about a baby that they will have to nurture. GOD made the act of making babies enjoyable and fun ---- just like prayer can be enjoyable...

 

[beechy]

They should be well aware that their act may bring about a baby that they will have to nurture. GOD made the act of making babies enjoyable and fun.

If a woman has a hysterectomy, should she and her partner stop selfishly having sex since they know there is no way they're going to get pregnant?

 

[Shane Roach]

On the contrary, there are 821 posts in this thread, and your citation (if one exists) could be in any one of them.

During my searches, I did find a few good soundbites by you:

"...there was no "homosexual" personality or identity in the ancient times but only people performing homosexual acts like Sodoma [sic] and Gomora [sic]..."

"...mulsims are allowed to pray at certain schools but Christians are not......how about that?"

"These are all one sided agenda driven translations..."

"...the homosexual agenda does wants us to believe that if a child has homosexual tendencies or acts queer is already a homosexual..."

"...it is proven that domestic violence that gets unreported is hgher [sic] indeed than that of heterosexual couples and the list goes on with how many years a homosexual couple stays together the AIDS /HIV cases and so forth..."

====================

Anyway, your citation is 6 years out-of-date: the latest report is found here. Did you even read the study 2001, at all? My thoughts are that you didn't.

For instance, when it (the webpage you cited) stated that "Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims;", you responded "* thus findings are skewed*". Well, no, actually: the NCVAP hosts a national (USA) phone line, where victims of IVP can report and get help with domestic abuse. Geared toward helping the LBGT community, the report acquires its statistics from those callers. Legal semantics are moot.

Now, no one denies that same-sex relationships are different from opposite-sex relationships, and that those differences put LGBT persons in slightly greater risk of domestic abuse than their heterosexual counterparts. BUt the question remains: so what? How does that give us any right to tell us what relationships can and cannot form?

It should be noted that the increased risk comes from things like the 'double closet', the greater arsenal batterers wield over LBGT persons (outing, etc), and so on, not the inherent immorality or instability of same-sex couples. The increased risk is unfortunate, but incidental: the underlying cause is common to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.


I think the bigger fallacy is not bothering to read your own citations.


Then you might want to actually take a look at what history recorded: homosexuality (people being attracted to and sleeping with persons of their own sex) has existed since antiquity and beyond, and extends into over 1500 species of animal (include humans, of course). It evolved as a means of strengthening social bonds, and providing childless couples that could raise any 'spare' children (orphans, runts, etc).

And please, you really think single-parenting only began to exist recently? Have you never heard of divorce? Widowhood? Bаstards? Children out of wedlock?

Do you really think the traditional, 1940s approach to the family is what humanity has always practised the world over since its inception?

I know Ben-AG posted extensive references, and when they could not be controverted the discussion simply devolved to insulting a handful of the sources. Ben-AG agreed to do away with those sources and we never heard anything back.

I had a thread meant strictly for sources that a gay activist supporter here just came in and said, "I don't think it is morally acceptable to be discussing studies on gays," and proceeded to knock the entire thread off topic. It's been closed for days now with no sign of being cleaned and re-opened any time soon.

Philothei herself presented historical references concerning laws against homosexuality in both Rome and Greece, and a web site with multiple references to how gay marriage is being used to undermine people's right to hold their own beliefs and raise their children free of government harassment. I think one, single issue of the many addressed on that web site was perhaps somewhat difficult to follow and looked as if it might be invented. One I found was so well documented you could see newscasts about each and every point.

Because of the one example that was questionable, the rest were ignored and the pretense was that the whole issue was irrelevant.

So, anyone who has been paying attention and actually keeping count, as opposed to just trying to "poison the well" (if you understand the meaning) should be able to ascertain the problem with this repeated pattern on CF.

I think the only way to really keep track of this would be to hold the references off site. I think that is the approach I am going to take now on with studies and other references for sure. There is simply not enough honesty, integrity, or self discipline here to allow for discussion of citations, studies, and so forth. They just get burried under hate spam.

 

[Mercy Medical]

They should be well aware that their act may bring about a baby that they will have to nurture. GOD made the act of making babies enjoyable and fun ---- just like prayer can be enjoyable...

Okay, but you stated that having sex for sex's sack is evil. So what if they are using protection and are having sex for sex's sake with no intention of getting pregnant. Yes, there is always that possibility, but their intentions are to just have sex to get off. So what then? What about oral sex or anal sex? Are those evil in a marriage as well? What about couples that are incapable of having children? Should they refrain from sex because they are incapable of procreation?

 

[Shane Roach]

Okay, but you stated that having sex for sex's sack is evil. So what if they are using protection and are having sex for sex's sake with no intention of getting pregnant. Yes, there is always that possibility, but their intentions are to just have sex to get off. So what then? What about oral sex or anal sex? Are those evil in a marriage as well? What about couples that are incapable of having children? Should they refrain from sex because they are incapable of procreation?

This has been asked and answered multiple times. Are you stating there is no circumstance when it is necessary for the law to deal with issues unique to procreation? What, do the kids automatically belong to the government at birth, and the parents themselves have nothing to do with it?

There has always existed a set of expectations regarding men, women, what they owe to one another and what they owe to their kids. Part of this set of expectations has been marriage throughout history in the vast, vast majority of times and places.

Defining gay relationships as marriages too simply undoes the meaning of marriage as it pertains to straights, where it is not merely a social issue but a function of the unique relationship between man and wife, and between parents and their biological children.

The mockery of the unique importance of this relationships has already resulted in devastating effects that are documented concerning the effect it has had on kids in this nation. Marriage and sexual responsibility have been mercilessly attacked and mocked by the left for the last 50+ years, and the damage is obvious.

We don't need gay marriage. We need marriage reform for the future of our actual, biological families. Everything gays need concerning property, child rearing and the like is available to them. In the event they have a biological child, marriage and/or other laws relevant to child welfare already apply. If they are adopting, artificially inseminating, or whatever else, that is all different from the normal way of having kids anyhow and, again, laws already cover those issues, including single or couple adoption and so forth.

The handful of things I have ever seen that are not already fixed are things like hospital visitation or the location of a couple in the military, which honestly can be handled much more easily outside of marriage, and could possibly even make things fairer for heterosexuals in similar circumstances as well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay let us say you are fit "parents" to be... Sure with one role that of mother. Where would the "fatherly" model come from? Your father? their grandpa? How fair is that for that child to be robbed from their exposure to a father/mother family model?

You make it sound like the "father/mother family model" is the ideal situation, and any variation on that is inferior.

They will be in a disadvantage to be raised in an enviornment that if he/she grows up straight (slim case)...

Actually, studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples are just as likely to turn out straight as children raised by opposite-sex couples.

...would not be deciding "on her/his own but because of their environment. Those children are in an "experimental" "artificial family setting" that you and others have no clue as what these children's identity or direction would take.... Psychologically these children would be guinea pigs for the next generation. The responsibility of our society to allow such an experiment is tremendous...

You keep saying this is an experiment, but couples (straight, gay, same-sex, and opposite-sex) have been raising kids for millennia. And take a look at the above metastudy: the gender pairing of a child's parents makes little to no difference to their psychological profile.

Other implication is this:

When one of you gets pregnant from an "unidentified" male through anomymous donor do you realize this child can marry in the future his sister or brother?

That is a risk inherent to using anonymous donors. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of same-sex parenting.

Have any of you thought what a danger exists in such practice? Especially for Lesbian couples? Since most of them do not "want" to know the father or they do not care to know him. Wanting it or not biologically this is not a family.

True, but that doesn't mean they're not a family. If me and my partner adopt a child, he is my son, and we are his parents. This is uncontested by both society and the law.

IMHO the biological father should never be anonymous in these cases... It is a total selfish act to want to have a child and to deny them their genetic information. The implication of such actions will be obvious not now but in the decades to come.... How irresponsible to create a family like that for bringing up a child that does not know their biological parent.... I do not think that is fair to the child....

That's all very well and good, but you haven't actually explained what this oh-so terrible danger is. If it's so disasterous, so irresponsible, why can't you tell us just what the dangers are? What, exactly, are we going to see in the decades to come?

These practices are dangerous AND they are defenately used for cases as Lesbian couples. Now how right is it to bring about a child that you deny them their genetic information never mind their biological parent?

To be honest, I can't see anything wrong with it, nor do I consider it 'dangerous'. One in three donor-concieved children wish to know their biological father, but I don't see the great concern if they can't (the donor's choice to be anonymous, for instance, is hardly the fault of the couple).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know Ben-AG posted extensive references, and when they could not be controverted the discussion simply devolved to insulting a handful of the sources. Ben-AG agreed to do away with those sources and we never heard anything back.

I had a thread meant strictly for sources that a gay activist supporter here just came in and said, "I don't think it is morally acceptable to be discussing studies on gays," and proceeded to knock the entire thread off topic. It's been closed for days now with no sign of being cleaned and re-opened any time soon.

Philothei herself presented historical references concerning laws against homosexuality in both Rome and Greece, and a web site with multiple references to how gay marriage is being used to undermine people's right to hold their own beliefs and raise their children free of government harassment. I think one, single issue of the many addressed on that web site was perhaps somewhat difficult to follow and looked as if it might be invented. One I found was so well documented you could see newscasts about each and every point.

Because of the one example that was questionable, the rest were ignored and the pretense was that the whole issue was irrelevant.

So, anyone who has been paying attention and actually keeping count, as opposed to just trying to "poison the well" (if you understand the meaning) should be able to ascertain the problem with this repeated pattern on CF.

I think the only way to really keep track of this would be to hold the references off site. I think that is the approach I am going to take now on with studies and other references for sure. There is simply not enough honesty, integrity, or self discipline here to allow for discussion of citations, studies, and so forth. They just get burried under hate spam.

What's your point?

 

[Mercy Medical]

This has been asked and answered multiple times. Are you stating there is no circumstance when it is necessary for the law to deal with issues unique to procreation? What, do the kids automatically belong to the government at birth, and the parents themselves have nothing to do with it?

There has always existed a set of expectations regarding men, women, what they owe to one another and what they owe to their kids. Part of this set of expectations has been marriage throughout history in the vast, vast majority of times and places.

Defining gay relationships as marriages too simply undoes the meaning of marriage as it pertains to straights, where it is not merely a social issue but a function of the unique relationship between man and wife, and between parents and their biological children.

The mockery of the unique importance of this relationships has already resulted in devastating effects that are documented concerning the effect it has had on kids in this nation. Marriage and sexual responsibility have been mercilessly attacked and mocked by the left for the last 50+ years, and the damage is obvious.

We don't need gay marriage. We need marriage reform for the future of our actual, biological families. Everything gays need concerning property, child rearing and the like is available to them. In the event they have a biological child, marriage and/or other laws relevant to child welfare already apply. If they are adopting, artificially inseminating, or whatever else, that is all different from the normal way of having kids anyhow and, again, laws already cover those issues, including single or couple adoption and so forth.

The handful of things I have ever seen that are not already fixed are things like hospital visitation or the location of a couple in the military, which honestly can be handled much more easily outside of marriage, and could possibly even make things fairer for heterosexuals in similar circumstances as well.

Heterosexuals have done most of the damage to the term and idea of marriage. If you don't realize, it was until this century that homosexual individuals could get married so any damage that was ever done to marriage up until that point is all due to heterosexuals.

Marriage as recognized by the state is completely different then marriage as recognized by a religious institution. There are a lot of things that homosexuals can do that can granted them the same rights as heterosexual marriage couples, but it comes at a significantly larger cost of time and money. Time and money for paperwork and often those types of situations are only covered in that specific state, so say you are traveling your "rights" become completely null and void. And there is nothing that a homosexual couple can do that can ensure they receive 100% of the rights a heterosexual couple is given when they sign a marriage certificate. And that is ALL they have to do, pay for and sign a piece of paper.

I believe in the importance and respect of marriage and the family unit, but I also believe that family units come in many different shapes and sizes these days and no one can tell me that the love offered to children in a heterosexual household is no better nor worse then that offered in a homosexual household.