I have no problem with gay/lesbian marriage. But I'm a bit confused about the semantics. To me the terminology of married people is - husband is a man, and wife is a female. The use of these words in a marriage should be gender specific. I think the gay/lesbian culture should have their own terminology for their spouses. If lesbians adopt children are they both Mommies? or is one a Daddy. Same with men. I think the kids are going to have a tough road ahead. I can see the Bully-Factor coming in big time. I think there is an identity issue here. I feel for the kids.

I think the termanology you were lookin for is.....

Fanook.

Be interesting to see how the American family evolves as a result of this ruling. Will gay couples prove to be just as effective as parents as the traditional mom and dad family?

I believe it's more about the love that's given and not the sexuality of the couple in question. There's no evidence whatsoever kids growing up under two moms or two dads are more likely to be gay. Sexuality is written in your DNA from the time you're born.

No, gay couples won't be as effective. To assume they would be is to ignore the unique traits of male and female and it's why gay "marriages" are inherently inferior and unequal. To say it's just "about love" alone is incredibly naive and simply a regurgitation of gay agenda propaganda.

People also make the point that a kid would be better off with a gay couple than either in care or with junkie parents...however, this only deals with the effect, not the actual problem.

Said it before, introduce a baby license...
1) every male baby has a reversible sterilisation
2) When they meet someone and are old enough to be a parent, they can apply for the license.
3) criteria would be set fairly ie both are emotionally and financially secure and whatever else was reasonable
4) its reversed only after the partner is pregnant

People whine about the restrictions of human rights and how draconian it is, but if you're able to provide fairly basic financial and emotional support, what's the problem? It shouldn't be a "right" to have kids if you simply cannot provide for one.
Advantages?

1) dramatically reduce nearly every state benefit
2)mainly guarantee kids are brought up in as best an environment they can
3)slow down over population
4) improve the education system
5) reduce medical service costs and improve the overall service
6) reduce child poverty and neglect
You could go on and on and on....

Gay people could adopt kids currently in the care system without any problem. I think the historical evidence we have for the long term negative impact the care system causes to many kids outweighs whatever feelings people might have about a balanced upbringing etc

I can almost guarantee something like this will need to happen down the line.

Crazy stuff like that is part of the reason that the UK will probably be Muslim in 25 to 50 years.

WITHOUT ideas like that, it probably will....

ive talked to people recently back from London, there is a huge muslim presence in London, and they are not pleasant people.

faithful could be right!! the muslim numbers in London will astound you.

I'm not thinking about Muslims at all really, I'd apply the license no matter what the person's background.

Tell me how else you can solve over population? In London, New York or wherever...

This thread was not about Muslims, it is about semantics. Go somewhere else if you want to talk about Muslims.

I didn't take your conversation off track but was responding to Fergie's post which related to dealing with overpopulation in the UK. It's relevant since non-Muslim western Europeans have a much lower birthrate than Muslim Europeans.

But to get it back on track, in same-sex marriages a male is a husband and a female is a wife, so two males equals two husbands. I worked with a guy who was married to another guy and that's the label that they use. A related example is in the title of the book "Heather Has Two Mommies." Each female parent is a mother/mom and a male is a father/dad.

I think it goes without saying most couples and marriages are and will always be heterosexual and that's the way it should be. But that doesn't always equal a stable life or a loving home. If two men or women could provide for a child what a drugged out, abusive straight couple can't including money, education, housing and food I'm all for it. I believe they can be responsible parents as well.

It's always telling when the typical argument in support of gay parenting goes something like, "Well it's better than abusive druggies as parents." It's an admission the bar has to be set pretty damn low for a gay couple to actually look like the better option.

@MC,

Kids will always be kids..(and as cruel as standup comics in a roast), but from what I'm picking up..the younger generation has been conditioned to see same sex couples/parents as less odd than people from our generation(s).

I could see kids being bullied over this but definitely not what it would be when either of us were kids.

Doesn't have to be just drugs. It could be abuse, or violence, or neglect.

I don't see how you can justify not giving a child a good home simply because the caretakers are gay. I'm not saying that every child that comes from a broken should go to a gay couple, but should the circumstance arise, a young kid that needs a home and a gay couple is willing, why should there be qualms?

@Rockster, totally agree, whilst not ideal, its a whole lot better than the circumstances the kid has left or is currently experiencing.

And thats the reason I brought up the license, too many irresponsible people are having too many kids. If 2 gay people were to adopt, I don't see it as a really bad idea. Id prefer to explore ways to reduce the kids in care in the first instance though. I am totally against gay people using a surrogate parent, thats entirely different, unnatural at every level.

@ Ivy, you're right, it is the typical argument and it does set the bar low...but so what? It still gives the child a better chance in life surely

If we're talking on a hypothetical micro scale - ie would a child being raised by a gay couple be the lesser of two evils than being raised by a drugged up abusive straight couple? Perhaps. What I take exception to is the falsehood that a gay couple can offer everything a straight couple can and the two are equal. That's simply not true and, as I said, ignores the unique God given traits of male and female that compliment each other. Of course this is what the gay and feminist movements have always been about - trying to ignore that fact.

Totally agree, its not the same and should never be compared that way. It is, however, a good option in some circumstances whilst we have such high child poverty rates. A license would obviously not be an option for gay couples, but they could certainly be looking for some fulfilment in adoption, rather than a selfish stamping of feet and crying about "I want my own baby" attitude.

There comes a point where you should if you are LGBT (you know the whole lot will want a piece of the action, Jenner is already making noises about kids) be meeting society at least halfway when it comes to kids. Its not about any religious reasoning, as that debate just goes round and round and, lets face it, is fairly easy to rebuff from a gay perspective in today's climate, its just from a natural point of view and what our society accepts as reasonable.

Perhaps not the best of sources, but what on earth would be best for the kid in this situation??

http://thewhatwhat.net/bruce-jenner-adop...th-certificate/

I am no feminist. I don't support their modern day agenda any more than I support child pornography or crimes against the elderly.

I do agree that the best environment for a child to grow up is with a mother and father. To suggest there is absolutely no difference isn't really true at all. There is a difference.

But I also believe that gay couples can be responsible guardians and shouldn't be denied the opportunity to raise children in a safe environment. Because let's face it, a great deal of that community are fiscally well off and work hard.

If we want to support the American family, we need to promote child welfare, lessen divorce and single motherhood and also give gays the opportunity to raise families.

Like Adam Carolla says "Everything being EQUAL (not abusive, not very poor type retard examples)- it is the best to have a mother and father". If you disagree, you are being intentionally obtuse.

Definitely true, though its a shame situations are never just as straight forward as that, which means it is fair to say gay adoption may have its place

Just because it's technically "best" to have a mother and a father raising a child doesn't mean that a gay or lesbian couple wouldn't make good or even great parents. It is incredibly narrow-minded to suggest otherwise.

Just admitting this "technically" makes you a bigot, enough to get hounded by the gestapo in the media for years. See Adam Carolla's case.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the second part. I would just suggest it is not ideal (but neither is single mother homes), I would have been irreparably confused without both role models. My relationships would women certain wouldn't have been normal without seeing my parents interact.

Well, you won't have a clear answer to that question for twenty or thirty years. I'm not being sarcastic, but I hope you're not too disappointed if things don't work out the way you expect them to.


There are confused teenagers on the fence about the issue (usually the boys) who are preyed on and "helped" out of the closet by middle-aged men who prey on such kids every day.

And they're not looking to "help" anyone. They're looking for young ass. And, a few years later, when SOME of these boys discover that they liked girls after all, the damage done is irreparable because of the guilt and shame that they feel.

My point being, although there may be something to sexuality being coded into DNA (and I haven't read enough about it to make that decision), there are PLENTY of young kids who are coerced "out of the closet" by middle-aged gay degenerates.

Do that to my kid. See if I don't shoot you down like a dog in broad daylight. I'll think of your dead body in the street every day while I'm in prison and I'll sleep just fine.

PB you know I respect you a lot. But I have to ask have you seen any examples of what you just said? Gay middle aged men preying on young teenagers? I haven't known a single gay guy who does that. Not that there aren't sickos in that community but there are also those who prey on young girls who are equally sick.

I have seen certain people take advantage of the confusion teenagers experience and not just sexuality. It's why you see so many nutjobs on tumblr and twitter these days

Yes, I have. A lonely, forty-year-old gay man, "helps" a fifteen-year-old boy "come to grips" with his sexuality. He pretends to be the kid's hero and role model. Meanwhile, all he wants is some teenage browneye. And the kids always end up all the more confused and fucked up for it. There's no use discussing this, nor do I care to.

I don't know what causes someone to be gay. It could be genetic it could be a choice no one knows for certain but I will say that this probably occurs more than most realize. When my brother was a freshman in a senior who worked at the gym tries to convince/coerce him into being gay saying things like "You just don't know you are gay" and "Why don't you try it you will enjoy it", my brother is very conservative and is not a huge fan of gays so nothing happened. This is nowhere near a middle aged man and a confused kid but it is a trend

I'm getting the impression that on this thread people are sort of confusing two issues:

Gay Marriage

Gay Adoption

It seems like many of us here are debating the merits of Gay Marriage by analyzing whether or not two gays make for a good nuclear family for a child. But it's not the same issue. If they don't [make for a good nuclear family], then they should not be allowed to adopt. But it's hard to institute something like that when singles can adopt. So how do you stop two people from adopting? You can't.

Now if you are concerned about the example two parents of the same gender would set for a child, then you must allow them to adopt, but you forbid them to marry, so as to not confuse the child.

I'm in San Francisco so obviously this and any other topic regarding gays is headline news here. What I've noticed is that in last 25 years or so "tolerance" has morphed into encouragement. It's one thing to have a live and let live attitude but when what is essentially a deviant lifestyle is celebrated and foisted upon those who choose not to participate it crosses a line. Just because I don't subscribe to that lifestyle nor go out of my way to promote it for some reason I'm a hateful person?

Anyway by the looks of things I think that the LGBT community will soon be regretting becoming part of the mainstream. They had their yearly parade a couple of weeks ago and it has become a magnate for the hip hop thug crowd. There was even a shooting. It's just become another excuse to derink, smoke dope and throw around your gang signs ... unless all these gang bangers are on the downlow.