The Gay Agenda

[Polaris]

And here's the point: why should there be, if it would be different for a heterosexual couple?

Heterosexual couples need to esablish wills too. Those who have children and don't have a will indicating who gets custody of their children run certain risks too. Just because it requires that both parents die doesn't make establishing a will less necessary.

 

[Green Gaia]

Heterosexual couples need to esablish wills too. Those who have children and don't have a will indicating who gets custody of their children run certain risks too. Just because it requires that both parents die doesn't make establishing a will less necessary.

But if one parent dies, there is no question; the children stay with the living parent. Not always so with same gender parents.

 

[MaddLlama]

That sounds more like a problem with the authority of written wills than the restrictions of civil unions. A mother should be able to will her child to whoever she wants independent of familial or civil ties.

As far as I know, anybody can legally contest a will for any reason. Whether or not there is a legal way for them to get thier way is the question. The issue is that in the example in my previous post, a marriage license would protect the family and prevent having to go through a legal battle in the first place. Not to mention that just making the legal authority of wills stronger wouldn't fix any of the other problems.

Are we going to get to the point where we'll identify every issue that non-married gay couples with or without children face, and put the legal system through fiery hoops to accomodate all those needs just so we don't have to call it "marriage"? I think that's a silly way to go about it.

 

[Green Gaia]

Polaris, just so I know where you stand, should same gender couples have the right to a civil, legal marriage?

 

[Polaris]

Do their children not matter as much as heterosexual couple's children?

Can a homosexual mother not claim her biological children as dependents on her tax return?

 

[Green Gaia]

Can a homosexual mother not claim her biological children as dependents on her tax return?

Yes, but she can't file jointly with her partner.

You still haven't answered my question about why you don't question heterosexual couples on why they want a legal marriage.

 

[kreeden]

Hello?!?! *jumps up and down waving hands* Am I "normal" enough for you?

Just between you and me Maize , " normal " is sooo boring .

Can a homosexual mother not claim her biological children as dependents on her tax return?

Perhaps ? But can her mate claim that child ? If the biological mother dies , can her mate continue to raise the child ? Can the mate collect pensions , life insurance , and the like ? And what about gay men ? Can they raise their mate's biological children if he dies ? These are questions that are still being debated here in Canada , even after same sex marriages have been legal for a number of years . In fact , same sex marriages still aren't out of the forest here .

 

[Green Gaia]

Just between you and me Maize , " normal " is sooo boring .

I am boring.

And apparently inferior to heterosexuals. :sarcastic

 

[MaddLlama]

Can a homosexual mother not claim her biological children as dependents on her tax return?
[/color]

She can, but her partner is not included and gets none of those benefits.

 

[kreeden]

I am boring.

Not at all . What I mean to say is " Why would you want to be " normal ?".

 

[Polaris]

Same gender parents shouldn't have to get a will to ensure that the non-biological parent keeps custody in the event of the death of the biological parent. If they were able to be married and joined legally, it wouldn't be an issue.

So how does it work for heterosexual couples where the surviving spouse is not the biological parent. Do they automatically get custody? What if the other biological parent is still alive? The point is the issue is not clear cut for heterosexual couples either. That's why an authorative will is important for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Yes, but she can't file jointly with her partner.

That has nothing to do with children. Also, is there even really any significant benefit to that? (Honest question, I don't know.)

You still haven't answered my question about why you don't question heterosexual couples on why they want a legal marriage.
Polaris, just so I know where you stand, should same gender couples have the right to a civil, legal marriage?

This is a very difficult issue. I honestly don't know where I stand on all aspects of it. I have good friends who are gay and they are great people. I am against any form of harmful discrimination against them. At the same time I find homosexuality disturbing on several different levels. I am against redefining marriage to include same-sex partners, but I have no problems with same-sex partners recieving many of the same benefits as married couples.

I think for me the issue comes down to the role of marriage in raising children. While I believe that same-sex partners can be great parents, I believe that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father. To promote or encourage the esablishment of families that aren't based on such a foundation introduces potential deficiencies. My own mother was raised in a home without a father and she's a great person, but there are things she definitely missed out on and there are certain emotional scars that result. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, in my view, would promote and potentially increase the number of families that aren't built on the foundation of a loving mother and loving father. I realize you'll disagree and I respect your opinion, but I believe that would be potentially harmful to society in the long run.

 

[Green Gaia]

To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, in my view, would promote and potentially increase the number of families that aren't built on the foundation of a loving mother and loving father. I realize you'll disagree and I respect your opinion, but I believe that would be potentially harmful to society in the long run.

All I can say at the moment is that I find your "opinion" highly offensive. But you know what? It doesn't matter what you think, my government should not treat GBLT people as inferior because of someone else's bigotted religious beliefs. It's as simple as that.

 

[Polaris]

All I can say at the moment is that I find your "opinion" highly offensive. But you know what? It doesn't matter what you think, my government should not treat GBLT people as inferior because of someone else's bigotted religious beliefs. It's as simple as that.

Look, you can disagree with my opinion, but if your going to call it "highly offensive" and refer to me as a religious bigot, I would at least expect you to point out the flaw in my reasoning before you start throwing out discriminatory names. Also when has religion even entered the discussion here?

I don't consider GBLT people as inferior individuals. I simply believe that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father. Why is that belief so bigotted?

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't consider GBLT people as inferior individuals.

Then you support the government treating GBLT people as equal with heterosexuals then, correct?

You basically called same gender parents as harmful for children, which is offensive to me.

Religion always enters this discussion because there is no logical, sane reason to deny same gender couples the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples have. The only reason that is ever given is, "my religion says being gay is wrong" or how did you put it... "disturbing".

If someone called part of who you are disturbing, wouldn't you find that offensive?

 

[MaddLlama]

I think for me the issue comes down to the role of marriage in raising children. While I believe that same-sex partners can be great parents, I believe that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father. To promote or encourage the esablishment of families that aren't based on such a foundation introduces potential deficiencies. My own mother was raised in a home without a father and she's a great person, but there are things she definitely missed out on and there are certain emotional scars that result. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, in my view, would promote and potentially increase the number of families that aren't built on the foundation of a loving mother and loving father. I realize you'll disagree and I respect your opinion, but I believe that would be potentially harmful to society in the long run.

Do you believe that each sex has a particular role in being a parent that the opposite sex can never fulfill? Other than physical ones, what essential specific qualities do men posess that women don't? What qualities do women have that men don't? Why would children in gay families be less "well-adjusted"? All of the sociological and psychological studies on the subject I've read has demonstrated the exact opposite. And, even if two gay parents have a child of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that they will never have a good role model of thier gender. What can a father teach a child that a mother can't?

Everybody has emotional scars. Children with gay parents are often ridiculed and attacked for it. Every person goes through at least something that leaves them with some sort of emotional baggage, and often we go through many of those instances in life. It's just inescapable.

 

[Polaris]

Then you support the government treating GBLT people as equal with heterosexuals then, correct?

As individuals yes.

You basically called same gender parents as harmful for children, which is offensive to me.

I said I believe that any family that is not based on the foundation of a loving mother and a loving father introduces potential deficiencies, and that I believe a relative increase in these types of families is potentially harmful to society.

I did not say that same-gender parents are harmful for children. You put words in my mouth there.

Religion always enters this discussion because there is no logical, sane reason to deny same gender couples the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples have. The only reason that is ever given is, "my religion says being gay is wrong" or how did you put it... "disturbing".

I said I find homosexuality disturbing on many different levels, not just religious. The fact that I find the very thought of two men engaging in homosexual activity as extremely disturbing is 100% independent of my religious beliefs.

Regardless, I gave what I thought was a logical reason (the importance of a mother and father) to maintain the traditional state of marriage. There were no religious references there.

If someone called part of who you are disturbing, wouldn't you find that offensive?

That depends, if you found man kissing woman to be disgusting, I wouldn't be offended by that.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I think for me the issue comes down to the role of marriage in raising children. While I believe that same-sex partners can be great parents, I believe that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father. To promote or encourage the esablishment of families that aren't based on such a foundation introduces potential deficiencies. My own mother was raised in a home without a father and she's a great person, but there are things she definitely missed out on and there are certain emotional scars that result. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, in my view, would promote and potentially increase the number of families that aren't built on the foundation of a loving mother and loving father. I realize you'll disagree and I respect your opinion, but I believe that would be potentially harmful to society in the long run.

From what I inferred from what Polaris said is that this is a psychological issue for children.

 

[Polaris]

Do you believe that each sex has a particular role in being a parent that the opposite sex can never fulfill? Other than physical ones, what essential specific qualities do men posess that women don't? What qualities do women have that men don't? Why would children in gay families be less "well-adjusted"? All of the sociological and psychological studies on the subject I've read has demonstrated the exact opposite. And, even if two gay parents have a child of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that they will never have a good role model of thier gender. What can a father teach a child that a mother can't?

Let me reiterate that I believe that same-sex parents can make great parents. I'm not suggesting that they should be banned from raising children. However I believe there there are certain potential psychological, phyisical, emotional, and spiritual deficiencies that result when either a loving mother or father is missing. I can't come up with some definite list of those dificiencies - it's going to be highly dependent on the situation, but I firmly believe that the optimal situation for raising children is with a loving mother and father.

Everybody has emotional scars. Children with gay parents are often ridiculed and attacked for it. Every person goes through at least something that leaves them with some sort of emotional baggage, and often we go through many of those instances in life. It's just inescapable.

True, but I believe that when children are raised by a loving mother and a loving father the potential quantity and magnitude of those scars is reduced.

 

[Sunstone]

I simply believe that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father. Why is that belief so bigotted?

I certainly don't think you're bigotted for believing that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father, Polaris, but I do think there is little or no hard evidence for the belief that a loving mother and a loving father are significantly better for a child than two loving mothers or two loving fathers, or even one loving single parent.

 

[Polaris]

I certainly don't think you're bigotted for believing that every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father, Polaris, but I do think there is little or no hard evidence for the belief that a loving mother and a loving father are significantly better for a child than two loving mothers or two loving fathers, or even one loving single parent.

You're right. Hard evidence that supports either position is very difficult to establish.