Gay Marriages. Should They Be Abolished?!

[DiscoPro_Joe]

I'm new to this board, but I saw this topic and wanted to toss in my cheap little two cents.

As a humanist, individualist, and Unitarian Universalist, I see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality or gay marriages.

And as a political libertarian, I think that instead of the government granting marriage licenses, people should make private marital contracts with each other -- much like business/financial contracts. Furthermore, these marital agreements should be defined by the people involved, not by the state. If a couple was unsure of what to include in it, they might talk to a marriage consultant or attorney, who could help them write it. Different employers (and government agencies) would recognize certain marital contracts and not others, and whenever possible, people could do business with the companies that share their cultural values, and not with the ones that don't.

On marriage itself...I view it as an ongoing celebration of a committed relationship. It may be a contractual commitment, but the real emotional commitment exists in the relationship itself. (You cannot improve a lackluster partnership by just signing on a dotted line and saying a few vows at a ceremony. You'd simply be celebrating a bad relationship.) I believe the purpose of marriage is to show the world that this particular relationship is truly special, and that you expect to spend the rest of your lives together with honesty and fidelity. This would hold true whether or not you intend to procreate or adopt children.

That's my spew, anyway.

[puiwaihin]

It's fair enough to say. Perhaps government should not have anything to do with marriage from a "rights" perspective.

However, I'm thinking in terms of social pragmatism.

[boneyboy0]

oh no, not this one again

[yuki]

Is there any reason they can't get marriage?
Just people still have bias about this.

[puiwaihin]

Is there any reason they can't get marriage?
Just people still have bias about this.

Go back and read the thread. There were some points already brought up.

[yuki]

Please go back to read what I worte .I do not "really" ask the reasons.

Please try to think about it in Chinese tone.

If you cant,then delet the first sentence.

[puiwaihin]

Please go back to read what I worte .I do not "really" ask the reasons.

Please try to think about it in Chinese tone.

If you cant,then delet the first sentence.

It doesn't matter if I think about in Chinese or not. What you just said ignores everything that has been said in the whole thread.

Go back, read the thread, and respond to points that were brought up. If not, then your post doesn't bring anything new to the discussion and isn't worth responding to other than to say: Go back and read the thread and that's my answer.

[glennthigpen]

It is very difficult to separate religion, morals, and society. The United States, supposedly had as its original impetus, a desire for religious freedom because the European nations from which most of the these emigrants came had developed an official state religion which oppressed any who dared to think and believe differently.
Of course there was a large commerical interest in the development of the North American continent also, but commercial and religious interests have often been pretty much the same.
If it were to come to a vote, I would vote my according to my conscience.
The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy one mentally. A recent study in the Netherlands "T.G. Sandfort, R. de Graaf, R.V. Bijl, and P. Schnabel, P., Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders,"Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (2001), 85" notes that "
Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared to heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders and anxiety disorders than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders than heterosexual women...More homosexual than heterosexual persons had 2 or more disorders during their lifetime...The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at a greater risk for psychiatric disorders."
Why is this this study significant. It is because the Netherlands is one of the most tolerant of countries where homosexuality is concerned. It is the first country on record to allow gay marriages.
Those who are advocating gay marriage are also pushing for gay partners to be allowed to adopt children. However David Popenoe's Life Without Father and other studies give ample evidence that children need both a male and female parent for proper development.
So if you take away the moral aspect of gay marriages, where do you draw the line?
If a brother and a sister wish to get married, should they be allowed to do so if one or the other is sterilized? How about incest? If the father and one of his daughters were to fall in love, should the father be allowed to divorce his wife and marry the daughter if one or the other is sterilized?
How about men and young boys? If the young boys are consenting? Check out http://www.nambla.org.
Now don't tell me that this disgusts you and you would never go for it. Just make an argument based upon the same criteria you (nayone) proposes for allowing gay marriages. If there are no moral constraints, why not?

Glenn

[boneyboy0]

incest is a whole other argument, kind of straying off the mark a bit and unrelated to the gay marriage question.

men and young boys can not be brought into this either as marriage is between consenting adults, not an adult and a minor.

In the states, your dog can get married legally so do gay couples rank lower than dogs?? of course not.

[glennthigpen]

I was straying off the mark just a bit, but only to make a point. The point is, where do you draw the line? There have been diferent people and groups agitating for each of those things I mentioned.
So if we were to agree that gay mariages are okay, then we have to deal with the next group and their desires. Once you lower tha bar, it is easier for the next attempt.
When the only morals are what is dictated by society, then all anyone has to do is to seduce society into another way of thinking. Society is condoning things, nay embracing things now that would have been anathema fifty, maybe even thirty years ago. Adultery, living "in sin", were frowned upon. Now the good guys in the movies and on T.V. are the ones that run around with their friends' wives. Adultery is no longer looked upon with any degree of disdain by the media or most anywhere else that I can discern.
In 1987, the front runner for the Democratic presidential candidate, gary Hart, had his campaign derailed by rumors about an extramarital affair with a woman named Donna Rice.
Fast forward to the Bill Clinton years. His transgressions were pretty well documented, but he was elected, and re-elected.
Without an absolute set of morals, we are on a slippery slope. The line will keep being moved until there is no place to move it.
So, where do we draw the line?

Glenn

[boneyboy0]

whatever line you draw, will see a crowd waiting to cross it, as all lines that have been drawn in the sand in every age of mankind have seen.

so, should we stand still as a whole incase some views or desires do not match our own? undeniably NO!! if we were to stand still then the human race would never have got past hunting and gathering food in animal skins dragging their women behind them by the hair.

It is part of life that things progress onwards and morals have to change with it, as they have done since whoever it was thought of morals. otherwise we just get witch hunts that do more bad than good.

the wisest men on the earth in their time once proclaimed that the world was flat, strange and bemusing to us now in our digital age, gay marriage will be seen in the same light in 20 years time,

If equal rights are for all then let them be for all, not just the select few that fit into what some consider 'normal' ( and as history shows, normal changes with every generation). society will not suffer because of gay marriage. just as it didn't suffer when women were allowed to vote.

[glennthigpen]

"It is part of life that things progress onwards and morals have to change with it, as they have done since whoever it was thought of morals. otherwise we just get witch hunts that do more bad than good."

I disagree that what we are seeing is progress. We are seeing change, and all change is not for the better. What we are seeing is a regression much like the Greek and Roman empires regressed. Witch hunts have never done any good. All witch hunts have begun when people ignore the morals that they were supposedly espousing.

"the wisest men on the earth in their time once proclaimed that the world was flat, strange and bemusing to us now in our digital age, gay marriage will be seen in the same light in 20 years time,"

You are arguing apples and oranges here. Advances in science and knowledge proved that the earth is not flat, but sort of round. There is no moral issue there. A fact is a fact, whether you believe that fact or not makes no difference.
We do not know how the world or the people in any part of it will view homosexuality in 20 years.


[b]"If equal rights are for all then let them be for all, not just the select few that fit into what some consider 'normal' ( and as history shows, normal changes with every generation)."

Homosexual people have the same rights as anyone else. A father cannot marry his daughter. A mother cannot marry her son. A brother cannot marry his sister. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. Please tell me how any of those are different.

" society will not suffer because of gay marriage. just as it didn't suffer when women were allowed to vote."

That is a non sequiter. Please show me some proof of your statements. I have already noted in a previous posts a few of the problems with the homosexual lifestyle.

Glenn

[boneyboy0]

You may disagree that what we are seeing is progress, but progress it is. society is moving forward, not backwards, we have more laws and rights in place than ever before, is this bad? I don't think so.

Exactly how do gays have the same rights as everyone else? when they miss out on so many things that hetro couples get via marriage, heres the list of what they are not entitled to,

Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
Criminal injuries compensation;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Inheritance of land patents;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to inherit property;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
In vitro fertilization coverage;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

that doesn't seem very fair to me, and all that from the good ole US of A, the land of equality for ALL. (excuse me whilst I laugh)

According to the 2000 Census, one of three lesbian couples is raising children and one in five gay male couples has children, but these couples are denied the right to raise their children within a marital relationship. These children are subjected to systematic prejudice on a daily basis and are denied many of the protections and rights accorded to the children of married heterosexual couples. Marriage protects children, giving greater access to health care, family and medical leave, and the right to a legal relationship with both parents. Marriage can also have significant economic impacts, due to parenting related federal tax benefits, Social Security and pension benefits, veterans benefits, employer based health insurance and other benefits available to employee family members. Yet, despite these disadvantages, studies done in the last 20 years show that children raised by gay parents are well-adjusted and happy and do not differ on standard psychological measures from children raised in heterosexual households.

Studies show that kids do not necessarily need one mother and one father so much as they need good nurturers and positive role models. Claims to the contrary misrepresent the research. Yet, only seven states, plus the District of Columbia, provide for legal second parent or joint adoption statewide despite the fact that same sex couples are raising children in 96% of U.S. counties.

When the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that laws barring black people from marrying white people were invalid and unconstitutional, opponents insisted that marriage by definition was for partners of the same race and argued the court’s decision would lead to polygamy. That was not the case. The question of who can marry is a different question from how many can marry. We are asking the government to grant same-sex couples the same rights it grants opposite-sex couples. Since the government has chosen to involve itself in the relationship of two individuals, for it to choose which couples get marriage rights is discrimination.

It’s not the government’s job to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality. Nor is it in a position to judge the marriages of its citizens. It’s not the government’s job to make policy based on religious precepts. It is the government’s job to enforce the Constitution. The Constitution says everyone gets equal treatment under the law.

The main benefit many employers provide for their employees which might be affected by permitting same-sex couples to marry would be health care benefits. Currently, many gay people cannot obtain this benefit. The additional cost to employers would be minimal and no one would even ask this question if a company happened to have all heterosexual people working with the expectation they would all be married. Businesses often offer gay couples benefits already as it is in their best interest to attract the best employees and retain them. Studies suggest the impact on business of recognizing same-sex couples would be minimal. Above all, this is a red herring issue, distracting from the real questions at hand. Research on the question in fact shows that marriage equality would be good for the economy and beneficial to taxpayers.

So, would "Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.???"

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

here's your big chance to change my views on gay marriage rights, give me five good reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[glennthigpen]

I do not have the time and space to go through the whole list that you have proffered. Suffice it to say that not every straight person has all of the rights you enumerated.


According to the 2000 Census, one of three lesbian couples is raising children and one in five gay male couples has children, but these couples are denied the right to raise their children within a marital relationship.

No they are not. They are denied the privilege of raising their children in a homosexual marriage. Marriage is not a right, else wise the state nor the government could deny/grant it.

Yet, despite these disadvantages, studies done in the last 20 years show that children raised by gay parents are well-adjusted and happy and do not differ on standard psychological measures from children raised in heterosexual households.

I have heard of such studies, but have not seen the full reports. However there are studies that report just the opposite. Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, who conducted a thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, concluded that such research could not be upheld in a court of law. They stated, “We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about ‘homosexual vs. heterosexual’ parenting. Their claims have no basis.”(Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting
(Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001): 6.)



Studies show that kids do not necessarily need one mother and one father so much as they need good nurturers and positive role models.

A 1996 study done by an Australian journal compared the academic and social lives of an equal number of children from three different types of families. The children studied were children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, children of heterosexual married couples and children of homosexual couples. Sotirios Sarantakos, the sociologist who authored the report, found that children of heterosexual married couples did the best of the group in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured. The children raised by homosexual couples did worst in those categories. These nine categories were Language, Mathematics, Sports, Sociability, Attitude to School and to Learning, Parent-School Relationship, Sex
Identity, School-Related Support (e.g., parent’s help with homework), and Parental Aspirations. Sarantakos, who by no means has an anti-homosexual agenda, concluded, “Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. (Sotirios Sarantakos, Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development, Children Australia, Vol. 21, No.3, (1996), 23.)

Claims to the contrary misrepresent the research.

Of course. If a claim goes against what you believe, it must be wrong. <grin>. But that is a non sequiter. I need a little more than that.


The main benefit many employers provide for their employees which might be affected by permitting same-sex couples to marry would be health care benefits. Currently, many gay people cannot obtain this benefit.

I doubt very much that many employers would see having to provide extra benefits to a non-working domestic partner/spouse. I don't know of any employer that denies medical benefits to a worker based on sexual orientation. I have never seen that question on any medical questionair.

Research on the question in fact shows that marriage equality would be good for the economy and beneficial to taxpayers.

I have never heard of such research. Please cite those studies.

So, would "Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.???"

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.


From the BBC News
Dutch will allow paedophile group
A Dutch court has turned down a request to ban a political party with a paedophile agenda.

Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD) had the same right to exist as any other political party.

In the Netherlands meanwhile, where consensual incest is no longer prosecuted, the legal status of the child born of such a relationship is ambiguous, according to Masha Antokolskaia, an expert in family law at the Free University in Amsterdam.

Sweden is the only country in Europe which allows marriage between siblings who share a parent.

Minister calls for acceptance of pedophilia
http://www.layman.org/layman/the-layman/1998/march-april/dutch-minister-pedophiles.html

Brother and sister go to court to be allowed to continue their sexual relationship
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1253397,00.html
Note incest is no longer punishable in France, Belgium, or the Netherlands

And here at home:
http://www.nambla.org/


here's your big chance to change my views on gay marriage rights, give me five good reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Okay, for starters. The gay life style is unhealthy, especially for the males. Anal sex is very unhealthy.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021811.html

High rates of domestic violence, high rates of promiscuity, high rates of HIV infection, high rates of mental health problems, high rates of death and disease.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf

High rate of child molestation
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/

These rates are much higher than the general population. And these are just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more information available if you care to find it. Of course you will find other reports that seem to say the opposite. So whose research is flawed?

And just one more
http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

To allow homosexuals to marry would be redefining marriage. The current concept has endured for centuries. There is no compelling reason to allow homosexuals to marry. There are no economic benefits, no societal benefits, no stability benefits.

I doubt that anything I have noted or linked to will change your mind. I have tried to provide the actual citations where possible or links to them.

On your bit about pedophiles, murderers, drug dealers marrying, I actually agree that they should not be allowed to. I know that if there are children involved when such happens, they are supposed to be removed from the home unless the people involved can show that there is no substantial risk of injury to the child, i.e. that rehabilitation has taken place.

One last thing. I appreciate the civil discussion. We can disagree without being disagreeable. These things so often turn in nother more than personal attacks.

On a personal note, I have a stepson that is homosexual. we have a wonderful relationship. He knows that I do not agree with his lifestyle. He and I have discussed it. But that does not stop us from having a good relationship. I am not a homophobe, although some may call me such. I have reasons, both religious secular why I feel that it is wrong, and at best, not good.

lenn

[boneyboy0]

firstly, that dutch minister needs re-educating, I have a big stick if anyone knows his address. But, his outlandish theory doesn't have much if anything to do with same sex marriage.

Gays are discriminated against in business all over the states, have a look at this;-
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/r ... _color.pdf

"I have heard of such studies, but have not seen the full reports." Then how can you comment on something you have not read?? heres a list of the books and reports I have used to make some of my arguement, read them as they may just change some of your arguement. its a long list and I don't expect you to read it all

"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]

Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents," by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]

Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)

"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley, San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]

Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)

Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)

Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)

Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)

Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551 (1983)

Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)

Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)

Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)

Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and Family Review 177 (1989)

Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)

Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)

Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44 Psychological Report 880 (1979)

Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)

Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133 (1991)

Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)

Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience: Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)

Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)

"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris & Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)

Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)

"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)

"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review (Harvard University Press, 1989)

Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek & Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)

Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human Organization 6-14 (1981)

Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992)




theres quite a few but I suggest you read one or two if not all before you base an arguement.

The reasons you gave for denying gay marriage are better than most I have heard and not the ones I was expecting either, top marks for them. But, by digging deeper you can find the answers to your side of the arguement.

The mental health issue is a bit flawed too, this link will help illustrate my point, you can skip to the conclusion at the bottom if you prefer.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ealth.html

and this one is to the American psychological association, its quite a good read too. I draw your attention to the bit entitled Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.h ... talillness


Is anal sex a gay only thing?? so hetrosexual couples never have anal sex do they?? or is a female anus cleaner and more sanitary than a male one? one look at some of the sites I have to remove from the forum will show that its not just gays who commit sodomy, I think you will find 90% of hetro couples have tried it, some more than once, a vast majority of them dont stop doing it, should they be kept from marrying too?

you cite homosexual child molestation as a reason for denying same sex marriage, the percentages show there are vastly more hetro child molesters than homosexual ones. This is a link to a report that is quite frank about child molestation, it makes interesting if harrowing reading. If I may draw your attention to the part entitled;-
Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children? (its toward the botom of the page)
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html

Well, at least you never brought religion into it, as most others do, well done for that one, although the lifestyle website is a christian run website, no marks for using their reports

Homosexuality is not just a human thing, a read of this book will show you just how widespread it is across the animal world,

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions)


The real reasons people dont want to allow same sex marriage aren't that hard to understand. here's a few,

Just not comfortable with the idea.
It offends everything religion stands for.
Gay sex is unnatural.
Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.
The thought of gay sex is repulsive.
They might recruit.


In my opinion though, none of them or the ones you used are valid for denying same sex marriage.

And I quite agree that civil discussion is worth the effort. I don't expect to change your or anyone else's opinion on gay marriage, but a healthy debate without bad feelings is quite good excercise for the grey matter.

I also have a homosexual family member, and gladly they and their partner (of 12 years) remain celibate, one thing to be thankfull for, allowing them to marry would offer them the same benefits I and my wife get,

Mark.