what about if one parent dies? should the kids be taken away until such time as the surviving parent can remarry?
you seem to think that the only suitable environment for children is a home with two parents, of opposite sex. my question is a logical extension of that proposition.
No. However, I do think 2 parents of the opposite sex is the best environment for a child. Sure we could talk about ifs, ands, buts But for the most part, that statement is true.
depends on the parents, their level of engagement, etc. what about grandparents raising a child? for instance, had Obama been raised by his own parents, rather than just his grandmother, would he have turned out the same?
okay so being raised by gays, is the best way to go? Well i do wish Obama was not in office, so idc who raised him.
Well folks, 5 states have legalized gay marriage and it doesn't appear the end of the world is coming like what the religious bigots are talking about.
are you crazy? stop using facts! 2 fathers or 2 mothers is exactly the same as a traditional marriage! seriously, this is a really bad day for America. Especially Maine.
For my part I would be all for that. This is a very frustrating issue because the key issue seems to be a fundamental disconnect around the word marriage, but only a few people seem to be addressing this. Look up the definition of the sacrament of marriage according to the Catholic Church and compare it to the government’s definition for the legal rights and responsibilities associated with being “married”. One word, two very different meanings. Governments have over the years encroached on the word marriage and altered its meaning, but the word is originally a centuries old religious word belonging to a number of different religious traditions. For the sake of clarity, then, and arguably also in furtherance of the goal of separating church and state, I think the government should stop using the word marriage. From the government’s standpoint the legal rights and responsibilities it is interested in should be attached to the term “civil union”. Churches will of course continue with their centuries old traditions of marriage, but note that there are churches that will marry same sex couples, so anyone can be married or not as they choose. We wouldn’t think that it would be ok for the government to appropriate and redefine the words Ramadan or Hanukah, so why would we think that it would be ok for them to seize and redefine the word marriage? We tend not to think of this issue this way because governments have been on a slippery slope toward doing this for quite some time now, but the principle is the same and the solution is the same. The word marriage should be given back to the religious and cultural traditions from whence it came, and the governments should pick a new name to describe the legal rights and responsibilities associated whit unions that it is interested in, and I suggest that that term should be civil union.
Why do you base everything you post as fact all of the time? How do you know it is basically true? In fact, studies have shown that children raised in gay parent houses turn out the same as those not raised in gay parent houses. That's a fact.
All you liberals do is point out one instance. And say ohhh you see, it's not good. So would you want to be raised by 2 loving gay men, or 2 loving parents who are a male and a female? Don’t lie to yourself.
Do you understand what a fact is? Nothing in the post you quoted was a fact, but one poster's opinion. But if you would like some facts you can start here. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm It turns out that having gay parents isn't better or worse than having straight parents. I think the main thing would be to have good parents whether or not they are gay or straight.
2 loving parents of either sex would be great. Studies show there is no difference in children raised by same sex or opposite sex parents.
Until you have seen firsthand, don’t talk. You can point out your stats all you want. Until you have been close to some who experienced it, you really have no good evidence.
You claim lie, but I posted an article that draws on actual studies to back up what I said. If you have proof of something opposite, if you don't have proof to back it up, then resorting to telling me I'm lying isn't really helpful.
Then I would be a perfect candidate to talk about it then. Until you know who you are talking to, don't assume.
