Celebration Of Marriage Slc Ut March 26

[Brenda]

I can see by your answer that you base your belief simply on prejudicial ideas to support your belief which has nothing to do with reality. I would ask you to reconsider your stance based on facts. Let's take a look at your answer.

You seem to think that if someone is around gay people,then somehow they will "catch" being gay. CFR where you learned that children raised by gay parents are more likely to experiment in homosexuality.

I didn't say they would "catch" anything. I just said they are more likely to experiment in homosexuality when they are taught to believe it is normal and healthy. We can both post conflicting sources all day long, but common sense is usually more reliable than the multitude of studies that support whatever you want. I have listened to interviews with people who spoke from personal experience. One girl, when she entered college, was only interested in men. Her experience in college exposed her to new ideas which led to experimentation, and she decided she was bi-sexual. Is there value in thinking/learning you are bi-sexual? I cannot think of any, unless you plan to have multiple partners. Exposure to the different lifestyles, or different ideas, CAN lead to experimentation that otherwise might not happen. We see this in everything else. Why not sexuality? Do you disagree?

If gay marriage is legalized, then what will become more common? Homosexuality? Gays raising children? Do you think gays are not raising children because they can't get married? CFR what you base that idea on.

Gay adoption is increasing -- in cases where neither adult is the bio-parent. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/adoption/story/2011-10-21/Adoptions-spiked-among-gay-couples-in-past-decade/50851986/1

Wouldn't you think that legalization and societal acceptance will likely add to that increase? Especially if children are taught in school that all forms of sexuality are acceptable.

If you are saying that it is better for two gay parents to raise a child rather than a single parent, why would you not want those two gay parents to be married? Again, you are not presenting any reason why gay parents of adopted children should not be allowed to marry. You have to give some reason why adopted children in gay homes are better off if the gay parents are not allowed to marry.

I'm trying to be fair to gay parents by not lumping them in the same category as single-parent, fatherless homes, for which the studies show a lot of potential problems for children. So, yes, two parents are better than one.

What I'm saying is that children need both a father and mother and that a gay couple cannot offer both. So to say that a mom or a dad is not important, is saying that one is expendable. Or else it's saying that mothers and fathers, or IOW, men and women, are the same and that one can substitute for the other. I can't agree with that.

You are arguing against gay couples being allowed to adopt. You haven't explained why it is better to not allow marriage for gay couples who have adopted. If you want to argue that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, that is another question we can talk about. Just give me ONE reason why it is better for gay couples that have adopted to raise THOSE children outside of marriage.

True. That is what I'm saying. I don't believe that gay couples should be allowed to adopt, if a heterosexual couple is available to take the child. But let's back up a little.

Any child who's parents have split, via divorce or whatever, is hurt by it. They must, through no choice of their own, give up one parent, or at least the close association with one parent. This is a loss. So it's not that gay parenting is the whole problem, it's the division and loss of the child's bio-parents. Whenever a gay couple adopts/raises a child, that child has sacrificed at least one bio-parent. You cannot escape this.

I'm saying that parents should be married before conceiving children, and that those children deserve to be raised by their own parents. Anything other than that, creates a loss to the children. We, as the adults, should do all that we can, to keep this from happening. Of course, many children are successfully raised in lots of different situations, but what right do adults have to purposely place risk, or loss, in a child's life, to suit their own desires? Children are human beings who grow up to be adults with feelings. I've read some personal accounts where they were raised by loving gay parents, and they turned out "fine", but they still expressed a loss and a sadness in their life.

Your answer was not too wordy, it just lacked any answer at all to the question why it is better for gay couples who have children to not be allowed to marry.

I understand your point and I sympathize. I really mean that. But can we limit gay marriage to couples who already are raising children? No. Gay marriage is probably coming, leading to more gay couples, and more children adopted into gay homes. There is no easy answer. I would prefer that gay couples, who already have children, be given legal protections for the stability of that home, for the sake of those children. But redefining marriage, and anything that encourages the increase of children losing their mother, or their father .... I cannot support.

Believe it or not, I am not against homosexuals, nor do I hate them. I want everything for them, especially their eternal happiness. My heart goes out to them, as well as to anyone who, for one reason or another, cannot marry in this life. I understand their yearning for love, companionship, and family. But I must stand on the side of children who deserve to be raised their own mom and dad. When that's not possible, then an adopting mom and dad. Since this is an LDS forum, I can say I believe that the Lord designed us as he did, following an eternal pattern, with men and women both needed for procreation, and to stay together for the nurturing of their children. I also believe that gender is eternal ... it's the one bit of diversity in us that will endure forever. And I believe that no one, if obedient to God's laws, will ultimately be denied any blessing. Some will just have to wait longer than others. But when you think about eternity, this life is only a brief moment.

Finally, may I ask a question? If two couples, one married gay couple, and one married man and wife, who were equal in every other way, wanted to adopt an orphaned child. And you had the power to decide which couple gets the child .... which would you choose and why?

[california boy]

I didn't say they would "catch" anything. I just said they are more likely to experiment in homosexuality when they are taught to believe it is normal and healthy. We can both post conflicting sources all day long, but common sense is usually more reliable than the multitude of studies that support whatever you want. I have listened to interviews with people who spoke from personal experience. One girl, when she entered college, was only interested in men. Her experience in college exposed her to new ideas which led to experimentation, and she decided she was bi-sexual. Is there value in thinking/learning you are bi-sexual? I cannot think of any, unless you plan to have multiple partners. Exposure to the different lifestyles, or different ideas, CAN lead to experimentation that otherwise might not happen. We see this in everything else. Why not sexuality? Do you disagree?

Well first of all antidotal stories adds nothing to your position. What is a fact is that the vast majority of gay men come from heterosexual households. They did not decide to be straight because of their parents did they? And second, kids are "exposed to the gay lifestyle" on television, in the movies, through their friends, on Facebook, etc etc. To make the claim that it takes gay parents to increase the chance of experimentation is a ridiculous position to take. So yes, I totally disagree.

Gay adoption is increasing -- in cases where neither adult is the bio-parent. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/adoption/story/2011-10-21/Adoptions-spiked-among-gay-couples-in-past-decade/50851986/1

Wouldn't you think that legalization and societal acceptance will likely add to that increase? Especially if children are taught in school that all forms of sexuality are acceptable.

I completely agree that gay adoption is probably increasing. But once again, you are talking about gay couples adopting, not answering the question I asked. Why are adopted children in gay homes are better off if the gay parents are not allowed to marry.

I'm trying to be fair to gay parents by not lumping them in the same category as single-parent, fatherless homes, for which the studies show a lot of potential problems for children. So, yes, two parents are better than one.

What I'm saying is that children need both a father and mother and that a gay couple cannot offer both. So to say that a mom or a dad is not important, is saying that one is expendable. Or else it's saying that mothers and fathers, or IOW, men and women, are the same and that one can substitute for the other. I can't agree with that.

Once again, you are talking about gay couples adopting, not answering the question I asked. Why are adopted children in gay homes are better off if the gay parents are not allowed to marry.

True. That is what I'm saying. I don't believe that gay couples should be allowed to adopt, if a heterosexual couple is available to take the child. But let's back up a little.

Any child who's parents have split, via divorce or whatever, is hurt by it. They must, through no choice of their own, give up one parent, or at least the close association with one parent. This is a loss. So it's not that gay parenting is the whole problem, it's the division and loss of the child's bio-parents. Whenever a gay couple adopts/raises a child, that child has sacrificed at least one bio-parent. You cannot escape this.

I'm saying that parents should be married before conceiving children, and that those children deserve to be raised by their own parents. Anything other than that, creates a loss to the children. We, as the adults, should do all that we can, to keep this from happening. Of course, many children are successfully raised in lots of different situations, but what right do adults have to purposely place risk, or loss, in a child's life, to suit their own desires? Children are human beings who grow up to be adults with feelings. I've read some personal accounts where they were raised by loving gay parents, and they turned out "fine", but they still expressed a loss and a sadness in their life.

You are talking about the devastation of divorce and not having a father and a mother in the child's life which you feel is ideal. But once again, you are not answering the question I asked. Why are adopted children in gay homes are better off if the gay parents are not allowed to marry.

I understand your point and I sympathize. I really mean that. But can we limit gay marriage to couples who already are raising children? No. Gay marriage is probably coming, leading to more gay couples, and more children adopted into gay homes. There is no easy answer. I would prefer that gay couples, who already have children, be given legal protections for the stability of that home, for the sake of those children. But redefining marriage, and anything that encourages the increase of children losing their mother, or their father .... I cannot support.

If there are no children involved, then what difference does it make if a gay couple marries. Your whole position was that gay couples should not marry because it is not good for children. Again I am asking, Why are adopted children in gay homes are better off if the gay parents are not allowed to marry.

Believe it or not, I am not against homosexuals, nor do I hate them. I want everything for them, especially their eternal happiness. My heart goes out to them, as well as to anyone who, for one reason or another, cannot marry in this life. I understand their yearning for love, companionship, and family. But I must stand on the side of children who deserve to be raised their own mom and dad. When that's not possible, then an adopting mom and dad. Since this is an LDS forum, I can say I believe that the Lord designed us as he did, following an eternal pattern, with men and women both needed for procreation, and to stay together for the nurturing of their children. I also believe that gender is eternal ... it's the one bit of diversity in us that will endure forever. And I believe that no one, if obedient to God's laws, will ultimately be denied any blessing. Some will just have to wait longer than others. But when you think about eternity, this life is only a brief moment.

Once again, you are talking about gay couples adopting, not answering the question I asked. Why are adopted children in gay homes are better off if the gay parents are not allowed to marry.

]Finally, may I ask a question? If two couples, one married gay couple, and one married man and wife, who were equal in every other way, wanted to adopt an orphaned child. And you had the power to decide which couple gets the child .... which would you choose and why?

If it was my child I was giving up for adoption , I would choose the couple that valued education, could financially afford a child, would show unconditional love, be involved in the child's life, teach the child the value of hard work, honesty and integrity. Teach respect for others and have charity. WAY down the list would be any importance to the gender of the couple. I don't really buy into the whole argument that a child needs to be raised by both genders. There are far too many children that still know how to respect women and know the role women play in society that have not had their own mother as their role model. But what I would want is for my child to be raised in a home where the parents were married and not just shacking up. So yes, I feel it is important to give gay couples the right to marry. You are arguing that it is better for gay couples to shack up rather than marry. You have yet to explain why that is better for any child. You have explained numerous times why you think gay couples should not adopt, which is a whole other subject, but you have yet to give a reason why you would not want a gay couple to raise a child in a married environment. I asked you a simple question. How does not allowing gay couples to marry benefit children.

You made this statement

Believe it or not, I am not against homosexuals, nor do I hate them. I want everything for them

If that is true, why can't you tell me why you think it is better for gay couples to shack up together rather than raise their children in a legal marriage? And once again, this question is about marriage and not adoption. Do you want to give it one more try or are we finished with this discussion? Because I am interested in hearing the answer to that question and not your objections to gay adoption.

[Damien the Leper]

I know a guy who was raised by 2 moms. He eventually experimented with women because his moms were attracted to women. He turned out to be a filthy, sinful monogamous heterosexual father of 3 because of his mother's influence. Same sex parents are a bad example for younger generations. I hope his kids don't turn out like him.

Just kidding!!

[Brenda]

CA Boy, Legalization of gay marriage obviously will lead to broader social acceptance and that will lead to more homosexual experimentation and adoption of gay lifestyles. Just as social acceptance of unwed pregnancies and single parenting has led to its increase. More homosexual couples will lead to more gay parenting. In the past, a gay couple could not adopt a newborn. Now they can. We have already seen the increase. There will be more.

Legalization of gay marriage would have to involve anyone who wants it and not just people who are already raising children. There are already legal protections available for gay couples and their children without redefining marriage. They knew the laws when they made the choices leading to the split of their child's bio-parents, and now demand society compensate for their choices? THEY set up the unmarried home with children. THEY chose an unmarried situation in which to raise their children. Yes! You are right that children are better off in a married home! I wish their bio-parents had planned for that.

I am concerned about FUTURE children of gay couples. I am concerned about the yet-unborn. I am concerned about MORE children losing either their mom or dad. I am concerned about MORE divorce and MORE devastation to children. I am concerned about avenues that gay couples will pursue to conceive children. Spend some time at anonymousus.org. Hear it from the children themselves.

[Brenda]

AND I am not arguing that it's better that a gay parent "shacks up". He/she should be married to the child's other bio-parent and making it work.

[Brenda]

If it was my child I was giving up for adoption , I would choose the couple that valued education, could financially afford a child, would show unconditional love, be involved in the child's life, teach the child the value of hard work, honesty and integrity. Teach respect for others and have charity. WAY down the list would be any importance to the gender of the couple. I don't really buy into the whole argument that a child needs to be raised by both genders. There are far too many children that still know how to respect women and know the role women play in society that have not had their own mother as their role model. But what I would want is for my child to be raised in a home where the parents were married and not just shacking up. So yes, I feel it is important to give gay couples the right to marry. You are arguing that it is better for gay couples to shack up rather than marry. You have yet to explain why that is better for any child. You have explained numerous times why you think gay couples should not adopt, which is a whole other subject, but you have yet to give a reason why you would not want a gay couple to raise a child in a married environment. I asked you a simple question. How does not allowing gay couples to marry benefit children.

The question said -- both couples are equal in every way, except one couple is gay. To which couple would you give the child? Pick one.

And another question-- if a man fathers children with multiple women and they all wanted to live together communally, wouldn't it be better for the children if he was allowed to marry them all? Why or why not?

[Tacenda]

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/12433

According to this article and spokesperson for the Osmond's "Celebration For Marriage" campaign, is that it's all about the children, same thing Brenda is saying. On one hand, yes, it's all about the children, but the examples of why it's to be this way is because of a conversation like this taken from the article....

“As a thirteen-year-old, I’ve got it all figured out why I need a mom and a dad. When Mom says no to ice cream, I can go ask Dad. And when I want to invite boys over, Dad says no, so I go ask Mom.

“But really, I’m here to talk about why every child deserves a mom and dad. From my mother, I have a pattern to follow, and I can learn what it means to be a woman. Certain understandings can only happen between a mother and daughter. I would pattern my cooking after my mom’s, but she burned dinner twice last week. Actually, she lit it on fire. She isn’t perfect. No mother is, but in my world, she can’t be replaced.

“My father protects me and helps me to figure out the immature minds of those boys I want to invite over. My dad’s example and advice helps me see the male perspective and brings a balance to my life as a young woman".....

So the above example is all? I know that sometimes or more than that, there is a motherly figure and fatherly figure in a gay couple. Also, there are aunts, uncles, friends etc. that would provide what is asked for. And if it's all one knows how would one feel that they are missing out? Maybe what these couples can provide is something a heterosexual cannot offer. Also, maybe those children that are adopted are ecstatic to finally have a family love them. There's a much bigger picture to a family than the above mentions!

[california boy]

AND I am not arguing that it's better that a gay parent "shacks up". He/she should be married to the child's other bio-parent and making it work.

When you advocate that gay couples should not be allowed to marry because it is bad for children, then you are advocating that gay couples that have children should shack up rather than be married. Can you not see that is the result of what you are advocating???

[rockpond]

Children deserve the best we can give them.

I agree. And since there are and will continue to be children -- being raised by gay parents -- let's give those children legally married parents.

[Brenda]

I agree. And since there are and will continue to be children -- being raised by gay parents -- let's give those children legally married parents.

When you advocate that gay couples should not be allowed to marry because it is bad for children, then you are advocating that gay couples that have children should shack up rather than be married. Can you not see that is the result of what you are advocating???

Did you not read what I wrote?

[california boy]

Yes I did read what you read, and if you would like I would be more than glad to comment on your opinion.

CA Boy, Legalization of gay marriage obviously will lead to broader social acceptance and that will lead to more homosexual experimentation and adoption of gay lifestyles. Just as social acceptance of unwed pregnancies and single parenting has led to its increase. More homosexual couples will lead to more gay parenting. In the past, a gay couple could not adopt a newborn. Now they can. We have already seen the increase. There will be more.

So your position is that if we do not allow gays to marry then "more homosexual experimentation and adoption of gay lifestyles" Most of the United States does not allow gay gay marriage. Do you see the gay movement dying or do you see it increasing throughout the United States. I would argue that by you, the churches and others telling the gay community that marriage is not necessary for them that they are sending a message to the straight community as well that marriage is not necessary for them. It may be one of the major reasons why young people fell less need to marry and choose to shack up. After all, if that is the preferred relationship for gay couples, why would it not be a viable alternative for them as well. Pushing gays to shack up pushes others to make the same decision.

Legalization of gay marriage would have to involve anyone who wants it and not just people who are already raising children.

I agree with you. Don't we encourage straight people to marry even if they do not plan to have children? In fact don't we encourage straight people to marry even if they CANNOT have children.

There are already legal protections available for gay couples and their children without redefining marriage.

You are wrong about gay couples having all the legal protection for their children. Heck, even Utah seems unable to pass basic rights laws for gay people even with the church encouraging such legislation. It is a major reason why most of the United States is fighting for gay marriage. They feel that gay couples deserve the same protection of the law as the rest of the citizens.

They knew the laws when they made the choices leading to the split of their child's bio-parents, and now demand society compensate for their choices?

What are you talking about here? What choices are gay couples that want to marry lead to splitting a child's bio-parents? Do you think that gay couples are coming in and stealing children to adopt from parents who want their children????

THEY set up the unmarried home with children. THEY chose an unmarried situation in which to raise their children. Yes! You are right that children are better off in a married home! I wish their bio-parents had planned for that.

This is hilarious. You are against gay couples marrying, then blame them for not being married???? Come on Brenda.

I am concerned about FUTURE children of gay couples. I am concerned about the yet-unborn. I am concerned about MORE children losing either their mom or dad. I am concerned about MORE divorce and MORE devastation to children. I am concerned about avenues that gay couples will pursue to conceive children. Spend some time at anonymousus.org. Hear it from the children themselves.

So your solution is to encourage gay couples to shack up rather than marry? Does this make any sense to you? Really? You are concerned about more divorce because if gay people marry, they may also divorce? Or if gay couples are allowed to marry than straight people will want to divorce? Would you say that straight people should not be allowed to marry because it will lead to more divorce? You have to admit, there is not a lot of logic here.

[california boy]

The question said -- both couples are equal in every way, except one couple is gay. To which couple would you give the child? Pick one.

Well you know that in reality both couples are never equal. I think the courts should decide what couple would make the best parents for the child involved. Can gender be factored into that decision? Yes, I have no problem with that. To answer your question more directly, I would be ok with the straight couple adopting the child if everything else was equal. But that is not the position you are arguing. You seem to be against gay couples adopting no matter what and that gender is the OVER RIDING reason for choosing parents for adopted children. I think that is totally wrong, bias and unfounded reasoning. As I am sure you are aware, study after study show that children of gay couples thrive equally to straight couples. But you are willing to dismiss all the studies because you simply have a prejudice against gay couples raising children. You feel shacking up for gay couples is better for their children than allowing them to marry. I hope you seen the illogic of your position.

Now a question for you. If there was a married straight couple where the father was a heavy drinker that sometimes turned violent neither had any religious beliefs and both parents worked 10 hours a day and a gay couple who did not have this drinking and violence history and one of them choose to stay home to raise the child, and attending church regularly, which couple should the courts give the child to? And like your question, that was the only choice offered.

And another question-- if a man fathers children with multiple women and they all wanted to live together communally, wouldn't it be better for the children if he was allowed to marry them all? Why or why not?

What would be the best way to handle this situation? The man should marry one of the women he had a child with and try and adopt the other children. Until he forms a stable environment, those children will suffer. Marriage would help in stabilizing that relationship.

This is funny. I am the one arguing that all couples should be able to marry, and you ask me about a straight man who chooses to have children outside the bonds of marriage. I acknowledge that there will be people in this world having children outside of marriage, I just don't feel like society should encourage that behavior. Gay marriage will not make a straight man more moral. But forcing gay couples to not marry will not make them more moral either.

[GingerRed]

One of my friends is still using the argument of...."but this still doesn't explain the argument that gay marriages will destroy the institution of marriage" She is not convinced. She wants that question answered.....I'm not sure how to handle that one, are there any links to any studies or something that show this?

[Brenda]

Yes I did read what you read, and if you would like I would be more than glad to comment on your opinion.

So your position is that if we do not allow gays to marry then "more homosexual experimentation and adoption of gay lifestyles" Most of the United States does not allow gay gay marriage. Do you see the gay movement dying or do you see it increasing throughout the United States. I would argue that by you, the churches and others telling the gay community that marriage is not necessary for them that they are sending a message to the straight community as well that marriage is not necessary for them. It may be one of the major reasons why young people fell less need to marry and choose to shack up. After all, if that is the preferred relationship for gay couples, why would it not be a viable alternative for them as well. Pushing gays to shack up pushes others to make the same decision.

I agree with you. Don't we encourage straight people to marry even if they do not plan to have children? In fact don't we encourage straight people to marry even if they CANNOT have children.

You are wrong about gay couples having all the legal protection for their children. Heck, even Utah seems unable to pass basic rights laws for gay people even with the church encouraging such legislation. It is a major reason why most of the United States is fighting for gay marriage. They feel that gay couples deserve the same protection of the law as the rest of the citizens.

What are you talking about here? What choices are gay couples that want to marry lead to splitting a child's bio-parents? Do you think that gay couples are coming in and stealing children to adopt from parents who want their children????

This is hilarious. You are against gay couples marrying, then blame them for not being married???? Come on Brenda.

So your solution is to encourage gay couples to shack up rather than marry? Does this make any sense to you? Really? You are concerned about more divorce because if gay people marry, they may also divorce? Or if gay couples are allowed to marry than straight people will want to divorce? Would you say that straight people should not be allowed to marry because it will lead to more divorce? You have to admit, there is not a lot of logic here.

Okay, obviously I'm not getting through to you. Nor are you understanding what I'm saying. So let me put it this way. Do you see that any child being raised by gay parents either --

1. Has divorced or separated bio-parents,

2. Was conceived via a donor parent, or

3. Was adopted?

Therefore --

1. The child has lost the close association of one parent. This is a huge loss to the child.

2. See anonymousus.org.

3. The child, who might have been adopted by a heterosexual couple, will now be deprived of either a father or mother. More loss. However, to be fair, for those children who might not be adopted, a gay home is better than no home.

In every case, children pay a huge price so that adults' emotional needs are met. How many more children must pay and why is this okay??

[california boy]

Okay, obviously I'm not getting through to you. Nor are you understanding what I'm saying. So let me put it this way. Do you see that any child being raised by gay parents either --

1. Has divorced or separated bio-parents,

2. Was conceived via a donor parent, or

3. Was adopted?

Therefore --

1. The child has lost the close association of one parent. This is a huge loss to the child.

2. See anonymousus.org.

3. The child, who might have been adopted by a heterosexual couple, will now be deprived of either a father or mother. More loss. However, to be fair, for those children who might not be adopted, a gay home is better than no home.

In every case, children pay a huge price so that adults' emotional needs are met. How many more children must pay and why is this okay??

No I understand you completely. You are against gay adoption no matter what the circumstance unless absolutely no straight couple will take the kid. You place gender role above ALL else. And you think that if a gay couple didn't adopt a child, a straight couple would have. And no matter what, any straight couple is better for a child than the very best gay couple. And you feel so strongly about this that you would rather gay couples shack up together rather than allow their families to be in the bonds of marriage. So yeah, I get your position. I just think it is a position that is so bias, you don't see the ridiculous assertion you are making, You think bio-parents are always the best choice for a child. But like Dr. Laura is fond of saying, sometimes bio parents are just sperm donors and are rotten parents. Gender and bio-parents are not the highest criteria of what makes a great parent nor a great family.

And yes I did notice you did not answer my question.

Now a question for you. If there was a married straight couple where the father was a heavy drinker that sometimes turned violent neither had any religious beliefs and both parents worked 10 hours a day and a gay couple who did not have this drinking and violence history and one of them choose to stay home to raise the child, and attending church regularly, which couple should the courts give the child to? And like your question, that was the only choice offered.

That's ok. You would probably choose the drunk abusive father over any gay couple. I get it. I just completely disagree with your position and I feel marriage would strengthen gay families and their children. This is the face of those that you fight against.

[Brenda]

Well you know that in reality both couples are never equal. I think the courts should decide what couple would make the best parents for the child involved. Can gender be factored into that decision? Yes, I have no problem with that. To answer your question more directly, I would be ok with the straight couple adopting the child if everything else was equal. But that is not the position you are arguing. You seem to be against gay couples adopting no matter what and that gender is the OVER RIDING reason for choosing parents for adopted children. I think that is totally wrong, bias and unfounded reasoning. As I am sure you are aware, study after study show that children of gay couples thrive equally to straight couples. But you are willing to dismiss all the studies because you simply have a prejudice against gay couples raising children. You feel shacking up for gay couples is better for their children than allowing them to marry. I hope you seen the illogic of your position.

Of course no couples are completely equal. It's a rhetorical question. Are you saying you'd pick the heterosexual couple?

Gender IS important. It's a major part of our identity. Men and women are fundamentally different, hence fathers and mothers are fundamentally different. You, as a man, cannot be a mother. You can do things that women do, and say things that women say, but you cannot be a women. Children do best with one of each as parents. The studies you claim are still too few and too new. We don't have enough research, and I can cite studies that say the opposite.

You can call me prejudiced, or any other name. The truth is I am advocating for children who deserve to be raised by their own parents. I am advocating that adults put kids first, and not their own desires. I am advocating for unselfishness by only conceiving children within marriage by the two people who commit to stay together to raise that child, which obviously is not possible with two men or two women. I am advocating for adults to be adults and to stop messing with children's lives.

Now a question for you. If there was a married straight couple where the father was a heavy drinker that sometimes turned violent neither had any religious beliefs and both parents worked 10 hours a day and a gay couple who did not have this drinking and violence history and one of them choose to stay home to raise the child, and attending church regularly, which couple should the courts give the child to? And like your question, that was the only choice offered.

I said several posts ago that it is not useful to compare dysfunctional heterosexual parents with functional gay parents. For the sake of this discussion, we need to keep all other factors equal, and focus on a mother and father compared to two fathers or two mothers. Obviously there are great gay parents and lousy bio-parents. That is not the point here.

What would be the best way to handle this situation? The man should marry one of the women he had a child with and try and adopt the other children. Until he forms a stable environment, those children will suffer. Marriage would help in stabilizing that relationship.

This is funny. I am the one arguing that all couples should be able to marry, and you ask me about a straight man who chooses to have children outside the bonds of marriage. I acknowledge that there will be people in this world having children outside of marriage, I just don't feel like society should encourage that behavior. Gay marriage will not make a straight man more moral. But forcing gay couples to not marry will not make them more moral either.

I completely agree that NO ONE should be having children outside of marriage. However, a gay couple cannot conceive a child, whether they are married or not. They MUST involve a third parent, which brings to mind my question to you about polygamy.

I cannot argue about sexual morality without involving religion, which I feel I cannot do here, which is ironic, since this is an LDS forum. You know that I believe that homosexual behavior ... not the desire ... Is wrong and divinely forbidden. God set limits on our behavior for good reasons. If we all honored those limits, most of the problems of this world would disappear. He defined marriage as the framework in which to bring forth and raise children and you just cannot get around the need for a mother and father to make this pos.sible and the inevitable innate ties between them and the child. We as human beings have a natural longing and connection to our roots. Gay parenting, along with all forms of immorality that tamper with procreation, affect those natural human connections. But you will disagree, so there's no point in continuing.

[Brenda]

(From anonymousus.org)

Father's Day 2012

Dear Dad,

I often wonder who you are. What is your name? Are you even still alive? The immutable power of these eternally unanswerable questions gradually consumes my soul. I will never know if I have ever unknowingly passed you in the street, or exchanged a sideways glance with your uncannily familiar brown eyes. In my mind's stagnant whirlpool you are my flawless ideal of a father, yet in the clarity of reality you are no more than a perfect stranger. Simply the pleasure of knowing you exist somewhere in this universe does not bandage the wound of your absence.

I often wonder who I am. My family tree is severed in two- I am denied your half, its branches rich and strong with stories I will never be told. I wander aimlessly, never truly knowing the roots of my heritage, my nationality ambiguous and fluid. 'Caucasian', the sheet stated. This is a broad term that does not define anything.

My half sister is beautiful, inquisitive and innocent. How many half siblings am I linked to through you, biologically as strongly related to me as my sis? That I may have unknowingly met a sibling, or never met one at all, is a plague on my existence. Ever satisfying my curiosity, with the potential existence of these mysterious beings, is beyond my feeble human capabilities.

Dad, what happened all those years ago, on the tumultuous day that decided my existence? What motivated you to make the decision- was it altruistic, or was it simply an efficient and immediate way to fill your wallet? What did you spend your return on- an apologetic necklace for your ex-girlfriend, textbooks for university, or simply a granola bar at the corner store? Was it worth it?

They say you can't miss something that you've never had. But somehow, I miss your fatherly figure, your broad shoulders and strong hands. I miss your warm smile and your deep brown eyes. I miss the way you tousle my hair as you pass me in the hall, the omnipotent power of our father-daughter communicated in your touch. I miss handing you your coffee, black with one sugar. It is my guilty pleasure, indulging in my illusion of perfect functionality.

I no longer count the meaningless Father's Days I have endured, trying to avoid the inevitable questions. There was never anyone to pretend to be my father, so the situation was blindingly obvious. 'Where is your father?' their judgmental eyes say, accusing. I have grown weary of denial and lies.

Having built your life without me, have you dismissed the donation as just something in your past that you did to make ends meet? Does your wife know? Do your children? I would love to think that I am a missing piece of you as much as you are a missing piece of me, but I am under no illusions. As sketchy as my knowledge is, with all I know of your existence bullet pointed on a sheet of paper, you know even less of me. So much that you could easily forget. I understand how the past can be brushed under the rug.

Nevertheless- do you ever think of me? Do I cross your mind in a flitting thought, spinning and weaving the magic of what could have been? Do you wonder when my birthday is? What achievements I've made? What gown I wore to my formal? Whether I like watermelon pink or cerulean blue, Liberal or Labour, Mac or Windows? Would you be proud of who I have become? Dad, I have needed you, more than you ever know. My need for you is an insatiable hunger that will only escalate as I journey through the milestones of life. Who will walk me down the aisle? Who will be the grandfather to caress my first-born child? The uncertainty is deadly.

I just want you to know, that whoever you are, wherever you are, and whatever you are doing, you are my father. The privilege of knowing who you are, of knowing who my family is, would place the missing piece that completes my existence. For now, though, and perhaps forever, I just wish.

[california boy]

Of course no couples are completely equal. It's a rhetorical question. Are you saying you'd pick the heterosexual couple?

Gender IS important. It's a major part of our identity. Men and women are fundamentally different, hence fathers and mothers are fundamentally different. You, as a man, cannot be a mother. You can do things that women do, and say things that women say, but you cannot be a women. Children do best with one of each as parents. The studies you claim are still too few and too new. We don't have enough research, and I can cite studies that say the opposite.

You can call me prejudiced, or any other name. The truth is I am advocating for children who deserve to be raised by their own parents. I am advocating that adults put kids first, and not their own desires. I am advocating for unselfishness by only conceiving children within marriage by the two people who commit to stay together to raise that child, which obviously is not possible with two men or two women. I am advocating for adults to be adults and to stop messing with children's lives.

I said several posts ago that it is not useful to compare dysfunctional heterosexual parents with functional gay parents. For the sake of this discussion, we need to keep all other factors equal, and focus on a mother and father compared to two fathers or two mothers. Obviously there are great gay parents and lousy bio-parents. That is not the point here.

I completely agree that NO ONE should be having children outside of marriage. However, a gay couple cannot conceive a child, whether they are married or not. They MUST involve a third parent, which brings to mind my question to you about polygamy.

I cannot argue about sexual morality without involving religion, which I feel I cannot do here, which is ironic, since this is an LDS forum. You know that I believe that homosexual behavior ... not the desire ... Is wrong and divinely forbidden. God set limits on our behavior for good reasons. If we all honored those limits, most of the problems of this world would disappear. He defined marriage as the framework in which to bring forth and raise children and you just cannot get around the need for a mother and father to make this pos.sible and the inevitable innate ties between them and the child. We as human beings have a natural longing and connection to our roots. Gay parenting, along with all forms of immorality that tamper with procreation, affect those natural human connections. But you will disagree, so there's no point in continuing.

Like I said, I get your belief that gender is THE MOST IMPORTANT issue in raising kids and forcing gay couples to shack up is bettr than having them raise their children in the bonds of marriage. It is just a position I don't agree with.

These are the arguments you are up against, and this is why your position is loosing so badly in the public arena.

When you are forced to say that a convicted murder would make a better parent for a child simply because the child would have a mother and a father than Suze Orman and her partner, your logic has problems with the majority of Americans that believe in fairness.

[california boy]

(From anonymousus.org)

Father's Day 2012

Dear Dad,

I often wonder who you are. What is your name? Are you even still alive? The immutable power of these eternally unanswerable questions gradually consumes my soul. I will never know if I have ever unknowingly passed you in the street, or exchanged a sideways glance with your uncannily familiar brown eyes. In my mind's stagnant whirlpool you are my flawless ideal of a father, yet in the clarity of reality you are no more than a perfect stranger. Simply the pleasure of knowing you exist somewhere in this universe does not bandage the wound of your absence.

I often wonder who I am. My family tree is severed in two- I am denied your half, its branches rich and strong with stories I will never be told. I wander aimlessly, never truly knowing the roots of my heritage, my nationality ambiguous and fluid. 'Caucasian', the sheet stated. This is a broad term that does not define anything.

My half sister is beautiful, inquisitive and innocent. How many half siblings am I linked to through you, biologically as strongly related to me as my sis? That I may have unknowingly met a sibling, or never met one at all, is a plague on my existence. Ever satisfying my curiosity, with the potential existence of these mysterious beings, is beyond my feeble human capabilities.

Dad, what happened all those years ago, on the tumultuous day that decided my existence? What motivated you to make the decision- was it altruistic, or was it simply an efficient and immediate way to fill your wallet? What did you spend your return on- an apologetic necklace for your ex-girlfriend, textbooks for university, or simply a granola bar at the corner store? Was it worth it?

They say you can't miss something that you've never had. But somehow, I miss your fatherly figure, your broad shoulders and strong hands. I miss your warm smile and your deep brown eyes. I miss the way you tousle my hair as you pass me in the hall, the omnipotent power of our father-daughter communicated in your touch. I miss handing you your coffee, black with one sugar. It is my guilty pleasure, indulging in my illusion of perfect functionality.

I no longer count the meaningless Father's Days I have endured, trying to avoid the inevitable questions. There was never anyone to pretend to be my father, so the situation was blindingly obvious. 'Where is your father?' their judgmental eyes say, accusing. I have grown weary of denial and lies.

Having built your life without me, have you dismissed the donation as just something in your past that you did to make ends meet? Does your wife know? Do your children? I would love to think that I am a missing piece of you as much as you are a missing piece of me, but I am under no illusions. As sketchy as my knowledge is, with all I know of your existence bullet pointed on a sheet of paper, you know even less of me. So much that you could easily forget. I understand how the past can be brushed under the rug.

Nevertheless- do you ever think of me? Do I cross your mind in a flitting thought, spinning and weaving the magic of what could have been? Do you wonder when my birthday is? What achievements I've made? What gown I wore to my formal? Whether I like watermelon pink or cerulean blue, Liberal or Labour, Mac or Windows? Would you be proud of who I have become? Dad, I have needed you, more than you ever know. My need for you is an insatiable hunger that will only escalate as I journey through the milestones of life. Who will walk me down the aisle? Who will be the grandfather to caress my first-born child? The uncertainty is deadly.

I just want you to know, that whoever you are, wherever you are, and whatever you are doing, you are my father. The privilege of knowing who you are, of knowing who my family is, would place the missing piece that completes my existence. For now, though, and perhaps forever, I just wish.

So do you want me to start posting letters from children of gay parents that say they never needed a dad because what was most important to them was the love they got from their two moms? This person doesn't even state that he was raised by gay parents. Do you really think that dueling antidotal evidence is proof of the truth of an argument?

[Damien the Leper]

Inappropriate.

[Brenda]

This is classic. Leftism has always been bent on demonizing the right. And they are masters at checking reason, facts, and mutual respect at the door, and then commencing to sling the mud.

[thesometimesaint]

So we're to tolerate intolerance?

[Brenda]

So do you want me to start posting letters from children of gay parents that say they never needed a dad because what was most important to them was the love they got from their two moms? This person doesn't even state that he was raised by gay parents. Do you really think that dueling antidotal evidence is proof of the truth of an argument?

And this case wasn't necessarily about gay parenting. It's about the loss of a bio-parent, poignantly expressing that deep yearning to know one's roots. Gay homes involve the loss of a parent, in one way or another. It's unavoidable, unless you add in group marriage.

I advocate that as much as possible, every child have two loving parents, and NO loss of a bio-parent along with half of one's genetic history. No one will ever lament the absence of a 2nd mother, or a 2nd father, if they have a loving, functional mom and dad. But many will lament the loss of a mom or dad, if they never were allowed to have one. Maybe not all, but many will. You cannot deny this.

[rockpond]

And this case wasn't necessarily about gay parenting. It's about the loss of a bio-parent, poignantly expressing that deep yearning to know one's roots. Gay homes involve the loss of a parent, in one way or another. It's unavoidable, unless you add in group marriage.

I advocate that as much as possible, every child have two loving parents, and NO loss of a bio-parent along with half of one's genetic history. No one will ever lament the absence of a 2nd mother, or a 2nd father, if they have a loving, functional mom and dad. But many will lament the loss of a mom or dad, if they never were allowed to have one. Maybe not all, but many will. You cannot deny this.

I'm not aware of anyone who at some point in their life didn't feel the loss of someone they loved or might have loved.

And, yes, it would be wonderful if we could assure that every child had a loving, secure two-parent home with equally loved siblings (since some only children also feel a void). Until then, what to do?

[Brenda]

We see the LDS feminists expressing a strong yearning to know more about their Mother in Heaven. Why? Why are they not content with just their Father? This is what I am talking about. There is something deep within many women's hearts, to know their mother. All the fathers in the world, cannot fill that void. And I would guess that longing is there in men's hearts also. If we only knew about our Mother in Heaven, then we'd long to know our Father. This complex emotional need is part of what makes us human and sets us above animals. Again, not all feel the need as intensely as others. But I do not believe any of us lack it completely.