You can come with all kinds of reasons why one family arrangement is more or less ideal, but the fact is, kids will be in ALL KINDS of families, including single-parent households, and they'll do just fine. And one-man/one-woman households hardly guarantee great child-rearing.<br><br>If you want the government to intervene in factors that make parenting less then some perfect ideal, there are a lot bigger factors to start with than gay marriage.<br><br>So rather than look for complex socio-political reasons why it's OK for a kid to have one mommy and no daddy, but NOT OK to have two mommies.... why don't we support ALL families? All loving couples deserve equal treatment under the law, and all kids deserve to SEE their parents treated equally.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

BTW, Google deserves some credit too! (Though I'm not sure they're putting any money behind their stance--which is too bad, with all the money that has been put behind the highly deceitful pro-8 ads.)<br><br>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html<br><br>And of course, a third well-respected technology organization deserves some credit too. I refer of course to the MacMinute forums! Despite all the fear/hate/hope/love on both sides of this, discussion has been productive and interesting and free of name-calling! No easy feat on the Internet. So, credit where it's due!<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The term "marriage" and the way they've been chosen and carried out has not been static for all those years--it has evolved hugely.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Its central requirements have remained the same worldwide for as long as anyone knows - the consummated ceremonial union of one man and one woman. Societies are going to get into all sorts of trouble if they abandon distinctions and start calling analogous things by the same name. A surgeon who calls for a scalpel in a life-saving operation wants to be handed a scalpel not a lancet because the difference could be dangerous but what I would say is this... a lancet is not worse than a scalpel - it just happens to be not exactly the same.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I really get the sense that people are grasping for SOME reason to oppose gay marriage, when their real motivation is emotional, and rooted in dislike of those who are different<p><hr></blockquote><p>You can count me out of that - just because someone's a berk doesn't mean they're gay and just because someone's smart and funny doesn't mean they're straight. What I have noticed though is a lot of hypocrisy by all the luvvies who promote or profess indifference to homosexuality but then discriminate against gays for example by greeting all women with a kiss, or two, but gay men with no more than a handshake - and I'll tell you why as well... because all true heterosexuals recoil from the suggestion of sexual and emotional familiarity with a person of the same sex - and that is truly evolutionary.<br><br>km<br><br>

<br>One can disagree with something, or be concerned about certain developments, without immediately asking for government intervention. That kind of religious fascism is the forte of US-fundamentalists or Taleban.<br><br>HOWEVER, one also must not support what one considers dangerous and I do consider the increasing feminization of our western societies dangerous. At last, some social scientists are speaking out about the results: academic failure among boys at an alarming rate, lack of social adaptation and heightened frustration-violence.<br><br>One underlying stereotype promoted by the feminist movement for the past 4 decades, has been the uncaring, unable to verbalize, oppressive male, who is not only to blame for millennia of supposed discrimination against women, but who also - the lesbian marriages are perhaps the most glaring manifestation - basically no longer needed, as long as there are sperm banks.<br>This mix of being declared insensitive and guilty at the same time, has affected younger males a great deal more than many have believed. <br>"Getting in touch with my feminine side" is only half a joke, because virtually all schooling - from Kindergarten on - is based on the "non-violent" patterns used by women. Yet, should a man display fatherly closeness, he will immediately be looked at with great suspicion. After all, supposedly, 1/3 of all girls have been abused. By the same token, harmless rough play, or horsing around, which a few decades still fell under "boys will be boys" is no longer accepted, driving boys into behaviour which very well may not be ideal for their development.<br><br>As a single father raising a 14-year-old daughter, I am part of a minority as well, since family courts generally "give" kids to their mothers. Katrina and her friends think that's pretty cool, because our household clearly and defiantly shows the lack of "feminine touch". Her best friend lives in a two-women household, with the father very much in the picture as well.<br>If the child remains the focus, I think many living arrangements will be okay, from a village to a single parent.<br> <br>But when the child becomes part of a personal fulfillment (and his father a priori is excluded), as is the case when lesbians want to get inseminated, I have the same basic problems as when a child is reduced to "a personal health decision". Nothing I can do about that, but definitely a point for me, where the seemingly boundless principle of individual rights is running afoul of larger streams. <br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

[color:blue]--it harms kids too, when they see their parents treated as a second and lesser class of people.</font color=blue><br><br>Bingo!<br>Which is why I think that lesbian impregnation is a selfish motivation, aimed at side-tracking nature and society at the same time.<br><br>If one of the homosexual partners has a child already, and if the child's wishes enter into the decision, I have no problems. As I stated in another post, Katrina's best friend lives in such a household.<br>But purposefully placing a child into such a situation - without the child ever having a chance at meeting his/her father - that is a different matter altogether. It's a case of having one's cake and eating it, too.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

<br>[color:blue]....because all true heterosexuals recoil from the suggestion of sexual and emotional familiarity with a person of the same sex - and that is truly evolutionary.</font color=blue><br><br>Methinks, you are mixing culture with evolution here, old chap. <br>There are billions of perfectly heterosexual men and women, who do not share that phobia. <br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

<br>... but then, perhaps that Civil Union thing could also be of interest to heteros?<br>A union with a few less strings and binds? I could see people like Madonna or McCartney opting for something less costly. ;)<br>So, instead of setting up a second tier legality for gays only, how about an across the board alternative to conventional marriage?<br><br>Let gays be trailblazers instead of party to this never-ending fight for definitions.<br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There are billions of perfectly heterosexual men and women, who do not share that phobia. <p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm only explaining what I see - if people don't have such a phobia they should greet men and women just the same - with a kiss - not a kiss for one and a handshake for the other - you presumably have noticed something different?<br><br>km<br><br>

[color:blue]you presumably have noticed something different?</font color=blue><br><br>Definitely! I live on the Continent. <br><br>Besides, a phobia, isn't part of the evolutionary avoidance system, but rather a somewhat irrational and neurotic fear, akin of paranoia.<br><br>I think it therefore reveals more about the general comfort with physical closeness than making homophobia a natural stance. Young Italian or French males, who consider themselves and feel entirely hetero, quite normally hug, kiss and walk hand-in-hand. <br>Seems that some cultures are just particularly worried their sexuality might not survive any close encounters of the 3rd kind.<br>So, go ahead, km, next time, give the guy a hug..... you might like it! ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Besides, a phobia, isn't part of the evolutionary avoidance system<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well it was your word not mine - I only ran with it out of politeness. I'm taking about social conventions that societies have evolved to take account of sexual differences which are ignored by those who argue for recognition of two equivalent and alternative forms of sexuality. If that's true a person's gender should make no difference in any situation - there'd be 'changing rooms' not men only changing rooms and women only changing rooms and everyone would get the kiss without discrimination based on gender. I s'pose you're tell me next that men and women in Germany all share the same public conveniences? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So, go ahead, km, next time, give the guy a hug..... you might like it! ;)<p><hr></blockquote><p> Uggh! Not if George Michael's about, mate. <br><br>km<br><br>