Where's your brother then? Over your shoulder?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions even if others don´t like it.

They should not allow it to be called marriage. Some legal unity, partner registration I am fine with, but in that case polygamy should be allowed too. And siblings should be allowed to register partnership with each other and so on. And maybe even a child with his mother (as long as he's an adult), but wouldn't that be awkward? You see the point. Are you all pro-gay marriage people in favor of polygamy and in favor of a son marrying his mother?

And about the right to adopt, society isn't ready yet for gay couples to adopt kids. Being adopted is very sensitive. The suicide rate among adopted kids is much higher than among other kids. You burden these children too much by risking them to get bullied for having gay parents.

Bravo Argentina. Excellent decision.

Why not? I'm pro-gay marriage and in favour of polygamy, I don't really see the taboo. And whilst I personally find the idea of incest repulsive, I'm not going to demand that these people have less right to be together than any other two people, because like everyone else they should have the right to love whoever they want.

Mind you, in my opinion all relationships akin to marriage should be a civil union, and a marriage should only be recognised by the institution that grants it. This way a marriage holds no more rights than a civil union, it is is only a recognition of  relationship by an independent group.

If Islam, christianity and other religions want to be bogged down by millennia old dogmas about homosexuality and not recognise the relationships, then so be it. Just as long as they don't affect the rights of the homosexuals to love who they want.

...

And as brought up already, the right for gay couples to adopt will become more accepted as it becomes more normal. As with anything controversial it's not going to be accepted straight away by the masses, but in time it will be accepted as the norm.

Besides I know of a few people whose parents have come out as homosexual after they born, and they live with either two mothers or two fathers. By that reasoning should we deem those parents who already have children, but have realised their sexual preference, as less capable parents as those who are heterosexual? Going to the extreme, should we take their children off them for being homosexual and give them to heterosexual couples? Of course not.

If you were young and going to be adopted would you choose a gay couple over a straight couple? No. I am for the introduction but I think it would be such a burden upon families that it could beceom unbearable for the child. The last thing someone wants is to stand out in that way...

Well, I'm not going to rob you of your opinion that homosexual adoption shouldn't be allowed as you have a valid point, but I don't think writing off homosexual couples adopting children as burdensome for the adopted child is particularly fair, even though I can see your point about children having a tougher time (bullies, etc).

In many respects there are dozens of situations where the relationship between a child and their parents are burdensome on the child, inside and outside of adoption. An example being single parents, whose children would have many burdens on them coming from financial and social factors. But that is no reason to condemn the model of the family.

Also, many of the problems with homosexual marriage seem to stem from social issues external from the family. This was also once true of complex families when this family model was seen as a disgrace; but now complex families are accepted as normal, and the burden on the child is considerably less than it once was, this would be true of families with homosexual parents.

I'm not so sure about this. Some of the kids are too young to really know the difference; they'll know it's weird to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies, but that's it. By the time they're old enough to know and care, it's no longer a matter of adoption by a gay couple versus a straight one; the burden in the system would make it closer to a gay couple versus not being adopted. And at that point, it's considerably less clear which route the child will choose. Presumably, the child will be able to talk and express their preference also; I can't see a gay couple wanting to adopt someone who's completely against the idea.

And for the family burden, I maintain that it's not as much a burden as you think. Working with kids in my job, I can say that yes, there is an increased chance of the kid being picked on in school, but there are so many categories there, as mentioned in other posts. And, it seems as though some of the kids do it as the "in" thing, but there are also quite a few who do it because they don't know anyone who is gay. I've seen some of the ones who used to pick on being gay, not to an individual, but in a general sense, stop when they find out one of their friends is. Of course, this is a limited case; not all of them stop, but again, I think things will all work out in the end.

What exactly do u mean by civil union? Does that mean that, unlike today, there would be no governmental involvement with any partnership - no judicial or economical matters, no inheritance between couples? From the governments point of view all citizens are looked upononly as individuals?

I'll wait for your definition before I reply.

Does this mean that from now on they'll peacefully fuck off each other instead of fucking off savers all over the world with their junk bonds? Great day indeed...    

Anyway, I BLAME TANGO!!!