This!!!!!!

I have never met a single gay person that chose to be gay, myself included. I would never choose to be descrimintated. It just happened at birth. I've known since at least age 3 that I was gay. It's no big deal, and yet, I'm still kinda scared, because every single day I see people hating on gays, and I'm afraid I'll be made fun of or beaten up over the way I was born. ugh. ;-;

I personally would replace the concept of marriage across the board in the legal system with civil unions.  Leave marriage as a religious thing and have the legal paperwork as "civil unions".

Me and whoever the mod was, didn't agree. Ambiguity will not save you ...

Also I'm pretty sure you were banned because of the other stuff you said in your post.

Is your point that gay couples can't socialize their children in a environment where conventional gender roles are in place? Men and women being in their respective roles, or there being two different roles instead of one?

There's so many problems though, especially if this was going to be legislation.

What are the roles each gender have? Do we make sure hetrosexuals adopt those roles, or do we just assume they'll be carried out? Who decides what the gender roles are?

What about single parents, where only one gender role will be present (one mother, one father). Why not two fathers/mothers?

Why not teach children of responsibilities regardless of gender? Boys should clean up too, girls should aspire to become self sufficient?

Why not accept that sexuality is natural, and that that being so, children will end up straight or homosexual regardless of parentage. Homosexuals developed from hetrosexual couples, why can't hetrosexual couples arise from homosexual?

But you just said "gay" wasn't an insult >.< You can't be self-righteous and flip flop.

You also can't claim to be a mind reader, nor use "ambiguity" as a proof. When there is vagueness or openness, you have to present proof to support the one possibility you consider. In fact, I can't believe you use ambiguity as some sort of indicator or proof of my guilt when it is the very opposite.

If a child is gay, then it is very possible that them being raised by gay paretns would ebt e4h best thing.  I would say, irregardless of orientation, the ever rare "normal" man and woman in a happy marriage is likely the best, so the child gets to see both genders as adults is likely the best form.  The issue with single parents is they only get one.  With homosexual parents, they also get one again (in stereo).  Of course, if people want to argue that gender roles are irrelevant, than fine.  One thing one can say about the two parents is that it teaches children through modeling, how to end up raising their own family.

Ok, the main thing here is my concern is the idea of "right" being the basis of this.  When it comes to adoption, the ONLY concern should be who would be best to raise the children.  NOTHING ELSE MATTERS HERE.  When children become some sort of accessory that is used to enable a person to have their "rights" or get "life satisfaction" or "purpose" it is so incredibly backwards, words have a hard time describing how self-serving and wrong it is.  Children aren't pets one has for gratification, or to "get love".  And raising children is a responsibility that needs to be done, for the betterment of everyone here.  But, keep on arguing from a "rights" mindset, and children become playthings which are used to meet the longings and whims of adults.

If a child is gay, then it is very possible that them being raised by gay paretns would ebt e4h best thing.  I would say, irregardless of orientation, the ever rare "normal" man and woman in a happy marriage is likely the best, so the child gets to see both genders as adults is likely the best form.  The issue with single parents is they only get one.  With homosexual parents, they also get one again (in stereo).  Of course, if people want to argue that gender roles are irrelevant, than fine.  One thing one can say about the two parents is that it teaches children through modeling, how to end up raising their own family.

Ok, the main thing here is my concern is the idea of "right" being the basis of this.  When it comes to adoption, the ONLY concern should be who would be best to raise the children.  NOTHING ELSE MATTERS HERE.  When children become some sort of accessory that is used to enable a person to have their "rights" or get "life satisfaction" or "purpose" it is so incredibly backwards, words have a hard time describing how self-serving and wrong it is.  Children aren't pets one has for gratification, or to "get love".  And raising children is a responsibility that needs to be done, for the betterment of everyone here.  But, keep on arguing from a "rights" mindset, and children become playthings which are used to meet the longings and whims of adults.

Religion didn't invent marriage, why should it be exclusive to it?

Why does a marriage need to be something done by governments?  That is what I am talking about.  People don't need government to get married to one another,or pick who to couple with.  You can say the wedding vow with anyone you want, and choose to live by it.  Religion has codified the rituals, and standardize the meaning in it.

To go beyond this is to end up getting into a discussion of whether or not government or religion came first. 

Hmm, maybe the gender role question should be left to professional sociologist, rather than us. But would you be against single parents, being that they are "mono"?

I think you're misinterpreting things here. The people celebrating aren't celebrating as if gay parents can now just adopt with no questions asked. The thing was that there was not even a possibility they could adopt, fit or not. I agree that gay parents should be held to the same standards as hetrosexual parents who would like to adopt, if they are suited or not. I think all agree here.

The only barrier now, is that you believe that being gay itself makes you inadequate to be a parent.