Gay Marriage

[JonnieB]

OK lets start a really donny-brook here The question: Is "marriage" between two people of the same sex a civil right, or just a pathetic attempt by certain segments of the gay community to ape the dysfunctional patterns of social behavior of the majority population of opposite-sex couples they see around them?

From my phrasing of the question, you can probably get an inkling of my opinions on this matter

Now, I understand that certain rights accrue to couples that are married that are not accorded to non-married people. However, these are really few and far between and in my view, and not that important. Most of what is truly important (legal matters regarding personal and real property) can be dealt with in legal documents between two people outside of marriage.

Any supposed benefits of same-sex marriage are certainly not worth the cost of adopting and aping a pathetic breeder institution that itself is in hopeless decline. I mean, would you buy a ticket on the Titanic if you knew it was going to sink...but you knew 50% of the passengers would be saved. Would you take those odds? For the life of me, why would some segments of our community race to embrace, adopt, and demand it for themselves? I mean, anything that has a 50% failure rate is not a very well designed and functional, let alone useful, product. Would you buy a car that had a 50% probability of completely breaking down and being unfix-able within a few years, or buy a house that had a 50% chance of falling down on you while you slept, or eat in a resto where you knew the chance of catching food poisoning was 50%. I think not. Why then do so many of you my brothers clammer for the right to "marry."

To me, the very idea of "marriage," and all it entails, is antithetic to the gay persona and lifestyle. I can understand that certain people have the need for a steady partner or being in a committed relationship (whatever that is) and that is fine. You are free to live in that manner as it suits you, and arrange your personal and legal affairs to suit your needs. However, why do you also want another piece of paper that says you are "married." Why to you crave the approval of your straight friends, neighbors, an co-workers, etc? Why do you feel the need to say to them: "See, we are just like you guys...we have a silly piece of paper that says we're married. Therefore, we're just like you and not a threat to you and your children and we want to be just like you straight people...buy a house, get in over our heads with a sub-prime mortgage, and adopt 2.1 children."

Maybe you haven't realized it, but you are not like them...you are gay!!! You have and enjoy sexual relations and have your most important emotional attachments to members of your own sex. You are quite different to around 90% of the people around you! An institution that evolved for that other 90%... for the accumulation of assets between families and legitimize their children is not something I would think you should be seeking to emulate or adopt.

On a practical level, the political drive for the right to marry interferes with other more important progressive goals. Here I am speaking about the case in the great democracy and defender of human rights around the world..the USA (my home country). These include the drive for universal health care, ending the war in Iraq and militarization of society in general, and other progressive goals. Instead of tackling these issues, when some segments of the gay community press for marriage rights, the opposition can just tar their opponents as too liberal and "pro-gay" lifestyle folks and avoid discussing the the really important issues facing the country.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for strong civil-rights laws and protections for ALL people. However, I just don't see the right to "marry" as being one of them. It is something we should be thankful not to have and happy to reject.

[PeaceBlondie]

I haven't read all of the opening post, but I generally agree that it's foolish to follow a fatally flawed institution that is the dodo bird of civilization.

I felt this way in 1998, and more so today. I advised a guy yesterday that if he did not need a live-in lover, just send his laundry out weekly and hire a maid to come by once a week.

[farang prince]

A married friend of mine once said that he supported the idea of gay marriages. "Why should hetero men be the only one's who are miserable?" he said. Hmmmm. Food for thought. My partner and I are very happy with the concept of civil unions.

Edited August 24, 2007 by farang prince

[samtam]

A Civil Partnership is not a marriage. It does afford the two (same sex) parties 1) same benfits on inheritance tax as those afforded to married couples - viz none, and 2) the next of kin rights regarding visitation, decisions regarding prolonging life etc. For me these two rights are extremely important. But then after 22 years in the same relationship, I thought it was wise to address these two points, (the first of which is not covered by an ordinary Will). As far as other points regarding "marriage", I agree it is of course a man-made institution, which has its faults.

[samtam]

And in fact of the other gay friends I have who have entered into a Civil Partnership, none of them has ever referred to it as getting married, nor have they advertised their relationship as anything different from that which went before they took this legal step.

[ProThaiExpat]

Whether "marriage", as understood by most, is desirable as an institution, is not the subject of my post.

Equal rights is. When a secular government treats its citizens differently, the unequal treatment should be corrected.

It would be a simple matter to use the term "civil union" correctly and have the government treat men and women equally, in who they can join in a "civil union".

Without being gender specific, laws presently in place that refer to "marriage",wherever they are found, need only be changed to the term "civil union" and leave marriage to the churches to use as they deem proper.

Thus all citizens, of a country governed by a secular government, should be able to enter into a "civil union" with the opposite sex or with their same sex with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that incurs. That is equality. The government merely issues a civil union license, once the couple satisfies the laws on health, etc. currently in place for "marriages".

Those, like OP, who abhor the idea of joining together with another person in a "civil union", regardless of the gender of the joining persons, are free to stay away from it. To base an argument for or against civil rights on a personal distaste for a secular governments legal recognition of a legal status is mixing equality under the law with personal distaste for a clearly majority endorsed legal status.

[Jingthing]

Of course gay marriage should be legal.

If that isn't possible right away, civil unions are an OK compromise.

It is simply about equal rights.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. I don't think gays would marry at the same rate as heteros if it was legal.

For some people, it is needed very badly. For example, those hoping to take a Thai lover back to the US.

[ProThaiExpat]

Cogently said, jingthing.

As to the last half of your last sentence, even if states enact the law as modeled in my post, the federal government controls immigration so congress would have to get on the bandwagon if Thai lovers are going to get equal rights with their heterosexual counterparts.

There are paresently about 125 congressment who have signed onto a equal rights bill granting same sex partners the same immigration rights as straights, but it will take a democratic congress under a democratic president to make it happen. Many countries, such as Australia, do not permit gay "marriage" but allow same sex partnership immigration.

[jumnien]

The idea of gay marriage is absurd to me. Why shouldn't two or three or four straight guys be allowed to marry if they want to? Why this emphasis on the government certifying relationships based on sexual behaviour? Monosexual marriage, maybe. Gay marriage, never!

[Jingthing]

The idea of gay marriage is absurd to me. Why shouldn't two or three or four straight guys be allowed to marry if they want to? Why this emphasis on the government certifying relationships based on sexual behaviour? Monosexual marriage, maybe. Gay marriage, never!

Funny ideas you have.

Are you making the sheep argument? Allow men to marry men and the next thing you know some guy will want to marry a sheep?

Simply most gay people just want to have the exact same choices as everyone else. In this case, the option to marry the ONE HUMAN that they want to commit to. It is about so much more than sex!

Edited August 24, 2007 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

sunrise07: your entitled to your opinion even if it ebraces a denial of civil rights. 87% of Americans were against inter-racial marriage when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. At the present time, about 50% of Americans are against gay marriage, although not nearly so many are against the second class status of partnership registration for gays. I wonder how many falang married to Thai ladies, who hold the same opinion as you do against gay marriage, would feel if they were living in the U.S. when it was illegal to marry outside your own race,before the Supreme Court gave them the right to marry their wives.

It is easy enough to talk on an intellectual level about equal rights, but here is a news article published today that puts a human face on the issue:

"San Francisco, California) Marvin Burrows and life partner William Swenor thought they had done everything necessary to ensure for each other's financial future should either of them die.

The Hayward, California couple, together for 51 years, registered as domestic partners under the state law and in 2004 were married in San Francisco. The marriage was one of hundreds of same-sex marriages later annulled by the California Supreme Court but their domestic partnership remained intact.

Then suddenly in 2005, Swenor died.

When Burrows applied for the pension benefits left by Swenor the Industrial Employers and Distributors Association and Warehouse Union rejected the claim on the grounds the couple had not married and under federal law their relationship was invalid.

As a result, Burrows had to leave the home that he and Swenor had shared for many years and was left completely destitute.

Assisted by the National Center for Lesbian Rights Burrows for two years fought the union, and this week learned he had won.

The ILWU has informed NCLR that it had changed its policy to provide registered domestic partners with the same pension benefits as spouses.

The ILWU also agreed to make this change retroactive to March 1, 2005, thereby enabling Burrows to receive his deceased partner's pension benefits.

"I am overwhelmed and excited that I will receive what Bill promised me in case he passed away before me," said Burrows in a statement.

"Finally our community is being recognized, and my 51 years with Bill will mean something to others, not just me. I know Bill is smiling down on me today."

The union decision applies only two ILWU locals in northern California with about 5,500 members but NCLR said that the problem faced by Burrows is all to common for gay and lesbian couples.

"Marvin and Bill's story is unfortunately all-too-common, as, like the rest of the population, a significant portion of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community grows older," said NCLR Elder Law Project Coordinator Joyce Pierson.

"For surviving heterosexual spouses, marriage automatically ensures access to pension and retirement benefits ... We should not forget, however, that the vast majority of same-sex partners in California still do not have this protection."

The issue of same-sex marriage in California is currently before both the legislature and the state Supreme Court."[/i][/i]

The elected representatives of all Californians, the California Senate and Assembly enacted legislation in 2006 legalizing same sex marriage. The Republican Govenor, Terminator Schwarznegger, vetoed the legislation. Bush has likewise announced his personal decision to deny gays equal rights under Federal Law.

Edited August 24, 2007 by ProThaiExpat

[jumnien]

I just think two people or three people who love each other and want to maximize their tax advantages should be able to do so. I don't like the idea of the government forcing people to qualify themselves based on their sexual proclivities. And why should straight men be so brutally excluded from this gay marriage thing?

[Jingthing]

I just think two people or three people who love each other and want to maximize their tax advantages should be able to do so. I don't like the idea of the government forcing people to qualify themselves based on their sexual proclivities. And why should straight men be so brutally excluded from this gay marriage thing?

I think you are being silly and if trying to be funny are not very funny. In countries with legal gay marriage, a straight man could marry a straight man. Just as many gay men marry gay women, or gay men marry straight women. The latter is very common! So heteros are included in gay marriage. Satisfied now?

Edited August 24, 2007 by Jingthing

[jumnien]

If heteros are included then perhaps it would be better to call it same-sex marriage.

[Jingthing]

If heteros are included then perhaps it would be better to call it same-sex marriage.

The terms are interchangeable. Did you seriously think there would be an orientation test when applying for a marriage license?

[jumnien]

The terms are absolutely not interchangeable. Gay is a term that has been applied primarily to homosexuals and happy people for centuries and 99% of people surveyed would think gay marriage is for gay people. Who determines who is gay? Do you have to admit to being gay to qualify for the tax break? How gay? Should people be required to admit they are straight to be married traditionally? My god, I never would have been born if my father was means-tested for heterosexual marriage. To apply these draconian standards now is absurd! Leave the gay part out of it and allow people, real live breathing people to marry if its advantageous taxwise.

[Jingthing]

You have become tiresome. Arguing over nothing. There is no such thing as a sex orientation test for any kind of marriage. Its just two people who decide to do it.

[Tyke]

It's all about equality, irrespective of whether marriage is good, necessary or whatever.

Also, what about pension rights in civil partnerships? They cannot be left in a will - only inherited by a legally recognised partner/spouse. Silly boy.

[JonnieB]

A Civil Partnership is not a marriage. It does afford the two (same sex) parties 1) same benfits on inheritance tax as those afforded to married couples - viz none, and 2) the next of kin rights regarding visitation, decisions regarding prolonging life etc. For me these two rights are extremely important.

Sammy Babie...The main problem I have with your basic approach is that it buys into the whole social/political/legal structure of the opposite-sex community. That structure was developed by said community to fit THEIR needs and wants. (And it isn't even doing a very good job at that.) What relevance is such a structure to the gay ethos and lifestyle? Seems to me you are trying to fit a square peg in a round whole...believe me, it's much more satisfying when you slip a round peg into a round whole

However, granted, we do have to make the best of accepting the reality of the world in which we find ourselves. If you want to reduce our essence to the importance of inheritance tax benefits, that's up to you. If this is such a concern for you, it's possible to own assets jointly, therefore, with the death of one owner, the other is still the owner. [The step-up issue I assume you are referring too applies most often in cases where spouses and/or children inherit asset's that were owned as separate property by the deceased. If they are owned jointly to begin with, there will be no taxable event at the death of one owner.] As to medical decision making and visitation, these can be dealt with through the use of living wills. In addition, at least as to visitation, most health care providers have formal or informal mechanisms to make provision in such matters.

Edited August 25, 2007 by JonnieB

[peekint]

My husband, Somsak (Tom) and I were married in San Francisco just before Valentine's Day 2004. Of course, the marriage was annulled by the California Supreme court a few short months after, but it was the most moving and uplifting experience you can imagine. We were married on the grand staircase of San Francisco City Hall by a State Assemblyman (Mark Leno - the sponsor of the Same Sex Marriage bill in California) amid thousands of cheering supporters.

Tom and I had already been "married" in fact, if not in law, for over ten years.

My point is that, whatever your personal view on whether or not YOU want to get married - because you think it is an outdated institution, a worn out relic, a hampering of your sexual prowess or the origin of your sexual repression - to deny us our right to make the choice to be married is just plain mean-spirited.

The legal benefits accruing from marriage in the United States are easy to find on the web (see, for example, http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm ) so I won't go into them here. I will just note that the concept of marriage is so inherently entwined in the western legal framework that there is no possibility of setting up a "separate but equal" system which accrues all the same rights and benefits of marriage without using the same processes and procedures, and yes, name.

Asian law is somewhat different. There is no "religious" marriage in Buddhism, though several traditional ceremonies and blessings have been adapted for the purpose, so one seldom finds the godly indignation on the subject you hear in the west. Marriage has generally been ruled by family. Government only entered into the administration of marriage in this century, introducing simple rules for disposition of assets on dissolution, inheritance, child care, and fiscal responsibility. Asian governments have been much more active in using marriage as an opportunity to limit the rights of women and foreigners, than as a tool for granting privilege.

(As an aside, our marriage is completely recognized by our families here and in the States, by our local temple and monks, and even by the local government folks in our Amphur!)

In the end, my argument is that whether the legal status of marriage is beneficial, as it arguably is in Western countries, or disadvantageous, as it might be in Asian countries, I believe it is my right to choose whether or not to take advantage of the benefits or suffer the disadvantages. Its not for lonely old maids and dour zealots (of whatever gender or sexual orientation) to make the decision for me.

Edited August 25, 2007 by peekint

[endure]

A Civil Partnership is not a marriage. It does afford the two (same sex) parties 1) same benfits on inheritance tax as those afforded to married couples - viz none, and 2) the next of kin rights regarding visitation, decisions regarding prolonging life etc. For me these two rights are extremely important.

Sammy Babie...The main problem I have with your basic approach is that it buys into the whole social/political/legal structure of the opposite-sex community. That structure was developed by said community to fit THEIR needs and wants. (And it isn't even doing a very good job at that.) What relevance is such a structure to the gay ethos and lifestyle? Seems to me you are trying to fit a square peg in a round whole...believe me, it's much more satisfying when you slip a round peg into a round whole

However, granted, we do have to make the best of accepting the reality of the world in which we find ourselves. If you want to reduce our essence to the importance of inheritance tax benefits, that's up to you. If this is such a concern for you, it's possible to own assets jointly, therefore, with the death of one owner, the other is still the owner. [The step-up issue I assume you are referring too applies most often in cases where spouses and/or children inherit asset's that were owned as separate property by the deceased. If they are owned jointly to begin with, there will be no taxable event at the death of one owner.] As to medical decision making and visitation, these can be dealt with through the use of living wills. In addition, at least as to visitation, most health care providers have formal or informal mechanisms to make provision in such matters.

What is the 'gay ethos and lifestyle'? Perhaps you could define it for us so that we can see whether we agree with the way you choose to describe us all. As far as taxable events and medical visitation are concerned they vary country by country. In the UK the death of one partner in a same-sex relationship which doesn't have the benefit of a Civil Partnership may well require the other partner to sell the house to pay death duties.

[JonnieB]

A Civil Partnership is not a marriage. It does afford the two (same sex) parties 1) same benfits on inheritance tax as those afforded to married couples - viz none, and 2) the next of kin rights regarding visitation, decisions regarding prolonging life etc. For me these two rights are extremely important.

Sammy Babie...The main problem I have with your basic approach is that it buys into the whole social/political/legal structure of the opposite-sex community. That structure was developed by said community to fit THEIR needs and wants. (And it isn't even doing a very good job at that.) What relevance is such a structure to the gay ethos and lifestyle? Seems to me you are trying to fit a square peg in a round whole...believe me, it's much more satisfying when you slip a round peg into a round whole

What is the 'gay ethos and lifestyle'? Perhaps you could define it for us so that we can see whether we agree with the way you choose to describe us all. As far as taxable events and medical visitation are concerned they vary country by country. In the UK the death of one partner in a same-sex relationship which doesn't have the benefit of a Civil Partnership may well require the other partner to sell the house to pay death duties.

Well, it's a rainbow of colour...a many splendid thing...maybe impossible to put into words. But one thing (IMHO) it's not is trying to ape the norms and customs or opposite-sex society. Sure, we can take what is good from said society and culture and use/adapt it for our own. However, my basic point is that we are called to be set apart from that culture. To be in it but not of it as the old saying goes.

Our culture is called to be open and free...not confined and restricted, which to me is the definition of "marriage." I mean, geez, just like the straigties, we now have a high gay divorce rate as well. The same social pathologies that plague same-sex couples we have brought down on ourselves. I remember smirking to myself when it was reported that the first legally married gay couple in my country, the USA (a lesbian couple from New Hampshire if memory serves me right) had filed for divorce. This was something like 2 or 3 years after their "marriage." In any case, I just don't see how marriage fits in with the needs and wants of most gay people.

The other problem I have, as mentioned before, is that the vocal pro-gay marriagers give the impression that this is like the number 1 demand of all gay people. Then, of course, all our liberal-minded hangers-on, in their patranizing manner, adopt this pposition as well. Like, who the #*%$ appointed these people to speak for me (and others like me). I seem to recall polls of the gay community (again I am referring to back in the USA) where majorities of us were against it.

Now, if Peekint wants to stand on the steps of San Francisco city-hall and perform a useless political stunt, that's up to him. I am happy he is happy, even if I feel for his pathetic need to "fit-it" with the straighties and his monkey-see monkey-do attitude. But it's his choice.

[farang prince]

JonnieB, I can see where you like to tilt at windmills. In an earlier life, you were Sancho Panza, weren't you? The reality of life is that many of us would like to provide legal protection for our partners. This is not a right brain thought...it is a left brain thought...legal practicum. If you want to stand outside society and flail away, go right ahead. But my partner and I entered into a legal union in order to protect ourselves under the law that we live in -- straight law. Until we are the majority (we won't live to see the day), then that is the reality that we find outselves today. Live with it.

[bibendum]

The other problem I have, as mentioned before, is that the vocal pro-gay marriagers give the impression that this is like the number 1 demand of all gay people. Then, of course, all our liberal-minded hangers-on, in their patranizing manner, adopt this pposition as well. Like, who the #*%$ appointed these people to speak for me (and others like me). I seem to recall polls of the gay community (again I am referring to back in the USA) where majorities of us were against it.

Well said, JonnieB.

Few things irritate me more than minority activists who claim to speak for the entire gay community. They do not speak for me nor do they represent my views or those of anyone I know as a friend. But woe betide any gay person who speaks out against the activists. Be prepared to be on the receiving end of ridicule, abuse, taunting, lies, deceit and hate from those who claim to represent what the gay community demands. Modern gay activism is intolerant and repressive of the views of disagreeing people and has become the antithesis of what the gay rights movement hoped to achieve.

[endure]

When the 'Civil Partnerships' Act was introduced in the UK government estimates were that 22,000 couples would take advantage of it by 2010. In the first year of its introduction over 18,000 people availed themselves of it. The average age of males who took part in the ceremony was 54 in 2005 & 47 in 2006. So there are gay people out there who obviously think that it's a good thing.

[geriatrickid]

If this is such a concern for you, it's possible to own assets jointly, therefore, with the death of one owner, the other is still the owner. [The step-up issue I assume you are referring too applies most often in cases where spouses and/or children inherit asset's that were owned as separate property by the deceased. If they are owned jointly to begin with, there will be no taxable event at the death of one owner.] As to medical decision making and visitation, these can be dealt with through the use of living wills. In addition, at least as to visitation, most health care providers have formal or informal mechanisms to make provision in such matters.

I hope people read and reread that again. It's advice that's good for everyone . Planning and organization can address most partnership obstacles . Unfortunately some people don't want to hear about this as it requires taking responsibility for one's life. Whoever, partners up with you is at least going to have the peace of mind knowing that you planned for the future, and isn't that the cornerstone of a LTR?

[JonnieB]

The reality of life is that many of us would like to provide legal protection for our partners... But my partner and I entered into a legal union in order to protect ourselves under the law that we live in -- straight law. Until we are the majority...

I do live in and amongst the majority straight population everyday...even here in Pattaya we have yet to take over I have nothing againts them and their lifestyle per-se...just that I don't think it has much to recoment do gay people. Therefore, I don't understand why so many gays go to such lengths to imitate them...even so far as adopting kids...I mean how much more hetero can you get But that's a whole different post (maybe coming soon), so I won't go there now.

If you want to provide mechanism for the legal protections as to your assets, then there are many legal ways to do this besides marriage. Personally, I like to keep things more or less separate. Then each person retains the sense of their own identy and personhood. But if you want to mix everything up...feel free to do so. Prepare your wills, trusts, and other documents to keep everything nice and legal. Go and get "married" too if that makes you feel good. I don't necessary hold it against you straight-married gays...I just get *&^^$@-off when the likes of you represent to everyone that your DEMAND for gay marriage as a civil right is something that is clearly held by the majority of the gay population. Let alone something that is needed or wanted by our community.

Personally, I think this call originated by a bunch of surbaban gay-boys who are still repressing their sexuality and want to adopt kids (the ultimate negattion of their homosexual nature. They push for these so called marriage rights to further their efforts to adobt kids as many states, at least in USA, only allow adoptions by "married" couples. I mean, if you want kids, by definition, you are a straightie, so just find some gal, marry her, and have your family for Christ's sake.

[ProThaiExpat]

JohnnieB: I have been ignoring your inflammatory rhetoric as you are entitled, but when you posted the following: " I mean, if you want kids, by definition, you are a straightie, so just find some gal, marry her, and have your family for Christ's sake." you really lost touch with reality.

Fortunately, I have a daughter who gave me a grandchild last year,so my parenting urges are more than satisfied. However, just because you don't understand or feel the need to raise children or enjoy them, doesn't mean other gays don't. Your rants constantly bring up the theme that those who speak for issues that you don't agree with are speaking for the entire gay community. What are you doing??? "lost touch with reality", is a self fulfilling prophesy on your part. If a gay man wants to raise a child, whether he makes the baby or adopts, does not make him straight, as your absurd comment adamantly states. Get a grip!! Look in the mirror, you are as "activist" as those you carry on about, just that your activism is from your own narrow point of view.

You may well be a flamer for all I know. Certainly your irrational quoted comment would suggest it.

Edited August 27, 2007 by ProThaiExpat

[PeaceBlondie]

Making six kids helped me to realize that my gay friend was right in 1964, when he told me I was gay! Having children didn't make me hetero, it just made me a father. I don't regret having kids.

[JonnieB]

JohnnieB: I have been ignoring your inflammatory rhetoric as you are entitled, but when you posted the following: " I mean, if you want kids, by definition, you are a straightie, so just find some gal, marry her, and have your family for Christ's sake." you really lost touch with reality.

Fortunately, I have a daughter who gave me a grandchild last year,so my parenting urges are more than satisfied. However, just because you don't understand or feel the need to raise children or enjoy them, doesn't mean other gays don't. Your rants constantly bring up the theme that those who speak for issues that you don't agree with are speaking for the entire gay community. What are you doing??? "lost touch with reality", is a self fulfilling prophesy on your part. If a gay man wants to raise a child, whether he makes the baby or adopts, does not make him straight, as your absurd comment adamantly states. Get a grip!! Look in the mirror, you are as "activist" as those you carry on about, just that your activism is from your own narrow point of view.

You may well be a flamer for all I know. Certainly your irrational quoted comment would suggest it.

I am very happy for you that you enjoy having a grandchild. I don't know what that means in relation to my posts. I don't know your sexual orientation (how you came about having your daugher) who then provided you with the grandchild that you now enjoy. I would suppose you were either a gay man in the closet who was married at some point and had a natural daughter, and then finally came out of the closet after ruining at least your wife's life. Or maybe you formally or informally adopted your daughter as an openly gay man. Whatever the case may be, I'm happy you are happy.

As to my comments regarding the adopting and raising of children by gay men especially, is, in MY opinion only that it is a total contradiction to what it means to be gay. I mean, do I have to spell it out for you...okay, I will. A man who has sexual intercourse (any kind/variety) with another man (even without a condom) will not produce any children. Understand...got the picture now. Now, the essense of being gay is to have a marked or exclusive preference for sexual and emotional contact with members of your own sex. As you can see, by definition, therefore, part of being gay is not having kids. AND ACCEPTING THIS!!! I think this is great...and most of my gay friends do too. For this reason alone, I would recommend the being gay to all my straight friends (Just think how enjoyable air-travel would be if 90 percent of the population was gay and only 10 percent straight )

Therefore, I do not understand why gay people want to have/raise kids...I truely don't. If someone has parenting "urges" as you call them, to me, that person's orientation is straight, as by definition, the only way to naturally satisfy or fulful that urge/need is to have a relationship of some sort with a member of the opposite sex. To me, if that is someone's inclination, I question if that persons orientation is truly as a gay person.

Edited August 27, 2007 by JonnieB