Kids do need to be exposed to these topics and ideas, especially if they receive misinformation and hateful ideas at home. Ultimately though, the school needs to make the correct decision for their constituency. Hell, even sex-ed still gets criticism in many jurisdictions.

My feelings are that as long as the children are loved it should not matter who their parents are or what sex.
The school was wrong

I am completely against gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Call it a union, call it anything but marriage because it's not marriage.

However, if a same sex couple wants to raise children and are prepared to deal with all the issues that will result then that is their decision, I would just feel sorry for the children and hope they have good therapists.

I think that love is love, gay or straight. Marriage is not about being 1 man loving 1 woman. Marriage is about LOVE and committing to the rest of your life to that 1 person.

Whether you have 1 of each gender, or 2 of the same gender for parents does not mean you need therapy. I had a straight couple for parents, and I spend half my teenage years in therapy. My best friend with gay parents was the happiest kid I knew. This guy says it best:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Gay love does not ruin the idea of marriage. The celebrities of America with marriages that last less than 6 months and go through more than 10 marriages in their life span are ruining the idea of marriage.

Oh, come on, this is Woot. I, for one, am just sick and tired of this issue being forced into my consciousness on a daily basis. Just hush!

Nell123 wrote:Oh, come on, this is Woot. I, for one, am just sick and tired of this issue being forced into my consciousness on a daily basis. Just hush!

Exactly, just post your deals

We DO live in the USA and there is constitutional separation of church and state. The constitutional rights of the gay and lesbian citizens are being violated,although our society is finally realizing that loving parents, families are what this country need more of and sexual preference has nothing to do with kindness, and dependable relationships and child rearing. Maybe a marriage license should be more like a drivers license and when you violate the kindness and dependable parent/partner rule your license is revoked. You would see a lot of heterosexual licenses being revoked.. lol, But EVERYONE should have the rite to love whom they mutually choose.

This topic needs to be addressed, so why not address it in a place where many people from many different backgrounds come to use the internet.

Thanks woot, I <3 you.

Regarding the separation of church and state:
1) you will not find that phrase in the Constitution. There is, however, a phrase in the First Amendment forbidding Congress against making any law against freedom of religion.
2) Marriage was a religious covenant. The state injected itself into marriage by using it as a standard for governmental goodies like tax breaks, etc.
3) If we really want to deal with this issue honestly, we need to acknowledge the the government screwed the pooch by injecting itself into a religious rite. So: let the government have unions for anyone who wants one (gay or straight) -- let marriage be solely in the church (as the religious covenant it was intended to be). Let unions follow the gov't rules for dissolution...let marriages follow the church rules. Union would be required by married couples for government status, etc., but church can't be forced to marry couples whose unions contradict their values.

There. Fixed.

As for kids: It has been proven that kids thrive best in a mom/dad household. However: if the choice is orphanage/foster home/street or same-sex household...I'm thinking that's a no-brainer.

I've not heard a convincing argument or reason to deny same sex marriage. I've not heard a convincing argument as to why someone cannot have a relationship with someone of the same sex. It is what they are comfortable with.

I'm heterosexual and could never imaging being intimate with another man. However that is just me. The fact that there are homosexuals or same sex marriages have zero effect on me.

There was a point of time when mixed marriages were not only frowned on but illegal in some states. The same arguments was made then that are being made now. Those arguments were stupid then. Those arguments are still stupid today.

I'm a hetero raising a kid and I think any two loving parents can and should do it, esp compared to some of the people out there not even trying with their kids. And to the guy who said those kids will need therapy, you need therapy to deal with your ignorance. Disagree with the marriage part if you'd like, but to suggest just having gay parents makes you need therapy shows your defects, not theirs. And my hetero parents gave plenty to work out with a therapist, so there's that too

I think the thing that it really boils down to for religious conservatives is that we feel like we are not allowed to believe or say religiously that we believe that homosexuality or acting upon it is a sin and not morally correct in the eyes of our particular religion we want to preserve our religious marriage a state marriage or a religious marriage that it is not part of their doctrine personally I am not opposed to each their own

I am proud to say that my church has been performing marriage without gender discrimination for decades. However, a religious marriage is separate from a legal marriage. Maybe you're right, and we should just change the terminology for everyone to make it less confusing. The religious ceremony can keep the term "marriage" and each church can choose to discriminate or not. The government recognized legal contract can be called a union or something similar and be open to all citizens equally.

Also, I've actually found that a lot of same-sex couples are better parents. It's a concious decision to have kids and a lot of preparation goes into it, so you don't get the unplanned for children that often come to straight couples. Of course, parenting skills still vary by individual, but I can say with 100% certainty that the gender of parents is not a determining factor.

ethanndomsmom wrote:I am completely against gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Call it a union, call it anything but marriage because it's not marriage.

However, if a same sex couple wants to raise children and are prepared to deal with all the issues that will result then that is their decision, I would just feel sorry for the children and hope they have good therapists.

Thank you for your elequoence on the legal union vs. religious rite.
One correction though. Studies actually show that kids tend to do better in a 2 parent household (regardless of the gender preference of parents) than a 1 parent household. The original studies were published as mom/dad because they didn't consider same sex couples raising kids. More recent studies that have included both same-sex parents and different-sex parents have shown what I stated - that kids tend to be better off with 2 parents rather than one regardless of sexuality.

hgsw0904 wrote:Regarding the separation of church and state:
1) you will not find that phrase in the Constitution. There is, however, a phrase in the First Amendment forbidding Congress against making any law against freedom of religion.
2) Marriage was a religious covenant. The state injected itself into marriage by using it as a standard for governmental goodies like tax breaks, etc.
3) If we really want to deal with this issue honestly, we need to acknowledge the the government screwed the pooch by injecting itself into a religious rite. So: let the government have unions for anyone who wants one (gay or straight) -- let marriage be solely in the church (as the religious covenant it was intended to be). Let unions follow the gov't rules for dissolution...let marriages follow the church rules. Union would be required by married couples for government status, etc., but church can't be forced to marry couples whose unions contradict their values.

There. Fixed.

As for kids: It has been proven that kids thrive best in a mom/dad household. However: if the choice is orphanage/foster home/street or same-sex household...I'm thinking that's a no-brainer.

hgsw0904 wrote:Regarding the separation of church and state:
1) you will not find that phrase in the Constitution. There is, however, a phrase in the First Amendment forbidding Congress against making any law against freedom of religion.
2) Marriage was a religious covenant. The state injected itself into marriage by using it as a standard for governmental goodies like tax breaks, etc.
3) If we really want to deal with this issue honestly, we need to acknowledge the the government screwed the pooch by injecting itself into a religious rite. So: let the government have unions for anyone who wants one (gay or straight) -- let marriage be solely in the church (as the religious covenant it was intended to be). Let unions follow the gov't rules for dissolution...let marriages follow the church rules. Union would be required by married couples for government status, etc., but church can't be forced to marry couples whose unions contradict their values.

There. Fixed.

Holy selective history, Batman! Marriage started as a way of uniting competing tribes/cultures/societies long before religion got its filthy hooks into things.

cindyjoyjones wrote:I think the thing that it really boils down to for religious conservatives is that we feel like we are not allowed to believe or say religiously that we believe that homosexuality or acting upon it is a sin and not morally correct in the eyes of our particular religion we want to preserve our religious marriage a state marriage or a religious marriage that it is not part of their doctrine personally I am not opposed to each their own

Where the conservative argument loses me is when they start trying to inflict their own ideas of marriage on others. If you believe homosexuality is wrong or that gay marriage is wrong, don't get one.

If you want to go full-on bigot, you can even attend a church that refuses to recognize gay marriages! That's your prerogative.

This idea that churches will suddenly be forced to administer or recognize gay marriages is a red herring. Don't believe me? Try walking into your local synagogue and asking for their Christian marriage package.

Churches can continue to be as closed-minded as they like. It doesn't affect them (other than drawing attention to how outdated and ridiculous their ideas are).

Stuff It

hgsw0904 wrote:As for kids: It has been proven that kids thrive best in a mom/dad household. However: if the choice is orphanage/foster home/street or same-sex household...I'm thinking that's a no-brainer.

My sub-specialty is adolescent psychology. There is NO reputable evidence to suggest that there is any difference in academic, psychological, or criminal outcomes when you compare the adolescents of a stable two-parent (women-man) home to the children of a stable two-parent (woman-woman) home; there are not yet enough households with adolescents raised from infancy by two men to have reliable statistical information on how those teenagers are doing, but there's no indication that outcomes will be any different for children raised by two men.

In fact, there's actually a significant amount of evidence to suggest that the adolescents born to two same-gender parents are psychologically healthier and academically more accomplished, with less criminal activity, compared to adolescents born to two opposite-gender married parents. Why? Not entirely clear, but one hypothesis is that every child born to a same-sex couple was planned for and deliberately brought into the world.

So... about 2 years ago I performed a marriage ceremony in Vermont for a same-sex couple that have been very much in love for years.

They have a friend that conceived and raised an intelligent, well mannered child... with her same sex partner.

That's two examples out of many. Neither of those events affected your life in the slightest. The planet you're standing on continues to spin reliably on its axis and revolve around the sun.

You are merely one animal of one species (serving a seemingly viral role) among so many other animals on this planet. You, me, everybody you know, everybody that you don't know AND perhaps every human that has ever lived are still outnumbered by the plankton living in the sea.

How long will it take for the world to forget that you even existed? 100 years? 10 years? 5 minutes after high school? On a long enough timeline all of your opinions, prejudices, actions, etc. will ultimately be forgotten.

Eventually the sun will explode destroying the Earth and everything on it, including your corpse which has possibly become the makings of another million plankton. All of them will die as well never knowing that marriage (same-sex or otherwise) was even possible.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is: Enjoy life. Live and let live... while you still can.

Its sad kids have to be thrown into controversial issues. Gays have no business raising children and forcing them to accept what is an unnatural and immoral union.

Live and let live. We've got much bigger problems facing our nation. A loved child is a good thing

"I would just feel sorry for the children and hope they have good therapists."

Are you kidding? My Partner and I have adopted 6-YES I SAID 6 special needs kids...none of them "needs a therapist" because they have 2 Moms. Maybe you should get the therapist with your socially inept point of view! Grow up and grow some...brains that is!!!

tswinkler wrote:Its sad kids have to be thrown into controversial issues. Gays have no business raising children and forcing them to accept what is an unnatural and immoral union.

I'm not sure if you read any of the comments above yours, but the big kids were talking science and psychology... maybe philosophy. I'm sure there's a place in here for ridiculous, spiteful childish platitudes though.

[I opposed gay marriage believing that children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn’t just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right.

Marriage is how society recognizes and protects this right. Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children.

At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift. No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.
-David Blankenhorn

hgsw0904 wrote:Regarding the separation of church and state:
1) you will not find that phrase in the Constitution. There is, however, a phrase in the First Amendment forbidding Congress against making any law against freedom of religion.
2) Marriage was a religious covenant. The state injected itself into marriage by using it as a standard for governmental goodies like tax breaks, etc.
3) If we really want to deal with this issue honestly, we need to acknowledge the the government screwed the pooch by injecting itself into a religious rite. So: let the government have unions for anyone who wants one (gay or straight) -- let marriage be solely in the church (as the religious covenant it was intended to be). Let unions follow the gov't rules for dissolution...let marriages follow the church rules. Union would be required by married couples for government status, etc., but church can't be forced to marry couples whose unions contradict their values.

There. Fixed.

As for kids: It has been proven that kids thrive best in a mom/dad household. However: if the choice is orphanage/foster home/street or same-sex household...I'm thinking that's a no-brainer.

Wonderfully stated. I believe that truly covers how the majority of America feels.

hgsw0904 wrote:Regarding the separation of church and state:
1) you will not find that phrase in the Constitution. There is, however, a phrase in the First Amendment forbidding Congress against making any law against freedom of religion.
2) Marriage was a religious covenant. The state injected itself into marriage by using it as a standard for governmental goodies like tax breaks, etc.
3) If we really want to deal with this issue honestly, we need to acknowledge the the government screwed the pooch by injecting itself into a religious rite. So: let the government have unions for anyone who wants one (gay or straight) -- let marriage be solely in the church (as the religious covenant it was intended to be). Let unions follow the gov't rules for dissolution...let marriages follow the church rules. Union would be required by married couples for government status, etc., but church can't be forced to marry couples whose unions contradict their values.

There. Fixed.

As for kids: It has been proven that kids thrive best in a mom/dad household. However: if the choice is orphanage/foster home/street or same-sex household...I'm thinking that's a no-brainer.

Thank you for stating this so well! If same-sex couples want tax cuts, insurance breaks, a piece of paper from the government acknowledging them, or visitation rights, great! - lets just not get that entangled with the religious rite of Marriage.

P.S. Regardless of which side you are on, if you want a real discussion about the issue, this IS a horrible place to force/argue this topic.

Oh wait, what about http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/

racheleigho wrote:Thank you for your elequoence on the legal union vs. religious rite.
One correction though. Studies actually show that kids tend to do better in a 2 parent household (regardless of the gender preference of parents) than a 1 parent household. The original studies were published as mom/dad because they didn't consider same sex couples raising kids. More recent studies that have included both same-sex parents and different-sex parents have shown what I stated - that kids tend to be better off with 2 parents rather than one regardless of sexuality.

Well said! And I want to ad, that I will be homeschooling becuase of situtation like this. The public sector does not need to educate my chilren on such matters. That is my job.

hgsw0904 wrote:Regarding the separation of church and state:
1) you will not find that phrase in the Constitution. There is, however, a phrase in the First Amendment forbidding Congress against making any law against freedom of religion.
2) Marriage was a religious covenant. The state injected itself into marriage by using it as a standard for governmental goodies like tax breaks, etc.
3) If we really want to deal with this issue honestly, we need to acknowledge the the government screwed the pooch by injecting itself into a religious rite. So: let the government have unions for anyone who wants one (gay or straight) -- let marriage be solely in the church (as the religious covenant it was intended to be). Let unions follow the gov't rules for dissolution...let marriages follow the church rules. Union would be required by married couples for government status, etc., but church can't be forced to marry couples whose unions contradict their values.

There. Fixed.

As for kids: It has been proven that kids thrive best in a mom/dad household. However: if the choice is orphanage/foster home/street or same-sex household...I'm thinking that's a no-brainer.

colokid777 wrote:Well said! And I want to add, that I will be homeschooling becuase of situtations like this. The public sector does not need to educate my chilren on such matters. That is my job.

I was lucky enough to be raised by two moms. You will be happy to know I am as normal as everyone else. I am now 33, good job and 2 great kids of my own. I'm raising my kids as I was raised but with my husband. I'm raising them to be kind and accepting adults. End of story.

Gay marriage?

"just seems inherently wrong to me"

I couldn't have said it better...

ladiddle wrote:I opposed gay marriage believing that children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn’t just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right.

Marriage is how society recognizes and protects this right. Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children.

At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift. No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.
-David Blankenhorn

Dear David,

Do you apply this same standard to, say, heterosexual parents where the "biological" parents divorce and then remarry? Or where one parent dies and the surviving parent remarries?

There is absolutely zero guarantee that the people who conceived you will be able to raise and love you as a couple. And, let's face it, even if it is possible, it may not be what is healthy for the child. My father was extremely abusive towards my mother. I have vivid memories of him screaming and throwing things at her...and what went on behind closed doors was far worse then that. My mother stayed in that marriage for many years because of the kinds of nonsense you espouse - that parents need a mother and a father. I can honestly say that this damaged me far more than living with two mothers or two fathers ever could have. Hell, my own child was conceived as the result of a terrible act. Should I have married my child's "father"? How much of a "gift" would it have given him to be raised by some one who believes it is okay to force a woman to have sex with him?

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath for your answer.

GORDONFREEMAN wrote:Gay marriage?

"just seems inherently wrong to me"

I couldn't have said it better...

Good for you.

So don't get one. No one's forcing you.

You know what seems "inherently wrong" to me? Republicans. But you don't see me trying to dissolve their marriages.

The school did the right thing. Sexual orientation does not belong in school. Sex-ed should only discuss the natural reproduction of human beings - not ANAL SEX - Walrus Toting Halibut?!!

gracefire wrote:Good for you.

So don't get one. No one's forcing you.

You know what seems "inherently wrong" to me? Republicans. But you don't see me trying to dissolve their marriages.

You don't see anyone trying to dissolve Republicans either.

gracefire wrote:Good for you.

So don't get one. No one's forcing you.

You know what seems "inherently wrong" to me? Republicans. But you don't see me trying to dissolve their marriages.

You made me literally laugh out loud.

Anyway, marriage between a man and a woman may be what the majority of people now do here, but it doesn't mean that's all there ever was, and it doesn't mean that's all that works. There are societies where men marry multiple women, where women marry multiple men, where children are brought up by an entire community and not by their own biological parents, where the amount of children symbolizes someone's wealth, etc. The point is, it's extremely ethnocentric to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman simply because it's what you're used to. No one single way of living is the only or "right" way to live. As long as children are raised with love, and are nurtured and taught right from wrong, there should not be anything wrong with it.

rosezetta2u wrote:"I would just feel sorry for the children and hope they have good therapists."

Are you kidding? My Partner and I have adopted 6-YES I SAID 6 special needs kids...none of them "needs a therapist" because they have 2 Moms. Maybe you should get the therapist with your socially inept point of view! Grow up and grow some...brains that is!!!

Bravo,hope you and your partner keep up the good work and I bet the kids think both their moms are wonderful.