I commented on this at my blog, but the simple way of explaining it: As far as the government is concerned a marriage is a predefined civil contract.

The religious is a man and a woman.

The GLBT insist on using the word marriage for their purpose and don't want to recognize the state's marriage certificate has always been a civil union certificate.

The church and evangelists refuse to deconflate the word marriage with the technically correct term for a marriage which is a "civil union" recognized by the states.

There is nothing wrong with modifying the predefined civil contract. If churches want to recognize it, or not, they should be able to decide on their own.

A recent headline: Alan Turing: Inquest's suicide verdict 'not supportable'

Basically they are saying it was probably an accident, and not intentional.

So, Cheney believes "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish"? No surprise to me that Cheney advocates incest.

Predicting the exact *when* of a future event is a fool's game. Despite voting patterns -- the elderly vote much more often than the young -- nature will inevitably put enough of 'em in the ground to guarantee change in marriage laws.

In 2012, my beloved GOP needs religious fundamentalists' votes in battleground states. Ain't gonna whip the Dems without 'em, so homosexuals have to continue as collateral damage. Keeping together the GOP coalition and preventing gay marriage while pursuing regime change in the USA is the *second* reason I own shares in News America Corporation. The first is, of course, the dividends for my pockets.

@: "(upon the marriage of his daughter Mary to her longtime mate, Heather Poe, with whom she has two children)"
_________

Two children who were deliberately deprived of having a home with a father.

To say "gay marriage" will have no negative consequences for society is just false. I'm all for gays being treated with dignity and respect, and being free to have their romantic relationships without interference or stigma. But parental relationships are a different issue.

And please, no where did I insult Mary or Heather's parenting. I have every confidence they are great mothers, and probably more capable as a couple than most single parents. But they aren't a father.

Herein is my concern with gay marriage. And I cannot let go of that concern lightly.

> Two children who were deliberately deprived
> of having a home with a father.

After all these years, someone else who understands this has finally arrived at this forum.

@Crid: "After all these years, someone else who understands this has finally arrived at this forum."
______________

I usually get the reply of how it happens for a lot of reasons: widowed parents, divorces, accidents, etc. That is all true. However, there are two situations that do it deliberately: gay parenthood and "gotcha pregnancies."

Just for the record to the other posters, I would never, ever, advocate taking the two children from Mary and Heather. That is the bonded family, and to rip them apart would be very harmful. I'm sure Heather and Mary are great mothers. But it was still selfish to purposefully deprive them of a home with a father.

But it was still selfish to purposefully deprive them of a home with a father. -- Trust at June 23, 2012 9:09 AM

What about two happily married guys that have a couple of kids? They are depriving the children of a mother. Is that the same thing?

@Jim P: "What about two happily married guys that have a couple of kids? They are depriving the children of a mother. Is that the same thing?"
_____

Yes.

We still have a long way to go but I hope to see it happen.

@Amy: "But, what about all the deprived kids in hetero homes -- deprived of two parents, deprived of love and attention. Can you legislate a parental fitness test for them before they have kids or get married?"
____________

I have no excuse for dysfunctional hetro parents there. They have done a fine job mucking up the family -- with the financial backing of the state -- without dishonestly using gays as a scapegoat.

I can't legislative a parental fitness test, but I would definitely stop legislating some of the perverse incentives that have proven damaging the family. The state as a surrogate father and the flee and fleece incentive to wives to provide a couple examples.

I don't doubt how wonderful many gays can be as parents. But, if you look at studies, they also say children of single fathers do better than single mothers. It is not that men are better than women, gays better than straights, or vice versa in either case. Problem is, the gays we see as parents in studies now, just like the fathers we see as single parents now, are the cream of the crop. Both must be stellar to even be parents. And as I said, and stand by, I would never pull a child from their gay family.

I just do not think mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That isn't an anti-gay position. And I certainly do not think this one issue is the damnation of the family.

We disagree, but I do value your perspective and challenging my values in an honest way.

I'm with Crid and Trust on this issue. Kids need a father and mother.

Cheney's statement also can be read to approve of multiple-party marriages like polygamy, 3 or more gays marrying, 3 or more lesbians marrying, or any other multiple-party arrangements entered into by consenting adults.

> What about two happily married guys that
> have a couple of kids?

Two guys never had any kids.

@crid: "Two guys never had any kids."
______

two guys certainly don't have the option of pretending to be straight and infertile, conceiving a child, then extracting child support from the biological mother while excluding them from "their" child's life.

Two women actually did this to a friend of mine*.

*Disclaimer: Yes, I know that if he would have kept it in his pants he wouldn't have this problem. Always the comment I get. But it is beside the point.

We disagree, but I do value your perspective and challenging my values in an honest way. -- Trust at June 23, 2012 9:42 AM

I not going to try to quote all you say. I'm just going to post a few ideas to consider:

If a gay, married couple wants kid(s) that means they had to deliberately make a choice to "acquire"* them. So there is forethought in it that does not occur in a lot of marriage based pregnancies.

Would they care less for the a child they "acquired" than an unplanned child?

* -- meaning that they either had surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, etc. not nefarious means.

Meh. I sincerely doubt that recognizing gay marriage will have any impact on the number of gay parents who raise kids. Those gay folks who want kids will raise them, with or without marriage, like these two did, and plenty of gay folks (like straight folks) will get married and never raise kids.

At the very least, you can be 100% certain that a child conceived by a lesbian or adopted by a gay couple is not going to be regarded as an accident, that the parents are going in quite intentionally. I don't think it's the best arrangement, myself, and my SIL and her partner are definitely not a ringing endorsement of gay parenting...but it's not like we've eradicated real, inarguable child abuse and can now start picking on people who are simply slightly below optimal. Even if that were the case, the straight "community" would keep us pretty busy first.

@Trust, maybe your friend should've simply visited a prostitute.

(yeah I know, shameless shit-stirring, but the argument on the other thread has veered into critiques of style and bored me)

Gay people should give up on this perverse pursuit and let the normal straight people show them how to honor the sanctity of marriage, like Jerry and Dottie Sandusky, happily married and so very normal lo these many years.

@Jim P: "If a gay, married couple wants kid(s) that means they had to deliberately make a choice to "acquire"* them. So there is forethought in it that does not occur in a lot of marriage based pregnancies.

Would they care less for the a child they "acquired" than an unplanned child?"
___________

I do think you have a valid point. As a father who adopted two children due to my wife's infertility, I also understand their desire.

But it isn't just about the parents wants.

@Jenny Had A Chance: "At the very least, you can be 100% certain that a child conceived by a lesbian ... is not going to be regarded as an accident"
___________

If they lie about their fertility, birth control, or orientation to conceive, than it is at least an accident on father's side.

@Jenny Had A Chance: "maybe your friend should've simply visited a prostitute.

(yeah I know, shameless shit-stirring, but the argument on the other thread has veered into critiques of style and bored me)"
___________

My friend thought he had a girlfriend. They were "together" 3 months until she conceived. Was back with her girlfriend, who was never mentioned, within 3 seconds of the plus sign on the kit.

I guess it wasn't an "accident." The state enforces child support for Caleb, but not visitation for the father. Yes, Caleb is the child's real name. It affected an actual person. His father is is a father when it means money to the mothers, but not a father when it means involvement.

But hey, Courtney and her partner wanted a child. That's the center of the universe I guess.

Cheney's statement also can be read to approve of multiple-party marriages like polygamy, 3 or more gays marrying, 3 or more lesbians marrying, or any other multiple-party arrangements entered into by consenting adults. -- Nick at June 23, 2012 9:48 AM

If you have consenting adults doing it what is wrong with that?

Polyandry (1 woman multiple husbands) have been around for centuries. Polygamy (1 man multiple wives) also has been around for centuries.

Go pick up a copy of Penthouse Variations and you will see touches of it all through the letters that are sent in. The whole range of human sexuality and relationships has probably been tried at one time or another.

You are declaring that the only right thing is a single man and a single woman because over two thousand years ago one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.

Trust, that's a shame. It really has quite little to do with gay marriage, though, or my point. People having straight sex "oops" each other sometimes, men and women (claiming to be sterile, poking holes in condoms, tampering with a partner's prescription birth control) and it sucks. What I obviously meant was that gay couples, having gay sex, cannot ooops each other or conceive through genuine accident.

@Jenny Had A Chance: "Trust, that's a shame. It really has quite little to do with gay marriage, though, or my point."
______

That's fair, and to be clear, I do not think the actions of these two people define all lesbians. That would not be accurate nor fair.

What is beyond just these two schemers is the fact that the law provided financial incentive to do so. That is true of single women, lesbian women, or women with an infertile male partner. So my point was more about the legal climate and how it gives perverse incentives to otherwise decent people. Since gay marriage will increase the non-breaders (nothing derogatory intended, my wife and i were not able to conceive), it will increase the schemes.

Had it been me, and not my wife, who was infertile, it may have been tempting for her to concieve on the side and us extract the guys money as opposed to paying $15,000 for our adoptions ($30,000 total, but we got tax credited for one of the two).

Legal incentives do impact behavior. If Courtney and her partner would not have been able to extract money, and may have had to share parenting with Caleb's father, they may have choses a more ethical route. TO be fair, this isn't a gay problem, hetros do it too... but gays are not able to conceive on their own as a rule, hetros as an exception.

Enjoy the discussion, Jenny.

One thing I think is worth noting is why these debates rarely go anywhere. And it is because their are two many good people on both sides.

On one hand, there are those who want the structures of society to promote giving as many children a mother/father home as possible.

On the other hand, we should all feel compassion for those who want to commit their lives in marriage to the one person they love most. And if it ended here, I would support gay marriage, but we know it won't stop with the two adults involved.

@Trust, I simply don't see how recognizing gay relationships will "increase the non-breeders"? Can you elaborate on that? People who are straight now will not turn gay if gay marriage is legal, right? People who aren't sociopaths won't fake a relationship for three months rather than going to a sperm bank in any case.

The solution to improbable situations like your friend's is to better enforce a parent's rights; it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. I'm also surprised that your friend has no visitation, and wonder which state has not enforced an existing order for visitation at all?

@Jenny Had A Chance:"I simply don't see how recognizing gay relationships will "increase the non-breeders"? Can you elaborate on that? "
_________

Nothing derogatory was meant at all. I simply meant it will increase the number of marriages where conception inside the marriage is not possible. I do agree with you that the problem is not limited to gay marriage.

But I also disagree that it is an "improbable situation." I think more of the "oops" pregnancies are planned than statistics would admit. What is true is that when financial incentives were put behind pregnancies, the number of "oops it was an accident" pregnancy went way up, and at a time when birth control was more available. I do not think this is a coincidence.

@: Amy Alkon: "But, as long as hetero people get one partner, state recognized and benefit-ed, gay people should get the one consenting adult partner of their choice."
_____

Children aside, I do agree with you that consenting adults should be able to name their beneficiaries and two gays shouldn't have a harder time than two straights in a two person relationship.

I just do not think it is coincidence that it takes a man and a woman to be parents. Whether it is divine as religious people would argue, or "survival of the fittest" or evolutionary adaptation as others would argue, I do believe nature did this for a reason.

Once children are in the equation, everything changes.

@: Amy Alkon: "But, as long as hetero people get one partner, state recognized and benefit-ed, gay people should get the one consenting adult partner of their choice."
_____

Children aside, I do agree with you that consenting adults should be able to name their beneficiaries and two gays shouldn't have a harder time than two straights in a two person relationship.

I just do not think it is coincidence that it takes a man and a woman to be parents. Whether it is divine as religious people would argue, or "survival of the fittest" or evolutionary adaptation as others would argue, I do believe nature did this for a reason.

Once children are in the equation, everything changes.

No, I get that you don't mean anything derogatory by non-breeders. What I'm asking is how gay marriage would increase the number of people who are willing to engage in the schemes (which do seem rather unlikely, no offense) that your friend appears to have been victimized by, or how they will impact the number of people having children (by any means) at all, since that is what I thought you meant by "non-breeders".

But I think you just want to beat the father's rights drum (which is a fine one to beat; I'm grateful every day for the fact that my dad fought for his rights to be in my and my brother's lives) and are plenty aware that recognizing gay people's marriages will not in any real way change that.

If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to hear how you think gay marriage will help/hurt the enforcement of a parent's/father's rights.

Oh, joy. Rapture. Crid finally has an ally. And yet, neither one of them has any evidence for a single word of what they're saying.

Trust, you're new here, so you've never witness Crid's legendary tantrums.

When it's pointed out to Crid that he has absolutely no evidence that a child fares better with a mother and a father (as opposed to two fathers or two mothers), his argument becomes simply clenching teeth and fists as he growls, "It is because I say so!"

And I can't help but notice, you're argument boils down to that, as well.

Evidence, please. (And Crid, kindly spare us your demagoguery. "SCREEEEEECH! You're saying a mother's love means NOTHING!")

Trust, you seem to treat the idea that a child needs a father as a "given." Newsflash: it's not. Evidence, please. Nothing else.

Yep. Crid has a clone in Trust and Nick. How nice for this blog. Self-righteousness in lieu of proof. Vehemence in place of evidence. Times three! Yay, us. This blog's going to become the pompous room.

May I check your planks, or will you be keeping them up your asses this evening?

Trust writes: I just do not think mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That isn't an anti-gay position. And I certainly do not think this one issue is the damnation of the family.

Translation: I don't have any evidence. But I just know it's better for a child to have one mother and one father, because two mothers or two fathers are icky to me.

Trust: I just do not think it is coincidence that it takes a man and a woman to be parents. Whether it is divine as religious people would argue, or "survival of the fittest" or evolutionary adaptation as others would argue, I do believe nature did this for a reason.

"Because I said so…"

@Patrick: Vehemence in place of evidence.
___________

Three straight posts about me, acting like there is something wrong with me for my opinion that mothers and fathers are both important.

And you accuse others of vehemence.

I'm not that new here. I'm just busy with work and family. Got a break today so I've posted more. I remember you and Crid well, and don't consider him an ally any more than I consider you an enemy.

We disagree. Big deal. I fail to see you proving your opinions either. So unless i absolutely prove every aspect of mine, then yours must be true? And you don't see any hypocrisy there?

I like Amy, and, apparently unlike you, i respect and enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with me. That's why I engage in respectful dialogue. I have accused no one of wanting to do harm or of being vehement, or anything else. In fact, I beleive those who disagree have the same commendable intentions I do. Rather than smack me around in several posts, perhaps you could take some lessons.

Aren't gay marriage and gay parenting two separate issues? Gays can already raise kids, and they have for decades now. Mary Cheney and her partner already were raising their kids. So explain how letting them get married changes that.

By the way, I am not thrilled with gay parenting for the same reasons already mentioned. But I can not think of one solid reason for being against gay marriage.

I sincerely doubt that recognizing gay marriage will have any impact on the number of gay parents who raise kids.

Yes. You don't need a marriage license to oops someone or visit a sperm bank. Gay men have a harder time with this, but it's not impossible for them to be fathers without a marriage license. We act like it would never occur to single gay people to have or adopt children.

I think gay marriage is a losing battle for conservatives. Someone upthread pointed out that old people are eventually going to die, and young people are much more sympathetic to this issue. We'll have holdouts for awhile, but it won't be long before gays have the widespread right to marry.

Trust, if you've been here a while, then you'd know that the evidence has been posted, usually by Amy, that the children of gay parents are at least as well-adjusted, happy and successful as those raised by opposite-sex parents.

That means the ball is in your court. "Because I said so" doesn't cut it, so sorry. All that proves is your bias, not that the children of opposite sex parents fare better.

@Trust, if you've been here a while, then you'd know that the evidence has been posted, usually by Amy, that the children of gay parents are at least as well-adjusted, happy and successful as those raised by opposite-sex parents.
_______

I'm aware of those studies, as I'm aware of studies that say children raised by single fathers do better than those raised by single mothers. The problem with these studies is they take the best of the best from one group, and they compare them to the overall average of the other group. In order to be parents, gays must live up to a higher standard to begin with, as do fathers who get custody. So of course they do well.

I'd be willing to wager that gays/lesbians who adopt tend to do a better job than lesbians who dupe some schmo into impregnating one of them. Because there are standards for one and not the other.

Fatherlessness is repeatedly linked to many problems. That's well documented.

"Because I said so…"

I'm absolutely biased when it comes to not deliberately depriving children of a mother and a father. Guilty as charged. Not changing that core value because "Patrick said so."

Why not?: Because I said so.

For what it is worth, I do think much of the dialogue in the national debate is unfairly demeaning to gays, and I denounce that. I don't like being wrongly painted as homophobic because of concerns, so I do take pains to chastise those who paint proponents as anti-father or anti-mother.

Trust, I'm going to type very slowly and keep the words short, so you have a prayer of understanding it.

You are the one who is insisting that depriving a child of a father (or a mother) in lieu of two fathers or two mothers is a bad thing.

You are the one who's making this claim. I simply demand that you prove this assertion. I think that's perfectly reasonable. If you're going to insist that a gay couple aren't as effective as an opposite sex couple, seems like that's a pretty serious charge to make. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if you're going to lay a charge like that against any segment of the population -- try, for instance, saying that blacks can't be as effective parents and whites, and see how that feels -- you ought to be able to back it up.

But instead, you seem to think I have to prove the opposite. You make completely unsupported claims against the studies which support this, such as your claim that these studies used all specimens of parents for their statistics. And you know this how? You know for a fact that none of these studies ruled out the drunken crackheaded parents, for example, and tried to make a fair study involving successful two parent homes? And where did you find this out?

You see, when you make an assertion, the onus is on you. Can you say "onus"? Mr. Rogers knew you could.

Foaming and spitting that your opponent has something to prove when you're the one making all the claims, well, that's a logical fallacy called "shifting the burden of proof."

And of course, I can't force you to actually prove what you're saying. But, you know, there is a word for those who insist on asserting derogatory information about specific types of people and don't feel obligated to back them up with actual evidence.

They're called "bigots." Can you say "bigot"? Mr. Rogers knew you could.

I haven't been around lately, the new nursing job has kicked into overtime and this used to be a (several times a) daily stop for me.

Welcome, Trust, whomever you are, whatever your opinions are. Patrick, please don't take it as disagreement with you on the subject at hand. I'm simply expressing that I appreciate the cadence and mannerism of Trust's submissions.

Juliana, I understand. And yes, Trust does present himself as a gentleman.

I'm simply saying that I keenly resent this unsupported claim that is damaging to gay people, particularly when it's presented as a mere innocuous difference of opinion.

It's not. It's damaging, no matter how nicely it's presented.

And how many Man&Dog or Woman&sheep unions?

And how many Man&woman&woman marriages?

I mean if gays can marry where does it stop?

Polygamy? Polyandry? Bestiality? So were do you draw the line of everyone can 'do as they wish'.

@Paul at June 23, 2012 8:06 PM

Paul, let us be fair. Gay marriage is not even remotely close to bestiality. I may have concerns over gay marriage, but I'm not going to be silent while our fellow human beings who happen to be gay have their loving relationships compared to getting it on with animals.

A person who wants to marry a horse deserves therapy. A person who wants to marry someone they love of the same sex deserves our compassion.

@Patrick at June 23, 2012 4:51 PM

Let me know when you are ready to discuss an important issue like an adult.

@Patrick at June 23, 2012 4:51 PM

Let me know when you are ready to discuss an important issue like an adult.

@Juliana at June 23, 2012 5:34 PM

Thank you for the kind welcome. Unlike some posters, who think disagreements are a license to be rude (because their opinions must be fact), I understand that those with whom I differ may have good points and the same good intentions i have.

Best to you.

Trust, I love the self-righteous stance. No one has ever pulled it off with such finesse. Seizing the higher ground by pretending you're being oh, so adult, while I am not, is apt to have those on your side of the argument absolutely swooning.

For those of us with a less biased perspective, however, you're found seriously wanting.

Let's talk about what being "adult" means. I think a huge portion of adulthood comes with taking personal responsibility.

Responsibility for statements like, "To say 'gay marriage' will have no negative consequences for society is just false."

So, while you pointedly attack gay marriage as being detrimental to society, you seem to feel no obligation whatsoever to support this contention with evidence of any kind. While gays are fighting for legal recognition of their unions, you feel it's perfectly fine, right and proper to say that gay marriage will be to society's detriment (at least in some way), leaving the reader to wonder in what way and how badly.

Because God knows, you're certainly not going to tell them.

And what amazes me is that you seem to feel you have license to lecture on rudeness, while you make statements that go beyond rude and right into offensive. See the portion I quoted for just such an example.

Let's apply your approach to certain other issues and see if we can't get a rise out of those who seem to be clueless as to just how offensive your statement is.

Let's see … you said, "To say "gay marriage" will have no negative consequences for society is just false." And remember, you seem to feel no responsibility whatsoever to support that statement, either with argument or facts. "Because I said so."

Let's go back to 1919, and try a statement like this. "To say that giving women the vote will have no negative consequences for society is just false." And I don't have to prove that. I just know it. It's merely common sense. "Because I said so."

Or how about a trip to 1867? How does this work for you? "To say that allowing blacks to actually be citizens of the U.S. will have no negative consequences for society is just false." I am going to make that authortitative statement and insist it's true. I'm not going to prove otherwise. It is that way, just "because I said so."

So, when you're ready to discuss this issue like an adult, let me know.

Self righteous? I'm not the one who thinks my opinions are gospel to the point that disagreement offends me.

I don't get offended at those who disagree with me because I don't base my opinions solely on my own feelings. I, of course, acknowledge that I may be wrong, which, ironically, is why I consider my feelings on a matter, but don't base my opinions solely on that.

Here are some facts and their source:

- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, "Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse."

- Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics.)

- Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father. (Journal of Marriage and Family)

- 76% of teenage girls said that their fathers were very or somewhat influential on their decision to have sex. (Parade)

- Youth delinquency is 10-15% higher in fatherless homes than intact homes (Popenoe).

- Children raised in fatherless homes have a greater probability to be rapists, murderers, and abuse women and their own children than children raised intact families (Jeynes).

- 60% of American rapists come from fatherless homes (Popenoe).

- 72% of adolescent murderers come from fatherless homes (Popenoe).

- 70% long-term prison inmates come from fatherless homes (Popenoe).

- Teen violence increases as the number of fathers in a neighborhood decreases (Knoester and Hayne, 2005; Father Facts).

- There is an increase likelihood for drug and alcohol abuse among children (particularly boys) where the father is absent (Patock-Peckham, Morgan-Lopez, 2007; Mandara and Murray, 2006; Father Facts).

I don't have good stats on motherlessness, because, like gay adoption or lesbian adoption (or third party conception), the statistics are skewed based on smaller samples and timeframes. As with fatherlessness, which we jumped into head first in the name of compassion and calling anyone against the nanny-state a bigot, we really won't know the full effects of motherlessness for a generation, to be honest.

Now the stastics are not about blaming single mothers or lesbian mothers. It is about how the absence of fathers has a negative effect, as the absense of mothers will as well. I suspect this impact is lessened in a two parent gay home due to the attention and support, and I know statistics currently support this because we are judging the cream of the crop. Adoptive parents are vetted and are never accidental, as I was when I adopted, biological parents aren't and are too often accidental. The vetting will lessen over time as we further move away from the core family of a mother and a father.

This may surprise you, but I really hope I am wrong and you and Amy are right. Like government health care, gay marriage is an inevitability, are are more children without the balanced mother/father upbringing, I believe. It's just a matter of how soon it happens. By the time we know the full effects a generation or two later, it will be irrevocable.

Best
Trust

I'm absolutely biased when it comes to not deliberately depriving children of a mother and a father. Guilty as charged. Not changing that core value - Trust

Fair enough, but given there are more single hetero mothers by choice by several orders of magnitude hows about we deal with that far larger problem before going after the smaller one.

Also trust those stats are generally about fatherless children being raised by single mothers, not fatherless children being raised by lesbians

@lujlp: "Fair enough, but given there are more single hetero mothers by choice by several orders of magnitude hows about we deal with that far larger problem before going after the smaller on"
__________

I do agree there. I'd start by cutting off government programs that supplant the father, and ending the perverse incentives given to otherwise decent women to end their marriages, as a starter. Getting custody, the house, most assets and huge payments from the father (who usually doesn't want the divorce) should also not be so automatic.

For what it is worth, I'd pick a stable self-sufficient gay couple over a single parent any day. Single parenthood has already been incentivized, and I want to disincentivize (not outlaw) that. But both situations resultin fatherlessness or motherlessness.

Difficult issue because I am very compassionate to gays about their love and desires. but it isn't just about them.

@lujlp: "Also trust those stats are generally about fatherless children being raised by single mothers, not fatherless children being raised by lesbians"
______________

True. I suspect that it is better than single mothers, but they still can't be fathers (or gays who can't be mothers). We won't know the full effects for at least a generation. The stats available today are the cream of the crop, not the true average.

@Amy Alkon at June 24, 2012 8:35 AM

You said they do not do so by accident, and they must be tremendously committed (which is what I mean by cream of the crop). Funny, you call it bullshit then repeat the very reason I called them the cream of the crop.

We won't know the full effect until the standards go down. Now, gays only adopt when they are exceptional. But, it is definitely a fair point to say there will never be accidental gay parenthood.

I really hope you are right, though, because the day is coming. But if you're wrong, there will be no turning back.

Best,
Trust

Oh, I know, Trust! Aren't I just the most horrible person ever? When a person demonizes an entire segment of the population, and doesn't feel the need to supply any facts on this, I get all over them for it. I'm just so horrible, I don't know how I live with myself.

Well, you know what? They're just going to have to bury me face down when I die, so I can see where I'm going!

You'll just have to excuse me all to pieces for getting on your case. How dare I challenge you on making an unsupported statement that demonizes homosexuals. in the face of your repeated refusals to support your contention with hard facts?

Now, my question about those "fatherless" homes. Did that refer only to homes raised by single mothers, or were two-mother homes included? If they were not included, then I'd say your sampling is faulty. It's not talking about fatherless homes, per se. It's talking about homes in which the child is raised by one mother.

On the other hand, if two-mother homes were included in that sampling, then I'd like to know how those two-mother homes did in comparison with the rest of the statistics.