1. With this attitude I hope you never adopt, and never become a godparent.
Not my attitude. I just talk about observation I made watching adopting and foster care parents and BTW Godparents.
2. Hopefully all children would receive what is in the child's best interest, which may include joint custody.
As soon as parents fight for the custody there is usually nothing much left which might be in the child's "best interest". Have you ever heard a child telling you: "Everything is fine with my parents, they both split custody over me and we all live happy ever after?"
3. What's this where you say "then rethinks her sexual orientation one day"? Do you think sexual orientation is something you can rethink? Perhaps your example would be better worded as a bisexual woman having a lesbian relationship?
Oh really? Are you playing with words for the sake of obfuscation? If someone is bisexual, I would call it "rethinking of one's sexual orientation whenever it's convenient, advantageous and presents the way of least resistance". Matter of factly, if you live a bisexual life-style, may be you have no sexual orientation at all, or do you think you have an orientation, if you are jo-jo-ing between the genders?
4. By opposing it there will never be any data. Why not spend your efforts to prevent divorce?
I don't oppose anything, I let people do their own things as long as they don't interfere with my personal life. From what do you deduct I wouldn't try to prevent divorce? Where does this question come from?
5. Are you saying that heterosexual marriage is all about children?
Why not? Why is there any need to marry, if you decide not to have children? Why do you want some darn marriage laws, and by the way especially darn laws in the US, interfere with your personal life?
Need to marry for tax purposes? Poor you. Need to marry for love? What has your marriage license to do with love? Need to marry to make a pledge? Go to your church and have a big, fat wedding and a lot of Godly blessings. Marriage license not needed. God doesn't care. He loves you anyway - if you believe in it. :-)
Want children? You might need the help of "some caring governmental service" one day, yeah, you might consider getting a marriage license.
The funny thing is that the US social system is one of the worsts in modern Western developed democracies, most people in the US just distrust and distest their government, most people just call any person, who might want some social services for their kids and education from the government a freeloading liberal socialist or marxist.
But on the other hand, MARRYing we MUST, because we need government in our lives. How contradictory.
6. Why? I can't see it being any different from straight couples
I know and there's the little difference between you and me. Everyone looks through his own glasses and some people see things other's don't.
7. If you are opposing gay marriage because of divorce and problems for the kids, then why not spend your efforts opposing all marriage and stop singling out gays?
Because I think children should get a male father and a female mother to grow up with or live with. That's why I don't oppose marriage for heterosexual couples. But they don't HAVE to marry. If they just live together without a license marriage and just live by their personal committment to each other and their children, it's fine by me.
Mind you, a couple of decades ago I guess more than 50 percent of the world population didn't have a marriage license, but lived a "married life" and raised their kids. These kids all turned out badly? Nope. Kids out of divorced relationships turn out especially well? Nope.
8. Competing? You mean in the egg and spoon race at the school fair? He's supposed to think that his parents love him, just as Susie's parents love her.
I am not sure I understand this answer. You seem to think that kids are stupid. What you think they are supposed to think, is seldom what they DO think. Of course you can always manipulate them to tell you what you want to hear, at least for a while. So, is this supposed to mean that children or teens never ask themselves WHY their parents have chosen a partner of the same sex and not of the opposite one? ... Oh, well, of course not, how could a child ever think about that ...
9. Are you aware than many gays already have custody of their own children, whether it's through a previous relationship, or artificial insemination by donor, or surgorracy? These children grow up with two mothers or two fathers, but if something happens to the biological parent the child has no legal connection to the only surviving parent they know? Marriage would give the child protection.
Oh, that just proves another point, namely that sexual orientation is simply a choice of behavior and not some "biologically driven and exclusive sexual desire for one gender only". Well, if homosexuality is simply a choice and nothing more, I would say it's a discriminatory choice AGAINST one gender and a choice FOR another one.
As heterosexual persons can't chose their gender, I would say then that they are discriminated against by homosexuals on the basis of their gender, because homosexuals or lesbians CAN CHOSE their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, if they want to, but heterosexuals CAN'T CHOSE chose their GENDER.
With regard to the legal protection a child that lives in a lesbian or gay marriage, if the biological parent dies, is accepted. But why wouldn't the gay/lesbian parent of that child be able to just adopt that child, as they have already taken care of the child already beforehand?
10. Are you advocating that widows and widowers must get remarried as soon as possible for the children's sake?
No, again children are not as stupid as you seem to think. If you study children, who grew up without a father (or mother), because their fathers (or mothers) died in a war or for other reasons (we had a lot of those in my generation) and you compare them to those children, who grow up without father or mother, because of a divorce (we had a lot of divorces between couples after WWII - after the men returned from the war and were supposedly to be happy to find their wives and kids life and well), you will find huge differences in the way children handle the fact that there is one gender missing. It's not just a question of one gender missing, it's a matter of WHY one gender is missing.
What effect a "new parent", which is supposed to replaces the missing one, has on the child is dependent on age of the child, reason why the first parent went missing, how good the "new parent" relates to the child etc.
11. All the gay couples I know make sure their children get to see and spend time with adults of both sexes.
Oh, I would say, even if they wouldn't "make sure" that a child spends time adults of both genders, the children "will go out on their own" to do just that when they grow older.
12. You seem to be arguing against marriage because of the effects to children. Marriage isn't just for that reason.
No? I think for millenia of years, marriage-like unions with certain rules and regulation about each parent's male and female role have been formed, and exactly pretty much just for that very reason.
I just wonder who is more narrow minded in their views about it, you or me?
[ Parent ]