I don't understand why people who aren't involved in a family at all think they can decide what is best for the kids in said family.

@ Mandy-2148207 - Is that an attempt at an oxymoron?

How can a kid grow up with two same sex parents and have a healthy environment and role models to emulate? A little girl needs a father figure in her life, and a little boy needs to have a mother. Kids that don't have both will be somewhat emotionally crippled with that loss. While it does happen, it's not the best way for a kid to grow. And to do it on purpose is just . . . cruel. I didn't have a father when I grew up, but really wish I did. Growing up knowing my mother has a relationship with another woman would be very weird and confusing. I truly believe it would have given me a skewed way of looking at the world. Growing up with two fathers is yucky. I feel like throwing up just thinking about it.

BP numerous studies show that a two parent household, of any kind, is more stable than a single parent household. Do you fight against single parents? If a husband dies, do you take away the kids from the mother?

Role models come in many forms. My best male role model is not my father, but rather a coach I had. Role models can be neighbors, grandparents, coaches, friends, godparents, aunts, uncles. Nobody has ever stated that role models must be the parents and only the parents.

BP, you just made Mandy's point (if i am not mistaken) is that these are not your kids or your relatives so your believe of how these kids should grow or what they need is your opinion and should stay that way. Just like all the NC voter.. hey NC, It's not your business either!! And who says any one of us has to view the world in the same way you do. Are you paying anyone else's bills?

The point of legislation should be to make sure we are all treated equally, not who's rights can we take away, per the republican strategy! Thoughout history Repblicans / conservatives have had be dragged kicking and screeming into a new century of thinking and inclussion by liberals and people who just do not care how others life if it has no impact on their own lives

Was that a serious question BP? A little boy doesn't need a mother and a little girl doesnt need a dad. What they need is a loving family with good moral values. Are you emotionally crippled because you lacked a father growing up? chances are your doing just fine (apart form your skewed views on parenting). Would a black(adopted) kid with two white parents grow up with issues? I know one of those kids as well. He also turned out fine. I have a few gay friends, all with straight parents, I see that really made them straight...... And it didn't make me gay either to interact with them. My point is that gay or straight is something you are when your born and you can have bad or good straight or gay parents. Expand your mind.......

BP - then stop thinking about it. And remember, there are those that don't have the ability to think outside their own little world. So perhaps you should consider that for you not passing judgement until you have walked in someone else's shoes might be a good thing. Children don't know prejudice. They are taught that emotion. Educate yourself, then you might begin to understand.

In the case of gay partners who are raising the children of a divorce, who ever is the biological parent gets full custody if something happens. Unless there is pressing reason not to grant it. You can't deny biological parents the right to their children simply because one non-related person in the relationship is gay. That's not discrimination. It's common sense.

If there is a pressing reason not to, all other biological relatives should be considered before handing the child over to a non-relatives. If a suitable aunt or uncle or grandparent is found the child should go to them.

sam------i agree and your reference as to being straight---they were ''born that way''.

Hey LosMan123, are you from NC, if no, then by your definition as a non-voter, this is not your fight.

As for Republicans/conservatives standing in the way of change, ever heard of slavery? what party created that in America. There was this thingy called the Civil War, what side were the Democrats on? I think a war constitutes kicking and screaming but don't confuse what I am saying with the facts.

And for your information, in NC, when this latest law was passed, blacks, were more likely to vote for the law than whites. If you don't know, blacks vote Democrat upwards of 85% of the time!

Nice try though.

How many more times do we have to keep dragging these people kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages?

"In each of the families, the child has a legally-recognized relationship with one parent and wants to establish the same with the second one. But under the state court ruling, the existing legal parent would have to give up their parental rights for an adoption to occur."

I'm sorry, am I missing something? This is a logical, is it not? How can someone adopt someone else's child?

Sam, I have been teaching high school for 6 years. Every teacher I work with recognises the problems students have who do not have a male influence in the home (generally speaking its not mom's who have left their resonsibilities). Female students without fathers (masculine influence) are hostile to male teachers, and male students without fathers are hostile to female teachers. The notion that a child is not better served by having both male and female influences in their upbringing is another example of how goofy, illogical political correctness (dark ages Toasty, really? Try every age) is destroying our country.

Seriously, when you can't even make a logical statement that kids are best served by a traditional/biological family (man, woman, child) without being called an out-of-touch bigot, we've lost our way!

Journel,

So say a guy marries a woman with a 1 year old son from another guy who doesn't want any part of the child. They are then happily married for 10 years, at which time the mother dies. Are you arguing that the child should than go to an aunt or uncle instead of the guy who raised him since he was a baby simply because they aren't blood related? Or does your view only apply to gays and lesbians?

No. The child should go to the biological father who is STILL LIVING! If he doesn't want to raise the child then tough cookies. He's also probably behind on child support.

If the father is a total dirtbag who's rotting in prison then YES he should go to another blood relative.

If the other guy wants him then can have him only if the child's biological family gives him up for adoption.

journal journal

Most are from anonymous sperm donation of in the case of two Dads one has adopted from an agency where the biological parents are either not interested or unfit to be parents.

Tod-2791955 for every anecdotal "evidence" for this we can see the opposite where there are well rounded up standing citizens. You are pointing out situations where mother is bring up a child on her own, these problems are not comparable with the situation we are talking about here with same sex parenting.

In the situations this article is talking about the father wouldn't want anything to do with him or may not even know about the kid because he was a sperm donar. That is why the other partner would have the ability to adopt them if this law didn't deny them that ability. So your comments are a moot point anyway.

Journal,

Common sense is trumped by emotionalism on this issue. Common sense that every society up til now has recognised, has somehow become the bigotted ideology of "cave men". It's hard to argue with people whose feelings trump reality.

Krestov, male and female. They offer different perspectives, discipline, love, teaching (is this really so hard to fathom?), and a child needs both!

No. The child should go to the biological father who is STILL LIVING! If he doesn't want to raise the child then tough cookies. He's also probably behind on child support

Right, because obviously a FORCED parent-child relationship is much more healthy than a loving and wanted one.

@luscha

Prior to the Civil War, the southern economy was based primarily on agriculture. Slaves were the majority of the southern work force, so southerners in general supported slavery. They saw it as part of their way of life. The northern economy, however, was based on industry. They had no need for slaves because most industry by that time called for specialized workers, not slaves.

just an FYI... Kinda bringing politics into something that doesn't need it. Capitalism will eventually make everyone the slaves of the biggest companies.

@Tod

Your facts a based on a SINGLE parent situation. How do you teach school.... THE ISSUE WITH THOSE STUDENTS IS THAT THEY ARE MISSING A PARENT!!!!!!!!

Psychological studies on child development would disagree. If a child knows someone as their father/mother their entire lives and a death happens, removing them and placing them into the custody of someone they have little to no relationship with is highly detrimental. By putting the child with the unknown biological father, you are doing far more harm to the child than leaving them with their well known father even if he is not the biological father. I would suggest reading up on attachment theory.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian parents to obtain second parent or stepparent adoptions, the complaint said, noting that North Carolina courts have given joint custody to gay or lesbian second parents under a “de facto parent doctrine.” However, that status does not create a “full” parent-child relationship, the complaint said

The full parent-child relationship should only be granted to people who are actually full parents and not to people who are simply rooming together under the law, regardless of the amount of time they've been rooming together.

Common sense that every society up til now has recognised, has somehow become the bigotted ideology of "cave men".

I didn't realize it was common sense that when a woman in a long term committed relationship with another woman is artificially inseminated by a anonymous sperm donor, has a child, raises it with that other woman, then expectantly dies, the child should go to one of her relatives and not the other person raising it as their child.

I also didn't realize it was common sense to not allow this kids to benefit from the other womans superior health benefits, social security benefits, etc.

With hundreds of thousands of children in foster care, it's good that NC is reducing the number of people who can adopt them. We wouldn't want to actually help these children... Nooooooo... it's much better to leave them feeling abandoned and unwanted. Great job, NC. Way to look at the big picture.

luscha, sure must be nice to bring up the utterly unrelated actions of over a century ago to make yourself feel good..

the current right-wingers would consider Nixon a "bleeding commie, socialist, liberal"

for doing thing such as:

creating the EPA

signing the endangered species act

pushing for a national health care plan that looked positively socialist when compared to the current aca

enacted a national wage and price freeze

opened the door to communist china

etc.

his actual actions make obama look like a conservative

The full parent-child relationship should only be granted to people who are actually full parents and not to people who are simply rooming together under the law, regardless of the amount of time they've been rooming together.

So all adoptions should be outlawed. 10-4.

you are on the money Mandy. personally i would move from NC, it is still the dark ages there

No, Brad,

These people are requesting to automatically register themselves as full parents based on not blood, or marraige, but on their say so alone because they're gay and they can't get married to obtain full parentage. If they can do that, why can't someone's random roommate?

Are they a blood relative? No. Are they married to a blood parent? No. They why should they be parents?

You can't get full parentage based on say-so, EVER.

If they want the child, they should go through the foster system and adopt, just like they SHOULD have done in the first place instead of adding to the foster problem. NC hasn't had legal gay marriage ever. They should have thought of this issue before they ran to the sperm donor.

Based on some of the posts on here there are more then a couple of you that flat don't understand the problem. So I'll explain it to you. It's not at all uncommon for the step parent to adopt the step children as long as the non-custodial parent agrees or cannot be found.

Wow Kimberly, I wish I were as "enlightened " as you and Toasty are. It must be nice to know that you're so damned right all the time.

luscha

As for Republicans/conservatives standing in the way of change, ever heard of slavery? what party created that in America. There was this thingy called the Civil War, what side were the Democrats on? I think a war constitutes kicking and screaming but don't confuse what I am saying with the facts.

A quick history lesson for those who failed US History. The Democratic party in the mid 19th century was the conservative party of the republic while the Republican party was considered the liberal party of the republic. This changed back in the 1960's when the Southern Democrats broke with the Democratic party and went Republican in protest of the Civil Rights movement and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In other words those "Democrats" in the 19th century were closer to the current ideology of today's Republican Party while Lincoln's "Republican" party was closer to today's Democratic Party. The names may be the same but the ideology is completely different.

@Sam1938777, if you can follow, I was replying to the individual, LosMan123(post 1.5) who wrote and I quote (copy and pasted rather so the spelling errors are not mine):

The point of legislation should be to make sure we are all treated equally, not who's rights can we take away, per the republican strategy! Thoughout history Repblicans / conservatives have had be dragged kicking and screeming into a new century of thinking

I mean who specifically made this political. If you can't figure that out, it not worth any further discussion.

I don't care what gay or lesbian do in their bedrooms, but brain-wash those childs is wrong , rising a child in an unnatural environment is dangerous for the child. Child for accident sometimes get in to parents room and catch them up making love, how shocking got to be for a child see their gays parents doing sex. That can create a trauma in the child for the whole life. Be real, be open is not attempt against the health of the child, be open is to accept the consequences to raise a child with a same sex couple. And the state has the right to protect those childs.

"you are on the money Mandy. personally i would move from NC, it is still the dark ages there"

Typical attitude of a bigot. If someone has a different opinion, then you don't want to associate or live with them. Glad you don't live here.

"In each of the families, the child has a legally-recognized relationship with one parent and wants to establish the same with the second one. But under the state court ruling, the existing legal parent would have to give up their parental rights for an adoption to occur."

I'm sorry, am I missing something? This is a logical, is it not? How can someone adopt someone else's child?

Tod ... what the article is referring to is not a second parent somewhere else, but the child's sole parent. For example, under NC state law, if a Anne's unmarried partner Susan wants to adopt Anne's son, Anne must surrender her parental rights. On the other hand, if Anne married Joe, Joe would be allowed to adopt Anne's son without expecting Anne to forfeit her parental rights. In other words, her son would now have the security of two parents.

Journal journal

Funny you think therefore its OK to get parental rights as a step-father/mother by just signing a marriage license.

You know there are checks and balances and proof people have to go through.

You are very passionate about this, the up shot of this is regardless of how much you shout children will continue to be brought up with gay parents and continuously defy the lies and innuendo people try and introduce saying these children are some how less worthy and damaged.

How would NC handle this case scenario:

A couple is legally married in another state or country and have legally adopted a child in that location. They move to NC due to a job transfer or other reason, then one of them dies. What happens to the child then? Can they snatch the child away because the state doesn't recognize the surviving spouse as a spouse?

@Rob

Everyone is a bigot is some way..... Close your mouth open your mind!

@oskar

Nobody is brainwashing anyone. Were you brain washed into being straight?

@Luscha

You deserved a tap on the wrist because you brought politics in from a period of time that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. On top of all that you did in incorrectly and clearly have not done any research on the topic.

Same sex couples adopting children is a way of producing more gays. The same as Muslims breeding to produce more Muslims.

PJ, that is about the most stupid scenario I have ever heard.

Where are the tea baggers? Peoples constitutional rights are being treaded on!

OOO yeah that's right you are anti-democrats.

Rob Scan

Typical attitude of a bigot. If someone has a different opinion, then you don't want to associate or live with them. Glad you don't live here.

Considering that NC is passing a bill that outlaws any scientific study that they do not agree with... basically outlawing scientific facts simply because they do not like the facts... the concept of NC living in the "dark ages" is shockingly accurate.

How did society in the dark ages treat science when it opposed their religious opinion? Now re-read what I wrote above.

@ToastyMcGrath

Dark Ages? Is the future always better? Take a look at Europe. Its churches are empty and its brothels, hash houses, casinos and sex clubs are full. Some would say that is progress but look at the facts.

Less and less children are born to Europeans, so much so that small towns in Germany, Austria and Italy have all but been vacated. Maybe you still think thats progress but if you look at health statistics, the clinics in Europe are overwhelmed with cases of depression, new cases of mental illnesses and drug abuse. The prisons are full of record numbers of those who have exhibited sociopathic behavior, rape, spousal and child abuse and murder. The numbers dont lie.

Progress is often detrimental to a culture. Need more proof? Look at Rome. As soon as the Roman Empire became more progressive and civilized they expanded their war machine and attempted to encroach on more and more cultures who didnt want their influence.

So save the modern progressives unite speech for another uneducated subgroup, just because you believe you are more tolerant of every single special interest group that comes along doesnt mean you and your kind wont be the downfall of the very lifestyle you profess to enjoy.

Riley,

That is a real odd take?

This isn't about liberals, progressives or conservatives this is about Constitutional Laws.

Actually I hold a different opinion but that is for me not for me to dictate on to you.

Progress is often detrimental to a culture

I can't believe you even wrote that. Is that what you meant to say?!

Need more proof?

More? How about ANY?

God gave people the means to have children. If they don't come with the tendency to behave in a manner that will produce children than maybe that is natures way of stopping a bad blood line. So, why should they be allowed to mess up other people's kids that could go to regular two parent homes? You are either like other people and make your own kids or not and do without. You can't claim nature made you the way you are then say you want to go against that nature and have others do the birthing or donating the means for you.

MBD123.

This rebuttal was addressed to Toasty for his comment about how those in NC need to come out of the dark ages. I, on the other hand, often in NC on business for long periods of time, firmly believe that this viewpoint is skewed.

Traditions, morals and values are not always Jim Crow laws or outright bigotry. Do I want whats best for the children? Heck yes, but people like Toasty assume automatically that if someone takes a counter argument to a liberal viewpoint, that it is bigotry, bias and discrimination. I am so sick of this crap and evidently so are many NC residents.

They are not going to reverse the recent legislation defining marriage laws. That being said, it is still possible to legislate protection for same sex couples and children. There isnt just one way to build a mousetrap but everyone is so busy finger pointing and waving pitchforks that we all lose focus on what or who is really important.

Growing up with two fathers is yucky. I feel like throwing up just thinking about it.

yep, its the "yucky" thing that makes people hate gays.

just freaking deal with it, just because you think its "yucky" is no reason to punish them.

In other words those "Democrats" in the 19th century were closer to the current ideology of today's Republican Party while Lincoln's "Republican" party was closer to today's Democratic Party. The names may be the same but the ideology is completely different.

LIZON: If you are referring to civil rights, then you may have a point. Democrats of today have been known to stand up more for civil rights. However, most of the ideaology done by Lincoln of the Republican party back then was based upon the Godly Principles of all men being treated equally( Colossians 3: 11; Galatians 3:28) . Quite a distance from the Democratic Party of today( most democrats today wouldn't claim they know God). In fact, it is just as likely that the Democrats of Today would have sided with the Klu Klux Klan because of their lack of godly principles. Afterall, the Klu Klux Klan would not be considered a christian group because they held no church, gave to no missions, didn't start spreading the gospel about Jesus, etc.

In fact, if Lincoln were alive today, I'm pretty sure he would have voted Republican.

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Abraham Lincoln

"...numerous studies show that a two parent household, of any kind, is more stable than a single parent household."

The lessor of two evils is still evil.... {Frankly, I seriously doubt the results of those studies.}

Truth is stranger than fiction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
.....
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
.....
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
.....
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture."
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
.....
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
.....
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

"Dark Ages? Is the future always better? Take a look at Europe. Its churches are empty and its brothels, hash houses, casinos and sex clubs are full. Some would say that is progress but look at the facts.

Less and less children are born to Europeans, so much so that small towns in Germany, Austria and Italy have all but been vacated. Maybe you still think thats progress but if you look at health statistics, the clinics in Europe are overwhelmed with cases of depression, new cases of mental illnesses and drug abuse. The prisons are full of record numbers of those who have exhibited sociopathic behavior, rape, spousal and child abuse and murder. The numbers dont lie.

Progress is often detrimental to a culture. Need more proof? Look at Rome. As soon as the Roman Empire became more progressive and civilized they expanded their war machine and attempted to encroach on more and more cultures who didnt want their influence.

So save the modern progressives unite speech for another uneducated subgroup, just because you believe you are more tolerant of every single special interest group that comes along doesnt mean you and your kind wont be the downfall of the very lifestyle you profess to enjoy."

riley-1759556,

Where did you get your research, the American Family Association? Only a few of these countries have brothels, hash houses, casinos and sex clubs that are legally recognized and no one is being stopped from going to Church, they just don't care any more. The numbers may not lie, but the ones who created them sure does. Show us the source!

On the issue with Rome, you really need to do some history studies. Rome fell about century after the creation of the Roman Catholic Church and they stretched their resorces thin with their expanded war machine and attempted to encroach on more and more cultures who didnt want their influence. It was the first of many Christian holy wars. The Holy Roman Empire was far from progressive.

Less and less children are born to Europeans, so much so that small towns in Germany, Austria and Italy have all but been vacated.

The decrease in European birth rates has more to do with economics than with "progress." The New York Times published an excellent study of the situation several years ago. Those countries where the economic downside of leaving work (even temporarily) to have children is relatively low had higher birthrates. In the US and the UK, women are more readily integrated into the workforce after leaving to have (or even raise) children, while Norway (another country maintaining its birthrate) offers generous subsidies. The countries where birthrates are falling, including the supposedly "family friendly" Italy, suffer from declining incomes, low or inconsistent subsidies and cultures that don't welcome women returning to the workforce.

Personally I am anti gay (lightly) because I am straight, I simply don't understand it. Anyways. That doesn't in any way give me the right to tell them or anyone else what they can or cannot do. Especially when it does not interfere with my pursuit of happiness.

As well I want to hear about a heterosexuals sex life about as much as a homosexuals sex life, NOT AT ALL! But I don't think there should be a law telling you cannot do so. I will walk away, as I cannot control you I can only control what it is I DO.

I believe in God, Jesus, evolution, constitutional rights, science and human rights. I must be weird. If your Normal I want no part of that. Nothing is normal.

Could you imagine looking into 90% of Americans bedrooms? NOOO Thank YOU!

God Judges me not you, and you don't answer for me when my time comes. MIND your BUSINESS!

You don't force religion you practice and preach it!

I would be 100% against if they where to try to force churches to marry gays. That is not what they are asking for. So if your religion has the right to dictate laws than every religion should have the same right.

Be a good Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, Lutheran, Muslim, Jew and mind your business.

It is legal rights not religious rights.

Don't tread on me!

I see many people think homosexual parents are guaranteed to mess up, torture, mislead, etc. any and all children they have or adopt. To those people I say: WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS??? Answer: there aren't any.

The only studies that have been done have found absolutely NO difference or the differences were very miniscule (some children were bullied more than others, etc.) between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. Where are the studies and facts that show otherwise? All I have ever seen presented are opinions (often bigoted, misinformed, religious based, etc.) and few, if any, facts. If you are going to parade something as fact, at least back it up with a link.

Here are some links: livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html, huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html (I know, this is from the huffinton post, but it has some really useful links.), and a very recent article: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2158795/Gay-gene-survives-generations-female-relatives-homosexual-men-babies.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Heterosexual parents are just as, if not more so, capable of messing up, torturing, mislead, etc. All/most homosexuals had heterosexual parents! Few, if any, of the children care about the sexual orientation of their parents. If you don't have/never had one, then stop trying to see their point of view through your own misconceptions. Homosexuals have just as much right to marry and have/care for children as everyone else! That is their right as Americans.

spiddas, the best you can come up with is a 50 year old document from the defunct communist party?

ROFLMAO!

make that a 50 year old "document" of questionable origins.

you know they are cause you would have bullied em if you found out right? the child woudn't be confused cause it doesn't have any predetermined idea of what is normal or not, unlike yourself. the child would be fine and if you're so against it i take it you have adopted? if not, shut the hell up and let someone who is willing to adopt do so.

and you know this how?

concerned citizen-6141561

Please do not let same sex couples adopt, life is hard enough without having a man for a mom, or a woman as a dad. talk about confusing a kid. And if people are worried about kids getting bullied, these kids are gonna get creamed when they go to school and the other kids find out their parents are homosexuals or lesbians.

1) Children of gay parents grow up as normally as those of any other couple. There's no scientific evidence of anything else.

2) Kids don't get confused when they are inundated with hate and bigotry. When they are given love, they get past the 'two mommies' or 'two daddies' pretty darn quick. it's the adults looking at the situation with prejudice or bigotry in their minds that inflict something that isn't there.

3) More and more kids (and adults) are understanding that gay is no longer that 'different'. Again, it's only those raised in hate, bigotry and/or irrational fear that would create problems for other kids. Do you raise your kids to believe that harassing or harming other kids 'because of thier gay parents' is ok? If you do - YOU are the one with a problem, not the children of gay parents.

I wish adults would stop injecting thier own biases, prejudices and bigotry into the world of kids. They have enough of thier own problems - you don't need to be forcing your problems onto them.

Such actions by a child would be a reflection of the ignorance of those adults close to them. Reactions like what you mention are learned, and not natural.

Have you ever talked to the children of same-sex parents? You might be surprised by how happy they are. Of course you'll never do it, but the American Pediatric society has released a number of studies showing that the children of same-sex parents are as well-adjusted and successful -- or moreso -- than the children of traditional couples. It's easy to find online, look it up.

That's EXACTLY the solution! Let's continue dictating a heterosexual agenda! Let's continue to deprive children of a loving home!

Concerned, why would you and by extension the government want to stop any child from being raised by two loving parents, enjoy the stability of a two parent home, or enjoy the lifestyle that a two income family can provide? Studies have shown that children raised by gays are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straights.

Get a clue about life and what you are going to talk about!

Concerned, Let me introduce you to Zach Wahls, who spoke to the Iowa State Legislature last year. He was raised by two women. This is his speech, and its worth a listen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

Oh, and if a kid gets bullied, its not the kids or their parents fault. The blame goes to the parents of the bully.

For the record; I am transgender; and my ex is a lesbian. We raised 3 kids, who now all have a total of 7 children between them. None of my children were bullied, nor are their children. In fact; the friends of my kids; thought it was "Awesome that you have the courage to be who you are." I doubt my story is any different from most. Hate and bigotry are learned; who we are is how we are born. Parents are to blame if children bully those who are different.

My two kids are really happy and are not confused at all...just goes to show you are sheltered and not loved or even love yourself!

concerned, you're wrong and you don't understand the dynamics of a relationship. There are men who are less dominant in a straight relationship and women who are more. In a homosexual relationship, things are much the same, except the parents have the same hoo-hoos and ha-has (just quoting Marge Simpson here).

Yeah, thanks for your concern for my daughter's well being. However, if given the choice between life with her drunken father who she hasn't seen,or heard from in years( his lack of effort, not ours-including birthdays and holidays)and who actually physically attacked me when I was pregnant OR her loving "other Mother" who has helped raise her for 6 years now,I'd be willing to bet she could explain to you fifty reasons why she wouldn't change anything....

My daughter is smart enought to know that she may have to deal with being teased in her lifetime. We have gently prepared her to have to deal with such nonsense since she was in kindergarten,hoping the day will never come. I have been an active parent in school from day one and alot of kids in the school already know about our family.It's nothing to be ashamed about. She knows to ignore and walk away. You know what? Just in case that doesnt work-she has been training in mixed martial arts for over 3 years now. She will be a black belt in mixed discipline by the age of 11. Go ahead and let little Johnny try to F$!% with her because of her two Moms. He will regret opening his little trap and I know she will have tried everything to avoid it to begin with... Kids learn hate from their parents. Maybe parents should spend a little time teaching kids to embrace what is different. Live and let live.

A boy seeing his father kissing another man will confuse him and steer him to try the same type of relationship his daddy has. Just another way to add another gay person to the world. The actress Ann Heche married a man, then later switched to women, then back again. How's that for a confused person?

BP...don't you mean how''s that for a sexually liberated and enlightened person?

BP, right, gay parents produce gay children, just like straight parents only produce straight children.

A boy seeing his father kissing another man will confuse him and steer him to try the same type of relationship his daddy has. Just another way to add another gay person to the world.

So you're going to deliberately ignore this post:

Studies have shown that children raised by gays are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straights.

Just saying that you might want to do a fact check on both your statement and the one that contradicts it to see who is factually right. If not you're just blowing smoke and can't be taken seriously.

BP:

No, he won't. Children of homosexuals are not converted to homosexuality. Sexual orientation is the equivalent of a coin-toss. Remember: most/all homosexuals came from heterosexual parents!

People have the right to choose who they love, no matter the gender.

(@ Concerned)-I just love your comment! All the reason why I keep my nails long and sharp (preps for a backhand slap) BTW, I'm taking away your bath salts, you've had enough already.

(@ BP)-You hang out with Concerned too much.

Concerned~ So you're telling me that straight parents (mother and father) will automatically do a better job of raising their children simply because it's a man and a woman? Have you never watched the news? Or read it?

Those who think children of homosexual couples will be converted to homosexuality are the ones that still believe homosexuality is a choice. I know one same sex couple who where able to conceive through in vitro, even though they didn't adopt they are doing a damn sight better in raising their child then several male/female couples I know. If a kid can be adopted into a family that will love and care for them, are you really going to take that away because YOU don't agree with their lifestyle, even if you don't have any idea who they are or what they are capable of? Talk about judgmental.

As to the bully concern. Plenty of kids are bullied, it's not their fault nor the fault of the parents of the kid being bullied. It's the fault of the bully and their parents. Ignorance and hatred towards people different from you, unlike homosexuality, is learned.

Listen we can all bicker back and forth about what's best for a child, but the reality is life doesn't always give you a traditional 2-opposite-sex-parent household. So don't hold that against our children - don't take it out on them! Give them all the protection and the best environment possible that they deserve. This really isn't even a gay or straight issue - it's about what's best for a child in a setting that doesn't give the parents full protection under the law. That's not right. Wherever a child winds up they should be protected and be afforded things such as Social Security if one of their parents should die. This is ridiculous that the media is succeeding about dividing us over our opinions on heterosexuality vs. homosexuality when the issue here is how do we best protect our children!!

The issue of whether a male-female parental relationship is better or worse than a same-sex parental relationship is irrelevant in this situation. In most cases, the child is already living with the same sex couple. People who favor this law are, in effect, saying that it is better for the child to have ONE parent, rather than receiving the security of having TWO parents if that means that the parents are of the same sex.

Their opposition proves that they don't have the best interests of the child at heart ... they're merely using their so-called concern for the children to espouse their hatred of gays. They don't really care whether their oppposition makes the child's life worse.

The actress Ann Heche married a man, then later switched to women, then back again. How's that for a confused person?

She may be bi, ever think of that?

Playbook, as a descendant of slaves, were it not for your playbook my relatives would have been left alone. So don't talk to me about a playbook. In order for this new law to have passed in NC, there had to be some Democrats to have voted for it. Guess they lost their new playbook.

Luscha, great post.

Regardless of party affiliation, the people of NC voted their moral conscience against gay marriage. If you are not a registered voter in NC, take your opinion somewhere else.

Luscha,

Really? You're playing "trump card" with persecution? As a minority, you should be the most vociferous in your defense of the Constitutional Republic system we have. You know, where we don't vote on civil rights.

Kinda pathetic.

It would not surprise me in the least, sickening isn't it.

It never takes long before a stupid "pedophile" comment appears.

plenty of heterosexual pedophiles around, if they were going to "demand their rights" it would already have happened. Try to pay attention.

@ motoricker - You forgot bestials and necrophiliacs.

Most pedophiles are straigth.. and polygamists hide the other wives so no problems there.

How wrong you are, Vermont, and Jersey. The most organized, and probably numerous, group of pedophiles in the U.S., is NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), which is estimated to be over 1,000 members. These are gay men, who believe it is their right to have "consensual" sex with boys. Incidentally, they have been pushing to get the minimum age law abolished. This might actually strengthen their position, as now they can claim discrimination. Interestingly enough (although not surprising), the douchebag ACLU represented NAMBLA against a lawsuit filed by the parents of a boy who was raped, and brutally murdered by these scumbags. The ACLU succeeded in getting the suit dismissed against NAMBLA. Oh yeah-liberalism is a wonderful thing..........NOT

13bvet: yeah, good thing there aren't so many heterosexuals abusing children, like parents who molest their children, straight teachers, etc., or you'd look so stupid.

oh wait, you do. :)

oh yeah, stupdity is a wonderful thing....NOT.

Motoricker: If you are going to base parental rights on blood-relation only, then pedophiles and polygamists already have their adoption rights to those poor kids. That is why we need to understand that gay parents can be good parents just like hetrosexual parents can be good parents. For the welfare of the children, we need to look at who their best parents are, not who their blood relatives are.

Incidentally, they have been pushing to get the minimum age law abolished. This might actually strengthen their position, as now they can claim discrimination.

How can it strengthen their position? The minimum age laws are for the protection of the children. Since NO ONE can have sex with underage teens/children, there is no discrimination.

Incidentally, they have been pushing to get the minimum age law abolished. This might actually strengthen their position, as now they can claim discrimination.

How can it strengthen their position? The minimum age laws are for the protection of the children. Since NO ONE can have sex with underage teens/children, there is no discrimination.

"How wrong you are, Vermont, and Jersey. The most organized, and probably numerous, group of pedophiles in the U.S., is NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), which is estimated to be over 1,000 members. These are gay men, who believe it is their right to have "consensual" sex with boys. Incidentally, they have been pushing to get the minimum age law abolished. This might actually strengthen their position, as now they can claim discrimination. Interestingly enough (although not surprising), the douchebag ACLU represented NAMBLA against a lawsuit filed by the parents of a boy who was raped, and brutally murdered by these scumbags. The ACLU succeeded in getting the suit dismissed against NAMBLA. Oh yeah-liberalism is a wonderful thing..........NOT"

NAMBLA is an insigificant organization of paederasts who's limited to a website and 1,000 members in what is supposed to be a whole continent is a rather small number. They're not part of any gay organization and most pedophiles, regardless whether they target boys or girls, often identify themselves as straight.

The ACLU is a free speech organization and has been known to representing racists, religious extremist groups and others that normally would hate this law firm, believe it or not. Like other law firms, representing a criminal does not mean they condone their actions. The ACLU is not standing up for child molestation, exploitation or pornography, it is standing against authoritarian measures that make mere thoughts into crimes while having little to no effect upon the terrible crime of child exploitation.

Before you lable me, I prefer men within five years of my age, I don't know anyone who lusts for children or has child porn, nor would I have anything to do with them. Just mentioning NAMBLA here just shows how bigoted you are as this article is about raising children in loving families, regardless of how unconventional they may be.

Motor,

You forgot toasters too. Can't forget the toasters. (sarc)

good to hear from an "expert" on childrearing.

someone here is really confused, don't think its the kid. :)

Why not just allow gays to be "two dads" and lesbians to be "two moms"? Otherwise it reinforces male nelly and lady butch stereotypes.

yeah, gloss is an expert on gay couples. lol. another clueless "legend in his own mind". :)

The child learns these words from the parents. It's the parents who tell the child to address them by mother or father, not the child coming up with the names. And I seriously doubt that "bring your child to work day" is going to be an issue. If this is what you are concerned about, you may want to think on what your issues are.

vermont,

What makes you such an expert? Are you a homosexual?

road: it actually doesn't take an "expert" to make fun of your stupid posts. :)

I know a same-sex couple with children. Their children weren't confused in the slightest. A child doesn't automatically expect that one parent be called "dad" and one be called "mom." The child uses the name that refers to the parent of interest. It could be "Thing A" and "Thing B", for all the child cares.

If you're confused by the concept of names, Warrior, perhaps my friends' four-year old kids can explain it to you.

What a burden for the poor child to have both of his parents answer when he calls. I really can't imagine a worse way to grow up. (sarcasm) SMH

is that how you got adopted Road Warrior-252445......LMAO!!!!

This isn't the bedroom. its not about sex. its about adoption.

crazy, isn't it? yes, they want to be treated equally like hetero couples. Who knew that having equal rights would be something people in america wanted?

Since when was sodomy decriminalized? It's STILL illegal between UNCONSENTING people. And by the way....the arguement about taking it up the rear is invalid since the act is done between CONSENTING HETEROSEXUAL couples. Sorry, you needed to learn about that too some day about what goes on behind closed doors of heterosexual couples. Worry about the opposite-sex couples first before worrying about same-sex couples.

Sodomy laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003. However, non-consensual sodomy is also called RAPE -- and that is NEVER legal.

@!$%#ryKang. We ask the government to intervene on behalf of those who cannot protect themselves, especially when the ignorant, assholish, self-righteous idiocy of people, like yourself, has been written, bull@!$%#, into law. My advice to you sir is to get laid. Put down the cross and pick up a different book. I'd recommend Cornell West, but you'd have to rise up a bit in the thought department. Start with Charlie and the Chocolate factory or maybe the Little Red Hen.

vermontguy

This isn't the bedroom. its not about sex. its about adoption.

crazy, isn't it? yes, they want to be treated equally like hetero couples. Who knew that having equal rights would be something people in america wanted?

Actually, it's about parenting. The adoption is just the means to this end.

And as far as being "treated equally like hetero couples"...they are not equal to hetero couples so why should they be treated as equal to them? It is physiologically impossible for 2 men or 2 women to create a child; hell, they can't even be partners in manufacturing a child, i.e. test-tube, in-vitro or whatever else. Sure, there are some hetero couples who are not able to create a child, but that is a medical condition as opposed to a physiological condition. There is a BIG difference between the two! So, why is it that they should be afforded the same privileges as a hetero couple when they are so different from a hetero couple?

Sure, there are some hetero couples who are not able to create a child, but that is a medical condition as opposed to a physiological condition. There is a BIG difference between the two!

Not really such a big difference since the result is the same. If a heterosexual couple unable to have children by "conventional" means is afforded a certain set of privileges, there is no justification to denying the same privileges to same-sex couples.

step - same sex couples can have true biological children. Didn't you know that>

Next ...

Step,

So infertile couples are less then human, too? Okay, got it.

Actually numerous studies have shown otherwise. And I can personally attest to the fact that the children I know who have been raised by gay parents are no more or less screwed up than any other kids.

please cite a reliable source for your post...your word just isn't good enough.....thanks!!

queenie not sure if you are asking me or gomer, but in case it is me, here you go:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full#sec-19

no I'm talking to Gomer!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

I am posting this again, but this is a great video. Iowa college student, who was raised by two moms. Speaking in front of the legislature.

my opinion, dude you better go read that again. No real differences occur and if there are it's more likely caused by the divorce... gonna quote statistics better get em right.

"The kids that come out of these gay families are just walking bags of issues, more so than the normal monkey."

Blow it out your *ss! where do homo's come from then, if there not reproducing idiot? if all these homo's are from hetero parents, then you should be blaming their failure for they're kids being gay.

bigots love to use this empty argument. it doesnt make a diff what orientation the parents are, if their full of sh*t and got issues, then the kids will too. parents don't know what the hell they're doing regardless of preference, get real! all you can hope for is loving parents who do the best they can and anyone with a brain knows its not about orientation...or are you afraid of the gay agenda?

all this same-sex @!$%# is a civil rights issue. a group of ppl are being discriminated against, period. get over it and grow a pair, you pussies.

"grow a pair, you pussies"

Just funny.

Seebuttpan: Any proof for your stated opinion?

I suppose when it comes down to it, inbreeding in "Them Thar Hills" could be considered an even more volatile issue than the subject of this news article.

What you call inbreed'n we call kinship. And kinship's been 'round since ...well Adam and Eve, I guess they was technically brother and sister.

@ RightasRain-2528934 - It's just that in places like Tarheel Country kinship is written and pronounced kins-hip.

RightasRain-2528934 - And kinship's been 'round since ...well Adam and Eve, I guess they was technically brother and sister.

Technically, Adam had sex with his clone.......which is rather typical of biblical values.

See people want to characterize NC as being backward. Maybe so, since we voted for Obama! However, NC has the highest per capita of PHD's so get over yourselves pretending to be so enlightened, superior.

That aside, children who grow up in households where the parents planned them, even though of course the could not biologically have same child, have well adjusted children. If you plan your children and know that just creating a child is not easy, you will be a better parent. You realize just how precious life is when you have biological obstacles involved. Just having children with the opposite sex does not make you a better parent.

But all things being equal, children will do better in a heterosexual household where they have attentive, loving parent. Unfortunately, a lot of heterosexual parents have not set this example.

luscha - But all things being equal, children will do better in a heterosexual household where they have attentive, loving parent.

That silly assertion isn't supported by the science.

NC has the highest per capita of PHD's

Yes, there are SOME people supporting their homosexual friends and neighbors. Unfortunately NC is weighed down by the sickeningly ignorant opinions of the masses. I feel sad for those PHD's now. :(

yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights and marriage and relationships. You've figured it out. :)

Are you serious???

Is it hard to believe that couples who can't have kids on their own would want one or 2 to raise without it being some sort of rouse??

This hasn't got ONE THING to do with SS. Nice try but that is total bs. Would you like to know what my Mom's survivor benefit was when my Dad passed away? $67/month.

YAH! We're REALLY GOING FOR THE GOLD ALRIGHT!!!!

STFU. sheesh!

i would see a couple male and female who medical cant have kids should have that option, not a couple who medical male and male female / female really cant have kids as a couple and get the same treatment.

see where this went to??

its NATURE.

Its about X and Y, not Y and Y or X and X. Just X and Y.

dont think he mean SS i think he means tax break, you get about $1,000.00 tax break for every kid.

Actually, I think in this case, they just want to be sure that if something happened to either of them their family would remain intact. Each woman gave birth to one of their two children. If one of them dies, then the family of that woman would be considered the legal guardian of that child because they were not allowed to adopt each other's children. That would be wrong, yes?

A $1000.00 tax break has some peoples panties in a bunch? How much do you think it costs to house just one kid in the foster care system each year. Keep in mind, there are hundreds of thousands of unwanted or orphaned kids wanting a home.

...dont think he mean SS i think he means tax break, you get about $1,000.00 tax break for every kid.

Yeah, people are just squirting out children so that they can take advantage of tax deduction! If you're saving more money on your taxes than you're spending on your child, I feel sorry for your kid.

Yes its Learned as Being gay is learned and not inherited or borned with.

you can learn to live the right way of life.

Mister Whoops...is that what your christian scientists say? Because my scientists, the ones who aren't complete and total morons, disagree with that assessment. Sorry if it doesn't jibe with your hateful bigotry.

So, in your opinion, is stupidity something you're "borned" with as well? And is it your choice to be stupid or were you borned that way?

By the way, is the "right way of life" displaying a complete and total lack of compassion for your fellow human beings? If that's right then I'll be happy to be wrong any day.

Mr. Whoops, evidently you didn't learn proper English. Or maybe you were never taught proper English.

Whoops:

Wrong. Homosexuality is in the genes. Some people can choose it, but others can't help it. Your version of "normal" isn't so "normal." Also, homosexuality is natural. It is in nature and is not a deviant behavior.

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

Oscar Hammerstein II "South Pacific"

So Mr. Whoops if sexuality is a choice when did you choose to stop sucking dick?

@EMDF9A ... ironically, that song itself was controversial. It seems that people recognized themselves in the lyrics (they were offended by the interracial romance in the show), and couldn't accept the truth that they were bigots.

one thing I never understood is why clueless people like road warrior insist on embarrassing themselves by exposing their ignorance on a subject they obviously know nothing about.

gay couples, like straight, vary.

Really? I have to ask, is every lesbian couple you've ever seen on a sitcom or something? That sort of like asking why I only see beautiful women with men who have money. It is a stereotype. Yes, it does happen, but it is not the 'standard'.

My neighbors are lesbians. All their friends are lesbians. It is always one "male" and one "female". The male does all the heavy lifting and the female does the house work, your stereotypical man-woman relationship.

Road, you need to get out and meet more people.

Well we could also ask why some opposite-sex couples have a male that has a personality more feminine and a female that has a peronsality more masculine. You need to really start studying the heterosexuals personality traits before going after anyone who are into the same-sex. Everyone has their quirks on what they prefer or how they act. A lot of the times it's the males who are more feminine in personality that are called "extra sensitive" while you got the females who are more masculine in personality that are called "tom-boys".

lol, road is an "expert" based on the couples he's met and his evaluation of them? that's funny...a bigot thinking he's an expert. :)

Hmm...since all the latest polls are saying 54% of Americans are for gay rights, I would go back and check your math on the 1%.

Mister Whoops - Ever hear of a complete sentence?

Polls are not always representative of the population. People tell pollster one thing and vote in the privacy of the booth another. 30 states have had ballot initiatives passed banning same-sex marriage, including California.

14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You cannot allow one group of people to do something and tell the next group no, simply because you disagree with a perceived difference.

By the way... I, personally have no issues if you want to marry three women - so long as everyone is of legally consenting age and can enter into a contract legally within the country, I say it's none of my business.

@Road Warrior. The poll might not reflect the opinion completely, but I guarantee it is closer than the 1% quoted above.

Hey mister, how does it harm you in any way to allow it? I don't want people to own guns, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to stop them, as it is their right.

Mandy,

I would never vote to disallow gay marriage, but the majority do. I say this is a free country and you can whatever you want to do. But that doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it. I think it is stupid, but everyone has the right to be stupid. Legalize drugs, too. Kill yourself for all I care.

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. lmao, yeah, that's real big percentage of people they used for that survey....lol...

one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

It's funny you question the survey, but in your rebuttal, you include info that backs up the survey and its relevance to the total population.

Do you really think that you can judge what a whole country thinks by just polling 1000 people? I do not.

Hmm....years and years of research and testing of said method would disagree with you. If it were so off, people would have debunked gallup polls years ago.

I am sure when the gallup poll swings your way, you are all over it. It is only wrong when you disagree with the majority.

Homosexuals are asking for equal rights. Not special. They are pushing their "agenda" to get equality, not to displace your misinformed and bigoted ideas. Marriage is to be between two consenting people, no matter the gender. Everyone would do the same if their rights were violated in such a blatant way.

This court case may go a step further and proclaim the "homosexual marriage ban" unconstitutional, which they have done before because it is. The arguments used to promote banning homosexual marriage are the exact same arguments which were used to ban interracial marriage and divorce. You know what happened to those arguments? They lost.

Homosexuals will get their rights. If not for themselves, then for their children. It is just a matter of time.

@steve, I merely asked you a question, and I told you what I thought, and you are telling me what I think.It must be nice to have that ability. Your just proving your mentality. Good luck on your future endeavors, reading horoscopes or whatnot. Have a nice day.

MW,

14th Amendment. Read it sometime. In it there is a little law that states that marriage is a civil right. Denying someone the right to marry, no matter who they are or want to be married to so long as it is consensual, is unconstitutional.

I hate the people on my side of the fence, like you, that just will not stop pushing stupid religious bullcrap like this. There is no reason religion, in 2012, should be influcening any laws in this country. Christianity is a personal moral boat, not a political vehicle like Islam. It has no right nor place deciding our laws.

The statement that homosexuality is wrong is your personal opinion and the personal opinion of everyone who has that opinion. Personal opinions are in and of themselves not enough proof for a law. You have to have something grounded in reality, something that proves it should be illegal.

Incest is not technically illegal, where consensual, but it is frowned upon because if can cause birth defects. Incest has a perfect medical reasoning why it should be illegal but it is not. If banning homosexuality has no medical reasoning, nor legal one, why should we even consider it? Because it says so in a book?

The fake Christians that start spouting off Old Testament scripture as a means to "prove" why it should be illegal are not only purgering themselves before God, in a way, they are making a mockery of their Religion. The only laws, passages, verses to be followed by Christians are from the New Testament. As far as the Churches are concerned the Old Testament never existed. Any Churches of followers using the OT are practicing a false religion which, according to many, is a sin.

There is no where in the NT that states that Homosexuals are to be discriminated against in fact it is quite the opposite. It says they are to be welcomed into society and that you are to make an attempt to change them. If they do not change after that then you are to accept them for who they are.

The reason people always go to the OT for their religious BS quotes is because they do not exist in the NT. You are continuing my theory that you were constantly beaten up by Gay kids when you were in school. That is the only way you could be this phobic against them, or felt up by your pastor.

The level of hate I see from you does not occur naturally, it is either placed there by trauma or drilled in by bad parents.

So if im happy to kill someone doe it take away my right?? If im happy to beat up someone or let say marry three women does that take away my right??

As they say, the right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Your "rights" can't deprive someone else of their rights. But, that's not the case in NC. Allowing same-sex couples their right to adopt one another's children doesn't deprive anyone else of their constitutional rights.

@ David Noah - That is more an ethical debate (made archaic by the Internet), not a biological debate, in that due to artificial insemination, closet phases of relationships, etc., it sometimes seems as if gay men actually have a HIGHER reproductive ratio than straight men.

Why do you care? Exactly what business is it of yours?

Here is a super quick copy and paste from a list of animals that have homosexual behaviors. Can't get any more natural than nature, right?

• 4.1 Birds
  • 4.1.1 Black swans
  • 4.1.2 Gulls
  • 4.1.3 Ibises
  • 4.1.4 Mallards
  • 4.1.5 Penguins
  • 4.1.6 Vultures
  • 4.1.7 Pigeons
• 4.2 Mammals
  • 4.2.1 Amazon Dolphin
  • 4.2.2 American Bison
  • 4.2.3 Bonobo and other apes
  • 4.2.4 Bottlenose dolphins
  • 4.2.5 Elephants
  • 4.2.6 Giraffes
  • 4.2.7 Monkeys
  • 4.2.8 Japanese macaque
  • 4.2.9 Lions
  • 4.2.10 Polecat
  • 4.2.11 Sheep
  • 4.2.12 Spotted Hyena
• 4.3 Others
  • 4.3.1 Lizards
  • 4.3.2 Dragonflies
  • 4.3.3 Fruit flies
  • 4.3.4 Bed bugs

David Noah, are you also against in vitro or surrogacy?

This argument is so tiresome. Given your logic, infertile couples - or those that simply cannot have a child due to a physical trait - are not natural.

If you are going to talk evolution, natural selection and natural sciences… you need to read a few more reports. There is documented homosexuality in many species of the animal kingdom.

Just wondering, following your logic… As gay couples cannot procreate, where do you think gay children come from?

IdahoSteve, I didn't see any human being in that list.

Terry...really? You are that lame? The post was in response to David saying that you can't teach children that homosexuality occurs in nature.

I'm curious. When the kids start learning Science, Natural selection, Evolution,. Darwinisn how are you going to explain how Homosexuality is Natural?

I don't think any of us would be here posting on this story if human beings did not exhibit homosexual behavior as well. That one is pretty obvious.

Terry, that was just dumb.

Given your logic, infertile couples - or those that simply cannot have a child due to a physical trait - are not natural.

I never said that couples that could not have a child are not natural. The couples that you are referring to are Mail/Female couples that for some "Biological" reason cannot reproduce and not because their reproductive organs are the same. Am I correct?

What I said was that a Boy+ Boy cannot have a child or a Girl+ Girl. It just doesn't work that way no matter how many species you can cite as showing "Homosexual Behavior". When it comes to a species procreating it still takes a Sperm and an Egg.

If you are going to talk evolution, natural selection and natural sciences… you need to read a few more reports. There is documented homosexuality in many species of the animal kingdom.

I also did some research and the Experts aren't sure why other species in the Animal Kindgom exhibit "Homosexual Behavior". It certainly cant be for Procreation can it? I will concede the point that there are species that Exhibit "Homosexual Behavior" for brevity.

Just wondering, following your logic… As gay couples cannot procreate, where do you think gay children come from?

A Sperm and an Egg...

Homosexuality is what 10% of the World Population, Maybe 3% here in the U.S.? Considering that 90% of the Human population is Heterosexual that means that Heterosexuality is the Norm and "Homosexuality" isn't. Or do you think 10% is a greater value than 90%...

Basically that means "Homosexuality" is a Genetic Mutation which wouldn't get passed on to the next generation in theory. Humans are so good at Violating Nature though which is why it will probably never disappear completely and those mutations will keep showing up.

Or is it a Choice?

Ok, so since we get to use "the norm" to legislate on.

As of 2012, the global sex ratio is approximately 1.01 males to 1 female. Being male is the norm, so we should be able to discriminate against women.

Approximately 26.3% of the global population is aged under 15, while 65.9% is aged 15–64 and 7.9% is aged 65 or over. Being 15-64 is the norm, so we should be able to fire people over 65 from their jobs without issue.

The Han Chinese are the world's largest single ethnic group, constituting over 19% of the global population, while the second-largest single ethnicity, the Bengali people, account for around 4.8%. The norm is to be Chinese in ethnicity. Now we get to discriminate against all these white people in the minority.

See how fun it can be to legislate on what you call "the norm"?

I never said that couples that could not have a child are not natural. The couples that you are referring to are Mail/Female couples that for some "Biological" reason cannot reproduce and not because their reproductive organs are the same. Am I correct?

You missed my point... I was following your logic. Basically what your first post, and your second post, are saying is that if sex is not for procreation, it is not natural. Therefore, the logical next step would be, anyone who engages in sex without the express purpose of procreation is doing an unnatural act.

I also did some research and the Experts aren't sure why other species in the Animal Kindgom exhibit "Homosexual Behavior". It certainly cant be for Procreation can it? I will concede the point that there are species that Exhibit "Homosexual Behavior" for brevity.

Huh.. sounds familiar. As the experts (curious, why did you capitalize Experts and Animal Kingdom, or for that matter, "Homosexual Behavior," and Procreation?) cannot conclusively say why humans exhibit "homosexual behavior" either, for brevity, I'll just say you've made my point.

Homosexuality is what 10% of the World Population, Maybe 3% here in the U.S.? Considering that 90% of the Human population is Heterosexual that means that Heterosexuality is the Norm and "Homosexuality" isn't. Or do you think 10% is a greater value than 90%...

Basically that means "Homosexuality" is a Genetic Mutation which wouldn't get passed on to the next generation in theory. Humans are so good at Violating Nature though which is why it will probably never disappear completely and those mutations will keep showing up.

Or is it a Choice?

Again, you take us back a view point which only relates to Homo sapiens... why? If you are willing to admit that there is homosexual behavior within other species, why can you not admit that it would be just as natural in ours? There are a hundred different possible reasons I could think up for having homosexual behavior among the different species, but I could never prove it to someone who's mind is so one tracked.

It comes down to this for me. I am not attracted to other women, so I do not have sex with other women. However, it is also absolutely, none of my business who and or what gender of person you want to have sex with so long as it is with a legally consenting adult. Want four wives or four husbands? More power to you, as it's none of my business. Would I think you are crazy? Yes, I have enough trouble putting up with my one!

Basically, live your own life and allow others the same freedom... and always remember...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

David Noah, I have a theory about that. First off, if you just read the Kinsey Report you'd know that many more people engage in homosexual behavior than those who label themselves homosexual. Further, since homosexuality is taboo, it is impossible to count the number of homosexuals anywhere. Second, in some places there is no word for homosexuality or homosexual. Many countries in Africa have no such word, but many Africans engage in it. You get at the behavior by asking specific behavioral questions, not by using a label. People call themselves whatever they want. The labels are not descriptive. Third, could it be that scientists are wrong again. That heterosexuality is only the norm because societies coerce people into it--not because people are trying to populate the world? I think this: Rape used to be quite prevalent, with men as the major perpetrators. Men set rules of engagement. Disallowed homosexual behavior to save their arses, literally. However, women were still vulnerable, so women began relying on men for protection from other men. That is my theory of heterosexuality. My theory still makes sense today. Being seen as another man's property affords a sense of security to women, even nuns. So now I'll sit and wait for your gay-baiting, manipulative response that will just prove my point.

amen brother....AMEN!!!!

Sandusky abused "boys" that would make him gay and a criminal.

wrong dude...he's a PEDOPHILE....gheez the stupidity is amazing!!!

Oh, but you are so wrong. He was married to a woman and bound together in holy matrimony. So see...married people are not as sound and moral as you say they are.

Queenie....you're right Sandusky is a Pedophile, but also obviously gay. How can that be denied?

sandusky is about as straight as lombard street in san francisco. nice try genius.

How is he obviously gay? He is married by your definition of marriage. He has a wife and engaged in heterosexual behavior with her. The point is, hetero does not make you a better person.

Idaho Steve, how does anyone know what he and his wife engaged in? I would definitely vote for him being a pedophile. As well as a slime ball, pervert, abnormal being, add to the list.

Poncero:

Pedophiles have very little to no preference when it comes to their sick desires towards children. Sandusky probably violated boys for a number of reasons: he had easier access to them, boys are less likely to report the abuse, it is harder to see evidence of sexual abuse in boys, etc.

Like 92.9% of pedophiles, Sandusky is married with children. Frankly, we give ourselves our sexual orientation labels. You cannot tell anything about what people do from the labels. The labels are not descriptive. I used to do volunteer work in a clinic in San Francisco and have sat on various committees. There are people referring to themselves as heterosexual who, yes, have been married for years, but also have four to five gay partners each year. And you have people who refer to themselves as gay who are celibate and have been for many years. What makes a person identify as gay or straight may just be a matter of bravery. To some people, gay is behavior; to others, it is romantic feelings (emotions, desires). To others, it is a combination of both. When I first realized I was gay, I had no sexual desires for either sex, but I had strong romantic desires for the same sex. Things have evolved some since then.

and who are you to say it isn't???? also....how many adopted kids do u have????

Maybe the Sandusky's could adopt the children? They are heterosexual!

Queenie......It's not me "saying" it; it's not found in the U.S. Constitution, so it's not a protected right.

Adoption is not a protected right. What's more, why subject a child to a life without a mother (a female mother)...

Actually, under the 14th amendment, section one, it is a protected right; if you allow one group of people to do so under the law, you cannot tell another group of legally abiding citizens they cannot. It’s called, equal protection under the law.

Secondly, I’m assuming that a child whose mother has died, but whose father is fine should be pulled out of the home - based on your argument – and placed in foster care with “proper” parents. Or, actually, that a lesbian couple who wants to adopt is fine, since that way the child can have two mothers – twice as good as one!

Lastly, if there are plenty of straight couples looking to adopt, why do we still have so many kids in foster care? A loving household will always be better than growing up, “in the system.” Trust me, I can speak from experience. I bounced between foster homes until I was 18. I worked my way through college and have made something of myself in life. I would have loved the opportunity to have a real family (regardless of the gender of the couple) to come home to… as it was, I had a different “family of strangers” every few months. Personally, I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy... so I have to ask, why do you want to subject children to that sort of emotional abuse?

Plenty of straight couples wanting to adopt? want to tell me how that is so when there are many children who spend their entire lives in the system? Because they were never adopted as babies, and after that nobody wanted them. We need MORE people who want to adopt, not less.

Oh, ponceero it is found in the Constitution.

Amendment 8: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.

What that says is that what is written in the Constitution is not to be taken as the be-all-end-all list of the rights that the document will protect in behalf of all people equally. The founders had to good sense to realize that no document, of any length, could possibly detail each and every one of the rights which enjoy as a result of an endowment by our Creator. Just because it's not listed in print does not mean it doesn't exist.

I ended up growing up in foster care--never adopted like many others. There is a shortage of people willing to adopt, especially in some communities, such as the African American community, which tends to be poor, although African Americans provide more than their fair share of foster children.

What's more, why subject a child to a life without a mother (a female mother) when there are plenty of straight couples looking to adopt?

Did you even read the article? The issue here is whether a person may adopt their partner's child. Are you advocating that a child should be separated from its mother or father and given to a heterosexual couple? That's shocking. And disturbing.

You're right. How selfish of them for wanting to take in a child who was abandoned by their parents or lost them with no other family to take care of them.

A friend of mine passed away a few months ago, leaving her 5 year old daughter and her father dealing with her loss. Based on your logic, the 5 year old should be taken away and placed in a stranger's home because there is no longer a "complete set" of parents.

As someone who was "in the system" for her entire childhood, I can tell you I would have been gloriously happy with a loving home - regardless if its make up would meet your standards or not.

You're right harry, and its definitely better for them to live in the system their whole lives rather than be adopted by those filthy homosexuals and have a chance at a family /S/

So, if I were a widower then it would be wrong of me to get a male roommate, right? Because then there would only be two straight me in the house my child wouldn't grow up correctly?

Uncle Henry...where on earth did you gather your opinion? Or are you just repeating what you've heard others say because you're too goddamn lazy to do any real research on your own? I'm almost certain it's the latter because every last bit of secular proof points to the fact that you're wrong.

State of Awareness~ do you have proof that the child was taken for legitimate reasons? Google adoption fraud and look at the number of hits you get. Are gay couples moral? Do they want children taken wo legitimate reason for profit? Go to YouTube, go to Google and research before you stick up for this crooked industry. Are the gays willing to stand by good parents and not take their children? Some children need foster homes but not all. Do the research.

First of all, I never mentioned a child was taken away from their parents, only those children who were ABANDONED by their parents and those who lost them, as in DEATH, with no other family available to take them in. Although I guess you can include "taken away" as a category since children are taken away from their families due to abusive behavior, dangerous living conditions, neglect, etc. You can apply those same questions to heterosexual couples. How many heterosexual couples are moral? There are more reports of heterosexual couples abusing the system currently in adopting children and getting what they can financial wise and have the children suffer for it. I agree that not all children need foster homes, but those that do can benefit from having a better outlook on life. You are basing a lot of your questions on the thought that same-sex couples are out to take children from good parents, which sounds pretty ignorant and uneducated to me. And regarding the adoption fraud, I see people who are taking advantage of the system without a statement of what their sexuality is. And usually these are people who are scammers off of EVERYONE.

Are the gays willing to stand by good parents and not take their children?

No one, gay or straight, can just (legally) take someone else's children. Only the courts can do that.

"studies show homosexuality is a choice"? lol, that's funny. got a link?

when did YOU choose to be straight? :) I'm sure plenty of people over the years have chosen to be gay and thus suffer discrimination and even death.

you're figured it out. :)

Provide a link to that report. I would like to read it.

This is the closet link I could find:

Essentially what it says is that Trim is a lying sack of @!$%# who just spouts out information as if it were fact without knowing what on earth he/she is talking about. How unique.

I would LOVE to see the article as well, Trim. I'm sure you'll find it next to the article that says Bigfoot is real or that Mermaid hookers are taking over New York harbor.

OH GOD! THE MERMAID HOOKERS ARE TAKING OVER NEW YORK HARBOR?!?!?!

Now that is a sign that says the end of the world is near. What are we gonna do?!

Thank you - I've used this exact line of reasoning many times, and the anti-crowd is batting 0.000 for reasonable counter-arguments.

we're already prepared for ignorance like yours. Pedophiles come from gay parents? got a link, or should we all just laugh at you now? :)

Sandusky was born in Washington, Pennsylvania, the only son of Evelyn Mae (née Lee), an Irish Catholic homemaker who came from a small Pennsylvania coal-mining town,^[6] and Arthur Sandusky, whose parents, Edward and Josephine Sendecki, had immigrated from Poland to East Vandergrift, Pennsylvania.

Yep...he can't help it...he came from hetero parents.

#AvailbetweenNC - Funny, if I am not mistaken the Governor of North Carolina is a Democrat. On top of that she does not agree with the President's position on Gay Marriage. You were saying at the State? On a side note your criticism of religion is the same as others of gay marriage so makes you any better than the person you are complaining about? And just so we are on the same page the first marriage was Adam and Eve before states existed. You are correct that state's sanctioned the practice of marriage but marriage already existed through church. Sometimes it helps to the facts straight before you try and make and argument.

dmd, counterpoint, you stupid @!$%#. Marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity. It's been dug up. Like your IQ. Second, Adam and Eve weren't real. And no one was around to take account. Hell, no one could write. I'm a monkey and so are you. Get over it. There is no magic man in the sky that feeds the angels and occasionally obliterates the earth. That's called the Republican party, the people that obliterate things. Second, I can't be held responsible for what one governor, who has held the legislature back, thank God, from a FEW things they want to screw up, thinks. Tim Kaine wants separate non-marriage licenses for gays. I call that Separate But Equal. Wearing blue doesn't mean you have it all down.

Now listen.

1.There is no God. We live on cosmic dust, and you only get one shot at it. Your relatives are gone and someday you will be too. If that's too much for you to deal with, stay dumb. Really, really dumb.

2.The toothfairy only comes when you leave teeth under your bed. Chiclets don't work, and that's just criminal, I might add.

3.If conservatives were more concerned with accomplishment than how impotent our country was set up to make them, then maybe they'd care less about how other people spend their time.

4.Atheists are coming to get you.

5.I hate you. I really do. I used to feel sorry for you, but now, I hate you just as much as you hate gay people. Your tribe is a deadend and your children will one day wake up and realize that unwittingly or not, your god is a lie that has malformed them from birth in the most insidious ways.

6.Your kind will perish soon. The old are many now, but they are dying and they will take their bull@!$%# with them. People get conervative because they don't want to die. People get liberal because they want to live.

7.Every time I fart, someone stops believing in angels.

8.The ACLU is coming to get you.

9.Religion, like masturbation, is habit forming. But you can't tie your hand behind you head and stop religioning.

10.your spiritual life is based on lies, and your brain is effectively dead when preaching against something you've never actually explored, encountered regularly or even considered honestly. Your elders have numbed your little brain and it's too late for you. You'll never know if a proper blowjob from another man is what it would take to keep that erection, bob!

@AvailbetweenNC - I will not listen to your wasted words. They mean nothing to me. You are turning this into a religious debate because you have nothing else to stand on. You choice of evolution and decision that you feel like you came from monkeys (actually apes, but it would require yoiu to have an education to understand that) is perfectly acceptable. But that does not give you the right to swing around on branch and force me to believe that what you say is true. You are one person and on the losing side of this argument. And just to be clear, I am young and will not be dying anytime soon hopefully. That being said I have 5 kids who I am raising like minded in the eyes of the lord and with great faith. Additionally in my extended family alone there are 6 brothers and sisters and 25 nieces and nephews being raised the same. This is very typical of an ordinary traditional family, do you have any idea what is typical for a gay family. There may come a day when these laws change but it will be well beyond our time and most likely beyond our great grandchildrens time as well.

No I think you just like the attention you get from playing the devils advocate. Or wait do you believe in the devil?

dmd, you had too many kids. And if you have 6 siblings, then your parents did too. Thanks for the overpopulation, bub. See, I can judge your aberrant lifestyle, too.

@styro - no problem glad that we could help. I am not done yet either, personally I want 9. The difference is my lifestyle is in the norm, gay and lesbian lifestyle is not. Majority rules is how a democracy works and you are going to win support by telling the majority that they are wrong.

Majority rules is how a democracy works and you are going to win support by telling the majority that they are wrong.

Unfortunately for YOU, majority does not rule in this country, since we are not a democracy -- and civil rights cannot be put to a vote so that the tyranny of the majority does not deny rights to the minority. (Although according to current polls, 54% of Americans support equality for gays.)

Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle," any more than heterosexuality is a "lifestyle". And while homosexuality may not be the "norm," neither is being left-handed, having blue eyes, or having red hair -- so what's your point?

@ErinNJ - What civil rights are being kept from those that choose that lifestyle? There is no civil right to marriage, there is not civil right to adopt, and homosexuals have every right that is in the bill of rights. No I think you are mistaken in your thought, although I know that this is the agenda that is being pushed to try and make change it is a false thought. It is the way to get the masses to be involved, fortunately the masses recognize the false nature of this campaign and are standing firm on its resolve. That evidence is true in the recent amendment and holds true in the majority of the United States that have either passed laws or amendments defining marriage as ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. And yes this is a democracy and it is majority rule, did you watch the last election or were you out partying instead? If you like you can create a new political party and attempt to win elections ... ?

Finally you last paragraph discusses gene related outcomes of birth and of two parents (ONE MAN ONE WOMAN) not the choice that is homosexuality. There is not gene that is defined as the homosexuality gene, so your comparison is lacking.

There is no civil right to marriage, there is not civil right to adopt, and homosexuals have every right that is in the bill of rights.

WRONG. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment -- and the successful challenges to anti-gay marriage laws have been based primarily on that finding. Furthermore, since all 50 states now allow gays to adopt as single persons, discriminating against gays as couples is yet another example of discrimination against them. Finally, your assertion that "homosexuals have every right that is in the [B]ill of [R]ights" is patently false, as they cannot marry the consenting adults of their choosing, as heterosexuals can -- and that is just a start.

And yes this is a democracy and it is majority rule, did you watch the last election or were you out partying instead?

STILL WRONG. We are NOT a democracy nor do we have majority rule; it is clear that you never attended either your history or civics classes, nor have you bothered to read the Constitution. We are a constitutional republic: we are governed by a constitution, not the vote of the majority, and our head of state is elected, not a monarch.

Finally you last paragraph discusses gene related outcomes of birth and of two parents (ONE MAN ONE WOMAN) not the choice that is homosexuality. There is not gene that is defined as the homosexuality gene, so your comparison is lacking.

Again you are WRONG. In the first place, you have not told us when you chose to be heterosexual, or given any information about the heterosexual gene. Second, there is ample evidence that sexual orientation -- whether one is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual -- is inborn:

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 December 2008 13.14 EST

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to; it was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 17:21 in Psychology & Sociology

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The team led by Dr Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.

This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

I notice that you don't even bother to provide any sources for your claims -- perhaps because no credible sources exist for such bull@!$%# as you spread.

DMD, 9 kids is definitely NOT the norm. The average number of kids per American household is actually less than 1 according to the 2010 census. Just defending your own deviant lifestyle?

The reality is there is no "normal" nobody is like anyone else. Nobody lives the same way as anyone else. Being left handed is not "normal" neither is having blue eyes, or being interracial. And yet we do not discriminate against people with red hair, or with 9 kids.

Here is a question, why does it bother you to let gays marry and have kids? If your answer is religious, then that is too bad. because this is America. And we do not live by your religious standards.

Whats the matter Hnrast? are you to scared to use the words? are you frightened of the aftermath that would result from you actually typing out, as a word, sodomites, or sodomize?

another person obsessed with gay sex. lol.

BP, I had a father figure in my life. That might be why I'm gay. Children need good role models of both sexes in their lives. Those people need not be biological parents. And frankly, many straight people just f--k and breed like rabbits and couldn't care less about the children. They just got them some and that's how they see it until the state steps in and says, The test says you ARE the father. Further, babies actually can be created via egg fusion. The drawback is that all of the babies would be girls. That's not to say that I favor girls. What it says it that both sexes are not needed to create babies in the first place. Just as the science exists to ward off pregnancy; the science exists to make babies without sperm. Personally, I think homosexuality was meant to be natural birth control.

...and AvailablebetweenNC: First off, homosexuality is not a sin. When taken in context every passage in the Bible that deals with homosexuality does so within the context of male rape and prostitution and group sex in pagan temples--not within consensual, monogamous relationships. The sins are rape, prostitution, and promiscuity.

However, even if homosexuality is a sin, according to the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, grace is a gift given freely by God. God already sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins and only our faith in Jesus as our lord and savior is required to get into heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9). That's true for homosexuals, too. See, only God is perfect, and John 1:3 tells us that God created us and Psalm 18:30 tells us that He does not make mistakes. God understands human frailty and realizes that sometimes we may not get things right. (That is as true for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.) However, not getting something right does not mean that anyone is going to hell. Now none of that means we have a blank check. What it does mean is that we are to live our lives with respect for ourselves and others and with integrity, while realizing that no human being is perfect. For one thing, we don't know what shape perfection takes. It is only defined by God's grace.

Religions have never been able to reconcile free will with God being omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. There seems to be a contradiction. Being gay is analogous to being left-handed, something for which scientists have also not found a gene, although most of us would probably admit it is biologically based. Apparently, it is something that develops via a biochemical process in utero; that is, within the environment of the womb, which would make it environmental as well as biological, but not necessarily genetic. (The theory is: Maternal stress can also play a role in hormone release.) Left-handed people were once considered evil, too, and were forced to use their right hands by having their left arms tied behind their backs. (The Bible should not be allowed to usurp issues of science when it comes to public matters, such as Civil Rights.) When the time comes for homosexuals to account to God, we should do so in the same way as heterosexuals: honestly. I will stand before Him and tell Him that I believe He made me this way. And, you know, I believe He'll love me even if I'm wrong (John 3:17). But see, I think God is really only going to want to know a few things: Did I love deeply? Not all about who I loved. And did I have fun in life? Because God has the most incredible sense of humor. (Why else would He put up with any of us?) If God can forgive, Why must you be so exacting? Why must you throw your misunderstanding of Sodom and Gomorrah in our faces? Sodom and Gomorrah's sins were republican ideals; failure to take care of the sick, elderly and poor (Ezekial 16:48-49), as well as the rape of strangers. For those of you who like to throw Leviticus 18:22 at us, feast on this, Leviticus 11:9-12: God hates crab cakes and shrimp cocktails, too. As a matter of fact, the Bible refers to eating seafood as an abomination. No particular sin is any greater than any other sin. Leviticus 18:22, when taken in context of the surrounding passages, forbids ritual sex within pagan temples. "Don't lie with a man the way you lie with a woman" just means don't have sex in the temple at all--not that's it's okay to have sex in the temple with someone of the opposite sex. It means don't do it in the temple with either sex. Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory." So where do some of you get off thinking you can treat other human beings like crap and God will just look the other way? Also, many of you take your religion cafeteria-style, paying attention to only those things that you can use to further your agenda. Why can't we deal with ambiguity and diversity in this world? All of this diversity and God made one sexual orientation? That's absurd! Further, many of you talk like God's a fool. Don't you really think God knows sex is pleasurable and that He gave us a natural form of birth control that we refer to as homosexuality?

You're a False Teacher!!!

Dear Brenda, I have nothing but respect for those who decide to be themselves. I've just had it with religion, my choice, which I don't want to impose upon others. I've been imposed on so much by the more faithful, and I think we should keep our government out of the bedroom, but there's more to it than that. Atheists, or, more accurately, antitheists, are religiously scientific, convinced that until something is proven, or atleast investigated, it makes no sense to have blind faith. I believe that monkeys like dmd, and his 5 little apechildren are, and I'm sure this is accurate, the ones superimposing their faith on our government, and are not the cuddly right of middle people they want us to believe them to be. One more election like the last one, and we will be headed toward something much more STAN like. I'm waiting for the anti-birth control measures to make it to the floor of the Senates and Houses of states across America. And the national debate is just as cromagnun. I think that those of us who seek spiritual experiences are looking for something higher. I believe people who go by normal dogmas are looking for something lower, whether they know it or not. I also believe that most liberal leaning people are on their way to an enlightenment that spreads peace, not certainty, over what we can and cannot control.

God isn't dead. He never was. God is just the name of control. If anyone is God, it's us, experiencing itself in pieces, as a lack of the whole, subjectively. The debate IS a religious one, because that is the trap we fall into over and over. No bible verse will justify the biological fact that some call a lifestyle. No half measures that leave gays with "civil" joinings will get us past the lingering insult of "Separate But Equal" treatment. DMD is clearly trapped in the past. We are of the future. All of us. It's only the scum eating lizards among us who readily give in to control by traditional forces that keep us from better healthcare, less policing, a wider range of rights, and the ability to explore our inner and outer spaces. The only way I've found to combat wombats like DMD is to show people how happy life can be. To give other people as much joy as possible and demonstrate that joy openly, as if there are no consequences. I bet you agree with most of that. And DMD will put Jesus in his children. Did you know that statistically, the last of the 5 will be gay? It has to do with the aging mother's immune system gradually learning that the zygotes are foreign, attacking the joined egg and sperm, and denying many male hormones to the developing fetus. But that's science. That's a theory. I'll believe it till someone puts better evidence in front of me. Unlike certain monkeys that think Jesus walked on water and came back from several days of hanging from a tree, upon which time, someone felt it was important to tell us we were saved. Saved from nothing. We are as clean today as we were the day before.Doing good makes you feel good. Doing bad makes you feel bad. The gay question will never be truly resolved while the real knuckle draggers multiply and fear us, and the future

@AvailbetweenNC - I am not trapped, I live freely in the majority. I live my life to fullest free of your dogma. I live in the rural country, my children are home schooled in a Christan manner and are not subject to the false worship that you bring.

That is ridiculous, by your definition we should have no laws because everyone should be free to do whatever they want. Thank the lord you will never be in control of anything except yourself. Further I do not fear the future or you, nor does anyone in my family. The future is bright from love of our Lord and our vast family.

Additionally I never said you could not be gay, I simply said that you would not be supported in that lifestyle choice. I said that a ruling on this article has already been made in the courts in 2010 and now and amendment which defines spouse. I said that the actions, the laws that this is trying to tear down are protected under the amendment as the definition of spouse has been defined. With the turn out for the amendment there are not enough votes to change that and therefore this case is a no brain, dismiss the case and stop wasting the taxpayers money.

Additionally I never said you could not be gay, I simply said that you would not be supported in that lifestyle choice.

What "lifestyle choice" would that be? When did you make the "lifestyle choice" to be heterosexual?

Additionally, more than half of all Americans support gay rights. YOU are on the losing side of history.

I said that a ruling on this article has already been made in the courts in 2010 and now and amendment which defines spouse. I said that the actions, the laws that this is trying to tear down are protected under the amendment as the definition of spouse has been defined.

And similar laws and amendments have been challenged in other states and have been found to be unconstitutional, just as this one will be -- because they are.