Even if it forces childless married couples to give up some rights, doesn't it make sense to seperate out those couples who have and are raising children, in order to protect the children, educate the children and whatnot?
Do gay couples deserve the same rights, because they are people too?
Should the government make contracts instead of marriage licenses and leave the term "marriage" to the churches?
Is everyone going to find some nuance they don't like in this question and thrash me?
2006-07-22 17:11:51 · 8 answers · asked by BigPappa 5 in Family & Relationships ➔ Other - Family & Relationships
I believe it is one of the fundamental duties of a country to provide education. Did you recieve yours?
Well, the thing with adoption and other means by which gay couples have children: It is going to happen. I really think that children are probably better in an unusual home than an orphanage or being shuffled about. OK? So, I would say gay couples with children could possibly need more assistance in the form of pyschology classes and whatnot dealing with the issues children of gay couples are going to have (religious, social, personal). It is vital that gay parents remeber that, for an individual, being straight is a far simpler existance, this should keep them from imposing any behavior on their children.
2006-07-22 17:27:11 · update #1
Aww, I don't mind the term breeder, even if its meant as an insult. I don't regret my children. Besides there are many gay men and women with children, that would fit the term. I certainly hope this term isn't forbidden or too inflamatory to prevent intelligent discourse.
2006-07-22 17:53:58 · update #2
If you want to seperate out the couples and people who have children and give them extra benefits, than I also want the government to stop making single people and couples that don't have children pay school taxes.
2006-07-22 17:16:19 · answer #1 · answered by They call me ... Trixie. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly don't have an opinion on the gay issues.
I do believe that we should do away with mariage licenses and institute partnership contracts. If people want to have their relationship blessed in the church thats great but it would not be considered legally binding. Do the church and stuff as a gathering with friends and family, a celebration of sorts.
This would allow people to have a religous connection without a legal tie also. For those people who don't intend to have children why bother with the legal stuff. If your going to live together and you want to have a church deal that would work.
2006-07-22 17:41:32 · answer #2 · answered by imaginaryfriends2000 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm a breeder who has 2 young children, and i have learned so many lessons from all ages of people, i am in a small, close group of people between the ages of 18 and 55 who have and don't have children....i don't have any CLOSE gay couple friends but just because of our conservative city & location. i have very conservative views of marriage but am very open to the idea of contracts, even if they would have a different set of tax standards, etc. in order to let it go thru legislation and keep it separate from the definition of marriage for the conservative legislators.....i don't know if your question was about separating childless couples, gay couples, etc. but to me the more variety the better, we all have stuff to learn from each other if we keep an open mind! :)
2006-07-22 17:20:49 · answer #3 · answered by Hot Lips 4077 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally think that gay couples should have rights just as the rest of us. the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." if being gay makes people happy well let them be. Gay people are humans with feelings and needs too so i thing that they deserve rights too. i also think that the churches are the ones who should decide on marriages.
2006-07-22 17:35:03 · answer #4 · answered by Angie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
GAy couples should not, I repeat NOT raise children if there is an alternative options. Under American law, this is corrupting the morals of a minor. You don't have to fondle them to corrupt them, just let them know that anal sex and homo relationships are normal. Give them the history of gave rights and make them activist. What about the normal arrangement? Shouldn't children be expose to the norm, acceptable behavior, before being exposed to deviant-sex deviant behavior?
2006-07-22 17:16:54 · answer #5 · answered by China 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do not like the term "breeders". If you do not want to be trashed do not give reason to be trashed.
2006-07-22 17:21:26 · answer #6 · answered by usserydog 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
don't care
2006-07-22 17:15:24 · answer #7 · answered by pinkstealth 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HUH???????????
2006-07-22 17:14:28 · answer #8 · answered by mizzzzthang 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋