[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by sparky

What I am getting at is just because there are exceptions to rules, it doesn't mean rules and actual results should be ignored in order that we can be free to do what feels fun and good to us.

I see what you're saying now. But why is it a "rule" that children are better off with opposite sex parents? If it is only because of society's perceptions, then that rule can change over time, right?

I didn't realize I was discussing Brian and his personal life. I am talking theoretically. This isn't personal.

Well, I guess Brian is my example, then. He's someone who wants to raise children and has good intentions. I don't believe that he is being selfish. (But he already explained all of that in his last post).

The answer ? I think the answer is that people shouldn't impose their choices on unwitting bystanders. Let's face it - it's a bitch growing up. And it isn't made any easier having two same gender parents. I am sure you could refer me to a dozen rosy articles written by people who say they wouldn't have it any other way. The fact remains that I don't think it's fair to saddle a kid with what may turn out to be an enormous obstacle. Should it be an obstacle ? Of course not. Should a child's life be used as an element in a social experiment that "wishes" people were kinder, more sensitive and politically correct ? Not on your life. (I will point out again here that I am talking not about adoptions but about making new kids.)

It seems to me that if you're going to say that, then you should tell biracial couples that they shouldn't be having children, either, especially because down here in hell, a.k.a. The Bible Belt, there isn't much acceptance for biracial children. Their lives are difficult. Would you tell those people not to have children as well? Also, how else will society become more accepting of children of gays if there aren't any? I know that the children suffer inevitably, but how else do we change society? Children who are gay suffer, but should we tell them not to come out of the closet to avoid that suffering?

There's a biological component, sure. I am referring to jumping in and buying into the whole 50's myth of a nuclear family. That is a dynamic with some serious flaws anyway. And BTW, while people of all orientations have been breeding for centuries they weren't hooting and hollering about getting married and registering at Baby Gap. LOL.

And, even if it's unnecessary or ridiculous to some, shouldn't they be able to get married and register at the Baby Gap if that's what they want, considering those are privileges others are allowed?

Dude, I don't need a class in civil rights history. That wasn't my point.

I don't know that I am interested in institutions at all. I don't particularly care if the city or state approves of my relationships.

But this isn't about just you. Why is it that whenever I debate the issue of marriage with another gay person who isn't for it they always say, "I have no desire to be approved of by city, state, government, etc"? If that isn't what you want for yourself, then don't pursue it. But I can't understand why it's okay with you to deny others of it.

"Husband" is creepy because it implies there's a wife. Among other things. I could get into a rant here about semantics and historical power dynamics, but what's the point ? I think the relationship between two men is intrinsically different between that of a man and a woman, and that it is counterproductive to borrow a loaded term to define it. Talk to a few men who were married to women and have then gotten involved with men and I'd love to compare notes. The relationships are different animals altogether.

You may have a really good point here. Much of that (perhaps all) is beyond my understanding at this point not only because I'm not a guy but also because I haven't been involved in any of those types of relationships, so I can't really speak about them in that way.