"Homosexual activists are wanting to go to unelected judges to get their way rather than going through the legislative process and allowing the people to decide," she [Musgrave] said."
Why the hell is it anyone elses decision if two men or two women wish to have the same legal protections as a man and a woman? I just don't get this. I don't understand how two men or two women are unfit parents simple because the opposite gender isn't around as an official parent figure, and I don't understand how this "homosexual agenda" is going to undermine the structure of families in America. When I hear that phrase, I think "well duh, they want to enjoy the same freedoms and privilages as every other citizen of this country, so why wouldn't they". I guess I just can't understand bigotry.
All of them? I think the men will object... their views considered and all...
I think the structure of the families thing has to do with their thinking that homosexuality is immoral, and thus allowing it will bombard their children with immoral examples of unions, possibly leading to their children becoming homosexuals (the horror!). Which doesnt justify it, and the logic is convoluted and stupid, but there it is.
I'd bet good money the amendment doesnt get past the states, though it may get that far.
People only know what they see... Most people have few if any out non-straight friends, and so more and more what they see from the, what, 2 companies that control the media? The media image of homosexuals is very hedonistic, or, if they are older, political and radical. People look at this, and think that people with these lifestyles wouldn't make good parents. Constrast this with the married media image of the man at work and his wife baking for the kids... and, well, you see the comparison. So, basically, I think seeing homosexuals with children in the public eye will solve many of these problems. Its much easier for people to hate an idea than hate a family.
Catch-22: If the homosexual families want to be in the public eye, the act of making themselves noticed is a radical and political act, thereby hurting the cause they had in the first place. And it's hard to be a good parent when you're surrounded by picketing fundamentalists.
Yeah, well, getting the more moderate, "mainstream" looking gay folks into the public eye is something we've been working on, but it's hard. Two normal-looking middle aged folks with a kid really isn't really that exciting to most people, even if they are of the same gender.
It's not just important for the straight folks to see these people, it's important for young gay people as well. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of gay folks that might want to have stable, solid relationships but have trouble because they don't know how. The lives of straight folks are filled with examples of straight relationships, both good and bad, that they can learn from. What role models do young gay folks have, really? To be honest, most of what I learned about gay relationships comes from pornography, because until very recently that was the only connection to other gay people that I had. I feel completely and utterly clueless about how to have a stable, healthy, gay relationship, and to be honest most of the examples of gay male relationships I've personally encountered have done little to encourage me. I'll figure it out, but geez do I feel lost.
I can see how 2 men or 2 women would not (on average) be as good of parents as a pair with one of each. Honestly, I really appreciate having a parent of my gender and a parent of the other. However, I think that two parents of the same gender would be far superior to only one parent (of only one gender--duh). Also reproductive freedom seems to be generally considered a basic human right or so I've heard. I don't agree, but that's beside the point. The point is, you can't stop a pair of homosexual women from having a baby (or 2) unless you have the cooperation of all the men in the world, so the whole thing seems like a rather uninteresting political question to me.
I would think the parenting issue is entirely separate from the marriage issue (I think adoption is mostly in the private sector). I don't think the presence of absences of a real marriage is going to stop people from having children. Tell me, which is a greater threat to our "foundation of society": married homosexuals with children or unmarried homosexuals with children? I would think even the religious right would be able to figure out this one. I would think so, and I would be wrong. That's why I call things like "family values" buzz words that most people don't understand.
Okay, so that was a convoluted ramble. I apologize in advance.
Adoption as far as I know is regulated enough that you have to prove you can care for the child well, which most interpret as being two parents in case something happens to one. And while lesbians can certainly have children, what they can't do is be legally responsible for their partner's child if something happens to the natural mother.
Here's something to ponder: which child will be more emotionally balanced, the one raised by two fathers who genuinely love each other, or one raised by a father and mother who resent the relationship they've been forced into?
(If this will start an emotionally heated argument that will hurt people, I apologize. You don't have to answer.)
I would go further to say that aside from having people of different genders involved with the raising of a child, it is also beneficial to have multiple generations and extended family involved in their lives. I've thought a lot about the possibility of having kids, and it's definitely something I'm interested in down the line. If I do, I'd want to live with my husband somewhere reasonably close to either my family or his, the idea being that having a strong grandmother or aunt influence in their lives will help keep things balanced out.
That's easy: the unmarried couple. The unmarried couple has none of the rights a maried couple does. Such things as counting as next of kin if something horrible happens, rights to keep your children, to be covered by insurance, etc etc. These rights help guarantee that certian unstabling events won't happen. It prevents homophobic friends and family from interfering with life decisions a couple has decided to make. To me, this adds to the stability of a situation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Why the hell is it anyone elses decision if two men or two women wish to have the same legal protections as a man and a woman? I just don't get this. I don't understand how two men or two women are unfit parents simple because the opposite gender isn't around as an official parent figure, and I don't understand how this "homosexual agenda" is going to undermine the structure of families in America. When I hear that phrase, I think "well duh, they want to enjoy the same freedoms and privilages as every other citizen of this country, so why wouldn't they". I guess I just can't understand bigotry.
Fuck 'em
no subject
All of them? I think the men will object... their views considered and all...
I think the structure of the families thing has to do with their thinking that homosexuality is immoral, and thus allowing it will bombard their children with immoral examples of unions, possibly leading to their children becoming homosexuals (the horror!). Which doesnt justify it, and the logic is convoluted and stupid, but there it is.
I'd bet good money the amendment doesnt get past the states, though it may get that far.
no subject
People only know what they see... Most people have few if any out non-straight friends, and so more and more what they see from the, what, 2 companies that control the media?
The media image of homosexuals is very hedonistic, or, if they are older, political and radical. People look at this, and think that people with these lifestyles wouldn't make good parents. Constrast this with the married media image of the man at work and his wife baking for the kids... and, well, you see the comparison.
So, basically, I think seeing homosexuals with children in the public eye will solve many of these problems. Its much easier for people to hate an idea than hate a family.
no subject
no subject
It's not just important for the straight folks to see these people, it's important for young gay people as well. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of gay folks that might want to have stable, solid relationships but have trouble because they don't know how. The lives of straight folks are filled with examples of straight relationships, both good and bad, that they can learn from. What role models do young gay folks have, really? To be honest, most of what I learned about gay relationships comes from pornography, because until very recently that was the only connection to other gay people that I had. I feel completely and utterly clueless about how to have a stable, healthy, gay relationship, and to be honest most of the examples of gay male relationships I've personally encountered have done little to encourage me. I'll figure it out, but geez do I feel lost.
no subject
no subject
I would think the parenting issue is entirely separate from the marriage issue (I think adoption is mostly in the private sector). I don't think the presence of absences of a real marriage is going to stop people from having children. Tell me, which is a greater threat to our "foundation of society": married homosexuals with children or unmarried homosexuals with children? I would think even the religious right would be able to figure out this one. I would think so, and I would be wrong. That's why I call things like "family values" buzz words that most people don't understand.
Okay, so that was a convoluted ramble. I apologize in advance.
no subject
Here's something to ponder: which child will be more emotionally balanced, the one raised by two fathers who genuinely love each other, or one raised by a father and mother who resent the relationship they've been forced into?
(If this will start an emotionally heated argument that will hurt people, I apologize. You don't have to answer.)
no subject
no subject