Your fears that children cannot cope with issues like these are quite timely. Certainly demographics show the younger generation far less equipped to handle homosexuals in their midst than those older and wiser, so you're right that we're heading for a crisis. Honestly, public safety and *the mental health of our children* demand we round up all the homosexuals and stone them. The Bible said as much 2500 years ago, and we should have listened.

On the other hand, perhaps the thing that needs pondering is how you can live among scores of gay couples and still write like you're on planet Sneerius.

It's how in every gay couple I've seen, and living where I do I've seen SCORES of them day in and day out interacting…it's that there's always a “man” one and “fem” one in either gay male partners or lesbians. Now, think of this from a child's perspective trying to form its idea of the world. You have males acting like males and females acting like females and you have males acting like females and females acting like males. .

There's a hidden (more than one I suspect) psychological aspect to childrearing in gay couples that has the potential to be crazymaking. I mean you should see them if you havent' already. If you have, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The butch one acts all gruff, macho and tough, fairly unemotional, masculine features moreso than the other. The fem one acts all bitchy, fussy, whiney, superficial, prone to emotional fits moreso than the masculine one.

Imagine how confusing this must be to a child not only just to witness, but to have to deal with on a day to day basis. One could even call it “crazy-making”. Just what kids need, another weird adult issue that they need to sort out that is confusing and doesn't make much sense.

“Mommy, how come if you're not attracted to men, why does Connie have short hair like a man, a deep voice like a man and wear clothes like a man and acts a lot like Jimmy's dad?” I thought you didn't like being with men?

And so on…ponder..

It really will be armageddon. When someone unstable feels backed against a wall, “reason” is out the window and bullets are substituted. Civil unions were fine, but no…no…the left has to flex now that it is in the cockpit. At any other time it woudn't matter as much but civil unrest is lapping at the top of the levee like the waves in Hurricane Katrina. One more surge in the wrong place and it's curtains.

Besides the social-contagion factor cited in this article: http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pf… and the fact that gays are mysteriously against human rights when it comes to granting them to polygamists (who stand next in line for their day in Court) and the fact that our human behaviorlists are erring on the side of political-correctness instead of actual correctness when it comes to ciphering where sexual preference originates and how malleable it actually is… we have the timing issue. The timing of this campaign couldn't be worse.

And yes, I've heard in many circles that the real thrust behind the gay marriage thing is the adoption issue and their having easier access to children. Most of them probably for benevolent reasons I assume..

I will only consider their argument (maybe) that marriage is meant for two heterosexual people of the opposite sex if they had laws to ensure that. If that's what they want then why do they allow all these other variants? What about the following whihch are commonplace and yet falls outside the argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation and raising children:

* Once a child is raised and the woman can no longer have kids then the couple should no longer be married.

* If a woman gives birth outside of marriage, then she and the father should be thrown in jail (they “procreated” outside of marriage).

* If a couple is unable to procreate then they should no longer be married.

* A couple can not divorce until the kids are grown up and on their own.

If the anti-gay marriage folks claim that it is not realistic to do this, then they are admitting that other human experiences are legitimate. Their claims that marriage should only be for heterosexual procreation (as if there's another kind of procreation) and the raising of children are simply not legitimate given the wide range of human experience in this world and their (the anti-gay marriage folks) own acceptance of other heterosexuals with these experiences. And their acceptance of other heterosexuals include themselves since most of them will have children who grow up and leave home.

Instead these people prefer to meddle in others' lives (and taking away rights) instead of actually supporting laws (or even leading by example) that which they preach.

By their own definition of marriage, a large percentage of them should not be married and sooner or later they would all become “unmarried” (once the kids are grown). How can they honestly say that the purpose of marriage is to raise children when they continue to remain married once those children are raised?

There are many gay couples who have been married longer than many straights and these gay couples are raising children. Maybe not their own children, and in some cases children that their “straight” parents did not want.

Your polygamy argument is a dead end, not only because you keep misrepresenting other people's positions on it, but because it's a different issue. If you managed to prove in court that gays are insufficiently supportive of polygamy, that still wouldn't prove gay marriage is a bad idea.

This article is misleading.

…

Ah — the argument of personal incredulity. It's kind of like “I just can't bring myself to believe that the awesomeness of humankind wasn't designed by God”. One of my favorite bits of non-logic. Sometimes I can't believe that so many presumably heterosexual Christian dudes have such a morbid obsession with butt-sex, but obviously my incredulity has nothing to do with the reality of that, either.