Gay Marriage:Yes or no?

PeterODonnell

Should Gay marriage be legalised?

I don't see why not. No-one decides how they are born. I have always held to the view that if racism, whereby someone is discriminated against on grounds of, in effect, DNA, is wrong, then so too is it wrong to discriminate gays/bisexuals/transgenderd people on the grounds of their DNA. Incidentally I myself am gay so I feel all the stronger on this issue. What do y'all think?

Creamy Goodness

why shouldn't they be allowed to marry that's my view on it anyways

skittishkitten

If two people are willing to commit themselves to each other , then that is all that should matter .

Annasopra

Yes and adoption too!

Grow up, kids

I'm going against the grain here, but marriage is for a man and a woman as far as I'm concerned

irish_teen_15

A teenager's perspective:

Homosexual marriage should definitely be legalised. I whole-heartedly agree with Peter on this matter. People who have alternative sexual orientations are unspeakably discriminated against in this country. Not just in terms of marraige, but everywhere. When was the last time you saw two men walking down the street holding hands? Or kissing? Or being in any way publicly affectionate.

On the other hand - younger generations seem to be more receptive of alternate sexualities (possibly because of the less totalitarian influence of the church).

Regards,

Matthew

DeVore

Jeeeez, have freakin' clowns and a tea-party for all I care.... crazy idea in the first place, marraige. Even straight people shouldnt do it...

Only question I can think of is why in the world gay people would want to get married and well, also which would wear the white dress

DeV.

sceptre

I honestly can't see any valid reason not to, to be honest. We've already reached a stage where marriage between a man and a woman isn't seen merely (or, necessarily, mainly) as a way to have children.

I'm not that pushed about marriage in general - I'd happily live in sin with my chosen belle for the rest of my life (though she would have a different view). As an option though, I'd like to see the option there for same-sex couples as much as male-female couples.

bizmark

marriage is a pointless wast of time If you want to destroy your life go ahead

Meh

I've never heard any argument against it that didn't boil down to "because God says it's wrong".

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
I've never heard any argument against it that didn't boil down to "because God says it's wrong".

Well how about "Single sex couples have never been married before"? or "Marriage is primarily for the purpose of having a family." (The law in this regard extends well beyond the simple "I do"s). However, I don't see any particular problem with other types of couple (friends, brother-sister (no not that kind of brother-sister )) having some sort of arrangment with similar benefits (tax, inheritence, etc.) to marriage.

AngelofFire

im not gay. but i dont see anything wrong with homosexuals marrying. Why shouldnt they have the same right to commit themselves in the same way that hetrosexual couples. im not subscribing to the idea that a family with a gay couple isnt an ideal family unit. there would probably be less of chance of domestic abuse in a gay parented family as homosexuals are much less likely to be sex offenders than straight people are. its the 21st century now and people should realise that homosexuality is a way of life and not a disease.

l3rian

they can do what they like, as long as they dont make such a big deal about it

GuanYin

I'm with Devore... who'd want to in the first place.

But there's no reason why any two people, irrespective or sexual orientation, race or religion should'nt be allowed to be wed. Its a stupid anarchaic law.

It can be circumvented. I know two people who set up a legal contract that simulates marriage and then had their own ceremony.

Although they aren't married in the eyes of the government, the contract does everything legally that getting married would and they had the ceremony for them and their friends.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by bizmark
marriage is a pointless wast of time If you want to destroy your life go ahead

Well put it this way
If you never get married and life with your loved one for 20 years. Then one day she ups and leaves with the kids. Because you and your Ex aren't married you have no legal right to access to the children but ironically you will still have to pay maintence :rolleyes:

Coupled with inheritance issues and having to pay FULL capitals gains tax on porperty inherited even if in a Will it makes sense to have a contract of partnership(i.e. Civil Marriage)..


I'm all for Gay Marriage. Just not in a Christian sphere(btw i'm not religious). Basically i think the church should stick to its Platonian Logic and rot!!


Perhaps new legislation to give co-habitating couples equal rights to married couples as is the case in serveral of our progressive northern european neighbours.

Civil Marriage for all. Not just couples. Polyogomy too


BTW as you may have guessed I'm a man not a woman and a father has no legal right to his child unless he is married to the childs mother

neuro-praxis

Civil legal marriage, yes.

However, in terms of marriage and the family being the building blocks for society, gay unions don't really qualify in that respect, and so perhaps redefining the term "marriage" for gay couples might be an idea.

Typedef

Of course homosexual marriage should be allowed.

Frankley to contend otherwise is to impose your own moral-set (tm) onto others.

I don't try and tell Christians how utterly, wrong they are about their beliefs in my opinion (tm), because that would be ignorant.

It is similarly ignorant to preach to gays about how their relationships mean less, by virtue of their homosexual nature.


Full equality gay marriage, property rights & adoption rights is a must.
It's called equality.

Equality means you don't discriminate someone by their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation and you get the same in kind.

Oh yeah and while we're at equality.

Father's should have equal right to access to children as women.
Plain and simple.

"I" don't see why that particular piece of sexual discrimination is tolerated in society.

Victor

I'm sorry, but I think you have to see the difference between church and state. Imposing equality legislation on any religion would be very dubious.

Originally posted by sykeirl
race or religion

No one is suggesting anyone is stopped from getting married by either of these citeria. That said, surely a religion should be allowed impose certain minimum standards on marriages it is expected to bless.

Originally posted by sykeirl
anarchaic

archaic?

sceptre

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Civil legal marriage, yes.

However, in terms of marriage and the family being the building blocks for society, gay unions don't really qualify in that respect, and so perhaps redefining the term "marriage" for gay couples might be an idea.

That's assuming that "the family" (in the nuclear daddy, mammy, baby makes three and uncle fred sometimes babysits sense) is the building block of society as opposed to the building block of convenient reproduction with simplified probate with tax allowances. It's probably not all that important what it's defined as to be honest - a civil and State-recognised union with mutual benefits and inheritance rights is marriage. There are quite a few people wandering around the country with state-recognised unions that aren't recognised by various religious institutions, as well as some church-annulled unions that are still legally recognised by the State.

I'm not trying to drag any church into this debate by the way - apologies if I have as no-one else has mentioned them so far. I'm assuming (as I think others are) that we're talking purely about state-recognised unions and the desirability or lack of desirability of same.

Tiesto

i voted NO.


oh yeah. did the pope not say last week that being gay is "evil"

Victor

Originally posted by Tiesto
oh yeah. did the pope not say last week that being gay is "evil"

No I don't think he did. It has been long-term church policy to condemn sins, rarely sinners.

BTW, trolling makes baby Jesus cry.

Tiesto

victor maybe u shud read the paper from the last 2 weeks,

xx

Originally posted by irish_teen_15
When was the last time you saw two men walking down the street holding hands? Or kissing? Or being in any way publicly affectionate.
matthew

Why, just today buddy, twice. And two women in the savoy cinema too.
Yuck!!!!

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor
No I don't think he did.

The document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Cardinal Joe Ratzinger- Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons - did indeed use the word "evil." See section 5. Joe Ratzinger is the pope's chief theological adviser. Given the pope's condition, it's the closest thing to the pope actually having said it without actually saying it.

This footnote was my favourite part of the document though:

It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law”

Homosexuals actually declaring their homosexuality? They'll be having sex next.

Victor

Originally posted by Tiesto
victor maybe u shud read the paper from the last 2 weeks,

Perhaps you should work past the top half of the paper yourself. A quick google throws up no reference to what you said ('did the pope not say last week that being gay is "evil"'):

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.gay.marriages/index.html
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-31-2003-43698.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1010329,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/01/npope01.xml
http://www.catholicinsight.com/political/homo/nogayspouses.html

Flip side
http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp2.html
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/111301ev.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/gay/anti-gay.htm

---

Off topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1010329,00.html

The Pope's new guidelines will make uncomfortable reading for the more liberal clergy as well as many Catholic politicians, including the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy.

... and Tony Blair is a "wannabe" Catholic ... hmmm some people turning uncomfortably in their graves there I think (and Ian Paisley in his bed).

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor
A quick google throws up no reference to what you said ('did the pope not say last week that being gay is "evil"')

Ah, now Victor, don't mind yer googling - go straight to the source - the link's in my last post. Documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith <cough> Inquisition</cough> are always regarded as having the imprimatur of the pope.

Hence:
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

The document was issued last Thursday.

All of which is of course outside the relevant scope of the discussion.

Tiesto

accept it victor.

Dun

Victor's right - the pope (nor his representatives) did not say that being gay was evil. What they said was basically that gay union was wrong because any sexual act that is not between a husband and wife (and that removes the fundamental meaning of sex, i.e. reproduction) is wrong. This means of course that sex outside marriage is wrong, as is sex within marriage using contraceptives.

This is the only mention of evil:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil."

And what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander - if you have sex outside marriage it's no different in their eyes.

All this is, of course, the views of the Catholic church and not my views. Do what you want as long as you're not harming anybody else.

seamus

Church and State should always be separate. On that note, IMO, the state has no legitimate reason to deny the joining of gay couples. What any religion thinks is fine - there are other places to get married then a church.

Marriage on a whole has changed from what it used to be. Way back in the nether times, marriage was used as a means to gain land, status and offspring. Rarely did the issue of love come into it.

The world has changed. The state needs to change with it.

My 2c.

Victor

Originally posted by Tiesto
accept it victor.

Pardon? Perhaps you should "dun_do_bheal"!

Originally posted by dun_do_bheal
because any sexual act that is not between a husband and wife (and that removes the fundamental meaning of sex, i.e. reproduction) is wrong. This means of course that sex outside marriage is wrong, as is sex within marriage using contraceptives.

Not quite. While fornication (sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other) is regularly condemned in the bible, it is more the philandering element (1. To carry on a sexual affair, especially an extramarital affair, with a woman one cannot or does not intend to marry. 2. To engage in many love affairs, especially with a frivolous or casual attitude. Used of a man. ) that is condemned than the procreating. I don't think the church considers sex between a common law man and wife or similar "wrong" (inappropriate maybe, but not "wrong")

JohnK

I don't see why people have a problem with it. As far as I'm concerned if two people want to get married then that's their business and gender shouldn't even be an issue.

Catsmokinpot

yes they should be able to................



that is all...:ninja:

BoobeR

It's their own choice, even though i dont support it i still vote yes as they're gay not me, its not my choice.

Dun

Originally posted by Victor
While fornication is regularly condemned in the bible, it is more the philandering element that is condemned than the procreating. I don't think the church considers sex between a common law man and wife or similar "wrong" (inappropriate maybe, but not "wrong")

I get what you mean, but I don't mean wrong as in something that shouldn't happen because it's unnatural, but rather something that shouldn't take place - something that's 'sinful'.

The Catechism says

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

In the Catechism wrongness (as in unnatural) is also attributed to masturbation and pornography, as well as homosexual acts. In fact, it all comes under the blanket of

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Neat little package there :rolleyes:. As for gay people themselves:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

So your sexuality is 'objectively disordered' but discrimination should be 'avoided'. Lovely. Why is discrimination not just wrong, rather than 'be avoided'. I suppose it's for cases of discrimination, such as no civil unions for gays.

I've heard clergy giving out about 'à la carte' Catholics, who try to pick and choose what they want. And then they go and pick and choose who gets what rights?

Typedef

Victor's right - the pope (nor his representatives) did not say that being gay was evil. What they said was basically that gay union was wrong because any sexual act that is not between a husband and wife (and that removes the fundamental meaning of sex, i.e. reproduction) is wrong.

Sexual dictat from a bunch of failed celebates who have random children and ex-lovers being supported with money from the masses all over the world.

You gotta love the irony

eth0_

Originally posted by irish_teen_15
When was the last time you saw two men walking down the street holding hands? Or kissing? Or being in any way publicly affectionate.

Very rarely and only in Dublin. But that's because of the fact the majority of Irish males seem to be bigoted homophobic bastards who get lairy when they see gay guys.

IMO homophobia is either jealousy or caused by latant homosexuality in themselves!
I can see why guys would be jealous of gay guys, they dress better, come across as mannerly and intelligent (mostly), and women love them!

I'm all for gay marriage and to answer those who say 'yeah all well and good but who'd want to get married in this day and age?' they just want the RIGHT to be able to marry, to have equal rights.

Yoda

Kevin Myers made an interesting point yesterday. Most Roman Catholic "marriages" incorporate two events in parallel. The first is the sacrament, which as Myers notes, the Church insists on "being anterior and superior to the state version". The second is the civil contract which specifies the rights and obligations of the two vis à vis the State. To put it another way, a Roman Catholic wedding includes both a marriage and a civil union.

The Church will say what it likes about the former. As far a the latter, there is no earthly why any two people who wish to enter into such a contract with each other and the State should not be permitted to do so if they wish to care for one another in lifelong commitment. Sex (gender), sexual activity, procreation have nothing to do with it. What it does have to do with is two people making a home and a life together, sharing property, inheritance rights, pension rights, health care responsibilities and so on.

That the Irish Government does not permit some of its citizens these basic rights is a grave injustice.

chill

Originally posted by Victor

BTW, trolling makes baby Jesus cry.

Maybe I shouldn't say... but I laughed SO much when this popped up on the screen...

chill

Originally posted by Typedef
Sexual dictat from a bunch of failed celebates who have random children and ex-lovers being supported with money from the masses all over the world.

You gotta love the irony

YEP.

In a world where millions of people are dying of hunger, disease and war; where racism, bigotry and slavery persist among so called 'civilised' nations, I find it jaw droppingly fatuous and offensive when the Catholic Church and others become so energetically opposed to two decent people who have nothing but love for each wanting to bind that feeling in a legal union.

I am no evangelist for marriage (I am maried after all . . .;) ) but if it is what two people want to do and it isn't hurting anyone then what possible objection can be mounted with any sense of rational morality.

Didn't a guy called Christ say to his followers to "go and love each other" ? isn't love the biggest and best thing about being alive on this bitch of a world ?

It seems that death and suffering can be coped with but not ..... love.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Victor
I'm sorry, but I think you have to see the difference between church and state. Imposing equality legislation on any religion would be very dubious. No one is suggesting anyone is stopped from getting married by either of these citeria.

No, but I would argue that sexual orientation is no different a discriminatory factor than these.

Originally posted by Victor
That said, surely a religion should be allowed impose certain minimum standards on marriages it is expected to bless.

Well if we talk about marriage as a legal state contract (which is what I was taking this debate about) then religion shouldn't be an issue.

Originally posted by Victor
archaic?

YEah,. forgive me on that it was after 1am and I was drunk.

koneko

Of course it should be allowed. If two people, no matter what sex they both are, want to commit to eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together, joined legally then why shouldn't they be able to?

When was the last time you saw two men walking down the street holding hands? Or kissing? Or being in any way publicly affectionate.

Etho is absolutely right. Unfortunately there are a lot of violent bigot scumbags around. If a public display of affection is likely to get your head kicked in, people are going to be reluctant to do it. This is down to public perception, not their own feelings or opinions. If the world were a different place gay couples would hold hands just as much as others do, and people would deal with it instead of making comments or worse.

People can disapprove and be disgusted all they want. That's their opinion. But taking away people's basic rights and deciding for everyone that this is "wrong" is something else.

Typedef

People can disapprove and be disgusted all they want. That's their opinion. But taking away people's basic rights and deciding for everyone that this is "wrong" is something else.

Yeah koneko you're right.

The thing is, in Catholic Ireland, a politician who would legalise Gay marriage would sign his own political death warrant.

Hell, look at the controversy in the Anglican Church, since it went and elected itself an openly gay bishop. Half of their bishops are threatening to leave the church.

It's not 'right' for people to be holier then thou, about things, but, that doesn't stop the vast majority of the world preaching about (something) from angle (x).

It's called self righteousness and you don't have to be a right wing conservative, to practice it.

Typedef:
Self righteous, since Jesus done anointed me, his personal representative on earth.

Yoda

I suspect that some politicians fear the political ramifications rather a lot, but I also suspect that there would not really be a huge "vote the bastards out" campaign of any substance. The electorate doesn't vote the bastards out when they are shown to be thieves, when they have dismantled the health service, etc. etc.

Of course because they are fearful, they will do nothing until Europe forces them to enact the appropriate legislation.

And then there's the question of semantics. "Marriage" is one thing. "Civil union with all the rights" is another. It's the rights that are paramount.

vibe666

the pope has about as much of an idea about catholic life in the 21st century as hitler had about throwing a bamitzvah.

the old duffer should have hung up his hat a long time ago, and let someone with a little bit of life still in them take over.

and if you want evil then how about catholic preists all over the world protected by the church while they violated young boys and girls?

the man hasn't got a fecking clue!

after all that, BTW, i voted yes, but if it had been shjould gay couples be allowed to adopt, I would have voted no. kids are very sensitive to anything like that, and the poor little sods would be persecuted at school by their peers, which i know isn't right, but not being right won't stop it happening.

i don't doubt that many gay couples could bring up a child better than a lot of straight parents could, and it wouldn't 'make' thew child grow up gay, after all kids brought up with straight parents often find they are gay. it's a genetic thing and kids will grow up to be whatever they want to be, regardless.

the problem isn't the parents, its society at large making kids think there is something wrong with gay people, and that it an attitude that is the responsibility of kids parents.

oh the irony.

Annasopra

Its not really relevant but I though I'd add this to the discussion

HUNDREDS of gays locked lips at a shopping centre yesterday, rallying for gay rights after a security guard at the mall asked a homosexual couple to stop kissing.

from news.com.au

Gay shopping mall kiss-in
From correspondents in Sao Paulo
August 5, 2003

HUNDREDS of gays locked lips at a shopping centre yesterday, rallying for gay rights after a security guard at the mall asked a homosexual couple to stop kissing.

In front of curious onlookers and afternoon shoppers the gay couples staged the "kiss-in" at the Frei Caneca shopping centre's food court.

"I think it's wonderful. In a world so full of violence, getting worked up about a kiss is just nonsense," said Beth Biagentini, a middle-aged woman eating lunch with her son.

Taking full advantage of the publicity, the shopping centre plastered red lipstick kisses around the mall.

But not everyone was happy to dine next to kissing gay couples.

"I don't have anything against them, but they should do it in privacy," said Ana Maria Oliveira.

The Daily Telegraph

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

after all that, BTW, i voted yes, but if it had been shjould gay couples be allowed to adopt, I would have voted no. kids are very sensitive to anything like that, and the poor little sods would be persecuted at school by their peers, which i know isn't right, but not being right won't stop it happening.

so should fat people be blocked from adopting children too?, in case the children emulate their parents and end up overeating and becoming overweight. kids can indeed be cruel sometimes.

Dawg

I think the difference between a marriage and a civil union is quite significant.

If a marriage is being held in a Catholic church and performed by a Catholic priest then they can choose who they wed based on their belief system. I don't agree with their beliefs but I do respect them.

A civil union on the other hand has absolutely nothing to do with any religion, and religious organisations should not interfere with state matters. Any two people who choose to spend their lives together and enjoy legal recognition of this should be allowed to do so. Anything less is descrimination.

I'm not in any way religious, and I don't care what people believe in as long as they're decent people. Believe in whatever you want to believe in, and whatever makes you happy, just don't force your idea's onto others and don't expect others to live by the religious and moral guidelines you have set out for yourself. No-one should be forced to live a lifestyle based on the beliefs of somebody else.

So, yes to gay civil unions, and preferably yes to gay marriage but ultimately this is down to whatever church is performing the ceremony.

Victor

Originally posted by sykeirl
Well if we talk about marriage as a legal state contract (which is what I was taking this debate about) then religion shouldn't be an issue.

But wouldn’t that be a state contract that would discriminate against single people, based on their sexual … whatever?

Originally posted by sykeirl
YEah,. forgive me on that it was after 1am and I was drunk.

No problem. At least you didn’t post anything like Thaed did.

Originally posted by vibe666
and if you want evil then how about catholic preists all over the world protected by the church while they violated young boys and girls?

You mean the ones now being investigated by the said "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" <cough> The Inquisition</cough>?

Originally posted by Mordeth
so should fat people be blocked from adopting children too?, in case the children emulate their parents and end up overeating and becoming overweight. kids can indeed be cruel sometimes.

I think it might be a matter of scale.

If I were a social worker / adoption judge, would I give a child to a pair of 30 stone couch potatoes .... "Hmmm, maybe not, who else is on the list?".

If I were a social worker / adoption judge, would I give a child to a pair of caricatured, camp, moustachioed "we want to have children or else" self-declared "faggots" (in the most assertively gay, owning the word "****" way one can imagine) .... "Hmmm, maybe not, who else is on the list? Oh look, there is this nice, settled, same-sex couple who have done parenting courses, have a suitable residence and strong community ties - let’s look at them".

Originally posted by Yoda
Of course because they are fearful, they will do nothing until Europe forces them to enact the appropriate legislation.

Aren't moral issues a competancy reserved for national governments?

Nevyn

shut up victor or I will tell ur Mammy your being mean to me .

Nevyn

If a spouse dies and the house is jointly deeded and the insurance policy clears the joint mortgage then there is no inheritance tax.

If a long term partner common law or other wise dies then when the insurance policy clear the joint mortgage on the jointly deed house the surviving party will be expected to pay inheritance tax on the property.

That is just one example.... there are others. If two people regardless of gender decide to commite to each other in such a fashion they should be allowed. A civil ceremony and then they can have whatever rites they desire.

But well booking a reception for a gay couple in Ireland I am sure will be a lot of fun

chill

Originally posted by vibe666
after all that, BTW, i voted yes, but if it had been shjould gay couples be allowed to adopt, I would have voted no. kids are very sensitive to anything like that, and the poor little sods would be persecuted at school by their peers, which i know isn't right, but not being right won't stop it happening.

i don't doubt that many gay couples could bring up a child better than a lot of straight parents could, and it wouldn't 'make' thew child grow up gay, after all kids brought up with straight parents often find they are gay. it's a genetic thing and kids will grow up to be whatever they want to be, regardless.

But you have just countered your own argument. It's a society thing and that is no basis for prejudicing gay couples.

Your point about teasing and persocuting is relevant but not as a blockage to adoption. We don't prevent fat people, ugly people, parents of a different colour or poor people from adopting - yet such childen would most definitely be potential targets of similar persocution. In such situations we have accepted as a society that we must tackle the problem in the schools.

The same goes for homosexual parents. After all they would have to go through the same vetting procedure that straight parents would have to go through to make sure they are stable, caring and reliable people.