The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

The word 'marriage' is often the key problem here, because people are using it in different contexts. Ironically it's down to peoples interpretation.

Those on the LGBT side aren't out to kidnap the word Marriage, they're simply looking for equality. Those who oppose it are claiming the word Marriage is being stolen, when it's really not. It doesn't even have to enter it really, because this is really about legal rights and matters.

I, personally, use the word marriage often because it's simpler and quicker to say in a normal conversation.

If I ask my mother if she wants to marry her partner, I'll say something like 'Do you want to marry her?" and not something like "Do you want to civil ceremony her?". It just sounds wrong and takes away from the moment.

And just as a last point. Can we please remember that marriage itself is far older than Christianity and has been practiced around the world for centuries.

+1

No one doesn't understand what a gay marriage is, no one is thinking "But that doesn't make sense, marriage is between a man and a women, I can't understand what you just said.".

It is no more confusing or a redefinition than a polygamous marriage is. The concept that a man or woman has got married multiple times does not cause people to scratch their head in bewilderment because we are used to the concept of a monogamous marriage, whether they agree with polygamy or not they understand what has happened.

The same is true a gay couple getting married. That sentence I just wrote is not syntactically or semantically confusing. Everyone understands what I just wrote. They know what a marriage is beyond the concept of the bride and groom.

If I had said "The same is true with a gay couple getting scienced" people would have a valid argument that the word "science" is being redefined to fit a new concept it has nothing to do with.

Heck, even if I said "He married a duck" people would still understand what that means, even if they thought it was ridiculous.

The one man one woman notion of a marriage is in no way central to the usage of the word "marriage".

On the other hand you couldn't remove something like loving commitment from the concept and still have people understand you.

If I said "I married my business partner" to mean that we started a new business together no one would have a clue that this is what I meant. They would assume a loving relationship that involves a significant commitment (traditionally life long) to that person. Even in marriages where this isn't the case it is because the people are pretending or faking it (ie celebrities marrying for the press, they get the press precisely because of the gossip their fake loving relationship generates)

There are elements that a crucial to understanding what the term "marriage" means, but one man one woman is certainly not one of them.

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

The word 'marriage' is often the key problem here, because people are using it in different contexts. Ironically it's down to peoples interpretation.

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology

So what did Christians do prior to 1250-1300 CE? Did it count if it wasn't called 'marriage' but 'mariage'?

What about those early Christian Romans and their marītāre - was that really marriage given it shared the same name as used by their pagan fellow citizens?

GOSH - perhaps the Christian's subverted the meaning of the word marītāre and twisted it to conform to what they wanted to mean :eek:.

IT-Guy

PDN wrote: »

I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate.

So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships.

That's either a very unfortunate juxtaposition or deliberately inflammatory. But that's the sort of ambiguity I've come to expect from the religious. (Just to be clear, that is deliberately inflammatory ). Also in a changing world is broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples a bad thing?

PDN wrote: »

And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.

Wow, what you seek to include with the first paragraph of your post you seek to exclude with this. Is this a tolerant attitude I have to ask? May I add I fully agree with the right to rename the ceremony of marriage to whatever the church wishes, however invoking it here in order to distance themselves from the LBGT community is quite frankly, disgusting.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Good to see that you avoided muddying the waters by dragging in those old bug bears about incest, hinting at bestiality etc...oh wait....

I certainly never hinted at bestiality. I was referring to consensual relationships, which I understood this thread to be about. If bestiality is your thing then I suggest you take it elsewhere rather than trying to drag this thread off-topic. I would, however, have strong reservations from an animal welfare standpoint.

I don't see how incest is muddying the waters at all. We've been repeatedly told that it is no business of the Church what two consenting adults get up to in their bedrooms - so I am agreeing with that position. When you leave aside religious taboos (which should not be dictated to the rest of society) there is no valid reason to prohibit incest between consenting adults. It's ironic that you are criticising me for being open-minded and tolerant on this issue.

IT-Guy wrote:

That's either a very unfortunate juxtaposition or deliberately inflammatory. But that's the sort of ambiguity I've come to expect from the religious. (Just to be clear, that is deliberately inflammatory ).

I don't think it's inflammatory to advocate tolerance. You need to be more open-minded.

Also in a changing world is broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples a bad thing?

That is an issue of semantics. I prefer to use 'marriage' in the way it has been understood for several hundred years. That is not, by the way, a religious viewpoint. I also dislike calling jumped up polytechnics 'universities' or referring to binmen as 'refuse disposal technicians'.

Wow, what you seek to include with the first paragraph of your post you seek to exclude with this. Is this a tolerant attitude I have to ask? May I add I fully agree with the right to rename the ceremony of marriage to whatever the church wishes, however invoking it here in order to distance themselves from the LBGT community is quite frankly, disgusting.

Ah, drop the fake outrage.

Yes, it is a tolerant attitude. If the word 'marriage' is redefined to mean something different as that understood by most Christians, then it makes perfect sense for the churches to use a different term. That is perfect tolerance.

Maybe you need to understand what tolerance is? It does not mean that we all have to clap our hands and gush about how wonderful all things are. It means that we live and let live.

Bannasidhe

I just love it when Christians trot out the intolerance argument.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I just love it when Christians trot out the intolerance argument.

I just love it when anti-Christians drop any attempt at reasoned discussion and resort to tired and lazy stereotypes and ad-hominem attacks.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

I just love it when anti-Christians drop any attempt at reasoned discussion and resort to tired and lazy stereotypes and ad-hominem attacks.

Ad-hominem like implying someone is into bestiality for example?

We are discussing Gay marriage - you introduced the topic of incest and then accused me of attempting to derail the tread when I queried this.

To cap it all off you then accused both myself an IT-Guy of intolerance - yet you are a member of a religion that believes I, and many like me, will burn in Hell for all eternity because we do not believe in your God. Hardly a tolerant attitude now is it?

But to get back on topic - leaving aside such off topic subjects as incest, bestiality, polygamy etc - is it correct to say that you would have no problem with heterosexual and homosexual adult couples being able to avail of the exact same rights when they enter into a formal and legally binding civil life-partnership and that your only issue is the use of the term 'marriage' as you feel it has religious connotations?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ad-hominem like implying someone is into bestiality for example?

I've said I would rather avoid the subject of bestiality as off-topic. You are the one who seems to keep raising it and reading it between the lines where it doesn't exist.

Again, if you wish to discuss that subject I think there are other Fora that would be more suitable.

We are discussing Gay marriage - you introduced the topic of incest and then accused me of attempting to derail the tread when I queried this.

It's hardly derailing the thread to say that I favour the idea of State giving the same legal status to all civil relationships between consensual adults. Your apparent issues with incest are not my concern. Maybe you should be more open minded?

To cap it all off you then accused both myself an IT-Guy of intolerance - yet you are a member of a religion that believes I, and many like me, will burn in Hell for all eternity because we do not believe in your God. Hardly a tolerant attitude now is it?

While you characterisation of my beliefs is an untrue misrepresentation (no surprises there) I think you are failing to understand tolerance.

Tolerance does not mean unqualified approval of all philosophies. Nor does it mean that you believe there are no consequences to people's beliefs and actions.

For example, you may believe that Christianity is a load of nonsense. I'm fine with that. Just so long as you don't interfere with the freedom of Christians to practice their faith, then you are still being tolerant.

I believe that watching soap operas rots people's brains and produces a nation of educationally sub-normal morons who can't understand the English language. However, I support their right to watch soap operas, therefore I am still being tolerant.

In fact, the most intolerant posts I have seen in this thread have come from those who would deny to religious people or institutions the right to voice their opinions on civic issues.

But to get back on topic - leaving aside such off topic subjects as incest, bestiality, polygamy etc - is it correct to say that you would have no problem with heterosexual and homosexual adult couples being able to avail of the exact same rights when they enter into a formal and legally binding civil life-partnership and that your only issue is the use of the term 'marriage' as you feel it has religious connotations?

You were right up to the last 7 words. Strike them out and you have accurately summed up my view.

My objection to the campaign to redefine the word 'marriage' is primarily nothing to do with any religious connotations. But, if the word is redefined, it will have implications for revised Bible translations etc.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

I've said I would rather avoid the subject of bestiality as off-topic. You are the one who seems to keep raising it and reading it between the lines where it doesn't exist.

Again, if you wish to discuss that subject I think there are other Fora that would be more suitable.


It's hardly derailing the thread to say that I favour the idea of State giving the same legal status to all civil relationships between consensual adults. Your apparent issues with incest are not my concern. Maybe you should be more open minded?


While you characterisation of my beliefs is an untrue misrepresentation (no surprises there) I think you are failing to understand tolerance.

Tolerance does not mean unqualified approval of all philosophies. Nor does it mean that you believe there are no consequences to people's beliefs and actions.

For example, you may believe that Christianity is a load of nonsense. I'm fine with that. Just so long as you don't interfere with the freedom of Christians to practice their faith, then you are still being tolerant.

I believe that watching soap operas rots people's brains and produces a nation of educationally sub-normal morons who can't understand the English language. However, I support their right to watch soap operas, therefore I am still being tolerant.

In fact, the most intolerant posts I have seen in this thread have come from those who would deny to religious people or institutions the right to voice their opinions on civic issues.


You were right up to the last 7 words. Strike them out and you have accurately summed up my view.

My objection to the campaign to redefine the word 'marriage' is primarily nothing to do with any religious connotations. But, if the word is redefined, it will have implications for revised Bible translations etc.

So - in an effort to remain firmly on topic which necessitates ignoring all of your post that does not deal directly with Gay marriage your position is:

You would have no problem with heterosexual and homosexual adult couples being able to avail of the exact same rights when they enter into a formal and legally binding civil life-partnership and that your only issue is the use of the term 'marriage'?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

My objection to the campaign to redefine the word 'marriage' is primarily nothing to do with any religious connotations. But, if the word is redefined, it will have implications for revised Bible translations etc.

Words are redefined all the time though, even the meaning of marriage has changed depending on the culture that uses it.

Why the sudden objection to this word?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So - in an effort to remain firmly on topic which necessitates ignoring all of your post that does not deal directly with Gay marriage your position is:

You would have no problem with heterosexual and homosexual adult couples being able to avail of the exact same rights when they enter into a formal and legally binding civil life-partnership and that your only issue is the use of the term 'marriage'?

That is correct. I would have no problem with all forms of relationships between consensual adults having the same legal rights and standing.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Unfortunately, our experience in this forum is that simple 'yes' or 'no' answers tend to be distorted and used for purposes of misrepresentation.

Therefore, more often than not, you will find that regular Christian posters prefer to qualify their answers with a bit more verbiage.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

That is correct. I would have no problem with all forms of relationships between consensual adults having the same legal rights and standing.



Unfortunately, our experience in this forum is that simple 'yes' or 'no' answers tend to be distorted and used for purposes of misrepresentation.

Therefore, more often than not, you will find that regular Christian posters prefer to qualify their answers with a bit more verbiage.

Thank you.

So really we are arguing about semantics and nothing else. I personally have no investment in the word marriage and am interested only that all citizens be granted equality under the law. Couldn't give a fig what they decide to call it as long as it applies equally to all.

qrrgprgua

PDN wrote: »

That is correct. I would have no problem with all forms of relationships between consensual adults having the same legal rights and standing.

What about the Couple being able to adopt? One thing is their relationship which is their life.. I also have no issues. The problem is the push to make Gay marriage equal in every respect to Normal Marriage. Proposing that a Gay couple is the same as a Heterosexual couple when it comes for looking for the ideal family to raise a child is a big question.

If Gay marriage was just about getting the same rights as marriage couples for the purposes of legalities of Property/Inheritance/tax etc... is fine it protects that couple.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Words are redefined all the time though, even the meaning of marriage has changed depending on the culture that uses it.

Why the sudden objection to this word?

It isn't sudden.

But I see a difference between a word evolving naturally through normal usage, and it being artifically altered Soviet-style to suit an agenda.

Languages, by their very nature, are fluid. But the manipulation of language IMHO is a different thing.

IT-Guy

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it's inflammatory to advocate tolerance. You need to be more open-minded.

I would consider myself very open minded, my issue with your lumping different sexualities together was carried over from another poster doing the same. Apologies if I've misread your intent here. I'm happily surprised by your attitude towards consenting adults being allowed to do whatever it is they wish, I hope it's something you're not afraid to preach!

PDN wrote: »

That is an issue of semantics. I prefer to use 'marriage' in the way it has been understood for several hundred years. That is not, by the way, a religious viewpoint. I also dislike calling jumped up polytechnics 'universities' or referring to binmen as 'refuse disposal technicians'.

But why limit it to just the timeframe where it agrees with your religious point of view? To get a true sense of the meaning of the word would mean expanding your view to encompass world history, not just christian history. An interesting wiki article on the history of gay marriage/unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Your allusion with "calling jumped up polytechnics 'universities' or referring to binmen as 'refuse disposal technicians' " would bear weight if any of those groups civil liberties were impinged upon simply because of the nature of their jobs. Or told they were going to hell because of their profession.

PDN wrote: »

Ah, drop the fake outrage.

Yes, it is a tolerant attitude. If the word 'marriage' is redefined to mean something different as that understood by most Christians, then it makes perfect sense for the churches to use a different term. That is perfect tolerance.

Maybe you need to understand what tolerance is? It does not mean that we all have to clap our hands and gush about how wonderful all things are. It means that we live and let live.

No fake outrage here, I genuinely do find it disgusting that if and when the LGBT community have equal marriage rights to heterosexuals, a different term will be coined by Christians to describe their marriage. Again it's prejudiced thinking designed to alienate. To a certain extent it reminds me of the outdated right-to-associate argument of some libertarian business owners against serving black people as a guise for their racist views. So that would be a no to your concept of perfect tolerance.

Again I am fully aware of what tolerance is and it's rather ironic you use the term 'live and let live' yet see no issue in Christians being unable to do that when it comes to the use of the word 'marriage' to include same sex couples.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate.

So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships.

And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.

Some churches. Others seem ok with the concept.

PDN

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What about the Couple being able to adopt? One thing is there relationship which is their life.. I also have no issues. The problem is the push to make Gay marriage equal in every respect to Normal Marriage. Proposing that a Gay couple is the same as a Heterosexual couple when it comes for looking for the ideal family to raise a child is a big question.

If Gay marriage was just about getting the same rights as marriage couples for the purposes of legalities of Property/Inheritance/tax etc... is fine it protects that couple.

I have no problem in principle with same-sex couples adopting - but I would want the evidence to be pretty cast-iron as concerns the welfare of the children. For example, are they more likely to be bullied?

Adoption, in my opinion, should always be about the rights of the child rather than of the adoptive parents. No-one has a 'right' to adopt - but children should have the right to the best possible environment.

But, if the evidence indicates that it would not be to the detriment of the child, then I don't see that same-sex couples adopting should be an issue of Christians. After all, we hardly advocate that Muslims should be prohibited from adopting, do we? So allowing people to adopt does not mean approving of their beliefs or lifestyle.

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What about the Couple being able to adopt? One thing is their relationship which is their life.. I also have no issues. The problem is the push to make Gay marriage equal in every respect to Normal Marriage. Proposing that a Gay couple is the same as a Heterosexual couple when it comes for looking for the ideal family to raise a child is a big question.

If Gay marriage was just about getting the same rights as marriage couples for the purposes of legalities of Property/Inheritance/tax etc... is fine it protects that couple.

Well currently gay people can and do adopt as individuals but a gay couple is not allowed to adopt as a couple - even if that couple has entered into a Civil Partnership. Which begs the question why the State does not see any difference between heterosexual and homosexual individuals when it comes to adoption but does see a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Bit of a legal anomaly. Gay individuals can adopt - but Gay couples cannot. Doesn't make sense.

As for the issue of biological relationship with the children - currently the situation exists where if an unmarried mother marries a man who has no biological relationship with her children he is allowed to adopt those children. Now, this does bring us in danger of getting into a side bar discussion of the rights/obligations of unmarried fathers which I don't want to get into here (yes - I do think unmarried fathers have rights/obligations toward their children and this should be recognised under the law). The issue here is that it is possible in the context of civil marriage for a adoption by a non-biological parent but not possible within the context of Civil Partnership. Another legal anomaly.

28064212

PDN wrote: »

I have no problem in principle with same-sex couples adopting - but I would want the evidence to be pretty cast-iron as concerns the welfare of the children. For example, are they more likely to be bullied?

Why are these criteria only applied to same-sex couples who want to adopt? Where's the cast-iron evidence that straight ginger people are the best for the welfare of the child? Are they more likely to be bullied? What about straight, Protestant couples?

How about we have an adoption agency that decides the criteria, and places the child in the best possible home? Sometimes that will be a straight couple, and sometimes it will be a gay couple. Blanket bans on a particular group are incredibly stupid

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

I have no problem in principle with same-sex couples adopting - but I would want the evidence to be pretty cast-iron as concerns the welfare of the children. For example, are they more likely to be bullied?

Adoption, in my opinion, should always be about the rights of the child rather than of the adoptive parents. No-one has a 'right' to adopt - but children should have the right to the best possible environment.

But, if the evidence indicates that it would not be to the detriment of the child, then I don't see that same-sex couples adopting should be an issue of Christians. After all, we hardly advocate that Muslims should be prohibited from adopting, do we? So allowing people to adopt does not mean approving of their beliefs or lifestyle.

We are beginning to agree . Go us!

Absolutely in accord with PDN here. I know Gay and Straight couples I wouldn't allow to mind my dog, never mind adopt a child. I also know Gay and Straight couples who are wonderful parents.


Sexual orientation should not be the sole determining factor - or even an issue. The issue should be the welfare of the child and Gay and Straight couples should be assessed according to the exact same criteria.

Bannasidhe

28064212 wrote: »

Why are these criteria only applied to same-sex couples who want to adopt? Where's the cast-iron evidence that straight ginger people are the best for the welfare of the child? Are they more likely to be bullied? What about straight, Protestant couples?

How about we have an adoption agency that decides the criteria, and places the child in the best possible home? Sometimes that will be a straight couple, and sometimes it will be a gay couple. Blanket bans on a particular group are incredibly stupid

I didn't read that as PDN saying strict criteria should only be applied to same-sex couples.

PDN - would you clarify?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I didn't read that as PDN saying strict criteria should only be applied to same-sex couples.

PDN - would you clarify?

You are correct. I wasn't saying that.

Now you know why we have to qualify our answers rather than just giving short answers.

mcmoustache

I think that the term "marriage" has already been diluted beyond the Christian idea - eg "the marriage of chocolate and orange in this dessert is divine".

I also think that if Christians come up with another word to describe Christian Marriage, it will be used colloquially to describe other kinds of marriage.

Morbert

In conclusion:

Religious institutions should not be obliged to facilitate gay marriage.

Governments should be obliged to facilitate 'marriage', the legal agreement between two consenting adults, with no discrimination against homosexual couples.

While the welfare of a child raised by a homosexual couple is a legitimate question to raise, evidence suggests homosexual couples are as suitable as heterosexual couples.

thread.close()

qrrgprgua

Morbert wrote: »

evidence suggests homosexual couples are as suitable as heterosexual couples.

What evidence? So are be denying natures role? A Father and a Mother figure have a role to play in a Childs development. While in some families one or other may be missing and the child turns out perfectly well.. that does not mean the Ideal should be thrown away.

In the 60's they said the best milk for a Child was formula.. Today its Natures way is best.. Well the natural family is Mother-Father children.

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What evidence?

qrrgprgua You have been presented with copious, independent, studies in various fora which you do not wish to accept as they do not conform to what you believe to be true.

Both sonics2k and bluewolf have describes the lack of a negative impact on their lives due to being raised by same-sex parents.

Why are you now asking for evidence when there is none in existence you are prepared to accept unless it confirms what you already believe?

qrrgprgua

Bannasidhe wrote: »

qrrgprgua You have been presented with copious, independent, studies in various fora which you do not wish to accept as they do not conform to what you believe to be true.

Both sonics2k and bluewolf have describes the lack of a negative impact on their lives due to being raised by same-sex parents.

Why are you now asking for evidence when there is none in existence you are prepared to accept unless it confirms what you already believe?

There are lots of studies that show that Breast Milk is best for a child. in the 80's I would say a very large proportion of Irish mothers did not breast feed, and it didn't have that much adverse effects. But today there is a big drive to give the Child the best start.

A Child has a Father and a Mother. If it needs to be adopted is it not better to follow nature and look for a substitute Father and Mother?

Studies on children adopted by Gay couples are very limited. Unless you are using the US democratic sponsored ones.. which have a bias.

One this for a Boy is to be Raised by his mother,, if the father dies or leaves.. But to have no Father figure at all in the boys life does have negative impacts. Having a Father Figure is fundamental in a boys development.

Wiggles88

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What evidence? So are be denying natures role? A Father and a Mother figure have a role to play in a Childs development. While in some families one or other may be missing and the child turns out perfectly well.. that does not mean the Ideal should be thrown away.

In the 60's they said the best milk for a Child was formula.. Today its Natures way is best.. Well the natural family is Mother-Father children.

In the Sexual Orientation thread the whole line of are heterosexual parents being ideal and what is best for the child came up. The thread contains links highlighting some of the studies performed on same sex parents, the consensus of these studies were that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexual vs heterosexual parenting and that no one configuration was intrinsically better than the other.

However you posted in said tread so I assume you saw these links which makes me wonder why your above post reads as if you have never seen any evidence and are still spouting the same "heterosexual parentage is the ideal" line of thought.

NuMarvel

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There are lots of studies that show that Breast Milk is best for a child. in the 80's I would say a very large proportion of Irish mothers did not breast feed, and it didn't have that much adverse effects. But today there is a big drive to give the Child the best start.

A Child has a Father and a Mother. If it needs to be adopted is it not better to follow nature and look for a substitute Father and Mother?

Studies on children adopted by Gay couples are very limited. Unless you are using the US democratic sponsored ones.. which have a bias.

One this for a Boy is to be Raised by his mother,, if the father dies or leaves.. But to have no Father figure at all in the boys life does have negative impacts. Having a Father Figure is fundamental in a boys development.

To expand on your breast milk example, those conclusions came about as a result of studies. Public health officials didn't just decide overnight that breast milk is better simply because it was the natural option.

So in that vein, where are your studies that show that a child raised by opposite sex parents fares better than a child raised by same-sex parents?

totus tuus

NuMarvel wrote: »

So in that vein, where are your studies that show that a child raised by opposite sex parents fares better than a child raised by same-sex parents?

The following link might be of some interest!
http://mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game

Moves by legislators and homosexual activists to endorse same sex adoption are misguided. Their intentions may be good, but they are ignoring the rights of children and important social and psychological research into the homosexual lifestyle.