*cough* proven myth *cough*

It reminds me of the story where a lesbian couple felt "betrayed" when their gay friend/donor sued for part-time custody and visitation. The women only intended to have the son interact with his dad on a limited basis--special occasions and the like. One of the partners had to admit how ironic it was that they were raising the child with "two-moms" but still wanted him to grow up in slightly traditional, two-parent home.

@AM, great article. Thanks for sharing.

Here's an old one from Maggie that follows with the discussion.

http://townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/2004/01/08/the_message_of_same-sex_marriage

We can thank no fault divorce laws for that. And SS"M" is bound to make it worse.

It was actually very informative, and for once, it shows information that isn't from an official hate-group. It appears to actually show non-biased data, and I didn't see any of the sort of language that would indicate obvious bias. But I do have a few important things to point out.

It also doesn't talk about same-sex marriages. It talks about registered partnerships, which we have no equivalent of in the USA.

And probably the much biggest thing that stands out is that they specifically point out that in their countries, marriage does not grant rights the same as in the USA....They point out shared insurance as an example.. the socialist nations grant their benefits on an individual basis.

That is also pretty much the whole point of the fight going on in the US. I'm already married to my husband. We want our family to have the same rights. We want equal civil rights. The bible, our church, God and Heaven already respects our union, but our government does not.

*cough* that lie has already been disproved *cough*

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229057/reengineering-family-heather-mac-donald

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I personally know a man who donated his sperm to lesbian friends so they could have a child. He *does* feel like his child's dad, but the couple immediately took him to court and got rid of him once they had what they wanted from him.

I guess it works both ways, neither of them good. Of course we never hear about these ugly stories.

"Ultimately, AI reinforces the worst that women fear in men. Think of all the complaints you hear: men can’t commit, they’re irresponsible, they’re insensitive, they don’t take care of the kids. By going to a sperm bank, women are unwittingly paying men to be exactly what they object to."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_artificial_insemination.html

One really weird story that I read recently was about a man who donated sperm to two women for the creation of children. He wasn't anonymous, and explained how much he loves the twins, but doesn't see himself as their dad. I couldn't believe it.

If people want to do these weird things, ok. But it shouldn't be normalized or praised.

Not too long ago it was considered a tragedy when a woman hooked up with a man who had no interest in his children and would abondon them. Now, we are expected to celebrate this abandonment because it's gay.

One of the interviewees bemoaned the fact that really nasty same-sex break-ups can cause problems where children are concerned. As an example, a partner who is a biological parent will say "tough beans" to the co-parent and deny visitation; or the biological parent will have to rely on the co-parent's charity after a break-up because they have no legal recourse to demand support.

The interviewee even referred to gay people doing such things as "homophobic."

But this is how things must play out, unfortunately. There should be no such instance of forcibly holding a woman responsible for her friend's child, or a woman claiming parental rights over her friend's child against the wishes of the child's mother.

If two women are sexually involved, and one of them wants to get pregnant by an unknown man and pretend the child has two moms, then they need to seek a second parent adoption. This way, the co-parent's connection with the child will be legally established and protected, but not without initial consent from the biological mother.

https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

"This in no way reflects on gay couples as a whole, anymore than a straight couple getting divorced reflects on all straight couples. Really, Randy. Grow up."

Actually it is very reflectant on gay couples as a whole. Male houles are twice as likely to end up in divorce vs three times that for female couples. They're also among the least likely to be monagomous.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4137233?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100882293251

"It does no such thing"

So now you are speaking for everyone again; do my understandings not have value and worth; is it only those that agree with your unsubstantiated belief system that merit consideration, or does equality apply to everyone?

The 1st Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights stands in defense of my understanding of your depravity because its basis can be traced through the history and traditions of this nation’s founding documents; whereas your doctrine, by your own admittance, does not exist - i.e. there is no "Gay" agenda.

Well there is a well documented Christian agenda and you have declared war on it.

It does no such thing. You are, again, letting your own horrible bias and narrow-mindedness interfere with your ability to understand what this means: That the couple married for the wrong reasons and found that they were not right for one another in the long term.

This in no way reflects on gay couples as a whole, anymore than a straight couple getting divorced reflects on all straight couples. Really, Randy. Grow up.

Why is that? Could it be because men and women are designed for one another and are therefore complementary? Each sex balances and moderates the other by providing what’s lacking in the other.

However, in same-sex relationships, the pairing of identicals propels them to extremes not balance. Lesbians tend to push one another to emotional extremes as evidenced by the intense demands they often put on one another, but male homosexuals experience the most damaging effects of imbalance. Instead of the sex drive of the man being balanced by the emotional needs of the woman, male homosexuals reinforce and amplify the sex drive of one another. That’s perhaps why their behavior often becomes compulsive to the point of explosive promiscuity. Anywhere from 21-43 percent of homosexual men have several hundred sexual partners.

By the way, "marriage" is not an entity capable of corruption. Individual marriages can be, but it is not a collective "thing." When you guys say "protect marriage" you're being disingenuous unless you simply mean the word. And if you mean the WORD, this is an awful lot of fuss. Good gravy, it's just a word. If you insist upon putting the word "civil" in front of all straight and gay marriages performed outside of church, you know what? Almost everyone would be cool with that.

The article stands as a reminder that marriage corruption supporters are primarily motivated by selfish transitory feelings; not logic.