French Gay Marriage Bill Presented to Parliament

Jan 29, 2013 Full story: EDGE 106

People demonstrate in support of a government project to legalize same-sex marriage and adoption for same-sex couples in Paris.

Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1 Jan 29, 2013
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#2 Jan 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)
Fundies don't care about scientific research.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#3 Jan 29, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Fundies don't care about scientific research.
Jane thinks "scientific" means studies with which he agrees...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
Jane thinks "scientific" means studies with which he agrees...
And you think that simple, direct, straight-forward questions are to be dodged and never answered.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#5 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane thinks "scientific" means studies with which he agrees...
SS thinks if he doesn't like a law, he can ignore it.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#6 Jan 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And you think that simple, direct, straight-forward questions are to be dodged and never answered.
and you think your disagreeing with an answer means it was never given...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#7 Jan 29, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>SS thinks if he doesn't like a law, he can ignore it.
a curios claim from a gay who likely violated sodomy laws...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#9 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and you think your disagreeing with an answer means it was never given...
what did you say???????

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
and you think your disagreeing with an answer means it was never given...
Do I? How can I disagree if it WAS never actually given? I realize this is a different thread, but let me sum up my previous question, and we'll see if you give me an answer to disagree WITH....

You oppose "marriage" for gay couples, because they won't provide both a mother and a father for a child. Rather than "marriage", you propose Civil Unions for them instead. But, would said CU include a BAN on that couple raising a child?

That's the question. If there is no ban, then I see no difference between marriage and CU. You seem adamant that there ARE differences, but I've yet to hear what those differences are.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
and you think your disagreeing with an answer means it was never given...
In other words, it seems that you (and everyone I've ever spoken to on this issue) actually oppose gay PARENTING, but I've yet to see any provisions or suggestions to stop gay people from raising children. Stopping them from obtaining a legal bond will not stop them from raising children. You realize this, yes?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
a curios claim from a gay who likely violated sodomy laws...
There are none.
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#13 Jan 29, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>what did you say???????
Don't expect too much, Jane..
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#14 Jan 29, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane thinks "scientific" means studies with which he agrees...
No.. Jane goes by verifiable scientific evidence; while you inhabit the realm of fantasy and malice-ridden wishful thinking.. Anyone without a still functioning brain will agree with her.. But don't despair.. you'll always find some less than bright character to agree with you..
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#16 Jan 30, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I? How can I disagree if it WAS never actually given? I realize this is a different thread, but let me sum up my previous question, and we'll see if you give me an answer to disagree WITH....
You oppose "marriage" for gay couples, because they won't provide both a mother and a father for a child. Rather than "marriage", you propose Civil Unions for them instead. But, would said CU include a BAN on that couple raising a child?
That's the question. If there is no ban, then I see no difference between marriage and CU. You seem adamant that there ARE differences, but I've yet to hear what those differences are.
what BAN?

the distinction could apply merely to "when all other things are equal we prefer a marriage to a CU in terms of adoption".

moms and dads versus moms OR dads...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#17 Jan 30, 2013
David Traversa wrote:
<quoted text>No.. Jane goes by verifiable scientific evidence; while you inhabit the realm of fantasy and malice-ridden wishful thinking.. Anyone without a still functioning brain will agree with her.. But don't despair.. you'll always find some less than bright character to agree with you..
your the one buying jane's crap...
not a good indicator for you or your judgment...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#18 Jan 30, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
There are none.
were gays JUSTIFIED in violating those laws when they existed ?

you guys have no sense of consistency...

I mean all bans weren't invalidated until 2003...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#19 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
what BAN?
the distinction could apply merely to "when all other things are equal we prefer a marriage to a CU in terms of adoption".
moms and dads versus moms OR dads...
I'm trying to make this as clear as I can.

Of course, no ban like this currently exists. I'm asking if YOU would SUPPORT such a ban. Would you SUGGEST that Civil Unions INCLUDE a ban against raising children?

Your primary reason for denying "marriage" to gay couples seems to be that they would not provide BOTH a mother and a father to any children that they might raise. Correct me if I misunderstand this position.

But, if a gay couple got a CU, couldn't they STILL raise children in opposition to your complaint? Wouldn't those children STILL be without both a mother and a father? Wouldn't the only way to solve your issue be to BAN them from raising ANY children entirely? I don't understand how CU's would make anything "better" (in your view), if the very same family arrangements would be in place. Do you feel that those children would be just FINE with two moms or two dads, as long as those two are not legally married?

I'm trying to understand what you think CU's solve, and I'm not seeing it.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#20 Jan 30, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to make this as clear as I can.
Of course, no ban like this currently exists. I'm asking if YOU would SUPPORT such a ban. Would you SUGGEST that Civil Unions INCLUDE a ban against raising children?
t.
How about you read my last post and reflect, the answer is right there...
it starts "all other things being equal"...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#21 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
How about you read my last post and reflect, the answer is right there...
it starts "all other things being equal"...
Wow. Just forget it. You ARE incapable of answer direct questions. I'm left with the impression that this is because the answers would be revealingly poor.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#23 Jan 30, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just forget it. You ARE incapable of answer direct questions. I'm left with the impression that this is because the answers would be revealingly poor.
It's because he can't keep his lies straight and he's too lazy to scroll back and read them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Young, Evangelical, and Pro-GayBy Gene Robinson 3 min Xstain Fumblement... 13
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 3 min Wondering 89
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 4 min WeTheSheeple 1,407
If You Are Homosexual You need To Read This! 5 min Imprtnrd 3
Support for gay marriage may be ebbing, survey ... 7 min Imprtnrd 4
Louisiana judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional 9 min Yakitori 5
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 9 min PUTIN a NAZI PIG 1,488
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 26 min barry 307
How long before being gay is a fireable offense? 37 min Xstain Fumblement... 45
Biggest Gay Lies 3 hr Lucas 2,093
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••