>>Homosexual couples can too raise a child. And when they do, they do it out of want,
it isn't forced on them. So unlike the majority of straight couples who are 'pushed' into
having a child -- homosexuals can choose at their own discretion.<<

The majority of straight couples are 'pushed' into having a child? Straight couples can't choose when to have children at their discretion? I'm pretty sure you just called the majority of the human race ****ing retarded. Homosexuals can raise children but we have no studies or evidence that it will be as ideal as a mother and father combination--the only combination naturally capable of producing children (huge COINCIDENCE, as you claim). We know that single parents are not ideal to raise children. [speaking down to you like a 10 year old because this forum seems to be more for whining than discussion between anyone who actually has any knowledge of statistics other than those they've made up:] Obviously many single parents do a great job and raise healthy, well-adjusted children. But studies show consistantly that single parents tend, on the whole, to produce far more troubled children. Single parenting is not ideal.

There are no studies I am aware of studying how well adjusted children raised by homosexual couples are. And sure, of course two loving parents of any gender may be better than most forms of foster care. However, this does no mean that homosexual couples are ideal. Men and women are different. It's not a matter of coincidence or just genitalia. Men and women are wired differently. We think differently. We work differently. We show our emotions differently. While many differences are cultural, many are physiological or physiologically based, affecting behavior uniformly or similarly, regardless of culture. To just presume that two men or two women, without the presense of the other sex as a parenting figure, can ever be as ideal as a heterosexual couple at raising a child with no evidence is strange. You're making a claim that common sense only questions: Whereas children usually learn roles from their parents, you propose that homosexual couples without the same roles can do just as well a job raising a child. Without taking a stand on the issue, the statement that "it is not natural" for homosexual couples to raise children (raise in the traditional, modern sense) is indisputable. If you want to contend that there will be no confusion in a child in learning roles (again, they're not entirely cultural and therefore "evil:" men and women function differently physiologically and at least some amount of differences in roles is the inevitable result) from homosexual "parents" as opposed to heterosexual parents, go ahead and make that case as well as you can.

But to just make the claim and not support it is silly. Men and women are different. Naturally both are involved in creating a child. Children inevitably share a gender with one of their parents and not the other. Naturally. Homosexual couples do not share this natural trait. The natural dynamics of parent-child relationships are altered. You want to make the claim that homosexual couples are as ideal as heterosexual couples? Then make it. Don't act like it's been proven and we're just ignorant for denying its validity. As it stands, I doubt you'll be able to make much of a case for its equality, and my education in psychology isn't even very much. I can't imagine how many more doubts I'd have if I'd spent years studying the dynamics of family relationships and how they'd be altered by two same-sex parents and no parents of the opposite gender.

>>This means that a homosexual couple can become functional workers in society, powering
our economy, and THEN help raise a child. This ensures a better lifestyle for the child and
will actually help reduce crime (Look at the relation of single mothers vs. crime).<<

Homosexual couples could "become" functional workers in society? They're not now? You seem a little out of touch with reality.

You made a reference to single mothers (I'm very familiar with marriage statistics [divorce, remarriage, income, crime, reported levels of happiness, etc ad nausium]) not being as ideal as married couples. The same is true of single fathers, by the way, sexist. But your own reference compares single parents to married parents--married, heterosexual parents. What if extensive studies showed that two homosexual parents could benefit a child more than single parents (statistically speaking: for the most part, as statistically significant majority of the time), but still not benefit a child as well as two heterosexual parents? If studies (which do not at this time exist) concluded that homosexual couples are not as ideal for children as heterosexual couples, would that affect your position? Because there's a lot of learning involved in becoming a well-adjusted human being, and I haven't seen you or anyone else make the argument (even without any substanciation, which I know surfaces here <1% of the time) that homosexual couples are capable of raising children as well as heterosexual couples.

In any case, you referenced studies concerning single vs married parents, none of whom were homosexual.

>>- Gay couples choose when to have children<<

So do heterosexual couples. I'm not going to say more because I'd say something like that your statement here is absolutely retarded.

>>- Those children will have a better lifestyle.<<

Than who? Single-parent children? You're making random comparisons that mean nothing. Homosexual couples in the USA might raise children under better conditoins than heterosexual couples in Sudan too, but that doesn't mean anything.

>>- Blacks are more likely to commit a serious crime then gays.<<

This statement is both racist and ignorant of the cultural and ethnic influences which result in crime. Are you claiming that blacks are more likely (statistically, across the USA, presumably? you're so vague) to commit a serious crime than gays because they are black? You're comparing one set of people, a race, to another set of people, a sexuality. Again, what did you hope to demonstrate, that you make a lot of meaningless comparisons because you lack an adequate education?

>>The only reason you don't like homosexuality is due to religion. Which is ironic, because a priest
arse raping a little boy tends to lean more towards a homosexual tendency then a heterosexual one...<<

I am not religious. I am not atheist or agnostic, either, if that further clarifies. The only reason you make things up (ie "the only reason you... is due to religion") is because you would prefer to troll than to engage the topic. It's funny you'd make a priest reference, because what unites them (and sets them apart from the general public) is their celibacy. The nearest thing we could compare this unnatural choice to would be having parents of unnatural gender. I'm not saying that would be a particularly telling comparison, but you're making a lot of comparisons and that's the closest we can draw to a priest, as you brought up.

>>3. can't adopt a child<<

They can't produce one either. Is producing children a right now too? Again you make claims with no backing. No substanciation, no reasoning, nothing.

>> And no, we are talking in general.<<

I do not support laws against homosexuality. Or sodomy; you small guys should be able to put it wherever you want. But that I am against any laws outlawing homosexuality does not mean I support homosexual marriage or adoption. As I have stated, I have doubts which no one has even addressed here.

>>No, but preventing a couple from adopting a child simply because they are gay is clear descrimination.<<

Just as preventing a person from adopting a child because they're single and unable to raise the child ideally is discrimination. Just as preventing a person from adopting a child because they have a mental disorder is discrimination. And since homosexuality is a mental disorder, I don't have to explain any further from there.

>>Religion is why the laws were created, society is why laws have stayed. Eventually the laws will change
as people learn that gays are not the devil.<<

No amount of argument against this straw-man will address my questions above. Until you address them, you have made no argument for your case, only against a straw man (nobody is stating religious objections to your position here).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<

I think it is a mental disorder. Many brilliant and accomplished (even famous) psychologists agree with me. I'm not saying this proves my position--I'm merely saying that getting a majority of publishers to not publish this opinion today doesn't prove your case to any extent either. And I prefer the psychologists on this questions over the publishers. This does not fall under the category of "choice," but still does not afford it the equality you ask this question to demand.

>>So, just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe that black people deserve civil rights, but not homosexuals?<<

The question is on what grounts do you compare the color of a man's skin not determining his inherent dignity with the claim that differences in functionality are not differences in functionality? There is no comparison and your attempt is only insulting to every minority who has ever had to fight for his/her rights. You have made no case against the objections and questions I and many others have raised. You attack straw men and make odd meaningless comparisons and claim outrage at an injustice against homosexuals. All without responding to our questions or objections.

>>When a straight couple (in the UK) are together for five unbroken years or more they are deemed to be in a common law marriage and get the same financial benefits as a church wedded couple.
Homosexuals do not get these same benefits, no matter how long they are together, they don't even have the right to visit their partner in hospital because they're not family.<<

I have no objection to visitation rights and some tax benefits. I agree that visitation rights ought be granted just as they are with heterosexual couples. Live and let live; it's none of my business who your mate is and who you want visiting you. Taxes are more complicated because the benefit to society is not equal. Even in the case of childless couples, that's a matter of coincidence not form.

>>Homosexuals are better for the economy.<<

Made up.

Pointing out that some parents are really awful parents does not make homosexual couples ideal parents. It does not mean that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Rather than make your case all I've seen is the claim that, since heterosexual couples can be bad parents, then anyone better than a trashy child-molester must therefore be given adoption rights.

Aditionally, I've never busted a nut inside a girl without a condom (without her using birth control) by accident. I'm sorry you were a "mistake," but the fact is that most heterosexual couples do NOT have their children by "accident." You guys sound retarded acting like the benefit of planning makes homosexuals advantageous over heterosexuals. Maybe you're all just virgins so this whole conversation is all foreign to you.