View Single Post
Old March 26th, 2013, 08:32 PM   #95
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 19,933
iTrader: (21)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I would say that's #1, so those benefits should go to people teaming up to raise kids, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status.

#2 I think would be for planning a live together, which should go to those planning that, regardless of sex.
Well, originally, those teaming up to raise kids were the natural parents. Then divorce and/or death created single parents........... another difficult way to raise kids. Then remarriage created another couple in the natural sense. I don't think anyone originally planned that gays would be raising kids.

Which on another note, I think is wrong. If given a choice, I think a child needs a mother and father. As Green pointed out, men and women are different. A natural set of parents gives a child both perspectives to learn from. After all, who wants a boy raised by 2 men running around with their hands flailing in the air shouting "ooooh ooooh oooh"?
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.04886 seconds with 11 queries