Y'know, the customs thing never even entered my mind, but you're right. That WOULD happen. And it's horrible. I mean, it's not way up there on the horribleness scale, granted, but it's one of those little things that you just don't even think about when you're not faced with it, that you just take for granted when you're a straight person in a straight marriage.

And I guess that's really kind of one of the problem with the gay marriage issue, isn't it? People just don't think about what it means to not be able to get that marriage license or a legal civil union, the rights and privileges, big and small, that you CAN'T have regarding your loved one simply because you can't get that stupid little piece of paper. Maybe if more people thought about such things, there'd be more acceptance. But then, maybe people just can't get past the, "OMG!Anal sex!" thing (at least when it come to gay guys, that is). Oy. We really do have far to go as a species, don't we? And, of course, many people who share my faith don't help matters.

And yes, if gay marriage were legal across the board, then legal issues like the Miller-Jenkins case and, I'm sure, many others would be far more clear-cut and easier/quicker for the courts to handle. As they should be. I guess for the case in question, it's lucky that it was Vermont, which I believe has had civil unions for quite a while. So, the judges there are probably used to dealing with cases involving them. Would that it were that way across all states, but...It doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon, I'm sorry to say.

(BTW, LAX is just horrible in general. I avoid it like the plague and always fly into a smaller airport, even though it means I have to spend more, when I fly into SoCal. Which I don't do that often; I usually drive, especially if I need to lug a harp with me because they're a pain in the butt to lug around, especially in a hardshell flight case. Sucker weighs like 75 lbs. It's just that sometimes I don't have the time for the 14-hour drive from my house to downtown LA. But then, I guess when you're flying in from NZ, you probably don't have much of a choice, huh?)

Lance Armstrong, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had step fathers who were present in their life. George Washington had a step brother who, accordign to wikipedia, was like a father figure for him. But the point is, someone's job position is not an indicator of how well balanced they are as individuals and how well they do in their personal interractions with others. Just because someone is a CEO or a president doesn't mean that they cannot be profoundly screwed up on a very personal level, and that's where family set-up matters most.

I guess the point is that studies have shown that, while there is a slight advantage to having two parents as head of a family (as opposed to one) -- most of those advantages due to the simple fact of two-parent families generally having more disposable income -- AFAIK there have been NO studies that say that those two parents MUST be of opposite genders in order to have that slight advantage.

In fact, in general, studies have shown that planned children in general fare better in life than unplanned ones. In heterosexual couples, both married and unmarried, the majority of children are still unplanned. They kind of just happen when they happen. (That's not to say they aren't wanted, of course, just that they weren't meticulously planned-for.) But when a child is planned-for that way, the family is usually better prepared, emotionally and financially, to raise them because they often had to go through an arduous process to get them, and therefore they are really, REALLY wanted. By definition, all children of gay/lesbian couples are meticulously planned simply because they have to be acquired by means outside the "norm." (Adoption, IVF, surrogacy, etc.) Therefore, children of gay/lesbian parents have that benefit as well.

Which isn't to say that the couple will stay together and there will be no problems, etc. But then, there are no guarantees with heterosexual couples, either. I can tell you all about that, I'm afraid. My husband up and left me, all suddenly, with a 3-year-old kid and a second on the way. And I never remarried.

Plus, as I said, it isn't as if children being raised by parents of the same gender live in bubbles and have zero contact with people and family members of the gender not represented by his/her parents. There are usually aunts, uncles, grandparents, close family friends, etc. in their lives. I mean, my friends' daughters (My friends being gay) call me their "aunt." They're over at my house often for visits and sleepovers and such because they're best friends with my daughter and my housemate's daughter, just as my daughter and my housemate's daughter are often over at their house. So, it isn't as if my friends' daughters have no interaction with female authority figures, for heaven's sake. (And, by corollary, my daughter gets interaction with male authority figures, since she's never had a father except in the biological sense.) Plus, in my friends' case, they're somewhat lucky: Both of them and their relationship are fully, happily accepted by both of their families, with whom they are extremely close. So, their kids have aunts and grandmothers and even one living great-grandmother who have plenty of influence in their lives.

So I guess my question to you is: Why do you think it's important to have differently-gendered parents? What advantages do you think such a situation confers that cannot be compensated for when the parents are of the same gender? Or, on the other hand, what disadvantages do you think the children suffer that the children of heterosexual unions don't also have the possibility of suffering?

Last edited by iCad : 11th Jun 2012 at 6:33 PM.

Biology wise, two women can have a child that is genetically theirs, by taking eggs from both of them, removing the genetic material, mixing it together then putting it back into one egg and implanting it. This would produce a girl.
For 2 men, they'd need a donor egg with the genetic material removed, then the DNA would be extracted from a sperm from each man, mixed together and implanted into the egg. The baby could be either male or female, and would only be related to the female donor via mitochondria. But a surrogate would have to have the egg implanted.
Scientific advances wise- I think it would be possible to create an artificial uterus however a lot of testing would have to take place, and the ethical issues that come wit this means it wont happen anytime in the future.
For a man to get pregnant, It may be possible in the future for a uterus to be transplanted into a man, but they'd have to take hormones, and essentially go through a sex change for it to even possibly work.

In terms of ethics, I think everyone should be allowed to be happy. I have no problem with LGBT marriages, and believe two men or two women would be just as good (or better) parents than a man or a woman. I've had this debate with a lot of people and these are some of the statements that I've come across, most are directed at the man/man relationship.
"Their kid would be messed up and gay" - You can't make someone gay, and kids can be messed up by any parents
"It's wrong, kids need a mother"- what about children that are raised by their dad because their mother died during childbirth? would you rather a child had no parents than 2 dads or 2 mums that love them?

I agree to an extent, but someone with a mum and a dad who stayed married all their lives could still end up messed up. It should be determined case by case.
All couples are vetted before they are allowed to adopt, and this should be true for all parents.

If a lesbian couple and a gay couple got together to have children, had a good relationship and all lived in the same house, what would people argue then ?

Aunts and uncles and grandparents and friends can only do so much. It's nice if they help, but I don't think it's right to them to expect them to get involved more than required by their status. Besides they can't be around all the time and one can't be a parent only on holidays and family gatherings.

That's true, but still... Excuse me while I quote myself:



For instance, when I spoke of influences from aunts and uncles and such, I was assuming you believed that kids wouldn't have the proper amount of influence from the underrepresented gender in their parent. If that's the case, I'm wondering what benefit you believe that influence to have. Or, by corollary, what disadvantage you believe the lack of that influence conveys.

And, that's your opinion, the way YOU have been raised. And, the way you have been raised doesn't apply to anyone else, the same way I have been raised doesn't either.

Let's say I never talked to my aunt growing up other than family gatherings, and I hear a pregnant woman saying she's sure her sister will help her out with the new baby. What rite do I have to go tell her that's not how a family works and she's fooling herself? That's right. No rite at all.

She could be very close with her sister and live close to her as well. EVERYONE grows up differently in different situations. So nobody REALLY has the rite to place an opinion about that on to someone else. Because, honestly, unless you're this person's know all best friend, you probably DON'T know what you're talking about.

I know someone who's aunt was practically their second mom. I don't see how that's rude of the parent to "expect" help from the aunt. The last time I checked, helping is volunteering, nobody can make you help except for yourself. (I'm sure there's many "gun to your head" type of arguments but, let's be realistic here)

Last edited by BlakeS5678 : 13th Jun 2012 at 1:42 AM.