Chris and other liberals clearly understand that marriage and relationships are between consenting ADULTS. Don’t try to put words in their mouths that aren’t there.

If you want to evoke some freakish image of adults having sex or relationships with teenagers, then fine. Just don’t do it on this board. It’s not welcome here in any shape or form. In fact, if Mr. Lugo had in any way insinuated that such behavior was acceptable then we wouldn’t have posted the piece.

Here’s the problem with your statements – one, relationships aren’t about financial benefits. There’s a horrific example that was told to me by a friend of mine. Her daughter had a friend whose partner had died.

The partner’s family would not let him even come to the funeral. They had been together for more than fifteen years, and once the man died, the connection was completely and horribly severed.
I have a huge problem with calling loving, committed, monogamous couples “immoral” when this kind of rejection and hate goes on.

The problem that you have with your statements is that I’ve asked before for data that supports the CDC claim. Further, singles (gay or straight) have plenty of rights to adopt; just as they have the right to form healthy, loving relationships.

It’s disappointing that so many would rather that people like me live in celibacy, alone, and without any companionship than to be with the one person that we can share everything with.

I also think it’s interesting that you have rejected every reference to the mental health community except to state an out-of-context quote that children are “best” raised with a mother and father.

This is precisely what Mr. Lugo’s piece discusses – that the American family is not just a mother and father, it’s single moms, single dads, cohabiting parents, and same-sex parents.

The reality is that it isn’t rare, nor unusual. Every major medical, legal, professional, psychological, and pediatric organization has written statements that support same-sex couples as parents.

It’s a non-issue, and we simply need to move on.

This thread is closed.

David as I have said before once you have redefined what marriage is, it leaves us open to definitions such as this one. Meaning that any male/female could shack up with any 15 year old boy/girl and be considered a household according to Chris. Further as per his definition you could even have mulitple men and women living in the same household.

I have no problem with civil unions as long as their benefits are purely financial. Meaning they can be in wills, joint acccounts, etc. I am not sure about health insurance since CDC released a finding that Homosexual couples are less healthy and that it COULD raise the prices of already sky high insurance. I would have to read a little more before I would think that insurance should be included in those benefits.

Finally, if we decided to allow civil unions I do not believe that civil unions should be allowed the right to adopt, nor for that matter do I believe Co-habitating couples to have the right to adopt. The mental health and stability of all children is best accomplished with a mother and father.

Why? Minors can’t sign contracts. Period. In some cases, parental consent allows for underage marriage, but it’s usually when a pregnancy.

On the other hand, I don’t necessarily join the ranks of those who insist on “marriage” for same-sex couples. Civil unions (which are identical to marriage, just without the sacramental language) are just fine in my opinion.

Let’s keep things equal for everyone, and ensure that churches are given their constitutional first amendment rights to not recognize such unions… and get on with it.

Those would fit your definition wouldnt it?