Alaskamaid: I see your point, though I don't entirely agree with it because you are not allowing much room for statistical outliers (i.e. men who are more capable of taking care of infants than the average woman, assuming, of course, that your hypothesis that the average man is worse at it than the average woman is correct). Infants do require special care and breast-feeding is preferable for all the reasons you describe, but babies are not taken away from mothers who can't or won't breast-feed so it's hard to see why gay males who want to care for them should be denied solely on that basis. The well-being of children is something that's impossible to boil down to any one set of hard and fast rules.

There's some fascinating information at the American Psychological Association's website on studies of gay and lesbian families. I would encourage you to read it. It might raise your comfort level.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html

Chicanery -- I am not saying that (some) men are not quite capable of caring for babies. Most men are for short periods of time, it's the 24-7 aspect that does them in . . .

What my specific point was, I don't think it's right to deprive newborn babies of having a female as primary caregiver for the first three months of their lives, when gestationally speaking the babies should actually still be in the womb. That is why the first three months are called 'the fourth trimester'.

When gay male couples take over the primary care of newborns, is that in the baby's best interest ? But then I doubt if this is really about the babies at all . . .

chezgebaude -- thanks for the clarification, so interesting that 'happiness = property'

First alaskamaid gets her feelings hurt by expressing incipient homophobia-- although, frankly, my dear, I think she doth protest too much. Let's run the tape: alaskamaid takes the risk of sharing the fact that she finds the idea of gay male couples off-putting.

That's understandable; it's roughly comparable to my feeling creeped out by excessive body piercing or extensive tattooing. But alaskamaid packages that opinion with both confrontational and querulously defensive messages: Does that make me so terrible? Does that make me a monster? This strikes me as inviting exactly that kind of criticism.

With some exceptions, the reaction was much kinder and more measured. Of course supporters of gay rights with even a grain of common sense don't expect to program everyone to enjoy every aspect of gay life. But the problem with alaskamaid's perspective is that she seems to be leading up to a point she never makes, which is that there really is something wrong with that picture that makes her respond uncomfortably.

I encourage her to keep on thinking about what she feels and thinks, instead of setting herself up for rebukes and going away mad.

On the other hand, MarthaA drops by to show what real homophobia looks like.

Your flaw, or maybe the flaw in your argument, is that marriage is NOT in existance to promote people having children. People seem to have been able to do that more or less without marriage for some 30,000+ years although I can't really see how that might have worked *without* marriage, being a fundamentalist Christian myself...

The purpose of modern marriage is to create a legally binding relationship between two adults that creates a legal and financial unit. Married couples don't have to testify in court against one another, a child can be forced to testify (under the law, not practically). They get tax breaks. They can sponsor spouses for immigration. They pool their credit. They can see each other in hospital and tend to the body of the other if one dies.

I also love your assertion that love based on lust is wrong. Romeo and Juliet were obviously thinking of how they would raise their child, a Montague or a Capulet all the time they were planning their elopment. Shakespeare just seems to have forgotten that bit.

Lets look at the assertion that Marriage is only for the purpose of procreation. If that were the case then children born outside of marriage would NOT get some right legally which of course is not the case. What about couples that can't have children? Would their marriage be less than that of ones that could? Should the fertile half of such a marriage be asked to divorce and find a fertile partner?

As for the dynamics of lesbians and gays having sex, that is terribly interesting, but more in the context of a sex chat than a legal argument or a post on CD.

Two same sex individuals now have a "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship" in California, WOW..... Was this judge off his rocker? How can a relationship between two same sex individuals form a family??????? How did Chief Justice Ronald M. George form a family out of two same sex individuals. When it works with cows and horses, I'll accept it, but if you want a calf or a colt formed, you will have to couple together the bull with the cow and the stallion with the horse. A marriage COUPLES together TWO OPPOSITES and these two opposites form a family --- children are what forms a family, not same sex LUST.

There is no dynamic coupling with gays. Female same sex lesbians CAN'T COUPLE together whatsoever. Males can couple, but without dynamics as males have no WOMB in order to form a family, unless one or the other is a morphodyte, or can be somehow made into a wombed morphodyte. I saw a picture of beautiful lady, a former Miss Hawaii, a few weeks ago on television who changed herself into a male morphodyte, got married to an older woman, and as a man self inseminated her own womb that she kept in order to have a child as a man. She/he kept both sexes becoming a self made morphodyte. As a lady she wanted to form a family and as a man became pregnant and maybe will give birth to the child and form a family, but only because she kept her womb before she began taking the male hormones to become a man.

A beautiful woman making herself into a male morphodyte is an unnatural aberration of nature, and a marriage for lust between females or between males is an unnatural aberration of the male/female marriage relationship for family formation. There can be no family formed without insemination assistance for lesbians; and males have to have a sex change with a womb implantation to form a family; otherwise, same sex marriage is no more that just two lust driven individuals without any natural means of forming a family -- no family relationship at all. Same sex relationships for lust do not have the dynamics of opposite sex relationships for forming a family and can never be the same, no matter what is judged. It is gay peoples right to be gay as they desire their same sex, but that judge's ruling doesn't make sense at all and surely will be knocked down.

Just to correct one post above: the Constitution of the United States says nothing about "the pursuit of happiness" or "the right to pursue happiness." The pursuit of happiness is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The original phrase was "the pursuit of property," but apparently Jefferson did not want to sound too crass, so he changed the last word to "happiness."

Gay used to be happy, but I'll stop now.

Very well said, Goose.

Alaskamaid: I know and understand your discomfort. I've felt similar discomfort myself, which I've mainly put off to the lack of openly gay couples amongst my acquaintances. However, I think you make a mistake if you assume that, because men are, on average, less capable at some activities than women are, on average, (and vice versa), that automatically disqualifies a particular man (or couple of men) from being capable of performing those functions. Most heterosexual couples take their capacity to conceive and rear children for granted. Couples who are biologically incapable of bearing children (including infertile heterosexual couples) have to jump through many more hoops to have children and, personally, I believe this improves the odds that their children will be well cared for as only those couples who are willing to jump through those hoops will have children. Children are always better off with parents who love them.

To me, gay marriage is a human rights issue. It is wrong for heterosexual couples to have such an abundance of rights and privileges (inheritance rights, hospital visitation, Social Security benefits, etc.) from which homosexuals are debarred.

I find human beings disconcerting most of the time! (;

I'm a gay man who's life was impacted by NOT having the right to marry. I live in a state that has had gay marriages for a few years and it's been a really great thing to have these equal rights. (Now if only I could find somebody to marry!). I am hoping marriage rights will help young gay people to have less fear, less need for destructive secretiveness, more loving relationships more of the time. AND the sky has yet to fall here due to about 10,000 gay couples marrying over the past several years.

Well said, Goose. How are we ever going to settle these issues if people are afraid to talk about them openly?

What a bunch of intollerant asses you are here. You're no progressives, you're Republicans of the left. Congratulations!

Alaskamaid stated her opinion. I think she has a right to do that. She also *probably* supports laws that make people equal regardless of her opinion. I find homosexuals a little disconcerting sometimes myself, but I will be first to fight for their rights. As a progressive, I STRONGLY believe in people's rights to do what they want AND to be honest about how they feel.

What is the point of calling yourself a progressive if you bash anyone that doesn't tow your line?

bidelo -- actually, the thought of my husband being responsible for a newborn if, say, I had died in childbirth, would be at least equally disturbing, maybe more so. He is good at a great many things, but infant care is not one of them.

I think most men in that (fortunately rare) tragic situation would have female family members step in to help.

But this couple (the male couple) went the surrogate route and the mother surrendered the babies at birth.
One guy worked, the other was the 'mother'. Sounds like that's fine with everyone here, sorry to offend your queer sensibilities by publicly admitting to my feminine sensibilities regarding infant care.

Guess that makes me a BIG STUPID HOMOPHOBIC TROLL. I asked a simple question about a specific situation, and as I predicted, got SLAMMED. Your responses have revealed more than you maybe intended.

deb price is from my native state of michigan. she knows as well as i do the harm that michigan voters introduced in 2004 by making marriage particular to heterosexuals. now our taxpayer financed attorney general has sued and won a cessation of domestic partnership benefits for state-paid employees.

yes, they want to harm us!

alaskamaid,

Would you find a similar picture of a widowed, heterosexual man holding a baby equally as disturbing?

Aside from the California State Constitution, the United States Constitution grants every person the "right to pursue happiness".

Why should gays and lesbians be denied this right when corrupt perpetrators on Wall Street are able to screw anyone they want to pursue their happy marriage to money?

I guess they grow the trolls BIG up in Alaska. And homophobic. And stupid.

Wow. Everyone is SO defensive.

I am training to be a doula (labor, delivery and postpartum support person). What I find disturbing is the implicit assumption that it is best for the BABIES for two males to provide the primary care for INFANTS,

males who seem to think that the need for maternal nurturance stops when the baby exits the womb ?

And don't go all gender-bendy on me about maternal nurturance. When my folks were in Australia, my mom commented that at one beach, ALL the lifeguards were very large, young adult males. The beach had wicked surf and a bad undertow. Nobody was crying 'gender discrimination' -- because if you got caught in the undertow you wanted a very large young adult male coming to your rescue. There are some jobs that are, more than less, like it or not, to some extent gender-specific, and infant care is one of them. When men can breast feed maybe things will be different. And we have learned by now that 'breast is best'. You know, higher intelligence, better immune systems, etc. etc. all the things we (should) want for our kids.

'Term' babies are actually born (because of their large head size) three months before they are really develop-mentally ready. I would argue that it is in THEIR best interest to have maternal care for at least that long. If that makes me a homophobe in your minds, so be it.

Why is it so wrong for me to say something disturbs me while it is so right for you slam me for saying so ?

By the way, dear Alaskamaid, I have no problem whatsoever with your heartfelt emotions! I too will sometimes feel aversion against certain things, and feel that I may do so, by means of my feelings for personal liberty.

However, I never feel that my own repulsions should be converted into laws, restricting people to ignite those repulsions. After all, I am still free to look the other way, right?

For me the exception is, when violence and abuse enter the picture: THEN i WILL interrupt (insofar as I can) and then I WILL advocate laws of restriction.

I would have a cup of coffee with you anytime, and will respect your feelings, and will hope that you respect mine.

Even as we rejoice in this new victory over bigotry, we should still recognize:

Isn´t it a bit late for this realization?

So, the USA finally got rid of slavery (but not at all of racism), actually lets women vote, and now a couple of so-called left leaning states are allowing people to actually choose their own partner...

We must ask: why are we even paying attention to all this? These are BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

Instead we should be focussing on the eradication of racism, police violence, closing of the rich-poor gap, the things we do to our environment, and the heavy hand we employ across our borders.

Oh, and don´t forget: the education in basic humanity of all these other states where people still haven´t seen the light regarding "being allowed to marry who you want".

For that is a much better description than the phrase: Gay Marriage. To me, the freedom to choose your own partner, that is the important issue.

As long as the males aren't allowed to wear short shorts when cross dressing it's alright with me. To allow that would be nuts.

This is a good thing.

But I'm a little bit worried that the real reason why it's been done is to give the republicans something to galvanize their shrinking constituency into coming out in droves to vote against Obama, whose campaign has galvanized democrats in such a powerful way.

I have no problem, alaskamaid, calling you homophobic.

This is a place we have constructed where (supposedly) it is *not* okay to call gay people (or any race, gender, or sexual identity) "disturbing." I would like to alienate you and others from this site if the content of your comments consists of the crap contained in yours. Go somewhere else and post your "oh woe is me, everyone oppresses me cause I'm a homophobe" BS.

alaskamaid, were the babies in the front packs safe and loved? I can't criticize feelings which none of us can control, but I don't get being bothered by a loving family, especially with all the lack of love going on in so many families (control issues, manipulation, etc.).

alaskamaid..are you implying that males cannot raise children? Better tell that to the 50% of the population with penisis, that they can just go play football after all, and leave the little tikes to the "women-folk".

also better call child welfare, and take away the children from all those single parent widowers and divorced men with custody while you are at it.

seems to me there are a LOT of abandoned children that would prefer having two dads, or two moms, to living in a state institution until they are 21.

alaskamaid: i hope no one "slams" you for stating your feelings honestly, at least if i understand your feelings. however, a rational society (which ours isn't, but could be) should not base its restrictions on what its members may or may not do on "feelings" but rather on principles. the ideas of equality and freedom must apply to everyone, no matter how we feel about them or their lifestyles, their religions, their race, sexual orientation, etc. only when people's actions create demonstrable harm to others (primarily economic or physical harm) should society restrict those actions. you are welcome to your feelings and to your lifestyle choices; you are welcome to feel disturbed by others' different choices. however, given that, celebrate that others who feel differently, at least in California, at least for now, can enjoy that same freedom to feel and live as they desire.

"i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder..."

"Withholding access to marriage causes real and appreciable harm to same-sex couples and their children . . ."

Call me politically incorrect, homophobic, whatever you want, but am I the only one who thought a picture
in Newsweek about a year ago of a gay male couple toting 'their' infant twin daughters in baby front paks disturbing ? I'm sorry but that bothers me. So go ahead and slam me for stating my feelings honestly.

It's the right decision, but it's going to lead to another referendum on whether gays should be treated equally. When will the moral majority give up and move on other other important things? There is, by the way, a great satire on the moral majority: "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual." It's motto: "We're marching proudly backwards to the future." One way it marches backwards is by saying that gays are OK, as long as they stay in their closet. It's available online and at bookstores everywhere.

Chicanery -- thank you for the link, I didn't read the article in depth but did skim through it and realized that it was heavily focused on lesbian families, often stating that 'data was not available for gay (male) families' -- but by its continued use of the expression 'lesbian/gay families' the article was clearly trying to extend the findings from lesbian families to gay male families.

I do not necessarily believe that lesbian and gay male families should be lumped together like that. (Oh dear, here come the slammers again.) Especially when it comes to infant care, the differences are very clear. That was the only point I was trying to make and nothing in the article has done anything to address, let alone 'raise' my 'comfort level' regarding the specific instance of gay males adopting newborn babies.

It seems that rational discussion is futile -- but as a heads up to all of you, the topic of gay adoption is not going to go away and it is not a petty issue by any means. Thanks for letting me be the devil's advocate.