[Bleudrgn2010]

I believe anyone should be able to adopt.

Like you say, a "nuclear" or "ideal" family is a heterosexual, mom + dad, etc. However, who decides this? WE do. We decide that this is this is the acceptable, stereotypical family, and thus it is OUR fault that homosexual adoption or even marriage is criticized.

I believe the only way that it can be finally treated equal is if more people do it; it will eventually become the norm, like any other family. It's our fault the stereotypes are the way they are, saying that it breaks the stereotype is very...well...hypocritical.

Homosexuality is just as genetic as heterosexuality. So why should it be contemplated if homosexuality is genetic? Should we not, thus, be trying to find if heterosexuality is genetic?

And I've heard of many problems a homosexual family can have, for example: a lesbian couple decides to go a sperm donor, the woman who gave birth leaves her partner and her partner gets no rights to see the child. I believe, as I can't find any other alternative that I can think of, that there should be a different type of union of people in which isn't exactly "marriage." IMO, marriage is simply a title, and the only title we've come up with thus far. Why can't we create some other type of union in which gives equal rights to couples yet is more understanding to the homosexuals or other types of unions' situations that come about in their union.

Now, I agree with it, but is it a good idea? At the moment, maybe no. But we can't stay the same forever, eventually there needs to be change, and gradually changing it is the key. Of course kids are going to be criticized for their parents' lifestyle, things they can't choose. But are they not NOW? The rich kids in school are always the popular ones, the ones that have good looks, the ones that live nice lifestyles. The ones that don't live nice lifestyles get put into another group and criticized based on that. It really isn't much of a difference.

I was also watching that 30-day thing where the Christian woman is put in a homosexual household...it mentioned how MANY children NEED people to house them, whether they are homosexual or not - it would be much better than their current situation. That's a very good point, I would much rather be put in a stable, nice household than have none at all.

I'm not sure if the whole "union of couples by a union different than marriage" will soon, if ever, come into being, but it would seem to answer so many questions. I know a lot of people would simply say "Why do we need to go do a different union just because we're different, we should be able to marry just the same." But like in the 30-day thing, the Christian woman said her opinion was that "marriage" is for a stereotypical family. I agree with that, because that's been the view for SO long. I believ the best answer to this is just a different kind of union that doesn't have that stereotype marriage has. It's hard to explain, but makes sense to me.

Hmm, this is seeming to me as a big heap of thoughts of myself, not organized... Hopefully it helps in the debate somehow. >_<