http://luzribeiro.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2015-06-30 04:24 pm (UTC)

most of the other points are fairly hyperbolic and are espoused, at least publicly, by no relevant politician

I wouldn't (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/republicans-predict-fraud-bestiality-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized/) be so sure (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/09/us-republican-who-compared-gays-to-paedophiles-put-on-extremist-list/) about (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colorado-gop-official-lgbt-equality-leads-pedophilia-bestiality) that (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/texas-gay-marriage-pedophilia-_n_5655389.html).

What I mean by 17 is that the laws of parenthood and inheritance are mostly designed to suit a traditional heterosexual family model, and there are countries and/or states making steps towards the legalization of same-sex marriage (or even having legalized it already), which are still lacking the relevant legislation (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/report_ch5.pdf) to address this issue, and apply the same or similar principles to same-sex couples as well. My point is that this cannot be an obstacle, provided that the relevant legislation is adopted.

Having a male and female parental figure is probably ideal as well

What makes you say that? Would that apply to situations where one or both parents are abusive, or irresponsible, or incapable of taking care of the child?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting