San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

I think any two people (man/woman, woman/woman, man/man) who are in a committed relationship should be allowed to get married in the eyes of the law (and achieve all of legal protections, recognition and tax benefits that entails). As far as churches are concerned, they can choose not to recognize those unions.

I am very conservative in some areas but very liberal in others.

I am also a proponent of stem cell research. There are thousands of people out there who are sick and/or dying whose lives can be dramatically improved or saved by this research. All of those people have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, spouses, children and friends who are suffering along with them. How can the welfare of a handful of cells be more important than all of these other people? I say that the welfare of those living, breathing, thinking and loving should be far more important.

I predict that Perrychase will agree with me on civil unions and Powayseller will not. :)

Yes, PD, I agree with everything you said above.

Let the churches do whatever they want. If gays want to get married they should be able to do so at City Hall. To be fair, I would require all couples to legalize their unions at City Hall, instead of vesting governmental powers onto religious leaders. The religious ceremony would not be legally binding.

Churches can call marriage whatever they want but the government should call it the same thing for gays and straights. Civil union is fine by me.

If we allow gay marriage, we will see more immigration due to that. The marriage and divorce rate will increase overnight. Lawyers, and financial planners should be jumping for joy.

I am a conservative, more fiscal than religious, and I agree with you, society in general is better off with stable couple relationships than a free-for-all, regardless of what gender. I think civil unions are a good thing, I even think gays should be able to adopt children, but that priority of adoption of infants and small children be given to hetero couples first, simply for practical reasons. A man cannot be a mom and a woman cannot be a dad. To deprive a child of both is not optimal. Sure there are great books out there, but speaking as the mother of three boys and the sister of six brothers, I can no more tell my boys what it is to be a man as my husband could tell a girl what it is to be a woman. But better adopt out to a gay couple than live without any family. There are some pretty awful hetero families out there. All couples regardless of gender want the same thing, security, a partner in life, a family, and love. What's so wrong with that?

MANmom

The feds dont want to approve because of the slight budget impact on the tiny deficit problem. Americans are generally pretty tolerant and respect liberties, but there is deep seeded vitriolic disapproval of gay adoptions among most people in general.

Even if people dont say this "all the kids will see 2 dads, think its ok and pretty soon nobody will look at paris :), that's how the Roman empire fell, etc, etc"

many people still kinda feel that way.

PD, I believe in sex, drugs, and rock'n roll. Hey, are you coming to the meet-up tonight?

That explains alot!;)

What does this have to do with housing? Off-topic posts dilute the message of this blog/forum.

vegas renter, this thread was started in the off-topics forum. If you enter the forums via "user forums" on the left, you'll see the topic you're in, but not when you select the forum topic from the main page.

No to embryonic stem cell research (but yes to adult stem cell research).

No to civil unions.

No to being openly gay in the military (it's coming, along with your civil unions, PD).

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061118/news_1n18dontask.html

No to gays adopting.

No to burqas in public (some Islamo Fascists hide bombs in there):

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061118/news_1n18burqa.html

Yes to tolerance and compassion; no to complicitness and acceptance.

My mistake - thanks for pointing that out.

Speaking as a Conservative...

Yes to Civil Unions

No to adoption

Yes to civil unions

No to adoption

No to Gays in the military (and no to women in the military, they are MUCH more of a problem than gays but it is not PC to say so).

dz, I'm almost with you on women in the military; women have a rightful place, but in support units, way back. They have no business in units exposed to the enemy. How stupid it was to have our women lose their lives and be injured in Iraq. Women in our society have a special place, as mothers and wives, and bring warmth and love to our lives. What a stupid decision it was in the 80s and 90s to put women in fighting units and near fighting units.

As my old Executive Officer said, about women on ships, "The women aren't the problem, the men are the problem," i.e., young men are easily distracted from the job at hand.

I'll agree with you jg, it is women in a deployed status that makes no sense. On board a Navy ship out to sea is the most obvious misplaced political correctness in my opinion.

Although I don't particularly care for gays in the military, I would much rather have gays fighting beside me than women.

What sorts of problems occur from female deployment?

Pregnancies.

10% became pregnant during one deployment on one ship:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040615-115647-8125r.htm

Pregnancy messes up watch schedules -- ships operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week -- as the women are often put on limited duty, then removed from ship, and sometimes not immediately replaced after they are removed.  Then, there's the competition for the 'attention' of the women.

Big distraction and needless complication.

There are a lot of gay parents out there. Before you make the judgment that they are unfit, maybe you should talk to the kids being raised by gay parents. Unfortunately, you can't pick them out in a crowd. Because they look like every other kid out there.

In fact, my girls may be sharing a college dorm room with your kids (except they'll get there on a full scholarship--I have very smart kids). Don't allow your kids to lose respect for your opinions because of your sterotypes. Be pround of your background, your values, but your kids will decide their future, not you.

Funny thing is, my kids don't face the predjudice that many feel is somehow expected. They have friends, are school leaders, and straight A students. It just never comes up. I'm a stay at home mom right now, while my partner supports the family very well but is taxed as a single person--can't claim the kids even though she supports them. This means on average we pay more than $5k to $10k a year in taxes than hetero couples. That could be their college fund, but it goes to the Gay Family Penalty Tax instead. So my children are hurt by institutionalized prejudice, not societal.

Call it what ever you like. Just fix the federal and state tax laws not to penalize my family. And feel free to ask any questions you might have.

Don't allow your kids to lose respect for your opinions because of your sterotypes. Be proud of your background, your values, but your kids will decide their future, not you.

Well said kristinejm. Nowadays, kids are developing a sense of fairness that's not compatible with the prejudices of the past.   I wouldn't be surprised if gays were generally better parents because they planned their families (unlike straights whose babies appear at inopportune times). 

Awesome generalization PC. Tell me you've never seen or heard of a couple (gay or straight) that treated the adoption of a child like the purchase of a new car or pet.

Thankfully, the ones I've witnessed didn't go through with it.

I have never ever seen a gay couple treat an adoption like a purchase. It is just way to hard a thing to do. You put yourself on trial, trying to prove to social workers and the state just how spectacular and devoted a parent you will be to compensate for your "lifestyle". And then, when you become a parent, you lose the gay community. Who would send their kids to school in Hillcrest? You end up with a mini-van in the suburbs and do laundry on Friday nights wondering what in the hell is so alternative about your lifestyle anyway.

Doesn't sound like the Fall of Western Civilization, does it?

Well, I have, so I guess that makes us even? Maybe it's the process that makes the less than committed adoptive parents bail out, so that's at least encouraging.

You might note that I said gay or straight, so I'm not even arguing that, rather the point that adoptive parents are better suited to rearing children than natural (?) parents.

We can call it even. I myself have never had to go through the adoptive process because my girls are mine, the old fashioned "hetero" way (though my sister and her husband adopted). I used to be a social worker in foster care, and while rare, I always thought the kids who were adopted then given back to state because the parents couldn't handle them were the most tragic.

I'm an old fashioned conservative. I think churches should be stripped of their tax free exemption and treated as a corporation under corporate law for tax purposes.

I also think that donations to a church should not be tax deductible unless like other charities, they demostrate how much of their funds go to charitible programs and thus qualify as a tax deductible charity.

As for civil unions or marriages between consenting adults, I don't care.

kristinejm-- I seemed to recall you'd gone the "hetero" route!

and yes, that is very tragic. Also, just want to be clear that I am impressed with a large number of adoptive parents and even moreso by those who actually take on special needs children. I've known a few couples who've done that and they are frankly amazing people in my opinion.

nsr, you're the best kind of conservative. I totally agree with you.

Currently churches don't have to show that they spend anything on charity. Donations could be spent building that $50 million mega-church, a fat salary for the pastor, a Mercedes for his wife, and of course a luxury apartment for the pastor's mistress (or boyfriend).

Churches should be treated like any other charity. They need to be accountable to the public.

Perry, you are right, and I heartily recommend that you pull strings to ensure the following issues are addressed by Congress over the next two years:

(1) Revisiting tax-exempt status of churches

(2) Moving to a single payer health care system

(3) Ensuring that gays can freely and openly serve in the military

(4) 'Strategically redeploying' our troops out of Iraq within 4-6 months

(5) Enshrining civil unions as the law of the land.

Please ensure that Hillary and Barack lead the charge, too.  I want to them to properly receive full credit.

KJM, on average, having gay parents is not a good thing:  29% of the kids suffer molestation (incest) vs. <1% for the children of heterosexual parents; the suicide rate for same sex relationships is 6.5 times that for controls; daughters of lesbian parents had sex earlier/more frequently/with more partners than daughters with heterosexual parents.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

Social conservatives believe that the welfare of children is of paramount importance.  Anecdotally, there may be loving gays who are great parents.  But, from a public policy perspective, with those gay parent suicide rates, rates of incest, and higher out-of-wedlock sexual activity, why in the world would policymakers make that an option?  Just to make gays feel better?

I'm adopted, by a heterosexual couple, and thank God frequently for the sacrifices that they made to adopt and raise me.

Hey, who can argue with this organization, The American College of Pediatricians?

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=50&BISKIT=694949696

Great name for a focused group:  kind of like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, People for the American Way, and the National Council of Churches (all communists, communist fronts, or communist leaning organizations).

Hmmm. Orthodoxy Today. I'm sure I could go through the link, and give a shot at refuting it, but why bother? My family is merely an anecdote.

I thank God frequently that I don't live in a country where public policy decisions are based on evidence gleened from Orthodoxy Today.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a small national medical association of licensed pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States that hold social conservative positions. The College was founded in 2002, out of protest against the mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics support for LGBT parental rights. The College states that allowing LGBT adoption is "dangerously irresponsible".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Co...

Just so you know who you are quoting.