Why do you refer to it as same-sex parenting? When a mother parents her daughter is this not same-sex parenting?

You appear to mean parenting by persons engaged in same-sex sexual behavior. Right?

Tell me, what is the significance of that sexual behavior on the parenting of children, do you think?

There are many millions more same-sex parenting scenarios that are not sexualized, that are not gay, but which are not eligible to marry. Yet that ineligibility has not diminished the nonmarital trends.

The very low participation rates for same-sex householding (census term that assumes the householder and another adult of the same sex are in a sexualized relationship) within the adult homosexual population shows, if nothing else, that participation rates in such householding with children is a very marginal practice within the adult homosexual population.

But we are told, by SSMers, that this marginal practice of gay “same-sex parenting” justifies imposition of the SSM idea on all of society. Why? Because it would encourage more of the homosexual population to attain children. How? By somehow increasing the stability of gay coupledom across the board. Why? Because it is unstable today and not a reliable pool for adoptors — for instance.

I think your goofy thinking ends-up splaying itself on this one.

That is 1% of the adult homosexual population, not general population. PACs is a marginal practice within the target group. Likewise same-sex householding in general.

Participation in marriage has declined in France. The statistics on PACs clearly shows that much. But until this past decade or so, most people married and most married women had children. This is the inverse of SSM (under whatever guise).

Y point is that for participation rates to become closer is to see the marital trends decline even further. The SSM trend is iminscule within the target population and trends as marginal henceforth. F these two trends intersect it will not be due to a big rise in the SSM rate but due to a deeer decline in the marital rate.

Think of it as a sort of reverse assimilation whereby (to use the pro-SSM jargon) straight population becomes more like gay population. Not the other way around.

That 7% is 7% of those who formed a PAC. It is less than 1% of the adult homosexual population.

Yes but that wouldn’t matter. If 35% of the entire population is left-handed, but 65% of those getting married are left-handed, it doesn’t matter that those getting married in any one year is a tiny portion of the overall population. One would expect to see about 35% of those getting married being lefties.

Unless lefties were excpetionally keen on getting married or righties were exceptionally keen on NOT getting married or both.

Of course France doesn’t have SSM so some gays who would marry opt for PACs so I added together PACs and Marriages and then the figure drops to 3%. For heterosexuals that’s about what one would excpect….if 95-96% of the population is not gay then you’d expect to see 95-96% of unions being not-gay. so that eliminates your theory of straights being exceptionally not into marriage. On the other hand MichaelPS has a point about total populations. You can’t take 3% of unions being same sex and assume given a 4% gay population you therefore have a 75% marriage/union rate.

The birthright of each human being is to know and to be known by her mother and her father (barring dire circumstances or tragedy).

Then you should support SSM as I pointed out the best way to get same sex parenting is to NOT have SSM.

I’d add that only a tiny fraction of 1% of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households with adopted children.

Some perspective is called for.

Of the adult homosexual population, less than 10% resides in same-sex households and less than3% reside in such households with children. In other words, 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside with children in same-sex households. Childraising is a marginal practice within the homosexual population.

Of the tiny portion of the adult homosexual population in such households with children, the vast majority already have both moms and dads. Less than 5% of children in these households were attained via adoption. The adult homosexual population is not the solution to children in need of stable parent duos.

Those who’d choose SSM do not choose marriage. They disadvantage children they attain. Stop blaming society for their poor choices.

A PACS can be dissolved by mutual agreement, by three months notice by one party or by the marriage of one party.

A PACS is limited to two people and an existing PACS is a bar to a second.

A marriage can only be annulled or dissolved by a judicial decree.

Chairm

In France, 85% of children under 15 are living with both parents.

We should rejoice when any parenting couple wants to marry. Marriage creates a stable safe space for the couple and the children they are raising. I can’t imagine putting the children of same-sex couples at a decided disadvantage in the world by denying them access to married parents.

That 7% is 7% of those who formed a PAC. It is less than 1% of the adult homosexual population.

The participation in marriage — the union of husband and wife — has declined severely in France. The rest of the population has dropped standards and marriage has become more and more unusual — as the best alternative to cohabitation or singledom. In other words, the rest of the population — in terms of sexual practices and domestic living arrangements — are becoming more and more like those of the adult homosexual population. Not the other way around. Where these practices intersect will depend on the decline, not the revigoration, of the marriage culture in France.

The birthright of each human being is to know and to be known by her mother and her father (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). The flipside of that coin is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible to each other and for our offspring. Marriage is, at its core, orientated to integration of the sexes and provision for responsible procreation. It is orientated to procreative justice via a foundational social institution of civil society. Government can become indifferent to this, sure, or it can become very supportive of this, sure, but the goal of the SSM campaign is to set Government against the core meaning of marriage.

That hostility, that animus, cannot be justified by the gay emphasis of those who promote the SSM idea. That idea, shorn of the gay emphasis, is merely a call for protections for nonmarital scenarios.

But marital status is a preferential status. The imposition of SSM would demote the marriage idea to a barely tolerative status — it would be deemed hateful and intolerant and…

Also are PACs exclusive? Can 3 people PAC? Can already PACed people PAC with others?