Most Americans oppose gay marriage and many believe homosexuality is "against God's will" but otherwise consider themselves tolerant of gays, according to a Los Angeles Times poll published Saturday. By a margin of 55 to 41 percent, those surveyed agreed with the statement that "if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be degraded." About half favored a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, while 42 percent were opposed, according to the poll published on the newspaper's Web site. Other recent surveys have shown a majority of Americans favoring such an amendment. Only about a quarter of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry, although another 38 percent believed they should be allowed to form civil unions. About a third said that neither type of union should be permitted. While about six in 10 people felt that homosexual relationships are "against God's will," a similar percentage felt that legal recognition of same-sex marriages was inevitable.

I am afraid that your note would mislead anyone who has not read what I had actually written. For example, you suggest that I reject the fact that marriage is related to the rearing of children. Yet the first sentence of the second paragraph begins, "To be sure, marriage is related to the nurturing and socialization of children ..." Still, what you wrote is less misleading than what you failed to report and respond to.

The premise of my article is that sexual promiscuity is a threat to social order and stability and that marriage, by disciplining the human sex drive -- not just, as you would have it, "the male sex drive" -- functions to combat the ever-present threat of promiscuity. Conservatives who opposes same sex marriage are faced with a 'logical contradiction." Their opposition "encourages a promiscuity that monogamous, lifetime relationships, a basic premise of 'family values,' are expected to prevent." Instead of reporting and confronting this central argument of my article, you avoid the issue by simply writing that it is "silly to suggest one and reject the other."

Of course, it is silly, but once we agree that marriage is a means of holding parents responsible for the care of their children and also functions to protect the social order from the potentially chaotic effects of human sexuality we are faced with an additional question. How would same sex marriage interfere or subvert that other function? My answer is clear: Same sex marriage would in no way weaken "the biological bond between parents and children" or make it more difficult for the former to care for their offspring. Indeed, I maintain that extending the privilege of marriage to persons of the same sex would only strengthen the idea of the importance of marriage for people who love one another. How would you answer that question?

For years, Labor politicians have criticised the Howard Government for including in its family policies measures to support single-earner families. They claimed this "white picket fence" thinking was simply designed to keep women at home. But these families now stand to gain, alongside two-income families, from a proposed Labor baby-care payment which would go to all mothers, irrespective of whether or not they work. That's a real turnabout.

Stanton and Schlittler also traded citations of studies that either held or refuted the idea that children in households that lacked either a mother or a father were worse off than those in homes with both parents.

...Confronted with the very strong societal message that children do fine without fathers, is it so surprising that some men may decide the risks of having children are just too high?...

Forty-four per cent of young (18- to 34-year-old) men questioned in the 2003 Australian Social Attitudes survey agreed that "a single parent can bring up children as well as a couple", compared with about two-thirds (63 per cent) of same-aged women. So two in three young Australian males are likely to partner a woman who may think she can do just as good a job parenting on her own, and almost half of these men don't see fathers as essential. That's a lot of males having bought the message that they won't play a critical role in the lives of their future children.

A Greek woman has lost a complex legal fight to have her gynaecologist lover recognized as the father of the twins she conceived following in-vitro fertilization, under a Supreme Court decision made public on Saturday.The woman said her lover -- whom she had approached for fertility treatment only to embark on an affair with him -- had promised to use her eggs and his sperm in the fertilization process. However, DNA testing of the 15-year-old twins proved that the genetic material had been provided by unnamed donors. The woman had wanted the gynaecologist, from whom she separated shortly after the twins' birth, to be recognized as their legal father and pay her alimony as well as compensation. Both had been married to other people when they had their five-year affair. But the Supreme Court argued that, in an extramarital affair, a man's consent to the fertilization process -- using someone else's sperm -- did not result in any obligation involving paternity or alimony.

If marriage is a critical element of building a strong family unit (as many Republicans would contend), should we also not give every incentive possible to those who would make excellent parents? Instead, however, we discriminate against those who are more than capable of establishing long, stable relationships solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. We allow individuals to divorce and remarry multiple times to receive the benefits of marriage. We permit citizens to wed mail-order brides and receive the benefits of marriage. Yet, when two consenting men or women, irrespective of the depth of their relationship or their family status, wish to have their relationship recognized by the state, we do not extend to them this same basic dignity. As these examples illustrate, the current definition of marriage is logically absurd: it must either adapt or fall apart.

Having a child (especially your first!) and being poly isn't exactly a cakewalk, but... it is possible. Sometimes it means that you take the baby w/you to go see your OSO [EM note -- I think OSO means "other significant other"], or your OSO spends more time at the house w/you, your husband and the baby, and sometimes things will come up where plans have to be cancelled at the very last minute [italics hers] because baby is sick or something (Your OSO walks in the door for a date and "Sorry hon, things need to be cancelled, we need to take the baby to the hospital."). A baby takes "juggling your schedule" to a whole new level. There is a lot of patience that is needed from all parties involved, but it can be done. The first 6 mos are extremely hard.

Over the past few years, we became increasingly aware that a lot of people who think of themselves as polyamorous also identify themselves religiously as Unitarian Universalists. ...We have conferred with the Board of Interweave (the UU Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender organization) and have received statement of support from them. ...Our vision is for Unitarian Universalism to be the first poly-welcoming mainstream religious denomination.

Like many children of divorce, Erin and Muriel have a mom and a stepmother. But in their case, the two women live together. "I think it's cool," says bubbly fifth-grader Erin. "There's always a mom there."

The results of an on-line poll at http://www.fabmagazine.com, while not statistically significant, do reflect an on-going discussion within the gay community. The site for the Toronto-based gay mag, fab, found that when it comes to same-sex couples tying the knot, 47 per cent of respondents thought gays should "go for something like civil unions and develop our own customs as long as we have the same rights as straight married couples"; 36 per cent thought gays should "settle for marriage and nothing less"; 11 per cent favoured refusing "to buy into the heterosexist, oppressive institution of marriage"; and 7 per cent picked "help lead a movement to abolish the institution of marriage."

Clergy who band together to pledge publicly to preserve marriages may help lower the divorce rates in their communities, according to research presented Monday at a news conference in Washington, D.C. ... The new study, paid for in part by the federal government, estimates that counties with the marriage policy experienced a decline of 8.6% in divorce rates over four years, while a control group of counties without such a policy showed a decline of 5.6%. After seven years, the divorce rates fell an estimated 17.5% in areas with such policies and 9.4% in comparison counties, says the research from the non-profit Institute for Research and Evaluation.

Divorce rates are falling faster in U.S. counties that have a program in which clergy offer premarital counseling and other marital-support services than those without the program, says a study released yesterday. A review of 114 counties with a Marriage Savers' Community Marriage Policy shows that divorce rates fell by 8.6 percent in four years and 17.5 percent in seven years. In comparable counties without a marriage policy, divorce rates fell 5.6 percent in four years and 9.4 percent in seven years. The Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City spent two years studying 114 counties with a Community Marriage Policy, which asks local clergy of all faiths to sign statements saying they will require premarital counseling before they marry a couple and offer enrichment, mentoring and reconciliation services to married couples. These "extraordinary results" show what can happen with "a truly grass-roots effort run entirely by volunteers," said Diane Sollee, who manages the national Smart Marriages conferences and directs the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education. "Imagine what could be done with funding and administrative help," she said. The Bush administration is working to direct $1.5 billion to pro-marriage initiatives, said Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services. This lower divorce rate translated to about 31,000 saved marriages, said Stan Weed, president of the institute and lead author of the study, which is expected to be published soon in the peer-reviewed Family Relations journal.

"Loving, successful relationships and families come in so many shapes and sizes," said Solot, executive director of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, a national nonprofit that advocates equality for unmarried couples. "There isn't just one way that's right for everyone."

COUPLES whose marriages break down will be able to get "quickie" divorces within a year under plans unveiled today by the Scottish Executive. The waiting time for an uncontested divorce will be cut from two years to one, while in contested cases it will be cut from five to just two under plans to modernise Scotland’s family laws. Parental rights and responsibilities are also to be granted to unmarried fathers if they have signed the child's birth certificate, in a bid to prevent children being used as "pawns" when relationships break down.

"Polyamory means different things to different people... but it generally involves honest, responsible non-monogamous relationships. This could take the form of an "open" relationship, or a group or three or more adults who are "monogamous" within their group (sometimes called polyfidelity), or a limitless set of other situations."

Polyamory is what my kids know. They know some people have two parents, some one, some three and some more. They happen to have four.

Honsetly? Kids and polyamory? Very little of it effects them unless you're so caught up in your new loves you're letting it interfere with your parenting.

I have a 15 year old son who lives with me (his dad is dead) and a 12 year old who lives with his dad (in Arkansas) I was monogamous with with my ex, tho semi poly previous to our marriage, which he knew at the time but now convieniently has chosen to blot out. When I left him and again became poly (a short-lived but educational MMf triad).

I established a simple rule for my youngest. "What happens at Mommys house stays at Mommys house if you want to keep visitng Mommy." I told both kids as much as I thought they could understand,or needed to know. Ive always been honest with them, including the breakup of the triad, and why our third wasnt with us anymore. My youngest is quite perceptive and understands that his father would use my "immorality" to prevent my son from seeing me. I have tried to be as fair as possible to my ex's opinions, attributing most of it to religious differences, we are pagan, Dad is fundi-xtian.

I do my best to show that different isnt bad, just different....Im as open about our relationships and sexuality as my own mother was closed, in hopes my sons wont have as much trauma as we did.

One of my best friends, who is generally very tolerant and whom I like and respect greatly, is very accepting of people being poly UNTIL the topic of kids comes up. Then she freaks. When my husband told her that the couple we'd gotten involved with had a young [six-year old] daughter, and the wife was pregnant with their second child, she took the position that this had to be *inherently* harmful for the child. Because I like and respect my friend, I took the time to answer her questions in detail.

In my friend's opinion, if I and my boyfriend sleep together in their guestroom, while my husband and his girlfriend sleep together in the master bedroom, while their daughter sleeps in her bedroom like always, that HAS to be scary and confusing to the daughter even if she appears to be happy and comfortable, even if she appears not to notice or care, even if she really seems to like having us spend the night. Nothing has been able to sway my friend from her position, and I'm sad to say it has strained our friendship a bit. No matter how happy and content that kid is, according to my friend we and her parents are un doubtedly wreaking some serious damage on her by not completely concealing our relationship from her.

And that's just the way it is. Sometimes intelligent, goodhearted, rational people who know you fairly well can hold rather irrational and bigoted opinions.