Ya know Mark, it's amazing, I try to keep the talk on the topic and the topic is health benefits for families. You want to make it a 'gay' issue and that is what you constantly slam on. So let's deal with your last comments:

First, I tried to find a website talking about studies with kids and gay parents that was neither pro-gay or christian, as I feel that both of those types of sites start with a huge bias; the one I found certainly wasn't pro-gay and didn't appear to be christian - if they too are bias, sorry. Try as I might, I find it very difficult to find info that isn't bias one way or the other.

Second, regarding your "fact" - just as there are loving, supportive gay parents so too there are loving, supportive hetrosexual parents. Just as there are abusive hetrosexual parents there are abusive homosexual parents ... or are you trying to deny that? There is good and bad in every group. You love to talk about good parents and the love that parents have for their children. Do you believe that children raised in a commune setting are any less 'loved' than ones raised in a homo or hetro (single couple) household? Do you think that children raised in a poligamist household are any more or less loved than those raised in a traditional one couple head-of-household setting?

That is what I mean when I say you are missing the point. Sam is introducing a bill where he wishes to (essentially) redefine the term "family". He wants businesses to offer to all workers what it offers to married heterosexual workers - with the boundary that the 'family' be headed by a couple. Why stop there? What is wrong with expanding the definition of 'family' to the commune or poligamist family? Which is another way of saying that IS why the term 'family' shouldn't be redefined - where DO you draw the line and why there?

I'm not homophobic, I could care less what you do in your bedroom and I believe that you don't really care what I do in mine. If you're a homosexual, I don't care. I do care about what changes bring to a society - the rule of unintended consequences, the things that can, will and do happen because something was changed. Things that we don't expect or wish to happen - happen.

So again, tell me, why should the definition of 'family' be extended to two persons living together (regardless of sexual orientation) but not to a communal type 'family' or a polygamist family?