The real problem with the comment isn't so much that it disparaged gays as that BA saw it as something sinister. Even though the word "family" appeared in the title, BA saw the picture as some sort of abduction or prelude to child abuse. As I think Dave-So implied, too many people associate homosexuality with pedophilia. Child abuse is rampant among heterosexuals. Unfortunately, those with homophobic agendas (or in the case of the Vatican, something to hide) want to strengthen this fraudulent association in the public mind. Legume is correct that Jim has to expect some objection from narrow-minded folk when posting provocative images, but my real point is that when I saw the image, I thought "brave posting ... looks like a happy family." When BA saw it, s/he not only saw something sinister, but felt he had to say so, and ranked the picture with a "Hmmmm." What does that say about BA? The objection was not to gayness or gay families ... it was to what BA projected on to the image, which Jim clearly didn't intend. Strength to you, Jim. I know you inteded nothing evil. As someone who has known happy gay families (including, believe it or not, families with a gay male father and a gay female mother,) I think you were brave to "buck the norm." We all know what a traditional family is, but I refuse to accept that anything else can't be a real, lovin, healthy family. Reality is much broader than small or bigoted minds would have it be.