»Ducky Posted December 11, 2005 Report Posted December 11, 2005 Their early stages of development would be distorted with same-sex affectionOh noes?
SeVeR Posted December 12, 2005 Report Posted December 12, 2005 Who cares if people become gay or not, if anything it'll curb the growing population on this planet... and maybe then we'll all become chinese or indian. So whatever happens i don't give a crap, i'm just glad i like curry.
LearJett+ Posted December 12, 2005 Report Posted December 12, 2005 It's not that they'll become gay... Sigh I forgot who I was arguing with, I guess. Why don't you become gay (if you aren't already), adopt, and get back to me in the future. That will decide it once and for all.
»Ducky Posted December 12, 2005 Report Posted December 12, 2005 I'm confused what purpose that serves.
SeVeR Posted December 13, 2005 Report Posted December 13, 2005 If by distorted you didn't mean becoming gay then what did you mean? You mention in your post they'd be "morally and socially confused" please elaborate. How on Earth would their morals be affected? Socially they'd be free from judging same-sex couples in a negative fashion (i.e more open minded) but what are the negative effects.
»Ducky Posted December 13, 2005 Report Posted December 13, 2005 They have to drink at the sinners water fountain instead of the golden one 2 feet higher labeled Gods kingdom.
shellshock Posted December 13, 2005 Report Posted December 13, 2005 state's rights issue, not cons!@#$%^&*utional issue also, church vs state issue Churches, completely up to them to decide if they agree with gay marriage or not. I believe that some churches are becoming very 'open minded' with this. State's should be able to decide whether or not they agree with gay marriages/unions. I, for example, live in the bible belt. My state would probably leave the union again before it let the federal government tell us that we had to allow gay marriages/unions. M!@#$%^&* is welcome to allow gay marriages/unions, but don't tell us we HAVE to accept them. Now, where it becomes a Federal issue is taxes and interstate laws. For example, if a gay couple legally bound in Boston moves to Georgia, does Georgia have to accept them as a 'couple' and do companies there have to give them spousal benefits? Or, can Georgia say they are just living together, they don't recognize the marriage, and their employer is allowed to deny them spousal benefits? Also, does the Federal government recognize them as married for the purposes of filing taxes? I personally don't believe that homosexuality is natural, genetic, or something you are born with (not comparing it to a disease, just stating I don't think people are homosexual from birth). I think it is a choice, resulting from conditioning and external factors throughout childhood/early adulthood. I don't care if people choose to like the same sex, I'm just concerned with ramifications if the Federal government decides to force states EITHER WAY. Personally, I'm for gay 'unions' outside of the church. My reason is that there is a lot of responsibility with marriage, and a lot of risk. For some reason a news report sticks in my memory about Hawaii, in which they don't actually have gay marriage, but companies have to give rights to gay partners. Gay marriage would at least force homosexuals to be legally bound, before receiving those rights. Now, I'm in agreement with Monte (what's the world coming to???) about gay adoption. The problem with it ISN'T that the child won't be loved, it's that they grow up without the influence of BOTH sexes. (Insert joke about which man wears the pants here) This is mostly theoretical since there are VERY few adults that were raised by gay parents right now. Now, the same can be said for children with deadbeat dads, or who have a parent leave the home. But, can't we all agree that children growing up in a split home isn't ideal? And that it would be better (in the case of heterosexual families) for a child to grow up with both parents, as long as one parent wasn't abusive or something? Ok That being said, I think that a stable heterosexual family is more ideal for a child being adopted than a stable homosexual couple. NOW, if there isn't a heterosexaul couple that wants to adopt a child, I have no problem with a gay couple being able to adopt them. I DO think that having homosexual parents that care about you is better than being bounced between foster homes.
MonteZuma Posted December 14, 2005 Report Posted December 14, 2005 Hi S!@#$%^&*. Good to see you here state's rights issue, not cons!@#$%^&*utional issueAs far as the US is concerned, I agree, but it can also be argued that the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Now, I'm in agreement with Monte (what's the world coming to???) about gay adoption.Awwwwwwww
Spyed Posted December 14, 2005 Report Posted December 14, 2005 Hi S!@#$%^&*. Good to see you here state's rights issue, not cons!@#$%^&*utional issueAs far as the US is concerned, I agree, but it can also be argued that the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Now, I'm in agreement with Monte (what's the world coming to???) about gay adoption.Awwwwwwww That's not how you awww. It's more of an AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
SeVeR Posted December 15, 2005 Report Posted December 15, 2005 This is mostly theoretical since there are VERY few adults that were raised by gay parents right now. That's exactly it. Therefore how can anyone judge whether the consequences of gay adoption would produce a child "dysfunctional" in some social or moral way. Having said that it is very likely that the child would get picked on in school if another child found out... and even if this didn't happen the child may start to feel embar!@#$%^&*ed or abnormal due to comments made by other children non-related to his/her specific situation. Feeling abnormal isn't always a bad thing if you can handle it though. I agree that adoption by gay parents should be allowed when there are no available hetero-parents. Extreme liberals may even call this very "gay-bashing" of me, but we live in a predatory world and discrimination is rife. If society was perfect then sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue in adoption.
ThunderJam Posted December 17, 2005 Report Posted December 17, 2005 For me, i only believe that the marriage should be banned because it imposes upon the centuries-old tradition of marriage. If homosexual want to date and live together, i believe that is fine. I dont really support them, but if that is how they are made, it is not up to us to fault them. Additionally, i think it is fair for them to be able to go through adoption systems just like any other couple. "A rose by any other name is still a rose" quoted from Shakespeare - they can still live the same life they would live if they were married, just don't call it marriage. Keep them two seperate concepts, and leave marriage how it has always been.
Recommended Posts