[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[/quote]
Should a single parent be disallowed to adopt?[/quote]
It should be avoided as much as possible.
[/quote]
But not disallowed, I presume.
The problem here is obvious, given your responses to the last two questions I’ve posed.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.
[/quote]
Black people are white people are different. One is white and one is black. However, both are people. And that’s the point, what makes something what it is? Is it sex? Is it commitment? Is it the dichotomy? Anybody whose been married for any length of time, knows it transcends all of that. You can have sex with anything, you can commit to anything, that does not a marriage make.
[quote]
The changes I’ve made illustrate the faulty logic at the heart of your argument. Two things don’t need to be literally identical in order to enjoy the same legal privileges.[/quote]
I didn’t say identical, no two marriages are identical. What would make a gay marriage the same as marriage? While the outliers may be different, the core is the same. I see the male/ female dichotomy being integral to that. Women being who they are and men being who they are, united as a single functioning unit is something homosexual relationships lack. Hell, they may be great fun, but when you strip away the bullshit, what do you really have?
These “rights” you speak of, are attainable in other ways, but I have a feeling the whole fight has little to do with rights. If we simply bestowed these rights on any and all couples, no matter how they are defined, I have a strange suspicion it would do little to quell the fire.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[/quote]
Should a single parent be disallowed to adopt?[/quote]
It should be avoided as much as possible.
[/quote]
But not disallowed, I presume.
The problem here is obvious, given your responses to the last two questions I’ve posed.[/quote]
Also an interesting question when considering abortion. No family willing to adopt = abortion more viable option. Gay couple willing to adopt = no abortion
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
I don’t see your point or how you think a gay marriage will be legally any different from a straight marriage in any material way.
[/quote]
All I am asking for is proof that it’s the same thing. This has not been done, which means that the whole argument that it is without proof, means that it isn’t.
There are other ways to get what you want, you don’t have to make something that isn’t like something else, like that something.
And if it were such a private issue, why is it, we keep hearing about it?
I am not sure how to describe the convoluted thinking that goes along with requiring someone to consider a thing that is not like another thing, like that thing anyway, and then at the same time say, it’s private and nobody’s business.
Apparently it’s everybody’s business because it keeps coming up. If it’s truly just a private issue, than make it so and quit bothering people with it…[/quote]
I proved its exactly the same thing:
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
How do you think a homosexual marriage will be legally or materially any different from a heterosexual marriage?
Also, and more importantly, how will allowing homosexual’s to marry negatively affect you and your family in any way? [/quote]
Let’s give any couple of any kind all of those rights, with out defining it as a marriage. Would that satisfy you?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[/quote]
Should a single parent be disallowed to adopt?[/quote]
It should be avoided as much as possible.
[/quote]
But not disallowed, I presume.
The problem here is obvious, given your responses to the last two questions I’ve posed.[/quote]
Yeah?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[/quote]
Should a single parent be disallowed to adopt?[/quote]
It should be avoided as much as possible.
[/quote]
But not disallowed, I presume.
The problem here is obvious, given your responses to the last two questions I’ve posed.[/quote]
Yeah?
[/quote]
Yeah. What logical acrobatics allow you to rationalize the belief that a single heterosexual woman should be permitted to adopt and raise a child while a single homosexual woman should not?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Yeah. What logical acrobatics allow you to rationalize the belief that a single heterosexual woman should be permitted to adopt and raise a child while a single homosexual woman should not?[/quote]
There is a chance that the heterosexual woman will marry a man and create the best arrangement available for the child to be raised in, whereas there is no chance the homosexual woman will.
It doesn’t take logical acrobatics, just common sense.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Yeah. What logical acrobatics allow you to rationalize the belief that a single heterosexual woman should be permitted to adopt and raise a child while a single homosexual woman should not?[/quote]
There is a chance that the heterosexual woman will marry a man and create the best arrangement available for the child to be raised in, whereas there is no chance the homosexual woman will.
It doesn’t take logical acrobatics, just common sense.[/quote]
If we’re talking best arrangement for the child to be raised in, surely we shouldn’t allow poor people to adopt. How about a heterosexual couple that is grossly obese? Surely that’s not a healthy environment for a child to be raised in, given that growing up in an overfed household is strongly correlated with being overweight throughout childhood and in adulthood.
And can you prove with concrete evidence that the sexual orientation of his/her parent(s) has a tangible effect on a child’s development in any way?
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.[/quote]
Isn’t that the pro-gay marriage position?
Edit: I mean you all have pretty much given up on demonstrating some pressing, critical, and irreplaceable function of homosexuality to society as a whole. The argument is now about ‘normalizing’ homosexuality on behalf of us all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.[/quote]
Isn’t that the pro-gay marriage position?[/quote]
Perhaps obliquely, but my argument is more about unnecessarily narrow parameters which bar gays from doing something they’d like to do that is completely harmless (and that is beneficial to them and therefore the country).
“What’s best for society” is a commendable goal but restriction is seldom the best means of achieving it.
To get back to my question: if we’re talking about ensuring that adoptive kids grow up only in “the best” situations, should we not limit adoptive rights to only affluent, fit, healthy, intelligent couples? Or is it just sexual preference that’s on the table? (and if so, why?)
And again, I’d have to see some evidence that gay people/couples raise children “worse,” whatever that means.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
“What’s best for society” is a commendable goal but restriction is seldom the best means of achieving it.[/quote]
Homosexual marriage serves no societal wide goal at all. You folks keep talking as if I’m obligated to allow homosexual marriage–and, only homosexual marriage by the way–to ride the coattails of a relationship that absolutely has a critical impact on us all. No.
No, they can marry.
See above.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.[/quote]
Isn’t that the pro-gay marriage position?
Edit: I mean you all have pretty much given up on demonstrating some pressing, critical, and irreplaceable function of homosexuality to society as a whole. The argument is now about ‘normalizing’ homosexuality on behalf of us all. [/quote]
I never wanted to show some sort of irreplaceable function of homosexuality, as if it’s a chunk of pork in a wasteful spending bill that we can simply trim away. That it exists and is not going to cease existing is more than enough reason to debate its role and place in our society.
Whether this fact bothers you or not, we’re talking about the fundamental nature of a sizable slice of the American people. My heterosexuality is one of just three or four immutable animating components of my being. I feel no need to justify it as having a function for society and I doubt I’d feel differently if I were gay (and I doubt you would either if you were unfortunate enough to be attracted to men).
This as sort of an aside, the post I’d most like you to respond to is the previous one.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If we’re talking best arrangement for the child to be raised in, surely we shouldn’t allow poor people to adopt. How about a heterosexual couple that is grossly obese? Surely that’s not a healthy environment for a child to be raised in, given that growing up in an overfed household is strongly correlated with being overweight throughout childhood and in adulthood.
And can you prove with concrete evidence that the sexual orientation of his/her parent(s) has a tangible effect on a child’s development in any way?
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.[/quote]
With respect, SMH, here we are, and I’ve had enough of this topic and this thread. When the gay marriage advocates start insisting that there is no particular advantage for children to be raised by their parents, I know it’s over. Thanks for the discussion.
And, I’m afraid you have Orwell backwards - the constant and blind insistence on pressing for alternative legal arrangements for no sake other than political correctness is something Orwell feared, not encouraged.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, they can marry.
[/quote]
Having married parents is nowhere near the only factor that has a tangible and evidentially-substantiated effect on a child’s development.
Again, if the goal of adoption is to ensure “the best possible environment” for the child and if we are furthermore willing to bar certain people from adopting based on their inability to ensure that environment, the poor and the obese and the stupid are going to have to go (if we’re doing this rationally and not emotionally, that is).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If we’re talking best arrangement for the child to be raised in, surely we shouldn’t allow poor people to adopt. How about a heterosexual couple that is grossly obese? Surely that’s not a healthy environment for a child to be raised in, given that growing up in an overfed household is strongly correlated with being overweight throughout childhood and in adulthood.
And can you prove with concrete evidence that the sexual orientation of his/her parent(s) has a tangible effect on a child’s development in any way?
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.[/quote]
With respect, SMH, here we are, and I’ve had enough of this topic and this thread. When the gay marriage advocates start insisting that there is no particular advantage for children to be raised by their parents, I know it’s over. Thanks for the discussion.
And, I’m afraid you have Orwell backwards - the constant and blind insistence on pressing for alternative legal arrangements for no sake other than political correctness is something Orwell feared, not encouraged.[/quote]
I’m not arguing that there isn’t an advantage in being raised by one’s parents. We’re discussing adoption, so that particular possibility is not in play at all and I’m not sure why you brought it up.
What I AM saying is that if you’re willing to bar one person from adopting on the grounds that they can’t “ensure the best possible upbringing,” it seems to me that sexual orientation is one of many salient factors and probably not anywhere close to the most important. At the very least you should concede that the poor and the morbidly obese would fall short and should therefore not be allowed to adopt. Remember: adoption rights, according to you, go only to the worthy.
If you are done with the conversation, so be it. It’s been a good one.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
What I AM saying is that if you’re willing to bar one person from adopting on the grounds that they can’t “ensure the best possible upbringing,” [/quote]
Well, it’s more like they’re lifestyle completely closes down the possibility of marriage.
So if a female (or male getting someone) can’t get pregnant she shouldn’t be allowed to marry? After all what societal goal does this serve? It’s not like she can have kids.
And once a woman goes through menopause should we have a divorce? After all what societal goal is being captured by this marriage? It’s not like she can have kids.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
At the very least you should concede that the poor and the morbidly obese would fall short and should therefore not be allowed to adopt. [/quote]
No he shouldn’t. You want him to, but he shouldn’t. Fall short of what? Obesity and poverty doesn’t negate the possibility of an intact home. And the ‘poor’ do need to meet certain financial obligations by the way.
[quote]H factor wrote:
So if a female (or male getting someone) can’t get pregnant she shouldn’t be allowed to marry? After all what societal goal does this serve? It’s not like she can have kids.
And once a woman goes through menopause should we have a divorce? After all what societal goal is being captured by this marriage? It’s not like she can have kids. [/quote]
Already dealt with earlier.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It is exactly this kind of “what’s best for society” mentality that Orwell feared and hated so strongly.[/quote]
Isn’t that the pro-gay marriage position?
Edit: I mean you all have pretty much given up on demonstrating some pressing, critical, and irreplaceable function of homosexuality to society as a whole. The argument is now about ‘normalizing’ homosexuality on behalf of us all. [/quote]
I never wanted to show some sort of irreplaceable function of homosexuality, as if it’s a chunk of pork in a wasteful spending bill that we can simply trim away. That it exists and is not going to cease existing is more than enough reason to debate its role and place in our society.
Whether this fact bothers you or not, we’re talking about the fundamental nature of a sizable slice of the American people. My heterosexuality is one of just three or four immutable animating components of my being. I feel no need to justify it as having a function for society and I doubt I’d feel differently if I were gay (and I doubt you would either if you were unfortunate enough to be attracted to men).
This as sort of an aside, the post I’d most like you to respond to is the previous one.[/quote]
The noise is way bigger than the population.