Same-Sex Adoption = Child Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Michael Jackson, WOW. The guy is almost fictional. So, the crystallization of homosexuality as transferred to race is Michael Jackson?[/quote]

It was a joke, dude.

How would you feel if someone told you that, theoretically, you would be just as happy marrying another woman and therefore you aren’t allowed to marry your wife? Would you like someone to make that choice for you? Because that is essentially what Zeb is arguing.

[quote]In your opinion, if state and federal gov’ts stopped honoring joint returns, immigration ‘rights’, hospital visits, etc., for everyone equally, would they be denying heterosexual marriage? Would they be denying marriage altogether? Would heterosexual marriage cease to exist? Would families suddenly dissolve or cease to exist?
[/quote]

Yes, yes, yes, and no.

302

[quote]forlife wrote:

It was a joke, dude.[/quote]

Yeah, the sarcastic tone in your voice was embodied really well in text.

The various churches regularly make these decisions. My wife and I are married much in spite of her church. Additionally, as I’ve said before, pieces of paper, rings, and filing taxes jointly are not the reasons I’m with my wife nor she with me. Someone telling us we can’t be married wouldn’t change our relationship much at all.

[quote]In your opinion, if state and federal gov’ts stopped honoring joint returns, immigration ‘rights’, hospital visits, etc., for everyone equally, would they be denying heterosexual marriage? Would they be denying marriage altogether? Would heterosexual marriage cease to exist? Would families suddenly dissolve or cease to exist?

Yes, yes, yes, and no.[/quote]

Then I’m curious, how do you reconcile ‘self-evident truths’ and ‘unalienable Rights endowed by a Creator’ with the idea that marriage is a right that is conferred or denied by the gov’t?

303

so there I was, wandering the PWI and lo and behold I found a controversial issue that I had not barged into, flung some serious shyte around in, doused with flames and lit on fire - so here I am . . . .

OK, let me be the rational voice of reason (snickers quietly to self) . . .

Now, no one can seriously deny that marriage has been traditionally defined as being a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman. Thousands of years of recorded history within human civilization supports that.

In recent times homosexuals have revolutionized modern societies with an aggressive and effective propaganda (we can use education if you like) campaign to legitimize their sexual preferences and to make mainstream society accept what even they are proud to call a deviant lifestyle (not meant in a condescending manner).

here comes the rundown . . .

Now - LGBT’s are proud of the fact that they are not like straights - right? They love mocking us straights (at least my LGBT friends do)

No conservatives or Christians oppose civil unions for LGBT couples (ok a few real die-hards do - but you can easily get a super-majority of support from the rest)

Why not freaking come up with your own ceremony and covenant relationship tied to a civil union and call it something freaking cool like homogamy or homonubial (i’m very tired so if my suggested names are stupid sounding I apologize - i’m really am trying to be helpful here).

I mean, after all, you have established a specific identity, distinguished yourselves by so many other distinctives - why taint your amazing success by tying the future progression of your movement to forcing straights to acquiesce something that in all real sense belongs to them - why would you want to bring straight-laced names into what is truly a remarkable and diversely beautiful counter-culture?

seems reasonable to me . . . but I ama freak of nature anyway

304

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
so there I was, wandering the PWI and lo and behold I found a controversial issue that I had not barged into, flung some serious shyte around in, doused with flames and lit on fire - so here I am . . . .

OK, let me be the rational voice of reason (snickers quietly to self) . . .

Now, no one can seriously deny that marriage has been traditionally defined as being a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman. Thousands of years of recorded history within human civilization supports that.

In recent times homosexuals have revolutionized modern societies with an aggressive and effective propaganda (we can use education if you like) campaign to legitimize their sexual preferences and to make mainstream society accept what even they are proud to call a deviant lifestyle (not meant in a condescending manner).

here comes the rundown . . .

Now - LGBT’s are proud of the fact that they are not like straights - right? They love mocking us straights (at least my LGBT friends do)

No conservatives or Christians oppose civil unions for LGBT couples (ok a few real die-hards do - but you can easily get a super-majority of support from the rest)

Why not freaking come up with your own ceremony and covenant relationship tied to a civil union and call it something freaking cool like homogamy or homonubial (i’m very tired so if my suggested names are stupid sounding I apologize - i’m really am trying to be helpful here).

I mean, after all, you have established a specific identity, distinguished yourselves by so many other distinctives - why taint your amazing success by tying the future progression of your movement to forcing straights to acquiesce something that in all real sense belongs to them - why would you want to bring straight-laced names into what is truly a remarkable and diversely beautiful counter-culture?

seems reasonable to me . . . but I ama freak of nature anyway

[/quote]

See from what I can gather, most gays would be happy with that. All they want is for their relationship to confer the same legal rights as a straight relationship.

Speaking as someone who married someone from a different country, if our marriage were not recognised it would be a nightmare in terms of imigration rights, parental rights, ability to make medical decisions etc. I would not want to deny these rights just because a couple are the same sex.

305

[quote]lucasa wrote:
The various churches regularly make these decisions. My wife and I are married much in spite of her church.[/quote]

Exactly the point. Despite her church, you were still able to legally marry the person you love. How would you like it if the state denied you the right to do so, on the argument that you would be theoretically just as happy marrying some other woman?

It is a ridiculous argument, but is exactly what Zeb has been trying to push in this thread. Even if he were right that gay men would be equally happy married to women (lol), his logic is flawed.

But again, how would you like it if the state denied you the right to be married to your wife, but let you marry some other woman? Even if your relationship didn’t change much at all, would you seriously accept that as fair?

[quote]Then I’m curious, how do you reconcile ‘self-evident truths’ and ‘unalienable Rights endowed by a Creator’ with the idea that marriage is a right that is conferred or denied by the gov’t?
[/quote]

As a state granted contract with inherent responsibilities and benefits, it is subject to equal protection for groups that are determined by the Court to be sufficiently similar to the majority group receiving this contract.

Are gays wanting to be married similar enough to heteros wanting to be married to qualify for equal protection? The Supreme Courts of five U.S. states say they are.

306

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Why not freaking come up with your own ceremony and covenant relationship tied to a civil union and call it something freaking cool like homogamy or homonubial (i’m very tired so if my suggested names are stupid sounding I apologize - i’m really am trying to be helpful here).
[/quote]

Personally, I couldn’t care less what they call it. If people get huffy about the word “marriage” being applied to gays, let them keep the word all to themselves. All that really matters to my partner and me is having the same responsibilities/privileges that are associated with marriage (including most importantly those at the federal level).

307

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:

How is that any different from telling a black man what race he is allowed to marry?[/quote]

We’re not going to go back and forth on that matter again are we?

Let’s see my standard line went something like this:

Black = Genetic

Homosexual = Not genetic

Furthermore, since we both know that most gay men can have sex with either gender let them marry women.

There, simple.

By the way forlife how do you have all this time to post? You must have some sort of a cushy job huh?

I just don’t have the time anymore business is good and I have to make all the money I can before Obama increases my taxes.

Ha ha.

308

I’ll marry a woman when you agree to let me pick out someone for you to marry.

Don’t like that idea? At least we have one thing in common.

I’m guessing business wasn’t so good back when you and I were exchanging all those posts every day? Good to hear that life is looking up for you :slight_smile:

309

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ll marry a woman when you agree to let me pick out someone for you to marry.[/quote]

See, here’s where you’re confused. I am incapable of having sex with another man. Never have, don’t want too and couldn’t. Clear?

On the other hand, you’ve had sex with women numerous times and have two children to prove it.

[quote]
I’m guessing business wasn’t so good back when you and I were exchanging all those posts every day? Good to hear that life is looking up for you :)[/quote]

Well, it wasn’t bad back then but far better now. What is it you do for a living? I assume T-Nation doesn’t pay you to post.

310

I didn’t suggest that you were. I asked if you would like it if I picked out a woman for you to marry other than your wife. Who are you to object, if you would be equally happy with her?

I wish T-Nation paid people to post. You and I could retire in style, especially you with 10k posts and counting.

311

"Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ?oppressive? order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus??continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means? as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their ?quiet? cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):

  1. The creation of racism offences.
  2. Continual change to create confusion
  3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
  4. The undermining of schools? and teachers? authority
  5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
  6. The promotion of excessive drinking
  7. Emptying of churches
  8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
  9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
  10. Control and dumbing down of media
  11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family."

http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml

312

[quote]forlife wrote:
I wish T-Nation paid people to post. You and I could retire in style, especially you with 10k posts and counting.[/quote]

Sup.

313

I havent read all the posts, but in my opinin if you want to adopt 2 boys, or for that matter 2 girls it should be fine. I dont know why it wouldnt.

314

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Now, no one can seriously deny that marriage has been traditionally defined as being a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman. Thousands of years of recorded history within human civilization supports that.[/quote]

Stop. Hammer time.

I mean…

Actually homosexual relationships have been around for thousands of years too. And marriage started of as Polygamy.

315

[quote]forlife wrote:

As a state granted contract with inherent responsibilities and benefits, it is subject to equal protection for groups that are determined by the Court to be sufficiently similar to the majority group receiving this contract.[/quote]

So, not a Right then?

If only we were an Authoritarian Oligarchy, this might mean something.

316

As someone who has adopted a child, the practical side of this needs examination as well: One of THE major factors that the adoptive family needs is STABILITY, and this is a major factor that adoption services look for. My wife is a tenured prof and we have two biological sons. I’ve been teaching for many years, esp in my current position. Those things are supremely important for the child. Stability is key.

My belief is that homosexual partnerships are not as stable as heterosexual, and those are unstable as it is. Turning sex into another amusement, like golf or a night on the town, has destabilised relationships, moreso in the gay community.

If a gay couple has been together more than, say, 10 years, and both have long employment records, I suppose it’d be better than an institution. I’d still be very leery though and the adoption agency should inspect REGULARLY.

317

[quote]lucasa wrote:
So, not a Right then?[/quote]

Yes, a Right under the equal protection clause of the constitution, so long as the Court determines that you are “similarly situated”.

It is the responsibility of the judicial system to interpret the laws, since a million monkeys typing for a million years still couldn’t specify every possible contingency.

Unfortunately, people being human and all, when this interpretation happens to agree with their perspective, all is well and good; but when it disagrees, people whine about “activist judges legislating from the bench”.

The above is true for both conservatives and liberals, by the way.

318

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
One of THE major factors that the adoptive family needs is STABILITY, and this is a major factor that adoption services look for. [/quote]

While it’s impossible to guarantee stability, I agree it is important and in the best interests of the child.

Given that, don’t you think allowing gays to marry would increase the probability of stability in the relationship? If marriage provides added stability for straight relationships, the legal carrots and sticks associated with it should provide added stability for gay relationships as well.

319

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
One of THE major factors that the adoptive family needs is STABILITY, and this is a major factor that adoption services look for.

While it’s impossible to guarantee stability, I agree it is important and in the best interests of the child.

Given that, don’t you think allowing gays to marry would increase the probability of stability in the relationship? If marriage provides added stability for straight relationships, the legal carrots and sticks associated with it should provide added stability for gay relationships as well.[/quote]

You have a good point. But wouldn’t a civil ceremony do just as well? My problem wrt gay marriage in and of itself is that marriage therein is being used as some sort of tool to advance an agenda. Americans are mostly a religious nation and marriage takes place in the eyes of God. This is a very sacred ceremony to us.

If a gay couple wants to marry in a church and church doctrine is against this, then I would strongly disagree with forcing churches to marry a gay couple. Legalising gay marriage may open the door to forcing churches to marry gay couples. If the marriage was purely civil, I’m less concerned.

I’m trying to have an open mind with regard to this. I know I’m not famous here for being open-minded but it does happen once in a while. :slight_smile:

320

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

If a gay couple wants to marry in a church and church doctrine is against this, then I would strongly disagree with forcing churches to marry a gay couple. Legalising gay marriage may open the door to forcing churches to marry gay couples. If the marriage was purely civil, I’m less concerned.

[/quote]

People aren’t campaigning to have gay marriage forced into churches. Churches should have the right to decide who they marry within them. Gays should have the right to marry. Not every marriage has to happen at a traditional christian church (ie there would be some churches that would be more than happy to marry gays).
Fight for the right for gays to marry, and churches to decide who they allow to marry within them.