Screw morality, whatever that is. I am sick of spending all that tax money on orphans, then the jails to house them as adults. I think anyone who wants to adopt a kid and can afford to care for them should be allowed. That way they are no longer my problem. Kids are better off in even boarderline bad homes, than growing up in a state institution or church facility.
They are also more likely to be abused in those enviroments. Most importantly they are far more likely to one day become MY problem if raised by the state. And for anyone out there that is opposed to abortion, and God forbid opposed to birth control: You should be required by law to adopt and raise the problems you helped create.
For Gods sake, for the good of the children…Dont have any! The world is pure evil, and to bring an unwanted child into it is not just immoral, it should be a considered a crime.
[quote]OldGuy67 wrote:
Screw morality, whatever that is. I am sick of spending all that tax money on orphans, then the jails to house them as adults. I think anyone who wants to adopt a kid and can afford to care for them should be allowed. That way they are no longer my problem. Kids are better off in even boarderline bad homes, than growing up in a state institution or church facility.
They are also more likely to be abused in those enviroments. Most importantly they are far more likely to one day become MY problem if raised by the state. And for anyone out there that is opposed to abortion, and God forbid opposed to birth control: You should be required by law to adopt and raise the problems you helped create.
For Gods sake, for the good of the children…Dont have any! The world is pure evil, and to bring an unwanted child into it is not just immoral, it should be a considered a crime. [/quote]
The biggest problem is that humans are taught an unnatural morality. Powerful people uphold unnatural morality, then cash in on the guilt when no one can practice it.
Until humanity creates and accepts a morality based on rational self-controlled selfishness, the world will indeed be a pretty evil place.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Personally, I would support gay marriage adn don’t see gays as any less worthy. But I don’t think we’re ready as a country. But the lack of legal benefits (hosptial visitation,etc…) is a travesty.
Please no comments about contracts between parties to substitute for federal and state law granting rights. For the last time, contract law doesn’t work like that. Contracts don’t bind third parties not subject to the contract. It has to be state or federal law for external parties to have obligations to respect the partners wishes.[/quote]
Could you just post this to every single “gay marriage” thread that comes up? Perhaps some will actually listen to you.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
The California Supreme Court ruled that unless gays are allowed to marry, rather than calling it by some other name, they don’t enjoy equal protection under the constitution.
That may be true, but I share jsbrook’s pragmatism. I’m far more interested in equality than in terminology.
The voters have spoken.
Correction: The voters have spoken TWICE!
[/quote]
They continue to speak, but the liberal judges are not listening.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
They continue to speak, but the liberal judges are not listening.
[/quote]
You need to catch up, Zeb. The old “activist liberal judges” line doesn’t cut it any more, since the last two states to pass gay marriage (Vermont and Maine, both in the past couple months) have done so through the legislature, not through the judiciary.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Does gay marriage preserve or enhance Man as Man?
Gay marriage provides stability to society, and ultimately benefits both the couple and any children they may have. As such, it both preserves and enhances Man.[/quote]
You might have something here. If gays stopped sleeping around it is likely the spread of HIV/AIDS would be significantly reduced.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You might have something here. If gays stopped sleeping around it is likely the spread of HIV/AIDS would be significantly reduced.
Just don’t call it marriage and I’m all for it.
[/quote]
Works for me. I don’t care what they call it, as long as it includes the same responsibilities/benefits of straight marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You might have something here. If gays stopped sleeping around it is likely the spread of HIV/AIDS would be significantly reduced.
Just don’t call it marriage and I’m all for it.
Works for me. I don’t care what they call it, as long as it includes the same responsibilities/benefits of straight marriage.[/quote]
Well I think you are in the gay minority. California already had a domestic partners law that allowed gays the same rights as those married and the gay lobby still went to the supreme court to push for it to be ‘marriage’.
That is why I believe it was overturned by the people in California; because it was not about rights, it was about changing definitions and perceptions of marriage.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well I think you are in the gay minority. California already had a domestic partners law that allowed gays the same rights as those married and the gay lobby still went to the supreme court to push for it to be ‘marriage’.
[/quote]
That’s a common misperception. The domestic partners law in California falls far short of true equality, because it grants none of the 1,000+ rights of marriage at the federal level.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well I think you are in the gay minority. California already had a domestic partners law that allowed gays the same rights as those married and the gay lobby still went to the supreme court to push for it to be ‘marriage’.
[/quote]
That’s a common misperception. The domestic partners law in California falls far short of true equality, because it grants none of the 1,000+ rights of marriage at the federal level.
