More gay marriage crap.

[Shadowfax]

Given a reasonable set of circumstances, a heterosexual married family is preferable to a homosexual family in the overall balance & adustment of a child. Females & males are different. We each provide a balance to the other. The child picks up on each, learns & grows. Ying/Yang.

Given an unreasonable alternative, homosexuals can make wonderful parents. Men can't be mothers & women can't be fathers. Set a stable baseline from which to work. I think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Not infants mind you, but harder to place older children.

even though i'm not sure about what to think of the last comment, i have to say i agree with gonz on the first comment; homosexual parents just can't raise kids the same way happens with a mom and dad.
i'm not saying they won't raise their kids in such a way that they won't become good adults, but still, there is a difference. after all, so many kids with moms AND dads turn out as scum as well, with no respect for others.

point is, women handle some situations differently than men, and visa versa.
as a kid, when i needed something, i would use the 'emotional factor' on my mom, while i KNEW that that wouldn't do me any good with my dad.
same thing with my own emotions; some talks i just couldn't have with my dad, but the better with my mom. and other things my dad could handle better, than my mom.

i know it depends on character as well, but still, things would have been very different for me if i had two dads, or two moms... i'm pretty sure the same goes for a lot of people.

i think one benefit of gay couples adopting children is, that it is a very well-thought CHOICE.
that doesn't go for a lot of heterosexual couples; how many times does a kid get born, but is actually 'ill-timed' or an 'accident' or plain unwanted? how many young adults have a kid, while their actually still kids themselves?
that's something you would see a lot less with gay couples, since they really have to think about it, and really have to do a lot of effort to be able to adopt a kid in the first place.

 

[Gonz]

There are some really shitty heterosexual parents out there - married and single alike. And I'd imagine the same goes for homosexual parents.

Why must so many of you, given this argument, immediately go to the negative?

Given a reasonable set of circumstances

Given an unreasonable alternative

We already have children in every country that sit in orphanges (not sure of the PC slang) because "normal" folks want infants. These kids are hard to place. They will be parentless, most likely, until they hit 18. And I do mean 18...on that day, the state says "Good luck, you're on your own".

Singles are not necessarily a bad parent but they are a parent n onetheless. One plus none equals one, even with the new math.

 

[Rose]

and basically what i'm gathering from you, then is that a single parent is better than a homosexual couple as parents?

 

[Shadowfax]

We already have children in every country that sit in orphanges (not sure of the PC slang) because "normal" folks want infants. These kids are hard to place. They will be parentless, most likely, until they hit 18. And I do mean 18...on that day, the state says "Good luck, you're on your own".

i'm very familiar with parent-less kids...more than i want to. and i DO know, that what most of these kids need is love. it sounds squishy, but it is true.
problem with most orphans (either their parents died, or left them alone to adopt) is that they feel betrayed by their parents. their real parents didn't want them.
and believe me, that's quite hard to explain to a kid. so what happens to the kid? in most cases they'll be very harsh when it comes to affection, trying to kick away everyone who comes close, not to be able to love anyone, assuring themselves that there is nobody who can emotionally hurt them again.

what happens in a lot of cases, is that people adopt those kids, and are totally freaked out on the way those kids behave. most of them have psychological problems and trauma's the parents can't handle.
this only results in a crap load of rules set by their new parents, who are trying to get a grip on the kid.

LESS important with these kids is whether their parents are gay or not. most of them won't give a damn, as long as their new parents will give them the love and affection they need and want.

 

[Gonz]

as long as their new parents will give them the love and affection they need and want.

Absolutely right. Now, since most people want to adopt newborns, why not "force" the homosexuals who wish to adopt into adopting these kids? It would be a perfect fit. The babies get what's best for them & the older kids get what they need most, a loving couple.

No Rose, that is not what I said or infered. Single parenthood is on par with homosexual parenthood. Neither are in the best interest of the child.

DO NOT assume worst case scenarios. Those are the exception & not the rule.

 

[Professur]

IMHO too many of you are seeing this as just a gay issue. One single rights argument. You're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. An iceberg eroding an island called the family.

In the 50's a family was a husband (working), a wife (housekeeping) and two kids.

Now (no disrespect to anyone) the family is whoever happens to be at hand. Mothers and fathers have split up. Kids aren't learning about family. They're learning the lessons their parents are teaching them. ME. All that's important is ME.

And we're all guilty. I've more computers than several schools. More cars than some companies. The fact is that ME has become more important than the society that supports us. And that support is fast eroding. Instead of building, today all people can see is what they can get out of what's there. In Quebec, today, the unions are screaming murder at the gov't that just put a stop to new hiring. Not firing anyone. Just not replacing anyone. Noone's losing jobs ... 'cept the unions. 'But they're gonna strike anyways.

And what is all this Gay action, but another attempt to get more. To get some of what the other guy has. Are the entitled to it? That's a good question. But what will giving it to them do to that little island? And do they think they can build another as strong? Not when everyone's pulling their own way, instead of pulling together.

So, should gays be allowed to be married? Claim benefits? Adopt and raise kids? The constitution says they should. But I seriously doubt that was ever the intent of the writers.

But then, today's mess is the direct fault of those writers. After all, wasn't the basis for american society the right to do what ever you want. Gaurenteed?

 

[chcr]

Can't disagree, Prof. Societies, just like organisms, evolve. Changes that don't work eventually fall by the wayside. Sometimes the short-term effects are a little hard to accept, but there it is. My only concern about the whole "gay marriage" issue is that it is an issue. As you say, the Constitution says they can. Are we or are we not Americans? (present compny excepted, of course )

 

[Rose]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.

The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.

The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.


CNN

 

[drkavnger99]

You know this is one subject that both intrigues me and confuses the shit out of me! I have had the belief that marriage itself was religious and in most religions was unacceptable. But the government made the choice to help "families" and what at the time was considered a family was a married couple with children. Now with the acceptance (and yes there is) of gays and lesbians in the mainstream of this country in particular they have more of a voice then ever before. If marriage is to stay a sacred thing between only man and women then we need to overhaul all of the politics of it. We will need to remove it from mention in taxes, applications (work, Credit cards, etc.), and most certainly will need major revision in general law practices. To call someone homophobic because they believe that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry is very insulting to me, but thats because I look at it as a religious thing and not a legal one. You see you put the government in a place to tell religions that they must accept gays and lesbians being married although its (correct me please if I'm wrong) called wrong in thier religious teachings.

This isn't going to solve everything no doubt but its a start.

About adoption I havent' a clue.... Only thing I worry about is that a child could be wrongfully influenced into being gay, but thats worry I have no basis to support or deny it. You could also make the argument well the straight ppl wrongfully influence them into being heterosexual too. Gut feeling though is that you need a man and a women to give a good overall view of the world (because we do have some fundamental differences).

Last of all since I seem to be a windbag I'm changing my sig to include that for warning to others

 

[Gonz]

this started out in another thread but it fit better here.

Since marraige is not a right (you must be licensed by the state) it falls under the Constitution as a state right. I've pointed out that Article 4, section 1 & 2 provide that what is common to all states shall be legal to all states (ie, marriage), thus allowing tax & social security benefits and all other priveleges of marriage.

That argument is far from settled but the first line is what I had overlooked (again, it's far simpler than we make it).

Now, we all know of the Bill of Rights. Too bad we forget abour 11-27. Look at

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Does Amendment 11 and/or section 2 prohibit the Massachusetts Supreme Court finding from using Aticle IV?

 

[chcr]

I read that to say it's the state's business not the federal government's. Section 2 regards disputes between one state and another, or citizens of one state and another state which might apply if married gays form Mass. move to another state. It does not apply to the Mass. ruling since that is between a state and it's citizens. I think it precludes a federal amendment banning gay marriages, however.

Note as a precedent that common-law marriages are not recognized by every state (and the rules differ in states that do). If a common-law couple moves to a noncommon-law state, are they still married? I don't have time to research it now and I don't really know, but I don't think so.

 

[MrBishop]

About adoption I havent' a clue.... Only thing I worry about is that a child could be wrongfully influenced into being gay, but thats worry I have no basis to support or deny it. You could also make the argument well the straight ppl wrongfully influence them into being heterosexual too. Gut feeling though is that you need a man and a women to give a good overall view of the world (because we do have some fundamental differences).

The influence of gay parents on children is another discussion otherwise, and one that I might start I'm good at causing trouble.

Based on what is known about homosexuality, I would have to say that a gay couple has no influence on the sexuality of their child (biological or adopted), and more than gay teachers turn out gay students, or gay priests teach to gay parishioners.

Most homosexuals do not come from homosexual, but heterosexual parents. Most do not come from broken homes or the poor. They come from all of the social and economic castes equally...therefore, neither money, family, or social placing has anything to do with wether a person becomes gay or straight.

 

[drkavnger99]

The influence of gay parents on children is another discussion otherwise, and one that I might start I'm good at causing trouble.

Based on what is known about homosexuality, I would have to say that a gay couple has no influence on the sexuality of their child (biological or adopted), and more than gay teachers turn out gay students, or gay priests teach to gay parishioners.

Most homosexuals do not come from homosexual, but heterosexual parents. Most do not come from broken homes or the poor. They come from all of the social and economic castes equally...therefore, neither money, family, or social placing has anything to do with wether a person becomes gay or straight.

Well thanks bish you make sense to me! I'm glad I could give ya a little fuel for another thread!