Gay Marriage and adoption!

[LadyCrimson]

Yes, gay marriage should be legally sanctioned with all the same legal benefits and such of hetrosexual marriage. It is unfair and unjust for a goverment to recognize one and not the other just because the gay couple doesn't produce 2-parent, genetic, biological off-spring. Heck more and more hetro couples choose to either not have children or adopt exclusively.

 

I suppose if there were only 200 people left on the planet, procreation might take some precedence as far as legal rights encouragement-to-mate goes, but that's a whole nother story.

 

Adoption: Being adopted myself, I can only say that if the parent/s have the means (income) and seem a good parent risk when investigated, I think it's far better to give a child a home, with a sense of belonging and family, than to let that child stay in an adoption center, get older, and have no one want to adopt them cause they're not a cute baby anymore. So yes there too - parenting skill is not determined by sexual orientation.

[krazikatt]

I voted "yes of course"... I don't see why gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people.

[Hurlshort]

At its basis, marriage is two or more primates reciprocally ****ing for long periods of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Spoken like someone who has not been married. Why don't you tell that to my wife?

 

Seriously, a gay couple deserves the same civil rights as a straight couple. Right now, in most states, they do not get that. If people think it's going to destroy marriage, then Taks is right and the government should get out of the marriage business. The government should just handle civil unions and let churches decide whether to marry a couple or not. The state has no business preaching.

[Craigboy2]

If almost everyone thinks they should than is it not happening? Or is everyone just too afraid to admit in public that they think it's ok?

Edited June 8, 2006 by Craigboy2

[Atreides]

I think things should be okay. I think there will be material differences, though probably nothing significantly negative. I can't help thinking that the dude brought up 24/7 by the Queer Eye dudes will be one heck of a ladies man if he's not gay himself.

 

Maybe start collecting high quality data on such things for future research.

[Moose]

Marriage, don't care. Marriage these days is just a legal partnership.

 

I don't think gay people should adopt. Whether they're good parents or not doesn't really matter because there are plenty of straight parents also willing to adopt. The difference is one upbringing will be normal, which is exactly what you want for the child, and the other will be abnormal... and could possibley lead to the kid being bullied at school etc. Is that a risk worth taking just so two homos can cheat nature?

 

Well the truth is I don't actually care. All the above is just the basic logical reasoning I would have expected anyone with half a mind to deduce.

[julianw]

I'm actually sort of surprised that this is so one-sided. Would have thought more would have been in the "No, absolutely not" category.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are on a gaming forum. Try some of the forums of the Christian Coalition if you wanted to pick a fight. Besides, our Chrisitan crowd hasn't showed up yet. I am still eagerly awaiting a flame war to break out. It's funny though how some Christians' minds are so transfixed on this single topic when there are thousands of laws in the Bible concerning poverty, helping the sick and elderly, promoting peace and forgiveness among nations, etc.

[Hurlshort]

Marriage, don't care. Marriage these days is just a legal partnership.

 

I don't think gay people should adopt. Whether they're good parents or not doesn't really matter because there are plenty of straight parents also willing to adopt. The difference is one upbringing will be normal, which is exactly what you want for the child, and the other will be abnormal... and could possibley lead to the kid being bullied at school etc. Is that a risk worth taking just so two homos can cheat nature?

 

Well the truth is I don't actually care. All the above is just the basic logical reasoning I would have expected anyone with half a mind to deduce.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By that thinking, minorities shouldn't be allowed to adopt either because the child might face discrimination.

[themadhatter114]

I agree with taks that the government should get out of the marriage business. Gays should be able to do what they want, but I don't think churches should be condoning or performing homosexual 'unions' (several Protestant churches are pretty liberal in this regard these days). People who live together should all have equal status as far as tax breaks, but as soon as you have the government making some exception for gay marriages, then you'll have people asking questions like, "Why can't two brothers get married?" and so on. So instead of making exceptions and creating more controversy they should just take a pragmatic approach that stays out of people's sex lives.

 

As for adoption, I think it should be up to the adoption agency and therefore up to the people who give the children up for adoption. Suing a Catholic adoption agency for restricting access to gay couples is ****ing ridiculous and all it accomplished was getting them to stop offering adoption services at all and that serves absolutely no one. I also absolutely think that in general heterosexual couples should be given preference over homosexual couples when it comes to adoption, but I don't think it should be the only factor and certainly not the biggest factor.

[Moose]

By that thinking, minorities shouldn't be allowed to adopt either because the child might face discrimination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you ever stop to think that might actually be a good idea? You might as well raise the bar on adoption standards as high as possible until you start running out of candidates. The rights of the adopters don't come into play when it comes to adoption, it's all about the child.

[themadhatter114]

I'm actually sort of surprised that this is so one-sided. Would have thought more would have been in the "No, absolutely not" category.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are on a gaming forum. Try some of the forums of the Christian Coalition if you wanted to pick a fight. Besides, our Chrisitan crowd hasn't showed up yet. I am still eagerly awaiting a flame war to break out. It's funny though how some Christians' minds are so transfixed on this single topic when there are thousands of laws in the Bible concerning poverty, helping the sick and elderly, promoting peace and forgiveness among nations, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It looked more like an observation to me. You're the one apparently trying to start a flame war. And the key word above is SOME Christians. Not many Christians that I know care a lot about the topic. They may have an opinion, but that doesn't mean they're transfixed on it. And most Christians I know are concerned with povery, the sick and elderly, and promoting forgiveness. I've never known the Bible to be real big on world peace, however.

[themadhatter114]

By that thinking, minorities shouldn't be allowed to adopt either because the child might face discrimination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you ever stop to think that might actually be a good idea? You might as well raise the bar on adoption standards as high as possible until you start running out of candidates. The rights of the adopters don't come into play when it comes to adoption, it's all about the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Minorities shouldn't be adopting white children, really. And white parents shouldn't be adopting minorities, generally. I mean, they should be allowed to adopt children of a different ethnicity, but parents of the same ethnicity should be given preference.

 

This is, of course, in an orphanage setting, and assuming there are children of multiple ethnicities to choose from. I mean, people should typically gravitate to children of their own ethnicity unless they're 'rescuing' a child from a poverty stricken nation or something. And adoption agencies should encourage this, but without completely restricting people.

[julianw]

It looked more like an observation to me.  You're the one apparently trying to start a flame war.

I certainly wouldn't mind that.

 

And the key word above is SOME Christians.  Not many Christians that I know care a lot about the topic.  They may have an opinion, but that doesn't mean they're transfixed on it. 

I was talking about a minority group of Christians. Hence, the word 'some' and not 'many' or 'most of'.

 

And most Christians I know are concerned with povery, the sick and elderly, and promoting forgiveness.  I've never known the Bible to be real big on world peace, however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always thought 'love thy neighbor' doesn't mean that you could feel free to hate the guy two doors down the street.

Edited June 8, 2006 by julianw

[Moose]

Minorities shouldn't be adopting white children, really. And white parents shouldn't be adopting minorities, generally. I mean, they should be allowed to adopt children of a different ethnicity, but parents of the same ethnicity should be given preference.

 

True, but race isn't really the crux of my argument.

 

Non carcasian isn't the only minority. Should muslims have equal adoption rights? Is it fair to give the child to a family that will force it to pray 5x a day to a brick?

 

Obviously not. Minorities aren't ideal candidates imho... it just makes life unnecessarily harder for the child.

[Arkan]

Sure, let gays marry...if only so they'll become miserable like the rest of the married couples.

[Hurlshort]

Minorities shouldn't be adopting white children, really. And white parents shouldn't be adopting minorities, generally. I mean, they should be allowed to adopt children of a different ethnicity, but parents of the same ethnicity should be given preference.

 

True, but race isn't really the crux of my argument.

 

Non carcasian isn't the only minority. Should muslims have equal adoption rights? Is it fair to give the child to a family that will force it to pray 5x a day to a brick?

 

Obviously not. Minorities aren't ideal candidates imho... it just makes life unnecessarily harder for the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It sounds like you both are punishing the victims here. Just because members of society will discriminate against minorities and gay people, doesn't mean they shouldn't be given the same opportunities. Society will never change at that rate. We'd still have segregation. Race and sexual orientation should not have any bearing in adoption, but rather good parenting skills. It's true that children of gay parents encounter major discrimination, but those children also tend to be open-minded and willing to fight discrimination. Part of that is because a gay couple rarely gets knocked up randomly, so they are much more prepared for parenting. There are no statistics that show the children are more prone to being gay.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Hurlshot

[themadhatter114]

Minorities shouldn't be adopting white children, really. And white parents shouldn't be adopting minorities, generally. I mean, they should be allowed to adopt children of a different ethnicity, but parents of the same ethnicity should be given preference.

 

True, but race isn't really the crux of my argument.

 

Non carcasian isn't the only minority. Should muslims have equal adoption rights? Is it fair to give the child to a family that will force it to pray 5x a day to a brick?

 

Obviously not. Minorities aren't ideal candidates imho... it just makes life unnecessarily harder for the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wasn't really simply talking about race, either, though I may not have conveyed that well enough. I was quoting more in support of your stance than against it. I think that a Christian-run orphanage should give preference to other Christians, and I think that couples that have a background with fringe organizations (not necessarily Muslims, though, unless they are in a radical church) should be getting children from orphanages, but that's just my preference, though I would prefer it be left up to the individual orphanage.

[Hurlshort]

I wasn't really simply talking about race, either, though I may not have conveyed that well enough.  I was quoting more in support of your stance than against it.  I think that a Christian-run orphanage should give preference to other Christians, and I think that couples that have a background with fringe organizations (not necessarily Muslims, though, unless they are in a radical church) should be getting children from orphanages, but that's just my preference, though I would prefer it be left up to the individual orphanage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with that, but there are many government run programs for adoption as well, and I don't think they should discriminate. They should seek the best parents, regardless of race, religion, or orientation.

[tarna]

Keep it cool guys.

 

 

Before you guys start considering the wisdom of the goverment's role the marrying industry, you might want to remember that in the early and mid 1900s, several US states forbade the marrying of 'mixed couples'. That's one of the reasons that marriage licences became a requirement rather than it being a responsibility of the Church. Many of the southern states didn't want any of the whites 'tainting' the pure blood.

 

Consider that when thinking of giving the goverment more authority over people.

[themadhatter114]

It looked more like an observation to me.  You're the one apparently trying to start a flame war.

I certainly wouldn't mind that.

 

Alright, I was just pointing out that there was perhaps some unwarranted hostility.

 

And the key word above is SOME Christians.  Not many Christians that I know care a lot about the topic.  They may have an opinion, but that doesn't mean they're transfixed on it. 

I was talking about a minority group of Christians. Hence, the word 'some' and not 'many' or 'most of'.

That's all well and good as long as that was intended. Frequently, though, people will throw out the word 'some' so that they can cast guilt by association. I certainly agree that some who profess themselves as Christians are huge ****. Of course maybe I overreacted, and if so I apologize. I also meant to stress the point that having an opinion on a matter doesn't mean one cares about it. I don't like gay marriage. I don't like abortion. I don't like a lot of things. But as far as I'm concerned people can marry and **** and have abortions and even kill their children and it really doesn't upset me a whole lot. I have a lot of opinions but not a lot of concerns.

 

And most Christians I know are concerned with poverty, the sick and elderly, and promoting forgiveness.  I've never known the Bible to be real big on world peace, however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always thought 'love thy neighbor' doesn't mean that you could feel free to hate the guy two doors down the street.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it doesn't mean that you should interject yourself into the affairs of your neighbors and try to force them to get along. I'm all for peace in my own life and getting along with everyone, but I couldn't care less about whether or not all the people in the world love each other. Perhaps I misunderstood your reference to world peace.

[themadhatter114]

I wasn't really simply talking about race, either, though I may not have conveyed that well enough.  I was quoting more in support of your stance than against it.  I think that a Christian-run orphanage should give preference to other Christians, and I think that couples that have a background with fringe organizations (not necessarily Muslims, though, unless they are in a radical church) should be getting children from orphanages, but that's just my preference, though I would prefer it be left up to the individual orphanage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with that, but there are many government run programs for adoption as well, and I don't think they should discriminate. They should seek the best parents, regardless of race, religion, or orientation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, they should seek the best parents, but race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be. I don't believe in restrictions but I'm all for giving preference.

 

All other things being equal, a child is better off with a mother and father.

All other things being equal, a child is better off with parents of the same ethnicity.

 

Hell, I'd be wary of fundamentalist Christians if I were operating a government-run orphanage.

 

I just think that sort of thing should be taken into consideration, along with everything else, but shouldn't be set in stone.

[alanschu]

Yeah, they should seek the best parents, but race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be. I don't believe in restrictions but I'm all for giving preference.

 

What?

 

In what ways does race determine how good of a parent someone will be?

In what ways does religion determine how good of a parent someone will be?

In what ways does sexual orientation determine how good of a parent someone will be?

 

And since they apparently do, which race, religion, and orientation is best suited for parenting, and why?

[Nartwak]

Live and let live.

[LoneWolf16]

Yeah, they should seek the best parents, but race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be. I don't believe in restrictions but I'm all for giving preference.

 

What?

 

In what ways does race determine how good of a parent someone will be?

In what ways does religion determine how good of a parent someone will be?

In what ways does sexual orientation determine how good of a parent someone will be?

 

And since they apparently do, which race, religion, and orientation is best suited for parenting, and why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's asking for preference, not restriction.

 

Here's an example...if the child up for adoption is white, would he be raised better by a good pair of white parents or an equally good pair of black ones?

 

If the child has a religious background, the particular religion should take preference in the choosing of the parents. If not, race should come first as a deciding factor, just under ability. And as for orientation...I can't really say anthing that hasn't been said. A maternal and paternal influence, I believe, is required for healthy growth of a child. Some sort of main female and some sort of main male...just easier to have parents of a different sex.

[themadhatter114]

It sounds like you both are punishing the victims here. Just because members of society will discriminate against minorities and gay people, doesn't mean they shouldn't be given the same opportunities. Society will never change at that rate. We'd still have segregation. Race and sexual orientation should not have any bearing in adoption, but rather good parenting skills. It's true that children of gay parents encounter major discrimination, but those children also tend to be open-minded and willing to fight discrimination. Part of that is because a gay couple rarely gets knocked up randomly, so they are much more prepared for parenting. There are no statistics that show the children are more prone to being gay.

 

Are there a lot of statistics about gay parents? What is there to back up your claims about gay parents? Is there anything other than anecdotal evidence saying their kids are more open-minded? I would expect that it creates more victims (real and professional) than civil rights leaders. And people who face discrimination often don't sympathize with the similar struggles of others who've faced the same sort of thing.

 

I don't think not getting knocked up randomly necessarily means people are better prepared for parenting. Not that that's even really an issue since people with unwanted pregnancies aren't typical candidates seeking adoption.

 

And as I've said, they should have opportunities to adopt children, but straight couples should have an advantage.