OK. But what about divorced or single parent households. The kids there have issues too. Does that mean we should ban divorce? Actually, the bible says more about divorce than it does gay marriage. Yet you don't see religious idiots lashing out against divorce at all. Hmm. More hypocrisy and double think from the religious right. What about kids who are disabled? You gonna punish their parents for having faulty genes? WHY is this the business of the government, anyway? A hard life is.. part of life. Life isn't fair. That's not a reason to butt into other people's business and take away their own personal choices. What about black kids, jewish kids or atheist kids growing up in the bible belt? A kid was ostracised and kicked out of his parent's home when he told his religiously bigoted school that they were violating the US constitution. So we make it illegal for any non-Christian to marry, then? Oh wait, that's probably what they actually want. You're missing the greatest point of all: Punish the bullies, not the victims. Don't deprive orphans of a family. Instead, hold teachers accountable for letting bullying happen. Lock those brats into a dark room with scary monsters until they cry. Also, you made the extremely idiotic assumption that everyone is the same as you. You don't want two dads, but somehow you get to speak for the ENTIRE COUNTRY and say that nobody else wants two dads either. Are you an orphan? Do you get to speak for them? Don't the orphans get THEIR OWN say into what sort of parents they want?
I wasn't comparing tattoos to children, I was comparing one way of thinking to another just as ridiculous. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you. --- Another thing, totally absurd and has me both disappointed and sad, recently a catholic church (among others) has decided to shut down their charity in Illinois that handles adoption, rather than having to be made to not discriminate against gays... So, there are children, that have been abandoned. . http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...tions-agencies-in-illinois-are-shutting-down/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...tions-agencies-in-illinois-are-shutting-down/
I haven't thought about how I feel towards gay couples adopting a child until now. I'm kind of stuck in the middle. On one hand, this kid could have a horrible life without any love or care if they don't get adopted. On the other hand, it's just totally unnatural for a child to be raised by two people of the same sex. In the natural world, a kid is created by a man and a woman and is raised by them until that child is strong enough to live on their own, find a mate, reproduce, and repeat the cycle. Edit: So to sum it up, if gay couples want a child, shouldn't that just be tough luck? That's one of the drawbacks of being homosexual. But then when I think about all the kids without homes it also makes me think.
You know what else is natural? Nightshade. Marijuana. Black widows. Gay sex in various species, predators, bacteria that make your flesh rot right off of your bone. Dying before age 40. You know what is not natural? Air conditioning. Airplanes. TV. Blankets. Cribs. Refergerators. Anti-bacterial soap. Vaccines. Music. Dying after age 70. Does the "natualness" of this have anything to do with anything? No. Claiming something isn't natural is the biggest red herring of all. What authority does "naturalness" have anyway, when natural things are that which kill us?
Relating technological advances that have benefited us to gay couples raising a child doesn't make much sense from an argumentative standpoint, but I get the point you're trying to make.
I was not comparing technological advances to gay couples. My last post had nothing to do at all with gay couples. My point is that naturalness is not a valid concept to base decisions on. It is like saying gay people shouldn't adopt because the bugblatter sheedleorph might be disemborphed. It's nonsense. It's psuedoscience. It's hogwash.
I apologize but read back over what you said, and then realize what you're hinting here. You're pretty much saying that if a person chooses to be homosexual they should be deprived of the choice to have a child because of their life choice and because they lack the right reproductive organs to make it happen. That's total hogwash. There have been numerous scientific articles released over the last decade (look up "born gay") that lend credence to the theory that sexuality isn't determined by the person, but determined at birth by genetics, estrogen/testosterone levels etc. So amusing that is correct for second, are you saying that due to what they were predetermined to be at birth, that they shouldn't get rights? How is that fair?
If a sterile male wants to father a child, shouldn't that just be tough luck? That's one of the drawbacks of being sterile. If a woman unable to conceive wants to have a child, shouldn't that just be tough luck? That's one of the drawbacks of not having a useful uterus.
EDITED HERE : A very poorly thought out post in reflection. Gay People, as long as there are two, don't make bad parents. Indeed, I see for myself, that my friend is quite well adapted and well-adjusted. However, Something isn't quite right with him when it comes to relationships. For other children adopted under a gay couple? Hm, I haven't surveyed enough to know for sure aside from experience. Perhaps they're normal. Perhaps, like my friend, are missing something. @Minus: Yeah, Maybe. I did read it back around 1 and 1/2 years ago in my school Data-base. I wouldn't say there isn't anything new out there. Just the one I read I recall clearly the poor methodology I was like "THANKS! Nothing new! 2 parents are significantly better than single parents in terms of raising a child! Haha." EDIT: WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE THIS PERSUMPTION THAT YOU ARE BORN GAY? Everything currently consistently tells us that, with all factors included, including time of year, hormones, etc.. You're chances of being a homosexual, given the genetic and hormonal bill pre-birth, and given the upbringing by the parents, and ALSO the society in which the individual interacts with other people... Chances are about 35%. You aren't born gay. You're chances of being gay is 35% higher than average / normal.
Adoptive gay couples (and adoptive straight couples) make better parents than a lot of straight couples who have their own kids. You know why? You don't accidentally adopt a kid. There's no such thing as an unplanned adoption. It takes a lot of dedication, time and money to adopt a child. There are thorough background checks and all sorts of safeguards to make sure the child goes to a good home. You have to want to be a parent to adopt a child. You don't accidentally adopt a child after a night of drunken debauchery. It takes a few minutes and no money to make a child of your own. It takes months and thousands of dollars to adopt a child. No one who adopts a child doesn't really want the kid. The fact that a gay (or straight) couple goes through the adoption process tells me that they really want a child and would be great parents. If we could put half of the restrictions and checks on fucking that we do on adopting, perhaps there wouldn't be so many fucked up kids born to fucked up, uncaring parents.
How is it not valid? We're not talking about the knowledge of one random natural thing being used to base a decision on another random natural thing. We're talking about the knowledge of the natural evolution of our species being used to make a decision about a specific thing regarding our own species. The fact is that since we have been around, we've been created by a man and a woman and raised by them. It's the foundation of all humans. It's just how we're made. What happens when that stops being the case? Will the child have to adapt? Will the child be better off raised by a single mother/father or a gay couple? Would they be better off with nobody at all? These are all things we aren't sure about. Would other animals stop doing things that have worked for them in the past when there is no physical need to do so? I know we're in a totally different day and age now where we aren't primitive creatures, but we are still wired the same way and built the same way that we were back then. I wasn't hinting anything. I know (think) that people don't choose to be gay. I'm not actually sure what point I was trying to make, because, obviously, some gay people will have the urge to have children even though they aren't attracted to the opposite sex where creating a baby would be possible. But, again, I wasn't thinking about humans in this day and age. I'm thinking in terms of basic human wiring. If people are born gay, why would they feel the need to have a child? Would that feeling be influenced by nature or nuture? Well played.
Okay let's lay it out like this: This cheese couple is straight. This cheese couple is homosexual. Any difference? No they're both from the same race (cheese) and thus should have the same right as other cheeses. Now apply this to humans and you'll get my drift.
That just boils down to being a problem that one way or another can just as well be encountered by ANYONE who has adopted a child or is an adopted child, regardless of whether or not the parents there are the same sex. And I haven't presumed gay people are born gay... I remember last time there was a thread here I dug up plenty of articles supporting that, and from what I recall no one had a rebuttal so yeah. It doesn't really change much whether someone is born that way or not anyway. If it's not a conscious choice people shouldn't be discriminated against for it.
I think I missed it, which is why I didn't have a rebuttal. Or, I kinda skipped over the thread lol. No, It's not a conscious choice, it's what a person can develop into. edit: I edited the original post btw. It was poorly thoughtout as it wasn't too relevant to this thread.
So if a person develops into a homosexual, and did not specifically choose to be that way, does that not make such decisions out of their control? Would it not also explain why such things as "pray the gay away" camps never work, because the person has homosexuality hardwired into them? And lastly, if this is not their conscious choice...then why should they be barred from the basic human right of marriage or adoption? Your logic fails me after reading your last reply. You contradicted yourself.
I think some people are just being Oxymorons about this whole issue. Gay Rights = Human Rights, because well, they're human. Dammit.
Homosexuality develops in the womb, apparently. I actually do think they should be able to adopt. If a straight couple can adopt, what on God's green Earth should two people of the same gender be not allowed to adopt? As for the pyschological aspect on the child, what's so different from saying "you have two mums/dads" then to the kid being bullied about one of his folks being in jail for rape or something?
Oxymoron is a figure of speech, people can not be oxymorons. And it's the gay people who always talk about gay rights and gay this and gay that so that's why the expression is used. And I'm not gonna respond now to all the people that quoted me because I'm a bit drunk and may say all sorts of things, but I might come back to it tomorrow (especially KATHYxx. remimd me to answer your post).
This past semester I helped coach an under-14 girl's soccer team with a friend of mine, and one of the girls on the team had lesbian parents. Due to my curiosity, I spent a lot of time trying to observe how she interacted with others and how she behaved. To be quite honest, she was no different than the other girls, all of whom had a mom and a dad each. What bothers me the most is that a lot of you are making assumptions, and you really cannot do that. Everyone is different, and just because having straight parents hasn't negatively affected you, it doesn't mean that it can only be that way. I was watching Oprah a month ago and they had this gay couple, one of whom wrote "Wicked" (if that rings any bells for anyone), and the children seemed perfectly normal. In fact, they seemed more open and at times a little bit more intelligent than what I've seen others be at their age. When you think about it, it's not like it doesn't make sense. These two men raised their adopted children well, taught them to understand the differences between them and other parents, and the kids didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that they had two fathers while other children had a mother and a father. What this tells me is that it's not what the parents are, but who the parents are and how they raise children that determines what the person ends up being. Sure, I wouldn't disagree with the notion that there are some things a child might be missing out on not having a mother or not having a father (as is seen with single parents quite often), but the important thing here is that a child has guidance from people who care about him or her. That's all that matters in the end, right? If the child is raised intelligently and with care, does it really matter who raised the child? The fact of the matter is, guys, that if we are to pride ourselves on believing in full equality, then we have no right to prevent anyone from marriage, which as mentioned is neither originally nor exclusively a religious institution. Just as a child cannot determine whether or not he or she is white, black, hispanic, etc., a child cannot determine his or her sexuality either (I am strongly convinced of this, seeing as how from what I've read studies have shown that when certain genes have been removed in animals, they behaved homosexually). Sure, the environment of a child can change their perceptions of sexuality, and perhaps open their eyes to their sexuality, but their environment does not determine what they are sexually attracted to. When I think of how I am attracted to women, what I can't help but notice is that it simply happens. When I see a girl who might be seen objectively as attractive, I can't help but feeling attracted to her. I'm not making the conscious choice to think to myself, "I would have sex with her." My mind and body simply desire it, because that is how I was created. I was born a heterosexual human being, and I insist that it is no different for the LGBT community. At the end of the day, what I think everyone here needs to realize is that everyone, no matter what, is a person, and that really unless someone's actions infringe upon yours, there is no reason to prohibit someone from doing that. Murder is against the law because it infringes upon one's right to live. Speeding is against the law because it endangers others and potentially threatens their right to live. Does gay marriage infringe upon anyone's right at the end of the day? No. Sure, we should provide religious exemptions for those who are simply opposed to it based on religious beliefs, for no one should be coerced to marry a couple they don't want to marry, but even then, the simple action itself does not do anything to anyone. Just because your gay neighbors got married, does it mean that you can't get married all of the sudden? Is it going to take away from your marriage in any sort of way? Is it going to ruin your life? It's not. People are simply stubborn, misguided, and blind. And this is where I become really opinionated, but I must say it here: I think it's time for people to stop letting a book like the Bible govern their lives and their views of others, especially now that people are holding double-standards. As I believe Kathy mentioned, the Bible condemns divorce, but the Bible also condemns other things like males having long hair and the consumption of certain foods on certain days and whatnot, but people still do those things and yet no one does anything to stop them. Why are homosexuality and gay marriage the focus of Christian condemnation? What distinguishes them from anything else the Bible ever condemned? If you're going to oppose gay marriage, then I would hope that you subscribe to every other damn thing the Bible condemns (or whatever else your religion might condemn if you are a believer of another religion that condemns homosexuality). If you're going to oppose it, tell me how it in some way affects you. Explain to me how it is ruining your life. Then maybe I'll even consider thinking about gay marriage being an issue. But it's a complete non-issue that as someone else said shouldn't be the government's responsibility. And as Louis C.K. aptly says, "Who gives a shit? It doesn't matter. It doesn't have any effect on your life, what the fuck do you care?"
I believe that if a gay couple wants a child, let them have a child! Most people fail to remember that most gays grew up with straight parents. Too many kids needs a parent, so what's the different between have a straight parent and a gay or lesbian parent? Most kids don't care if their parents are gay, lesbian, or straight. They just wants to be loved.