Gay Marriage and raising children...

lInk not needed - Peruse results of every state that has conducted a vote on marriage (and thereby denial of homosexual marriage.)
 
Then I guess we don't need links to show how Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas would have voted if there was a referendum to approve interracial marriage back in the 1950s.

All kinds of civil rights fail. If gays are "deviant," and the majority feels so, that's still not a justification to deny them the same rights. I'd go as far to state the same about felony disenfranchisement.
 
I am trying to understand your thought process, would this mean that people that engage in pedophilia, beastiality, necrophelia, incest, murder and rape are also minorities that should have rights protected?
Hi, I would like to work here. I am a murderer and am married to my dog. Is that a problem? If so, I would like to point out that I am actually in two protected minorities.
 
So your thought process is this:
Gay = deviant
Other weird ILLEGAL stuff = deviant
Since a = b, all rights are non-applicable to the same.

Try using rationality the next time you wander off the slippery slope. If you truly believe in a moral sense that homosexuality is deviant, then fine. Keep that in the church. But you cannot possibly rationalize a loss of rights under due process or the 14th amendment with being gay.

It's literally the same argument made by Governor Wallace. How did that turn out for him?

I guess the good news is that people like you will be in the minority within about 20 years or so.
 
Isn't the difference as I said, that being gay and what two consenting adults do, hurts no one?

Whereas pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, murder and rape would be acts that are not between two consenting adults.

It's also a bit offensive to stretch the comparison of two gays to murderers, rapists, and child abusers to name a few.
 
Horns11 under evolutionary theory sex is about reproduction not pleasure. The human species has to have a male and female to reproduce. A male with a male or a female with a female is sexually deviant and unnatural.

The church had nothing to do with this analysis. On a side note why can't Christians, Muslims, Jews or anyone else have their opinions heard? This is america. Religious people can vote for and with the approval of the majority legislate their values if they like as long as it does not interfere with the constitution (see the mann act, the volstead act and numerous others).

Homosexual activity is unnatural and a form of deviant behavior. There is no natural right to homosexual marriage. Consenting adults are free in this country to do what they like in their own homes. In fact, the right to privacy allows people to take part in lots of deviant behavior, as long as no one is harmed. You could choose to cut yourself. Harming oneself is an unnatural and deviant behavior. You can still do it though. People do not have a constitutional right to public acceptance of deviant behavior or deviant behavior itself if someone is harmed by it. A citizen does not have the right to marry someone of the same sex, an animal or a child. We could choose to give someone the right to marry someone of the same sex as some states have. If a majority feels inclined, it can choose to accept a deviant behavior and protect it with legislation. It can also choose not to accept deviant behavior.

Marriage falls under the purview of the states (thank God). People are free to go to a state that allows gay marriage just as they are free to go to a state that outlaws it. This is why I love the federal system in this country. It gives you the freedom to choose which state you want to live in.

Sorry horns11, interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, like colt and case mccoy, are NOT the same. Interracial sex leads to reproduction and is not unnatural under evolutionary theory. Homosexual activity is a deviant and unnatural behavior.
 
An additional point to be clarified from my last post. A person has to be their race. White people have to be white and black people have to be black.

No one HAS to take part in a sexual activity. Heterosexuals do not HAVE to have heterosexual sex. Homosexuals do not HAVE to have homosexual sex. Both heteros and homos can abstain from sexual activity. No one can abstain from their race or gender.
 
Not sure what church has to do with natural selection. I would think that being homosexual, for whatever reason, does not favor you in the evolutionary process.
Laws are made at the behest of society forwhatever reason. Doing harm is not a necessary component.
Speeding laws are to prevent harm. If you are speeding and do no harm, you are still breaking the law and can be punished. Same with DWI and other such laws.
Who does necrophelia, incest between consenting adults, or beasiality harm ? Society rejects these actions and has laws against them because they are deviant.
Homosexuality is also deviant and society rejects special consideration such as marriage just as society rejects the deviant behavior listed above.
Children should never be placed with deviants and at some point this needs to be addressed by society as a whole by ballot, just as the marriage issue. How does anyone know if these kids have been harmed or psychologically scarred? I see no one able to answer unequivically that they have not been harmed. Just a few feel good stories. Not good enough when dealing with children as they do not ever need to be part of a societal experiment.
Bigamy is hetrosexual and society finds it unacceptable and has laws against it. Just as society rejects bigamy, it also rejects homosexual marriage and thereby adoptions by deviants.
 
"Children should never be placed with deviants and at some point this needs to be addressed by society as a whole by ballot, just as the marriage issue. How does anyone know if these kids have been harmed or psychologically scarred? I see no one able to answer unequivically that they have not been harmed. Just a few feel good stories. Not good enough when dealing with children as they do not ever need to be part of a societal experiment."

Oh, so we ARE going by harms, then?

Let's rattle off a list of children who were "harmed" in heterosexual marriages. You know, kids who became sexual predators, serial killers, and other felons who came from "normal" families.

If you're looking for some grandiose psychological experiment about how kids turn out, here's a hint: it's not about parental sexual orientation. I'd put a much higher premium on education level, money, nurture levels, etc. If you really and truly believe the "deviance" of not being able to biologically procreate is what "harms" kids, then your priorities are out of whack with the best interests of children, period.

And HTown, we've already seen the harms of "majority rule." If you're going to put everything to a vote, you're not protecting the majority from the minority in every case. If you honestly believe that interracial marriage has a higher value than homosexual marriage because of the ability to make babies, fine, but keep it is a moral objection. Heterosexual marriage isn't a "right" either, as you state. Neither is having sex for the purpose of making babies.
 
I'm just curious if any of you guys, on either side of the issue, are actually following the most important court case regarding same sex marriage that is set for a ruling very soon, and if anyone has actually read the legal arguments for and against gay marriage?
 
JM - I admit I have not read the case, but now I will. I am pretty sure, however, that if the case is ruled in favor of homosexual marriage, there will be a constitutional amendment passed by the states to correct the ruling.
11 - Homosexual adoption outcome is an unknown and when dealing with placement of children, stay conservative, because it is about the children. It is not prudent to allow adoption of children by deviants.
 
When did this thread get hijacked into discussion of the constitutionality of gay marriage? Talking about the merits of a same sex couple raising children does not require a Constitutional Law debate.
 
Sorry, but the issues go hand-in-hand in that they are restrictions on rights to gay couples. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, I think it will be near impossible to withstand challenges to bans on gay adoption.

As to the issue from the OP though, I think you really have to be a bigot to believe that a loving stable gay couple is not a favorable position for a large number of kids out there. Is it the absolute ideal situation? No, but no one is in an absolute ideal situation. It's not ideal to have parents that aren't very educated. It's not ideal to have parents that work all the time and aren't int he house. It's not ideal to have parents that smoke at home or don't read books to the kids. There are a lot of factors in what makes good parents, and genitalia is far, far down that list.
 
"Put gay marraige and adoptions by gays to a vote by the citizens. Make it legal...or not."
Wow. Are you serious? Loving vs Virginia is the first thing I think of. And the idea of deviant... left handedness used to be considered deviant.
 
"I believe sexuality is more preferential than anything else."

"The whole idea that you are born "gay" and you cant change it is mostly PC nonesense. "

You can keep quiet and let people think your ignorant, or you can open your mouth and prove it.

Try the former.
 
Actually, having the opinion of not placing children with homosexuals does not make a person a bigot. The main concern is the adoptive children. The children are being exposed to the additional burden of living with homosexuals that are not accepted by main stream society. All of the rest of human frailties are present in both homosexuals and hetrosexuals,(drinking, smoking..etc) not either/or.
The children are the important issue and should not be expected to bear the additional burden of being placed with homosexuals.

The issue of homosexual marriage is like bigamy. Not sure who bigamy harms, but it is not accepted by society just like homosexual marriage is not accepted by society.

The SCOTUS will be hearing the case JM mentioned. The case will be very be interesting and also the aftermath of the decision will be interesting. I have seen in my lifetime, on more than one occasion, a group of people get too big for their britches and find out later they didn't have the support they thought they had.
 
"The children are the important issue and should not be expected to bear the additional burden of being placed with homosexuals."

I'm at a loss regarding your harms or burdens that are being placed on the children. Have you considered the harms of them being wards of the state? Or the harms of being placed with a foster family? Or the harms of being placed with a loving, wonderful heterosexual family who happen to live in a bad neighborhood with drugs/crime?

If anything, the homosexual couple already had to endure the "burden," and the child would reap the benefits of patience, perseverance, and the like in order to succeed. Sure, there are harms to any childhood. We all probably had to endure something when we were young, but I'm just not sure having two mommies or two daddies is the "harm," but rather part of a solution that could help a child in the long run.
 
Ivan,

I think you are overlooking another individual's rights with your concern regarding adoption. In most cases, the birth mother (and ideally birth father) select the adoptive parents from prospective parents who have been appropriately screened. This is almost always true with infant adoptions. In other cases, adoptions arise because a family member or friend is willing to take on this committment.

I would suggest that it should be the prerogative of the people who are making the adoption plan to determine what is in the best interst of the child -- in fact until the adoption occurs, their child. In the case of family adoptions, especially older children, it is hard to imagine a child being better off removed from someone whom they have known and possibly been an important part of the child's life.

I do not know if there are "additional burdens" in these situations, and I suspect it would take longitudinal studies to have any insight. However, I think the it would be a gigantic mistake to give a bureacracy (governmental or empowered by the government) to take this discretion away from families.
 
2003 Grad,

Regarding your question about why someone would want to "stick their penis" into various people, animals or objects, I think this is illustrative of a misunderstanding about gay relationships.

I'll explain by analogy. I have been married to my wife for almost 15 years, and my feelings for her extend far, far beyond sexual gratification. While sexual attraction may be at the core for how we choose our lifelong partners, in adult relationships, it goes far deeper than simple horniness.

Perhaps if you are under the impression that gay relationships are only about instant sexual gratification, it explains some confusion on this point.
 
There have been many gay marriage/adoption related threads on hornfans. Over and over people ask "how is gay marriage different from race?" I have answered this a thousand times and my answer has always been ignored.

You cannot abstain from race. You can abstain from sexual activity whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

The point is simple. I'm sure there are serial killers who were born with the urge to kill people. Should we as a society choose to let them kill people because they are "born that way?" We do not punish them for having the urge to kill people, we punish them when they actually engage in the deviant behavior of murder.

I do not believe that people who engage in homosexual activity, a sexually deviant behavior, should be able to adopt kids or get married. At this point in time the majority of Americans feel that way.
 
"You cannot abstain from race. You can abstain from sexual activity whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in nature."

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the harms of adoption into a homosexual relationship? That since a gay couple has gay sex and cannot possibly abstain from it, the child will somehow be worse off because of it?

"The point is simple. I'm sure there are serial killers who were born with the urge to kill people. Should we as a society choose to let them kill people because they are "born that way?""

Your point is oversimplified and, at the least, bigoted to compare murder and homosexuality. Just because people say murder is wrong and people say being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's the same thing.

Give me one harm of adoption by homosexuals that equals or outweighs your serial murderer example. A child being picked on? A child being sexually abused because "gays do that sort of thing?" A child not grasping the fundamentals of heterosexual intercourse? What is it?
 
The point is that I and many Americans do not think that people who engage in sexually deviant behavior should be given custody over children. Adoption agencies should attempt to place children in a household with the least amount of deviant activity as possible as parents are examples for children. The harm is that children are being raised by people who engage in an unnatural and sexually deviant activity but believe it to be natural and not sexually deviant. Deviancy is not a proper example for children.
 
Horns11, homosexuality is a contentious topic. Some people accept homosexuality activity as okay and some do not. I have explained my views and listened to the views of the opposite side. I love debate and will always be happy to listen to the views of the other side. I will probably not agree with the other side's position just as the other side will probably not agree with mine. Maybe this makes me a liberal, I do not know, but what I love about America is the ability of both sides of an issue to give their opinion and learn from the other side to understand how other people think and view the world. After listening to other's opinions I actually do take time to think and revaluate my own. It has to do with that critical thinking thing I learned during my time on the 40 acres.

Nothing so far in this debate has convinced me to change my views just as nothing I have said has convinced you to change your own. Since we both think our views on homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and the adoption of children by homosexual couples are correct and that the other side is wrong, are we both bigots, or are just the people that disagree with you bigoted?
 
BBB,
Who is responsible for screening the prospective parents and what are the standards? Should there be standards for adoptive parent(s)?
Who determines what the acceptable standards are for adoptive parents? I agree that the parent giving a child up for adoption should be able to have a say, but I have seen some that have abused their children and should have no say what so ever. Again, the issue is what is best for the child, not the adoptive parents ar the person that has given the child up for adoption.
 
"Since we both think our views on homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and the adoption of children by homosexual couples are correct and that the other side is wrong, are we both bigots, or are just the people that disagree with you bigoted?"

You're the one who compared homosexuality to murder. Let's call a spade a spade.

And your sole harm is that kids shouldn't be exposed to deviancy, when in fact, they're exposed to far worse than two daddies in heterosexual marriages all the time. If you're going to tackle the harms affected every child in every type of relationship, I applaud you for doing what's best for all children. But since your ire is focused at gay parents and not the haphazard issues that arise in straight marriages, then you're right about agreeing to disagree.
 
11 - I don't really see ire coming form the other poster 77, but I do see a fundemental difference of opinions. I would think that is what this board is about, different opinions. But I must point out that is was you, not 77, that brought in murderers with your post about "disenfranchised felons" group which would include released murderers.
 
IvanDiablo:


I agree with you that the best interest of the child is paramount. There are minimum standards that apply under each state’s laws, and adoption agencies are free to add their own standards. I believe an agency would be able to refuse gay parents as prospective parents, but this may vary state to state. In my opinion, the standard should basically be whether a person is competent to raise a child and nothing more. This seems to be pretty close to the case in most states. Otherwise, it gets a little too Orwellian for my taste.

My point is that a birth parent should be the one to make that determination for what is in the best interest of their child. A slightly separate, but related situation, may arise where parents have designated in their will that a family member or friend should raise their children should the parents both die before the children reach adulthood. In this situation, for example, it would seem extreme to me for the government to dictate that a child cannot be raised by a gay aunt or uncle, particularly if the alternative were foster care. An even more extreme example would be to dictate that gay people could not raise their own biological children. However, there is really not much difference from that example to the position that gay people can’t raise adopted children.

If birth parents determine that a prospective gay couple should be the people whom they want to be the parents of their child, then I think that should trump other considerations. Obviously there must be some limits, as you indicate with your example about abuse, if the birthparents are not competent to make this determination.

As a general rule though, to impose greater restrictions would transform a very personal matter to become a public decision. As with any parenting, I don’t think the government should intervene unless there is imminent harm to a child.
 
Horns11, it is obvious where we disagree when it comes to adoption of children by gay couples. I feel that sexual deviancy is a bad example for children. Sexual deviancy, unlike other forms of deviancy such as abusiveness, can be easily detected in the adoption screening process. I believe that the advantages of a two parent household do not outweigh the disadvantages of being raised by sexual deviant parents.

You feel that if there are disadvantages to same sex couple adoptions, they do not outweigh the advantages of being raised in a two parent household.

I'm sure that anecdotal evidence can be found to support both opinions. We just have to agree to disagree. As I stated and explained in great detail earlier I do not believe this to be an issue of fundamental rights. This is a matter of people's opinions on how our society should function. I would like to also state I am a big believer in our federal system. Americans should be able to choose between states that allow gay marriage/adoption and those that do not. The federal government should not impose gay marriage/adoption or deny the right of gays to marry/adopt in any state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top