Should Homosexuals Be allowed to adopt children? (Let's give this one more try)

XI. Repeated Posts and Topics

We recognize that many topics in the EM&J forum are variations on a theme. That is to be expected in this kind of forum.
(A) Topics that merely repeat prior discussions may be subject to moderator action including but not limited to merging or closure of the topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just don't get why so many people have a problem with it.
It's not like it's relevant when you're judging someone's character and personality...
*sighs*
I guess the government is always going to be filled with bigoted conservatives, or as my dad calls them "bible bangers"
'course, i dont usually like to discriminate, so i rarely use that name...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Hat - Response to Issues

Mod Hat - Response to Issues

The prior topic remains open in deference to the topic poster, and in order to accommodate those who perceive bias in my moderation.

I find the current topic an interesting exercise, because the problems of the prior topic are repeating themselves in this one. Frankly, that's to be expected, but it wouldn't be fair to condemn this topic based on the poor aspirations of certain posters.

In the end, nothing is expected to change; one side of the argument will see to that. People reading through the contents of this topic in general (something that was not done of late in the prior, for reasons expressed at the outset in the current topic) will find the link provided by another poster, and if the first paragraph of the topic post isn't a major cue, maybe he can try some flashing neon signs next time.

When a topic runs over a year, and with so many posts, a legitimate question arises of whether thematic repetition of an argument despite adequate response is the result of the size of the topic or the will of the poster(s). This topic addresses that problem by calling for people to put the arguments up front again. I already have half a mind to start farming out all the arguments that lack a valid basis, but the result would look like I was victimizing one side of the argument specifically.

Now then:

Honestly, I never know what to say to people at times like this.

You know the rules, eh? You even quoted them in your next post. Let's take a look at that:

Do you see that phrase, "may be"?

Or how about the infamous, "including but not limited to"?

We can look at this two ways:

• "may be" - I have chosen to not close or merge this topic at this time, largely because of the problems plaguing the topic it spins off from.

• "including but not limited to" - If pressed, I will construe moderator action to be endorsement.​

Nothing obliges me to close or merge this topic. Wisdom suggests the other topic be locked, independently of considerations related to this topic. Nonetheless, I can't stifle the discussion in general, so people are free to wreck this topic if they really, really want to. And then I'll shut it down, and because I won't stifle the discussion in general, somebody will try again. And by that time I will have lost what patience I have left with this situation and start squelching the static.

As noted at the end of the forum rules: "The quality of your posts make this forum what it is."

And what should I do about that? If I've got one aspect of a dialogue continually dragging down the discussion, should I simply surrender the forum to the lowest forms of expression?

That's always one way to go.

At any rate, the prior topic is a disaster, and some people seem determined to make a similar mess out of this one. We'll see what happens, and we'll continue to go through this together, and at some point I can always place official blame (and respond appropriately), but I'd really rather see that a topic that is allegedly so important to people can receive the thoughtful consideration that priority would deserve.

I mean, think about it: no matter how many times the issues are answered, somebody wants to recycle them. Why? Surely, it's not some farce. If it's so important to keep bringing up, why aren't people paying attention to the answers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert Title Here)

I thank you, but alas, such praise is not deserved. While I stand behind that post, it is, technically, an ugly and embarrassing misfire: I accidentally mixed issues. My only shred of redemption is that standards such as we find in Michigan and other states where unmarried couples cannot adopt will eventually run the issue through the territory I outlined.

I did want to put in two cents about this part. (And, for once, I think it is actually two points.)

• If we apply Lysander Spooner's declaration that--

--we can establish that anyone has a basic right to undertake the care of another's progeny if circumstances bring the situation to require or request it. That is, if a human being can look to a brother, a friend, a member of the tribe, and entrust on their deathbed the wellbeing of the child to that other, then mere sexual orientation is no real barrier to that transfer of authority.

• To the other, if we go with the U.S. Constitution (which contains one facet of the debate inasmuch as there is a political question among Americans), either everybody has the right, or nobody has the right. If nobody has the right, it's because marriage and adoption are not specifically outlined in the Constitution. (This reflects a conservative argument that there is no constitutional right to abortion, to sodomy, &c.) If everybody has the right, it is because rational reasons can be construed for some people, and Equal Protection extends that principle to all Americans. To take marriage as an example, there is no constitutional right to marriage until we look at the natural consequences. You do have the right to religious expression, and in that religious expression is the demand of marriage and fidelity. Marriage was never enumerated in the Constitution because nobody stopped to think about it. At the same time, though, the old tradition of selecting your daughter's mate, or even buying one for her, doesn't fly under the Constitution, so it has come about that your daughter is expected to marry someone who makes her happy and secure. As you cannot under the Constitution force another to procreate, reserving marriage to procreation is merely a religious sentiment. When we come down to it, marrying for happiness and security is all there really is, and the government cannot hold gender as an obstacle to happiness. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are part of the reason these United States exist (cf. Declaration of Independence). Furthermore, the purpose of even having a Supreme Law of the Land (e.g. U.S. Constitution) includes the intentions to "establish justice", "promote the general welfare", and "secure the blessings of liberty". If the government has any business recognizing any contract between two people, it cannot make gender a barrier. As to adoption, I again invoke Michigan and other states that won't allow unmarried couples to adopt.

In either case, a government empowered by the people to regulate is obliged to do so rationally. While we can say the right of anyone can be limited according to governmental obligations to the general welfare, &c., those limitations must have some reasonable foundation. Neither basic gender discrimination nor bigoted presumptions about gays, alone or in tandem, create that rational basis.​

Or so says me. So it wasn't exactly two. My bad.
____________________

Notes:

Witkowski, D'Anne. "Attorney General: unmarried couples cannot adopt in Michigan". PrideSource.com. September 23, 2004 (#1239). See http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=9643

Spooner, Lysander. "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty". (1875) See http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

"Declaration of Independence". See http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

"Constitution of the United States of America". See http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html ​

 

Now, this is obvious, yet I just noticed it.

Amendment 1(first part)-Congress shall make no law involving religion or the free excercise thereof.

Now, if you were to ask me, I would tell you that making gay marriage illegal would most clearly defy that.

 

As much as I agree in principle, I haven't yet established that argument on a number of technical points. I suppose there is the question of how the First Amendment justifies gay marriage. Perhaps I'm just looking at it from a different perspective, and thereby missing something.

 

Yes they should, I don't see any reason why gay people should not be aloud to adopt.

 

1. They are social misfits, too afraid of rejection, with parent issues mainly.
2. It may pose devolpmental problems for children, ones we don't even know about yet?
3. Who the f*ck wants two dads?
4. Who the f*ck wants two moms?
5. How long will it be till we have whole families of homosexuals, with two dad's four grandma's and six gay children? what happens then?
6. ummmmmm pedophiles are mainly gay men.
7. Look what happened to the Spartans, the Greeks and the Romans, all big lovers of Homo's. They f*cking died didn't they.

 

"1. They are social misfits, too afraid of rejection, with parent issues mainly."

according to who?i personally know 3 gay people and two of them do not fit this discription at all.

2. It may pose devolpmental problems for children, ones we don't even know about yet?

more than living in an orphanage?

3. Who the f*ck wants two dads?

who the fuck wants adopted parents?im sure there are a lot of things that kids would change about their parents if they could.

5. How long will it be till we have whole families of homosexuals, with two dad's four grandma's and six gay children? what happens then?

why would the children be gay?

6. ummmmmm pedophiles are mainly gay men.

paedophiles arent gay men,they are paedophiles.gay men are gay men.

7. Look what happened to the Spartans, the Greeks and the Romans, all big lovers of Homo's. They f*cking died didn't they.

homophobes all around the world seem to be doing fine fucking things up.

 

No, it's not natural

 

Ack. Haven't we already gotten angry at that reply?

Also, all of them failed for reasons other than homo's. I thought we discussed this also.

The first amendment doesn't say that it's a right, but it also says the state can't ban it. Thus, it is an issue of which church you go to. If they won't allow it, move on to another. however, if the state doesn't allow it, they can't find it ANYWHERE. Churches, as private organizations, can decide what they do/do not allow. However, the state, as a federal organization, cannot.

 

Respecting the church's decisions*

They can decide what to allow and what not to, but based upon reason, not religion.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This just proves that we are living in our last days. Even to ask that question about whether gays should have the option to adopt is...................... I can't even bring myself to say it. All I can tell you is that I have a close friend who was raised by his gay uncle and his life sucked (punt not intended) He is still having a hard time coping with regular life and by the way he is definately not gay or bi-sexual. The reality is that the real problem with this will happen 25 years or so from now when those children raised by gays and lesbians grow up...trust me!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's just not much of an argument.

ReighnStorm, I would like you to answer whether or not you feel the following statement is true or false:

Nobody I know whose parents are heterosexual has any emotional, educational, or social problems whatsoever.​

Indulge me, please.

 

His life could have sucked for other reasons than his gay uncle. One of my teachers had a gay uncle(well, uncles), and she says she didn't realize it for the longest time. Apparently didn't bother her that much.

Did you mean pun?

 

Ahh, I can only hope!! God forbid that humans should last much longer!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

That reminds me of a quote I read attributed to Sigmund Freud. A fellow psychoanalyst said "All of my homosexual patients are quite ill you know". To which Freud replied, "As are all of mine. But so are all of my heterosexual ones".

I do think that gays are more likely to have mental problems than straights. But that is purely because of the homophobic culture they grow up in. If no one cared about homosexuality, if it bore no more of a stigma than being left handed (which is about how significant it really is) gays would be no more (or less) prone to mental illness than us breeders.

 

His life sucked (his words not mine) strickly because of his GAY uncle he was raised by. Was not able to teach him how to be a man. I'm sure everyone has a gay aunt or uncle but how many were reared by them.

And no, I meant punt

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is to only those of US who are not bi-sexual, gay or lesbian.

Heterosexual males : how long could you watch an encounter with two male gay men before you would be either physically sick or just mentally disturbed??

Same question for heterosexual women : with two lesbian women ?? and I'm not just talking about porn related material. Just regular interactions. And then imagine being a kid in that environment day in and day out. It's just not naturally right. Come on people you gotta know there's some truth in what I say!

 

Umm. To most people, watching heteros(other than themselves) interact is equally disgusting. A child doesn't really want to see either interaction, but they do.