Gay & Lesbian Rights
 

what's your view regarding these??

gay marriages??

gay adoptions?


i'm for all of those, i dont think it's my business to dictate what people can and cant do in their bedrooms.


i'm all for gay marriages, if that's the way they want to live their lives, it's their choice, let them live however they want, me nor you should tell them how to live it.

adoptions-i'm for it, but i do have some back thoughts regarding this. but i think that 2 guys or 2 gals can make good parents, and it's much better to have 2 moms/dads rather than have none at all.


i think that i would much rather have 2 parents of same sex rather than have none at all.

anyway, your turn..

We are in agreement.

Quick, go buy a lotto ticket :D

what are the chances of something like this happening??
one in a million?

Again... I agree completely. (someone check the temperature of Hell)

I agree too, but I will go further to say that there are lots of people that really should NEVER have kids (regardless of sexual preference). What process can we use to make sure that these folks never adopt either?

i got no rights anymore, why should they have any?

I have no problem with two gay people getting married, but I wouldn't let them adopt. Just for the fact that the kids are gonna be tortured going through school. Once all the other kids find out their parents are gay can you even imagine just how much they're gonna be fucked with? I don't see that as being a very healthy environment to be raised in.

Thats the same arguement you used about invading Iraq ;)

It's funny, isn't it? Children raised by gay parents probably won't have any shortage of love, but they certainly will have a hard time going through school because of their parents' sexuality. Is that a good enough reason to prevent them from adopting?

I can actually give an example in this case. My parents are good friends with a gay couple (men) who have a son. This boy is the biological son of one of them, and was carried by a surrogate mother who was inseminated with the old turkey baster method.

Now, both of these men are wealthy and very loving. They have a full-time nanny to assist them and the child will have a very comfortable life in financial terms. Everything will be provided for him and I am sure that he will be given a lot of love.

But when the poor tyke was three days old my parents saw his fathers taking him to the supermarket, and they stood in the freezer section for a very long time. The moral of the story: love is one thing, maternal instincts or plain old common sense go a long way.

I have no clue what you're talking about. :confused:

I really like your new avatar - it's much better than the cluster fuck you were using.

haha, dont hate.

college sports (at least the ones i care about, but UT did win the big xii championship in baseball, so i care a lil) are over for the summer, so nascar is on.

go dale jr!

Fuuuuck! Now I'm gonna have to start to dislike Jr. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif

dont hate on the #8 bud chevy!

it's there lives and they are no different from anyone else so they should have the same freedoms and rights as anyone else

What about the kids with crackwhore/neighborhood slut/lazy eyed/pantsuit wearing/non-english speaking mothers or unemployed/alcoholic/wife beating/illiterate/stinking ass/anal retentive asshole fathers?

Most kids bear the brunt of their parents ridicule. If they're good parents why not let gay couples adopt, can't be anyworse than the some of the heterosexual parents I've seen. :)

My idiotic roomate in college used to use this argument. I guess my only response would be something along the lines of comparing it to mixed-race marriages. It might be a well-intentioned thought, sixate, but it still smacks of discrimination and ignorance. Parents should be allowed to adopt based on their ability to care for the child, not for the shit the kid will get because of his or her parents. Every fucking kid gets shit in school, even if they are six feet tall at twelve years old. A kid with same-sex parents just gets a different brand of shit.

Well as a kid who was six feet tall at the age of twelve I can certainly say that this is true. No matter who you are or who your parents are, kids in school will always find something to give you shit over. I dont think that this is a good enough reason to keep gay couples from adopting children. If a gay couple can show to the state that they can provide a good home to a child then I do not see why they shouldnt be allowed to adopt. Hell any straight couple can go around having just as damn many kids as they want, even if they cant afford to take care of them or provide them with a loving home enviroment. Why should gays be banned from having children when they can provide a good home enviroment for the child?

As far as gay marrige goes I have only a slight problem here. I dont think that we should refer to it a 'marrige' per say because this is associated with straight couple relations. We, or should I say the gay community, should adopt another term only if this would reduce the amount of resistance to the idea in the conservative arena. This 'union' should grant the couple every legal advantage and disadvantage that every married straight couple enjoys, ie health insurance coverage and the marrige penalty tax.

if i was a child in one of those positions, i would gladly have 2 dads/moms.

if i was an orphan in an orphange, i would knowingly choose to have same sex parents than have none, who cares what kids say.

Glad to see that most are for gay marriage and adoption.

But Publius raises the issue of what to call it. The problem is that the only reason I can see for not calling it marriage is the Bible, and given the other thread on church-state seperation I'm not keen on that.

Just off the top of my head
Definition A: Marriage is a (lifelong?) union between two people, recognised by the state.

Definition B: Marriage is a (lifelong?) union between two people of opposite sex, recognised by the state.

Definition C: Marriage is a (lifelong?) union between two people, recognised by the state and God.


It seems that either you must accept same-sex marriage (A). Or discriminate purely on the basis of the sex of the people (B). Or invoke God (C). As B is the point in question (and noone has given any reason why lifelong, legal unions can only be formed between opposite sexes) and C invokes God, I would have to go with A and call same-sex marriage well... "marriage".

4thTimeLucky,

While I understand what you say about the Bible, Marriage is also a legal contract between two individuals. Right now only one State, Vermont, recognizes this contract between two people of the same sex.

The other 49 either do not recognize this contract or specifically state that the contract (marriage) can only occur between 2 people of the opposite sex.


(Not even really sure why I made that point.)

I think you made the point because calling it a union could allow lawmakers to change the rights. Giving the two arrangements different names brings to mind "separate but equal." I think having the same name is very important, and I think your point is key.

i'll have to go w/ "Definition A: Marriage is a (lifelong?) union between two people, recognised by the state."

and as kadath said, that could be the seperate but equal stuff into play.

This issue is a great deal more clear cut that it seems.

The fact is, the word marriage isn't in the constitution that I can find... neither was privacy... That's because our constitution is NOT about what people can do, but about what GOVERNMENT can do. Read up on your bill of rights when you get a chance.. and pay particular attention to 9 and 10.

I'll list them here for your convenience...

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

well, so what?.. you might ask. Well so right there before you, in the form of a couple of 200+ year old phrases captures the essense of how the government should, or CAN legally approach the issue of gays, etc. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.



That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.


(Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Government isn't authorized to jail non-citizens indefinitely or deny them due process of law. There's a good reason for that, but that's another thread elsewhere, probably named something witty like "patriot act" or something...)

on a sidebar... Being realistic, a marriage is (legally) pretty much just like forming a business.. If I happened to be gay and live in a state that all that was a problem, I suspect I'd form a corporation with the most blatantly offensive gay name I could possibly find...

Live and let live,
every kid has a verson of hell that they have to live with ... too tall, too short, too fat it just goes on and on, but if that kid can come home to a loving family of any sort gay, streight, single whatever thats the most important thing.

Definitely. Having sex with the opposite gender does not make one "ready" to have a child, so I don't know why gender/orientation would be a determining factor at all with adoption. Now, Catholic priests are another story. ;)

no, the central government doesnt have the right to do any of that stuff, but it certainly doesnt prohibit the states from doing it.

this needs to be linked thru the 14th, so states have to follow this also, and i dont think it's been applied to the states yet