Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15

 

2006-11-21 14:18:14
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6939|Salt Lake City

IRONCHEF wrote:

JimG wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Actually, that is exactly how society is.  If society says seat belts are required, then it becomes the law even if people oppose it.  If leaving your kids in the car becomes a crime because of popular opinion (and because it's dangerous), then it is so regardless of parents who think it's ok.

If the populous wants to impose laws on gay child bearing, then guess what...society does work that way.
This is not actually completly true. Most societies know that there are too many people for everyone to have a say which is why we elect representatives to make those decisions for us. The representatives ideas and deicisions are not the voice of the people as it could easily be proven that there is not a populus majority in favour of this decision.
No, elected representatives actually are bound to do what their constituents wish..which is why they're our representatives..and it's why we petition them.  Popular demand is what is supposed to be the choice of the representative.

In the context of allowing gays make children, it's already a legal permission.  Their lobbying work was how they succeeded.  But if I'm not mistaken, those laws are being challenged presently.  So in this case, it's 100% based on public opinion..as is gay marriage.  When the majority of americans are ok with it, then it will pass.

As to things that are not bound by laws, like most cultural topics..those are even moreso bound by popular opinion.
You know very well that the representatives do not always vote the way their constituents want them to, and even when they do, it may or may not be what the majority wanted.

Yes we do have laws, but those laws are often not upheld or changed over time.  What would you do if the so called majority said that religion needed to be outlawed.  Even though some religious groups may do many good things, the ultimate problems of religion outweigh it, so it has to go.  Would you accept that law, or would you point to the constitution and say you can't do that?

What would you do if the so called majority said that having children was now restricted to the following guidelines: 1) You must be married. 2) Both parties must past testing to ensure mental/emotional/physical well being. 3) You are allowed to have one child only. 4) You must apply for and be drawn from a lottery to get approval to commence procreation. 5) You have 12 months to successfully complete impregnation or your application will be returned to lottery status.  Violation of any of these rules will result in permanent disqualification for reproductive rights.   Now, would you accept this, or would say it violates your rights to determine when you have kids, and how many?

Do we just look past the BoR that says all men are created equal; a more PC term would be people.  That among their inalienable rights are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Or does that only apply when those pursuits don't run afoul of religious dogma?
2006-11-21 14:35:10
Ratzinger
Member
+43|6595|Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Oh FFS, do all straight parents bring their kids up right?

I think that those who state unequivocably that gays shouldn't parent need to look at some of the fucked-up things people (of whom 95% are hetero) do to their kids.

How could gays be worse?

Really dumb thread, sometimes I wonder....
2006-11-21 14:36:14
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6745|Texas - Bigger than France
Adoption agencies have a strict set of rules.  Couples jump through hoops to adopt.  Gay couples and single parents have to hop over a bigger hurdle.  And, there's a reason for that.  It's not because of discrimination, it's because of there's a greater chance of the kid being screwed up.  There's numerous reasons, and if you don't think they had ANY relevance, you wouldn't be arguing about it in this thread.

It's a societal pressure really - conformity is the issue.  Conformity is probably the most important thing for a child.

But, I do believe it is a bunch of BS that a gay couple can't get the job done.  Here's why - a gay couple knows they will be fighting an uphill battle to adopt a child.  Therefore, they're pretty much committed to be parents.

Or, alternatively...I have a gay friend who's going overseas to adopt a kid...less hoops...he's got other issues in his life which I think will make him not so good as a father...but it's not because he's gay.
2006-11-21 14:49:37
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6694|Northern California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

You know very well that the representatives do not always vote the way their constituents want them to, and even when they do, it may or may not be what the majority wanted.
I didn't say they follow what their constituents say, i said that is what they are supposed to do.  I'm aware that corporations and special interests control many representatives.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Yes we do have laws, but those laws are often not upheld or changed over time.  What would you do if the so called majority said that religion needed to be outlawed.  Even though some religious groups may do many good things, the ultimate problems of religion outweigh it, so it has to go.  Would you accept that law, or would you point to the constitution and say you can't do that?
Regardless of accepting law or not, I'd still be living my religion.  I'd go underground if needed.  My religion actually says to honor the laws of the land..and that goes for ANY land you're governed by.  Bad example there, but I get your point.  And yes, if the majority said to outlaw religion, it'd simply be time to move or if possible, get it appealed.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

What would you do if the so called majority said that having children was now restricted to the following guidelines: 1) You must be married. 2) Both parties must past testing to ensure mental/emotional/physical well being. 3) You are allowed to have one child only. 4) You must apply for and be drawn from a lottery to get approval to commence procreation. 5) You have 12 months to successfully complete impregnation or your application will be returned to lottery status.  Violation of any of these rules will result in permanent disqualification for reproductive rights.   Now, would you accept this, or would say it violates your rights to determine when you have kids, and how many?
I'd follow the laws or leave if needed I didn't want to.  And since you're drawing up this impossible comparison for argument's sake, I'll just ad that maybe that's the answer...maybe gays need to go make children somewhere else if their country is governing thus...that or try to change the peoples' minds?  I don't know, get us to that point and we'll discuss it.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Do we just look past the BoR that says all men are created equal; a more PC term would be people.  That among their inalienable rights are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Or does that only apply when those pursuits don't run afoul of religious dogma?
Children.  That's the point of this topic.  If having happiness requires miserable children, then no, they don't have that inalienable right apparently.  But as stated before, they do have that right at the moment so their happiness is protected..until the majority define what that happiness is.  The bill of rights, in it's vagueness, is a simple tool to help governance by requiring laws be made around it...since it's impossible to make simple laws based on them.  Look at the second ammendment!  Guns, gun laws, concealed weapons, criminal access, waiting periods...all things not defined in the second ammendment, but they're things drawn up from it.  Speech...abuse of, censorship, privacy, warrantless wiretapping....all things derived from it.  Pursuit of happiness....gay marriage?  gay adoption/IVT?    Catch my drift?
2006-11-21 15:09:28
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6939|Salt Lake City

IRONCHEF wrote:

Regardless of accepting law or not, I'd still be living my religion.  I'd go underground if needed.  My religion actually says to honor the laws of the land..and that goes for ANY land you're governed by.  Bad example there, but I get your point.  And yes, if the majority said to outlaw religion, it'd simply be time to move or if possible, get it appealed.
Exactly.  You'd fight it tooth and nail to stop it from happening, and until you could, you'd go underground.  Are gays/lesbians doing any less?  I think 'marriage" is religious item and don't think religions should be forced to allow gay marriage, but I think gays should have the same legal rights as some one who goes to the court house and gets hitched.  This simply signifies that churches don't recognize their union, but is legal in the eyes of the law.  Gay/lesbian people don't have any "agenda" other than to not be disciminated against.  You don't have to like it, and no one is saying you do.  It's like the old saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'd follow the laws or leave if needed I didn't want to.  And since you're drawing up this impossible comparison for argument's sake, I'll just ad that maybe that's the answer...maybe gays need to go make children somewhere else if their country is governing thus...that or try to change the peoples' minds?  I don't know, get us to that point and we'll discuss it.
This is rather hard to do for two reasons.  The first of which is that states are constantly setting up laws which would prevent them from ever doing this, so it is very difficult to ever see they could change minds.  Not to mention that religious dogma would never allow it.  There are some religions that have become more progressive, but they come under fire from members of their own sect.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Children.  That's the point of this topic.  If having happiness requires miserable children, then no, they don't have that inalienable right apparently.  But as stated before, they do have that right at the moment so their happiness is protected..until the majority define what that happiness is.  The bill of rights, in it's vagueness, is a simple tool to help governance by requiring laws be made around it...since it's impossible to make simple laws based on them.  Look at the second ammendment!  Guns, gun laws, concealed weapons, criminal access, waiting periods...all things not defined in the second ammendment, but they're things drawn up from it.  Speech...abuse of, censorship, privacy, warrantless wiretapping....all things derived from it.  Pursuit of happiness....gay marriage?  gay adoption/IVT?    Catch my drift?
First off you are making an assumption that the children would be miserable.  You also have to have more than a kid being miserable.  If there is abuse they can be taken from any family, hetero or otherwise.  If you removed "miserable" children from all families, I assure you that their would be a massive influx of children into the social services system.  Also keep in mind that our system of government does not work purely on majority rules, but also pretects rights of minorities from being discriminated against.  Allowing such discrimination is a very slippery slope, as those that may have been in the so called majority at that time may not always be that way.  That they may find they have set the stage for retribution.  I suppose we could always bring back the days of segregation, and outlawing interracial marriages, as it is absolutely no different in the way that the discrimination is being determined.
2006-11-21 15:17:26
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6694|Northern California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Regardless of accepting law or not, I'd still be living my religion.  I'd go underground if needed.  My religion actually says to honor the laws of the land..and that goes for ANY land you're governed by.  Bad example there, but I get your point.  And yes, if the majority said to outlaw religion, it'd simply be time to move or if possible, get it appealed.
Exactly.  You'd fight it tooth and nail to stop it from happening, and until you could, you'd go underground.  Are gays/lesbians doing any less?  I think 'marriage" is religious item and don't think religions should be forced to allow gay marriage, but I think gays should have the same legal rights as some one who goes to the court house and gets hitched.  This simply signifies that churches don't recognize their union, but is legal in the eyes of the law.  Gay/lesbian people don't have any "agenda" other than to not be disciminated against.  Yeah, I wish that was true! lol  You don't have to like it, and no one is saying you do.  It's like the old saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'd follow the laws or leave if needed I didn't want to.  And since you're drawing up this impossible comparison for argument's sake, I'll just ad that maybe that's the answer...maybe gays need to go make children somewhere else if their country is governing thus...that or try to change the peoples' minds?  I don't know, get us to that point and we'll discuss it.
This is rather hard to do for two reasons.  The first of which is that states are constantly setting up laws which would prevent them from ever doing this, so it is very difficult to ever see they could change minds.  Not to mention that religious dogma would never allow it.  There are some religions that have become more progressive, but they come under fire from members of their own sect.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Children.  That's the point of this topic.  If having happiness requires miserable children, then no, they don't have that inalienable right apparently.  But as stated before, they do have that right at the moment so their happiness is protected..until the majority define what that happiness is.  The bill of rights, in it's vagueness, is a simple tool to help governance by requiring laws be made around it...since it's impossible to make simple laws based on them.  Look at the second ammendment!  Guns, gun laws, concealed weapons, criminal access, waiting periods...all things not defined in the second ammendment, but they're things drawn up from it.  Speech...abuse of, censorship, privacy, warrantless wiretapping....all things derived from it.  Pursuit of happiness....gay marriage?  gay adoption/IVT?    Catch my drift?
First off you are making an assumption that the children would be miserable. No, I'm assuming children would chose hetero parents over gay.  I can't possibly know if they'll all be miserable without interviewing them all. You also have to have more than a kid being miserable.  If there is abuse they can be taken from any family, hetero or otherwise.  If you removed "miserable" children from all families, I assure you that their would be a massive influx of children into the social services system.  Also keep in mind that our system of government does not work purely on majority rules, but also pretects rights of minorities from being discriminated against.  Allowing such discrimination is a very slippery slope, as those that may have been in the so called majority at that time may not always be that way.  That they may find they have set the stage for retribution.  I suppose we could always bring back the days of segregation, and outlawing interracial marriages, as it is absolutely no different in the way that the discrimination is being determined.   Now you're getting into equating race with sexual preference.  Big difference.
2006-11-21 15:18:40
jonsimon
Member
+224|6698
A single man can adopt a child, can't he?

So what would stop a single man from adopting a child, while coincidentally having a gay partner.
2006-11-21 15:19:08
acidkiller187
Member
+123|6833
Fuck Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Topic Closed! Wtf Is This World Coming To We Need Another Big Fkn Bang To Wipe Out All Of This Bs That's Going On In This World Of Ours.
2006-11-21 16:54:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6608|North Carolina

acidkiller187 wrote:

Fuck Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Topic Closed! Wtf Is This World Coming To We Need Another Big Fkn Bang To Wipe Out All Of This Bs That's Going On In This World Of Ours.
Well, I'm all for gay people having the right to raise a kid, but I think acid would be best not allowed to raise one.
2006-11-21 16:55:50
LT.Victim
Member
+1,175|6765|British Columbia, Canada
NO.

I know someone in my school whos mom is a Lesbian.


Hes fucked up...
2006-11-21 16:56:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6608|North Carolina

LT.Victim wrote:

NO.

I know someone in my school whos mom is a Lesbian.


Hes fucked up...
Why judge an entire group by the actions of one couple or individual?
2006-11-21 17:12:43
realengineerinusa
Member
+0|6570
no way.  Why is it everyone cares more about what the adults want and their so called "rights" than what is in the best interest of the kids affected by the adult's poor decisions.  When is this country going to wake up and see we are quickly going down the toliet as a society?
2006-11-21 17:16:34
jonsimon
Member
+224|6698

realengineerinusa wrote:

no way.  Why is it everyone cares more about what the adults want and their so called "rights" than what is in the best interest of the kids affected by the adult's poor decisions.  When is this country going to wake up and see we are quickly going down the toliet as a society?
Oh, and you're an expert on child care varieties, you've done studies you say? Oh, you haven't? Then who the hell are you to say whats right for the children?

They have a right to adopt, if anyone can prove any individual couple unfit to raise a child, then don't let them, otherwise, leave your blanketstatements on your bed.
2006-11-21 17:16:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6608|North Carolina

realengineerinusa wrote:

no way.  Why is it everyone cares more about what the adults want and their so called "rights" than what is in the best interest of the kids affected by the adult's poor decisions.  When is this country going to wake up and see we are quickly going down the toliet as a society?
Well, by that same logic, then we should prevent all people with issues from having children.  Anyone who's an alcoholic (recovering or not), unemployed (because raising a kid on welfare is bad for the children), or even smokes (because secondhand smoke is bad for kids too) shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
2006-11-21 17:16:52
drug_dealer111
Member
+44|6764|Team America!!!
the last time i checked...God made ADAM and EVE...not ADAM and STEVE...just my .02 cents
2006-11-21 17:18:49
jonsimon
Member
+224|6698

drug_dealer111 wrote:

the last time i checked...God made ADAM and EVE...not ADAM and STEVE...just my .02 cents
Last time I checked Americans believed in religious freedom and seperation of church and state. Could have changed in the last hour, though.
2006-11-21 17:20:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6608|North Carolina

drug_dealer111 wrote:

the last time i checked...God made ADAM and EVE...not ADAM and STEVE...just my .02 cents
Well...  There are a lot of things that can be termed as unnatural that we each have a connection to.  For example, if you're so put off by homosexuality, what are your thoughts on lesbian porn?
2006-11-21 17:32:01
realengineerinusa
Member
+0|6570

Turquoise wrote:

realengineerinusa wrote:

no way.  Why is it everyone cares more about what the adults want and their so called "rights" than what is in the best interest of the kids affected by the adult's poor decisions.  When is this country going to wake up and see we are quickly going down the toilet as a society?
Well, by that same logic, then we should prevent all people with issues from having children.  Anyone who's an alcoholic (recovering or not), unemployed (because raising a kid on welfare is bad for the children), or even smokes (because secondhand smoke is bad for kids too) shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
Good idea, didn't think of that.  Too bad most people don't think about whether or not they can care for kids before having them.  The US is getting full of "IT'S MY RIGHT" people even when it harms others.  I feel sorry for you all that believe all this gay rights crap.
2006-11-21 17:34:22
التعريفات
Squiggles
+102|6571|Cali
Poll?
2006-11-21 17:44:08
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6722|Πάϊ
They would have to explain the birds and the birds, the bees and the bees... bummer...
ƒ³
2006-11-21 17:45:29
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6764

oug wrote:

the bees and the bees
Ow.................
2006-11-21 17:47:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6608|North Carolina

realengineerinusa wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

realengineerinusa wrote:

no way.  Why is it everyone cares more about what the adults want and their so called "rights" than what is in the best interest of the kids affected by the adult's poor decisions.  When is this country going to wake up and see we are quickly going down the toilet as a society?
Well, by that same logic, then we should prevent all people with issues from having children.  Anyone who's an alcoholic (recovering or not), unemployed (because raising a kid on welfare is bad for the children), or even smokes (because secondhand smoke is bad for kids too) shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
Good idea, didn't think of that.  Too bad most people don't think about whether or not they can care for kids before having them.  The US is getting full of "IT'S MY RIGHT" people even when it harms others.  I feel sorry for you all that believe all this gay rights crap.
No need to feel sorry.  It's just that if we are to call ourselves a free country, there is no logical reason to prevent gay people from having kids.  The only way that could be legally justified is if being gay was illegal.
2006-11-21 19:37:07
realengineerinusa
Member
+0|6570
Free doesn't not mean living how without responsiblity.  Either a person thinks homosexuality is ok and just some one's way of living or you can see it as a perversion of natural law.  I think it is interesting how people will defend something so absurd with no other justification than, "It's my right".  Think about it.  Why is the only response a person can give when someone challenges gay rights is, "you're a homophob"?
2006-11-21 19:44:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6608|North Carolina

realengineerinusa wrote:

Free doesn't not mean living how without responsiblity.  Either a person thinks homosexuality is ok and just some one's way of living or you can see it as a perversion of natural law.  I think it is interesting how people will defend something so absurd with no other justification than, "It's my right".  Think about it.  Why is the only response a person can give when someone challenges gay rights is, "you're a homophob"?
Well, we have to define the limitations of law.  For example, if I were Muslim, I could argue that it is not natural for women to have the same rights as men, because Allah says so.  That's just an oversimplification of why Muslims treat women differently than men, but you see what I mean?

I'm guessing you're religious, correct?  Christian, right?  Your religion states that homosexuality is wrong, but as an atheist, I don't agree with that.  Essentially, by saying gay people shouldn't have kids, you have to come up with a rational reason why they shouldn't.  You can't say, "because it's not natural" and expect it to hold much worth.

Give me one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed kids.  Be sure to back it up with a source if it is an observation that is scientific or psychological in nature.
2006-11-21 20:10:33
Pleiam
Member
+5|6838
I am against homosexuality because I dont understand how its possible to want sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex. It seems unnatural and therefore an invention (see note 1).

I dont hate homosexuals, but I, a democratic voter, wont approve of homosexuals raising children unless there is a study that shows how a majority of children raised by homosexuals become "upstanding", law-abiding, "independent" citizens.

Even if I did approve of homosexuals raising children, it wouldn't mean that I would approve of their sexual lifestyle. Which raises the question; "If homosexuals are allowed to raise children, does that mean their lifestyle is approved of by the govt. and society?"

With that said, many people in the U.S. are becoming more and more accepting of the lifestyles of others that almost makes this debate obsolete.



Note 1; reference http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible … C21007.HTM Ecclesiastes 7:29

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard