Legislation filed to ban homosexuals from adopting children in KY (law, legal)

[Cattknap]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

Where did I say just gay? No I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, heck I don't agree with cohabitating but I don't hate, either

Well said missymom. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle and I believe marriage is between a man and woman only but I don't hate. Liberals want us all to believe as they do or we are bigots - we have no right to our opinion and if we disagree with theirs, we are called names - that is the way it is and has always been. There is nothing "liberal" about a Liberal.

[missymomof3]

Originally Posted by Cattknap

Well said missymom. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle and I believe marriage is between a man and woman only but I don't hate. Liberals want us all to believe as they do or we are bigots - we have no right to our opinion and if we disagree with theirs, we are called names - that is the way it is and has always been. There is nothing "liberal" about a Liberal.

Thank you Cattknap!

[Davart]

Originally Posted by tibor75

Given that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, this explanation is pure nonsense.

No that the actual reason, married couples are more stable than non married couples ... why do you think your insurance rates are lower if you are married? Why is it that married people statistically live longer than single people?

Because it's not nonsense.

[rnc76]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

Where did I say just gay? I said married, period. The law doesn't say anything about just gay, it say un-married. Why are y'all trying to make me into a bigot? No I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, heck I don't agree with cohabitating but I don't hate, either

The point is the only choice that a committed gay couple has is to "cohabitate". The government does not recognize their union. Therefore, they cannot by legal definition provide a stable environment for a child.

BTW, what is the "gay lifestyle". My buddy and his partner live a pretty white bread American life. They own a home, pay the bills, go to work, travel a little bit, hang out with friends... Pretty seedy stuff I guess. They would provide a wonderful, loving home for a child. I hope they have to opportunity to adopt. Would it be a little complicated...yes. Would it be challenging on the child as they get older...yes. But that is only because society has decided to make it so. It would be world's better than a child living in a home unwanted and abused or growing up in a children's group home.

[dixiegirl7]

Originally Posted by Cattknap

Well said missymom. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle and I believe marriage is between a man and woman only but I don't hate. Liberals want us all to believe as they do or we are bigots - we have no right to our opinion and if we disagree with theirs, we are called names - that is the way it is and has always been. There is nothing "liberal" about a Liberal.

Well stated. Liberals are liberal if you are agreeing with everything they believe. They like to assign negative stereotypes to those that don't believe or support everything they do, which in essence is what they say they are against.

[Davart]

Originally Posted by dixiegirl7

Well stated. Liberals are liberal if you are agreeing with everything they believe. They like to assign negative stereotypes to those that don't believe or support everything they do, which in essence is what they say they are against.

Slightly OT

This is why they want the fairness doctrine, they can't argue on a level playing field.

ok back on topic

If you explain the need for a child to have a MOTHER (female) and FATHER (male) for no other reason than each provides a unique position in the child's life, you are labeled a bigot and homophobe. It doesn't mean a child can not thrive in a same sex family or a single parent family. Research as shown children of heterosexual two parent families statistically do better overall, this is not to say all children fail to thrive outside of a two parent heterosexual family. Some studies have shown there is no difference, others have shown there is a difference ... so it boils down to pick your study.

The argument is moot, KY (and many other states) doesn't not recognize gay marriage, and only single person over 18 and married couple can adopt per as I've already covered KRS199.470.

A gay couple can not adopt BUT a one of them can, not both. However, if the family breaks up, only the adoptive parent can have custody and the other has NO rights at all.

I'm also wondering where WHITE BREAD AMERICA is at, is it anywhere near Rye America or Whole Wheat America ... maybe it's near Pumpernickel America?

[rnc76]

Originally Posted by Davart

Slightly OT

This is why they want the fairness doctrine, they can't argue on a level playing field.

ok back on topic

If you explain the need for a child to have a MOTHER (female) and FATHER (male) for no other reason than each provides a unique position in the child's life, you are labeled a bigot and homophobe. It doesn't mean a child can not thrive in a same sex family or a single parent family. Research as shown children of heterosexual two parent families statistically do better overall, this is not to say all children fail to thrive outside of a two parent heterosexual family. Some studies have shown there is no difference, others have shown there is a difference ... so it boils down to pick your study.

The argument is moot, KY (and many other states) doesn't not recognize gay marriage, and only single person over 18 and married couple can adopt per as I've already covered KRS199.470.

A gay couple can not adopt BUT a one of them can, not both. However, if the family breaks up, only the adoptive parent can have custody and the other has NO rights at all.

I'm also wondering where WHITE BREAD AMERICA is at, is it anywhere near Rye America or Whole Wheat America ... maybe it's near Pumpernickel America?

How do kids do in abusive homes or children's group homes compared to those raised by a committed gay couple? Do you have any statistics to back up that? Frankly, I doubt that kids growing up with a committed, loving gay couple home would be at much of a disadvantage versus a traditional husband/wife home. I think most of the disadvantage would be from societal pressures. If they grew up in a society that accepted the family, the difference would be nil. I do agree that a man and woman play unique and important roles within a family. However, I think the most important thing is having 2 people to help take care of the family. I think it is just too hard of a job for a single person (male or female) to provide financially and emotionally for a family. It doesn't make it impossible, but it is extremely hard.

You knew what I meant by "white bread America". My friends' lifestyle is like pretty much any married couple in their mid 30s without kids, they are just 2 guys. They are genuinely good people, highly educated with high paying jobs and they've been together for 10 years or more. How is that not committed? I see so many children in awful situations with no one in their lives that cares about them. These guys would provide for and love a child completely. A kid could do a lot worse than growing up in their home. That is all I am saying.

[Davart]

Originally Posted by rnc76

How do kids do in abusive homes or children's group homes compared to those raised by a committed gay couple? Do you have any statistics to back up that? Frankly, I doubt that kids growing up with a committed, loving gay couple home would be at much of a disadvantage versus a traditional husband/wife home. I think most of the disadvantage would be from societal pressures. If they grew up in a society that accepted the family, the difference would be nil. I do agree that a man and woman play unique and important roles within a family. However, I think the most important thing is having 2 people to help take care of the family. I think it is just too hard of a job for a single person (male or female) to provide financially and emotionally for a family. It doesn't make it impossible, but it is extremely hard.

You knew what I meant by "white bread America". My friends' lifestyle is like pretty much any married couple in their mid 30s without kids, they are just 2 guys. They are genuinely good people, highly educated with high paying jobs and they've been together for 10 years or more. How is that not committed? I see so many children in awful situations with no one in their lives that cares about them. These guys would provide for and love a child completely. A kid could do a lot worse than growing up in their home. That is all I am saying.

I never said a gay couple could not provide a good home, I'm just quoting the law on the books. Abused kids come from all types of homes, including gay ones. This is why we have the Cabinet for Family and Children to remove these children from abusive environments and hopefully place them in loving ones ... sadly this is not always the case.
From my experience as I'm married to an adoption/termination attorney some kids can't catch a break no matter what. As for children's group homes while it is not the idea placement for a child, often it is better that the environment they were in, the ultimate objective is reunification provided the parents change their ways, if not placement with a family member and if not that; adoption.
Frankly, I don't care who adopts them as long as they take care of them and provides them with a stable home. However, the law is the law and nothing says a single gay person can't adopt, they just can't adopt as a couple, that's all.
Two heterosexuals living together can't adopt either, one can, but not both as they are not married, the law sees them as 2 people and not 1 couple. This has squat to do with gay vs straight it has everything to do with married vs not and KY and many states do not recognize gay marriage or common law marriage. It's that simple.

[missymomof3]

Originally Posted by rnc76

The point is the only choice that a committed gay couple has is to "cohabitate". The government does not recognize their union. Therefore, they cannot by legal definition provide a stable environment for a child.

BTW, what is the "gay lifestyle". My buddy and his partner live a pretty white bread American life. They own a home, pay the bills, go to work, travel a little bit, hang out with friends... Pretty seedy stuff I guess. They would provide a wonderful, loving home for a child. I hope they have to opportunity to adopt. Would it be a little complicated...yes. Would it be challenging on the child as they get older...yes. But that is only because society has decided to make it so. It would be world's better than a child living in a home unwanted and abused or growing up in a children's group home.

I am not going to get into a religious debate as this is not the place for it. However, the people of Kentucky were given the chance to vote on the issue and gay marriage was banned. The people spoke, right, wrong or indifferent.

[rnc76]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

I am not going to get into a religious debate as this is not the place for it. However, the people of Kentucky were given the chance to vote on the issue and gay marriage was banned. The people spoke, right, wrong or indifferent.

So you are saying that the LEGAL definition of marriage should be based on your religious beliefs? Marriage and religion have nothing to do with one another in the government's eyes, and rightfully so.

Eventually, gay marriage will be legal. The writing is on the wall. KY will come around later than most states but it will happen. It may take 30-40 years...