Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But please realize this is a legitimate concern, just as it is with single parents.
There are some situations in which single parenting is unavoidable. It shouldn't be condoned or promoted, but if it's unavoidable it is.
You have to get votes. Making people upset isn't going to help.
I guess I just don't too much care about this sort of issue.
As long as the child is educated, emotionally well, physically well, knows right from wrong, treats others well, etc I could care less if they were raised by two men, two women, one mom, one dad, one mom and a dad, grandparents, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, etc.
Now...back to what I said earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
I guess you haven't read the literature that shows many same-sex couples go out of their way to find opposite and same-sex role models for their children.
If you really fear the child having a male-female role model, why not ban single people from having children? After all, they don't have an opposite sex role model for their kids.
Why not take kids away from a parent after the spouse dies, after all, kids do need two parents?
In any case, I would think in cases of adoption, the state would hire competent social workers who can decide who would make a good parent for a child.
If a same-sex couple has their own child, the state should not be involved in the matter. The couple should have the same rights as heterosexual parents when they have a child. I had a friend who had to fight her damndest to get a visitor's pass when her child was in the hospital all because she is a lesbian and the hospital didn't see her as a "parent."
She doesn't have any rights to her child under Arkansas law because of stupid people who decided to pass Initiated Act 1. It affected many children in the state, not just those in foster care.
I'd feel pretty guilty too but hey, you can get married to the person you love so...it's not so bad. I and many other gay and lesbian people have to live with second-class status under the law. Must be nice to be heterosexual and privileged.
As much as I hate to say it, I could see a ban on having same-sex couples adopt children or foster children from foster care...even though I don't see anything wrong with couples adopting or fostering children from foster care.
More often than not, same-sex couples are the ones to take the more "challenging" cases of children in adoption care or the ones that tend not to get adopted as much as other children.
With bans such as Initiated Act 1, many children of same-sex couples are the ones who are hurt. If a lesbian couple decides to have a child, why can't they both be seen as parents under the law just like heterosexual couples and have the same rights as a heterosexual couple when they have a child?
I suggest you go out and try to meet same-sex couples who are raising kids and let them tell you how it feels to be unequal under the law.
Until then...My family is equal :: family equality council (http://www.familyequality.org/equal/ - broken link)
As much as I hate to say it, I could see a ban on having same-sex couples adopt children or foster children from foster care...even though I don't see anything wrong with couples adopting or fostering children from foster care.
Those bans already exist in some places. I'd be supportive of lifting them with the provision I outlined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
More often than not, same-sex couples are the ones to take the more "challenging" cases of children in adoption care or the ones that tend not to get adopted as much as other children.
Alright....and how would my idea hinder that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
With bans such as Initiated Act 1, many children of same-sex couples are the ones who are hurt. If a lesbian couple decides to have a child, why can't they both be seen as parents under the law just like heterosexual couples and have the same rights as a heterosexual couple when they have a child?
Well, if they have kids biologically (a lesbian woman with a man or a gay man with a woman), the gay person's sexual partner for the purpose of conceiving the child should have equal parental rights.
Adoption is different as we discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
I suggest you go out and try to meet same-sex couples who are raising kids and let them tell you how it feels to be unequal under the law.
I didn't suggest anyone who has children biologically should be treated "unequal under the law."
Like it or not, rights have to be balanced with the bigger picture. That's the way it works.
Well, if they have kids biologically (a lesbian woman with a man or a gay man with a woman), the gay person's sexual partner for the purpose of conceiving the child should have equal parental rights.
Adoption is different as we discussed.
I'm more for second parent adoption. Do you disagree or agree with this for same-sex couples who have kids biologically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Like it or not, rights have to be balanced with the bigger picture. That's the way it works.
So, would you say this if these were rights you felt were important to YOU and those you loved?
Of course its very easy to say this when you aren't being affected by the laws.
Third parent adoption possibly. The other biological parent's rights shouldn't be taken away.
Many times they have an agreement with the other person that they [the third person] won't have any parental rights.
In many cases the other person is strictly just a sperm donor or a womb.
Many lesbian couples go through IVF, are you suggesting the sperm donor have rights to the child? Many times the men just want to squirt in a cup, get their money and have nothing to do with the child.
As for you wanting to go to the anti-side...it's fine. Go back to it. Eventually same-sex couples will win equality under the law.
It's sad you would want to go back to that side but hey...your choice.
As for you wanting to go to the anti-side...it's fine. Go back to it. Eventually same-sex couples will win equality under the law.
It's sad you would want to go back to that side but hey...your choice.
Don't worry I'm not. I have my view and I'm not on the adamantly against side. That said, I think logic and reason should prevail over a society where everyone is literally allowed to do whatever they please.
Here's a hint - your abrasiveness is one of the things that's causing same-sex couples to not win equality under the law. Continued failure to even see the concerns of anyone who may disagree with even ONE thing you say is what will cause many to dismiss you. Why should I consider another stance if you stubbornly fail to consider another stance?
ALL of our rights are restricted. There's many things we all aren't allowed to do. The laws are based on the greater benefit to society outweighing these "rights."
BTW, a right isn't a right unless it's granted to you or protected, rather, under the US Constitution or your state's Constitution. We're talking about expanding rights here, not allowing people to exercise rights that already exist.
I think the pro-same-sex marrige/child raising people and the anti-same-sex marriage/child raising people (those who have grounds other than religion for their beliefs...the religious zealots have no place in the debate as far as I'm concerned) need to come together and see each other's concerns. Expanding rights while addressing legitimate concerns should be the goal.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 05-30-2009 at 02:56 PM..
Title of the thread is wrong, marriage is not a contract with the state, marriage is a contract between two individuals which the states recognize..
Why should the state not recognize the contracts? Simply, because legally, the contract says that it must be between a man and a woman.. period.. its the law..
Sorry, but you are wrong. Marriage is not a contract at all, it is an oath taken before your loved ones and God,Budda,etc. A sacred promise to love your partner. You might could call it a spiritual contract, but as we all know our government does not operate on imaginary contracts. Now, the license that you sign for the state, that is a contract. This contract also makes the state a part of your marriage, and by signing said license you give the state the right to oversee your marriage. By your reasoning, I would never need to sign an agreement with the state because they have no need to contract with me. They should simply acknowledge this alleged contract I already possess due to the marriage "contract" I received when I married. Oh, but wait, I had to apply for that license before our minister would even go through with the services. Also had to do blood tests. Sounds like the government is insisting on contracting with me.
And as far as the contract saying between man and woman, there is always the option of drawing up a new contract now isn't there. Surely you don't think there is only one legal contract for marriage. Also, like you said, it's the law. Which shows once again the government controls over contracting with couples who wish to marry. Sorry, but your conception of what a contract is seems a bit sideways.
I don't think so. The way I see it, the state does have an interest in promoting commitment and stable families.
Then shouldn't they be far more concerned about the divorce rate between heteros rather than whether or not gays can marry? Seems at least a few times a week I witness a mommy/daddy parking lot swapping of the kids. Not very stable IMO, but government seems to have no issue with this being VERY common. Hell a large number of politicians are divorced at least once or twice, what is that promoting?
As far as my personal beliefs, I believe homosexuality to be a sin, but that does not mean anyone else in a free society should have to care what my belief on the topic is. They should be free to decide for themselves what they want to believe and how they should live.
Then shouldn't they be far more concerned about the divorce rate between heteros rather than whether or not gays can marry? Seems at least a few times a week I witness a mommy/daddy parking lot swapping of the kids. Not very stable IMO, but government seems to have no issue with this being VERY common. Hell a large number of politicians are divorced at least once or twice, what is that promoting?
As far as my personal beliefs, I believe homosexuality to be a sin, but that does not mean anyone else in a free society should have to care what my belief on the topic is. They should be free to decide for themselves what they want to believe and how they should live.
Chill out - I'm not adamantly against gay marriage.
What I'm suggesting is that the government shouldn't completely get out of the marriage business, whether we're talking about gay or straight marriage, because it promotes stability and commitment.
Chill out - I'm not adamantly against gay marriage.
I'm not upset, just stating my opinion that hetero marraige does not equal stable environment at all. I was lucky to grow up in a very stable home with a great mother and father, but had plenty of friends whose parents were divorced or abusive to one another. It takes a toll on the kids to grow up that way.
Quote:
What I'm suggesting is that the government shouldn't completely get out of the marriage business, whether we're talking about gay or straight marriage, because it promotes stability and commitment.
My only point is that I think government should be focused on infrastructure, security, and protecting our freedom. Outside of that, I don't care for them to tinker with things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
