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.
What am I wrong about? My sister has adopted kids, and they are her joy. I know plenty of people that have adopted kids and adore them as if they were their own flesh and blood, no difference.
What am I wrong about? My sister has adopted kids, and they are her joy. I know plenty of people that have adopted kids and adore them as if they were their own flesh and blood, no difference.
I wondered about that comment by that poster myself. I kind of wonder if maybe he misunderstood what you said or maybe he intended to refer to another comment by a different poster.
I wondered about that comment by that poster myself. I kind of wonder if maybe he misunderstood what you said or maybe he intended to refer to another comment by a different poster.
I think he misunderstood. I've seen the love people pour into their adopted kids, and there's no difference. It's as if they shared DNA. They'd sacrifice their lives for them.
I think he misunderstood. I've seen the love people pour into their adopted kids, and there's no difference. It's as if they shared DNA. They'd sacrifice their lives for them.
I agree.
And those who make that extra leap of love and adopt the older children, who often bear the scars of neglect and abuse at the hands of their biological parents, especially deserve our respect and admiration.
I always wanted to adopt, and there is no doubt in my mind I would have adored any adopted child as much as I adored my biological children, but my life ended up taking a different turn and adoption is just no longer feasible for me.
My ego has never been so inflated that the only way I could truly love a child would be if I saw myself in that child.
Homosexual marriages don't bother me. I have never once complained about a Homosexual marriage in Massachusetts for example.
What bothers me is the equation of redefinition with a civil right. My argument is that homosexual marriage is not a civil right. I'm perfectly fine leaving this to the vote of the states. If the majority of the people want to redefine homosexual marriage, I will consider it silly but ultimately I won't complain.
Marriage is a civil right. When Mr. Loving and his wife fought their case at the Supreme Court and won, it was a civil rights VICTORY.
Anytime there is a population of people who are barred from equal rights or who face discrimination based on innate characteristics, then it's a civil rights issue.
Marriage is a civil right. When Mr. Loving and his wife fought their case at the Supreme Court and won, it was a civil rights VICTORY.
Anytime there is a population of people who are barred from equal rights or who face discrimination based on innate characteristics, then it's a civil rights issue.
Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They can marry someone of the opposite sex like heterosexuals can nor is Homosexual unions a civil rights issue.
But interracial unions are a civil rights issue, and furthermore there is someone discriminated against. I.e the interracial child. Forbidding interracial marriages prevents an interracial child (who can only exist through an interracial union) a safe, stable home environment. Since he/she is denied this, it's a violation of her/his civil rights. The same cannot be said for any homosexual union.
This was already explained to Sibelian a bit back, where I broke down Warren's comments crystal clear even for the most partisan person to understand.
Denying someone the right to marry the person of their choice, whom they love and whom they want to spend their life with and to make a home with, as long as that person is of legal age of consent, is discrimination.
I'm so glad this issue is being resolved by voters who have a belief in fairness and equality and compassion and empathy.
Nine states (and the District of Columbia) and counting!
Denying someone the right to marry the person of their choice, whom they love and whom they want to spend their life with and to make a home with, as long as that person is of legal age of consent, is discrimination.
I'm so glad this issue is being resolved by voters who have a belief in fairness and equality and compassion and empathy.
Nine states (and the District of Columbia) and counting!
There are probably 30+ states that have constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage. In total 82% of US states have legislation based on the popular vote preventing it. In theory, those state legislators could pass an amendment to the US constitution to codify marriage between a man and a woman.
Denying someone the right to marry the person of their choice, whom they love and whom they want to spend their life with and to make a home with, as long as that person is of legal age of consent, is discrimination.
I'm so glad this issue is being resolved by voters who have a belief in fairness and equality and compassion and empathy.
Nine states (and the District of Columbia) and counting!
You live in a state with a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.
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.
