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.
It's not only about economic issues - that's a fairly naive view.
Studies have indicated that boys in single-father homes, for example, fare better than those in single-mother homes.
Interesting interesting.
As much as I think all children deserve a loving home...I would try to compromise with conservatives. There could be a ban on same-sex couples adopting or fostering children in state custody (foster children) but I think there should be legal protections in place for same-sex couples who choose to have children via surrogacy or lesbians who choose to get one or both partners pregnant. Their children did not ask to be brought into this world and they deserve legal protections under the law just like the children of heterosexual people.
My state recently passed a law that banned cohabitating couples from adopting or fostering children. The group behind this act came out and said it was meant to "blunt the gay agenda" and it was aimed at gays and lesbians in this state. I think this particular act went too far.
I think if some parents want their children to be in the custody of so and so after their death, their will should be honored. This law would void such wills.
Say a lesbian couple decides to have children...under this law only one of the parents would have legal protections. I don't think this is right.
There is absolutely no reason to bar gay couples from this.
If the citizens of a state choose to legally define "marriage" a certain way, that is there right.
I doubt very seriously these Constitutional Amendments, some of which have even gone so far as to prohibit "domestic partnerships", will be "thrown out".
If the citizens of a state choose to legally define "marriage" a certain way, that is there right.
I doubt very seriously these Constitutional Amendments, some of which have even gone so far as to prohibit "domestic partnerships", will be "thrown out".
And I disagree with citizens being able to decide this issue, like I said earlier in this thread.
We should not be able to vote on whether or not we can discriminate against a minority.
As much as I think all children deserve a loving home...I would try to compromise with conservatives. There could be a ban on same-sex couples adopting or fostering children in state custody (foster children) but I think there should be legal protections in place for same-sex couples who choose to have children via surrogacy or lesbians who choose to get one or both partners pregnant. Their children did not ask to be brought into this world and they deserve legal protections under the law just like the children of heterosexual people.
My state recently passed a law that banned cohabitating couples from adopting or fostering children. The group behind this act came out and said it was meant to "blunt the gay agenda" and it was aimed at gays and lesbians in this state. I think this particular act went too far.
I think if some parents want their children to be in the custody of so and so after their death, their will should be honored. This law would void such wills.
Say a lesbian couple decides to have children...under this law only one of the parents would have legal protections. I don't think this is right.
Alright...a balanced view.
Personally, I'd like to see some more in depth studies on the matter. If the results indicated the problems were not as likely as in the case of single parents, I'd approve.
As I've said before, I have zero problem with same-sex marriages or civil unions and zero problem with those in the marriages/unions being teachers or working in other careers where they play an important role in children's lives. And, I would allow homosexuals around my child and to be a part of my child's life without question.
They might as well outlaw Christianity and shut down churches. Some places have already banned the display of the three wise men, baby Jesus, or even the saying of Merry Christmas. Children cannot openly pray in public school. Any kind of religious symbols or worship are forbidden in many workplaces.
But liberal progressive types that claim to be for equal treatment do not seem to have a problem with the above.
A silly comparison.
While I do think there has definitely been way too much "political correctness" in terms of banning the display of Christmas stuff etc - to EVEN REMOTELY compare that to shutting down churches and outlawing Christianity shows a total lack of common sense on your part.
Get real.
Ken
PS - And don't think I didn't notice how you simply avoided my question - so I'll ask it again: If the majority of people voted to ban Christianity and execute Christians, would that be alright with you (since you seemed determined that the "majority rules"?
It looks like this nation is following the same footsteps of the Sodom and Gamora. May god help us.
All of your posts on this thread are little one-line barbs without any substance. You seem to just assume you are correct and feel no need to identify precisely why you believe you are correct in your position.
Majority cannot oppress the rights of the minority. That's what the progressive movement has always been about, whether the progressive founders working to unify the colonies and break from Britain (conservatives did not want this) or the Republican Party emerging to fight slavery as the progressive party, this is just the next logical step.
Personally, I'd like to see some more in depth studies on the matter. If the results indicated the problems were not as likely as in the case of single parents, I'd approve.
As I've said before, I have zero problem with same-sex marriages or civil unions and zero problem with those in the marriages/unions being teachers or working in other careers where they play an important role in children's lives. And, I would allow homosexuals around my child and to be a part of my child's life without question.
Have you looked for studies on the matter? I mean this in a polite way.
Children are different. Some do better in two parent homes, some thrive in a household where they have only one parent.
I know the times when my mom was a single mother were some of the best years of my life. I loved it being just my mom and I. Both of my parents have always been involved in my life but I know if I was raised by only one of them, life would have still been great.
I plan on majoring in Sociology so maybe I can try to investigate some of these issues that surround gay parenting. I don't think it's as complicated as people make it out to be but there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals so I guess I have to convince them that we gays and lesbians can raise children just as well as they can.
And I'm all for taking that right away from the state. Just so you know.
Then, you are going to have to lobby the Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment, putting the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution because as the law is now, it is TOTALLY up to the States.
Do you understand the requirements to have a Constitutional Amendment added to the Constitution?
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.
