Gay couples and adoption (Page 3)

No, I don't think anyone is saying that. What people are saying is that with all the abuse cases you hear about in homes where the parents are hetero, it's ridiculous to say that hetero parents are always better for the child. Jerks come in all stripes. There's nothing sacred about being heterosexual. If someone can provide a loving, healthy home for a child who needs one, I say go for it.

T in Liberty Lake - 2007-07-17 7:00 PM Oh yes, that's a much better argument.

I'm not a fan of the sarcasm font; it mispresents sardonic which was my intent.

I don't know that anyone is making the argument that gay couples should have the right to adopt just because heterosexuals abuse, molest, neglect or kill their children. The argument is not about how badly heterosexual couples parent their children. That's a negative and, IMO, fallacious argument.

It's about the simple fact that gay couples can be just as good at parenting as a heterosexual couple. That homosexuality does not disqualify someone from being a capable parent - except for the ways in which people pass laws to disqualify them.

It's also about the reality that some heterosexual parents treat their children so badly, so abusively, so egregiously that the State has to step in and abrogate their parental rights and find a home for these children. In Florida, 85% of the 9,000+ children in foster care have been abused (that was the statistic a few years ago); I guess the other 15% were just excessively neglected. And there aren't enough homes, heterosexual couples don't want these wounded children... so why exclude homes for the sole reason that the wannabe parent is homosexual?

I couldn't agree more.

I do not see what relevance a person's sexuality has to do with providing care to a child in a loving environment. More power to any person who wants to adopt.

Not to mention proper use of birth control.  

I think folks know that it's fine with me if you disagree. Thankfully, this thread has pretty much stayed away from personal attacks. So it's all good.

Plus I'm sure there are a lot of folks who agree with me, at least to some extent, and prefer not to post for whatever reason.

As far as the foundation of our government goes, (and I don't think it's too much of a hijack, the OPs edit lead to Possum's question which led to my response which was to try to state a reason for opposing gay adoption), I understand the the constitution is morally neutral. The thinking of the founders of our country, however, was not. And their thinking is well articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

You're correct that the term "natural law" itself is not used in the quote from the declaration, but the appeal to the endowment of rights by a creator is certainly based in natural law. No question about that.

And as far as processing, I think it is really important with a question like this. At it's core, we're talking about how we are going to form society going forward. As far as I can tell, the argument for gay marriage, as well as other forms of relationships that come out of the free love movement, is based on the notion of personal opinion; that if enough people believe something is ok then it should be ok.

How do you test that against some standard to see if it holds up? What's the downside to building a society that, to me, seems to be built on shifting sand?

The founders talked about deep and eternal truths and based our form of government to the end of securing the rights derived from those deep truths.

What deep truths are proponents of gay rights building on? It's worth exploring.

As far as religion and myth go, maybe I'll weigh in on another thread. I don't think I brought up religion at all. It was opponents of my argument who brought up religion. I brought up natural law, which is a philosophy. And philosophy is something that can be universally known across religious lines.

FWIW, my father was an orphan who was never adopted. He had an extremely difficult childhood. One thing he taught me, though, was that the truth was more important than a person's individual wants and desires. He taught me to always seek the truth no matter what the personal cost. I only wish I had heeded his wise advice earlier in my life.

But here we're not talking about human appearances (and how did you know I was bald ), rather, we're talking about the redefinition of what marriage itself is.

That's a big deal.

And the burden of proof is on you to explain why we as a society ought to do that.

So far all I hear are emotional appeals. Not very convincing.

Is it an emotional appeal to say that a right that is extended to some members of a society ought to be extended to all? I don't think so. "Why we as a society ought to do that" is very simple: everyone is (supposed to be) equal in the law's eyes.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business. Let civil unions be the legal institution, available to all, and leave marriage to religion. If your religion wants to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, that's its prerogative. But when the government uses the gender of whom a person loves to withhold that person's right to participate in a civil institution, that's not equality, that's discrimination.

Not to derail the thread or anything...

Yes, it's an emotional appeal.

Right now, with rare exception, everyone past a certain age has the right to marry. What they don't have the right to do is marry close relatives or, in most states, someone of the same sex.

You want to redefine the very definition of marriage. That definition goes beyond "two people who love each other".

So yes, it's an emotional appeal to simply say that it's discrimination to not allow gay marriage.

And there it is.

This issue often comes down to the idea that government should get out of the marriage business. It confirms the concern of opponents of gay marriage who say that the part of the agenda is to dismantle the institution of marriage.

But, what argument do you have that the government should be in the business of marriage? What is marriage, to you? Is it a state conferring certain legal responsibilities and privileges? Or is it something to do with your religion? If the latter, why should the government be involved in that? 

The justifications I've most commonly heard given by opponents of gay marriage come down to "God/the Bible tells us it's wrong." That, to me, is not a justification that ought to be enshrined in civil law. That's a religious distinction, and as such, belongs only in religion.

I don't think that the institution of marriage should be "dismantled" any more than I think that two gay people committing to one another undermine two straight people's commitment to each other--which is to say, not at all. I do think that marriage as a "God says it should be one man and one woman" institution should be confined to the religious sphere, rather than the civil. And I am all for having an entity that includes all of the legal trappings of the current idea of marriage, but none of the discrimination.

I disagree. It is a marriage contract that we enter into when we marry. Who else would ensure that marital rights are ensured when we enter into this contract? Property ownership, inheritance, probate - all civil matters, not unlike when we incorporate a company. That is why the state has a stake in regulating marriage - because there are property rights involved. It's been that way for thousands of years.

I would like just like to see the government bestow these civil privileges equally, to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. End the codified bigotry and discrimination.

As for the various and sundry wedding sacraments, that's an entirely different subject.

Great questions Anne.

Here is a solid natural law argument about what marriage is, by Princeton professor Robert P. George:

"Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect (or are motivated, even in part, by a desire to reproduce). The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a multi-level relationship: that is, a relationship that unites persons at the bodily, emotional, dispositional, and spiritual levels of their being. Marriage, precisely as such a relationship , is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and to the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together. The distinctive unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically - they become a single reproductive principle. Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species, but by a mated pair as an organic unit."

No mention of God there at all.

Government should be in the business of marriage, because the state has a stake in the raising and nurturing of children. This is even acknowledge in the opinion of the court in Roe v. Wade.

My religion informs my conscience, but I believe in a pluralistic society I cannot impose my strictly religious opinions on others. For example, I couldn't in good conscience require that everyone be baptized.

Marriage, however, is something that cuts across religious lines. I think as long as you use a common language, such as philosophy, to make the arguments, then positions that may also be held by religious groups are legitimate.

[I may need to cut out here in a second, so I'll check back later] 

Duly noted. I shouldn't have put words in your mouth. Sorry 'bout that.

I'm just thinking out loud here:

Is it a contract, or a covenant?  The idea of a civil covenant is not completely foreign, since we still swear oaths in court.  Oath swearing has a solid connection to the notion of covenant.

OK, carry on...  

It's a marriage contract where the state is concerned.

You may enter into a marriage covenant during your religious ceremony when marriage sacraments are conferred upon you but that is not a civil matter.

No worries.  

Indeed. Good point. 

So, then, we've come full-circle. If marriage is a state entered into with the aim of raising children, why not allow gay folks to marry and adopt children? (Or engage in some variety of IVF) 

dudes, you should all just shut the heck up and give me a baby!

Heh. Yes!  

You failed to address how any of this is actually bad, other than your religion tells you it is.  You try to wrap your religious conviction in something you call "Natural Law", but it doesn't change what it is and where you derive it.

Your convictions are not based in love, and that to me is sad.  You'd rather rationalize it away and find ways to tell Hollis she is unworthy to be a parent.  To me, someone who thinks that way is less worthy than someone who's heart is full of love.  These ideas are backwards thinking, and rooted in the past.  As we look back 50 years we see the same attitudes and arguments against interracial marriage and such, and we ( hopefully ) see those ideas as discriminatory, narrow-minded, and antiquated.  I fervently hope that in less than another 50 years, we look back on the anti-gay marriage/adoption/equality and have come to a similar societal conclusion.

 -Chris

OK, one more part to this: the family is the essential building block of society, and marriage is the core institution of the family.

So if one accepts that the family is the essential building block of society.

And if RP George is correct about what constitutes a "marriage", namely that it is a two in one flesh union of persons, which is only possible between a man and a woman.

Then the state has an interest in promoting that children are raised and nurtured within a "marriage" in order to ensure that the essential building block of society is perpetuated.

It takes a while to unpack George's argument, at least it took me a while.  But I think within his argument you'll see that the sole aim of marriage is not necessarily the raising and nurturing of children, but rather the possibility of it is something that makes up the total matrix of the union

One party has a penis, one party has a vagina.  That's all that's required to call it a marriage and bless the union?

What happened to love, commitment, and a desire to spend the rest of your lives together, and what do any of those have to do with anatomy?

Look, people who disagree with these ideas can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say that opposing gay rights is invalid because it's based in religion and then on the other hand say that opposing gay rights is invalid because it's based in reason.

Which is it?

It seems like you're saying that natural law is religion. But it's not. It's a philosophy that attempts to understand the meaning of the moral life through reason. It would be like saying that Aristotle's notion of the prime mover was religion.

If my ideas do not seem to be based in love, then I guess I need to learn to be a better writer. In fact, I use to hold ideas consistent with what most of the posters on this thread have written. I use to support gay marriage, as well as a whole slew of other things.

Actually, it was love that helped show me where I was wrong. It was people who loved me enough to challenge me.