Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Gay couples and adoption Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2007-07-18 9:31 AM
in reply to: #890925

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 9:24 AM
coredump -

How do you reconcile/rationalize those answers with your stance against gay marriage/adoption and codifing into law the denial of those rights?

Because you're attempting to redefine what a marriage itself is.

If a marriage is rightly understood to be between one man and one woman, then there is no discrimination in saying that two men or two women cannot enter into it.

So you don't want to deny them rights outright, you'd rather weasel it in by codifying into law a religious based definition of marriage that just by chance happens to deny them rights.

Man up and face the end result of your definition, which is the ensure continued discrimination and denial of rights.  Claim you are simply "defining marriage", but the end result is the denial of rights.



2007-07-18 9:31 AM
in reply to: #889489

User image

Master
1457
10001001001001002525
MidWest
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

This is going to go  in a different route.  I'll apologize up front for hijacking your thread, tupuppy.

My 17 y/o son is a member of GLSEN.  HE has been amember of them for several years now.  They stand up for the rights of students in schools (& communities) that are harrassed because of their sexual orientation.  He is confident enough that people will ultimately see that bullying, harrassing,etc. someone because of their differences that he publicly states his views and even puts up posters about this and actively recruits and paticipates in Day of Silence.  As a fmatter of fact, his younger 2 brothers joined him this year for the first time.  They tried last year but the principal told them that if they refused to speak when spoken to (they have cards that are issued to teachers at the start of class stating their participation) they would be suspended for insubordination.  I;m glad they didn't attend that school last year.

 OK, back to your regularly scheduled discussion that is way off topic from what Ty asked to begin with!!!

2007-07-18 9:32 AM
in reply to: #890925

User image

Buttercup
14334
500050002000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 10:24 AM
coredump -

How do you reconcile/rationalize those answers with your stance against gay marriage/adoption and codifing into law the denial of those rights?

Because you're attempting to redefine what a marriage itself is.

If a marriage is rightly understood to be between one man and one woman, then there is no discrimination in saying that two men or two women cannot enter into it. 

Actually, we support changing the requirements to receive a marriage license. It's a civil matter.

At present, many states require that the 2 individuals applying for the marriage license be of opposite sex. Supporters of same-sex marriage seek to change the requirement so that people of the same sex be allowed to apply for and receive a marriage license.

It's about applying for and receiving a license without discrimating based upon the sex of the 2 applicants. Plain and simple.



Edited by Renee 2007-07-18 9:35 AM
2007-07-18 9:33 AM
in reply to: #889489

User image

Elite
3519
20001000500
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

Don, as always you are eloquent and I do admire the strength of you convictions.  You speak a lot about natural law, and how that is philosophy and reason.  I don't believe in the same definition of marriage that you do, and your definition is unreasonable and does not make sense to me.  But we have had that conversation in the past.  There is no proof in my eyes that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.  I love my partner of 11 years.  We do not want kids, but I have known just as committed same sex relationships that have conceived children naturally so to avoid the adoption process.  This children, too me, seem well adjusted, normal well behaved children.  The corner stone of a society is not just the family unit, but a strong family unit, which does not mean male-female.  Maybe this is the direction that we are meant to be headed.  Maybe this was "the plan" all along.  Maybe this is our path to peace and understanding among all people.  Maybe it is people that oppose freedom of rights for all, that are really holding back the countries true strength. 

 Well, gotta go back to work!

 

2007-07-18 9:35 AM
in reply to: #890915

User image

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 9:19 AM
hangloose -

To shorten all of this, let me put it like this:

1. Situation A sucks.
2. Solution G is proposed.
3. Party C opposes G because it will lead to a bad situation.

Well, we already have a bad situation. I believe that Party C is wrong and it will NOT lead to a bad situation, but that even if they were right it won't be any worse than the situation A that we already have.

Those are really good points.  The question I have is, how did we get here?

I'd say that one innovation that has caused ireperable harm to the family are no-fault divorce laws.  And I say this as someone who's gone through this.

So let's look at all of the pressures that have been bearing down on the family and have cause the institution to be in the state that it's in right now.  What changes can we make that can strengthen the family without introducing further innovations.

It will never be perfect, the liberalization of laws around family life don't seem to have helped so far.

YOu can try to blame no fault divorce for the deterioration of the institution of marriage if you want, but the forced continuation of unsuccessful marriages is no better in my opinion.  That's a separate argument, and one that does not address the issue of kids.  I still contend that the things you are in favor of are, in large part in our history, the way it has been done which has led to where we are now.

2007-07-18 9:36 AM
in reply to: #890885

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

MUL98 - From law dictionary.com (Blacks provides a near identical definition): n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.

If the second part of that statement is true, then how can the first part also be true.  Were the 1st century Roman jurists Christians?

Natural law certainly was developed to a great extent within Judeo-Christianity, but it transcends religious lines.  Take, for example, the prohibition against murder, or in the positive sense, the human right to life.  That's a concept equally understood by easter peoples as well as western peoples.

"Natural Law" law is a tool through which religious people seek to impose their "morality" and philosophy on others by attempting to make their ideas appear to be based in reason and "law" as opposed to religious faith.

Well, they either can be discerned from reason or they cannot be.  If they can be, then it's irrelevant if certain religions agree that natural law is true.

Natural law has been used in support of such delightful ideas as slavery, segregation and against women's suffrage.

It's also been used to help end slavery, segregation and the oppression of women.  Thankfully, also, Judeo-Christian arguments were used to help end these things.  And thankfully, people were not prejudicial against those arguments simply because they came from religious people.

 



2007-07-18 9:37 AM
in reply to: #890949

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
Natural law: if homosexuality is unnatural, why are there so many examples of homosexuality in (non-human nature? Lesbian pair-bonding in seagulls, for example.
2007-07-18 9:41 AM
in reply to: #890893

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

MUL98 - Secularism is not a religion

Of course it is.

The word "religion" means to unite or to bind together. That is certainly what is happening in the secular movement, especially with its attempt to be the sole religion with the right to sit at the common civic table.

And it requires faith because, with a strictly materialist view of the world, one must have faith that all of this matter came from somewhere, since it can't be proven scientifically one way or another. 

 

2007-07-18 9:42 AM
in reply to: #890956

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

run4yrlif - Natural law: if homosexuality is unnatural, why are there so many examples of homosexuality in (non-human nature? Lesbian pair-bonding in seagulls, for example.

Natural law and the laws of nature are two different things.  Natural law is not about observing the was that animals behave in nature. 

2007-07-18 9:44 AM
in reply to: #890931

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

MUL98 - It's not "rightly understood as between one man and one woman." It's understood that way by people of certain religious sects.

 Well, I already made that sentence conditional with the word "if".

Coredump asked me how I could reconcile my statements with not being discriminatory.  I answered by saying that: "if" this is true, "then" this is true.

 

2007-07-18 9:46 AM
in reply to: #890966

User image

Buttercup
14334
500050002000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

Actually, no. 

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>



2007-07-18 9:47 AM
in reply to: #889489

User image

Elite
2493
2000100100100100252525
Chicago, IL
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

I think it's hilarious that guns are allowed in some states... but yet a lovingly gay couple can't adopt a baby that needs a home...

my gosh, sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American, sigh.

 

2007-07-18 9:49 AM
in reply to: #890949

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
runningwoof - 2007-07-18 10:33 AM

Maybe this is the direction that we are meant to be headed. Maybe this was "the plan" all along. Maybe this is our path to peace and understanding among all people.

Those are very legitimate points.  I wish that our national discussion about this issue could tackle your questions head on.

Sadly, both sides get caught up in rhetoric that is not very helpful in getting at the heart of your statements. 

2007-07-18 9:52 AM
in reply to: #890977

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
Renee - 2007-07-18 10:46 AM

Actually, no.

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar

Language changes, and the OED, which follows actual usage rather than creating it, will be adding another definition to it's entry at some point.  

2007-07-18 9:53 AM
in reply to: #890954

User image

Master
1967
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 9:36 AM

MUL98 - From law dictionary.com (Blacks provides a near identical definition): n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.

If the second part of that statement is true, then how can the first part also be true.  Were the 1st century Roman jurists Christians?

Natural law certainly was developed to a great extent within Judeo-Christianity, but it transcends religious lines.  Take, for example, the prohibition against murder, or in the positive sense, the human right to life.  That's a concept equally understood by easter peoples as well as western peoples.

"Natural Law" law is a tool through which religious people seek to impose their "morality" and philosophy on others by attempting to make their ideas appear to be based in reason and "law" as opposed to religious faith.

Well, they either can be discerned from reason or they cannot be.  If they can be, then it's irrelevant if certain religions agree that natural law is true.

Natural law has been used in support of such delightful ideas as slavery, segregation and against women's suffrage.

It's also been used to help end slavery, segregation and the oppression of women.  Thankfully, also, Judeo-Christian arguments were used to help end these things.  And thankfully, people were not prejudicial against those arguments simply because they came from religious people.

 



Don,

I admire your conviction and willingness to argue on this, but you are creating a red herring here. The 1st Century Romans based their perception of natural law on their belief in gods. Those ideas have been adopted by modern Christians in the US, (and other religions in other countries) and applied to the gods they believe in. The very core of natural law is the assumption of the existence of a god of some kind - that belief (based on faith) makes it contrary to reason.

You are entitled to believe as you wish - I would never deny that - but be honest about why you hold the views that you do. They are founded on religious principles. In essence, your position boils down to "I have chosen to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman because by faith I think that god (or my religious leaders) instructs me it is so." The natural law argument is nothing more than that statement wrapped up in the idea that god created the world in such a way that it is obvious marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's not reason - it's religion.

Again, believe as you wish. Instruct your children as you wish. But as with the intelligent design crowd don't attempt to make your position appear to be based in something other than what it really is based in - religion.
2007-07-18 9:53 AM
in reply to: #890986

User image

Buttercup
14334
500050002000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 10:52 AM
Renee - 2007-07-18 10:46 AM

Actually, no.

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar

Language changes, and the OED, which follows actual usage rather than creating it, will be adding another definition to it's entry at some point.  

HAHAHAHA! What a great reply.

But it doesn't validate your opinion that the word we use to describe things that are not of a religious nature is a religion.



Edited by Renee 2007-07-18 9:55 AM


2007-07-18 9:55 AM
in reply to: #890924

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

mr2tony - It's my contention marriage laws should be changed to delete `between a man and a woman' to `between two consenting adults' because it's discriminatory.

Could the two consenting adults be a brother and a sister?

Just going from memory here, but there's a case that, I believe, was submitted to the SCOTUS, in which a brother and sister, who was past child bearing years, claimed that state laws that did not allow them to marry were discriminatory. I believe, for some reason, the SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Do you think they ought to be allowed to marry?



Edited by dontracy 2007-07-18 9:55 AM
2007-07-18 9:56 AM
in reply to: #890973

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 9:44 AM

MUL98 - It's not "rightly understood as between one man and one woman." It's understood that way by people of certain religious sects.

Well, I already made that sentence conditional with the word "if".

Coredump asked me how I could reconcile my statements with not being discriminatory. I answered by saying that: "if" this is true, "then" this is true.

And if it's not, then what you are supporting amounts to discrimination and the maltreatment of a group of your fellow humans?  Yes?

 

2007-07-18 9:56 AM
in reply to: #889489

User image

Pro
4292
20002000100100252525
Evanston,
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

I don't usually jump into this stuff on BT, but since we are being so civil...

As background, I must state:  I share Don's beliefs about sexuality.  That is, sex is intended for m/f marriage only.  This is one of the teachings of my faith.  I don't think it's a good idea to legislate this (for various reasons that don't squarely belong in this thread), but there it is.

Now, onto the corollary issue of adoption by, say, single people, stepparents, or gay people.  Yes, adoption IS regulated by the state, but I think kids need all the parents they can get.   Anyone who adopts is stepping forward and saying, "yes, I am making an unbreakable, forever commitment to this child's well-being."  That is pretty awesome.  So while I appreciate Don's overall arguments about the breakdown of marriage and family DUE to extramarital sex, I think that the urgent need for kids to have parents ~ all kids, but especially older kids, sibling groups, or kids with health challenges ~ absolutely trumps that.  For every child raised in a loving and stable forever home, society is that much the better.

Though her beliefs and practices do not 100% overlaps with mine, I truly believe that Hollis will be an excellent parent.  For this reason, I will join the BT parade in rejoicing when she becomes one.  (Contrast what we know about Hollis with the qualifications that it takes for hetero people to become parents ~ shudder!)

This may seem hypocritical or even flat wrong to many people of my faith.  But, that's where it is for me.

Peace.

2007-07-18 10:01 AM
in reply to: #890966

User image

Master
1967
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 9:41 AM

MUL98 - Secularism is not a religion

Of course it is.

The word "religion" means to unite or to bind together. That is certainly what is happening in the secular movement, especially with its attempt to be the sole religion with the right to sit at the common civic table.

And it requires faith because, with a strictly materialist view of the world, one must have faith that all of this matter came from somewhere, since it can't be proven scientifically one way or another. 

 



I hate to get in to a definition citing showdown, but from the Oxford Dictionary:

1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life."


Religions - by definition - involves the belief in some kind of deity, god, higher power etc... Secularism does not. Not all belief systems are religions.
2007-07-18 10:07 AM
in reply to: #890990

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

MUL98 - The 1st Century Romans based their perception of natural law on their belief in gods.

I was trying to just make one minor point, that being that the first sentence in that quote you posted can't be true.

1st century Romans, if I remember correctly, had already adopted religious beliefs that had been developed by the Greeks. Those included the idea of many gods.

When Christianity entered the Greek world, it did not go that route. Rather, it found that the philosophy of Greeks such as Aristotle was closer to their understanding of a monotheistic god than was the pantheism of the majority of Greeks.

It's one reason why Christians were persecuted in Rome through the third century. They were actually called a-theists, because they did not subscribe to Roman/Greek theism.

I was just trying to point out that natural law is not based solely in Juedeo-Christianity.

The very core of natural law is the assumption of the existence of a god of some kind that belief (based on faith) makes it contrary to reason.

No, I'd say that the founders got it right, it is based in the assumption of a creator of some kind. That is different than a god. Aristotle's notion of a prime mover, or an uncaused cause, cannot be thought of as a notion of a god.

The natural law argument is nothing more than that statement wrapped up in the idea that god created the world in such a way that it is obvious marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's not reason - it's religion.

So show me a positive law reason for the institution of marriage. Then let's compare the two.



Edited by dontracy 2007-07-18 10:07 AM


2007-07-18 10:10 AM
in reply to: #890999

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
coredump -

And if it's not, then what you are supporting amounts to discrimination and the maltreatment of a group of your fellow humans? Yes?

 

Yes, it would seem to be.

That's a really good question, so I reserve the right to change my answer after thinking about it some more.

But I think you're right. Yes. 

2007-07-18 10:15 AM
in reply to: #889489

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
I just wanna drop a line to say kudos to DonTracy for being the seemingly lone dissenter in this thread and not flipping out from all the attacks on his beliefs. By now I'd be challenging people to pistols at 20 paces.
2007-07-18 10:25 AM
in reply to: #891029

User image

Master
1967
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption
dontracy - 2007-07-18 10:07 AM



I'm running short on time here, but I will give a quick response.

The reason we have marriage in modern society is because people want it. There are peronal rewards to be had from entering in to that type of commitment with another person. In essence it is the state's recognition of the individual choice to express the desire to be with another person through a binding contract. It is really just a form of contract law.

The marriage contract is also a convenient/good method through which to deal with property rights, healthcare decisions etc... For some people it is also a method by which to bind each other togeher in parenthood.

2007-07-18 10:25 AM
in reply to: #891059

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption

mr2tony - I just wanna drop a line to say kudos

Thanks, bro...

Also, I know that no one reads every word of all the posts in a thread, but my original post stated what I thought was the argument for people who oppose gay adoption, and I also said that I lean that way, and what I should have added is that I haven't decided yet.

Right now I'm probably closer in thinking to what CitySky wrote. Of course, I'm concerned for the welfare of children in the foster system.

The troubling part for me is that it seems that gay adoption will lend credibility to gay marriage, such as it did in New Jersey. So I'm not sure I can support it because of that. But really, I haven't decided yet.

Anyway, I'm going to try to go now and make some money today.



Edited by dontracy 2007-07-18 10:27 AM
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Gay couples and adoption Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8