And so it begins: Same-sex marriage law tabled federally in Canada

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

There are tons of kids, and tons of couples out there who want these children and give up because they are frusterated by the red tape thrown in their faces.

And somehow gay couples avoid such red tape!?

What universe are you on? Have you beeng ivne a free ticket to the Nedaverse or something?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you are throwing in with the Conservatives?

I am a bonafide member of the Conservative party and have been for the last few years.

[Ben Kenobi]

And somehow gay couples avoid such red tape!?

What universe are you on? Have you beeng ivne a free ticket to the Nedaverse or something?

I have my own worldview, which has similarities to ned, but also differences.

If you remove most of the red tape, as Straybow has already mentioned earlier, you will find 'traditional' families to take care of these children.

There is no need to shortchange these children, by accepting lesser outcomes than two parents, a father and a mother.

[paramir]

To anybody who opeses gay mariage i ask you this:What bad will come if it is allowed?

[Boris Godunov]

BK--did you follow the link I sent?

You seem remarkably unimaginative for someone with a hearing impairment, as well as uninformed about how technology helps deaf parents of hearing children. Your own situation was 20 years ago, so I suppose that's understandable. But the fire alarm comment is particularly baffling, since I know there are such alarms designed with deaf people in mind. At my campus, a deaf student had a doorbell which caused her lights to flash, and the fire alarm did the same thing. She was never missing from those lovely 2 AM fire drills.

This is why blanket denials of adoptions based on some sort of group is bull****. Deaf parents can be and are wonderful, loving parents of hearing children. Decisions about the suitability of a family should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not on demographic discrimination. The same applies for gay couples.

As for claims there are plenty of parents and just red tape in the way, I call BS on that. I'd love to see some support for that claim. Yes, there are plenty of "traditional" couples looking to adopt healthy, cute babies. But go up the age scale in the foster kid network, and you'll find it very hard to find couples who want to adopt kids older than toddlers, or ones with medical conditions that require a lot of care. Considering the median age of foster kids is 8, I find the claims that there are people beating down the doors to adopt such kids quite dubious, considering testimony from social workers involved contradicts that notion.

That's why I linked to www.lethimstay.com. I'm sure you're unimpressed, but if you read that site, you'll realize these weren't kids people are clamoring to adopt. Sadly, most couples don't want kids like those. Thankfully, they have a loving couple that does want them and provides a great home. And they happen to be gay.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by paramir
To anybody who opeses gay mariage i ask you this:What bad will come if it is allowed?

Gays would be marrying each other.

[St Leo]

Kevin Brennan | Same-sex marriage and the Catholic church

[...]
One thing that gets missed--a lot--in these discussions is just how much most people's views on sexuality have changed over the last few decades. (Warning: generalizations and big picture stuff follows; individual experiences and anecdotes may vary).

Even going back a few decades, a common plot of movies and novels was the tragedy of two people falling in love who couldn't be together because they were married to other people. You can't tell that story anymore--the audience doesn't see the problem. Just leave your spouse and be with your true love. Today, every discussion is filtered through the belief that Love Conquers All.

I don't see it going back to the way it was. I'm not calling for a return to that era, merely pointing out that it once existed. The point is that relationships are now first and foremost about love, and the simplest proof of that is that the idea of a couple being together for any other reason now seems weird. I'm also not trying to construct an argument here about whether or not that's a good thing. Frankly, any attempt to address the consequences (both good and bad) of that change would require a book, or more likely several. For now, I just need you to acknowledge that it has occurred.

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, the change was in large part the result of the separation between sex and children that contraception made possible. Children have gone from being a consequence of sexuality to being a choice. (Yes, much cultural history has just been handwaved away--deal). The idealized vision of sex in our culture today is that it's a way for lovers to express themselves to one another. The Catholic Church, though, holds to an older view of sex--that its primary purpose is producing children. The other part--what modern culture views as the most important part--is only a side benefit.

From an orthodox Catholic viewpoint (not, BTW, exclusively developed by priests) modern Western society has perverted sexuality by viewing a secondary benefit of sex as the most important part of it. This understanding of sex underlies the Church's position on a lot of other matters, including divorce and abortion--not just homosexuality. It is a coherent, rational worldview once you accept its underlying principles. Most of all, it is backed up by centuries of debate and arguments by many of the finest philosophers and theologians in history.

The Catholic Church quite literally cannot change these teachings and continue to exist in anything like its present form. Catholicism places a high weight on tradition precisely because the Church views itself as the direct and lineal successor to the Apostles. The Church's magesterium--its teaching authority--comes from having preserved those teachings for two millennia. If it is wrong about something that important, it has no authority. Yes, the Church has shifted positions on some matters over time, but all of those shifts represented a change in emphasis, not a complete rethinking of the matter.

This is not a problem Protestant denominations have, even those more socially conservative than the Catholic Church. Every such church started because someone somewhere rejected the authority of others to teach them about the word of God. If the Catholic Church changes its views that radically, it admits that it has no more authority than anyone else to teach. That's not going to happen.

Maybe someone, somewhen, will be able to write a masterpiece of Jesuitical casuistry that manages to somehow reconcile a more modern view of sexuality with the historical teachings of the Church--but I, for one, have no idea how that would be accomplished. In the meantime, the Church won't be budging on this, or any related, issue.

So, in other words, Catholicism is being a jackass because it will lose a great deal of face once it admits being wrong.

[paramir]

Originally posted by General Ludd



Gays would be marrying each other.

And whats wrong with that, what bad hapens when they can.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by paramir


And whats wrong with that, what bad hapens when they can.

Gays would be marrying eachother.

[paramir]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Gays would be marrying eachother.

Let me try explaining this to you another way. Ok, let's say the bill is passed, how dose your life change?

[St Leo]

I will be legally mandated to dance in public. Duh.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Boris, I am close to being deaf. And I'll be the first one to say that if both myself and my wife were deaf, that I wouldn't want to adopt a child. I could not hear a crying child in the same room as me, let alone, a baby monitor.

You ask me about what it was like to raise a child, and I show you my dad who has somewhat better hearing than I do. He abhorred having to listen for us during the night, and if mom was not going to be home, would often have us stay with our grandparents, simply because he couldn't hear us.

I've seen some of what he's struggled with. It has nothing to do with the devotion, but more about the safety.

Boris, I can't even hear a fire alarm. How would I make sure, if I was the only one in the house, that my kids would get out in time?



There's a difference between having a child, and between adopting one. To regulate the first, infringes upon our liberties, while the second does not.



There are tons of kids, and tons of couples out there who want these children and give up because they are frusterated by the red tape thrown in their faces.

Well let us give thanks you aren't running adoption agencies, Social Services departments or Childline in Great Britain then.

Richard Griffiths, distinguished British character actor:

"Date of birth: July 31, 1947
Place of birth: Stockton-on-Tees, England
Category: Actor
Nationality: British



Richard Griffiths has carved out a successful career as a character actor, perhaps most memorably as the lusty Uncle Monty in Withnail and I (1987). He also popped up in The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) and used his canny knack for dialect to take on two roles as Dr Mannheimer/Earl Hacker in Naked Gun 2 1/2 (1991). He also appear as Uncle Vernon Dursley in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The portly actor has also enjoyed a distinguished stage career and starred on TV in Pie in the Sky.


His parents were deaf mute and he learnt speech with the help of radio.
He was a mature student at Manchester University, after leaving school at 15. "

http://film.guardian.co.uk/Player/Player_Page/0%2C4159%2C506345%2C00.html

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Giving equal rights would constitute allowing gays to marry their partners, just like straights can marry their partners.

You can't give equality if one has privledges the other does not.

Reread my post. You obviously missed the point.

In giving women equality with men, did we have to redefine what a man is?

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem remarkably unimaginative for someone with a hearing impairment, as well as uninformed about how technology helps deaf parents of hearing children.

Let's just say I've gotten frusterated with much of the system that is supposed to be helping me.

I mean, I have a cell phone, for pete's sake because nothing else seems to work properly, which is probably the most unfriendly method for me to talk to people on the telephone.

Your own situation was 20 years ago, so I suppose that's understandable. But the fire alarm comment is particularly baffling, since I know there are such alarms designed with deaf people in mind. At my campus, a deaf student had a doorbell which caused her lights to flash, and the fire alarm did the same thing. She was never missing from those lovely 2 AM fire drills.

Never heard of that. First of all, what did her dormitory pay to have that installed? Secondly, did they agree to have it installed before she came in or not?

If I did that at my old dorm I would have been laughed at. Instead, what they did was the much simpler, and more effective, request for my RA to knock on my door, in the event of a fire alarm.

I never missed one of the drills.

Secondly, while a flashing light may work in a dorm, how would that work in the house? Would I have to have that hooked up to all the lights in the house, or just the bedroom?

Lights are good, but they are much less effective than sound, because you do not need to be looking at the light to see the light. I know this from dealing with my grandmother. You have to call several times because if she's looking the other way when her phone light flashes, she won't know that someone's trying to call her.

Finally, all this costs money. I don't really have money to pay for the installation of this stuff, unless the installation is paid for.

This is why blanket denials of adoptions based on some sort of group is bull****. Deaf parents can be and are wonderful, loving parents of hearing children. Decisions about the suitability of a family should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not on demographic discrimination. The same applies for gay couples.

Your dismissal about 20 years ago, is not so. I lived with my dad until I was 18, and that was only 5 years ago. The problems are still there, with having to hear a baby cry in the night.

I think my points are still valid, about the safety, based on what I have seen from my aunt, (raising two kids on her own who is deaf), and my dad. Both of them, whenever their kids were little, would make sure that their kids were always in their sight, and couldn't let them out of their sight, or bad stuff would happen.

It's been a struggle. To blame their struggle on being unimaginative, is not really fair to either.

As for claims there are plenty of parents and just red tape in the way, I call BS on that. I'd love to see some support for that claim.

We had a thread, on why black kids can't get adopted by white families, because of the bs that the kids will feel ostracised. That's a huge piece of red tape there.

Plus you have the costs associated with adoption alluded to by Strawbow, that you haven't even acknowledged. That's red tape, and very discouraging to parents wishing to adopt.

Yes, there are plenty of "traditional" couples looking to adopt healthy, cute babies. But go up the age scale in the foster kid network, and you'll find it very hard to find couples who want to adopt kids older than toddlers, or ones with medical conditions that require a lot of care.

Granted. This is a big problem that will be there regardless of what you do. Your solution won't make this problem any better. Why would the people who have difficulties of their own wish to raise the most challenging kids?

Considering the median age of foster kids is 8, I find the claims that there are people beating down the doors to adopt such kids quite dubious, considering testimony from social workers involved contradicts that notion.

Did I say people clamoured to adopt foster kids? No. I referred to the younger kids, since no one specified earlier that the problem was more with adoption, or with foster children.

That's why I linked to www.lethimstay.com. I'm sure you're unimpressed, but if you read that site, you'll realize these weren't kids people are clamoring to adopt. Sadly, most couples don't want kids like those. Thankfully, they have a loving couple that does want them and provides a great home. And they happen to be gay.

I'm not impressed to be sure that this is a viable solution for the problems that you cited, but I agree that he should stay if he's already there.

Edit:

Here's another thing.

"Since I was the oldest child, my parents were delighted with the fact that I could hear. I was their interpreter, and at times I felt I was their guardian," she said. "I grew up very fast and did absolutely everything that involved hearing.

So you have children raising parents.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

You back up my claim that deaf mute parents should be able to have children.

Thanks.