10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Thats no different than any adoption . .

But the more likely case is

Unknown sperm donor

Two women in a committed relationship

Thats TWO people and is just the same as any hetero couple that seek fertility help.

Is it? You forget one thing. There are many cases where the couple themselves will use their own sperm and eggs, whereas the lesbians cannot.

So there is a difference between the two.

[Ben Kenobi]

No... but your argument is that it's BEST for a traditional male/female family... which I won't argue...

Awesome.

They should have the RIGHT to prove it! You wish to give them no chance, even though the children might be better off.

Oh, so adoption is about the rights of the parents to have the children? I thought adoption was about the health and welfare of the children, not about the rights of the parents to have children. Why should we impose social experimentation on children? No one has a right to adopt a child, regardless of their background.

The BEST opportunities may be a gay couple. You speak in terms of a perfect world... take a hard look, and you will see the perfect world is only a small percentage.

Yes I see that the perfect world is only a small percentage. Remember I am comparing perfect gay parents to perfect mothers and fathers. So the same sword cuts both ways. If there are very few perfect mothers and fathers, we should also expect to see very few perfect gay parents.

And what if it isn't possible? Or what if the other family members are single parents? Two loving parents are better than one. So a gay couple would be better than a single parent, which is OK by the law... but you want to keep gay people from adopting.

Well lets see. How many children are given up in adoption to a single person who does not already have children?

You keep saying what is the BEST for the children... but you continue to deny them a chance for what's best for them...

Some kids don't have the chance for your definition of what's best... so we shouldn't offer them second best?

What would you do if this were your own daughter ming? Would you consider this acceptable to settle, or would you start asking the question as to why there are no families with a husband and wife to look after my child?

These are children, and yes, I am not willing to experiment on them all for the sake of folks who claim that it is their right to have access to these kids. No one has a right to an adoption.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
These are children, and yes, I am not willing to experiment on them all for the sake of folks who claim that it is their right to have access to these kids. No one has a right to an adoption.

Gee... EVERY adoption is an experiment... any normal looking couple could be abusive...

You like talking in absolutes... here is one for you.

A married couple has children... the mother dies... the father comes "out" and his boy friend eventually moves in. Together, they raise the children for years... then the true father dies... the other parent tries to adobt the children, but can't because of your law against it.

The kids get put into the foster system, and are never adopted....

Wouldn't they have been better off without some stupid laws that keeps gays from adopting?

Yeah... you can pick holes in it and say it would rarely happen... but your argument is based on LET'S GIVE THE KIDS THE BEST... also something that doesn't happen as often as you like. Denying gay couples the right to adopt is denying some children a better life. Remember... this is about the kids... not about your religious beliefs that would deny children a better life... which is a very selfish way to be... letting your religion make children suffer.

[Ben Kenobi]

I understand what you are saying, anyone can come up with certain situations that match reality. The problems arise from unintended consequences.

Suppose we had exactly the same situation and the boyfriend abused the little boy. Should the little boy have to be adopted by the boyfriend of his father?

Or suppose the boy was too young for his tastes, and then after the child was adopted, he abused the boy all throughout his adolescence. Have we done the boy a favour by allowing the boyfriend to take care of him?

Both outcomes are plausible.

What really concerns me is this concept of having a right to have a child, and for gay people, a right to adoption. Suppose we say, let gay people adopt. How could we refuse a single unmarried man from adopting a child, since wouldn't it be better to let the man adopt the child then to put the child through foster care?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What really concerns me is this concept of having a right to have a child, and for gay people, a right to adoption. Suppose we say, let gay people adopt. How could we refuse a single unmarried man from adopting a child, since wouldn't it be better to let the man adopt the child then to put the child through foster care?

I guess that we shouldn't let gay's adopt since it might lead to dogs adopting children...

Face it... you are denying children a chance at a loving family simply because of your religion... Remember, the kids are what are important, not your religious beliefs.

A gay couple CAN provide a loving and nuturing home for children, yet you would deny the children that chance, simple because your religion doesn't like it.

Think about it... especially the next time you try to use the argument on how it's in the best interest of the children... you are really saying that it's in the best interest of your religion, and the kids don't matter in the least.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose we say, let gay people adopt. How could we refuse a single unmarried man from adopting a child, since wouldn't it be better to let the man adopt the child then to put the child through foster care?

The same way it is (or isn't) done currently, perhaps?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose we had exactly the same situation and the boyfriend abused the little boy. Should the little boy have to be adopted by the boyfriend of his father?

Or suppose the boy was too young for his tastes, and then after the child was adopted, he abused the boy all throughout his adolescence. Have we done the boy a favour by allowing the boyfriend to take care of him?

This is a sick argument

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Is it? You forget one thing. There are many cases where the couple themselves will use their own sperm and eggs, whereas the lesbians cannot.
.

and in many cases the hetero couple do not use their own spem and eggs due to problems so they use one from one and the other from a donor-- same as the lesbian couple can do

[Flubber]

Oh and MING made most of my arguments for me. I will agree, for the sake of the argument that a male-female parental duo, loving and involved is optimum. ( Probably partially because of greater social acceptance from bigots but I'll let that go for now)

But how many people get such an optimum situation? Very few. And if I were doing a a preferred situation , loving and involved gay couples would come next and then loving and involved single parents. I would prefer pretty much any parenting that is loving and involved over the man-woman duo that is disinterested etc etc-- Then I can go all the way down to the idea that the least preferred option is probably a sadistic abusive single parent

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The same time I first found a woman that I slept with? Everyone makes a choice whether or not to act on their desires. Now if your question were when did I first have these desires for women, we could start from there.



Entitled to free-conscience? Sure. You are entitled to practice whatever religion you prefer. You are entitled to speek freely. How have I made the argument to abrogate either of these rights?

Secondly, what right is there to 'self-identity?' I don't see that on the list where it says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It seems to me a bogus right cobbled together, without basis in your constitution.



Ah, so people have the individual right to be married? Look at all the other rights that you have. You can exercise them individually. You have the right to free speech. You have the right to free assembly, you have the right to freedom of conscience and religion. All of these rights can be exercised individually.

I do not see anywhere a right to be married.

Secondly, how are you discriminated against. You have exactly the same right as any other man in the united states. You can get married to any woman who also wants to get married to you. Flip this around to your issue regarding races. What you are saying now is that these rights are not symmetrical. Every man does not have the same right to marry every other woman. Black men have more of a right then white men to marry black women, and white men have more of a right then black men to marry white women.



It is a choice. You make the decision to act upon your desires when you choose to sleep with someone.

That's the wonderful thing about the phrase, "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There are a myriad of natural rights that are implicit in that statement. What natural rights are people entitled to, in order to fulfill their "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

I would argue that one of those innate rights is the right to our own conscience and self-identification. You argue that we choose to be straight or gay by our action to have sex with someone either of the same gender or someone of the opposite gender.

I argue that sexual orienation is more innate than merely what we do in regards to our sex life. I am a gay man 24 hours a day, seven days a week, twelve months of the year -- rest assured I am not having sex with another man that often.
If we followed your fallacious "logic" I'm only gay when I'm having sex with another man then you're only straight when you have sex with a woman. That does not make sense to me.

Now, having cleared that ground, back to my concept of right to conscience and self-identification. Given my argument that sexual orientation is more innate and part of my identity throughout my daily life, rather than just when I'm having sex, it's part of who I am -- it's part of the many other identities and roles I have in my enriched, full life.

You are treading on dangerous ground -- you're trying to justify denying people their right to their conscience which is fundamentally so innate as to be part of being human.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Alright. Every child is a wanted child. Why should we see unwanted children and child abuse in this day in age when we have abortion? Instead, we have seen child abuse increase.

I would argue that just because you want the child initially, doesn't mean that you are going to want the child when they grow older and aren't so cute anymore. How else can you explain child abuse in the age of abortion where every child born is supposed to be wanted?

I reject your base assertion that every child born is wanted. Many are retained due to a fear or rejection of abortion, spousal or societal pressure or whatever.

I would say that if people have to take additional and intentional steps to have a child, it increases the chances that that child will be desired and loved.


Also in the adoption world-- there are at least some checks and balances and atempts to assess fitness . . . whereas any idiot can get pregnant and get to keep the child until unfitness is clear

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What really concerns me is this concept of having a right to have a child, and for gay people, a right to adoption. Suppose we say, let gay people adopt. How could we refuse a single unmarried man from adopting a child, since wouldn't it be better to let the man adopt the child then to put the child through foster care?

I don't think anyone has the right to adopt, although anyone that impregnates someone has some parental rights to lose.

On adoption why couldn't a single unmarried man be allowed to adopt if he can pass all the hurdles that social services can bring. My understanding is that there are often unadopted children out there.

If I were ranking I would certainly go for the couples first. on the theory that parenting is hard work two is better than one.

If it were my son, I would want him in the best available placement. If that were with a straight couple great, If it were with a gay couple also great.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun



That's the wonderful thing about the phrase, "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There are a myriad of natural rights that are implicit in that statement. What natural rights are people entitled to, in order to fulfill their "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

I would argue that one of those innate rights is the right to our own conscience and self-identification. You argue that we choose to be straight or gay by our action to have sex with someone either of the same gender or someone of the opposite gender.

I argue that sexual orienation is more innate than merely what we do in regards to our sex life. I am a gay man 24 hours a day, seven days a week, twelve months of the year -- rest assured I am not having sex with another man that often.
If we followed your fallacious "logic" I'm only gay when I'm having sex with another man then you're only straight when you have sex with a woman. That does not make sense to me.

Now, having cleared that ground, back to my concept of right to conscience and self-identification. Given my argument that sexual orientation is more innate and part of my identity throughout my daily life, rather than just when I'm having sex, it's part of who I am -- it's part of the many other identities and roles I have in my enriched, full life.

You are treading on dangerous ground -- you're trying to justify denying people their right to their conscience which is fundamentally so innate as to be part of being human.

Fundamentally I agree with your assessments, but of course society and government reserve the right to regulate behaviors that they feel dangerous to society (or even least optimal). So given a nonsensical example that a serial killer should not be constrained in his pursuit of happiness which just so happens to be pathological murder the governement is well within their role to restrict this kind of behavior. (No I am not attempting to compare gay marriage to murder.)


The last & dying arguements the more fundamentalists use is the so called 'sanctity of marraige' should be a goal the governement should incent as it assumes child rearing of the most optimal kind (man and woman in loving familial arrangement). Other than that the governement should be silent on all matters of personal relationships. WRT to the child rearing arguement I don't buy it personally as the basis for government role in establishing legal partnering relationships.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose we had exactly the same situation and the boyfriend abused the little boy. Should the little boy have to be adopted by the boyfriend of his father?

Or suppose the boy was too young for his tastes, and then after the child was adopted, he abused the boy all throughout his adolescence. Have we done the boy a favour by allowing the boyfriend to take care of him?

Both outcomes are plausible.

PLAUSIBLE.... HUH!!!!!!!!!!! So, are you now going back and saying that gays are more likely to be pedophiles... that's BS and you know it.

Just admit it... you are against it because of your religion... because frankly, none of your arguments hold any water. If it's truly about the Kids... let's not let religion get in the way of their potential happiness.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Fundamentally I agree with your assessments

It's the end of the world, folks!!!

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
but of course society and government reserve the right to regulate behaviors that they feel dangerous to society (or even least optimal). So given a nonsensical example that a serial killer shoudl not be constrained in his pursuit of happiness which just so happens to be pathological murder.

The last & dying arguements the more fundamentalists use is the so called 'sanctity of marraige' should be a goal the governement should incent as it assumes child rearing of the most optimal kind (man and woman in loving familial arrangement). Other than that the governement should be silent on all matters of personal relationships. WRT to the child rearing arguement I don't buy it personally as the basis for government role in establishing legal partnering relationships.

Of course -- I would not argue that government cannot regulate and make laws to protect people. The right of "pursuit of happiness" by killing someone obviously denies the victim his/her own right to life and pursuit of happiness. Who would argue otherwise with this point of yours?

The more important question is what laws and regulations are unjust? It could have been argued in the 1950s that desegregation would violate the "right of happiness" for white southerners who were ardent racists for example.

And I'm glad you see the fallacy in BK's so-called "reasoning." The relationship between two gay men or two lesbians that I am talking about rests on mutual consent between two adults. So when we seek to advocate for our right to happiness in this regards, they are not denying other people's right to happiness. In the future, when I can legally marry a man that I love, it does not harm the marriage of anyone else -- be it my sister, my brother, or a friend. And same goes with adopted children -- they are more likely to live a healthier life with gay parents who love the child.