Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

Bion -- many of those characteristics that you've just named ARE the norm. And as you well know, in all normality measurements or normal populations, there is a level of variance that exists naturally. Homosexuality falls quite a bit outside of that measurement, I believe.

 

What's even more positive is giving children real families instead of people who want to adopt them to make a statement, prove a point or feel better about themselves. The child is the last thing that matters on the "progressive" side of the gay adoption debate.

 

But unfortunately it won't. And with that, I've said my final piece on this matter.

 

@chevalier:
Adoption programs usually have ways to screen out potential parents who have such shallow motives.

 

Once again Felinoid, you have taken the words straight out of my mouth. I couldn't agree more. A hetero sexual couple could be just as likely to be trying to make a statement (e.g. due to their religion, vegetarianism, alternative pastural lifestyle or whatever).

 

Everyone who wants to adopt the child to improve his or her illusion of a real marriage falls in that category and especially gay activists who cry for adoption rights. So let's just screen all this out in one sweep.

 

That is such a prejudicial comment that is highly insulting to all "non-activist" gay couples. It also makes me think that you do not actually know any real gay couples by the way you seem to lump them all into one basket like that.

 

HB -- I don't think that we're saying that a gay statement is the ONLY kind of statement that adoptions can, sadly, be used for. They don't have exclusivity there, but unfortunately, "statements" is what they've become known for. Of course other individuals can have their own shallow motives for adoption -- and if that is the case, they should be denied.

 

Behind gay adoption, there is no other desire than to make appear fruitful a union which is not.

 

My point in this argument is simply this: Kids have enough to deal with just growing up in typical, normal heterosexual families.....I don't think they need the added problems, nor can they speak for themselves to decide. Pure and simple. Case closed for me.

 

@Spelly: I wasn't talking about the average kids; I was talking about the far ends of the bell curve kids, the ones you can tell immediately: "this one's gonna have a rough time at school." So maybe it would be best if we identified these kids, took them aside in school, and said honestly: "hey, you're a loser. You know it, I know it, the whole school knows it. You're way out of the norm, and you stick out like a sore thumb, and no one here will let you forget it. See how much you're suffering? If you have a kid, most likely they'll be a loser too. You wouldn't want them to suffer, would you?..."

Plus, every adopted kid goes through this. Imagine being an African-American, or Bangladeshi, or Chinese kid adopted by white parents in small-town Oklahoma. You don't think they're going to have a hard time? You don't think jerks aren't going to make racial comments, or even tease them for being adopted?

And what's such a big freaking deal about being teased in junior high. I know it's not fun, but it happens to nearly everyone (hey it's the rule of three: even put three of your alpha males/females together, and pretty soon one will be excluded), and hey, you get over it. You guys are acting like it's something serious, like starvation level poverty, being denied basic education or healthcare, or being raised in an abusive home: things faced by many children that could be saved by adoption in a loving, gay home.

So frankly Spelly, your argument seems arbitrary and makes no sense to me.

---
A: I'm gay.
B: You're just saying that because you're a Gay Activist!
A: But I'm not ashamed of being gay!
B: That's why your kind dresses in BSM gear in Gay Pride Parades, you Gay Activist!
A: But I don't! I live a normal, quite life.
B: You're just trying it subvert norms of morality, because you're a Gay Activist!
A: I even go to church!
B: Aha, trying to subvert the church, are you? Gay Activist!
A: I've been in a monogamous relationship for years!
B: Oh, so you're living in sin, you Gay Activist!
A: I'd get married if the law would allow it.
B: Aha, you want to destroy marriage, you Gay Activist!
A: But marriage would be the best reflection of the lifelong commitment I want with my partner.
B: Marriage is for raising families, you Gay Activist!
A: Actually, we'd like to adopt a child...
B: You're just saying that because you're a Gay Activist!

 

@Bion:
That A-B thing would be funny if it weren't true. I knew someone once who would take anything you said the wrong way.

 

Bion -- I recently moved here from Seattle -- home of THE largest gay population in this country. The city is known for it. I have seen more gay activists then I care to recount here. Gays walking down the street kissing, fondling, when NO ONE else is -- no heterosexual couples doing this -- just gays -- to MAKE A STATEMENT. So don't sit there and twist my words and tell me they aren't about activism or making statements. I've seen enough of it to last a freaking lifetime. Does that mean they all do?? NO. What it means is that they have a REPUTATION for doing it -- and that reputation is based in FACT.

 

How can you possibly be so bold as to speak for every single gay couple in the whole world on this?

Spellbound - appreciate fully your comments re the openly gay people on the streets who are definitely trying to make a statement. But, by definition, the ones who aren't doing that are behind the scenes and you don't see them, because well, they're at home living quiet lives. I don't want everyone to lump those people in the same basket as all the 'out there in your face' gays.

 

@Spellbound:
Well, then THOSE people shouldn't be allowed to have children, but that doesn't mean that EVERY gay couple should be denied the joy of raising a child!

As a side note, I'm sorry that you had to experience such blatant flaunting of their sexuality. Quite frankly, I would have moved too, but imho it's not right to punish the more 'well-behaved' gay couples for what all those Seattle gay couples are doing.

Let me put it another way. Would you like to be forbidden to drive because women are bad drivers? (Hey! Stop hitting me and keep reading. ) Back when women were first tentatively allowed to drive, none of them could do so very well, due to lack of experience. That's how the stereotype got started. Now, if we had put a stop to it there, by legal means, all women would be bad drivers, because they wouldn't get enough practice.

The gay culture is still in its infancy, and it needs time to grow up and integrate into society. At the very least, give them a century or two to fall flat on their faces, as you seem to think they will.

 

and as I said before -- I don't believe they should use adopted children as their test cases.

But we're going round and round -- nothing I say here really matters much -- we all have our own opinions and we keep saying the same things over and over -- so, with that, I'm bowing out of the discussion, as my civility limits are getting dangerously close.

Rock on....

 

I wish there was another way, too, but no gain comes without risk. Going back to my previous example, bad drivers use everyone in the immediate vicinity for their test cases. Some things are simply unfortunate but necessary, and must be soldiered through to achieve a greater good. I suppose that sounds a bit like 'the ends justify the means', but I think it's more like 'the inevitable ends justify the means being as quick and relatively painless as we can make them'. And I truly hope that one day gays can be accepted, because the alternative is endless oppression.

 

NEWSFLASH! Not all rights can be made equal without trampling the rights of another group. They get the right to mock what we Christians hold sacred and thus core to our very being, so do we have that right? No, we don't. I'm quite sure I would get edited if not banned for crudely mocking their acts, and the term faggot is politically incorrect. Where's the equal rights there?

Automobiles and Televisions are man-made objects, and as such are not moral one way or the other. It is how they are used that becomes moral or immoral. To watch educational or harmless entertainment is okay, but to watch pornography is not okay. Homosexuality has been defined throughout Christian literature as morally wrong.

And further, you can't change the way things are without pissing off one group, while the leaving it the same pisses off another group. Perhaps Separation of Church and State may not be so good after all...

The point is that the one thing they do is immoral (again, from the Christian perspective), but the rest of what they do or how they live may be quite good. Just because someone is otherwise a good person doesn't mean I have to agree that this one thing is morally acceptable. It's only one aspect of personality that I object to there...

What does being Gay have to do with the rest of it? Absolutely nothing. It is that aspect (being Gay) of who he is that the objection is all about. I can't on clean conscience agree that it is morally acceptable to have gay sex.

How about clarifying those barriers. For example, Gay sex is bad, but those who do it aren't necessarily bad. The previous example of the guy's uncle illustrates this quite well. He's achieved an impressive array of talents. That's good. The fact that he's Gay is morally wrong. He sounds like a basically good man that simply sins. That's all. It's not right to hate gay people, but you don't have to believe that their moral choices are right either.

But you wouldn't give a child to a morally clean home if the parents were devoutly religious and their faith taught that every member had a moral duty to spread the word of their faith wherever possible. I believe that morality ought to serve as this rubber stamp. Sure it excludes Homosexuals, but it also excludes druggies, adulterers, abusers, and other people that I wouldn't trust a child with.

An impossible goal, but perhaps if the opinion shifted to smoething more of a compromise, like Homosexuality is immoral, but don't judge them just by one sin, look at the whole person...

A pity the purpose of adoption would be lost on those that do not believe the way it works is fair...

Felinoid and Harbourboy have that right. Adoption ought to ba about Love. Someone putting their own desires above the needs of the child should not be allowed to adopt. The point where I differ is that I believe that the child deserves tobe a part of a real family, complete with a mother and a father, not two mommies or two daddies...

Even allowing for that case, I still would not want Gay Couples adopting because they would not ensure proper moral teaching of the Children they seek stewardship over.

 

But I don't teach MY kids YOUR moral codes either. Should I be banned from having kids too?