You know, if people would just do the responsible thing and abort, we would rarely have to worry about adoption to begin with.

Right? You should be required to have some sort of license before you reproduce.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You *are* being ignorant though. In all of your 'freethinking' and idealism you feel is under such grave attack, you have conveniently ignored the fact that we are talking about human beings here. That's nice that you grew up in a stable home with a mommy and a daddy to tell you everything you ever wanted to know about your boy parts, but we are discussing adoption. People. Orphans. What you are so casually ignoring is the fact that these children do not have parents as you did, or at least parents that nobody fucking wants. They will likely spend their developing lives in orphanages or in foster care, and I'm not sure you've thought of this yet, but those are not great places for kids to grow up. The conditions are either wretched and/or (blessedly) transitive. I have known a rather despairing number of kids who grew up in foster care throughout my life, and from what I have heard and seen, the conditions that parent-less orphans endure can be every bit as nightmarish as bigots like yourself make gay adoption out to be. But you seem to think you're being persecuted by the prospect of other people securing happiness in this world. You feel your civil liberties are under attack due to the mere proposition of responsible, homosexual households providing a home for children without one. Nobody is saying we should just hand out babies to all the gays that want one - that is ridiculous. Adoption processes would follow the same thoroughness they would as if it were any other couple - to think otherwise is just mere fear-mongering, sorry. But to honestly believe that kids are better off in filthy, abusive conditions with scores of other children than in a 2-parent household you condemn merely because it does not agree with your unfounded world perspective - that's another thing entirely.

I would assume that you are responding to me but there is no connection from what I said to what you are saying right now. I never once said that homosexuals should not be able to adopt. I was asking if people thought there might be a connection between children that had mental and societal issues that were raised in atypical families and what may happen if the children are raised in homosexual families. If there was any connection between the two or not. I feel that you could argue either way on the subject. You feel that there is no merit for that type of argument at all. I honestly thought that people could be mature enough to debate that issue without resulting to name calling and stereotypical classifications, I was wrong.

I do feel that my civil liberties are under attack if a bill like H.R. 1913 gets passed that adds sexual orientation to the list of categories that falls under a hate crime. This was reintroduced just recently and it means that religious teachers can be charged with encouraging hate crimes if they preach against homosexuality. The majority of the people on this forum will probably be excited if this passes because of the anti-religion mindset that a lot of today's youth and young adults have. I don't care if you are against religious teachings but the government does not have the right to tell people what to think out of fear of persecution. This is my biggest issue with this debate. I don't want homosexuality to be the rallying cry against the church in America.

For the record: I believe homosexual marriage should remain a state issue, that is the reason that America was built on a confederation of states, to allow things like this. I also believe that homosexual adoption should also be a state issue. There should be no federal involvement in any way whatsoever. Homosexuals can then have the opportunity to go to a different state that allows them those rights. If someone believes that homosexuality is an abomination they have the right to believe that and express that belief as much as people that agree with it.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I posted in this thread yesterday of what I was trying to talk about. If you want to still think I'm ignorant that is fine because you have the right to think that just as I do.

Gays adopting threatens your right to practice religion. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Gays adopting threatens your right to practice religion. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

\

Please show me where I wrote that. You keep putting words in my mouth.

No, I think you've said your piece quite thoroughly.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by weymouth I do feel that my civil liberties are under attack if a bill like H.R. 1913 gets passed that adds sexual orientation to the list of categories that falls under a hate crime. This was reintroduced just recently and it means that religious teachers can be charged with encouraging hate crimes if they preach against homosexuality. The majority of the people on this forum will probably be excited if this passes because of the anti-religion mindset that a lot of today's youth and young adults have. I don't care if you are against religious teachings but the government does not have the right to tell people what to think out of fear of persecution. This is my biggest issue with this debate. I don't want homosexuality to be the rallying cry against the church in America.

What? H.R.1913 adds sexual orientation to the list of categories that falls under a hate crime in the circumstances listed below:

quote:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person

This would seem to suggest that in order to be guilty the state would have to prove that the accused intended to cause bodily injury. I would imagine that it would be rather difficult to convince 12 average Americans that a preacher stating that homosexuality is a sin constitutes intent to cause bodily injury. Now, I know David Duke agrees with you; however, most rational people wouldn't think that there is really much concern about legitimate faith leaders being charged with a hate crime for taking a position against homosexuality. I know the United States Council of Catholic Bishops doesn't seem to have any problem with this bill... in fact, the only opposition I can find is coming from Evangelical pastors and hate (er, sorry... freedom) groups.

I think it is also worth pointing out that while the US Bill of Rights does establish a Freedom of Religion your country was founded on the enshrining of inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the US is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which gives everyone the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person." My understanding is that a right normally trumps a freedom.

Finally, homosexuality is not the rallying cry against the church in the US... the Christian lobby is.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

moral always seems to have the best "headshot boom" 's.

___________________
Le Freak - Set Archive

Le Freak - A.D.D & Chimichurri [Techno/Tech House/Music to put on burritos.]*click bitches*

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak moral always seems to have the best "headshot boom" 's.

I'm pretty sure that's because he's the Pope's attorney.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I'm pretty sure that's because he's the Pope's attorney.

Actually, I tried to sue the pope once... unfortunately, my boss at the time thought it was a bad idea and put the kibosh on it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

so you and benny don't just kick back and smoke up every weekend? or was it him that made you stop doing drugs?

___________________
facebook | blog | scrobbler | setarchive | 20160316
"I believe that's referred to as intelligent drum & bass, which obviously means there's a genre of stupid drum & bass out there" (John Peel)

quote:

Originally posted by montana so you and benny don't just kick back and smoke up every weekend? or was it him that made you stop doing drugs?

It was Johnny at the time. Who stopped what... the arrival of my daughter slowed me down a bit but I wouldn't go so far as to say stopped.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down