quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is incorrect. Poor development of some parts of the brain, which may be due to either genes or natal environment, may predispose people to violence or theft or other impulsive actions. The fact that some people may commit such acts partly because of genetic factors does not mean that we should stop jailing people for them or trying to prevent them. There are good reasons to want to keep such people in places where they can't harm others. But the thing about homosexuality and homosexual marriage is that they harm nobody* and thus should be permitted, whether they are "genetic" or not. * Unless you are one of those idiots who thinks that being gay "harms a person's soul" or somesuch. But the law deals with harm to bodies and property, not to souls, so there are still no grounds for legal action.

I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that, at the moment, those against it take that stance based on the fact that, even though it does not harm others, it's a choice they make. If it doesn't harm anyone and is not a choice one makes, it would be tantamount to banning all black people from marrying--that's all I'm saying.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

yea after i posted that post about the kids being made fun of for having gay parents, i thought to myself, "oh for crying out loud, kids make fun of EVERYTHING these days".

so yea, it would just make the kids stronger in the end and more worldly adults. whatever...i dont care if fags and dykes wanna adopt. as long as the kid is loved for and properly taken care of.

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous Whether you agree or disagree for whatever religious reasons or otherwise, if it is proven to be determined at birth, end of argument. At that point, you cannot sanely be against it. However, if it's proven otherwise, the argument will still continue. I suppose I phrased that 2nd part poorly.

You are speaking far too hypothetically here. Regardless of what people personally believe to be the 'cause' of homosexuality (if there even is one), there will never be a true consensus and the cause will still be argued. Nothing is ever truly 'proven' scientifically, save for some very universal laws (and even those are still challenged at times) and would never be wholly accepted by any community or democratic Government as gospel. In the future, there may be evidence which supports one side or the other far more drastically than what current theories indicate, but I promise you that it will still be an issue in question with people - it's one of those questions that may never be resolved in any foreseeable future because of its scope and the variables which constitute such a status which has been so deeply ingrained into the human condition for as far back as our recorded history goes.

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

Just because you don't like the opposite sex, you shouldn't be allowed to a adopt? That's wrong.

I agree with all who stated that if there are 2 willing committed people wanting to adopt and raise a child knowing that this child will grow up with 2 loving parents ( regardless of their sex ) than they should be able to adopt. Kids should have 2 loving parents, but sometimes, actually most of the time, that doesn't happen. I was raised by one a parent my whole life, yes it would have been complete with both but it didn't happen and I still got all the love I wanted and needed.

You shouldn't be able to stop two loving people from adopting just because one is not male or female, that's stupidness. And for the ones who think that the child will be emotionally fucked, or will grow up to be "weird", that's a stereo type, plain and simple. Gay couples usually incorporate a male figure if the couple is female, or a female if the couple is both male just so the kid has another figure in his or her life.

quote:

Originally posted by Ian ...

I haven't read the whole thread...just replying to the threadstarter.

Adoption is a legal issue, not a religious one...and is authorized/regulated BY THE STATE, not the Church.

The Church may run an adoption agency, but they still have to comply with the LAW and have the state approve/register the adoption, correct?

Church and state are separate and while I *fully* agree that no religious institution ought to be forced to perform gay marriages, for example, if the Church is engaged in adoption, a LEGAL matter, then they ought to have to comply with the LAW.

If the LAW provides that gays may adopt, then a Catholic agency ought not be able to refuse to place a child with a gay couple.

Having said that, I'm not sure why a gay couple would go through a Catholic agency when they could instead go through a non-religious one (?). I would also be supportive of said "opt-out" clause as a reasonable compromise, ASSUMING that there are other comparable agency options available to gay couples.

FWIW, *long* before gay marriage was legal here, state-run agencies, like Children's Aid, have been fascilitating gay adoption. They have had the sense to recognize that the fitness of parents, the availability of a loving, supportive, healthy home is not tied to the sexuality of the parents.

I think the Church is going to lose this one...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT FWIW, *long* before gay marriage was legal here, state-run agencies, like Children's Aid, have been fascilitating gay adoption. They have had the sense to recognize that the fitness of parents, the availability of a loving, supportive, healthy home is not tied to the sexuality of the parents.

Well, you'd sort of hope that was the issue of first concern for them all along, that kids get put somewhere they'll be looked after best more than anything else. All's said and done it's also important to have a mix of both sexes in a childs upbringing, even if it's just a male/female relative that functions as an adult role model of sorts. The fact other kids will tease them I don't really think is going to be too much of an issue in most western countries, because kids tease each other over anything and a bit of thick skin never hurt anyone on later in life learning to deal with conflict at some point rather than being some kind of emotional coward or cripple.

Fuck that! They don't deserve kids. If they cant make one they souldnt have one.


To the boners that will contradict me im not talking about a MOTHER and FATHER that can't produce a baby cause medical issues. I'm talking about queers, obviously.

___________________
Figure out what to do, then take a nap.

I see.

Would you like to support your stupid opinions?

quote:

Originally posted by gwrmarines Fuck that! They don't deserve kids. If they cant make one they souldnt have one. To the boners that will contradict me im not talking about a MOTHER and FATHER that can't produce a baby cause medical issues. I'm talking about queers, obviously.

Holy shit, no wonder you joined the marines.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by gwrmarines Fuck that! They don't deserve kids. If they cant make one they souldnt have one. To the boners that will contradict me im not talking about a MOTHER and FATHER that can't produce a baby cause medical issues. I'm talking about queers, obviously.

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

Hell no. being gay is a sin why should they get special privilages.having children is a gift from god.thats why it takes a man and a woman to have children and only a man and a woman can have children.

___________________
america controla

quote:

Originally posted by gwrmarines Fuck that! They don't deserve kids. If they cant make one they souldnt have one. To the boners that will contradict me im not talking about a MOTHER and FATHER that can't produce a baby cause medical issues. I'm talking about queers, obviously.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

So you're saying the fact they don't like women, and won't have babies with them, means that they don't deserve to have a family of their own?? So wrrrrrrrrrrrrooooong!!! My respect meter for you just dropped 2 points. j-k, but seriously...You can't deny kids to those that " aren't able to make one" They are fully capable of making one, just not with one another.



clubamerica, do us a favor and don't type.... ever. Not that you know how to anyway