financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine?
No, I disagree with that also.
But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine?
Seriously, AEON, do you realize the implications of what you're proposing here?
I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious, and have been trying to justify it by clutching at any argument you can find.
No, I disagree with that also.
I am definitely not arguing for getting rid of divorce entirely, I'd be in favour of making it more difficult however.
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
No more radical than a child might possibly be better off in a home with two mothers.That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
I'm of the opinion that children raised by responsible, loving parents (not the lack of orientation qualifier) who take an active role in their child's development tend to grow up just fine. So if there's a homosexual couple willing to adopt, and all signs indicate that they are responsible adults who will take a loving and active role in their child's development, then no, I do not believe they should be moved to the back of the line until all heterosexual couples are sorted through first. That strikes me as a bit barbaric, frankly.
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.
In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.
In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.
In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.
In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
But, more importantly, as far as the law is concerned, you don't have to have children to get married. I understand that a lot of marriages do result in couples deciding they want children, but legally, there's no requirement. So, there really doesn't need to be any discussion of this here.
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.
In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.
In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
Yes, because women would casually go through a nine month pregnancy without really thinking twice about it.
I don't know Peef, if we can't talk about the The Children, then we have to go back to the real reason homos can't get married.
They make people uncomfortable.
So teen pregnancies aren't a problem? How come so much efforts are invested in discouraging them?
I thought we were discussing the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to get married?
So far poor AEON hasn't come up with a good reason. At all.
People should stop adopting because it only encourages promiscuous people to have more babies?
Once when I was still in school, a male friend told me that it's not that he really cared about gay marriage one way or another but that he thought that two men kissing was "really gross."
And while I found that to be sort of childish and eyeroll worthy, I actually respected him for his honesty rather than parroting some church sermon, or the slippery legal slope towards the union of man and giraffe, or save the children! At least his view was his own.
And if this is the argument you're making, how does homosexual couples being allowed to adopt change anything? It's not like adoption doesn't exist now.
AEON's entire line of thinking is based on things like "ideal" or "optimal" upbringings. There's no such thing, and the sooner we get past that, the better.
Once when I was still in school, a male friend told me that it's not that he really cared about gay marriage one way or another but that he thought that two men kissing was "really gross."
And while I found that to be sort of childish and eyeroll worthy, I actually respected him for his honesty rather than parroting some church sermon, or the slippery legal slope towards the union of man and giraffe, or save the children! At least his view was his own.
It's because the state shouldn't be involved in marriages at all.
Not that that in any way addresses why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, mind you...
Is that true for anything - or just adoption?
Because once the gays want to partake in something, it's now time to ban it for everyone?
I'm saying there's no perfect way, and I'm saying that the most important factors in raising kids have NOTHING to do with biological vs. adopted or straight vs. gay. They have to do with the character of the prospective parents. They have to do with the kind of home the parents can provide financially. Things like that. Important things. You're talking about things that really don't matter at all.
Crying that somebody should think of the children is a lame tactic designed to take equal rights out of the discussion.
phillyfan26 said:Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise families via either adoption or artificial insemination and given the same rights as heterosexuals for both the marriage and the family raising. Someone tell me why this isn't a good idea
Oh please. You'll do anything to avoid the real issue.This tangent was created by addressing the adoption issue asked by philly: