Gay Adoption

[john9blue]

Im a liberal and my ironically placed "logic" post didnt draw fire?

you mean the one about gay adoption?

that was a good post and i'm awaiting scotty's reply just like you are

[Army of GOD]

I'm not convinced that Marriage is important at all.

I think it is. I see the vast difference (generally speaking, of course) between children in school who have two parents and children in school who have one. It is quite striking.

I don't see the point in marriage either.

Personally I think there shouldn't be any legal or civil benefits of marriage, merely because being married isn't necessarily something that requires money to be spent on it (unlike, say, having a kid) and I know fro ma personal standpoint that the "promises" of marriage are complete and utter bullshit (have divorced parents).

I bet I'll eventually get married (not because I want to but because my family and more than likely my future spouse would want to [I haven't met many girls who don't want to get married eventually]), but I think the most important thing is the parents, if not staying together in a relationship or at physically, is at least being in the child's life and supporting it.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not convinced that Marriage is important at all.

I think it is. I see the vast difference (generally speaking, of course) between children in school who have two parents and children in school who have one. It is quite striking.

+1

[Phatscotty]

I'm not convinced that Marriage is important at all.

I think it is. I see the vast difference (generally speaking, of course) between children in school who have two parents and children in school who have one. It is quite striking.

I don't see the point in marriage either.

Personally I think there shouldn't be any legal or civil benefits of marriage, merely because being married isn't necessarily something that requires money to be spent on it (unlike, say, having a kid) and I know fro ma personal standpoint that the "promises" of marriage are complete and utter bullshit (have divorced parents).

I bet I'll eventually get married (not because I want to but because my family and more than likely my future spouse would want to [I haven't met many girls who don't want to get married eventually]), but I think the most important thing is the parents, if not staying together in a relationship or at physically, is at least being in the child's life and supporting it.

+1

[Phatscotty]

That's a lie

If I was so much against gay marriage, I would not be so much for every state having a fair say, and I would not be supportive of any state who's people vote to recognize gay marriage.

I will support gay marriage in whatever state passes it legally, and I have made that clear since the very beginning.

For someone who supports gay marriage so much, you sure come out against it an awful lot. Funny how that happens.

I support states rights. Get that through your head or else we are done talking

[Phatscotty]

Im a liberal and my ironically placed "logic" post didnt draw fire?

you mean the one about gay adoption?

that was a good post and i'm awaiting scotty's reply just like you are

Did he say gay marriage = gay adoption?

State should decide on gay adoption the same way as gay marriage, with respect for religious freedom.

[Lootifer]

Im sooooo glad you're getting into politics PS...

[Woodruff]

That's a lie

If I was so much against gay marriage, I would not be so much for every state having a fair say, and I would not be supportive of any state who's people vote to recognize gay marriage.

I will support gay marriage in whatever state passes it legally, and I have made that clear since the very beginning.

yeah, but you're a conservative, and conservatives hate gay marriage, therefore you hate gay marriage

QED motherfucker! it's woody logic

Thanks john9blue, I'm glad you could come in and moderately and independently make sure everyone understood our positions!

i was criticizing you individually.
are you a liberal? if so, then you might have a case for your argument that i only target liberals with my accusations.

Actually, for this particular point, it doesn't matter at all if I am a liberal, but only if you consider me to be a liberal. I strongly suspect you do.

[Woodruff]

but I think the most important thing is the parents, if not staying together in a relationship or at physically, is at least being in the child's life and supporting it.

I can agree completely with this. It's definitely a good addendum to what I was saying, and a better way of putting it.

[Woodruff]

That's a lie

If I was so much against gay marriage, I would not be so much for every state having a fair say, and I would not be supportive of any state who's people vote to recognize gay marriage.

I will support gay marriage in whatever state passes it legally, and I have made that clear since the very beginning.

For someone who supports gay marriage so much, you sure come out against it an awful lot. Funny how that happens.

I support states rights. Get that through your head or else we are done talking

You claim to support the Constitution, but your posts show otherwise.
You claim to support small government, but your posts show otherwise.
You'll have to pardon me for not believing you when you say that you support states rights outside of whatever cause happens to be convenient for you at the moment.

[Woodruff]

Im a liberal and my ironically placed "logic" post didnt draw fire?

you mean the one about gay adoption?

that was a good post and i'm awaiting scotty's reply just like you are

Did he say gay marriage = gay adoption?

State should decide on gay adoption the same way as gay marriage, with respect for religious freedom.

What does religious freedom have to do with either gay marriage or gay adoption? I'm not seeing the relevance.

[john9blue]

Thanks john9blue, I'm glad you could come in and moderately and independently make sure everyone understood our positions!

i was criticizing you individually.
are you a liberal? if so, then you might have a case for your argument that i only target liberals with my accusations.

Actually, for this particular point, it doesn't matter at all if I am a liberal, but only if you consider me to be a liberal. I strongly suspect you do.

i consider you a liberal for the same reasons that you consider me a Republican conservative.

seems like we're at an impasse

[Phatscotty]

but I think the most important thing is the parents, if not staying together in a relationship or at physically, is at least being in the child's life and supporting it.

I can agree completely with this. It's definitely a good addendum to what I was saying, and a better way of putting it.

A great way to address this would be to support and encourage strengthening the institution of marriage, along with morals in general. I know it's hard because society today is focused on satisfying every little impulse and possesses a certain lack of discipline. The popular mantra of "if it feels good, do it" runs contrary to and breaks down things that require commitment and sustainability. It seems to be so much easier for people to run away from their promises goals at the first sign of trouble or miscomfort. I think we could strenghten the institution on certain levels in our schools as well.

[Phatscotty]

Im a liberal and my ironically placed "logic" post didnt draw fire?

you mean the one about gay adoption?

that was a good post and i'm awaiting scotty's reply just like you are

Did he say gay marriage = gay adoption?

State should decide on gay adoption the same way as gay marriage, with respect for religious freedom.

What does religious freedom have to do with either gay marriage or gay adoption? I'm not seeing the relevance.

ugh.... well then you should introduce yourself to the issues of the recent past that have a lot to do with the issue at hand, like, many adoption institutions being religious in nature, for one.

[Phatscotty]

That's a lie

If I was so much against gay marriage, I would not be so much for every state having a fair say, and I would not be supportive of any state who's people vote to recognize gay marriage.

I will support gay marriage in whatever state passes it legally, and I have made that clear since the very beginning.

For someone who supports gay marriage so much, you sure come out against it an awful lot. Funny how that happens.

I support states rights. Get that through your head or else we are done talking

You claim to support the Constitution, but your posts show otherwise.
You claim to support small government, but your posts show otherwise.
You'll have to pardon me for not believing you when you say that you support states rights outside of whatever cause happens to be convenient for you at the moment.

The Constitution supports states rights.
States right can be and usually are path to smaller government (less Federal)
I pardon you for not understanding the issue in it's entirety. I pardon you for thinking supporting states rights goes against the Constitution and smaller government. That is not at all the case.

[2dimes]

Well, the venting must have been good. I'm in a better mood about being married and have not even needed to talk to her or flip out.

I'm not convinced that Marriage is important at all.

I think it is. I see the vast difference (generally speaking, of course) between children in school who have two parents and children in school who have one. It is quite striking.

I have to agree with you both. I'm not convinced marriage is important. I do think two parents that can live together until the kids grow up is a huge benefit for them. I bet it would be even better if they can like each other, better again if they are in love.

I bet I'd get treated better by my wife if she did not know I'm married and therefore am much less likely to leave forever.

[Woodruff]

Thanks john9blue, I'm glad you could come in and moderately and independently make sure everyone understood our positions!

i was criticizing you individually.
are you a liberal? if so, then you might have a case for your argument that i only target liberals with my accusations.

Actually, for this particular point, it doesn't matter at all if I am a liberal, but only if you consider me to be a liberal. I strongly suspect you do.

i consider you a liberal for the same reasons that you consider me a Republican conservative.

You've never seen me say anything conservative? I'm surprised, to be honest.

[Woodruff]

but I think the most important thing is the parents, if not staying together in a relationship or at physically, is at least being in the child's life and supporting it.

I can agree completely with this. It's definitely a good addendum to what I was saying, and a better way of putting it.

A great way to address this would be to support and encourage strengthening the institution of marriage, along with morals in general. I know it's hard because society today is focused on satisfying every little impulse and possesses a certain lack of discipline. The popular mantra of "if it feels good, do it" runs contrary to and breaks down things that require commitment and sustainability. It seems to be so much easier for people to run away from their promises goals at the first sign of trouble or miscomfort. I think we could strenghten the institution on certain levels in our schools as well.

I agree...of course, my agreement also extends to including gay marriage in all respects of that agreement.

[Woodruff]

Im a liberal and my ironically placed "logic" post didnt draw fire?

you mean the one about gay adoption?

that was a good post and i'm awaiting scotty's reply just like you are

Did he say gay marriage = gay adoption?

State should decide on gay adoption the same way as gay marriage, with respect for religious freedom.

What does religious freedom have to do with either gay marriage or gay adoption? I'm not seeing the relevance.

ugh.... well then you should introduce yourself to the issues of the recent past that have a lot to do with the issue at hand, like, many adoption institutions being religious in nature, for one.

That sounds like a problem with the adoption agencies being bigoted, to me. That's not a matter of religious freedom. Religion isn't an excuse to enact bigoted policies.

[Phatscotty]

but I think the most important thing is the parents, if not staying together in a relationship or at physically, is at least being in the child's life and supporting it.

I can agree completely with this. It's definitely a good addendum to what I was saying, and a better way of putting it.

A great way to address this would be to support and encourage strengthening the institution of marriage, along with morals in general. I know it's hard because society today is focused on satisfying every little impulse and possesses a certain lack of discipline. The popular mantra of "if it feels good, do it" runs contrary to and breaks down things that require commitment and sustainability. It seems to be so much easier for people to run away from their promises goals at the first sign of trouble or miscomfort. I think we could strenghten the institution on certain levels in our schools as well.

I agree...of course, my agreement also extends to including gay marriage in all respects of that agreement.

#1 Can you agree that a mother can offer a child something that no 2 fathers can offer, and a father can offer a child something no 2 mothers can?
#2 Can you agree that adopting a child into a family with a mother and a father is much more preferable than into a family that has no mother or no father?

[Woodruff]

That's a lie

If I was so much against gay marriage, I would not be so much for every state having a fair say, and I would not be supportive of any state who's people vote to recognize gay marriage.

I will support gay marriage in whatever state passes it legally, and I have made that clear since the very beginning.

For someone who supports gay marriage so much, you sure come out against it an awful lot. Funny how that happens.

I support states rights. Get that through your head or else we are done talking

You claim to support the Constitution, but your posts show otherwise.
You claim to support small government, but your posts show otherwise.
You'll have to pardon me for not believing you when you say that you support states rights outside of whatever cause happens to be convenient for you at the moment.

The Constitution supports states rights.

Not on all issues, it most certainly does not.

States right can be and usually are path to smaller government (less Federal)

Which is irrelevant to my point regarding your support of small government.

I pardon you for not understanding the issue in it's entirety. I pardon you for thinking supporting states rights goes against the Constitution and smaller government. That is not at all the case.

I pardon you for being a hypocritical bigot who only wants to stand by the rule of law when it's convenient to whatever issue you're trying to support at that moment. Actually, no...I don't pardon you for that...I'll continue to call it out at every opportunity.

[Woodruff]

Well, the venting must have been good. I'm in a better mood about being married and have not even needed to talk to her or flip out.

That's excellent to hear, seriously. We're here for you.

[Woodruff]

Can you agree that a mother can offer a child something that no 2 fathers can offer, and a father can offer a child something no 2 mothers can?

But that's not the alternative, Phatscotty...that's a false choice. We're talking about kids who aren't being adopted. So the choice that you're trying to avoid here is the choice between no parents at all and either 2 mothers or 2 fathers. That is the reality here.

#2 Can you agree that adopting a child into a family with a mother and a father is much more preferable than into a family that has no mother or no father?

Again, that's not the alternative we're dealing with. We're talking about kids who aren't being adopted.

[Phatscotty]

Can you agree that a mother can offer a child something that no 2 fathers can offer, and a father can offer a child something no 2 mothers can?

But that's not the alternative, Phatscotty...that's a false choice. We're talking about kids who aren't being adopted. So the choice that you're trying to avoid here is the choice between no parents at all and either 2 mothers or 2 fathers. That is the reality here.

#2 Can you agree that adopting a child into a family with a mother and a father is much more preferable than into a family that has no mother or no father?

Again, that's not the alternative we're dealing with. We're talking about kids who aren't being adopted.

hmmm, that looks like a dodge to me

[2dimes]

#1 Can you agree that a mother can offer a child something that no 2 fathers can offer, and a father can offer a child something no 2 mothers can?

#2 Can you agree that adopting a child into a family with a mother and a father is much more preferable than into a family that has no mother or no father?

#1 I believe a biological mother cannot be replaced. However if she's unfit to parent needs to be.

#2 I kind of answered that. If the biological father is suitable to be a parent. I think he should raise the kids if they lose the mother or she leaves.

If the child/ren are orphaned I do think a two gender parent pair is better because I believe the two genders are different and both have something unique to offer.

The problem with that is I don't believe forcing a gay person to co-habit with someone of the oposite gender to raise kids would be fair or better.