A reasonable explanation...

[Kal'Stang]

Ok. Here's the thing. I have nothing against gay people. I have relatives who are gay. Despite arguments to the contrary, I view homosexuality as a very natural thing. You ARE "just born" that way. And it's not something that humans have just made up for our own amusement. Instances of homosexuality have been documented in other species.

However, I do have an issue with the whole "gay culture." It has completely blown this issue out of proportion. In an effort to make people more aware of homosexuality, frankly, I think it has completely cheapened it. Those who are truly homosexual have to undergo a very long and personal process of self realization. It's not just about experimentation and Hollywood people having same sex relationships because they ran out of opposite sex people to sleep with. The concepts of "love" and "sex" have become synonymous. Which is sad.

So as of right now, I really don't care if it's PC to love gay people. What you do sexually with another person is really no one's business. I think it's very possible for a homosexual couple to have a mature and stable relationship AND raise kids. But that kind of relationship is very different from that of a heterosexual relationship in terms of the dynamics that go on and should be treated as such.

All of this is an opinion as far as I can tell. As far as I can see it has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing gay marriage. Unless there's something in independent_thinker2002 question and your subsequent answer that could enlighten me?

 

[1069]

Ok. Here's the thing. I have nothing against gay people. I have relatives who are gay. Despite arguments to the contrary, I view homosexuality as a very natural thing. You ARE "just born" that way. And it's not something that humans have just made up for our own amusement. Instances of homosexuality have been documented in other species.

However, I do have an issue with the whole "gay culture." It has completely blown this issue out of proportion. In an effort to make people more aware of homosexuality, frankly, I think it has completely cheapened it.

Well, boo hoo.
Maybe when they're fully accepted and integrated into mainstream culture, instead of being marginalized (by, for instance, not being allowed to marry or adopt children), they won't have to form their own parallel alternative culture.
The solution to your problem is right before your eyes.


:roll:

 

[emdash]

It doesn't matter if they can or cannot marry a heterosexual.

if by "a heterosexual" you mean "a person of the opposite sex," then of course it matters. that is a privilege given to everyone. if it were given to straights and not gays that would be an outrage.

What matters is their right to marry who they want to marry. Which again I have shown that US laws guarantee your right to marry who you want to marry.

without exception? come on. making your whole argument hinge on this fallacy is setting yourself up for defeat.

 

[emdash]

Well, boo hoo.
Maybe when they're fully accepted and integrated into mainstream culture, instead of being marginalized (by, for instance, not being allowed to marry or adopt children), they won't have to form their own parallel alternative culture.
The solution to your problem is right before your eyes.


:roll:

gay people aren't allowed to adopt children?

 

[Kal'Stang]

if by "a heterosexual" you mean "a person of the opposite sex," then of course it matters. that is a privilege given to everyone. if it were given to straights and not gays that would be an outrage.

You mind clarifying this for me please? Can't tell exactly what your saying or if you're just trying to be funny....

without exception? come on. making your whole argument hinge on this fallacy is setting yourself up for defeat.

The only exception is that the both people that are getting married is that they are both of legal age and freely consenting. Both of which has obvious valid reasons.

 

[Kal'Stang]

gay people aren't allowed to adopt children?

In some areas this is correct.

Many states do not have specific laws or court decisions on gay adoption or gay foster parenting, according to Paul Cattes, director of public education for the American Civil Liberties Union's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender project.

Eleven states and Washington, D.C. either implicitly or explicitly state that sexual orientation cannot legally prevent gay and lesbians from adopting, according to the Urban Institute report. (See the fact box to the left.)

Three states have laws denying gays and lesbians the right to adopt or take in foster children.

Though Mississippi allows single gays and lesbians to adopt, it prohibits same-sex couples from adopting. Utah excludes same-sex couples indirectly through a statute barring all unmarried couples from adopting or taking in foster children.

Florida is currently the only state that specifically bans "homosexual" individuals from adopting, although the state does allow them to be foster parents.

In the remaining 36 states, gays and lesbians who want to adopt or take in foster care children are at the mercy of judges and adoption and foster agencies, according to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a non-profit organization that studies adoption and foster care.

And although the institute says about 60 percent of all adoption agencies accept applications from gays and lesbians, they are often confronted with prejudice during the process.

Paula Prettyman's partner, Kelly Schlageter, used a sperm donor and gave birth to twin girls about six months ago. But Prettyman cannot adopt them because of a Virginia law that prohibits second-parent adoption unless the couple is married.

"In the minds of a lot of policymakers and politicians, I'm an unfit parent, but we spent tens of thousands of dollars and many years and many hours and a lot of emotional expense to bring these two beautiful girls into the world," Prettyman said. "And they are loved."

Others face opposition after being approved for adoption or foster care. For the Manford-Roach family, difficulties arose when they first tried to hyphenate Jackson's last name.

The judge overseeing the legal procedure in Dallas, Texas, crumpled up the paper and threw it over her shoulder when she realized they were a same-sex couple, Manford said.

"Get out of my courtroom, I would never do this for you," the judge said, according to Manford.

Link

 

[emdash]

In some areas this is correct.

Link

your article is outdated. florida

 

[1069]

your article is outdated. florida

Yes, it is.
Arkansas banned it last month, too.

link

link.

 

[emdash]

Yes, it is.
Arkansas banned it last month, too.

link

link.

Arkansas, a state with three times as many children who need homes as people willing to adopt or foster them, just voted in a measure to prevent unmarried, cohabitating couples from adopting or fostering children.

other states have this rule as well. homosexuals are not banned from adopting in arkansas.

 

[Kal'Stang]

other states have this rule as well. homosexuals are not banned from adopting in arkansas.

Arkansas, a state with three times as many children who need homes as people willing to adopt or foster them, just voted in a measure to prevent unmarried, cohabitating couples from adopting or fostering children.

Can homosexuals marry in Arkansas? If the can then I would agree. If not then how can homosexuals adopt or foster children when only married couples may adopt or foster children?

 

[emdash]

You mind clarifying this for me please? Can't tell exactly what your saying or if you're just trying to be funny....

no humor intended. dgomez asked if gay people cannot marry the exact same way straight people can: to members of the opposite gender. you said it doesn't matter. it DOES matter, especially if your argument is based on equal rights for gays and straights. a law saying that homosexuals are prohibited from participating in state-sanctioned marriage based on their sexuality would be highly discriminatory and invasive. no such law exists.

The only exception is that the both people that are getting married is that they are both of legal age and freely consenting. Both of which has obvious valid reasons.

you say, "U.S. laws guarantee you the right to marry whoever you want"

I say, what if the person you want to marry is

1. not of "legal age"
2. not consenting
3. in prison
4. married to someone else
5. closely related to you
etc?

nowhere does it say that you can marry whoever you want.

 

[emdash]

Can homosexuals marry in Arkansas? If the can then I would agree. If not then how can homosexuals adopt or foster children when only married couples may adopt or foster children?

we both know that homosexuals cannot marry in arkansas, because they cannot marry in any state except MA and CT. you can understand the legal issues surrounding adoption by an unmarried couple of any sexual orientation, which is why only singles (homo or hetero) or married couples are allowed to adopt in arkansas.

 

[1069]

other states have this rule as well. homosexuals are not banned from adopting in arkansas.
... we both know that homosexuals cannot marry in arkansas, because they cannot marry in any state except MA and CT. you can understand the legal issues surrounding adoption by an unmarried couple of any sexual orientation, which is why only singles (homo or hetero) or married couples are allowed to adopt in arkansas.

If "unmarried, cohabitating couples" are prevented from "adopting or fostering children", then yes, homosexuals are prevented from adopting or fostering children.
They are not permitted to marry.

That's like if I said "blue-eyed people are forbidden to adopt or foster children", but this new rule is not specifically aimed at excluding white people from adopting.

:roll:

Or, "People with penises are not permitted to adopt", but this isn't specifically aimed at men. Women with penises aren't allowed to adopt either, so it's not a sexually-discriminatory law. it applies to men and women equally.

:roll:

 

[DGomez]

All of this is an opinion as far as I can tell. As far as I can see it has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing gay marriage. Unless there's something in independent_thinker2002 question and your subsequent answer that could enlighten me?

I believe you are being dense on purpose.

I have said more than three times that as of right now marriage is equal for everyone.

The issue that needs to be addressed is establishing alternate forms of the institution of marriage. Which is fine. I say go for it. But it's not heterosexual marriage.

 

[DGomez]

Well, boo hoo.
Maybe when they're fully accepted and integrated into mainstream culture, instead of being marginalized (by, for instance, not being allowed to marry or adopt children), they won't have to form their own parallel alternative culture.
The solution to your problem is right before your eyes.


:roll:

They have brought the whole parallel universe upon themselves. If you want to blend in, act like "the norm."

Last time I checked, provided you go through the appropriate process, sexual orientation has nothing to do with adoption.

 

[DGomez]

If "unmarried, cohabitating couples" are prevented from "adopting or fostering children", then yes, homosexuals are prevented from adopting or fostering children.
They are not permitted to marry.

Go get married in a state that allows gay marriage. Or a country, for that matter.

 

[emdash]

If "unmarried, cohabitating couples" are prevented from "adopting or fostering children", then yes, homosexuals are prevented from adopting or fostering children.
They are not permitted to marry.

That's like if I said "blue-eyed people are forbidden to adopt or foster children", but this new rule is not specifically aimed at excluding white people from adopting.

:roll:

Or, "People with penises are not permitted to adopt", but this isn't specifically aimed at men. Women with penises aren't allowed to adopt either, so it's not a sexually-discriminatory law. it applies to men and women equally.

:roll:

cute. now for the truth, which I like to think is relevant. homosexuals are allowed to foster/adopt, just not jointly with someone they aren't married to, and the same goes for everyone in arkansas.

 

[1069]

Go get married in a state that allows gay marriage. Or a country, for that matter.

It doesn't matter. These marriages are not recognized or acknowledged as legally valid in states or countries where same-sex marriage is against the law.
You didn't know this? :roll:

 

[Kal'Stang]

no humor intended. dgomez asked if gay people cannot marry the exact same way straight people can: to members of the opposite gender. you said it doesn't matter. it DOES matter, especially if your argument is based on equal rights for gays and straights. a law saying that homosexuals are prohibited from participating in state-sanctioned marriage based on their sexuality would be highly discriminatory and invasive. no such law exists.

Thank you for the clairification. California just passed a state constitutional amendment stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I'd say that, that was discriminatory against two men or two women that want to marry each other. It's not discriminatory based on sexuality..but it is discriminatory based on gender. Which again we have federal laws that ban discrimination based on sex. One law about employment and the other in hate crimes legislation. If discrimination of a persons sex is not allowed in one part of the government then it should not be allowed in ANY part of the government.

you say, "U.S. laws guarantee you the right to marry whoever you want"

I say, what if the person you want to marry is

1. not of "legal age"
2. not consenting
3. in prison
4. married to someone else
5. closely related to you
etc?

nowhere does it say that you can marry whoever you want.

While it doesn't say it explicitly it does show it. Loving vs Virginia is one case. And there are laws against forced marriages. IE you must have full and freely given consent to marry. These shows that you have a right to marry who you want to marry. You gotta remember that the Spirit of the Law is just as important as the Law itself. And many courts recognize this.

 

[emdash]

It doesn't matter. These marriages are not recognized or acknowledged as legally valid in states or countries where same-sex marriage is against the law.
You didn't know this? :roll:

that depends on the state.

homosexuals can adopt in other states though, and arkansas won't take their kids away from them.

 

[DGomez]

Thank you for the clairification. California just passed a state constitutional amendment stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I'd say that, that was discriminatory against two men or two women that want to marry each other. It's not discriminatory based on sexuality..but it is discriminatory based on gender. Which again we have federal laws that ban discrimination based on sex. One law about employment and the other in hate crimes legislation. If discrimination of a persons sex is not allowed in one part of the government then it should not be allowed in ANY part of the government.

It's not discrimination based on sex. Both men and women are allowed to marry.

 

[DGomez]

It doesn't matter. These marriages are not recognized or acknowledged as legally valid in states or countries where same-sex marriage is against the law.
You didn't know this? :roll:

I did. I'm just saying that if it's an issue, go to a state where it's not.

Plus, as emdash has already said, this does not prevent you from adopting a child.

 

[emdash]

Thank you for the clairification. California just passed a state constitutional amendment stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I'd say that, that was discriminatory against two men or two women that want to marry each other. It's not discriminatory based on sexuality..but it is discriminatory based on gender. Which again we have federal laws that ban discrimination based on sex. One law about employment and the other in hate crimes legislation. If discrimination of a persons sex is not allowed in one part of the government then it should not be allowed in ANY part of the government.

not really, the government makes all kinds of distinctions based on gender, both military and civilian. marriage does not fall under "employment" or "hate crimes."

While it doesn't say it explicitly it does show it. Loving vs Virginia is one case. And there are laws against forced marriages. IE you must have full and freely given consent to marry. These shows that you have a right to marry who you want to marry. You gotta remember that the Spirit of the Law is just as important as the Law itself. And many courts recognize this.

by requiring consent the government is allowing people the right to NOT marry someone they don't want to marry, not the right TO marry anyone at all they want. I honestly don't see how this supports your argument.

 

[DGomez]

You say "very different". Please explain.

Man+woman relationship is not the same as man+man relationship.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I say, what if the person you want to marry is

1. not of "legal age"
2. not consenting
3. in prison
4. married to someone else
5. closely related to you
etc?

Sorry forgot to address this part.

1. Someone that is underage cannot make a fully informed consent. Not allowed. Part of our laws stand on the fact that a person must be fully informed in order to make decisions.

2. Again there are laws specifically against non-consensual marriage.

3. People can get married in prison.

4. When you say "married to someone else" I'm assuming you mean marriages that are based on polygamy? Thats already been addressed in this thread.

5. married to a relative. That one gets a bit more complicated but as it stands as long as it's two consenting adults I don't care. However with this one there would have to be some caveats since the marriage could result in babies. One of our most fundemental laws is that no law can be enacted if it can lead to the harm of another person. And even though the chance is slight having kids with your brother/sister can lead to deformed kids. The risks get stronger as more generations pass.