Gay couples and adoption (Page 2)

I think the point that is being missed again and again is that we are required to abide by CIVIL law, not natural law.

We're talking about civil prerogatives, rights and laws. Not morality or "natural" law.

Yea, hit me over the head with an emotional appeal while you're tapering...

Hollis asked a question that requires a careful answer to justify it.

The main question is this: is it good for society in the long run to continue the redefinition of marriage. I don't think it is.

That's ultimately more important.

In fact, at least in the United States, one reason there are so many children waiting to be adopted stems in part from the fact that the traditional notion of family has breaking down to a large extent. And it's reasonable to look at the free love movement as one of the main factors for this breakdown. (and I count myself guilty in contributing to this breakdown)

So it's like saying that the answer to the explosion of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, divorces, and abortions, since the widespread introduction of contraception in the sixities, is to encourage the use of more contraception. It's counterintuitive.

So many of these problems we face today were made worse because of the breakdown of traditional marriage. Maybe it's time we took a step back and questioned whether a continuing erosion of the tradition is actually a good thing.

my taper is in six or seven weeks, so I'm going to go ride now...  

I agree with this statement.  We all have our own beliefs and there are many different factions on this debate BUT we must realize that it is our laws that we are to abide by NOT someone else's views on they think is best in accordance to their religioius beliefs.

I'm not sure that makes sense. I haven't worked out all week and I think it's starting to show

Maybe it got missed, but my other post said that I believe that people have the right to base laws on notions of positive law, and on their own sense of morality. Even if they can't explain where their sense of morality comes from.

We abide by civil law. Thankfully, the founders based our form of government on notions of natural law, which then in turn allows us to form a system that regulates our activities through civil law.

And BTW, my religious belief teaches that those who do not agree with me still have the right to base laws according to their consciences. I'm sorry that many of those who don't agree with me do not believe that I have that same right.

(don, of course you have that right. even if it's wrong, ha ha ha, I kill me.)

Ever seen Raising Arizona? 
 "Don't come back here without my baby!"

And simply because it can't be stated too often:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Our country and our government was founded in order to secure natural laws that were endowed by a creator. 

Exacatackaly... thank you very much...

( very funny movie...)

Yes, exactly.

My civil beliefs teach me that our laws and the prerogatives and rights that the state and federal govts bestow upon the citizenry cannot be in violation of the national bible, the US Constitution.

Our rights to base laws are not based upon sense of morality, but based upon what the national and state Constitutions say our rights are (or are not).

You cannot just say you are entitled to pass a law because you want to regulate something that offends your sense of morality. It has to pass civil muster, as my rights to civil liberties and prerogatives supercede your right to not be morally offended - unless and until the state legally strips me of that right.

But we're getting off the topic of the OP question.

The words "natural laws" appear nowhere in that paragraph. Life is a human right. Liberty, I would argue, is a human right, though some might say that it and the pursuit of happiness are civil rights.

I think the part after what you bolded is equally important: the governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. These are not divinely ordained governments we're talking about here. We're talking about government of the people, by the people, for the people.

And while we're at it, let's not forget the Establishment Clause. 

Not to mention the very obvious point that this is the Declaration of Independence being quoted which holds no legal weight when it comes to legal rights and civil prerogatives. Red herring.

The document that guides our Republic, establishes our rights, and places limitations on the government is the US Constitution.

Indeed!!! 

yes Jim, you're right. I spoke from the gut and not from the head. There are indeed many fabulous foster families, I am speaking of those that aren;t, where kids are, mentally, spiritually and physically rotting.

 The rest of you, carry on.   It's nothing don can;t handle, nothing he hasn;t seen a zillion times

 You know, I have enjoyed a whole bag of pretzles watching this thread unfold and was struck by one thing. The fact that this discussion is not just theoretical; I get the impression that you have something more than a passing interest.

It is my hope that there will come a time in the near future where sexual orientation will not be a consideration when evaluating an individual (Or Couple) at any point in time. (IE, that it will no longer be used as a means of descrimination)

Specifically on the subject of adoption, that the prospective parent be evaluated on their merits as a parent and nothing more. I am not just looking for a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy; but rather a system where everyone can be themselves and be seen for who they are, and not be judged.

Where we will no longer refer to them as "A Gay Couple" or a "Gay Parent", but just a couple and a parent.

Unfortunately, I am just one voice and do not belong to any such organization that shares this vision. No one to lobby congress for this idea, no one with unfettered access to those in power within our government.

But I can still hope for it, and that counts for something

I'm Catholic.  I don't care who marries who and don't have a problem with gay couples adopting.

Let's not assume that every person with religious beliefs believes a certain way.

I agree. I think Don is wrong too.

Good God... here we are all caught up in the processes again. The HOW the WHY the THIS the THAT. How about 2 people volunteering to raise an otherwise unwanted child in their home, with love, compassion and understanding? How about getting a kid out of an orphanage? How about giving a kid a chance? I find it hard to believe that GOD, the CREATOR of said kid, would prefer his creation remain alone and unloved for the duration of his/her life.

No way. If God is what we say he/she is. Then that's not the way it's going down. That's why there are people like Hollis and K out there... and countless other couples... gay/straight black white whatever...gladly doing what is clearly in the spirit of "God". Loving.

The world could benefit from a broader perspective on EVERYTHING.

Believe what you want, but you can't argue with the fact that there are LOTS of babies put up for adoption and each and every one of them deserves a loving home. Will they get it? Probably not, due to ridiculous laws that put the "Man and Woman" thing and the "marriage" thing above the "love" thing.

PS: I'm adopted, too.

I agree that it is sad that there are some children that are being abused by there heterosexual parents.  But to use this as an argument for gay adoption seems a little silly.  Are you really trying to say that no children have ever been abused by homosexual parents.

Don't know about others but what I'm saying is why can't gay couples have the right to screw up kids just as much as heterosexual couples do?