Again, if you want a reasoned argument, then you have to deal with the language of reason.

You're a scientist, right?

You can either describe a sunset through poetry or physics. If everyone keeps telling you that you need to stop using poetry in your description, then you use physics. But when you turn to physics, it's not fair if they then criticize you for using mathematical formulas.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm saying that your Natural Law argument is merely repackaged religious based justification to deny rights to gay people.

Let's not beat around the bush here, your glowing descriptions of joined-in-one-flesh unions are distracting, but you are arguing that anyone who is gay is less worthy/qualified/capable of being a good parent to a child than someone who is hetero.  And you support denying them rights that you yourself enjoy.

Wrap it up however you want, you are advocating the continued discrimination and treatment of gay people as something less than human, less than equal, or less than you.  I doubt you can ever convince me that you do that out of love.

Chris, I'm incapable of convincing you or anyone else of anything.  All I can do is propose things and share what I've found.

It seems like you're accusing me of playing some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing game, where the wolf is religion and the sheep skin is reason.

Look if you don't want to consider an argument like George's, that's fine. 

For myself, it's difficult to constantly hear how ideas held by religious people are invalid simply because they're religious, and then go out and do the work of finding strictly reason based arguments, and then have that reasoned based argument be dismissed out of hand without being thoroughly considered.

I mean, who really has trust in reason here, the religious guy or the secular guy? 

You're still missing my point that you are advocating the continuation of discrimination and denial of equality to gay couples.

There is no argument, religious, natural law, or otherwise that will convince me that continuing to discriminate and treat as less human is the right thing to do.  Okay, there may be one, but I'm extremly doubtful that you can make one, just as I doubt that you can make one that would convince me that interracial marriage should be barred, or that women should not be allowed to vote, etc.

You want to continue to deny rights that you enjoy to gay people, simply because they are gay.
Yes or No?

A gay person is less human and less deserving of rights than you are.  Yes or no?

Here's my thoughts.  (I am not saying that I feel this way)

Is it discriminatory to deny a drug user or other criminal the right to adopt children?  You would probably say it is not discriminitory because it is denying them a privelege based on their choices.   Well one could argue that being in a  homosexual relationship is a choice, therefore it is not discriminitory to deny them a privelege based on the actions they have chosen.   (not saying gay == criminal just that they are both choices in a way)

Would your same argument hold up if it was a man and 2 women, or 3 men, or a brother and sister?   There has to be a line drawn besides just being in love and willing to raise a child.  

Well, Montana seems to have no specific prohibition against gay couples. So, YAY MONTANA!

 42-1-106. Who may adopt. The following individuals who otherwise meet the requirements of this title are eligible to adopt a child:
     (1) a husband and wife jointly or either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child;
     (2) an unmarried individual who is at least 18 years of age; or
     (3) a married individual at least 18 years of age who is legally separated from the other spouse or whose spouse has judicially been declared incompetent.

Personally, I don't understand the idea of prohibiting gays from adopting. So, is it better to let a single person adopt? Why? A single heterosexual would also be incapable of producing a child on their own, so is that amoral too?

You know what I can say for sure, though? The world isn't perfect yet and working to prevent willing, capable people from adopting otherwise unwanted children is a disservice. Once the world is otherwise perfect, go for it. Ban gays, singles, people with a third nipple and the handicapped from adopting. Have a freakin' ball, but find something more important in the meantime.

Being gay isn't a concious choice. If you think it is but are not gay, did you chose to be straight?  When?  Why? ( you in the general sense, no you specifcally ).

Discrimination is the denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice and for other arbitrary reasons. Treating criminals differently from non-criminals ( where the crime is a serious crime, not a jaywalking ticket ) would be a stretch to be called discrimination. Being convicted of a crime is not an arbitrary reason.

A couple is admittedly arbitrary, and I have no opposition in principle to any of the cases you pose in the second paragraph based on the details you provide.

This is what I found for Illinois.   Who Is Eligible To Adopt?   Many people are under the impression that they cannot adopt if they are single, over forty years of age or not affiliated with a church or religious organization. This is not true. Though some adoption agencies have either explicit or unspoken requirements for applicants, the only requirements adopting parents must meet under Illinois law are that they:   Are at least 18 years of age and under no legal disability, Have been continuous residents of the State of Illinois for at least six months prior to filing the Petition, and, If married, both spouses must join in the Petition. Certain criminal convictions of the potential adoptive parents or others living in their home may prevent the adoptive parents from being issued a foster family license in Illinois, thus barring them from adopting through a licensed child welfare agency in Illinois.

http://www.illinois-adoption-law.com/adopt_who_can.html

Don, I'm glad you're sticking this one out as it must be tiring to participate in these threads the way you do.  Because I know the beatings you take I try to stay in the background most of the time but I wanted to point something out.  In another thread you brought up the "poets vs. scientist" viewpoints.  This goes back to my original point near the beginning of this thread.  And yes, I admit I was probably the first one to bring up religion in your arguments even though you did not.  But it is there.  I think the main problem that most people  have with many of your arguments is that the attributes ascribed in your arguments to the institutions of marriage and family are as much a shifting foundation upon which to build an argument as you believe your opponents are leaning on for their arguments.  Many people come from broken homes.  Bad marriages, bad parents, etc.  The terms marriage and family don't evoke the same sense of societal foundation in them that they do when you present them in your arguments.

You claim that the thousands of years of family unit based societies prove that the family is the essential building block of society.  If asked to define family, I'm sure you will eloquently state what it has traditionally been.   Well traditionally based families have gotten us to where we are now.  Your arguments about how awful things would be if these traditional models are changed or destroyed make me wonder, how much worse could it get?  Seriously.  If you are going to use the existing model of what has been to insist that it should remain that way it's a pretty weak argument when you look around at the results, in my opinion. 

The other reason that I brought up religion was to tie together the Church's positions on birth control and abortion, both of which lead to increasing the number of unwanted births, and contrast that with the idea of refusing to allow certain groups of people who may be ready, willing and able to be great adoptive parents. 

To shorten all of this, let me put it like this:

1.  Situation A sucks.
2.  Solution G is proposed.
3.  Party C opposes G because it will lead to a bad situation.

Well, we already have a bad situation.  I believe that Party C is wrong and it will NOT lead to a bad situation, but that even if they were right it won't be any worse than the situation A that we already have.

Meanwhile, (and I only use her as an example because she volunteere the information) somewhere there is someone like Whizzzzz in an orphanage or with foster parents who is not being adopted while we argue in the theoretical.

If that is labeled as an emotional appeal that's fine with me.  Emotions make me who I am and I do not believe it lessens the validity of my argument. 

Hah! Indeed!

Civil privileges, applied equally. Real simple. Simple logic. Reasonable.

The slippery slope argument that society will go to hell-in-a-handbasket? Fallacious logic 101. Really, there's no logic there. Rhetoric not worthy of deconstructing, it's so specious.

Hangloose, it's nice that you couch your response to Don so delicately, but I would counter that Don is not taking a beating - his ideas and rhetoric are taking a beating. 

No.

A gay person is less human and less deserving of rights than you are. Yes or no?

Again, for my part I did not bring up the question of religion here.

Plus, the meaning of the separation of church and state is to protect religious groups and their members by not allowing the establishment of a state church.  It was never intended to mean that persons whos consciences are informed by religious teachings cannot bring their consciences to bear in civil matters.

If anything, the danger here is that we are slowly forming a state religion of secularism.   

yea, I think that's right...

although they haven't been knocked out by a long shot...

in fact, they've hardly been touched, as far as I can tell... 

watch out for the rope-a-dope...  

No

Well of course - because it's just rhetoric. Opinions.

And for those that missed it at the time:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions

Gay issue stirred move by agency

By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff  |  March 11, 2006

In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.

Those are really good points.  The question I have is, how did we get here?

I'd say that one innovation that has caused ireperable harm to the family are no-fault divorce laws.  And I say this as someone who's gone through this.

So let's look at all of the pressures that have been bearing down on the family and have cause the institution to be in the state that it's in right now.  What changes can we make that can strengthen the family without introducing further innovations.

It will never be perfect, the liberalization of laws around family life don't seem to have helped so far.

That is awesome!

I really believe these odious DOMA laws will be reversed over time, just like prohibition was.

GREAT NEWS!!!!!

I like the way they articulated the point of marriage/civil unions - property rights, health insurance benefits, and medical decision making rights.

Because you're attempting to redefine what a marriage itself is.

If a marriage is rightly understood to be between one man and one woman, then there is no discrimination in saying that two men or two women cannot enter into it.