Gay couples and adoption (Page 5)

So you don't want to deny them rights outright, you'd rather weasel it in by codifying into law a religious based definition of marriage that just by chance happens to deny them rights.

Man up and face the end result of your definition, which is the ensure continued discrimination and denial of rights.  Claim you are simply "defining marriage", but the end result is the denial of rights.

This is going to go  in a different route.  I'll apologize up front for hijacking your thread, tupuppy.

My 17 y/o son is a member of GLSEN.  HE has been amember of them for several years now.  They stand up for the rights of students in schools (& communities) that are harrassed because of their sexual orientation.  He is confident enough that people will ultimately see that bullying, harrassing,etc. someone because of their differences that he publicly states his views and even puts up posters about this and actively recruits and paticipates in Day of Silence.  As a fmatter of fact, his younger 2 brothers joined him this year for the first time.  They tried last year but the principal told them that if they refused to speak when spoken to (they have cards that are issued to teachers at the start of class stating their participation) they would be suspended for insubordination.  I;m glad they didn't attend that school last year.

 OK, back to your regularly scheduled discussion that is way off topic from what Ty asked to begin with!!!

Actually, we support changing the requirements to receive a marriage license. It's a civil matter.

At present, many states require that the 2 individuals applying for the marriage license be of opposite sex. Supporters of same-sex marriage seek to change the requirement so that people of the same sex be allowed to apply for and receive a marriage license.

It's about applying for and receiving a license without discrimating based upon the sex of the 2 applicants. Plain and simple.

Don, as always you are eloquent and I do admire the strength of you convictions.  You speak a lot about natural law, and how that is philosophy and reason.  I don't believe in the same definition of marriage that you do, and your definition is unreasonable and does not make sense to me.  But we have had that conversation in the past.  There is no proof in my eyes that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.  I love my partner of 11 years.  We do not want kids, but I have known just as committed same sex relationships that have conceived children naturally so to avoid the adoption process.  This children, too me, seem well adjusted, normal well behaved children.  The corner stone of a society is not just the family unit, but a strong family unit, which does not mean male-female.  Maybe this is the direction that we are meant to be headed.  Maybe this was "the plan" all along.  Maybe this is our path to peace and understanding among all people.  Maybe it is people that oppose freedom of rights for all, that are really holding back the countries true strength. 

 Well, gotta go back to work!

YOu can try to blame no fault divorce for the deterioration of the institution of marriage if you want, but the forced continuation of unsuccessful marriages is no better in my opinion.  That's a separate argument, and one that does not address the issue of kids.  I still contend that the things you are in favor of are, in large part in our history, the way it has been done which has led to where we are now.

If the second part of that statement is true, then how can the first part also be true.  Were the 1st century Roman jurists Christians?

Natural law certainly was developed to a great extent within Judeo-Christianity, but it transcends religious lines.  Take, for example, the prohibition against murder, or in the positive sense, the human right to life.  That's a concept equally understood by easter peoples as well as western peoples.

Well, they either can be discerned from reason or they cannot be.  If they can be, then it's irrelevant if certain religions agree that natural law is true.

Of course it is.

The word "religion" means to unite or to bind together. That is certainly what is happening in the secular movement, especially with its attempt to be the sole religion with the right to sit at the common civic table.

And it requires faith because, with a strictly materialist view of the world, one must have faith that all of this matter came from somewhere, since it can't be proven scientifically one way or another. 

Natural law and the laws of nature are two different things.  Natural law is not about observing the was that animals behave in nature. 

 Well, I already made that sentence conditional with the word "if".

Coredump asked me how I could reconcile my statements with not being discriminatory.  I answered by saying that: "if" this is true, "then" this is true.

Actually, no. 

Main Entry: ¹sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>

I think it's hilarious that guns are allowed in some states... but yet a lovingly gay couple can't adopt a baby that needs a home...

my gosh, sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American, sigh.

Those are very legitimate points.  I wish that our national discussion about this issue could tackle your questions head on.

Sadly, both sides get caught up in rhetoric that is not very helpful in getting at the heart of your statements. 

Language changes, and the OED, which follows actual usage rather than creating it, will be adding another definition to it's entry at some point.  

It's also been used to help end slavery, segregation and the oppression of women.  Thankfully, also, Judeo-Christian arguments were used to help end these things.  And thankfully, people were not prejudicial against those arguments simply because they came from religious people.

HAHAHAHA! What a great reply.

But it doesn't validate your opinion that the word we use to describe things that are not of a religious nature is a religion.

Could the two consenting adults be a brother and a sister?

Just going from memory here, but there's a case that, I believe, was submitted to the SCOTUS, in which a brother and sister, who was past child bearing years, claimed that state laws that did not allow them to marry were discriminatory. I believe, for some reason, the SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Do you think they ought to be allowed to marry?

And if it's not, then what you are supporting amounts to discrimination and the maltreatment of a group of your fellow humans?  Yes?

I don't usually jump into this stuff on BT, but since we are being so civil...

As background, I must state:  I share Don's beliefs about sexuality.  That is, sex is intended for m/f marriage only.  This is one of the teachings of my faith.  I don't think it's a good idea to legislate this (for various reasons that don't squarely belong in this thread), but there it is.

Now, onto the corollary issue of adoption by, say, single people, stepparents, or gay people.  Yes, adoption IS regulated by the state, but I think kids need all the parents they can get.   Anyone who adopts is stepping forward and saying, "yes, I am making an unbreakable, forever commitment to this child's well-being."  That is pretty awesome.  So while I appreciate Don's overall arguments about the breakdown of marriage and family DUE to extramarital sex, I think that the urgent need for kids to have parents ~ all kids, but especially older kids, sibling groups, or kids with health challenges ~ absolutely trumps that.  For every child raised in a loving and stable forever home, society is that much the better.

Though her beliefs and practices do not 100% overlaps with mine, I truly believe that Hollis will be an excellent parent.  For this reason, I will join the BT parade in rejoicing when she becomes one.  (Contrast what we know about Hollis with the qualifications that it takes for hetero people to become parents ~ shudder!)

This may seem hypocritical or even flat wrong to many people of my faith.  But, that's where it is for me.

Peace.

I was trying to just make one minor point, that being that the first sentence in that quote you posted can't be true.

1st century Romans, if I remember correctly, had already adopted religious beliefs that had been developed by the Greeks. Those included the idea of many gods.

When Christianity entered the Greek world, it did not go that route. Rather, it found that the philosophy of Greeks such as Aristotle was closer to their understanding of a monotheistic god than was the pantheism of the majority of Greeks.

It's one reason why Christians were persecuted in Rome through the third century. They were actually called a-theists, because they did not subscribe to Roman/Greek theism.

I was just trying to point out that natural law is not based solely in Juedeo-Christianity.

No, I'd say that the founders got it right, it is based in the assumption of a creator of some kind. That is different than a god. Aristotle's notion of a prime mover, or an uncaused cause, cannot be thought of as a notion of a god.

So show me a positive law reason for the institution of marriage. Then let's compare the two.

Yes, it would seem to be.

That's a really good question, so I reserve the right to change my answer after thinking about it some more.

But I think you're right. Yes. 

Thanks, bro...

Also, I know that no one reads every word of all the posts in a thread, but my original post stated what I thought was the argument for people who oppose gay adoption, and I also said that I lean that way, and what I should have added is that I haven't decided yet.

Right now I'm probably closer in thinking to what CitySky wrote. Of course, I'm concerned for the welfare of children in the foster system.

The troubling part for me is that it seems that gay adoption will lend credibility to gay marriage, such as it did in New Jersey. So I'm not sure I can support it because of that. But really, I haven't decided yet.

Anyway, I'm going to try to go now and make some money today.