heyzeus wrote:I'm optimistic, to near certain, that in our lifetimes a US Supreme Court decision will take up civil unions and rule, on due process and equal protection grounds, that you can't deny the myriad rights that come with marriage to homosexuals. It's just a question of when.
That's my feeling as well as the shift in attitudes on this issue has been dramatic. Still, sooner would be better than later. Proposition 8 is already being taken to court.
------------
Proposition 8 says:
Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
That certainly sounds like a bill to cancel the existing same sex marriages in California.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
Sex is one of our basic needs. If you're in a marriage, you're getting that need fulfilled or at least have a healthy place to get it. to me, it boils down to this, would you rather go into a lions den where they have been fed a wildabeast every day for a year or would you rather go into a lions den where they haven't been fed in a couple weeks? Your call.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Plus, I don't see how anyone is going to argue that a family isn't better suited to raise a child than a non-family.
And what exactly is a family? And what's a non-family? Single people can still adopt in Arkansas. The only people who cannot are people who are living like a family but are not married - which of course for the main people targeted by this legislation is not an option anyway.
Family = married couple both acting as parents. I'm not voting against gay marriage here. I'm voting that you should be married to adopt/foster a child. I also don't think single people should be allowed to adopt/foster.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
Sex is one of our basic needs. If you're in a marriage, you're getting that need fulfilled or at least have a healthy place to get it. to me, it boils down to this, would you rather go into a lions den where they have been fed a wildabeast every day for a year or would you rather go into a lions den where they haven't been fed in a couple weeks? Your call.
Have you never watched a sitcom? Single people and unwed cohabitants get laid way more often than married people.
This is because sitcom married people slept in separate beds until the 1970's. It will take years to achieve sitcom conjugal parity
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Sex is one of our basic needs. If you're in a marriage, you're getting that need fulfilled or at least have a healthy place to get it. to me, it boils down to this, would you rather go into a lions den where they have been fed a wildabeast every day for a year or would you rather go into a lions den where they haven't been fed in a couple weeks? Your call.
I'm speechless.
Anyway if you actually believe that, then you should be very strongly against the law that was passed. It prohibits unmarried cohabiting couples from adopting. They should be getting laid all the time, so the kids should be safe. Meanwhile unfed single people are still allowed to bring children into their lions den.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Plus, I don't see how anyone is going to argue that a family isn't better suited to raise a child than a non-family.
And what exactly is a family? And what's a non-family? Single people can still adopt in Arkansas. The only people who cannot are people who are living like a family but are not married - which of course for the main people targeted by this legislation is not an option anyway.
Family = married couple both acting as parents. I'm not voting against gay marriage here. I'm voting that you should be married to adopt/foster a child. I also don't think single people should be allowed to adopt/foster.
I would rather have a kid in a single parent home then stuck in the foster system. If you disagree then I can only assume you don't know much about the foster care system.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Sex is one of our basic needs. If you're in a marriage, you're getting that need fulfilled or at least have a healthy place to get it. to me, it boils down to this, would you rather go into a lions den where they have been fed a wildabeast every day for a year or would you rather go into a lions den where they haven't been fed in a couple weeks? Your call.
I'm speechless.
Anyway if you actually believe that, then you should be very strongly against the law that was passed. It prohibits unmarried cohabiting couples from adopting. They should be getting laid all the time, so the kids should be safe. Meanwhile unfed single people are still allowed to bring children into their lions den.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Plus, I don't see how anyone is going to argue that a family isn't better suited to raise a child than a non-family.
And what exactly is a family? And what's a non-family? Single people can still adopt in Arkansas. The only people who cannot are people who are living like a family but are not married - which of course for the main people targeted by this legislation is not an option anyway.
Family = married couple both acting as parents. I'm not voting against gay marriage here. I'm voting that you should be married to adopt/foster a child. I also don't think single people should be allowed to adopt/foster.
I would rather have a kid in a single parent home then stuck in the foster system. If you disagree then I can only assume you don't know much about the foster care system.
Nor much about what it's like to be a kid. I mean my God, you're gonna sit there and tell us that children shouldn't be given the chance to live in a home that provides love and opportunities for a normal childhood and healthy future because you're afraid that a single person or an unmarried couple might molest them? (but those fears magically disappear if the couple is married?)
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Plus, I don't see how anyone is going to argue that a family isn't better suited to raise a child than a non-family.
And what exactly is a family? And what's a non-family? Single people can still adopt in Arkansas. The only people who cannot are people who are living like a family but are not married - which of course for the main people targeted by this legislation is not an option anyway.
Family = married couple both acting as parents. I'm not voting against gay marriage here. I'm voting that you should be married to adopt/foster a child. I also don't think single people should be allowed to adopt/foster.
I would rather have a kid in a single parent home then stuck in the foster system. If you disagree then I can only assume you don't know much about the foster care system.
Nor much about what it's like to be a kid. I mean my God, you're gonna sit there and tell us that children shouldn't be given the chance to live in a home that provides love and opportunities for a normal childhood and healthy future because you're afraid that a single person or an unmarried couple might molest them? (but those fears magically disappear if the couple is married?)
I don't have all the answers by any means. But, yes, love and understanding for children is what we're both looking for here.
I'm married and we have a child, but there's no question in my mind that a single person or a gay couple can raise a child effectively. Child abuse is a concern, but it's not as though it's some high percentage of the population are child molesters. Foster homes probably have as bad a record on this as the general population. It's ridiculous to suggest a foster home is automatically preferable to any of these other options.
People that are actually willing to jump through the hoops it takes to have children should be allowed to if they pass all the screening. Meanwhile, here's a nice story about married foster parents in Cincinnati who killed a child by locking him in a closet when they left town.
