My position on same sex adoption
The article in the Kalamazoo Gazette may have caused some confusion about my views on same sex adoption.
My position on same sex adoption:
• There should be a social and legal presumption that kids need a mom and a dad, preferably their own mom and dad. When that is not possible, society should try to replicate the natural family as closely as possible.
• The state absolutely should not place its wards with same sex couples. The government has no business conducting social experiments on the most vulnerable children in society.
• Private adoption agencies should not be required to place children with same sex couples.
• There is no “right to adopt” for anyone. Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want.
• We don’t need to open up adoption to same sex couples because “there are so many children languishing in foster care.” There are plenty of American married couples who go to the ends of the earth (literally) to adopt children, many of whom are difficult to place, older children, sibling groups, special needs kids, and children of different races from the parents. The claim that we need to allow gay couples to adopt for the benefit of children is a red herring.
• Having said that, there are sometimes situations where the best parent for a particular child may be a relative who is gay. I wouldn’t prohibit that kind of placement, nor would I void a placement plan that biological parents make for their kids.
Obviously, allowing this exception is a long way from the generalized “right to adopt,” that the gay lobby seeks.
Loading ...
Hear, hear!
Well, in Florida, the courts have decided that laws banning same sex adoption do not pass the rational basis test. So, if you think that children are best served by having a married mother and father in their lives, you are irrational. Absolutely irrational.
Dr. J. does not advocate an absolute ban on same sex adoption, so I guess she would pass Ari’s rationality test.
I suspect that some judges would consider the majority of Americans and the majority of the state legislatures to be irrational.
The American College of Pediatricians http://www.acpeds.org does not sound particularly irrational. See http://www.prop8case.com/docs/amicus/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20American%20College%20of%20Pediatricians%20in%20Support%20of%20Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants.pdf
It’s a shame the Straight Supremacy Campaign continues to promote this kind of hatred. One has to wonder about the kind of person who would deny a child a parent because of personal dislike of gays. Children wouldn’t be available for adoption if straight people could behave responsibly in the first place! It is ironic, to say the least, that gay couples aren’t ideal parents (so what? who is ideal?) when the reason the kids need parents is because the straight people who sired them aren’t good parents!
Again, this all contributes to a society where gay kids and gay adults are taught to feel bad about themselves, and sometimes end their lives. Is it really worth it to you homophobes? Is that your real goal, gay suicide?!
“The state absolutely should not place its wards with same sex couples. The government has no business conducting social experiments on the most vulnerable children in society.”
That you hate gay people so much that you would rather see kids in orphanages or living on the streets, rather than in the care of a loving gay couples, makes me sick to my stomach.
“There is no “right to adopt” for anyone. Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want.”
But denying same-sex couples the right to adopt is sending the message that there’s something wrong with gay couples. That tells our young gay people that there’s something wrong with them. That leads to suicide. Adoption exists as much to let adults be parents. So suggest that opposite-sex couples adopt in order to meet the child’s needs only is ludicrous. Adults who can’t have children adopt for selfish reasons: they want to be parents! Same-sex couples have the same reason but can be just as selfless and adopt because a child needs a parent.
“There are plenty of American married couples who go to the ends of the earth (literally) to adopt children, many of whom are difficult to place, older children, sibling groups, special needs kids, and children of different races from the parents. The claim that we need to allow gay couples to adopt for the benefit of children is a red herring.”
Only in your hate-filled mind. There are gay couples who would be better parents than opposite-sex couples. If you really cared about the children, you’d want them in loving homes, not gender-determined homes.
Leo, the American College of Pediatrictians is a religion-based organization, so it doesn’t rely on science for its motivations and policy positions, but rather, religion. It’s mission statement reveals its bias:
“It was founded by a group of concerned physicians who saw the need for a pediatric organization that would not be influenced by the politically driven pronouncements of the day. The College bases its policies and positions upon scientific truth within a framework of ethical absolutes. Of particular importance to the founders were (as it is today) the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the importance of the fundamental mother-father family (female-male) unit in the rearing of children.”
Leo: Sean is quite correct about the American College of Pediatricians for a more reasonable point of view, go to the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Academy of Family Physicians both support adoption by same-sex couples.
Well stated, Dr. J!
“Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want.”
Why do you think that same-sex couples can’t give a child what they need? The same-sex couple that won the right to adopt their foster children seem to be doing a pretty good job. They adopted the children of a drug-addicted mother/father couple. So I guess not all opposite-sex couples make good parents, eh?
Ruth : “Well stated, Dr. J!
“Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to provide adults with the children they want.””
What a ridiculous statement! How ignorant is Dr. J? She would prefer children state in orphanages, and foster care rather than being adopted?
“There are plenty of American married couples who go to the ends of the earth (literally) to adopt children, many of whom are difficult to place, older children, sibling groups, special needs kids, and children of different races from the parents. ”
Really? Any proof on this “fact”? From the information I have seen, these “American married couples” will “go to the ends of the earth” to adopt babies but not the older kids nor the ones with health issues. And since study after study says that children raised by same sex parents turn out just as well as with opposite sex parents, why is this even an issue? Other than anti-gay bigotry.
The pro-gay bigotry of Sean and Mark is on display, again. To make their accusations and to fabricate their misrepresentations, Sean and Mark must press the supremacy of gay identity politics into each and every comment they make. They offer nothing more and nothing less.
Sean is “pro-gay” only because people like you are anti-gay. Don’t forget who started all this: the Straight Supremacy crowd, who decided at some point in time that being straight was superior, and being gay was inferior, which has resulted in a history of animosity, violence and discrimination against gay people.
Chairm : There is no “pro-gay” bigotry on display but it does show your anti-gay bigotry to mention it. The science is very strong for allowing same-sex adoption as there is no difference in it versus opposite sex adoption. You can whine and scream, but you are wrong.
Sean, people like us aren’t anti-gay, and I’m unwilling to accept you as someone objective enough to consult in what is or isn’t anti-gay.
Everyone, you should read this excellent piece by Op-Ed, exposing this tactic of Mark and Sean as nothing more than dishonest manipulation. You don’t have to prove anything to them, they are not being honest.
Chairm,
OpEd’s editorial appears to be attempting to inoculate the Straight Supremacy crowd against accusations of bigotry. S/he failed. You guys worry too much about the other side’s “tactics,” and not enough about supporting, rationally, your belief that straight couples are better than gay couples. (or gay couples are worse than straight couples).
When you’re accused of bigotry, it’s because you hold a bigoted point of view: that gay people are inferior to straight people, or that straight people are better than gay people. Painting with a broad brush like this leads to a bigoted viewpoint: that some group has a characteristic among all its members. Few such claims withstand scrutiny. I guess I don’t know if you’re homophobic or heterophilic but in either case, the outcome is legalized discrimination that doesn’t comport with the nation’s constitution.
Since the only sexual orientation requirement to marry, in marriage discrimination states, is straightness, that leads me to conclude that these states find straightness especially desirable (or, gayness is especially undesirable). Why are straight relationships to be valued over gay relationships in society? What’s the payoff for the public?
On Lawn: “You don’t have to prove anything to them, they are not being honest.”
In other words, if someone disagrees with you, gives clear concise logical rebuttal, then ignore them and call them dishonest. It’s easier than facing your own bias and thinking about these issues rather than parroting nonsense.
1) Howso?
2) Such a bad bluffer
3) Different doesn’t mean better or worse, Sean, and trying to appease any insecurity you have won’t make you feel any better.
1) Actually it is Sean who thinks they are inferior because Sean thinks they cannot love, honor and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way — hence his bigotry is really against gays and how incapable they are of love and tolerance. In the meantime, while gays are no different than straight people, a same-sex relationship is different than one that responsibly procreates between them for the sake of the child. Not better, not worse, just different (the child or potential for the child being all the difference)
No such requirement, or even test for that requirement exists, so Sean is simply making things up — unless of course he thinks “gay” means incapable of loving, honoring, and cherishing someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way like I just noted above…
When that clear consise rebuttal happens, then we’ll see. In the mean time your emotional arguments have been shown to be prejudiced, biased, (in other words you only want them to appeal for the sake of homosexuality) and completely irrational.
OnLawn, no matter how you might wish it otherwise, gay people do not fall in love with, nor wish to have intimate relations with, opposite-sex people. That’s probably the main reason to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples! But if you want to promote the idea that gay people just haven’t tried hard enough to give the opposite sex a chance, you have at it!
“In the meantime, while gays are no different than straight people, a same-sex relationship is different than one that responsibly procreates between them for the sake of the child.”
Since gays are not different than straights, it doesn’t make sense to treat them differently. In fact, it’s unconstitutional, lacking a rational public purpose. The marriage of an elderly couple is different from that of a young fertile couple. We call their legal relationships “marriage” nonetheless, with demonstrates how flexible the word “marriage” can be! Let’s just nudge it a bit further, stretch it a bit more, to include committed same-sex couples!
“No such requirement….”
Really? You better tell that to 44 states, which require a couple to be opposite-sexed, or straight. Such Straight Supremacy, though, appears to be on the wane. Five states dumped their discriminatory marriage statutes, another is about to, another three recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. It all happened so fast, too!
The SSM idea has no raison d’etre other than the promotion, in law and in government policy, of gay identity politics.
If there is something more to it, then, SSMers would have said so. They haven’t. But they have waved their arms around and made noises about gay this and gay that. And they have been hurling rocks at the walls of the foundational social institution — the most pro-child institution we have — because they do not really want to walk inside and participate in marriage. They want to turn society’s attention away from what marriage actually is and toward what SSM actually is.
And yet they can’t say what SSM actually is — and so they return to promotion of gayness and gay identity politics and continue to angrily throw rocks at that which they reject. They reject the core meaning of marriage even as they can find no core meaning for SSM that is not freighted with gay identity politics.
Meanwhile, marriage supporters defend the special reason for the special status of the social institution of marriage. That is a far more worthy cause than anything the SSM campaign has come up with to-date.
The marriage law does have a sexual basis; it is expressed in the sexual basis for the marital presumption that the husband is the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage; the same sexual basis applies to consummation, grounds for annulment, grounds for adultery, and so forth.
There is no sexual basis for the SSM idea. At least, not according to SSM argumentation’s insistence on legal requirements by which Government would force people who’d SSM to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex romance, or meet criteria for homosexual orientation or somelsuch.
The SSM idea, by its own rules of argumentation, would provide for a sexless type of arrangement, at law, with no sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, much less for paternity. The SSMers can offer no sexual basis that would be fulfilled by the all-male and the all-female arrangements; to treat those two versions of SSM exactly the same, the SSMers must remove the sexual basis for either — and leave both non-gay at law. Of course, nothing that an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually would provide the sexual basis for the union of husband and wife; so the SSMers must argue that the sexual basis for such a union must not be valid. In other words, their SSM idea means, not that the one-sexed types of arrangements must be treated like the union of husband and wife — but that all unions of husband and wife must be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives.
That means treating marriage as less than marriage and not more than nonmarriage. So, this is how the SSMers undermine their own gay emphasis with the reliance on hints, nudges, winks, and euphemisms regarding whatever it is they think is of such great societal significance in the sexual behavior or feelings of “gay couples”.
And that is why they try to substitute ‘same-sex couple’ when comparing with the husband-wife couple. The conjugal relationship is, by type, a sexual relationship of man and woman; the same-sex relationship is not, by type, an intrinsically sexual relationship.
Thus, at root, the SSM idea is not really about sexualized types of relationships — committed or not, male or female, identity groupified or not — but is really about deconstructing marriage, its special place in society, and the best interests of a well ordered and flourishing society.
The SSM idea is anti-social. It is regressive. This is not because of gayness; but in spite of gayness as emphasied relentlessly by SSMers and the SSM campaign.
Please note: I did not refer to heterosexual couples nor to straight couples or whatever. I referred to the relationship of husband and wife — which is a sexual type of relationship at law. It is so because the conjugal relationship is sexual in our customs and traditions; and that reflects, directly, the societal significance of marriage, as a social institution, and this is recongized in our legal traditions as the special reason for the special status of marriage in our laws. Indeed, marriage in our laws, customs, and traditions is foundational because it is the response of civilization to that which is intrinsic to humanity: the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human generativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community. Marriage integrates to two sexual halves of humanity; it promotes the unity of fatherhood and motherhood; and it wraps children in the cloak of a protective status that makes normative the birthright of each and every human being — to know, to be known by, and to be raised by one’s mother and father together.
All marriage statutes discriminate between marriage and non-marriage.
The SSM idea cannot do this most basis function of marriage law. So enacting the merger of SSM with marriage, at law, through the replacement of the marriage idea by the SSM idea would be render the special status of marriage unsustainable.
This is obvious and yet SSMers seek to hitch their wagon to the institution which they reject and seek to replace with an unsustainable and specious substitution. Their argumentation, their actions, amount to attempts to sink the ship they want to board.
This, I think, illustrates that the SSM campaign is stuck on stupid.
On Lawn: “In the mean time your emotional arguments have been shown to be prejudiced, biased, (in other words you only want them to appeal for the sake of homosexuality) and completely irrational.”
I am very sorry that On Lawn continues his troll posting. All one has to look at are his previous posts and it’s crystal clear that he cannot produce one, rational thought. He spends most of his time making up terms, refusing (or unable) to define them, and then blasting people who disagree with him. When they show On Lawn how wrong he is, he changes his position accusing others of failing to understand him.
A perfect example is this comment: “No such requirement, or even test for that requirement exists, so Sean is simply making things up ” regarding the sexual orientation requirement to marry. It is a fact that sexual orientation (or it’s perception) is in all but a handful of states. By declaring SSM illegal (or, as On Lawn continual tries to “correct” – the states don’t recognize them), there is an inherent requirement of sexual orientation to marry. But, On Lawn, as always, refuses to see reality. Or disagrees mainly to be a troll.
When I said before … “No such requirement, or even test for that requirement exists, so Sean is simply making things up — unless of course he thinks ‘gay’ means incapable of loving, honoring, and cherishing someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way like I just noted above…”, Sean can’t help but note that I’m right…
Now, I did make one change because “do not” and “can not” are so similar. If Sean feels that is changing the meaning of what he wrote, I’m happy to hear how it changes the meaning. For me it means the same thing.
And Sean also goes on to note that this incapacity, this impairment, this inability to show love and tolerance, is one of the legs he stands his opposition to marriage equality on, (where marriage equality means the equal recognition of the man, woman, and the child they potentially have together)…
Do or do not, there is no try
The question is, are they free to chose or not? In Sean’s world they are not free to chose, they are marked by some unseen hand (even by science) doomed to never experience the joys of marriage — so they have to replace marriage with the kind of relationship they do have.
What doesn’t have rational purpose is Sean’s meanderings on the subject. For instance note that there isn’t a meaningful difference between the elderly and the young. They are both “one man and one woman”, and as such they are both a type of relationship where procreation has been observed to happen.
For instance, Charlie Chaplin and Tony Randall had children well into their silver years.
Those 44 states do not require “or straight” to make a marriage, not anywhere in law. Sean’s argument is based on something completely not true.
But Sean requires they be straight, because he says gay means you cannot tolerate or love someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way.
See how Sean sluffs off his own demeaning views of others, on others…
“The SSM idea has no raison d’etre other than the promotion, in law and in government policy, of gay identity politics.”
How untrue! Legalized same-sex marriage gives same-sex couples equal status as opposite-sex couples, as required by our nation’s constitution; it makes same-sex couple relationships more solid, as it does for opposite-sex relationships; it makes the children of same-sex couples have the same kind of secure environment that the children of opposite-sex couples have. It affirms that homosexuality is normal and natural and reduces homophobia in society, that has lead to violence against gay adults and gay teens.
These are all great reasons to legalize same-sex marriage.
“And yet they can’t say what SSM actually is”
I can: it’s when a same-sex couple get married.
@Mark
Much of that post was Mark’s usual attempts to argue by telling people what he thinks about me. But he did try to substantiate it with one point, but one point that fails.
[T]here is an inherent requirement of sexual orientation to marry.
But that is all Mark said in contrast. No quotes where sexual orientation occurs in marriage law as a requirement, for instance. And no attempt to explain away any examples where gays do get married and have happy life long marriages to people of the other gender.
Mark still can’t explain away the fact that same-sex couples have had wedding ceremonies for decades now in states which affirm marriage equality as being between a man and a woman. They have wedding ceremonies, live happy lives together unmolested by the government, and even receive benefits through CU’s and DP’s.
Is there a requirement, really? Even the very language he uses (e.g. “or it’s perception” and “an inherent requirement”) notes his failure to find anything in the law that is an actual requirement, only what he perceives as such.
Mark’s failings are obvious
His accusations of my failings are only his wishful thinking.
“In Sean’s world they are not free to chose, they are marked by some unseen hand (even by science) doomed to never experience the joys of marriage — so they have to replace marriage with the kind of relationship they do have.”
Well, when I see more straight people forming same-sex committed relationships, I’ll be more convinced that it’s possible to indifferently choose whether to form an opposite-sex or a same-sex couple.
“For instance note that there isn’t a meaningful difference between the elderly and the young.”
I think fertility is pretty meaningful; it appears to be the main point of all your ramblings, isn’t it? “Responsible procreation”?
“They are both “one man and one woman”, and as such they are both a type of relationship where procreation has been observed to happen.”
Oh, ok so you’re back to eligibility for marriage NOT having to do with responsible procreation but rather “can procreate or at least look like you can or once did”? What is the value to society of legalizing “looks like they can procreate or could have at one time”?
“For instance, Charlie Chaplin and Tony Randall had children well into their silver years.”
Because they married women half their ages. They formed a fertile couple.
“Those 44 states do not require “or straight” to make a marriage, not anywhere in law. Sean’s argument is based on something completely not true.”
No sane person expects a gay person to marry another gay person or a straight person. As the Iowa Supreme Court noted, the intimate nature of marriage requires sexual compatibility. Prohibiting same-sex marriage has the effect of preventing gay couples from marrying. Just like outlawing worship on Saturday would have the effect of preventing Jews from worshipping, even without mentioning them. But you know this, you just have too much time on your hands, or make too much money posting drivel.
“But Sean requires they be straight, because he says gay means you cannot tolerate or love someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way.”
Well if you can find me some testimonials where gay people say they are only too happy to marry someone of the opposite-sex, and straight people are only too happy to marry gay people. Because I think these kinds of marriages don’t have a real good chance at success. And failed marriages lead to divorce. Why do you want to increase the divorce rate???
On Lawn:” Mark still can’t explain away the fact that same-sex couples have had wedding ceremonies for decades now in states which affirm marriage equality as being between a man and a woman. They have wedding ceremonies, live happy lives together unmolested by the government, and even receive benefits through CU’s and DP’s.”
If this is truly the case, On Lawn, why not just allow same-sex couples to marry, legally? If it doesn’t change anything, if they already get all the benefits (which is incorrect) and the government won’t molest them, give them a legal marriage certificate. It’s very simple, On Lawn. Why do you fight it so much?
1) Proves Chairm’s point.
2) False. Neutering marriage is not required anywhere in the constitution
3) CU’s and DP’s do that, but you don’t see Sean supporting those ideas.
4) Marriage roots the relationship to the child who, like the relationship, represents the identities of both people merged together. Marriage supports this, and we find that when parents love each other like they love their children, their relationship endures, just as their children do. That isn’t true of same-sex couples, who even with a neutered marriage title will show higher divorce rates than those parents in a natural and fully realized marriage.
5) Without a father and a mother, and the tolerance of both genders, it is not the same kind of security or relationship at all. And, it certainly isn’t the same stability and security that comes from the in-tact family, where the child identifies with both parents through kinship.
6) Sean hasn’t made a rational argument for that yet.
1) That is allowing them to marry, legally.
2) Removing the equality of marriage (one man and one woman) and the reference to its purpose (one man and one woman signifies the procreative type of relationship), is a backwards step that needn’t be taken to support same-sex couples (even if that couple is gay or not).
3) CU’s and DP’s do everything they need without removing the unique recognition and rights that the procreative type relationship. Why isn’t that good enough for you? Seems both get what they want, unless you just want to stick it to the procreative types…
Sean: > Well, when I see more straight people forming same-sex committed relationships
Why this need to determine if people are straight or gay? This is such an obsession of yours.
However, if you just want to see committed same-sex relationships you need to get out more. There is no requirement to romance or gayness to be committed.
Sean: > [...] but rather “can procreate or at least look like you can or once did”?
What Sean puts in quotes once again is nothing I’ve said, and misstates my position.
Poor Sean, can’t keep himself honest.
Sean: > Because they married women half their ages.
Oh! So now it isn’t elderly couples, but just couples with old women in them. Old men are fine, but when there is an old woman, then they should’t be allowed to join in an institution which recognizes responsible procreation.
Either way, Sean’s bigotry doesn’t change the fact that the old man and old woman (or young man and old woman for that matter) are a procreative type of relationship. There is no exception, except in Sean’s bigotry
Sean: > No sane person expects a gay person to marry another gay person [...]
So, can I quote you on that?
Sean: > As the Iowa Supreme Court noted, the intimate nature of marriage requires sexual compatibility.
Wow, so the Iowa Supreme Court really decided that ugly people are justifiable victims of marriage?
Even so, Sean, tell us what exactly makes a gay person sexually incompatible with a member of the other gender.
Sean: > Just like outlawing worship on Saturday would have the effect of preventing Jews from worshipping [sic]
No, it wouldn’t actually. They could just re-define Sunday to mean Saturday or Sunday, just like gays want to redefine marriage to mean “between a man and a woman, or a same-sex couple pretending to be like them”.
Sean: > these kinds of marriages don’t have a real good chance at success.
Do or do not, there is only try…
The question I want to know is do they have the right to choose?
On Lawn: “CU’s and DP’s do everything they need without removing the unique recognition and rights that the procreative type relationship. Why isn’t that good enough for you?”
Because, On Lawn, they do NOT provide the same rights. Read, learn, be honest.
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm
“Seems both get what they want, unless you just want to stick it to the procreative types”
SSM doesn’t affect the “procreative types” (whoever they are) nor heterosexual couples so no one gets “stuck” with anything, On Lawn.
@Mark
On Lawn, they do NOT provide the same rights
Mark once again is simply lying, they do provide the same rights if not all of them.
SSM doesn’t affect the “procreative types”
So removing the recognition of their unique rights doesn’t affect them?
That directly contradicts what you say happens to gay couples. Oh yeah, its because you are biased
On Lawn: “Mark once again is simply lying, they do provide the same rights if not all of them.”
LOL, the way On Lawn tries to twist out of his lies! On Lawn, you really are amusing. No matter how you try to lie about it, CUs and DPs do NOT provide the same rights as marriage, period.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to social security that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to COBRA that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to immigration rights that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to FMLA that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to pensions that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to live together in a nursing home that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to not pay estate taxes that marriage does? No.
Do CU’s and DP’s provide the right to hospital visitation that marriage does? No.
On Lawn, your argument is ridiculous and makes you look moronic.
“So removing the recognition of their unique rights doesn’t affect them?”
Since there are no “unique rights” of the “procreative types”, no rights are removed. And, it’s a sad argument On Lawn is using that allowing two individuals to join together in marriage is somehow harmful to someone else’s marriage. Especially when it was recently proven in the Prop 8 trial that SSM has no effect on OSM. Sad On Lawn continue to promote his bigotry.
“Either way, Sean’s bigotry doesn’t change the fact that the old man and old woman (or young man and old woman for that matter) are a procreative type of relationship”
I don’t see how an old man and an old woman are in a “procreative type of relationship.” If the old woman is post-menopausal, they certainly can’t create babies, i.e., procreate. I guess you’re back to your “can procreate or at least look like older versions of people who can procreate” definition. I think this is insulting to older couples, whose marriages are free of children, but who feel married all the same. Your bigotry against elderly couples is unseemly, in my opinion. Offensive, actually.
“So, can I quote you on that?”
Certainly, just so I get proper attribution!
“Wow, so the Iowa Supreme Court really decided that ugly people are justifiable victims of marriage?”
Victims of marriage? What does that mean? I believe even ugly people should be allowed to marry.
“Even so, Sean, tell us what exactly makes a gay person sexually incompatible with a member of the other gender.”
Well, I just repeated the logic the Iowa Supreme Court used, which happens to be the common sense argument. I don’t see too many straight people clamoring to marry people of the same gender. I think that serves as a reasonable proof that human sexual orientation exists, varies from person to person, and legitimizes the need for opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.
“They could just re-define Sunday to mean Saturday or Sunday, just like gays want to redefine marriage to mean “between a man and a woman, or a same-sex couple pretending to be like them””
I think you’re getting rather absurd. Jews worship on Saturday. They can’t just start calling Saturday “Sunday.” I don’t think a same-sex couple are pretending to be like an opposite-sex couple unless of course you also think some opposite-sex couples are pretending to be like other opposite-sex couples. It’s an odd argument, with no real payoff, in my opinion.
Yes they do, for the governments which have created them.
All your list simply shows is not all governments recognize CU’s and DP’s, which is a different situation all together.
Mark’s ignorance is always his biggest pillar. Since he doesn’t recognize there are unique rights pertaining to how children are created, an how marriage seeks to recognize and realize those rights, he thinks no one ever did either
For the record, Sean has said, “No sane person expects a gay person to marry another gay person or a straight person.”
He just confirmed that is his true position.
Even though you just said Iowa thinks they can’t get married. I get it, they can even though they are obviously not capable of it, not being sexually attractive enough.
On Lawn: “All your list simply shows is not all governments recognize CU’s and DP’s, which is a different situation all together.”
LOL, On Lawn can NOT be this dense! In this very sentence, On Lawn agrees that CU’s and DP’s do NOT have the same rights as marriage. Doesn’t matter how On Lawn attempts to re-frame the question, rights not recognized are not rights. The right to vote means nothing if you are prohibited from voting.
“Since he doesn’t recognize there are unique rights pertaining to how children are created, an how marriage seeks to recognize and realize those rights, he thinks no one ever did either ”
Then show me a legal document, On Lawn, that lists these unique rights. And how allowing SSM will remove the recognition of these “unique rights” from the “procreative types”.
Mark: > On Lawn can NOT be this dense!
Exactly, more likely you are missing something
Mark: > On Lawn agrees that CU’s and DP’s do NOT have the same rights as marriage
My statement on that is clear and factual, “Yes they do [have the same rights], for the governments which have created them”.
It is that way by design and law.
Mark: > rights not recognized are not rights
I’ll tuck that in my archive for later.
Mark: > Then show me a legal document, On Lawn, that lists these unique rights.
Other than the ones I’ve already shown you that you simply denied say what they obviously say?
Your routine of denial, lending to forgetfulness, is simply ignorance. And ignorance you complain about when other’s don’t follow you down the blind path into a ditch
On Lawn: “Mark: > On Lawn agrees that CU’s and DP’s do NOT have the same rights as marriage
My statement on that is clear and factual, “Yes they do [have the same rights], for the governments which have created them”.
It is that way by design and law.”
Silly me, I was thinking On Lawn was talking about the USA since that was what this discussion was all about. I would be curious, On Lawn, to the facts of your arguments since I am not aware of all non-USA laws regarding CU’s and DP’s because, if they have all the same rights, why are they not recognized internationally like marriage is recognized?
Oh, that’s right, because CU’s and DP’s DON’T provide the same rights as marriage. Facts are facts.
Poor, poor deluded On Lawn. Flails around, attempting to justify his ignorance on basic facts.
Well, the Civil Unions I’ve proposed, defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and federally recognized as if marriages, would have all the same benefits and protections except the right to procreate offspring together that married couples have.
But looking at Mark’s list (comment #33), I think some benefits that are given to marriages should not be given to Civil Unioned couples, such as Immigration. I think the laws about Immigration should be changed from automatically allowing a spouse by virtue of marriage to requiring that the marriage be potentially procreative as well, or at least, not prohibited from procreating together in the US. So, if an American man wants to get his Mexican sister an American citizenship, they couldn’t get a Civil Union and have that be all that mattered. Immigration should also depend on being potentially procreative, because it is the universal human right for children to be raised by their parents as far as possible that implies a right to join your spouse in citizenship.
You are right, the USA which has a federalist style of government,
I’m sure you can find that out if you put some effort into it
They do provide the same rights and marriage for the governments which enact them. As you say, facts are facts.
Your complaint is simply that not all governments have recognized them, causing a disparity. But you should give credit where it is due, those that have enacted them have done so equally to marriage.
He claims it so often, yet the evidence suggests the opposite
On Lawn, do you think that same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples?
On Lawn: “Your complaint is simply that not all governments have recognized them, causing a disparity.”
LOL, Yes, a disparity (lack of similarity or equality; inequality; difference) so CU’s and DP’s do not provide the same rights. Thank you for so clearly proving my point, On Lawn
Mark, that’s why my proposal for CU’s is so much better for same-sex couples throughout the world than continuing the strategy of trying to get same-sex marriage. If America sets the model for CU’s that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and stops same-sex marriage and same-sex procreation, it would create a huge ripple for other countries to follow suit, leading to much more security for same sex couples.
John Howard: Why must you make something that is so simple, so complicated?
It’s not very complicated, Mark. They’re exactly like marriage, but for couples that aren’t allowed to procreate together. Why? Because it provides a way to get equal protections to couples right now and in lots more states and countries than the current status quo strategy.
If your point is that you need to convince government to recognize CU’s then granted, your point is taken
On Lawn: “If your point is that you need to convince government to recognize CU’s then granted, your point is taken”
Obviously, this went right over On Lawn’s head. No, the point is the same as it has been all along, CU’s and DP’s do not provide the same rights as marriage.
But, everyone will notice how On Lawn neglected to include the definition of disparity (lack of similarity or equality; inequality; difference) from the quote above, once again proving that On Lawn must take words and comments out of context (lie, in fact) in order to prove his incorrect assumptions. Sad, really.
The Iowa Supreme Court’s pro-SSM opinion did not require that those who’d show-up for a license to SSM are required to be sexually compatable.
The intimate nature of marriage? That sounds like yet another euphemism for same-sex sexual behavior. Also not a requirement imposed by the Iowa Court.
The sexual nature of the union of husband and wife, as a type of relationship in the law, is not one-sexed: the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity illustrates this very well. It is the same sexual basis as for consummation, annulment, divorce, and so on. This is inapplicable to the one-sexed arrangement.
There is no sexual orientation requirement, no test for sexual orientation, no gay identity filter, nothing of the kind is in the marriage law’s man-woman basis.
The Iowa Court’s pro-SSM opinion depended on stuff that is not found in SSM law anyplace: same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex romance, same-sex sexual behavior. None of that forms the basis for SSM in the law.
But this is not the first pro-SSM court to have waved its arms rather than stand by its own rules of argumentation used against the marriage idea in the law.
Mark, they shouldn’t provide the same rights, because same-sex couples shouldn’t have the same rights. (On Lawn agrees I think?) They shouldn’t protect the right to conceive offspring that marriages should always protect and affirm and allow.
But that difference is what makes them much more viable and useful, because now that they aren’t marriage-in-all-but-name, or stepping stones to marriage, more jurisdictions will enact them, providing much more security and utility to same-sex couples.
John Howard: “Mark, they shouldn’t provide the same rights, because same-sex couples shouldn’t have the same rights.”
Sorry, but that is a very hateful, bigoted thing to say. Who gives you the right to determine which US citizens get which rights? This is no different than any other discriminatory comment made in the past (Catholics shouldn’t marry Protestants; whites shouldn’t marry blacks)
All US citizens should have the same rights, Mark, but the right to procreate implies a right to use one’s unmodified gametes, which requires someone of the other sex to procreate with. No one has a right to procreate with modified gametes, which means, no one has a right to procreate with someone of the same sex. If I am choosing between two people, and one of them is a man and the other is a woman, my rights with each of them are not the same and should not be the same. This shouldn’t be much of a surprise, practically speaking, since surely you aren’t counting on same-sex procreation being figured out and made available, so why insist it is a right? It is really bad public policy to leave it legal and keep wasting money and resources on it.
John Howard: “No one has a right to procreate with modified gametes, which means, no one has a right to procreate with someone of the same sex.”
Actually, I believe it is a right currently. It just is not scientifically practical. However, when someone says “Everyone has the same rights, but” – that “but” usually means that they don’t really have the same rights.
It is legal currently, it is not a right though. In other words, we need to prohibit it with an Egg and Sperm law before someone tries to make a person from modified gametes.
And we all have the same rights, which are the same for everyone, to mate with our own genes, to procreate with someone of the other sex. Every child growing up right now should know that they have a right to be straight and love someone of the other sex and procreate with them, and they should know that same-sex procreation is wrong and illegal and never going to be allowed because it will always be unethical and wasteful.
John Howard: “we need to prohibit it with an Egg and Sperm law before someone tries to make a person from modified gametes”
Why?
“Every child growing up right now should know that they have a right to be straight and love someone of the other sex and procreate with them, and they should know that same-sex procreation is wrong and illegal and never going to be allowed because it will always be unethical and wasteful.”
I can’t disagree more. I think every child should be told that they have a right to BE WHO THEY ARE, not what society THINKS they should be. One of my favorite songs, “Everything Possible”, puts it best:
“You can be anybody that you want to be
You can love whomever you will
You can travel any country where your heart leads
And know I will love you still
You can live by yourself
You can gather friends around
You can choose one special one
But the only measure of your words and your deeds
Will be the love you leave behind when you’re gone”