Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:53:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1591 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Once again, show me in the Constitution any mention of “gay” rights.
|
Does it say anything about the rights of Republican voters? :)
| |
| |
Parenthetically, it’s great when straight white guys tell gays and/or
blacks what they should think their rights are.
|
As I said-- all of those things should be irrelevant.
|
So you disagree with Hood’s proposal? I guess I was assuming you were
agreeing, but that is admittedly pretty presumptious of me.
|
I’m not informed on the issue enough to know why the Ohio legislature is taking
this radical stance on gay adoption. Off hand it sounds extreme. So does
amending the Constitution defining marriage, but I guess when people are pushed
to the extremes, they react extremely. I tend to want to take a more common
sensical approach to the issue. I believe common sense says that the ideal way
to raise a child is in a family which consists of a married man and woman. I
know of none proven better. Every child deserves a mother and a father. They
don’t always get that, but that is harsh reality, not calculated design.
| |
| |
It isn’t, and here is why, Dave! Right now the government recognizes unions
between 1 man and 1 woman. If you are going to set out and change that
because you feel it is wrong in some way, then the challenge is to come up
with a more equitable solution that doesn’t equally discriminate. I don’t
see how that can be done.
|
I don’t think gay marriage is the point on this one-- but how is allowing
gays to get married not equitable? As far as I can see, you’re allowing
government perks to one group, and disallowing them to another group. So
allowing both to have the same perks is *more* equitable, by definition. How
does it discriminate?
|
Let’s be clear here-- rights belong to individuals. Groups have no rights
enumerated in the Constitution. Groups of individuals have been denied their
rights, but they were denied their individual rights as members of an oppressed
group. In theory, everyone possesses the very same rights as everyone else.
| |
| |
| |
Hagen isn’t arguing on behalf of centenarians or polygamists, so your
insistence that the issues be linked or equated is a straw man (and a
very common tactic among Conservative pundits and legislators who favor
discrimination against homosexuals, by the way).
|
These are other groups who are equivalent in nature to gays. Any arguments
for gay adoption should apply to others as well.
|
Let’s be a bit more clear here. Are there presently laws against polygamists
adopting?
|
Since polygamy is illegal, a law against polygamists adopting would be dumber
than Hagen’s.
| |
Are there presently laws against gays adopting?
|
In Ohio, it sounds like there soon could well be.
| |
Are there laws
against elderly adopting? I’m not aware of any, but then again, I don’t know.
So, to the best of my knowledge, polygamists and centenarians already HAVE
those rights, so they don’t need to be fought for.
What Hood’s bill is trying to do is *revoke* rights from those who already
HAVE them. Hence, it’s our duty to let them *keep* their rights.
|
I’m uncomfortable using the term “rights” when discussing issues not
specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Better we speak of legalities, and
whether said laws are constitutional or not IMO.
My whole thing with the gay adoption thing is this: I don’t have anything
against gays adopting per se. What I have a problem with is the equivocation of
gay marriage with hetero marriage. These are not equally suitable environments
in which to raise children. One is superior to the other and, generally
speaking, is preferrable to the other.
When this issue arises, I believe the salient point is what is best for the
adopted, not for the adopter. In this light, I don’t think there is much
disagreement for the vast majority of Americans, republican OR democratic.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
| (...) I guess I'd agree, although as you said elsewhere, I think that sexual orientation of the parent is as much of a factor in whether they'll be good parents as, say, a parent's level of strictness. It chanages things, certainly, but I would (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
