Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:12:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
-snip-
| |
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.
|
These two paragraphs put together seem to imply that you do have some against
gays adopting - that gay parents are less fit to raise children than straight
parents. That’s “harsh reality” tho.
But then we’re already dealing harsh reality. Kids that need adoption have NO
parents, and I think we can all agree that ANY parent trumps NO parent. Right?
| |
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.
|
I disagree here. Republicans have come out several times against gay adoption,
and I have to honestly wonder about their motivations. There is someone out
there who wants to raise a child, provide the child the best and safest home
they can provide. Why is the adopter’s sexual orientation even an issue here?
Clearly, any home is better than an orphanage, and so it is clearly in the
adopted interest to be adopted.
According to
this
site, in 2002 there were 134,000 kids waiting for a permanent home. I say that
anyone and everyone who is willing and able to help should be given the chance
to do so.
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
