Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:31:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
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.
|
“Less fit”? Only in the sense that given two couples, one gay and one straight,
it is better for a child to be adopted by the straight couple. I’m not
advocating never letting gays adopt. I’m asserting that one relationship is
superior to the other. There are those who’d disagree with that statement, and
call me homophobic. So be it. I believe that, ideally, a child needs and
deserves a mother and a father.
| |
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.
|
They are freaked out about elevating and equating the gay relationship to the
straight one.
| |
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.
|
I agree, but with the caveat that given a choice, the straight couple wins. It
is on these grounds that I’m arguing; it is the equivocation of the two
relationships that is my “axe”.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
