Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:02:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 never go so far as to prevent adoption by gay couples on that basis
alone. I *might* however, in assigning a child to a family, choose a
heterosexual couple instead of a gay one, all other things being equal (which of
course wouldn’t ever happen). But I would never preclude the gay couple from
getting kids.
| |
| |
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.
|
Notice I said “perks” :) I certainly view marriage as a perk of citizenship. As
far as I can tell, you have no right to be married, it’s just a favor that the
government does for you in order to:
1) make citizens happier
2) promote procreation (though I would argue it probably doesn’t, it’s probably
the opposite in that procreation encourages marriage based on social standards)
3) promote immigration 4) discourage emigration
The rewards for the individuals are measured in terms of tax benefits, assumed
joint ownerships, legal recognition of a social relationship, etc. It’s by no
means a “right” to be married, it’s just something nice the government does
because it suits the desires of the citizens and the country.
By denying those perks based on sexual orientation is unwarranted
discrimination. And unwarranted discrimination is bad in my book. It would be
like Wal*Mart refusing blacks to shop at their stores. Or the more common (and
legal) parallel of Casino’s “choosing not to service you” when you’re suspected
of cheating (where they have no *actual* grounds for dismissing you, but do so
nonetheless, and it’s supposedly legal).
| |
| |
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.
|
For some reason I was thinking it was legal in Utah, but apparently not. Eh,
nevertheless, the question holds, since one can be a polygamist without having
committed polygamy. In essence, it’s an even better parallel because one can be
gay without having committed homosexual acts, and further, both are equally
subject to hiding-- the government can just as easily prove that you believe in
polygamy as that you’re gay.
But I think it’s moot anyway. You already said that you think that denying gay
adoption is extreme, so it sounds like we probably agree on that point.
| |
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.
|
Good point-- again, legal adoption is a perk, not a right.
| |
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.
|
I think the point I’d make is that there are plenty of gay couples which might
make better adopting environments than heterosexual ones. Gay adoption, while
“on average” might be less desireable (I have a gut feeling that this is true,
but I can’t back that up), can still be the best available option for some
to-be-adopted children.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
