To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 27649
27648  |  27650
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: 
1495 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:
  Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
 
(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

12 Messages in This Thread:




Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR