Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
foster homes /orphanages
basically same thing with a different name
children who lost parents, children who was given up , children who were took away
go to the same place now
I met a kid who had two men has parents, , this kid was so messed up mentally
I never knew at the time about his parents so to speak, but thought sorry for this boy, always crying etc
One day while my oldest was playing on his bike, this boy just started to cry, nothing unusual as he always did.
I went over thinking he had hurt himself instead he told me that he hated himself, he hated not having a mother and hated having two men as parents.
He then used to come round to our house and he would attach himself to my wife, and one day said to her I wish you were my mum
This was when I lived in massachusetts, thankfully I escaped that state and moved south.
That episode speaks volumes and I will never forget it, so when I hear that argument I get high strung, as from being through with not a mother and father,seeing others like me and then meeting this boy only confirms to me just what is needed
A child having two men as dads is wrong and only serves to mess the boy up further in life
Yes, we see more skin and sexual behavior in public, but overall, I would argue, that we are much more moral.
What I see here is that we said that we believe in freedom, but some of us don't want others to have the freedom to commit sexual sins and we don't want homos to have the same access to society. We are afraid to practice the very freedom we subscribe to.
People sometimes stay married because of the benefits they get for being married. Otherwise, it’s just a religious thing. If the state offered NO benefits for marraige, there would be no point in anybody getting legally married, it would just be a waste of the 20 bucks for the license.
I guess it is a bit of “social engineering”, but the state’s very existence is “social engineering”. We adopted government to shape society. The society we chose 200+ years ago was one with very limited boundaries, but we did chose boundaries at both the federal and state level.
And the founders recognized that the structure they set of for the federal government, and the existing state governments, could not function without an underlying societal structure, one that is formed by marriage.
Maybe at one time the role of religion was so powerful that you would not need to encourage marriage. But that has long since past. Few churches frown on divorce in a serious way, and society has largely eliminated any stigma.
And yes, divorce is too easy. We forgot that marriage was not just so people could enjoy each other, but was a contract with society to maintain a social construct.
But the state still has a reason to want parents to stay together. By offering bribes of tax credits and access to special treatment, the state can encourage people to stay together.
It’s not just that the father supplies money for the kid. Kids grow up better adjusted if they are raised by their biological parents. And when that is not possible, they also grow up somewhat better if they have two members of the opposite sex in parental roles.
This provides a model for the children to grow up, marry themselves, and procreate, thus perpetuating the species AND continuing a population sufficient for our nation to survive.
Thus, the state has a good reason to “socially engineer” marriages, and the procreation of it’s citizens. I don’t generally like social engineering, but encouraging marriage seems the least entrusive thing the state could do. They aren’t forcing us to get married, just providing benefits for those who do the prefered thing.
As to “discouraging”, I don’t see how the lack of state recognition “discourages” people from forming a relationship. If the only reason you are forming a relationship is because the state gives you benefits, not giving benefits isn’t really “discouraging”.
If the state actually punished people for entering same-sex unions, then you could say it was discouraging them. But I don’t think the lack of encouragement should be equated with discouragement.
Yes, same-sex couples can adopt, and they can even use artificial means to procreate on their own (by “artificial” I simply mean any step which does not involve sex with their partner).
Then the question is whether the benefit of encouraging a same-sex couple to form a union and raise a child is compelling enough for the state to provide preferential treatment for it, over say a single parent.
I simply don’t have enough information to say that same-sex couples provide enough benefit to make it worth special treatment. I probably wouldn’t object to laws ALLOWING same-sex couples to adopt, but I don’t think we need to encourage it.
We have little history to see if same-sex couples form lasting marriage relationships, or how the children of those relationships turn out. In one case, two women got a civil union in vermont. The one woman was artificially impregnated, and had a child. Then she felt abused by the other woman, so she had the union dissolved, moved to Virginia which doesn’t recognize unions or parental rights, and got married to a man.
Now there is a bitter custody fight over the child — a child who does not know her real father, and is being taken part-time from a family which has a step-father up to another state to live with a woman who has no biological relationship with her.
It’s a hard case. I am guessing there will be a lot more hard cases. And when I say the following, a lot of people get mad at me who are on my side, but I believe it so I say it, adoption is better than nothing, but is not as good as biological parents.
There is something INATE in the biological relationship that provides bonding and a sense of belonging. We see that when so many adopted children seek to find their biological parents.
But the counter to that is that in SPECIFIC instances, a single mom can be better than a couple, a gay couple could be better than a straight couple, a group home might work out better than a real family.
But the state can act in generalities. It’s not prohibiting two gay people from entering a contract, settling down together, having a child if they are women, and doing those things that would make them a “couple”.
BTW, I would prefer the state simply get OUT of the marriage business altogether, than to start supporting same-sex unions. Because frankly, I think two biological parents who refuse to marry one another but together raise a child would be better for society than a married male couple adopting that child.
Heck, I think three of four biological parents living together and together raising their biological offspring would be better for society than to gay men adopting a child and raising them.
But that’s my personal opinion.
I'm sure that California Attorney General Jerry Brown will be all over that.
I agree. And further, we shouldn’t be trying to get these on the ballot simply to help republicans. We should be doing it because it’s better for our country. (that’s my opinion, of course).
OK, keep deluding yourself into believing that pointing out the absurdity of "sheep humping is a protected right" constitutes an unintelligent response.
I agree that families are the foundation of society. I disagree with the government engaging in social engineering - once you give them that power, they can take it in any direction, and that's what's happened here.
Yeah, states have only had the power to marry since the Reformation. We got screwed immediately...give or take 500 years.
I agree about special benefits, but I am very skeptical that the number of single mothers will increase.
You're arguing against reality. See next post.
That's one of the biggest causes of abortion.
Can you cite data that supports that?
I'm of the mind that a child is better off in a two-parent same-sex household than a single-parent household or the horrible state institutions for the poor children who have no parents.
1. You may be of the mind, but we have no data to support it.
2. Given the prevalence of drug/alcohol abuse and other destructive behaviors in the gay community, I think that's not a safe bet.
3. I believe most kids who have a single mom would be better off raised by my wife and me, so why don't we remake society's laws so that I'm their dad? All we'll have to do is set up a big federal check for me each month.
Really, I do love the "We're already in the stick house, so moving to the straw house is no big deal" argument. Really a classic.
Actually,
God is saving the big -really, really big- one up, for after the rapture.
Psalm 75:2,3, laqach mow`ed shaphat meyshar ‘erets yashab muwg takan `ammuwd celah
“When I rapture/take away from the midst [of earth] the Congregation/Church, then I will vindicate [my people] with equity. The earth and all it’s inhabitants will be dissolved. I will “make even or right”, [adjust to My standard], the pillars of it.” -meowntranslation
Gay Marriage? What could it hurt?
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland. (Note: Written before the Dutch decided to legalize polygamy.)
Slightly help? Tell me you're kidding. The issue is political manna from heaven for Republicans:
But the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters - who historically have leaned heavily Republican - may have tipped the balance. ( Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some G.O.P. Races)
Opponent calls ruling “worst kind of judicial activism”
..yep..
Sign me up, baby?
If I’m a good boy, is there a path to citizenship for a legal immigrant like myself? I have Texans who’ll put in a good word for me.
“California will be a third world country in 25 years.”
Umm... it is, NOW.
That’s why you see traditionally-minded Euro-Americans departing the state in increasing numbers.
I say.... let California go wherever it is going. We really don’t need it anymore, and California’s continued attachement to the “other 47” will serve only to drag the rest of the continental U.S. down.
Don’t agree? Then let me pose these questions:
If - today - California were no longer part of the United States, would the political “tilt” of the nation as a whole be more liberal, or more conservative?
If - today - California were no longer part of the United States, with its electoral votes removed, would Republican candidates have a better chance of winning the presidency, or worse?
Actually, I confidently predict that within 50 years, “Atzlan” (into which California will eventually be absorbed) will have become a reality, either as an independent nation, or a reunification with Mexico. The only way I can see it remaining part of the U.S.A. is by striking some kind of “autonomous home-rule” agreement, a la Serbia and Kosovo....
- John
Tell that to all the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of the plain: every man, woman, child, infant, old person, dog, cat, parakeet, donkey, bat, worm, tick, louse... any and all any living things there, got ndiscriminately nuked, to salt, suddenly, and without warning.
Maybe we have different understandings of those terms. I think of a foster home as a private home where a child lives in adoptive parents. I think of an orphanage as a place where children who have not been adopted live under the custody of the state.
As far as child damage, that is largely due to the stigma against gay parents. Of course, that shouldn’t be dismissed, and like I said, it’s definitely preferable to have one mother and one father. Don’t you think the kid would be more messed up he hadn’t been adopted at all? Wouldn’t that make him feel extremely unwanted?
I expect a massive earthquake in California within the next two weeks. It has officially become Sodom and Gomorrah.
I disagree with your application of what appears to be a general rule.
I DO think courts have a right to discard laws which are in opposition to the constitution of their jurisdiction.
If for example the Virginia legislature decided to pass a civil union law next year, I would expect our Supreme Court to throw it out as unconstitutional, because we have a constitutional amendment that says they can’t do that.
In another example, our state passed a bill last year that established “regional transportation authorities”, which were APPOINTED boards which had the right to enact taxes on the region.
Our Supreme court just ruled that law unconstitutional, because our constitution requires that ALL taxes be voted on by an ELECTED body (so we can elect them out of office for raising our taxes).
In this case, maybe the court has ruled outside it’s constitutional bound. But I disagree with the idea that a court has no right to ever overturn a law, even one passed by a ballot initiative. The constitution exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I think one of the reasons that the power of the Church has declined is because we’ve increased the power of the government. People look to the government for the answers, rather than God. Church-run hospitals, homeless shelters, food pantries, etc. have all been on the decline ever since the “Great Society”.
I agree that children should live with their two biological parents in most cases - it’s just not always realistic. I don’t think there’s a lot the government CAN do about it, even if we remove the question of whether they SHOULD.
I think we’re more or less on the same page, even if our ultimate conlusion is different.
The Court has written a law, based on the Court's preferences, WHICH THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO.
Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude? Does that mean that the law is beyond judicial review simply because it was approved by the voters?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.