Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

Let's look.- What is being considered is "children raised by biological parents". If a child isn't raised by it's biological parents (due to one or other or both deserting/dying and playing no further part in the raising of the child then that constitutes a reduction from 100%- Which has no bearing on that being measured.- I'm afraid I don't agree with you. The parents are as much the possession of the child as the child is the possession of the parents.- Thats a different issue to the one being addressed. By all means take children from abusive parents whether gay or otherwise.- I agree a child should be taken from abusive parents. The issue isn't the protection of the right of a child from abusive parents/caregivers. The issue is the right of a child to be raised by it's own parents and the non-support of folk attempting to circumvent same.- One biological parent doesn't 'get a crack' in the situation where gay couples fulfill the desire for own children by (necessarily) going outside the coupleship for one of the parents. That biological parent is producing children without any intention of raising it. Something that society, I hold, shouldn't be doing anything to encourage.There's a whole lot of things society cannot stop people doing. That doesn't mean society has to encourage and support those activities.

OK. But I don't think you have really answered the question. Unless I have misunderstood. Is it just gay adoption that leads to the situation you are seeeking to avoid? Or do other forms of "infertility" have the same "market effect"?Pardon my bluntness here - But I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that you might be anti-gay adoption for more ideological reasons and that you are seeking to rationalise this by applying your "market theory" of adoption in ways that are not wholly consistent. I am seeking to determine how consistent you are. Well the very fact that they are seeking to adopt suggests that they are already in "the market" does it not? Now you have really lost me. How does the reason for a couples infertility change the effect on this "adoption market" you are talking about? Do couples containing members who are known to be sterile for some reaon (e.g. the little boy with leukemia I mentioned) meet your market criteria? Or not?

Hi iano,First, I'd like to direct you to message 145, where I address some of these issues in a more calm manner. And yet, iano, this is absurd. Right now gay couples have chilren. One of the parents (and by that I mean one of the individuals who loves, cares for, and provides for the child in every way identical to a biological parent or any other adoptive parent) is simply not allowed to adopt the child he/she is raising as his/her own.That means, despite having an identical place in the child's life to a biological or any other adoptive parent, the gay parent is not provided the same rights, such as being able to visit their own child in teh hospital.Also, your reasoning is inconsistently applied. Heterosexual couple are allowed right now to adopt. When I was married, I would have been able to adopt my stepdaughters. If the state has an interest in legally preventing or discouraging such things as signle parents marring someone other than the biological parent of the child, you'll have to outlaw a huge amount of the marriages that exist between heterosexuals today.This is the problem, iano. "Protect the children" doesn't work as an argument for gay marriage for the reasons I outlined previously. You're targeting homosexual marriages exclusively for problems that exist within heterosexual marriages as well.Further, the "rights" you claim children to have regarding their biological parents exist only within your own mind. Children have no such legal right. It doesn't exist. It's perfectly legal to have a child and give it up for adoption, no strings attached. Hell, here in CA, you can even drop off a newborn completely anonymously at a hospital, fire station, or police department. It's also perfectly legal for any heterosexual married couple to adopt a child, or to have one spouse adopt the biological child of the other. Sperm donation allows married couples and even individuals to have "their own" children even though they aren't all necessarily biologically related.Your argument of children's rights builds from a false premise. You are projecting what you may well personally believe ought to be the case onto what actually is the case, which is fallacious.The rights of children should be (and in fact are) handled by laws separate from those that control who may or may not be married. The state has determined that it has an interest in protecting children who can be shown to be living in sufficiently poor conditions, including households of abuse, insufficient sanitation or food to support a child, etc. When the state determines that its interest overrides the parental right to raise their children, the children are removed from the household for their protection. If you would really like to see children have the right to be with their biological parents, this is where you should be arguing, so that your reasoning applies to everyone and does not only single out gay couples.So let's get back to the real topic then: gay marriage. Your side discussion of children's rights exists solely to justify your opposition to allowing gays to marry, which is the actual topic of this thread. This is your second basic premise that comes up as false. This does not describe marriage. Marriage is not now nor has ever been legally a framework intended for the raising of children. It carries some rights that apply to children that may (or may not) result from such a union, but marriage in no way means that a newly married couple has any intention of reproducing.Sterile couples can get married. Elderly couples can get married. Couples who have no intention of having children can get married. Child molesters and rapists can get married. Clearly, marriage is not in any way about children.You are, in fact, simply describing sex. That's all. Nothing more or less - the mechanism by which people get together and produce children is sex, not marriage. This is proven indisputably by the fact that it's perfectly legal to have a child and even raise it to adulthood outside of wedlock. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples do this even today. Marriage is a different animal altogether. Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults (in some states limited by gender, in others not) that confers special rights, privileges, and obligations to the signatories. Culturally, marriage is a deep commitment of love and respect, an outward sign of a couple's desire to spend the rest of their lives together. The state has held time and again that marriage is facilitated by the state, but the right of choice of whom to marry is wholly left up to the individuals and does not in any way rest with the state. See Loving v. Virginia. Children don't have anything to do with whether the state allows a couple to marry or not.So then, we can see that your argument is compltely false. Children do not have the rights that you believe they should have, and society would need to make drastic changes in order to give them those rights.Your definition of marriage as a framework for raising children is also false legally, because children have nothing to do with whether a couple is allowed to marry.But let me refer again to my statements in message 145:

quote:

---

I don't believe that I have any right to tell you who you can or cannot marry, so long as the person is a consenting adult who is also able to make the same free choice. I don't think you should ever have to ask anyone's permission to choose who to commit to at that level. I don't think that whether you can/cannot/want to /do not want to have children gives me the right to tell you you cannot marry the person you love. I disagree with you on many things, but I would wholeheartedly defend your ability to hold those opinions and live your life according to the dictates of your own conscience, and not mine or anyone else's, so long as you aren't infringing upon anyone else's ability to do the same. I think you should be able to mutually choose your own spouse based on who you love and want to commit to.

​

If you feel the same way about me, why would you feel differently about a gay couple? If they honestly and truly love each other just as much as any given heterosexual married couple, shouldn't they be afforded the same ability under the law to make that commitment to each other? Shouldn't they be allowed to follow the dictates of their conscience? If we call ourselves a fee society, and respect freedom, don;t we have an obligation to allow people to make choices that are different from those we personally would make, so long as we cannot quantify an objective harm that would be caused by such a choice?

---

We consider ourselves to be a free society. Freedom means that people must be allowed to make different choices and hold different values under the law. This is why we protect speech, keep the government out of religious affairs, and mandate that everyone be treated equally under the law. I am allowed to marry the person of my choice, meaning I can marry a Muslim, a Christian, an Asian, a Caucasian, an African-American, a Hispanic, a Catholic, a Scientologist, a chemical engineer, a Satanist, a death metal singer, a classical violinist, a PETA member, or absolutely anyone else regardless of whether you or any other member of society approves of my marriage. I don't need to ask permission from anyone except my chosen spouse.I think everyone deserves the right of self-determination. Our society is built on that as its basic foundation. We are free to be whoever and whatever our conscience dictates, and we are limited only when our choices would have too much of a negative influence on others. The approval of my neighbors is a social nicety, not a legal mandate.And the only time that self-determination needs protection is when large segments of the populace disapprove of a given choice. This happened with interracial marriage not long ago. Some people choose to marry people of a different race, and just 50 years ago (and still in many places) a large percentage of society disapproved. This was the test - are we a free society? Can we actually make choices that are different from those our neighbors would make, and still be allowed to live in peace according to the dictates of our conscience?At first the answer was "no." Miscegenation laws were omnipresent - it was impossible for any non-white to marry a white person, regardless of any level of love, commitment, or anything else.Thankfully, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Constitution does protect that right. Just because many people don't approve of a choice you make does not give them the right to treat you differently under the law.According to Loving v. Virginia, the right to choose one's partner in marriage rests solely with the individual, and cannot be abridged by the state.The reason, as I said, is simple - we are a free society. Freedom, at its core, is simply the ability to make choices that are different from the choices others make. Disallowing gay marriage takes away the freedom to choose who we can marry, and instead forces us to limit those choices to what our neighbors find acceptable. Even a totalitarian state can feel "free" if our personal values match closely enough the rules that are dictated to us...but it's not free when you couldn't make a different choice if you wanted to.I would never tell you who you can or cannot marry. That choice is (and should be) entirely up to you and your partner. Just like your decision of what religion to follow, how many children to have, and all of the other freedoms that you have. Shouldn't homosexuals have the same freedom of choice, even if some of their choices may be ones that you or I would disapprove of?

Some other forms will have that affect and the effect of those forms is detrimental to the right of the child in this regard. I'm not in favor of encouraging that market either.- That I am anti-gay adoption arises indeed from an overall ideological position which holds that God has an order in mind for his creation and the further man drifts from that order the worse things are for man.I see no particular problem with producing a rationalisation for my position given that there is a rational for it - related ultimately, to the aforementioned Godly order.That I translate a rational into humanistic-sounding terms such as "the rights of a child to be raised by it's biological parents" doesn't alter the substance of my believing that such was Gods intention in his establishing the family unit and that the rights being invoked for the child here are, ultimately, God given.- I'm not sure you understand. A single person can't adopt their own child (if they produce one) - the child is already theirs. Are you understanding what "leads to" means in the context of our discussion?- Let me repeat the basic position:- if gay couples are permitted to adopt orphans, they will naturally be allowed to adopt children produced by one half of the couple.- permitting this promotes & supports a "market response" to the demand of gay couples to have own-produced children. "Own" in the sense that one of the couple would be a biological parent and the other of the couple (who will want to adopt the child) not a biological parent.- such family units circumvent, by design, the rights of a child in regard it being raised by it's biological parents.In relation to the above point: permitting aged couples to adopt won't lead to the situation outlined above. The situation outlined above involves a drive for the gay couple to have a child of their own (in so far as they can call be biologically connected). Satisfying that demand dissolves the rights of a child. That demand cannot exist for the aged couple.

Well it is all still a bit bewildering but as I understand it everything about your "market theory" applies equally to:

Someone who had leakemia as a child and is thus knowingly sterile.

​

Aged couples because the man can still have a child even if the woman cannot.

​

Anyone who is knowingly sterile (for whatever reason) before coupling up with a child wanting partner.

​

Is this correct?

​

Iano writes:

​

That I am anti-gay adoption arises indeed from an overall ideological position which holds that God has an order in mind for his creation and the further man drifts from that order the worse things are for man.

​

OK. At least we know where we are now.

​

Iano writes:

​

That I translate a rational into humanistic-sounding terms such as "the rights of a child to be raised by it's biological parents" doesn't alter the substance of my believing that such was Gods intention in his establishing the family unit and that the rights being invoked for the child here are, ultimately, God given.

​

Maybe not. But it does beg questions regarding the consistent application of your post-hoc rationale.

1. The notion that a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents is horseshit.2. What about sperm donation? Egg donation? Adultery? Orphans? Divorce? And on and on and on - the simple brute fact of reality is that children are routinely not raised by their biological parents, why single out gays?

But those advocating gay adoption rights are not advocating that children should be removed from their biological parents, they are simply advocating that abused/neglected children should be placed in loving family environments.So what is it you disagree with?

No. They will be allowed to fight for the adoption of a child produced by one half of the couple.Like what happens with straight couples who do the same thing.Couple A - Male A and Female A
Couple B - Male B and Female BIf Male A and Female B have a child, isn't this the exact same scenario you're describing?That is:
Male A has his own family.
Female B has her own family.The answer is that neither has "the right to adopt" the child.
The answer is that both have "the right to fight for" adoption of the child.This is what custody of children is all about. This happens everyday and is worked out all the time.Gay couples wouldn't suddenly get "the right to adopt" the child in this situation, they would only get "the right to fight for" adoption of the child, the same as everyone else gets.You seriously thought that if we had two males as a couple, and one of them had a baby with a female... that the two males would get to adopt the child without any say-so from the female? Really??Absolutely no one is advocating such a ridiculous system. The system is already in place and in use for dealing with such situations.If there is a custody battle, then it is determined the way all current custody battles are determined. Through the existing court system which investigates and decides which biological parent would provide the better environment.

That wouldn't really be adoption, now would it? That would be biological. So what? Isn't that a family decision? That's a really ridiculous position for you to take in defense of traditional marriage.I have a child who is not biologically mine. I treat her just as badly as I do my biological children That's ridiculous, as the entirety of adoption "circumvents, by design" a child being raised by its biological parents. That's the whole point of adoption! Maybe I'm just not understanding your objection correctly, but it sounds like you're saying that if both individuals in a gay couple can't produce, then it is somehow unfair. Millions of people do it this way who's spouses are sterile for whatever reason.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This sums it up. You are hiding your beliefs behind a facade of lies (how very christ-like of you). Take your religion out of the equation, and your're standing with your pants down in front of the whole class, left with only ignorance and shame.Admit it: it's not about the kids. It's YOUR belief that homosexuals are an abomination. You're an ignorant bigot.If I can: Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

iano writes:

quote:

---

When your anti-X, you give reasons for that anti-ness. If that anti-ness happens to connect in some ways to anti-other*-similar-things then so be it. It shouldn't mean one cannot comment on the particular case.

---

When your argument comes down to special pleading, it most certainly does.Your argument originally was that "gay marriage leads to gay parenting leads to a child's right to be raised by the biological parents being violated."But that's overwhelmingly more true for straight marriage. Straight marriage leads to straight parenting which leads to a child's right to be raised by the biological parents being violated.So why are you only picking on the gay parents?

quote:

---

What's ever so slightly different about the case of gay-adoption is that we are dealing with family units that require, by their very design, the dissolution of a childs rights in the area described.

---

Incorrect. Most gay people have children the same way straight people do.The overwhelming majority of adoptions are carried out by infertile heterosexual couples. So if it isn't a problem when straight people do it, why does it suddenly become problematic when gay people do it?

quote:

---

The point isn't that society micro-manages something

---

And yet, that's exactly what you're presecribing: That we micro-manage the lives of gay people.

quote:

---

The point is that society not structurally encourage family units that can't but dissolve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents.

---

But that's precisely what happens when you let straight people marry: They start adopting children when they can't have any of their own.So if it isn't a problem when straight people do it, why does it suddenly become a problem when gay people do it? Why are you so set on micro-managing people's lives?

quote:

---

To my mind, the rights of a child supercede the rights of an individual to have a child.

---

Then since the overwhelming majority of adoptions are by straight people, why are you only picking on gay people? Your argument is an argument against all marriage.

quote:

---

If you don't agree with that fundamental, then my points will certainly fall on deaf ears.

---

The problem is that not even you agree with your fundamental. Your entire argument is special pleading: Somehow it's OK when straight people do it. It's only problematic when gay people do it.All the while, you have yet to show why it is that heterosexual parents will suddenly collapse in a fit of abuse when the gay couple next door gets married.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm not in favour of surrogate parenting full stop.

---

But that isn't exactly true, now is it? You only brought it up long after your original claims were shot down. You never said anything against surrogacy until it was shown that straight people engage surrogates for the same reason gay people do.So I call bullshit on your claim.

quote:

---

I'd point you to my message to Straggler (above) to indicate the specifics of why I'm against gay adoption.

---

But straight people do it for the exact same reasons. So if it isn't a problem when straight people adopt children, why does it suddenly become a problem when gay people adopt children?Why does the sexual orientation of the parents affect the legitimacy of adoption? Straight marriage leads to straight parenting which leads to straight adoption which violates the right of the child to be raised by the biological parents.Therefore, by your logic, we should outlaw mixed-sex marriage.If you disagree with that, then you're engaged in special pleading, that there is something different about mixed-sex marriage compared to same-sex marriage.Hint: It isn't the ability to procreate for gay people usually have kids the same way straight people do. And since we don't micro-manage the lives of straight people to determine if they're fertile, why do you insist upon micro-managing the lives of gay people?

quote:

---

I'll skip past those parts of your post that should be dealt with by this postion.

---

No, let's actually answer them because you haven't even bothered to so far:Why does the sexual orientation of the participants have any effect?Be specific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you don't have a problem with adoption and surrogacy on a fundamental level, why does the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents or the ones contracting the surrogate have any effect upon anything?

---

​

Skip

---

No, answer the question:So if you don't have a problem with adoption and surrogacy on a fundamental level, why does the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents or the ones contracting the surrogate have any effect upon anything?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If there are times when children need to have their "right to be raised by the biological parents" violated, then why is there only a problem when gay people do it, not straight people?

---

​

I'm not sure what you mean here.

---

It's self-explanatory. If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?Why is it only a problem when gay people do it, not straight people?

quote:

---

If you mean eg: children taken out of abusive homes a placed into foster familys ("why not gay") then you're diverting (unintentionally probably) from the point.

​

Perhaps you could clarify?

---

I didn't have any particular image in mind. Is there a reason why you immediately jumped to abuse? Why is it that whenever you have a thought of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately have thoughts of abusing children?It doesn't matter what the specific reason is. Do you think that there is ever a time when a child should be raised by someone other than the biological parents?If so, what does the sexual orientation of those parents have to do with anything?

quote:

---

The issue isn't children adopted/raised in loving homes.

---

Then why are you only complaining when gay people are the parents of those homes? If the intent is to service the best interests of the child, what on earth does the sexual orientation of the parents have to do with anything?

quote:

---

The issue is children having a right to be raised by biological parents. And the state supporting same/dissuading deviance from same.

---

Then since gay people and straight people have identical reasons for adopting children, why is it only a problem when gay people do it?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which means you must be very disturbed by the overwhelming prevalence of heterosexuals in the adoption/surrogacy "market." If you are trying not to "support a situation which will lead to dissolution of same," why do you let so many straight people get away with it?

---

​

Skip

---

No, answer the question:Which means you must be very disturbed by the overwhelming prevalence of heterosexuals in the adoption/surrogacy "market." If you are trying not to "support a situation which will lead to dissolution of same," why do you let so many straight people get away with it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Infertile straight adoption, which is biggest reason straight people adopt due to their structural inability to produce kids, is geared toward undermining those rights.
Therefore, where is your outrage over the straight people adopting and using surrogates? They're doing it precisely because they can't have children.

​

The majority of children who are adopted or born by surrogates are taken in by straight people who cannot have children of their own.

​

So why is it only a problem when gay people do it? Especially since most gay people have children the same way most straight people do?

---

​

Skip

---

No, answer the question.Infertile straight adoption, which is biggest reason straight people adopt due to their structural inability to produce kids, is geared toward undermining those rights.
Therefore, where is your outrage over the straight people adopting and using surrogates? They're doing it precisely because they can't have children.The majority of children who are adopted or born by surrogates are taken in by straight people who cannot have children of their own.So why is it only a problem when gay people do it? Especially since most gay people have children the same way most straight people do?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But all of your arguments are vastly more applicable to straight adoption simply by the sheer number of straights who adopt. There is no reason that gay people adopt that straight people don't also use in vastly superior numbers.

​

So if your protest truly is about defending a child's "right to be raised by the biological parents," then you necessarily must conclude that the overwhelming number of adoptions and surrogates used by straight people must be stopped right now.

​

But you immediately claim that no, you don't mean that.

​

Which necessarily means that your insistence that your complaint is only about the "right of the child to be raised by the biological parents" isn't exactly true.

---

​

Skip

---

No, answer the question:But all of your arguments are vastly more applicable to straight adoption simply by the sheer number of straights who adopt. There is no reason that gay people adopt that straight people don't also use in vastly superior numbers.
So if your protest truly is about defending a child's "right to be raised by the biological parents," then you necessarily must conclude that the overwhelming number of adoptions and surrogates used by straight people must be stopped right now.But you immediately claim that no, you don't mean that.Which necessarily means that your insistence that your complaint is only about the "right of the child to be raised by the biological parents" isn't exactly true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And where does adoption/surrogacy by gay people lead to that hasn't already been lead to thousands of times over by straight people?

---

​

Skips

---

No, answer the question:And where does adoption/surrogacy by gay people lead to that hasn't already been lead to thousands of times over by straight people?

quote:

---

You've diverted from the point.

---

On the contrary, I'm stapling it to your forehead. You, however, keep avoiding it.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

The point was "the right to gay adoption of orphans" and were that leads.

---

No, it wasn't. Your original statement was, Message 72: No mention of orphans. In fact, nobody had brought up children at all at this point. This was your invention.Taz brought up orphans, but your statement was a blanket condemnation of all gay parents.

quote:

---

That leads to "the right to adoption - full stop".

---

But the reasons for adoption are identical between straight and gay people. So why is it only problematic when gay people do it? Why do you think you can get away with an argument based upon special pleading?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

And the right to adoption - full stop - is the only opportunity for gay couple to have children they can call their own.

---

Incorrect. Gay people usually have children the same way straight people do.And by this logic, we need to make sure that infertile straight people don't get married because that is "the only opportunity for infertile people to have children they can call their own."And that is the primary reason beyond remarriage straight couples adopt children.So why is it only problematic when gay people do it? Straight marriage leads to straight parenting which leads to violation of the child's right to be raised by the biological parents.Therefore, straight marriage is to be outlawed.So why are you only micro-managing the lives of gay people?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

And society supporting same is society supporting the structural/inherent denial of a childs rights in the manner under discussion.

---

And thus, adoption is to be outlawed and all marriage is to be abandoned for it necessarily and directly leads to children having their rights violated.So why are you only micro-managing the lives of gay people?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

This is other than societal support for a family unit that occasionally fires blanks.

---

Why? What is the difference? Why does the reason for the couple being unable to have a child of their own have any effect? Why are you only micro-managing the lives of gay people?

quote:

---

Micro-managing comes to the fore when you try to select for the occasional misfire

---

Huh? Infertile people aren't "occasionally" misfiring. They're constantly misfiring. But you don't see any particular problem with them adoption children and violating their rights. So why are you insistent upon micromanaging the lives of gay people? After all, they have children pretty much in the same way straight people do.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Hopefully, the structural nature of gay family units vs. hetro family units will dissuade you from your cynicism.

---

Huh? There is no structural difference between the two. So why are you only picking on the gay couple?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But let's make the unreasonable assumption that you're being sincere: If the problem is surrogacy, what does the sexual orientation of the people contracting it have to do with anything? Since society has determined that surrogacy is legal and is no detriment to the welfare of the children so conceived, why are you complaining about the sexual orientation of those who contract with surrogates? Why deny to gays that which straights have done so often?

---

​

Skips

---

No, answer the question:But let's make the unreasonable assumption that you're being sincere: If the problem is surrogacy, what does the sexual orientation of the people contracting it have to do with anything? Since society has determined that surrogacy is legal and is no detriment to the welfare of the children so conceived, why are you complaining about the sexual orientation of those who contract with surrogates? Why deny to gays that which straights have done so often?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So which is it? Is the problem the entire concept of adoption/surrogacy without regard to the sexual orientation of the people engaging in it? Or is the problem the sexual orientation of the people engaging in it?

---

​

Skips

---

No, answer the question:So which is it? Is the problem the entire concept of adoption/surrogacy without regard to the sexual orientation of the people engaging in it? Or is the problem the sexual orientation of the people engaging in it?

quote:

---

The specific problem with gay adoption/surrogacy viz-a-viz hetro adoption/surrogacy is dealt with.

---

No, it isn't. You never had anything to say about it until your previous blanket argument was shot down. Therefore, your ad hoc assertion that you have a problem with surrogacy isn't exactly true. Not even you believe your hype.And why does the sexual orientation of the parents have anything to do with the legitimacy of the adoption?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your complaint applies equally to straights and overwhelmingly more often. So why are you only picking on the gay parents?

---

​

Skips

---

No, answer the question:Your complaint applies equally to straights and overwhelmingly more often. So why are you only picking on the gay parents?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano writes:

quote:

---

If you've read back you'll agree that gay adoption of orphans will lead necessarily to gay adoption full stop. Which means 'the market' will respond and produce children produced for gays to adopt. The issue is whether Society should promote this market (which will produce children, some of whom will be loved) Or whether it should dissuade the production of such children, who, if not produced, cannot be denied loving parents.

---

If you've read back, you'll agree that straight adoption of orphans will lead necessarily to straight adoption full stop. Which means "the market" will respond and produce children produced for straights to adopt. The issue is whether society should promote this market (which will produce children, some of whom will be loved) or whether it should dissuade the production of such children who, if not produced, cannot be denied loving parents.So by your logic, straight people need to be prevented from marrying out of concern for the rights of the child.How does the existence of adoption by gay people have any effect that hasn't already been achieved by the long history of adoption by straight people? There is not a single reason gay people adopt that hasn't already been carried out by straight people.So why are you only picking on the gay people?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

To put it another way: should society place this particular right of children first. If so, discouraging a market that will produce children without hope of this primary right being applied to them is a must.

---

Then you are clearly an advocate for the dissolution of marriage to all heterosexual people for it only led to the development of a market to produce children in complete violation of their right to be raised by their biological parents.Surrogacy was a heterosexual invention. Jesus being the prime example.Adoption was a heterosexual invention. Jesus being the prime example.So if your complaint is truly, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" why are you only complaining about the gays when it's the straights who have done all the damage?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?Are you seriously saying that your objection to same-sex marriage will disappear only when adoption laws are reworked to outlaw surrogacy, prevent "directed adoption," etc., etc.?

quote:

---

Hetro couples who seek adoption/surrogacy form a miniscule part of a system which serves the global needs of society

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously claiming that the system of adoption/surrogacy is primarily targeted at gay couples?They are there to serve the needs of straight couples. It was only recently that single people were allowed to adopt and even then, they have to jump through more hoops to prove their worthiness than couples do. It is illegal for gay people to adopt in Florida and until recently, the very idea of gay people adopting at all was foreign across the entire country.Adoption/surrogacy exists solely because of straight, married couples.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting which leads to straight adoption which leads to this "market" you are hyperventilating over that supposedly violates the rights of the child to be raised by the biological parents.So why are you only picking on gay people? Why is it that a system built, developed, and intended solely for straight marriage is suddenly the burden of gay people to correct?

quote:

---

Another (small) system is presented which is 0% efficient in this regard.

---

Huh? Gay people have children the same way straight people do.And your dancing around the issue of the fertility of the couple makes no sense. Why should the ability of the couple to have children of their own have any effect upon the legitimacy of the adoption? In fact, it would seem to argue against your claim: Why on earth would a straight couple think to adopt a child? If they want to have a child, they can have one of their own.And thus, we shouldn't let adoption happen at all because it's such a small percentage of straight couples who can't have children and we don't want to "micro-manage" their lives, right?But wait, isn't this supposed to be about the children? Yeah, this really isn't about the rights of the parents but rather the best interests of the child. So why does the sexual orientation of the parents matter in any way?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?You seem to be saying that because the way we handle adoption is screwed up, we have to stop gay people from getting married lest they avail themselves of the screwed-up adoption system.As if gay people are responsible for the faults of straight people.As if the sexual orientation of the parents has any effect upon the legitimacy of adoption.And completely ignoring that this argument is an even more powerful reason to deny straight people from getting married since they are the ones who primarily avail themselves of the adoption system.

quote:

---

Can you imagine the special pleading that can be opened if every minority view was to be considered so?

---

Huh? Since you're the one engaged in special pleading, it is a bit baffling as to what you think your point is. You're the one saying that there is something special about a mixed-sex couple adopting than a same-sex couple. You have yet to actually say what it is, but you are the one who said that we cannot allow gay marriage for it will lead to gay adoption all the while saying that straight adoption isn't something to be regulated for it results in "micro-management."

quote:

---

Hopefully the above will lay out my postion.

---

Not in the slightest. All you have done is dig yourself deeper into your special pleading hole.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting which leads to straight adoption which resulted in this "market" you're wetting yourself over. Since it is such a horrible violation of the rights of the child, then you necessarily wish to stop mixed-sex marriage.But no, you don't. There's something special about mixed-sex marriage that makes it OK to violate the rights of children. It's only when gay people do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons that things go awry.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano writes:

quote:

---

I think you're forgetting the thrust of the argument. Adoption of orphans ... and were it leads.

---

But straight adoption of orphans leads to straight adoption, period. And that is a violation of the rights of the child.Therefore, we must stop straight people from adopting children, period.Why do you special plead that straight adoption is somehow different? That this "market" you're wetting yourself over wasn't created by straight people?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?Your argument seems to be that because straight people screwed up adoption, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry lest they avail themselves of the adoption process straights created.

quote:

---

Will permitting adoption of orphans by single people lead to the 'market' response outlined previously? I don't think so: a single woman can already provide her own child and remain single without the need to adopt. A single man can already provide for his own child and not need to adopt. There is no market possible.

---

So why does the sexual orientation of the parent make any difference?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Will permitting adoption of orphans by aged couples lead to the market response outlined? I don't think so: how can a market producing non-biologically connected kids for aged couples arise when a supply of 'free' non-biologically connected kids already exists (orphans). Sure there will be abuse (an aged couple decides they want a designer-child and go to the black market) but that's a separate issue for society to deal with.

---

So since you don't think that a "market" will be created for any other unable-to-reproduce segment, why would gay couples create this "market"? Especially since most gay people have children the same way straight people do?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Having re-focused the emphasis away from adoption of orpahans and onto "...were it leads", you tell me.

---

To the same place it has already been taken by straights. So why pick on gay people?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?Your argument seems to be that because straight people screwed up adoption, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry lest they avail themselves of the adoption process straights created.As if gay people are responsible for the faults of straight people.As if the sexual orientation of the parents has any effect upon the legitimacy of adoption.And completely ignoring that this argument is an even more powerful reason to deny straight people from getting married since they are the ones who primarily avail themselves of the adoption system.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano writes:

quote:

---

The 'market' (commercial or no) referred to involved that which would supply gay couples with a child of (one of) there own. Which would be adopted by the other partner. Assuming support of the right of a child to be raised by his biological parents is considered something society wants to support, then society cannot also support an activity that structurally undermines this right.

---

The "market" (commercial or no) referring to involved that which would supply straight couples with a child of (one of) their own. Which would be adopted by the other partner. Assuming support of the right of a child to be rasied by his biological parents is considered something society wants to support, then society cannot also support an activity that structurally undermines this right.Therefore, straight people should be refused the right to marry because straight marriage leads to straight parenting which leads to straight adoption which is a violation of the rights of the child.If your argument is truly, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" then you necessarily want to stop straight marriage.If you don't, if you think straight marriage does not lead to the violation of the rights of the child, then you need to explain why gay marriage would do so since gay people adopt children for the identical reasons as straight people. Thus, you need to explain why the sexual orientation of the parents affects the legitimacy of the adoption.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

I don't think you've gotten to my argument yet.

---

On the contrary, we've arrived at the heart of your argument:You want to engage in special pleading for straight people. Under the guise of "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" you've concocted an argument that is overwhelmingly pointed at straight people but instead, you only aim it at gay people.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Marriage isn't the issue here. Gays couples adopting is.

---

That isn't what you said. From Message 72: This entire argument of yours was used to justify the denial of marriage to gay people. Because the rights of the child will be violated if we let gay people get married, then we cannot allow gay people to get married.But straight marriage leads to the exact same thing and on a much grander scale due to the numbers involved. It was straight people who developed the adoption policies we have, not gay people. It was straight people who came up with the idea of surrogacy, not gay people. It was straight people who came up with directed adoption, not gay people. All the things you have identified as this evil "market" you're wetting yourself over were created by straight people.And somehow gay people are the only ones who have to suffer the consequences of it. Despite the fact that entire process of adoption was created of, by, and for straight people, we only deny marriage to gay people because of the problems you are hyperventilating over.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to the denial of the child's rights.Therefore, straight marriage needs to be outlawed immediately.So please explain why you don't advocate for this, and try not to do so without special pleading.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Society possesses a system in which people get together, produce children and raise them.

---

And what makes you think gay people don't deserve to have avail themselves of that system?Gay people have children the same way that straight people do.

quote:

---

That system (in respect of the right in question) isn't by any means perfect

---

But despite the fact that the system was created of, by, and for straight people, only gay people are to be denied it out of some pathetic cry of, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"Somehow, gay people are responsible for the faults of straight people. So until straight people get their act together with regard to adoption, we need to stop gay people from getting married lest they avail themselves of a system that straight people developed? That's your argument?

quote:

---

In terms of supporting the right in question, we can say that this system is X% efficient.

---

What does "efficiency" have to do with anything? This isn't about the parents. This is about the child. By your own argument, this entire line of reasoning of yours is about the right of the child to be raised by the biological parents.So what on earth does the sexual orientation of the parents have to do with anything?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Now we consider an alternative family unit that, by design, reaches 0% efficiency in this regard.

---

Anybody infertile. Any woman who is past menopause. Anybody with genetic traits that result in their decision to never have a child of their own.Oh, all of those people are able to adopt children. But gay people, they're something different.Did you really think you could get away with an argument by special pleading?By your own argument, this is about the rights of the child. So what on earth is the justification to examine the sexual orientation of the parents? How does that affect anything? What does the sexual orientation of the parents have to do with anything?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

I'm of the opinion that society cannot be supporting situations that run counter to it goals (if assuming the right of the child to be raised by it's biological parents supercedes the right of people to have/adopt children)

---

Then you must demand the cessation of all mixed-sex marriage for the overwhelming source of violations of the right of the child to be raised by the biological parents comes at the hands of straight people.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Let's hear your argument against that and try not to engage in special pleading. Your claim is that this is about the kids, so why are you focusing on the parents? How does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect upon the legitimacy of the adoption?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.