Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

Homosexuality was excepted socially before the advent of Christianity. The only reason it is less well received now is because the Christians went across and told them it was wrong. Would they have developed to the same social level without the invasion? We'll never know.

We have people on the boards from India and Japan, I fail to see why we should discount these countries. I'm sure you would be equally up in arms if they legalised gay adoption.

I understand that homosexuality may be genetically linked and is not self-destructive. A study on the sisters of gay men showed they were more fertile than "average", and also more likely to have more children than average. As they obviously share genetic material with their gay brothers then obviously this can be passed on down the generations.

Whatever fool brough up Homosexuality as un-natural - by definition, the only "un-natural" thing is something constructed by man. Gay animals are not just from the realms of SouthPark

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

[ July 04, 2005, 18:38: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Form done. Now some substance, please?

That makes no sense.

From nonsense, you can prove just about anything. Still, what you're trying to prove doesn't really hold together, either.

Infertile heterosexual couples are still a family, which is the natural setting for the rearing of children. The difference is that they can't conceive terminally or permanently (which isn't always as permanent as one would suppose, anyway).

Homosexual couples don't even have that. One gender is going to be emulated by a person of the opposite gender acting in a cross-gender fashion. The whole concept is crippled.

Gay people tend to have a history of failed heterosexual relationships before "discovering" their same sex attraction. It's also a fact children take after parents in family relationships and attitudes. Children raised in homosexual families would have no role models for their natural heterosexual sexual behaviour. They would have to find out much more on their own. It's a fact people raised without either parent tend to have troubles in relationships. In a homosexual family, you by definition have only one gender represented. The other one is missing. And the only one gender represented towards towards itself in the sexual behaviour. This is the only thing the child is going to see. As a result, it will at best be severely lacking in necessary formative experience. At worst, it will take after parents and seek gay relationships before finding out it doesn't work for him.

That would already be bad, yes. No gay adoption and no gay friendly talk in schools or medical facilities should be allowed, if you ask me.

 

Rallymama said this:

I think I agree with everything she has said on the matter. As a mother and an adoptee, she probably has more wisdom than some of the less experienced and more idealistic amongst us. I say evaluate parents on their abilities as parents and nothing else.

Some of the comments people are making in this thread are astonishingly prejudiced. I think it's a bit like me saying that Hindus shouldn't be allowed to have children because I believe children should not be exposed to something as unnatural as hot curries.

 

For Christians, God has defined it in the Bible. The Core Doctrine of our faith forbids the practice, but Government has just givien it a form os social legitimacy.

I would not want parents who view or posess hardcore pornography or engage in adultery to be allowed to adopt children either. My stance there is consistant, if unappreciated. While I have no control over biological reproduction, I wouldn't want to see them adopt.

Could this also include the hardcore rejection of religion that I am encountering here? I wouldn't go so far as to claim fundamentalism, but I stand for what I believe to be right in the face of a world that either doesn't agree or doesn't care, so I am labeled a fundamentalist. I would argue for what's best for the children in cases of adoption. And I don't believe that homosexuality, pornography or adultery are things that children should be exposed to in those formative years. I guess that any teachings of hatred (a word I strongly avoid in my view on Homosexuals) should be included in that list.

I truly doubt that the adoption agencies run by certain religions would ever grant a child to a gay couple. I also think that no Government has any right to change that.

Freedom to choose is innate, Temptation is something all humanity is subject to. The fact that some are tempted stronger to homosexuality does not prove that homosexuality is innate. Regardless of which temptation you face, you still have to decide who to be sexually active with, and when. Nothing forces you to choose one gender over the other. My faith simply teaches that choosing one way is morally wrong.

Actually, what you produced in your earlier post made my point as well as yours. The fact that these children see nothing wrong with the situation they were in means that they are not learning that Homosexuality is immoral. That is one of the biggest objections to allowing Gays to adopt. There are those that oppose Gay Marriage and homosexual activity in general that would site that these children are not properly taught morality...

I think that any works in that interpretation. If you teach people that it's okay to break any commandment, then you are sinning yourself. If you teach that stealing or murder or working on the Sabbath or whatever is acceptable, then You are diminishing what you can expect in heaven save you repent and seek no more to teach that Sin is good.

Not core, but still important.

From the standpoint of Christianity, any sexual activity with a partner other than your legally and lawfully wedded spouse (who is of the opposite gender to yourself) is considered impure.

Not just my personal code, but the one that most active Christians claim to follow.

Could this not be learned from other homosexuals? Even if the gay parents don't get into the actual details of how they have sex, other homosexuals that may seek to become involved with them may help them fill in those details. Most of the details of heterosexuality spread around locker rooms and school yards anyway...

But to those of us that DO take it seriously, can you not understand our outrage at thie recent insult fromt he Canadian Government?

Actually, I've gone to scripture to condemn both...

Not so much Traumatized, but morally corrupted. If they develop corrupted morals, then they themselves will not realize their own corruption.

That could have happened with Straight parents too though. I wouldn't want her subjected to the conditions of her birth mother, but I think she would have done just as well in a Straight couple's home.

And I invite them to speak for their own country.

That's just being silly. You attempt to belittle our very real moral concerns by making silly comparisons that really don't compare at all. Curries DO occur in nature. They don't choose to be hot or not. Homosexuality is a choice, and one I have argured is morally wrong all along.

 

Of course it doesn't. And that's why pharmaceutical companies are promoting "predisposition profiling".

What for? And single parents are going to do what? Emulate every second day?

Yep, those wicked homosexual beetles and damselflies. So choosy. Though, why would a god create them in the first place, if he considers homosexuality wrong?

 

Though being gay does not necessarily make one a pervert, dispite what those gay pride parades show, does that mean that we should experiment with unwanted children? We have to put child safety first.

I would even be so contraversial as to say that adoption foreign children can be a bad thing. Some people see foreign children like a rare breed of cat, and there have been lots of cases of Russian children being abused in the US

13 Russian children killed already

Can you imagine a middle aged man requesting to adopt a 16 yearold Japanese girl? Eyebrows would be rasied.

 

*Sits and watches his anti-gay adoption friends get utterly pwned*

Well, I'm still not entirely convinced ... but the arguments for the other side are persuasive (definately more so than quoting from the Bible or discrediting the research ... though some more research would be nice). So yeah, whatever.

*Bows well and truly out*

 

NEWSFLASH! Not everyone is a Christian.

Also, people demand equal rights. News at 11.


Seriously. Allowing Gays to marry does NOTHING to marriage. They are allowed to marry? Fine. When the news struck me, I was happy. When I found out that Spain did the same, I celebrated. I could rant and rant about this, but I am going to post a quote from Ryan Sohmer from http://www.leasticoulddo.com

 

Harbourboy -- Sorry, but to make a statement like that, you really discredit your entire argument. To make that analogy -- it's pretty clear you don't have a clue as to the seriousness of the entire topic we're discussing here.

 

No they don't. And for that matter, neither does an automobile or a television. Why aren't these things morally wrong as well?

The problem we have here is that none of us can agree on what is or isn't morally right or wrong.

That's just insulting and I would expect more from you than that. I am very aware of the seriousness of this topic but I'm trying to find a way of putting across my point of view, which is that many of you are pinpointing this one narrow area as a way of judging people. A person is made up of so many other elements other than just his or her sexuality. To prejudge a whole person based on one small thing is, to me, grossly unfair.

 

One SMALL thing?!? You call homosexuality a SMALL thing? Like something incidental to a person's being?? -- maybe a new hairstyle, or a new set of clothes? Funny, as far as I can tell, they don't view themselves in that way.

Um...sexuality sort of defines WHO a person is...sorry, I'm not trying to insult you, but I still stick to my previous comment -- given that you've just stated AGAIN that you see it as a "small thing" (akin to curry), neglecting to recognize the serious impact homosexuality (or ANY sexuality) has on a person. It's more than just a minor difference.

 

Maybe for some, but not for all. My uncle is a singer, a piano tutor, a supreme linguist (working on learning his eighth), a good cook, a fantastic host, and last but not least, a father of two adult heterosexual children! (Oh yeah, and he's gay.)

 

Thank you, Felinoid. That is what I was trying to get at. OK - sexuality isn't a small thing, but it's also not such a big thing that it engulfs everything else about who a person is and what they do outside of their sexual relationships.

 

I think our sexuality colors our perceptions and experiencees, tho', and in that way does contribute to defining who we are as human beings. It's not the single most important factor, but it certainly counts for more than one's favorite color or whether or not someone likes spicy food. I wonder where each of us would be today if we were of another gender or orientation?

This aside, it doesn't change my basic position that every adoptive parent - gay, straight or Martian, for that matter - deserves to be assessed on an individual basis and not given a rubber-stamp result based on a single criterion.

 

Exactly.

 

Sorry, but if that rubber stamp will save a child (who, if young enough may not be able to speak for himself) from a life of jibes, being the butt of jokes and snide comments -- then I'm all for it.

 

But what is the reason why such a child would be teased as you describe? Because of the very prejudicial attitude which so many of you seem to have! It’s a cyclical argument to say we need to shield the children from being teased by marginalising the homosexuals. I think it is a more positive thing to try and work to break down those prejudices rather than setting up barriers that just reinforce the stereotypes.

 

*sigh* We're talking about the way society is TODAY. I don't foresee homosexuality becoming the norm in this society anytime soon. Nor do I advocate using a defenseless child to be a test case to probe the limits of "normality" to affect change. IF we are looking for total homosexual acceptance in ALL ways -- there are other ways of doing that.

 

And perhaps we should also discourage the unattractive, the overweight, the unathletic, the poor, and the non-conformists from having children; these children will also likely suffer "a life of jibes, being the butt of jokes and snide comments" of which you speak.

Thank God everyone's hetero in Gattaca!