Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

That would only be true if no adoptive parents of the same ethnicity existed, and if that were the case, as often is with Japanese children, then it's fine to place with other ethnic groups. But the first choice should be close to home.

Yes, that's truly authentic. Traditional Korean music. Deep.

What heritage? What heritage do you have?

 

I wasn't about to read all 44 pages of this so if this is a repeat of information sorry, but how can modern religions lay any claim over marriage when marriage began before accurately recorded history. Recorded history began in 4000 BC 2000 years before the birth of Judaism. That would be like me saying that my interpretation of dance is the only interpretation there can be. And since we live in a country where church and state are to be seperated, even if you did think that modern religions had some claim to the term, the use of the term in a legal manner should not be influenced by how some religions view it.

As far as homosexuality being unnatural, people apparently not spent enough time in nature. Dogs, bulls, rats and many other species have been shown to exibit homosexual behavior (and in some cases total homosexuality). I say let homosexuals get married and get the same benefits as "traditional" married couples.

 

Well if thats how you feel thats fine. But you have to understand that it's an ideal and unlikely situation (to always find a same-race family, let alone a family at all), at least in north eastern US.

There are plenty of people lined up to adopt babies under 1 years old, but once you hit 3 it gets significantly harder to be adopted. If you're 6 and in foster care, the chances are ridiculously low.

This is why I took issue with what you're saying because in most cases, its be adopted at a young age or never have a family.

I personally think we have to open up adoption to homosexuals and people of all races or we're denying thousands of kids a loving home for no real reason. As long as you agree with that, but your preference is on same-race families, than thats fine.

We were 8, and that was one time while I was sleeping over their house, mostly to enlighten me (an eight year old) about their heritage. I'm sure thats not the only discussion they ever had about race.

I don't know how to answer this because I don't know what you're asking. Do you want me to tell you everything I know about Russia and Russian culture?

All I can tell you is this. Everything that I don't know about my ancestors and biological family was never the fault of my adoptive parents. My biological parents refused to let me have any information, including health documents. So I don't know a lot about my family history, including inherited diseases and illnesses, but that would be the case had I been adopted by Russian immigrants.

 

Stox I have said the same thing over and over. Can you not see how you are trying, very poorly I might add to twist things into what they are not.

I have been saying the same thing over and over. Can not have because of who they are is totally different from can not have because of a health condition.

Seriously get a clue.

 

How about we all just call ourselves Americans?

I'm of Irish decent, not adopted, and no one ever shared any "rich irish heritage" with me... Once again, how about we focus on being Americans, and the future, instead of the past?

 

I never said they are not fit btw That is not my reasoning at all.

Children are not a 'right'. Gays want to be proud of who they are, if they want to be proud of who they are they should understand 'obviously' that they can not have children. This is not due to a medical condition 'which should be obvious, but for Stox's benefit I'll put this here, otherwise I'm sure he'll try to twist it yet again'

I'm all for gays having equal rights, too bad for them children are not a 'right' and for them to be proud of who they are, and to get benefits based upon who they are 'marrying the same sex, etc' this includes the bads, such as NOT being able to have children.

IMO yes they should be.

BTW the talk of all those poor children in orphanages. I have known many straight couples who wished to adopt, were on waiting lists for years. Willing to take a child of pretty much any age, race, health condition, still took ages. I know of some gay couples, both from TV and friends who pay woman to have their children. They are not 'saving children' from orphanages like some would have you believe, but having them brought into this world for themselves.

 

I totally understand your reasoning, and I wasn't referring to you when I brought up the "not-fit" statement; but don't you think the decision on whether or not someone should be able to adopt a child should be made after a qualified person reviews them, their family, and their financial situation, instead of basing the decision on the gender they prefer to spend their time with?

 

I know, just wanted to put my point out there

 

I think yes, people when they are in love should have the right to get married, whater it is a man and woman or 2 of the same sex.

 

Yes, I know not being able to have children because of a health condition and being gay are completely different, I never said they aren't. But you said NOTHING about health conditions being an exception when you said they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they "CAN NOT have children and should deal with it". You only introduced the health condition exception when it was pointed out that straight people often can not have children because you wanted to make your reasoning exclusive to gays. Face it, You don't want gays to adopt because they are gay. Now all you are doing is searching for a contrived rationale to justify this view.

 

I didn't specify because
#1 It was a given, anyone with any intelligence would know there is a difference from not being able to have children because of who they are, compared to not being able to have children because of a HEALTH CONDITION.
#2 Not every single I can be dotted or T crossed, if you wanted clarification all you had to do was ask.
#3 It was purposely put out that way, to also trap you into the trap you are in now. You have absolutely no argument unless you also claim being gay is a 'health condition'

Stox thanks for the morning laugh. It is in fact you who is bouncing around, 'but but but what about straight people, but but but what about if someone chooses not to go into labor, but but but what about those who this. and that.

Anyone with any mental ability at all would know health conditions are totally different than being gay, taking a few word quote and trying to twist it out of context, especially when you have been told over and over it's true meaning a meaning anyone else would know but you is simply childish.

You have no argument, you've proven this long ago. Why don't you quit while you are way behind.

I'll now wait for you're next 'but, but, but, but' Yet I'm the one 'refining' my argument.

 

So what are you going to do? Retract your statement or refine it? Because as it stands saying anyone who can't have children should deal with it and be prevented from adopting also includes straight people.

If you aren't very good at putting what you mean in to words i'll understand. But something obviously has to be done to that statement if you want it to apply exclusively to gays. So what are you going to do? retract it or refine it?

If you were writing the legislation for this do you think it would be sufficient to say; Well, i'm sure people will know what i meant to say? Of course not. If something is worded incorrectly you have to either remove it or refine it.

 

You're still going on and on?
I will not retract nor refine it. It's obvious as to what it's intent was, it has been explained to you over and over again, yet for some reason you simply can not comprehend it.

BTW I was not 'writing legislation' writing legislation one would need to worry about crossing every T and dotting every I, I however was not doing anything of the sort.

Now if you don't mind, and if you don't' have any good argument as you have none. All you've done is twisted and grasped a hold of a weak attempt 'but but but you didn't say health condition is excluded' even though it's been explained to you over and over, would you mind stopping this mindless posting? You have no argument, you've proven that much quite well.

---
BTW you didn't clarify that you knew being gay is not the same as a health condition for several posts to you, I guess I should mindlessly ramble on about that to you like you are doing now?

---

BTW Stox, read the entire post. It's obvious the discussion is about 'gays' not being able to have children because of who they are. Crossing T's and dotting I's to bring up 'health condition excluded' truly is not needed, but I guess when you have no real argument you will go on and on like you are now.

 

No it should not be allowed. It is jjust not natural. and is against the Catholic Church.

 

Let's have a compromise. Gay people can marry but the marriage has to be between a man and a woman.

 

lol, smart ass

 

Hmmm... Does it count if one dresses like a woman? haha

 

Is he wearing a thong?

err sorry I asked

 

HA! Not in my mind, he's not!

Me to; until you posted that I didn't have a visual...