DOMA ruled uncons utional

[MannyIsGod]

Also, there are quite a few countries around the world where gay adoption is and has been legal. If the concerns displayed in this thread were valid, would we not see a rise in cases echoing those concerns in those countries that allow gay adoption?

[Ignignokt]

Have children raised by sexual parents been confused on a larger basis than the average teenager? I'm not going to go into immorality because morality is a personal issue that differs from person to person so wanting to have a baseline morality to pass on to people is very non libertarian of you, Gtown.



What about heterosexuals engaging in anal sex? Do they automatically lose their parental rights? I'm fairly certain the child should not be exposed to either heterosexual or sexual habits of children in any case and I'm fairly certain that the state cannot consider sexual habits (aside from pedophiles for obvious reasons) that do not directly endanger children in any case.



Personal and religious views are not supposed to be used for policy decisions. Once again, very unlibertarian of you.

ha!

You do not have a clue on what i think the federal govt's role on gay adoption should be. If i were to be a libertarian, it would not mean that i can never use morals or values when it comes to my decisions.

It may be so that LIBERTARIANs would not use moral arguments in policy , but it's foolish to think that you don't. How else do you justify social spending?

Individual Rights is a moral principle to me, and i object to gay parenting because a child is forced by the state to join a gay family that is unfit to raise a child in a sane way.

The govt has no right to enforce a kid to go to a broken situation by court decision, that kind of decision should be based by consent of the agency who deals with such matters. The kid is also an individual. Since the kid at certain ages does not have the rational capabilities to understand these things and because he has no legal guardian to make the decisions for him , it is up to the responsible agency to see what is improper and proper to do concerning these matters. When a kid is given up, his rights are determined by a particular party who for a moment is temporarily the guardian. I believe an agency has a right to deny a couple a child if it deems it so. Govt should not get into the buisiness of raising kids, so my position on gay adoption is that the govt should leave it up to the adoption agencies to decide. That my friend is my libertarian position.

[MannyIsGod]

ha!

You do not have a clue on what i think the federal govt's role on gay adoption should be. If i were to be a libertarian, it would not mean that i can never use morals or values when it comes to my decisions.

Actually I believe it does - at least as far as it goes on infringing on others rights.

It may be so that LIBERTARIANs would not use moral arguments in policy , but it's foolish to think that you don't. How else do you justify social spending?

On multiple fronts but not because it gives me warm fuzzies. For instance - spending on social services in order to reduce the burden on the government and society at a later point thus saving money.

In any event, I am not a self described libertarian. Unless I'm mistaken, you are.

Individual Rights is a moral principle to me, and i object to gay parenting because a child is forced by the state to join a gay family that is unfit to raise a child in a sane way.

Yet you can find no evidence to support that view point other than your personal morality. You don't believe its right and you believe the child would be confused but you can't prove that it happens or can you?

The govt has no right to enforce a kid to go to a broken situation by court decision, that kind of decision should be based by consent of the agency who deals with such matters. The kid is also an individual. Since the kid at certain ages does not have the rational capabilities to understand these things and because he has no legal guardian to make the decisions for him , it is up to the responsible agency to see what is improper and proper to do concerning these matters. When a kid is given up, his rights are determined by a particular party who for a moment is temporarily the guardian. I believe an agency has a right to deny a couple a child if it deems it so. Govt should not get into the buisiness of raising kids, so my position on gay adoption is that the govt should leave it up to the adoption agencies to decide. That my friend is my libertarian position.

Wait, so your premise is that the rights of the child are important but not important enough for the government to protect? No one is talking about the government raising children - we're talking about the government denying people adoption rights based on sexual preference.

Yeah, an agency can deny adoption based on many criteria and I'm not against that one bit but I don't see how one of those criteria should be the parents sexual preference when research shows it doesn't negatively affect the child.

[Spurminator]

Despite TW silly argument, what i say to that is, the real consequence to gay adoption is raising the kid in confusion and immorality.

It truly is disgusting for two men to pleasure themselves where nature has deemed it useful to pass fecal matter and toxic substances.

moreso, it is quite disturbing that men would have to submit themselves dominated to another man and give him oral sex. An ideal man is an individual unwilliling to submit and his worth is in his self worth, and is to be glorified by the females who need him spiritually, and physically.

Actually this argument makes a lot of sense. I know that when I was a child, it was comforting to know that when I watched my parents have sex, they were doing it as God and nature intended. Because they had sex in front of me a LOT. And I could have been pretty warped if they were both dudes. As it is, I have a perfectly healthy perspective on sex thanks to my heterosexual parents having heterosexual sex in front of me.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't indicate that both men would act like a female, nevertheless, one would more than likely assume the female role in sex, relationship, or parenting.

This is your scientific conclusion?

If you have two masculine men as a couple, thats just as bad and fits the criteria for demasculization because one of them would have to deny his manhood and recieve.

Receive what? You think they are having sex in front of the child? You need to provide proof of this.

The child would have to grow up in confusion.

Since gays have brought up children before, surely there is something more than your insecure speculation about the "confusion" of children in those households.

I said nothing that would indicate sexuality is "natural" or benificial to nature. Learn to read first before you make a clown out of yourself.

You just made a clown out of yourself by stating sexuality happens in nature.

That makes it natural.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually this argument makes a lot of sense. I know that when I was a child, it was comforting to know that when I watched my parents have sex, they were doing it as God and nature intended. Because they had sex in front of me a LOT. And I could have been pretty warped if they were both dudes. As it is, I have a perfectly healthy perspective on sex thanks to my heterosexual parents having heterosexual sex in front of me.

[Ignignokt]

You just made a clown out of yourself by stating sexuality happens in nature.

That makes it natural.

I didn't say anything about sexuality being "natural" or not. I can't help a clown understand the concept of abberation, and i'm not at fault for you wrongly concluding that i think what happens in nature is perfect or predestined. I didn't say that. Genetic mutations happen in nature and can go against special survival or reproduction, that is a natural occurence but a negative one.

To try to paint your opponent as denying that sexuality doesn't occur in reality or nature is pathetic when his statement has said that it does occur.

Unless you're trying to show a contradiction in my words by imposing your special definition of "natural", then it would be fruitless to dedicate anotheer huge paragraph as to why this is moronic.

Don't make a clown of yourself further. When you want to troll, let me know, and i will act half witted with you in your delusions.

[Ignignokt]

Actually this argument makes a lot of sense. I know that when I was a child, it was comforting to know that when I watched my parents have sex, they were doing it as God and nature intended. Because they had sex in front of me a LOT. And I could have been pretty warped if they were both dudes. As it is, I have a perfectly healthy perspective on sex thanks to my heterosexual parents having heterosexual sex in front of me.

I'm sorry that you either think that educating a child on sexual matters is completely an intimate visual presentation with his parents, your idea not mine, or that you think that a child will never grow into adolescence and question his parents condition, compare other kid's parents and demonstrate confusion.

That you think the kid will grow up naive about the difference in his parents and not question it is idiotic. The sexual parents will at one time or another have to address their views on sex.

If we are to believe Freudian theories on pshycology, then we derive our at udes and views of the opposite sex from our parents. I don't see how a child can have a healthy view on the role of genders from sexuals who are engaging in deviant and abnormal behaviour.

[mookie2001]

how did the deviants and abnormals learn their behavior?

[Ignignokt]

Wait, so your premise is that the rights of the child are important but not important enough for the government to protect? No one is talking about the government raising children - we're talking about the government denying people adoption rights based on sexual preference.

Yeah, an agency can deny adoption based on many criteria and I'm not against that one bit but I don't see how one of those criteria should be the parents sexual preference when research shows it doesn't negatively affect the child.

The govt is to uphold individual rights. A govt cannot ban or force adoption. That would interfere with the individual rights of a child. IT is up to the legal guardian at the time to make that decision.

We're not talking about indviduals acquiring inanimate objects but other individuals. When that happens there can be an infringement on indvidual rights.

Individual rights for kids are determined by law to be managed by the natural parent, when the natural parent forfiets the right to be the kid's guardian, the agency is now the manager of it's right, and it's the agencies determination of who and what can be adopted, not the federal govt, because it would violate the individual's rights.

If i wanted to give up my kid for adoption, i can deny a couple for whatever reason morally, and the govt shouldn't have to force me to do so. That is uncons utional.

Also, your justification for spending sans morals is weak, since it can be said that most social spending has contributed to the burden on society and crippled families.

[Ignignokt]

how did the deviants and abnormals learn their behavior?

what do you mean?

I'm on the fence on wether such things are genetic or not, so i can't determine if such things can be learned.

What i can say, is that one can commit sexual acts out of confusion or curiousity, Kinsey's reports have shown such phenomenae in certain segments of the population.

If a kid theoretically is genetically hetero, then his view on the opposite sex are at risk of being warped by his sexual parents. (even without a voyeur exposition, Spurminator. GASP!!)

[George Gervin's Afro]

lol at those who still think it's a choice... memo to conservatives.. people are born gay..


and jack stop thinking about monkeys and anal sex

[CuckingFunt]

I see where you are going with that.

Hasn't progressive academia made the determination that sexuality is a choice and not a genetic aberration?

I don't know what progressive academia has decided, or if they're even in the position to decide.

Lifestyle is a choice, but sexuality is not.

[CuckingFunt]

not all gays are pedos but all men who like boys are gay.

Actually lots of the men who like little boys live heterosexual lifestyles.

[Spurminator]

I'm sorry that you either think that educating a child on sexual matters is completely an intimate visual presentation with his parents, your idea not mine, or that you think that a child will never grow into adolescence and question his parents condition, compare other kid's parents and demonstrate confusion.

That you think the kid will grow up naive about the difference in his parents and not question it is idiotic. The sexual parents will at one time or another have to address their views on sex.

Who says they would be naive to it? They just don't have to know every graphic detail. And if their parents ARE sharing every graphic detail of their sex life with their kids, that's pretty ed up regardless of their orientation.

Kids don't really start to learn about sex as a purely recreational activity until they're fairly mature.

Before a kid is old enough to learn about sex, you explain that Daddy loves Daddy very much, just as much as Billy's daddy loves his mommy.

When the kid is old enough to learn about sex in the reproduction sense, you explain that Daddy and Daddy can't reproduce. When they're finally old enough to understand that Daddy and Daddy enjoy pleasuring each other sexually, he's probably just as disgusted by this idea as most people are with the idea of their parents having sex. It's not really an altogether different experience.

If we are to believe Freudian theories on pshycology, then we derive our at udes and views of the opposite sex from our parents. I don't see how a child can have a healthy view on the role of genders from sexuals who are engaging in deviant and abnormal behaviour.

What qualifies as a "healthy view of the role of genders?"

[Spurminator]

If a kid theoretically is genetically hetero, then his view on the opposite sex are at risk of being warped by his sexual parents. (even without a voyeur exposition, Spurminator. GASP!!)

1. How do you know?
2. So what?
3. Why should this affect public policy?

[mookie2001]

lol at those who still think it's a choice... memo to conservatives.. people are born gay..


and jack stop thinking about monkeys and anal sex

yeah the anti gay, pro family/bible people are obsessed with anal sex and beastiality

it really is strange

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say anything about sexuality being "natural" or not. I can't help a clown understand the concept of abberation, and i'm not at fault for you wrongly concluding that i think what happens in nature is perfect or predestined. I didn't say that. Genetic mutations happen in nature and can go against special survival or reproduction, that is a natural occurence but a negative one.

To try to paint your opponent as denying that sexuality doesn't occur in reality or nature is pathetic when his statement has said that it does occur.

Unless you're trying to show a contradiction in my words by imposing your special definition of "natural", then it would be fruitless to dedicate anotheer huge paragraph as to why this is moronic.

Don't make a clown of yourself further. When you want to troll, let me know, and i will act half witted with you in your delusions.

U mad?

You're the one who all over your own argument -- which was the stupidest one you have ever tried pass off here.

[Ignignokt]

1. How do you know?
2. So what?
3. Why should this affect public policy?

This shouldn't be public policy is my position. You haven't read my argument, and you think i'm advocating Govt ban on gay adoption, unreal.

[Ignignokt]

U mad?

You're the one who all over your own argument -- which was the stupidest one you have ever tried pass off here.

U mad?

lol stupidest

I guess you just want to troll. I can play too.

[LnGrrrR]

You guys crack me up. Bunch of progressive suckers in a cyber daisy chain.

Translation: I've been owned, I've admitted my argument is not logically sound, yet I still will vote for the politicians who promise me that they will prevent gays from marrying because it makes me feel good

[LnGrrrR]

No kids should ever have to see the demasculization and immorality of men becoming dominated and acting like females, it's against the sexual reproductive rules of nature, it only shows up in nature as an aberration.

Things that also don't show up in nature:

Cars
The internet
Violent video games
Mp3s

Quick! Ban all of the above!

[LnGrrrR]

Manny, I don't deny your right to have Boutons you in the ass, I just don't think you should be able to adopt young boys to watch.

Nice to see your irrational fears coming out in the open. I love the old "ALL SEXUALS ARE SEXUAL PREDATORS" trope. How 1950's of you CC.

[ChumpDumper]

U mad?

lol stupidest

Did you have one that is more stupid?

Link?

I guess you just want to troll. I can play too.

lol You said children are confused, but then you say they have to be old enough to understand sex in the first place. They are going to find out about sexuality sooner or later. Did finding out about gays confuse and damage you?

And you still have nothing but your insecure speculation to go on. Show us these hundreds of confused and damaged kids that were brought up by gays.

We're waiting.

[LnGrrrR]

I said nothing that would indicate sexuality is "natural" or benificial to nature. Learn to read first before you make a clown out of yourself.

I don't see anything that indicates watching TV is "natural" or beneficial to nature. Same goes with driving cars and using the internet.

Quick! Ban everything that isn't natural! Let's all live in huts!