RE: Gay marriage. I think that if gay people are given the right

[Maraya1969]

to adopt then it follows that they be given the right to marry. Because we want to encourage family do we not? Allowing gay people to adopt but banning them from marriage is not allowing their children to grow up in an environment that is as safe, protected and accepted as children adopted to heterosexual persons. It is denying these children health care. It is allowing these children's inheritance to be taken away from them by the state. It is telling these children that they are somehow just "not as deserving" as children who are adopted by heterosexual persons.

It is just plain damn wrong.

[patrice]

1. There isn't much about this issue that has anything to do with

common sense.

[bowens43]

2. One correction.....

we are not 'given' rights. Being born endows with rights.
The government can not give us rights, it can only them rights away.

[Maraya1969]

4. Good point. So the government takes away rights from children

who are adopted by gay people who are not allowed to marry. Just like it takes away rights from gay people just because they are gay. Just like they took away rights from blacks and women just because that is the way they were born.

[sui generis]

3. and what about natural gay parents?

Sad to say, but very many gay parents use reproductive assistance to have natural children. There really isn't a "test" for gayness, other than the honor system, any more than there is a test for "straightness" in order to get married. Are they planning to go door to door and do random gay testing to make sure there are no gay parents raising children anywhere? What's the difference between a gay parent raising a natural child or raising an adopted child?

When marriage says it's between one man and one woman, regardless of whether they are gay themselves, love each other, have agreed to get married exclusively to retain family wealth, or even plan on living together, then marriage is ONLY about animal husbandry.

If the ONLY definition of marriage is that you have one of each gender and nothing else, then it's not so special after all.

And one other thing: what about parents of gay children? Wouldn't it be absurd to hear the state say that straight parents shouldn't "be allowed" to raise any other children? After all, if it's true that one of thier kids turned out gay, then the parents must have caused it. They shouldn't "be allowed" to raise any more kids, because they might turn out gay. Sheesh, I think some people might actually take that seriously.

Things get really senseless when you flip them around. I despise that phrase "be allowed".

[Maraya1969]

6. You are right. There is no difference between a gay parent raising

an adopted or biological child. These children should all have the same rights to a secure family.

[Xenotime]

5. There are many things * has done to ruin america, this is one of the...

There needs to be more family unity.

[Exiled in America]

7. We're not "GIVING" rights - we're "RECOGNIZING" rights already held

Marriage, according to the UDHR is a human right. Goverments can either acknowledge human rights and be just or deny human rights and be a tyranny. Goverments don't "give" human rights. We already have them by virtue of being born. :)

[Sinti]

8. This is some of the nuttiness of letting religion be the basis for law

Marriage, as legally defined, is a contract, having nothing to do with god or child bearing. Give it another name if you must, but common sense would tell you to allow two parties to enter into a contract (now commonly defined as marriage) and by virtue of that contract be afforded all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. It strikes me as a kind of legislative retardation... they just can't see beyond the god says "penis+vagina = marriage, anything else is an abomination" loadabull.

[Bake]

9. Frankly, I'm surprised at one thing:

I'm surprised the "Family Values Crowd" (:puke:) hasn't attempted to make it illegal for gays to adopt children. You just KNOW the very idea of that really enrages them!

And if they are allowed to adopt, then of course it naturally follows, as the night follows the day, that they should be allowed to marry.

It threatens me in no way whatsoever.

Bake

[mitchtv]

10. they will use it after they have wrung marriage dry

It is proving more difficult, cause those damned activist judges keep considering the children's welfare.

[blonndee]

11. Oh, they are.

Ohio introduced it early this year to their state legislature:

http://www.sovo.com/2006/2-24/news/national/nat1.cfm

"Ohio House Bill 515 was introduced Feb. 9 and states a person may not adopt "if the individual is a homosexual, bisexual or transgender individual; the individual is a step-parent of the child to be adopted and is a homosexual, bisexual or transgender individual; the individual resides with an individual who the court determines is a homosexual, bisexual or transgender individual."

Other states that gay rights activists speculate might introduce similar bills include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas."

<snip>

Ohio is the first state this year to go after gay adoption, but seven states last year filed measures to ban gay adoption and, in some cases, ban gay foster parents as well.

The 2005 bills in Arkansas, Alabama, Indiana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia all failed, but activists said that doesn’t mean gay adoption is no longer a hot topic for social conservatives.