Nice to see you back online, trip!

Actually maple might be unintentionally parodying Invictus' stance on the issue. It's kinda funny.

@ TheRavenKing - "My only defense is that I have the status quo on my side, and whereas you may not find that convincing, I think it is quite an important point." Not only do I find it unconvincing, it actually actively turns me even more against a point. The status quo is less than meaningless. It is in many many many cases actually a bad thing. The status quo in our society is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist and just generally oppressive in all kinds of ways. It has been worse in the past I'm not arguing that, but it's still far from perfect, and defending the status quo is almost always on the wrong side of the debate as far as I'm concerned.

As for why the religious right doesn't make a big deal about gays and lesbians adopting kids...

The huge adoption backlogs of children who are domestically born and are not white babies hurts a lot of their anti-birth control rhetoric, so finding ways to make that even bigger is hurting themselves. So they worry about sin and all that only when a) they're not participating in it and b) it isn't inconvenient for them to worry about it.

I mean, adoption is often used as their "magic solution" to babies born into situations where the mother would be unable or unwilling to care for them, even now while kids stagnate in the system all the time. They already take flak for it not being as magical of a solution as they want to pretend it is, there's no way you can convince them that they should make it more difficult.

Plus, I mean, really. In what way will they ensure prospective adoptive parents are not gay?

Just thought I'd point out that most children enter foster care because of abuse or neglect, or something wrong with the family situation in general, not because nobody will take babies given up for adoption. Rather the problem is nobody wants to take in abused/neglected children.

It seriously depends on the baby.

If the baby has any medical issues, or is not white, it has difficulty getting a placement.

@TheRavenKing - I didn't mean you were fearmongering. I was referring to the leaders of the church (particularly the Catholic Church, but many exteme right denominations too) who would rather misquote the Bible, ignore sections that are inconvenient, and are proud of "putting the fear of God" in people. They are the fearmongerers and they call the sheeple and mold them into the status quo.

'Plus, I mean, really. In what way will they ensure prospective adoptive parents are not gay?'

I believe you'll find that their 'gayness' isn't an issue, it is joint adoption, that is a couple in a civil partnership becoming joint owners of the child-property.

I do not believe there have been calls for single people to not be allowed adopt based on their sexuality. The only opposition to single parenting is the evidence that it is harder for a single parent to raise a child, and thus the adoption decision will rest on the social support system in place for said single parent (for whether they have siblings/parents who will offer support, whether they have sufficient income to pay for day-care while they are working for that income etc.)

The only opposition to gay civil partners/married couples adopting is based on the idea that they should be denied the right to have a family of their own. That anything which differs from the norm is dangerous to it and would harm society in general and religious groups in particular - perhaps because children raised by gay parents - in areas where a (gay-bashing) religious groups hold great sway - may influence other children growing up in that area and thus erode the influence of the religious group... (this may be put in terms of sinfulness, but is in essence about control and influence... whether you call it sinfulness or not, you are still trying to influence your community)

I was responding to TRK saying that he didn't think gays should be able to adopt at all, and wondering why the religious right didn't make it a wedge issue.

Like I said. Fearmongering. Calling something a sin is telling a person "your gonna burn in hell for it" or fearmongering. The church lives off their sheeple's fears.

calling something a sin, seems to me, to be an attempt to spread the word that

What strikes me as odd is that TheRavenKing seems to be objecting to the idea that kids will be raised to think that being gay is alright. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves. And that isn't what TheRavenKing said. He objected to the fact that children would be raised with a certain perspective on homosexuality. It struck me as an odd thing to say and it kinda makes me inclined to agree with orathaic, it really is about control and the influence of religion.

Errr, wow. Less than 12 hours after that debate and I'm already doing it wrong, and using the word "homosexual" again.

Probably because it isn't wrong :P

oops, i meant to finish that... 'spread the word that our morality is right and should be followed' ... something about power/influence, whether they believe it is in the interest of the listener or not.

Gay-Marriage is not just a religious issue. It is a moral issue. If you allow gays to get married then why cannot humans and animals. If we say ok we can't judge gays so we will let them get married. Why won't people into beastiality, incest, or pedophilia say the same thing. They love whatever it is they are with how can you separate the two.

I also have evidence to prove my point. Washington approved an open marriage bill so now a woman in Seattle is marrying a building. Not only that it is a gay-lesbian-building marriage. My point is if we legalize one fetish. Then where does it stop. We will just have to except every sexual fetish as a predefined genetic urge that we cannot judge.

My third point is gays, incest, beastiality, and pedophilia were excepted all at one time so technically we are being regressive. Read the bible the jews were leaving Eygpt where this was all accepted and Moses told them that these were all abominations.

Accepted. Not excepted. Troll better.

@Holy_Crusader2113: The reasons we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality is that children are not mature enough to give consent, and animals can't. Incest, due to human nature, really only happens when one party is abused, while homosexuality happens with children who are, for lack of a better. All you're doing is constructing a common strawman. Your only argument is one from religion, so screw off.

Holy Crusader has a lot to learn about the art of trolling.

I give valid points and I am trolling? OK who is trolling the one guy that says well I have something to say that isn't hatred just a belief backed with a probability and facts and he is told to screw off. You are trolling because since I have a different opinion you immeadiatly make mock me for something you dissagree about. My point was all of those things were accepted in many countries long ago, Egypt, Rome, Greece, and more. You say my opinion shouldn't be heard because of my religious beliefs.

You also didn't say anything about my point about Seattle. How does a building give consent?

Plus all I see on this forum is religious hate. I decided to post because I noticed a bunch of Atheist Religion haters and I said well maybe I should put my opinion in. You say your better than us because apparently all we do is spew hate but you are doing the exact same thing. I really don't think this is an appropriate discussion for a forum anyway.

@Holy_Crucifier - You gave no valid points. You built a strawman and ignored the key difference between your examples and the situation at hand, consent. Animals can't give consent. Children can't give consent. Inanimate objects can't give consent. But adults - straight or otherwise - *can* give consent.

HC: It is impossible to rape a building. I know, I've tried.

I've also tried to rape a stuffed animal, my pillow, and once my computer monitor.

I failed each time. It's too bad too, if they had struggled more it probably would have felt better.

.....It doesn't matter if they can give consent. Like I said a woman in Seattle is marrying a building. I am not making a joke it is reality. You can look it up, it is a domino affect one thing will lead to the next.

^Daniel Libeskind figured out a way to rape an historic building in Toronto

http://frasconimusic.com/blog/wp-content/pictures/ROM.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-woman-marries-building-protest-demolition-224250710.html

It's a fucking protest mnarriage and gay rights activists are decrying it saying it underminds their attempts to legitimatize gay marriage with asstards like you.

Um I would say I would decline to make that legal because a BUILDING CAN'T FUCKING CONSENT. And eww at the thought of consummating that marriage.

Like I said I say a point I get hate. If you want to see hate look in the mirror.

No hate I just disagree with your opinion.

ahh celtic you just gotta find a hole in the cinder and lube that puppy up good.

Might be a bit more difficult in your case though.... ditto on Draugnar's point. The marriage isn't recognized, nor is it intended to be recognized (right?). She just did it to protest the demolition.