Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

QC, society often falls to less than optimum levels .......
No one has a choice where their lot 'falls'....
I have more to say, but not today.....
I do respect your opinion.......JK

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I do admire your consistent failure to say anything of substance... where do you stand?

Can you stand? or just bash those that do?

So tell us Haut... don't do your usual dance around the issue... say what you mean. or shut the Fug up.

Do you think children raised in a homosexual environment have the same chance at a happy, well adjusted childhood as children raised in the more traditional framework....

Think about it Haut.... really think about it...

 

[roscoe]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

So, my sister could not have married her husband, because she had a hysterectomy 4 years prior?

Or my grandmother could not remarry because she is old?

Or my father could not remarry because he had a vasectomy?

Or my marriage would be annulled because we were not financially ready to take on the responsibility of children until we finished college and got jobs?

Such hogwash.

Quote from link:

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ."

I don't know anyone, that has said that.
Typical, rewrite history and make false claims, to push an agenda.

 

[QC]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Mr. C...AKA QC......
Would you say that the criteria you are seeking is the highest standard?
Though all would hope for the best, would anything less be deemed 'sub-standard'?
Judge, Jury , Executioner..

I'd say you're looking for an argument . . . not a discussion. I meant what I said literally. The "ideal". It does not mean that other examples are necessarily bad, but again to make my position clear, I think single parent adoption is selfish. And I would say the same for homosexual adoption. This is easy to understand if you accept that there is, can be, should be, an ideal . . . I believe that your lack of comfort with better and best is the same reason that you struggle with right and wrong good and "really bad stuff done by really bad people". If everything is truly equal, and claiming that somethings are better or best, or worse than others is wrong, how can you condemn cannibalism? Sex with 8 year olds? Seriously? Is there nothing that is not OK? If the answer is "of course somethings are bad or wrong, or better or worse", then is this discussion simply about QC's line vs. HM's? And if so, then how are you not the "Judge, Jury and Executioner"?

These discussions are ALL about someone's line in the sand. For some reason liberals, and I mean this generally and in your case specifically (although I still don't know where you really sit politically), assume that a position by a conservative is mean or wrong, selfish or greedy, harsh, discriminating. However, they are perfectly comfortable with their line as compassionate and good. It is an amazingly obvious double standard . . . And in case I have confused you.

HM, "Homosexual marriage is good and a personal right, and with all other things equal, homosexual parents and heterosexual parents are no different when it comes to raising children. Sex with 8 year olds is wrong and bad."

QC "Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Homosexuals may be good people, but with all other things equal, heterosexual couples make a better parenting model. Sex with 8 year olds is wrong and bad."

How is my version any less worthy of being correct? Because? Because I am discriminating against someone? Aren't you potentially discriminating against children who would prefer to have heterosexual parents? Are you not discriminating against the right for Heterosexual couples to have a union that is specifically theirs? Or do you believe that it is impossible to discriminate against a majority?

Who is this adoption thing about? The Adoptors? or The Adoptees? Answer that question and this becomes more simple. If you answer Adoptor, you are a fool. If you answer Adoptee, then this is about the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" that decides who is most worthy of the responsibility of raising children. That decision is an awesome one. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? You cannot "know" that homosexual adoption is a healthy environment. You can "know" that it will be short one gender, and cause certain social situations to be uncomfortable and weird for a child. Hey, but that's OK, at least we aren't homophobic bigots, thank god I feel good about me!!

 

[Pony]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

So, my sister could not have married her husband, because she had a hysterectomy 4 years prior?

Or my grandmother could not remarry because she is old?

Or my father could not remarry because he had a vasectomy?

Or my marriage would be annulled because we were not financially ready to take on the responsibility of children until we finished college and got jobs?

Such hogwash.

Quote from link:

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ."

I don't know anyone, that has said that.
Typical, rewrite history and make false claims, to push an agenda.

Well said.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

How is my version any less worthy of being correct? Because? Because I am discriminating against someone? Aren't you potentially discriminating against children who would prefer to have heterosexual parents?
It is not a child's right to choose his/her parents....
Potential discrimination & actual discrimination are two different things......
Are you not discriminating against the right for Heterosexual couples to have a union that is specifically theirs?
Tell me, what is it that makes it so special?
What purpose does it truly serve?
Or do you believe that it is impossible to discriminate against a majority?
I'm a middle aged white guy, so I have to give that a resounding, "NO!"

Who is this adoption thing about? The Adoptors? or The Adoptees? Answer that question and this becomes more simple. If you answer Adoptor, you are a fool.
Ain't buying that....
Of course it is about the Adoptor....
I would think that the reason for adopting is because you want to fill a void in your life that you are biologically unable to fill on your own.....
It is very much about the Adopter, that should be very clear......
If you answer Adoptee, then this is about the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" that decides who is most worthy of the responsibility of raising children.
The real decision on that is who can have actually have the children.....
I read that Sara Gilbert (roseann show) is pregnant.....
She & her partner have a child, (the partner's)...
But now she is pregnant.....
Is there any way that you are going to prevent them from acting like a 'family"?
Nope!
That decision is an awesome one. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? You cannot "know" that homosexual adoption is a healthy environment. You can "know" that it will be short one gender, and cause certain social situations to be uncomfortable and weird for a child.

My point here is there is nothing you can do about that, whether you think it is optimal or not & you really can't do a damx thing about it.....

Hey, but that's OK, at least we aren't homophobic bigots, thank god I feel good about me!!

You should feel better about yourself if you are not a homophobic bigot....

Back on topic.....
I do agree that it is a "back door" way to reopen their quest....:$.....
But I don't blame them for trying.......JK

For Crunchsterbater:
Do you think children raised in a homosexual environment have the same chance at a happy, well adjusted childhood as children raised in the more traditional framework....

The answer is:
I don't know.....
My guess: Yes
Again, you will find out wheter you like it of not.....
That is fact.......
How's that for a stance?.....

 

[JB]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

The lovely notion that two people can only have a happy partnership in life if:

*They are married.
*They are of opposite genders
*They raise children

.. .lovely and romantic as it is, is ancient history.

Roscoe makes excellent points. I am 71 and have been sterile for a bit over 40 years. My sweetheart (long time since you heard that word, huh?) is 70. We don't intend to marry (again) but woe unto anyone who says we can't.

Generally, I sympathize with people who want to or do live in a same gender partnership and I wish them as few bigoted barriers as possible, but:

This "initiative" is completely without merit. . .like an adolescent tantrum.

 

[PW2]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I think they know it is a ridiculous proposed law, and that is the point.

It's every bit as ridiculous as banning people that wish to form a committed relationship from doing so, legally discriminating against an entire group of people solely by their sexual orientation.

It wasn't that long ago mixed race marriages were also banned, also, for no apparent reason other than it offended some white folks.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I think they know it is a ridiculous proposed law, and that is the point.

It's every bit as ridiculous as banning people that wish to form a committed relationship from doing so, legally discriminating against an entire group of people solely by their sexual orientation.

It wasn't that long ago mixed race marriages were also banned, also, for no apparent reason other than it offended some white folks.

You Know PW2, I really luv the way you Libs morally equate pirates and Blacks, jus' as much as I luv it when your side was equatin' the USA to the USSR. NEVER works PW2! That is if ya have any critical thinkin' ability, (which does seem to be lackin' on your side o' the fence on this forum). If someone is Black ya can see it ALL THE TIME 24 X 7. If ya like ta get naughty with your own gender, I wouldn't have a clue unless I saw ya out prancin' 'round in a leotard in a gay pride parade or worse talkin' 'bout humpin' your buds n' kissin' in public n' all, (that I and most others would not like to know about or see: PERIOD). So please think a li'l before ya pull out the 'all things are relative' card, 'cause there NOT. Respectfully JR ps: sorry Bro Haut, jus' stressin' out the remainin' brain cell before I turn to a Liberal when I loose it. No gas Rubber!

 

[rolmops]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

QC, adoption is great... good for all involved... unless it runs contrary to accepted societal standards.... then it becomes abuse, from political uses or just from the way society is...

Ever seen what happens to a monkey that is painted Pink, and tossed into the "monkey society" that is all brown?

Homosexuality is not the accepted norm today... expect “the monkeys” to react accordantly.

Crunch I just love the way you try to convince us that your conservatism is representative of a monkey society

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

OMinionR, don't look now, but you're proving his point.......:$

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Someone say 'Monkeys'?......http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b241/jjammer18/CuriousGeorge.jpg

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

OMinionR, don't look now, but you're proving his point.......:$

Hows that there Bro? Please spell it out real clear for your slow Seattle area Bro so my remainin' brain cell can process the concept you want to make. JR

 

[JB]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

What are you suggesting, Crunchy?

Have them all wear a yellow badge that says, "FAG" or "Lesbo"? That would make them pink monkeys.

What about having straight people wear badges that say "kinky", "S&M" or a reference to some of their more perverted private bedroom practices?

Our history has shown that, "you aren't like me, so I reject you" prejudices are baseless and evil.

Same gender partnerships do no harm to you, take nothing away from you (except maybe a little self righteousness) and exercise no right that you don't have. They are denied rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If the Constitution did not guarantee those rights there would be no reason to try to amend it.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

OM inionR
State a single question & I will try to answer.....
Your all over the map, as usual.......

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

JB, personally I don't care what they do, I was speaking about the effects on adopted children... and if you don't think the kids will go through hell from other kids, you've forgotten what kids are like.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

What are you suggesting, Crunchy?

Have them all wear a yellow badge that says, "FAG" or "Lesbo"? That would make them pink monkeys.

What about having straight people wear badges that say "kinky", "S&M" or a reference to some of their more perverted private bedroom practices?

Our history has shown that, "you aren't like me, so I reject you" prejudices are baseless and evil.

Same gender partnerships do no harm to you, take nothing away from you (except maybe a little self righteousness) and exercise no right that you don't have. They are denied rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If the Constitution did not guarantee those rights there would be no reason to try to amend it.

Hey JB, I usually agree with you, but you don't make any sense on this one. Maybe you can help me here a little. I'm not a homophobe, nor am I anti gay. I don't like the special interest folks to get super rights, at the expense of the rest of our wonderfull society. Please name me one "right" that I have that a Gay guy doesn't have: JUST ONE JB! I can't marry my dog, Sister, Brother, Dad or Mom, nor do I want to. I can't have multiple wives. I can't marry one of my male buddies either. So please step right up and tell me where the rights of gays are not protected in our great country JB? Respectfully, (and I mean it) JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

OM inionR
State a single question & I will try to answer.....
Your all over the map, as usual.......

Hey Bro Haut, Sorry you don't like the way I post. YOU SAID: "You are proving his point". Please be explicite. Just what point did I PROVE for him? Thanks: your slow Seattle area Brother.

 

[QC]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Of course it is about the Adoptor....

Mr. Kopec,

You just proved my point . . . Those who make it about the Adoptor are absolutely selfish individuals. It is about their needs, not the child's . . . Bleeeccchhhh!!

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I'm not a homophobe, nor am I anti gay.
Yes you are.....'Fess up.....

I can't marry my dog, Sister, Brother, Dad or Mom,
There are biological reasons for that.....]

So please step right up and tell me where the rights of gays are not protected in our great country JB?
They can't get married.....
& it is because this country clings to out dated religious beliefs.......