Why would a homosexual couple want to raise a child?

30% of single parent homes are in poverty, 6% of married families are in poverty. Study after study has shown that a single woman having and raising the child is at a major disadvantage. A person should be very cautious about raising a child as a single parent.

Divorce is obviously the result of flawed behavior. Whether the marriage failed because people rushed into marriage, a lack of committment, alcohol abuse, etc., its flawed behaviour. That doesn't mean people who do not divorce are perfect.

The single parent family model is a modern experiment and is a failure.

"Underclass"? Gays are not even close to being an underclass. They have managed to acquire political and legal superiority over everyone else, and they now weild that power with vengeance - by definition they are not an underclass.

But they are abnormal, and that abnormality is the rejection of the heterosexual lifestyle including procreation.

 

And would it make a difference if that single person was gay?

And yet you're not proposing that people who have been through failed marriages should be banned from adopting...

What rights or privileges do they have that we heterosexuals don't? I can name several that we have that they don't, marriage being among them.

They aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex, and they can't procreate with the people they are attracted to. You're repeated assurance that this is due to "rejection of the heterosexual lifestyle" implies that this is all a result of a conscious decision... Do you recall deciding to be heterosexual?

 

No. Two flaws (gay and single) dont cancel each other.

Single people should not adopt, and for good reasons thats the policy of many adoption organizations.

I dont have a problem with formerly divorced people who are now married adopting children.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a religious issue, not a legal issue. Gays can get a civil union. In fact, in the states that I know about, when a couple are married in a church they make an agreement to the church and to God, and a seperate agreement to the govt (they sign a marriage license with witnesses which is the civil side of the union).

Civil unions get gays all the equal rights under the law. They attack marriage and religion out of spite.

It does not matter whether a person is gay through genetics or a voluntary decision. In either case, they are unqualified to raise children.

 

So because 30% are in poverty....the 70% who are not should be barred from adoption?

 

Yes it is a legal right.....

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

 

Bovine Excrement!

The issue of Civil Unions keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html

And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.
________________________________________________________________________________

 

To be sure. I was merely reminding you that you ought to be grateful that I vouchsafe you any response at all.

No, it's a response to the title of the thread. Like you, the author of that response neither understands the OP nor cares to. The best you guys can hope for is to clutter up the thread with irrelevant gobbledygook, and maybe ensnare the commonsensically inclined in arguments about nothing.

 

If you don't want people to respond to the title of the thread....well then you shouldn't use that title.

Instead- you just don't like the responses you are getting.

 

You keep making that false arguement and your evidence is that NJ failed to make civil unions work. NJ fails at a lot of things and proves nothing.

If gays want legal equality in areas such as employee benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, taxation, etc., then civil unions cover it.

Marriage is a religious issue, not a civil issue. Because the courts have overstepped their bounds means the courts need to be reined in, not expanded. Because some religious people used the legal system (DOMA) in defense of the attack on religion by gays does not make marriage a right. Some church's will marry gays, some will not, but that is the choice of the particular religion and it is not a legal issue.

If you want legal/civil equality, fine. Under the rule of law, everyone should be treated equally. Of course that means gays lose their priveleged status as a protected class and can't use the court system and legal system to impose their dogma on everyone.

Personally, I dont want the legal and political system defining marriage or awarding benefits or penalties based on a persons personal choices such as being married or having children. Thats none of their business, and as they have shown its open to abuse.

And gays dont want equality either, they want revenge on people who refuse to embrace the gay lifestyle.

You mean religions should change their fundamental philosophies such as opposition to gays so the religion can be more agreeable to those that oppose those religions views.

In other words, for example, rather than you just accepting my religious belief and leaving me alone, and you moving on to a religion that is suited to your belief, your solution is that I should abandon my religion so that you can feel comfortable.

Thats not equality, thats just another aspect of the gay scorched earth policy - if gays dont like it then destroy it.

Ah, yes, the utopian dream of gays, that they will just blend into society and be "normal". What you really mean is that gays want to fundamentally transform society by destroying people and institutions that hold unapproved views, then the gay lifestyle will be accepted by all and gays will be "normal".

 

As a general rule, yes. A single parent model places the children at a disadvantage, they suffer economically, emotionally, and intellectually, and are more prone to criminal activity.

 

That's not an answer. It does not address my point

 

You just keep repeating the same moronic bovine excrement without actually dealing with the points that I make, especially about civil unions. As far as accepting your religious beliefs go, I accept your right to those beliefs I'm quite willing to leave you alone. It's YOU who are not willing to accepts others beliefs and leave them alone. Why the hell should anybody accept anybody else's religious beliefs. This is America. Read the constitution! Gay scorched each? If you call wanting equality a scorched earth policy, that's your problem. Don't try to make it anyone else's

 

It is a direct answer to your question. You just dont like the answer and dont have a response.

 

LOL, you contradict yourself and prove my point. First you say you accept my beliefs and will leave me alone, then you say "why the hell should anybody accept somebody else's religious beliefs".

Thank you for the demonstration of the gay intolerance.

 

Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said that I that " I accept your right to your beliefs. Can you understand the difference? And, no one should be compelled to live by another's beliefs. Did you really not understand that?

 

I see. So I can have the right to a religion, as long as I keep my religion in the closet.

 

No. As long as you don't impose your beliefs on others and expect them to live by your rules. Other than that, you can't let it all hang out. I have a soap box that you can have cheep. You're the one who wants others in the closet

 

interesting that you say that

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/

perhaps you wish to rephrase it where the caveat is other than the homosexual belief/lifestyle, you can't force your beliefs upon others.

 

Just keep reassuring yourself that gays arent actually bullies and vengeful.

If someone wants to be a gay couple and wants employee benefits, etc, fine. If they want to get joined or unionized or married or whatever in a church that believes in it, fine.

But they don't have the right to force a church to marry them, or force people to do their bidding, or destroy people who don't openly embrace the gay agenda.

The gays asked for tolerance and equal treatment, and they got it. But we were foolish enough to think that tolerance and equality was what gays actually wanted.

Now we see the homofascists don't want equality, they want to be a "special class" above the law so they can impose their beliefs on everyone else. They dont want tolerance, they aren't tolerant themselves, they want revenge on everyone who offends them.

 

Were are you getting this crap from? Give me an example of gays trying to forcing a church to marry them. Would they even want to be married in a hostile environment? How the hell do they want to be special?> When did equal become special. You are truly bizarre

 

Bovine Excrement! That cake thing is getting old. Being expected to treat others with respect and dignity does not violate your religious beliefs. Not treating others with respect and dignity violates general standards of human decency

 

By all means, feel free to stop at any point. I can always find flawed logic somewhere else.

I see, so you don't want people responding to the thread title you chose... ok.
I believe the bulk of the OP was addressed in post #56, but I can't see that you ever bothered replying...

So, if you ignore people who address the thread title, and ignore posts that actually address the OP, what exactly is the point of starting a thread?

 

Clearly you don't understand either. If you did, you'd see that refusing to cater to the insanity of others is neither disrespectful nor an assault on their dignity, and that the complainants in this case acted in a completely disrespectful and undignified manner by victimizing the bakery owners under color of their own victimhood, which has no other source than their own insecurity and immaturity.

 

All of the disrespect, assault , insanity , immaturity and lack of dignity here is yours! You just don't get it!

 

Oh I do, trust me.

You're pretty much gonna have to, since you can't find it in any of my posts.

I don't care whether they do or not. What I object to is the claim that people who do that alone are responding to the OP.

You might as well believe in the tooth fairy.

As the question is based on nonsensical premises, it merits no response...

...and you merit no further responses, so happy trails.