Arkansas Pass Gay Adoption Ban

reply to post by deadline527

Another reasons I would think is that by only allowing married people to adopt, you are putting the child into a relationship that is less likely to fall apart due to petty differences.

There is one thing I agree with. Too bad gay couples can not marry in Arkansas, yet.

reply to post by skeptic1

Originally posted by skeptic1

If you outlaw it for unmarried couples, then also outlaw it for single people. Single people, gay or straight, can still adopt in Arkansas.

This bill was put forth to ban gay adoption....but instead of saying that, they say it is to ban adoption by unmarried couples.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by skeptic1]

If single gays can adopt...

and unmarried heteros cannot adopt...

How can you argue that it is designed to ban gay adoption?

I would like to pose a question. Those of you for gay couples marrying and adopting, do you also support polygamy? If you do not, can you state why you do not. One could use all the same arguments to support them as you do for gays. In the end, the majority will always triumph, and hopefully, will always see it the way I do.

reply to post by Aaron_Justin

It is not a civil rights issue,

Your argument is the one of the same arguments that was used during the black liberation movement. This thread is not about that, in sake of trying to not completely derail it, I’d be happy to continue that conversation with you here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes you have every right to your opinion, but I find it amusing people think they should impose their morality on others and force others to live by their standards. Gay marriage or adopting being legalized does not lawfully affect you in anyway but your opposition affects gays. Where does it end? Do you make everything the majority defines as immoral illegal as well? Do you make premarital sex and adultery illegal because a majority considers both immoral?

As for what you said about research if all the research done, involving our country and others does not please you then what will it? What research will? The reason you discount it is the same reason you claim I consider you ignorant for. You don’t agree with the current results.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by Aaron_Justin

I would like to pose a question. Those of you for gay couples marrying and adopting, do you also support polygamy?

I think lawfully marriage should be between consenting adults if the government only gives certain rights to married couples. If I had my way the government would not involve itself in marriage at all, and all couples could have civil unions and have the same benefits, and those who believe it is a religious institution can be married. Currently this is not the way the country works though.

reply to post by skeptic1


In California we already have domestic partnership laws which give the same privileges as marriage it's just not called marriage.

How much does the word marriage mean?

reply to post by jsobecky


Let's see....

Because the ballot initiative said to ban gay adoption??? It was laid out to ban adoption to for unmarried couples, but the underlying meaning was to ban gay couples from adopting. So, along with banning gay couples from adopting, it also banned unmarried couples from adopting, too.

But, you have a point. How can a state ban gay adoption when gay couples cannot adopt but single gay people can? It doesn't make sense. I posted links to the initiative and current Arkansas adoption law on page 2 of this thread.

reply to post by Wildbob77


Separate but equal is not equal. What if someone told you Hispanics have the right to marry Hispanics but not white citizens; they can only have civil unions with white citizens. They still have the same rights then don’t they? That is not equality.

reply to post by Wildbob77


I think to gay couples, it means a lot. It means that even though they are different than straight couples, they are still equal under the law.

Just think how you would feel if it was you. How would you feel if you were a minority person or group and the majority said that "We'll give you some of the rights that we have, but not all. Also, you can't call yourself what we can call ourselves."?

I am not gay, but I have friends and family that are. I know that some people have very strong negative feelings (of whatever origin) about homosexuality and gay couples and gays raising children; I understand that and respect that.

I just don't feel that rights should be denied or taken away from people just because other people look at them and their lifestyles and basically go "That's gross". It just doesn't seem fair to me.

I live in Arkansas and voted against this amendment. The good news is the court challenges have already begun. The main point of contention is many people are now saying the wording was so convoluted they thought they were voting to allow gays to adopt but mis-understood the proposal. I agree with that, I had to read the damn thing three times before I voted against it. It was very poorly written.

I'm hoping the court tosses the results.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

Separate but equal is not equal. What if someone told you Hispanics have the right to marry Hispanics but not white citizens; they can only have civil unions with white citizens. They still have the same rights then don’t they? That is not equality.

Thats a damn good argument. I always thought that domestic partnerships granted the same thing so whats all the fuss about, but now that you put it like that it really puts things into perspective. Star for you for that one.

Originally posted by mrwupy
I live in Arkansas and voted against this amendment. The good news is the court challenges have already begun. The main point of contention is many people are now saying the wording was so convoluted they thought they were voting to allow gays to adopt but mis-understood the proposal. I agree with that, I had to read the damn thing three times before I voted against it. It was very poorly written.

I'm hoping the court tosses the results.

Any chance someone has a copy of the original wording? Really curious about it now and wonder how backwards the wording is. I could definitely see them putting together some very confusing parts of the bill on something so controversal as this.

reply to post by deadline527


Here you go....

Wording

Not the exact wording, but the basis and idea.

reply to post by skeptic1


The title was sensational and inaccurate. The initiative banned adoption for unmarried couples regardless of sexual orientation.

You all are arguing over an inaccurate title.

reply to post by jsobecky


Check out the link in my post above yours.

The basis of the law was to ban same-sex couples from adopting, but it ended up banning adoption for all unmarried couples.

reply to post by skeptic1


Well, they apparently have some very stupid lawyers drawing up their laws down there in Arkansas..

reply to post by skeptic1


I'm not pro or con in this debate. If good people want to create a safe loving environment for a child... I say great!

On the question "How would I feel if I were in the minority...."
I wouldn't care.

I have a strong personality and don't really think about laws too much. Marriage is just a piece of paper to me. I'm married and love my wife. I don't love her because of the piece of paper. I don't love her because of some laws that pertain to me. We have chosen to be together.

So, even if the laws didn't support me, it wouldn't change my feelings or validate me as a person.

I think that there are bigger issues in the world today than gay marriage and gay adoption.

So to everyone on both sides of this discussion, have a wonderful day. I'm out of here.

Dave .. ...thanks for the very kind accusations...your such a nice man ..

I am waiting for proof of straight parades with naked people doing nasties to each other in the streets (other than Woodstock and Woodstock 2) which was in a field not in the middle of town ..which I had no part in and would not go if my life depended on it ...And Mardi Gras which I would not go to either ..(Of which many get arrested there every day for doing those things ) ......where is proof ?

I have been in parades ..Norwegian Parade in Alaska ...A Horse Parade in Washington state ..Not once did I see anyone naked grabbing eachother or having sex in the middle of the parade .........and I have went to many parades ..havent seen anything like that there either ......
Can you provide a Video or two ? Would love to see them ....

And a question for you and any one else who is in favor of those parades ..and think the world should just turn a blinds eye to them as they are happening .as if it is no big deal .....................
Do you or would you take your child to those parades? And Is that something you would do if you were able to adopt ?

If the answer is yes ..that it is something your proud of and not ashamed for your kids to see it ....or your future kids ..then you have no business being a parent ...sorry ... even if straights were doing this sort of stuff in the streets (or even in their homes in their living rooms in front of those kids) they would not be seen as fit parents either ...
I barely even peck my hubby on the lips when we have our kids around ..(Even the adult kids dont see us ever play grab ass etc ) .............
So stop trying to JUSTIFY it Dave ...by pointing fingers at someone else who is doing it too ...they are not the ones asking to adopt children ..are they ?

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage



I think that you bring up a very interesting viewpoint - the historical one.

Society doesn't change overnight, because of some research. People's feelings take a lot longer to change. Often, it is a generational thing.

Rushing into change because of a published paper never works. We all need to let things happen according to their own timeline.

And some things that are right/wrong today may not be right/wrong tomorrow. So let things take their natural course.

reply to post by jsobecky


You are right, things tend to work out but are some willing to wait the time needed?
Also more importantly what about the children?
-Ign0raNt

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Ign0rant]