Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[Draka]

let's say then, for the sake of argument, that both couples were exactly the same in every way.

Then who should get first choice of adopting the child?

In cases where there are two prospective adoptive choices then it is left up to the child as to which ones they would rather be with; at least in cases where the child is old enough to decide. Before any adoption goes through there are trial visits with the prospective parents; to see how they interact and fit with each other. Whether or not a couple or individual is heterosexual or homosexual really has no legal bearing. How the possible family interacts and communicates has more to do with it. If, all things being equal, a child gets along better and seems a better fit with the homosexual parents than with the heterosexual parents then they will be adopted by the homosexual ones. It really is that simple. In the case of babies who can't really fully interact, then a social worker assigned to the case will observe the prospective parents and assess living situations and personalities and so on to determine which set of parents would be better equipped both financially and emotionally to adopt the baby. Adoptions are based upon who would be the best fit for the child, and that has nothing to do with the reproductive plumbing of the prospective parents.


Again, though, this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage as unmarried and single people can adopt children and have children of their own. Marriage is about partnership and legal rights and responsibilities, not about reproduction, no matter how much you stomp your foot and insist that it does.

 

[Viker]

ok, so who would help the child to choose?

The child.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

let's say then, for the sake of argument, that both couples were exactly the same in every way.

Then who should get first choice of adopting the child?

Both of them.

I've never heard of an orphanage or adoption agency that only has one child up for adoption.

 

[Me Myself]

Both of them.

I've never heard of an orphanage or adoption agency that only has one child up for adoption.

Naturally, he is postulating the incredibly unlikely argument of not only both of this couples are equaly fit but also both of thse couples want the same child from hundreds of them.

 

[Me Myself]

ok, so who would help the child to choose?

Both sets of adoptive parents

Also probably people from the orphanage telling him whichever he chooses is the best and it is his/her chioce

 

[9Westy9]

that may be true, but they cannot naturally produce children together.

natural but defective, there is a difference.

I sense a double standard

 

[9Westy9]

Mestemia:

what kind of nonsense is that?

of course it has something to do with it, in fact it is the most relevant factor of them all.

Let's say the economic situations of the two prospective couples were the same, then who should get the kid?

an atheist couple or a theistic couple. Who should get the kid?

A blonde couple or a brunette couple. Who should get the kid?

I could go on but I'm sure you catch my drift

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I will say this much as a follower of Jesus. I wonder how much the Christian community can really say about marriage in general when the divorce rates inside the church are basically as bad as they are outside the church.

 

[Me Myself]

I will say this much as a follower of Jesus. I wonder how much the Christian community can really say about marriage in general when the divorce rates inside the church are basically as bad as they are outside the church.

I am with you on this one.

Divorce is an actual thread to marriage. If people married more consciously, as a really more mature choice, this shouldn't happen.

 

[Road Warrior]

I will say this much as a follower of Jesus. I wonder how much the Christian community can really say about marriage in general when the divorce rates inside the church are basically as bad as they are outside the church.

They are already saying a lot, but it makes their statements hypocritical. It's obvious they are simply homophobic and prejudicial. If they really believed in the sanctity of marriage they would:

1. Make divorce illegal.

2. Not elect any official who had ever been divorced or had sex outside of marriage.

3. Make Adultery a death penalty crime just like the Bible says. You know, stick to Leviticus just as fervently for adultery as they do homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

 

[Me Myself]

Technically, if it were for the bible, you can still have a divorce as long as the husband was unfaithfull I believe?

the way I see it, we should encourage marrying with the right person, not ilegalize divorce.

 

[Katzpur]

I want to thank those who have stood up for marriage between a man & a woman (which is honoring the way we came to exist).

I also want to thank those who have proven the point in the OP about how those supporting the gay-agenda use name-calling & harrassment instead of logic to try to get what they want. There already have been many great examples of such harassment in this thread and the other thread!
I couldn't have proven the OP so well without your help!

You didn't "prove" anything.

I personally believe sexual intimacy between two people of the same sex is sinful. On the other hand, I don't believe it's my right to try to deny law-abiding American citizens their civil rights. A big part of my religious beliefs involve free agency and leaving the judgment of other people's morality up to God.

 

[Road Warrior]

Technically, if it were for the bible, you can still have a divorce as long as the husband was unfaithfull I believe?

the way I see it, we should encourage marrying with the right person, not ilegalize divorce.

Agreed about encourage. Spread the love. Let's make no judgments about where that love goes when it concerns consenting adults. If God judges differently, that's their problem, not your's nor mine.

 

[nnmartin]

Whether or not a couple or individual is heterosexual or homosexual really has no legal bearing. How the possible family interacts and communicates has more to do with it. If, all things being equal, a child gets along better and seems a better fit with the homosexual parents than with the heterosexual parents then they will be adopted by the homosexual ones.

Adoptions are based upon who would be the best fit for the child, and that has nothing to do with the reproductive plumbing of the prospective parents.

ok, so where does Nature come into this decision?

ie: the fact that the child was created by a man and a woman, or is this now irrelevant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ok, so where does Nature come into this decision?

ie: the fact that the child was created by a man and a woman, or is this now irrelevant?

It was always irrelevant.

Same-sex couples aren't snatching babies away from opposite-sex couples. Every child that a same-sex couple has is either the biological child of one of the members of the couple or was put up for adoption because the child's birth parents couldn't care for it, didn't want it, or died.

 

[Draka]

ok, so where does Nature come into this decision?

ie: the fact that the child was created by a man and a woman, or is this now irrelevant?

Who creates a child has no bearing whatsoever on who can competently raise a child. Just because a man can knock up a woman doesn't mean he will make a good parent. Likewise, just because a woman can eject a baby from her vagina doesn't mean she will be a good parent. However, those who cannot do either may make wonderful parents.

 

[Me Myself]

ok, so where does Nature come into this decision?

Everywhere. We have never ceased to be nature. We are nature all the time. Our choices are choices of Nature, because all that we are is nature.

 

[blackout]

It is in some people's nature to enjoy children.
I mean to really enjoy them,
and to realize that children are already unique individuals,
(born 'that way')
though as young people, they have far less experience and life skills
and rely on their guardians to help them along their own (meaning the child's own) way.
It is in some people's nature to mentor children,
simply, to live true to their own (each individual child's) selves and be their own (meaning, the child's own) best self.

It is in other peoples' nature to try and make children into
who they (the adult) wants them to be.
To try and bend and break them into whatever image
they (the adult) has in mind.
It is in some adults nature to come directly against the nature
of the child in their care.
To exert undue pressure on a child to 'perform' for them,
and to 'model' (dress up in) their own (the adults) 'model life' /life 'style'.

Some people are natural candidates for guardianship/parenthood
and some people aren't.
(having nothing at all to do with gender, race, orientation or DNA matches).

 

[blackout]

Everywhere. We have never ceased to be nature. We are nature all the time. Our choices are choices of Nature, because all that we are is nature.

Thank you.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi there! I'm interrupting this argument to announce that this is the 300th post in this thread. And I posted it! I did! Not you. Not anyone of you who have been participating in this thread, but me. Which means, I win! Yes, I win! I did the 300th post, I win! Score!