Genesis 19

Originally posted by no1marauder
To say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children is even more unconstitutional and discriminatory than to say they can't be allowed the legal status of marriage because we don't like their sexual practices. Isn't it time to get this moral judgment of other people's sex acts hogwash out of our laws, Lucifershammer?

What you don't understand, no1, is that being gay is kinda like being black. If you get too close to them, you make catch what they have. Isn't that right, Lucifer S.?

Here's a little poem, for all the Christian bigots out there:

Let me hear ya say “hey” (HEY!)
Let me hear ya say “ho” (HO!)
You know it’s time to say “Hello”
to the new Jim Crow.
‘Cause in the Vineyards of the Lord, Fag,
you reap what you sow.
Do you want to stick around
watch the strange fruit grow?
Yeah, we still got the robes, yo,
Our hoods in a row so,
We can get ‘em quick if we spot us a homo.


Keep on bashin' Lucifer S.!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Would you say that the mother of a 4-year old who restrains her kid from playing with matches does not love her child?

I'm not even going to dignify your position on this matter by engaging you in debate. Your position is morally repugnant, and if you can't see that, then God help you. I certainly hope that my children will be shielded from your particularly pernicious form of hatred. I have nothing further to say to you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
To say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children is even more unconstitutional and discriminatory than to say they can't be allowed the legal status of marriage because we don't like their sexual practices. Isn't it time to get this moral judgment of other people's sex acts hogwash out of our laws, Lucifershammer?

You tell me - you're the legal expert.

What I say might be unconstitutional and discriminatory (I doubt it - doesn't the First Amendment supposedly protect my right to freedom of expression? And doesn't discrimination apply to actions not views?), but I'll take the consequences of that. Aren't we talking about the same Constitution that permitted slavery in the not-too-distant past?

Anyway, my view has nothing to do with their sexuality - they could be perfectly heterosexual in a union of legal convenience.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not even going to dignify your position on this matter by engaging you in debate. Your position is morally repugnant, and if you can't see that, then God help you. I certainly hope that my children will be shielded from your particularly pernicious form of hatred. I have nothing further to say to you.

Why not? Weren't you the one defending the concept of analogy in another thread?

Married couples have certain rights (visitation rights, property, inheritance etc.) under the law that are denied to same-sex unions. I see no reason why that should be so - even though I am morally (!) opposed to the latter.

The difference, of course, is that I view children as a gift from God (yes, that so-called non-existent concept) and a responsibility, not a right. I don't believe my kids exist to satisfy my desires.

Originally posted by bbarr
What you don't understand, no1, is that being gay is kinda like being black. If you get too close to them, you make catch what they have. Isn't that right, Lucifer S.?

Here's a little poem, for all the Christian bigots out there:

Let me hear ya say “hey” (HEY!)
Let me hear ya say “ho” (HO!)
You know it’s time to say “Hello”
to the new Jim Crow. ...[text shortened]... hoods in a row so,
We can get ‘em quick if we spot us a homo.


Keep on bashin' Lucifer S.!

Sure, resort to name-calling. And you call me pernicious!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You tell me - you're the legal expert.

What I say might be unconstitutional and discriminatory (I doubt it - doesn't the First Amendment supposedly protect my right to freedom of expression? And doesn't discrimination apply to actions not views?), but I'll take the consequences of that. Aren't we talking about the same Constitution that permit ...[text shortened]... do with their sexuality - they could be perfectly heterosexual in a union of legal convenience.

Of course, I should have said the policy of not allowing homosexuals to adopt would be unconstitutional and discriminatory, not your espousing of that view. People can espouse whatever hate-filled doctrine they please as far as I'm concerned, but I don't remain silent when I hear it.

The Constitution permitted the states to allow slavery before 1866 and then the 13th Amendment was passed abolishing it. The 14th Amendment which bans discrimination against all people in the US was passed shortly thereafter. That would be the provision violated by a law denying homosexuals the right to adopt and raise a family.

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense; how can a homosexual be "perfectly heterosexual"? Or would you bar people who had thoughts about being homosexual from adopting?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course, I should have said the policy of not allowing homosexuals to adopt would be unconstitutional and discriminatory, not your espousing of that view. People can espouse whatever hate-filled doctrine they please as far as I'm concerned, but I don't remain silent when I hear it.

The Constitution permitted the states to allow ...[text shortened]... heterosexual"? Or would you bar people who had thoughts about being homosexual from adopting?

As I've said before, I don't consider adoption a right. But the US legislature may take a different view.

Btw, where did I ever say that I opposed adoption by homosexual unions because they were homosexual? My opposition is to adoption by any same-sex union (whether the constituents are homosexual or not).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's irrelevant to the questions I posed (you posed, actually).

So, how do you recognise who the interpreters of the constitution are?

EDIT: I don't know about your Constitution, but mine has some articles that can NEVER be amended, btw. Such as those about basic human rights.

I think you're confusing me with someone else (We really do all look alike though)

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I think you're confusing me with someone else (We really do all look alike though)

Fair enough. I apologise. Care to venture a response, though?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Fair enough. I apologise. Care to venture a response, though?

It's easier to change a constitution than to change the Church's stance because ultimately the constitution depends on the support of, and the participation of, the People, through regular elections. The Pope is in for life, like a king.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
The Pope is in for life, like a king.

Or, for example, herpes.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
It's easier to change a constitution than to change the Church's stance because ultimately the constitution depends on the support of, and the participation of, the People, through regular elections. The Pope is in for life, like a king.

From a Catholic perspective, the Pope does not determine the Church's stance - God does (through Scripture and Tradition). A Pope cannot create new dogma from thin air (nor repeal old ones).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I've said before, I don't consider adoption a right. But the US legislature may take a different view.

Btw, where did I ever say that I opposed adoption by homosexual unions because they were homosexual? My opposition is to adoption by any same-sex union (whether the constituents are homosexual or not).

The US courts have considered the right to raise a family as a natural right that no legislature can interfere with. It is true some legislatures in the past have banned homosexuals from adopting but hopefully such nonsense will soon be a thing of the past. At one point almost all states banned interracial adoptions as well for about the same reasons of ignorance and prejudice.

My dictionary defines homosexuality as "othe manifestation of sexual desire towards a member of one's own sex". When I use the term I am referring to all same-sex unions. I have no idea how you would determine if a same sex union was homosexual or not as you would have no (legitimate) way to know if two different sex unions were heterosexual or not. That's really none of anybody's business, Lucifershammer.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The US courts have considered the right to raise a family as a natural right that no legislature can interfere with. It is true some legislatures in the past have banned homosexuals from adopting but hopefully such nonsense will soon be a thing of the past. At one point almost all states banned interracial adoptions as well for about the same r ...[text shortened]... sex unions were heterosexual or not. That's really none of anybody's business, Lucifershammer.

As I said before, my views have nothing to do with the sexual orientations of the couples involved.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I said before, my views have nothing to do with the sexual orientations of the couples involved.

Since it's so off-topic, I'll desist after one more question so I can get some understanding of your stance: do you also believe that single and/or unmarried people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children?