12-08-2004 21:02									#211
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/en...ists/370/1.html http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/how_long "That should be encouraged," implies that preferential treatment will be given in order to encourage such action. No, I'm saying that a child will be best off having two married parents, of which there are many willing to adopt the child. AMA is engaged in social activism here, and not in the best interests of the child. It's still a bald faced assertion if they lack studies to confirm their statement that science supports them.

You just have zero clue how adoption works, don't you? People wishing to adopt build a "wishlist" of stuff they want in a prospective child. From your own website, http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/how_long:

"You need to decide what is important to your family in your adoption plan. Obviously, the more flexible an adoptive family is with their adoption plan, the more exposure they will receive to incoming pregnant mothers, thus reducing their waiting time. For example, 65 out of every 100 birth mothers smoke during their pregnancy. Therefore, families not accepting of smoking preclude themselves from 65% of the possibilities."

The reason why there are long waiting lists should be perfectly obvious. First, children aren't given out like candy at a 7 eleven. Adoption agencies (hopefully) do thorough checks on prospective parents for suitability, and this takes time. Second, as mentioned above, would-be adoptive parents pick and choose what they are looking for in a new child - not entirely like buying a new car. Cold analogy? Yes, but that's reality. Third, adoption agencies are businesses. They don't have access to every single possible child awaiting adoption, so their clients have to wait until they can make a match. There are other reasons too, but these are just the most obvious.

If you cared to check your other site a little more closely, you may have stumbled upon this:
http://statistics.adoption.com/adop...r_care_1999.php

"Based on current AFCARS estimates released January 2000, there are approximately 520,000 children currently in foster care in the United States. Of these, 117,000 are eligible for adoption. (US HHS, 2000)"

Most of the non-adopted children come from ethnic minorities or are disabled, and many are older.

As for your "preferrential treatment" BS, there is no such implication. The AMA is stating that they should encourage the powers that be gays should be allowed to adopt. The article makes no other claim, explicit or implicit, and there's certainly no hint that they endorse this over any other situation other than parentlessness.

	12-08-2004 22:57									#212
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS Who knows? It goes back thousands of years for sure. Did my German ancestors have more than one wife? When did my Welsh ancestors start availing themselves of common law marriage? But in any event, this doesn't even matter to me. That's just the way it is. Like the sky is blue.

People used to justify slavery because that was "just the way it is."


Anyway, about your benefit to society. Why does there have to be concrete benefits to all of society in order to undo injustice to a minority group?

If there had not been any concrete benefit to society to abolish Jim Crow laws, then we should never have abolished them in the first place??

	13-08-2004 00:03									#213
	Increase Your PM Length

Doesn't this now open the possibility for a challenge in the US Supreme Court?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...rriage_calif_12

Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

34 minutes ago


By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.


The court said the city illegally issued the certificates, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.


The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.


The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.


"Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."


About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read.


The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials.


Anti-gay-marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom acted prematurely.


"Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex marriage agenda and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to once and for all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage," said Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families in a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco marriages.


The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the San Francisco weddings after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.


"Ultimately, we believe when we deal with the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, Mayor Newsom's position will be vindicated at the end of the day," said Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney.


San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage — prompted President Bush (news - web sites) to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.


The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.


When the justices agreed to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge — that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution — if such a lawsuit reached the court.


Gay and lesbian couples immediately filed lawsuits making that argument, as did Newsom. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter.


Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.


The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists."


Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.

Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California.

A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court.

Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

	13-08-2004 00:15									#214
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Doesn't this now open the possibility for a challenge in the US Supreme Court?

That's iffy. The California Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the legality of the California law, as the article states yet. This was a simply a ruling based on the fact that the court believed the mayor overstepped his authority. It was only a "ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials", and I'm not sure the Supreme Court would take up that case.

	13-08-2004 02:02									#215
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Well, it causes no harm to straight people, and it allows gay people to marry the person they love (making them happier)... so, overall, there's a benefit. It makes some people happier at no cost to anyone else.

Oh come now, it's long been established that if you made marriage available to gays, it would make straight people love their partners less. You'll have to ask someone else quite how that works, though.

	13-08-2004 04:00									#216
	Tired of ads?

quote: Anyway, about your benefit to society. Why does there have to be concrete benefits to all of society in order to undo injustice to a minority group?

Because I don't view it as injustice. For my vote, you're going to have to justify it on practical grounds.

	13-08-2004 04:46									#217
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Because I don't view it as injustice. For my vote, you're going to have to justify it on practical grounds.

But since you've basically admitted that you don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have a dollar figure attached, particularly if those dollars are either going into or coming out of your pocket, there isn't much point in even trying to make an argument that would satisfy you.

Although maybe if every gay person that wanted to get married mailed you $10, you'd change your mind.

	13-08-2004 05:12									#218
	Tired of ads?

Damn, should've read the thread...

Sorry.

	13-08-2004 05:17									#219
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki But since you've basically admitted that you don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have a dollar figure attached, particularly if those dollars are either going into or coming out of your pocket, there isn't much point in even trying to make an argument that would satisfy you. Although maybe if every gay person that wanted to get married mailed you $10, you'd change your mind.

That is a rip and a half

	13-08-2004 05:28									#220
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: But since you've basically admitted that you don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have a dollar figure attached, particularly if those dollars are either going into or coming out of your pocket, there isn't much point in even trying to make an argument that would satisfy you.

I don't think you've read my posts in this thread. I gave an example of a practical reason that doesn't have money directly attached to it.

I'm pretty surprised at the lack of imagination displayed on providing me good practical reasons to support gay marriage.

	13-08-2004 05:34									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

DanS -

quote: Freedom of association? So marriage is like a club or political party now? Wow.

No, marriage is like...umm...marriage. Do you deny marriage is an example of freedom of association? If so, how does marriage violate freedom of association? Freedom of association is not limited to political parties or clubs, it includes friendships and marriages - when 2 or more people freely agree to associate or cooperate with each other.

quote: Who knows? It goes back thousands of years for sure.

Not marriage in our society (remember, you said marriage in our society), it goes back to the Christianisation of Europe and 1 man, 1 wife. So marriage in our society is based on someone's religion and it was Christians who ascribed to that definition of marriage who drove Mormons west and later outlawed their religious practice of polygamy. The 1st Amendment was written to prevent one religious group from imposing their religion on others...

quote: Did my German ancestors have more than one wife? When did my Welsh ancestors start availing themselves of common law marriage? But in any event, this doesn't even matter to me. That's just the way it is. Like the sky is blue.

I don't know about your ancestors, but marriage in our society does stem from Christianity.

quote: Yeh, but they didn't win.

So your point is that because other Christians did win, we all must accept their definition of marriage? They didn't win morally and that matters...

quote: Because I don't view it as injustice. For my vote, you're going to have to justify it on practical grounds.

So you believe in practicality, not freedom... Got it...

	13-08-2004 05:48									#222
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I'm pretty surprised at the lack of imagination displayed on providing me good practical reasons to support gay marriage.

I suspect most people are offended at having to give "good" practical reasons to defend their freedom since that is paramount to asking permission to live as they choose, but I've already explained that what you're doing is violating your own freedom of association.

It doesn't matter if you and I would never want to marry another man, what matters is you're doing away with everyone's freedom of association, even your own. I see that as a matter of practicality... The next time freedom of association comes under attack on another issue, you might want that freedom protected and given your willingness to do away with the freedom of association on this issue, you'd be a hypocrite. But so are most of these people pushing for "gay marriage", they want this freedom of association protected but if they have their way, many homosexuals will start suing businesses and property owners for refusing to treat them like other married people. Freedom of association for me, but not for thee...

	13-08-2004 05:52									#223
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Do you deny marriage is an example of freedom of association?

Yes. Rather, it is a state sanctioned and sponsored institution, with a legal carbuncle called common law marriage. The state can forbid you to marry whom you choose to marry. I don't know how the law managed with my polygamist great-great granduncle, though.

quote: Not marriage in our society (remember, you said marriage in our society), it goes back to the Christianisation of Europe and 1 man, 1 wife.

I don't know that to be true. I don't know the history. Do you have anything to back up that assertion? Please note that many parts of Europe were converted only recently in the scheme of things. My Polish ancestors probably came into the fold in about A.D. 1000, for instance.

But in any event, it's all shrouded in the mists of time from my perspective.

	13-08-2004 05:58									#224
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I suspect most people are offended at having to give "good" practical reasons to defend their freedom since that is paramount to asking permission to live as they choose, but I've already explained that what you're doing is violating your own freedom of association.

Well, I suggest they get used to being offended, when myself and 70% of Missous (the plurality of whom are democrats) don't currently view it as a matter of freedom.

	13-08-2004 06:03									#225
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Yes. Rather, it is a state sanctioned and sponsored institution, with a legal carbuncle called common law marriage. The state can forbid you to marry who you choose to marry.

Is that a violation of freedom of association? You didn't explain how marriage violates freedom of association, you pointed out the state is already violating freedom of association.

quote: I don't know that to be true. Do you have anything to back up that assertion? Please note that many parts of Europe were converted only recently in the scheme of things. My Polish ancestors probably came into the fold in about A.D. 1000, for instance.

I don't know what marriage practices existed prior to the Christianisation of Europe, but I do know that when Christianity began taking over it did so with a very heavy hand and some marriage practices outside of Christianity would have been outlawed. English common law may have begun before this mass conversion but it was heavily influenced by the new religion that took hold... It's clear to me that on some issues regarding marriage, the Christian religion defines marriage in our society.

	13-08-2004 06:06									#226
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Sounds to me like you don't know the facts (as I don't), and therefore don't have a basis for your assertions.

	13-08-2004 06:08									#227
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Well, I suggest they get used to being offended, when myself and 70% of Missous (the plurality of whom are democrats) don't currently view it as a matter of freedom.

You assume these people care about freedom, they might when it's the freedom they cherish that's under attack, but when it's a freedom they don't care about or even despise, then their adherence to any principle of freedom disappears. Yours disappeared in the name of "practicality"...

Explain to me how marriage is not a matter of freedom.

	13-08-2004 06:12									#228
	Support Apolyton

quote: Sounds to me like you don't know the facts (as I don't), and therefore don't have a basis for your assertions.

Given how widespread polygamy was, it's no stretch to believe it existed in Europe too. But I can google it if you'd like...

	13-08-2004 06:39									#229
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Where polygamy exists, in almost all cases it means polygyny is practiced. The Old Testament of the Bible describes the practice of polygyny among the ancient Hebrews. The early Christians outlawed polygyny, which had existed among the pre-Christian tribes of Europe as well as among Hebrews.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpa...refid=761574825

	13-08-2004 07:12									#230
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wikipedia's article on polygyny states that it wasn't acceptable in ancient Rome or Greece. That's going back well before the influence of christianity, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny

	13-08-2004 07:31									#231
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Wikipedia's article on polygyny states that it wasn't acceptable in ancient Rome or Greece. That's going back well before the influence of christianity, of course.

From what I read Roman law changed repeatedly depending on who was in power, but as Europe became Christianised polygamy became illegal in more places. Rome had alot of influence on much of Europe but polygamy remained legal in most of Europe until Christianity came to power and even then bans on polygamy depended more on the local religious and legal authorities. Even Martin Luther condoned or endorsed bygamy in certain situations ( a Prussian king), but the trend was toward outlawing polygamy.

The fact another group of people banned polygamy doesn't mean Christians didn't ban it too and that this latter tradition is the one we have now... Our ban on polygamy stems from Christianity, not pagan Rome...

	13-08-2004 07:43									#232
	Support Apolyton

I don't think you can say that. Your argument requires more solid facts. Mine doesn't, so I'm not going to put the time into it.

	13-08-2004 09:00									#233
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, I suggest they get used to being offended, when myself and 70% of Missous (the plurality of whom are democrats) don't currently view it as a matter of freedom.

Well of course . . . . . since it's not you who have to live as a second-class citizen, and since it's not you who does not have their freedom of contract being deprived of legal protection, you feel justified in sitting on your high horse of cold-hearted, excessive logic by asking "pratical benefits" for such high principles as rights and freedom.

	13-08-2004 09:01									#234
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie Oh come now, it's long been established that if you made marriage available to gays, it would make straight people love their partners less. You'll have to ask someone else quite how that works, though.

The all knowing Obi Gyn could tell you, in a roundabout way of course, not letting on that he believes fervently in discriminating against gay men (not lesbians, because in these threads he seems to have difficulty realizing they exist) but I suspect it's something to do with the fantastic wedding presents homos will be giving each other and the outbreaks of insane jealousy and rage from aggrieved heterosexuals.

Or perhaps the hetero bigots will have fits of the vapours at the sudden realization that gaymen and lesbians don't have horns and aren't the malefic progeny of Charles Manson and Elizabeth Bathory.

Well, except for Starchild of course, but he's Canadian.

	13-08-2004 09:41									#235
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Well of course . . . . . since it's not you who have to live as a second-class citizen, and since it's not you who does not have their freedom of contract being deprived of legal protection, you feel justified in sitting on your high horse of cold-hearted, excessive logic by asking "pratical benefits" for such high principles as rights and freedom.

I thought the task of answering a "practical benefits to society" question regarding gay marriage was like slow pitch softball. Who knew.

	13-08-2004 10:37									#236
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I don't think you can say that. Your argument requires more solid facts. Mine doesn't, so I'm not going to put the time into it.

What fact is in dispute? That polygamy, as widespread as it is and has been, declines under Christianity because Christians legislate their religious adherence to monogamy? To dispute that you still need facts... One being that Christians don't ban polygamy and we know that isn't true... Do they do this because of pagan Rome or because of their own religion? Obviously the latter...

	13-08-2004 20:46									#237
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS I thought the task of answering a "practical benefits to society" question regarding gay marriage was like slow pitch softball. Who knew.

There's a whole list of practical reasons for gays themselves, on why they should have their relationships legally recognized -- the same pratical reasons that straights get married.

wills

taxes

visitation rights in hospitals

sharing bank accounts

buying a home together

shared custody rights of same child



And I think there are 90 other things that I have failed to mentioned.