----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:39 AM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
> At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: > >JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing: > > > >> I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a > >father, I > >> think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for > >adoption > >> with a very good mother and father. > > > >With all due respect, I think you're way out of touch with reality. > >You've taken the classic boob's line, "God created Adam and Eve, not > >Adam and Steve!" and slapped a new coat of pain on it, but it's still > >bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous. While a man and a > >woman are required for the initial act, it does not necessarily follow > >that both sexes are required for every step after that. I have yet to > >see compelling evidence that gay adoptive parents, screened to the > >same degree as a heterosexual couple, are less fit as parents. > > My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women and men > are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be effects of > both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural roles. > > While we clearly know that a man and a woman are not *required* for raising > children, each unborn child has a reasonable expectation of having both a > mother and father, since each was necessary for the creation of that child. > Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give > consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of > the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable > expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no > way of determining any contrary desire of the child. > I don't know that I could buy this argument. But I have read several of the responses to this post, and my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done in a similar fashion in the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a "child of tender years" (age 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the custody of the mother. The argument being that a young child needs a mother on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. This brings questions to mind immediately: * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children under 10 years of age, will this not constitute prejudice against divorced heterosexual men? * Will homosexual women be given preference to adopt children over homosexual men? * Will divorce law have to be modified to eliminate these prejudices (if they indeed exist)? * How would custody be arranged for divorcing homosexuals who have adopted children? (How would you determine who the custodial parent would be?) It seems to me that allowing homosexuals to adopt children will have consequences that extend beyond the original question of qualification, and would actually be a benefit to heterosexual men who desire custody of their children. I'm interested in what people think about this. I have no opinion as of yet, since I cannot think of a single consistent rule that would constitute "fair play" for every combination of parents. Opinions? xponent Can 'O Worms Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
