Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

I take it you mean to say that a gay couple would desire that one of the "married" party be called "a husband" and the other "a wife" (assigned by mutual agreement rather than by virtue of their sex+traditional understanding)I don't mean to be facetious (rather: I mean to illustrate the can of worms opened when we demand the right to redefine words to suit our own ends) but does this mean a male 'husband' could demand the right to call his male 'wife's anus .. a 'vagina'?

Had I picked woman/woman for my example I'm sure the point would be missed equally as well.- Which was kind of the point of my post: the nonsense that occurs when you start fooling around with words because you think by doing so you'll advance your agenda. You'll now no doubt agree that there is no reason to have husband/wife in a hetrosexual marriage. Both parties can be husband. Both parties can be wife. Hell! Both parties can be 'husbands' on even week numbers and 'wives' on odd.I might as well add, at this point, that I've no absolute objection to gays getting married and calling it marriage, husband+husband etc. Whilst I think it is damaging for society and I would prefer that society not be damaged so, I don't think gays getting married in anyway means they are (in the sense of their conforming to an institution set up and blessed in particular fashion by God) actually married.I might as well object to people who aren't Christians (as defined by God) calling themselves Christians.- A cultural significance which you insist on making a nonsense of (as outlined above and in my original post).Some of those cultural significances might revolve around producing biological offspring (which, nature tells us, tends towards producing stronger ties than non-biological relationships). They might also revolve around balances that can be found when men bring what men have to offer to the table and women what women have to offer. That a man be sexually attracted to another man doesn't make either of them a woman (in the traditional, unaltered sense of the word)When a minority grouping decides they want the world, and all it's role modelling turned upsidedown in order that they can clamber on board (and in so clambering, alter the world and it's role modelling) then they should have no reason to object to the fact of resistance.- I wasn't so much referring to 'rights' in the sense that I have the right to call day, night. It was 'rights' in the sense that society must take me seriously and jump through hoops to protect the notion of night having all the attributes of night (formerly called day).- I suppose we could argue things with an eye on the Constitution as if that was some absolute decider of things (it was decided upon by men and can be altered by men - provided sufficient men decide so).My way of seeing things considers a child to have a right to be raised by it's biological parents. Whilst the State cannot force such a situation, it can encourage such a situation and dissuade deviance from that situation. Gay marriage leads to gay parenting leads to denial of the above rights. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No I don't. Not because I think gays are bad people (or any badder than anyone else) but because of the shift that normalising such a thing would mean - in relation to the above objection.Let me lay it out as linearly as I can - given your problems with iano-speak1) Lets suppose a child has the right to be brought up by it's biological parents.2) Let's suppose the State accepts that it cannot micro-manage things so as to guarantee this right, but that it can and does take certain actions which tend towards promoting these rights.3) Whilst permitting gay couples to adopt orphans cannot be directly linked to a dissolution of the aim of 2) above (the orphan can't be raised by it's biological parents), it forms a Rrhain-like toe in the door. If gays were permitted to adopt orphans, then it's a short push of the toe to ensure gays can adopt full stop. Which has a direct link to dissolution of 2) above. Does the States refusal to permit this mean gays are prevented from co-habiting and raising one or others kids? No. But like I say, the State's job isn't 'micro-manage to guarantee'. The States job is to takes what steps it can to support a desired outcome.- Fair enough. Somehow I can't see why his being adopted could be much hindered were it that gay couples were not permitted to adopt.- That's great - but the specific case doesn't alter the general point. Note that I'm arguing against gay adoption whereas this already appears permissable where you are. Is that formal adoption or informal btw?- Seeing as no one system is going to achieve all possible desirable ends I'd plump for no gay adoption on the basis of it dissolving the situation outlined in 2) above.

Classic Rrhainism The position suggested is that the state take global steps to promote a desired outcome. Not that it micro-manage each and every situation to ensure that outcome. State approval and support for some outcomes necessarily mean lack of State support and approval for other outcomes. My point is, I suppose, that gay rights aren't the only rights under consideration here.

That wasn't quite what I meant (obviously, seeing as here I am). It had more to do with your propensity for latching, terrier-like to a piece of something someone says and shaking it for all it's worth - irrespective of whether what you've buried your teeth into accurately represents t'others position.Bearing in mind the essence of my position I'll scan your post to see if you've done as I suggest you've done.1) Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents.2) Society, whilst taking steps to promote protection of same cannot micro-manage to ensure those rights are protected.3) Permitting gay adoption of orphans leads naturally to gay adoption full stop. Which leads to 'market' demand for children (for gays) which cannot be supplied by orphans alone (indeed, gay couples might prefer to produce a child themselves (in so far as they can)). Which leads to the market fulfilling that demand - which leads to a structural situation in which children are produced specifically for gay (couples) meaning the right listed above is abandoned by design.And so, gay adoption should not be permitted on the grounds that it leads to a dissolving of childrens rights.To your argument then: The issue isn't adoption per se. It's adoption leading to a demand for children to be produced.- Again, outside the issue. I'd note my finding it implausible that gay couples are needed to make up the numbers due to oversupply of available adoptees. And so, the demand being satisfied here is the gay couples desire to have children. Not the welfare of the children - which can be dealt with by mixed-sex couples.- Outside the issue.- Outside the issue.- Outside the issue.By all means address the issue.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

*utter bafflement*

Have you considered what the issue I'm raising is. Because this doesn't address it. The issue isn't adoption (or fostering). It's where it naturally leads.- The point was that support for the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents necessitates lack of support for (what might be considered by some others as rights) that which opposes childrens rights.You can't have and/and in other words.- You've heard of a surrogate parent haven't you? Such a facility dissolves the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents doesn't it? I'm supposing the same to happen with gay couples only in this case we're looking at an even more structural dissolution of childrens rights.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If a gay couple is permitted to adopt an orphan, is there any reason to refuse them permission to adopt a non-orphan? Assuming you agree there is not, then you are promoting the route of surrogacy: in that this is the only route available to gays permitting them to satisfy their desire to have children.In promoting surrogacy, you are dissolving the right of a child to be raised by its biological parents.

You should read back a bit Straggler, as I've already covered this.Societies job isn't to micro-manage things in order to ensure an outcome. For example, I'm not suggesting that a father who deserts his children be rounded up and locked to the family home in order to ensure "the right of a child to be raised by its biological parent".Rather, Societies job is to promote an environment in which a childs right in this regard can flourish. Which means not supporting a situation which will lead to disolution of same. Gay couple adoption - which is structurally (by virtue of gay couples not being able to produce kids) geared towards undermining those rights.I'm not a supporter of gay adoption for reasons other than the ones outlined here but where it leads is the issue being discussed here only. I'm not a supporter of surrogate parenting by hetro couples either - because of that same tendency towards dissolution of childrens rights. What I think of the pro's/con' of the individual hetro/gay case of surrogacy is neither here nor there in this discussion.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

When your anti-X, you give reasons for that anti-ness. If that anti-ness happens to connect in some ways to anti-other*-similar-things then so be it. It shouldn't mean one cannot comment on the particular case.What's ever so slightly different about the case of gay-adoption is that we are dealing with family units that require, by their very design, the dissolution of a childs rights in the area described. This is a structural shift Straggler. And one that stands apart from the occasional, unpredictable infertility that drives other* family units to surrogacy.It is futile to try to close this divide with a "well then, test all couples before they are married to see that they are:a) sexually activeb) fertile.The point isn't that society micro-manages something that will generally (in this narrow regard I mean: let's leave aside divorce, death, etc for it applies to all family units) manage itself. The point is that society not structurally encourage family units that can't but dissolve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents.To my mind, the rights of a child supercede the rights of an individual to have a child. If you don't agree with that fundamental, then my points will certainly fall on deaf ears.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm not in favour of surrogate parenting full stop. I'd point you to my message to Straggler (above) to indicate the specifics of why I'm against gay adoption. I'll skip past those parts of your post that should be dealt with by this postion.- Skip//- I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean eg: children taken out of abusive homes a placed into foster familys ("why not gay") then you're diverting (unintentionally probably) from the point.Perhaps you could clarify?- The issue isn't children adopted/raised in loving homes. The issue is children having a right to be raised by biological parents. And the state supporting same/dissuading deviance from same.- Skip//- Skip//- Skip//= Skips//But adds by way of refreshment.You've diverted from the point. The point was "the right to gay adoption of orphans" and were that leads. That leads to "the right to adoption - full stop". And the right to adoption - full stop - is the only opportunity for gay couple to have children they can call their own. And society supporting same is society supporting the structural/inherent denial of a childs rights in the manner under discussion.This is other than societal support for a family unit that occasionally fires blanks.Micro-managing comes to the fore when you try to select for the occasional misfire - misfiring occasionally not being a structural/inherent property of the family unit involved.- Hopefully, the structural nature of gay family units vs. hetro family units will dissuade you from your cynicism.- Skips//- Skips//The specific problem with gay adoption/surrogacy viz-a-viz hetro adoption/surrogacy is dealt with.- Skips//See it as society granting planning permission to a builder whose building always fall down vs. granting planning permission to builders knowing that now and then, a building is inevitably going to fall down due to sheer numbers of buildings built.

Phew! If you've read back you'll agree that gay adoption of orphans will lead necessarily to gay adoption full stop. Which means 'the market' will respond and produce children produced for gays to adopt. The issue is whether Society should promote this market (which will produce children, some of whom will be loved) Or whether it should dissuade the production of such children, who, if not produced, cannot be denied loving parents.To put it another way: should society place this particular right of children first. If so, discouraging a market that will produce children without hope of this primary right being applied to them is a must.- I'd agree. But society frequently doesn't approach things purely on a numbers basis. If it did, it wouldn't expend disproportionate amounts maintaining/deploying helicopters/crew to save a minimal numbers of stricken seamen of the coasts of Ireland and Britain.Hetro couples who seek adoption/surrogacy form a miniscule part of a system which serves the global needs of society: production of children, biological parenting (and the attachment-positives that I'm assuming attach to same) of same. We might say that that system is 92% efficient in this regard - every now and then it produces (from it's perspective: I mean no disrespect) a blank.Another (small) system is presented which is 0% efficient in this regard. And society is asked to support it as it supports the (large) 92% efficient system. And is asked that it see the two systems as having parity of sorts.Can you imagine the special pleading that can be opened if every minority view was to be considered so?- Hopefully the above will lay out my postion.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I think you're forgetting the thrust of the argument. Adoption of orphans ... and were it leads.Will permitting adoption of orphans by single people lead to the 'market' response outlined previously? I don't think so: a single woman can already provide her own child and remain single without the need to adopt. A single man can already provide for his own child and not need to adopt. There is no market possible.Will permitting adoption of orphans by aged couples lead to the market response outlined? I don't think so: how can a market producing non-biologically connected kids for aged couples arise when a supply of 'free' non-biologically connected kids already exists (orphans). Sure there will be abuse (an aged couple decides they want a designer-child and go to the black market) but that's a separate issue for society to deal with.- Having re-focused the emphasis away from adoption of orpahans and onto "...were it leads", you tell me.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You've obviously not done what I advised in the first sentence of the quoted section. The 'market' (commercial or no) referred to involved that which would supply gay couples with a child of (one of) there own. Which would be adopted by the other partner. Assuming support of the right of a child to be raised by his biological parents is considered something society wants to support, then society cannot also support an activity that structurally undermines this right.- I don't think you've gotten to my argument yet.- Marriage isn't the issue here. Gays couples adopting is.- I'll repeat a point made to Straggler.Society possesses a system in which people get together, produce children and raise them. That system (in respect of the right in question) isn't by any means perfect: there are parents who will desert their children, parents who will never even know they've begotten a child. In terms of supporting the right in question, we can say that this system is X% efficient. Let's call it 85% efficient to put a number on it.Now we consider an alternative family unit that, by design, reaches 0% efficiency in this regard.I'm of the opinion that society cannot be supporting situations that run counter to it goals (if assuming the right of the child to be raised by it's biological parents supercedes the right of people to have/adopt children)Please mind your language if deciding to reply. I really don't need to be threading through insults to find out what your point it..Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Let's look.- What is being considered is "children raised by biological parents". If a child isn't raised by it's biological parents (due to one or other or both deserting/dying and playing no further part in the raising of the child then that constitutes a reduction from 100%- Which has no bearing on that being measured.- I'm afraid I don't agree with you. The parents are as much the possession of the child as the child is the possession of the parents.- Thats a different issue to the one being addressed. By all means take children from abusive parents whether gay or otherwise.- I agree a child should be taken from abusive parents. The issue isn't the protection of the right of a child from abusive parents/caregivers. The issue is the right of a child to be raised by it's own parents and the non-support of folk attempting to circumvent same.- One biological parent doesn't 'get a crack' in the situation where gay couples fulfill the desire for own children by (necessarily) going outside the coupleship for one of the parents. That biological parent is producing children without any intention of raising it. Something that society, I hold, shouldn't be doing anything to encourage.There's a whole lot of things society cannot stop people doing. That doesn't mean society has to encourage and support those activities.