Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

I am very unclear on where you think it does "naturally lead"?Could you be more explicit? Particularly with reference to the relevancy of the sexuality of the parents in question.

So your problem is with adoption and surrogacy in general then?I don't see how everything you have said doesn't apply equally to a heterosexual couple who wish to adopt or go down the surrogacy route.What, if any, is the difference in your mind?

Then I am not sure why you are discussing it in this context?It is inevitable that your comments are going to be taken as being anti-gay adoption/surrogacy specifically. So if that is not what you meant I fail to see why you are discusing those issues here? Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

I doubt anyone here will disagree with that. The debate will ensue as a result of different people having different ideas as to how to achieve that. Those on the opposite side of the debate to you are going to see your stance as denying children the potential for loving parents. I have no idea of the stats (I could try and look them up if we pursue this further) but my initial guess is that there are far more heterosexual couples seeking adoption and surrogacy options because of infertility, age etc. than gay couples seeking similar courses of action. I would guess that gay couples make up a small minority of such requests.If I am right, and if what you say is true about not being anti-gay on this issue per se, and your issue being with the right of children to be raised by their natural parents - Then campaigning against infertile hetero couples having such rights would be far far more effective in practical terms.Does that make sense?

OK. What is your view of single parent adopters? Presumably the same as for gay parents for the same market based arguments? And aged adopters? (i.e. those who are necessarily infertile due to age)And hetero couples who have a known medical history that makes one (or both) of them necessarily infertile? Women who have suffered early menopause before getting married or partnering up with a potential adopter father? Men who have had testicular cancer and who are thus blatantly and knowingly sterile as a result?I know a little kid with leukemia. A boy. His parents have been told his chances of living are quite high at this stage of treatment. But he will almost certainly be sterile due to this treatment. By your logic he must be denied adoption rights later in life?Your market based argument should apply equally to any adopters that are knowingly and necessarily unable to produce natural off-spring of their own.Is this the case?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. But I don't think you have really answered the question. Unless I have misunderstood. Is it just gay adoption that leads to the situation you are seeeking to avoid? Or do other forms of "infertility" have the same "market effect"?Pardon my bluntness here - But I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that you might be anti-gay adoption for more ideological reasons and that you are seeking to rationalise this by applying your "market theory" of adoption in ways that are not wholly consistent. I am seeking to determine how consistent you are. Well the very fact that they are seeking to adopt suggests that they are already in "the market" does it not? Now you have really lost me. How does the reason for a couples infertility change the effect on this "adoption market" you are talking about? Do couples containing members who are known to be sterile for some reaon (e.g. the little boy with leukemia I mentioned) meet your market criteria? Or not?

Well it is all still a bit bewildering but as I understand it everything about your "market theory" applies equally to:

Someone who had leakemia as a child and is thus knowingly sterile.

​

Aged couples because the man can still have a child even if the woman cannot.

​

Anyone who is knowingly sterile (for whatever reason) before coupling up with a child wanting partner.

​

Is this correct?

​

Iano writes:

​

That I am anti-gay adoption arises indeed from an overall ideological position which holds that God has an order in mind for his creation and the further man drifts from that order the worse things are for man.

​

OK. At least we know where we are now.

​

Iano writes:

​

That I translate a rational into humanistic-sounding terms such as "the rights of a child to be raised by it's biological parents" doesn't alter the substance of my believing that such was Gods intention in his establishing the family unit and that the rights being invoked for the child here are, ultimately, God given.

​

Maybe not. But it does beg questions regarding the consistent application of your post-hoc rationale.