Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Lesbians can get pregnant to. And gay men CAN have sex with women.

---

It's how most gay people become parents: Just like straight people do.

quote:

---

What's this whole "market" thing your talking about. I don't think I understand what your getting at.

​

Can you expound a bit?

---

I don't think he can. He's been asked repeatedly and yet remains silent. I doubt even he understands what it means.The closest I can get is that it leads to things like surrogacy and directed adoption where parents go out of their way to find someone to have a child for them rather than simply going to orphanages. Of course, he didn't mention this at all in his original objection. Instead, he was objecting to same-sex marriage (Message 72): It was only later that he started saying he was against surrogacy in general once it was pointed out that straight people engage in surrogacy much more often than gay people do.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano writes:

quote:

---

What is being considered is "children raised by biological parents".

---

Since it is straight people that developed the adoption system, this means that we need to stop straight marriage right now:Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Why are you picking only on the gay people?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Which has no bearing on that being measured.

---

On the contrary, it is the entire point. Gay people adopt the children of straight people. Since this is about the children and doing what is best for them, why do you care what the sexual orientation is of the parents? Your original argument was that we cannot allow gay people to marry for that will cause gay people to adopt.But straight people get married and that directly leads to them adopting. So why is only a problem when gay people do it? Why is your wrath regarding the adoption processes created of, by, and for straight people only taken out on gay people rather than the straight people it serves?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

The parents are as much the possession of the child as the child is the possession of the parents.

---

Then you must demand the immediate repeal of all heterosexual marriage.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Thats a different issue to the one being addressed. By all means take children from abusive parents whether gay or otherwise.

---

So why are you having a problem with gay people adopting them? If it is OK to violate the rights of the child to be raised by the biological parents, what difference does it make what the sexual orienation is of the parents who take the child in?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

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.

---

And that would be straight people. The entire reason that the adoption processes that we have exist are because of straight people. It was straight people who came up with adoption, not gay people. It was straight people who came up with surrogacy, not gay people (hey, Jesus!) It was straight people who came up with directed adoption, egg donation, sperm banks, single-parent adoption, etc., etc. but in your mind, it is only when gay people come along that there is a problem as if gay people are responsible for the failures of straight people.You seem to be saying that because the adoption process is screwed up, we can't allow gay people to get married lest they avail themselves of the processes that straight people screwed up.But that makes no sense since we're focused on the rights of the child. So why on earth would we care about the sexual orientation of the parents?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

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.

---

But straight people do this already. Why are you only picking on gay people? If this is truly about the rights of the child, why do you care about the sexual orienation of the parents? It was straight people who came up with directed adoption. It was straight people who came up with surrogacy (hey, Jesus!) All the scenarios you have come up with that are so horrendous to the rights of the child were created specifically by straight people.And yet, you don't suffer them one whit of your anger. Instead, you pile it all on gay people as if they're responsible for the "market" straights created. We can't let gay people get married because they might decide to avail themselves of the same things straight people do.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

There's a whole lot of things society cannot stop people doing. That doesn't mean society has to encourage and support those activities.

---

Which means society must immediately stop straight people from marrying because it led to precisely the very "market" you're wetting yourself over.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.So why do only gay people get to be picked on?If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano writes:

quote:

---

Some other forms will have that affect and the effect of those forms is detrimental to the right of the child in this regard.

---

So since gay people make up such a tiny group compared to the vast number of straight people who are in the same situation, why is it only the gay people who suffer your wrath? If your complaint truly is, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" then you must necessarily be against straight marriage.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

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.

---

And for those who don't agree with your position about god? Why does your conception of god get to overrule theirs?Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

I see no particular problem with producing a rationalisation for my position given that there is a rational for it - related ultimately, to the aforementioned Godly order.

---

Then Jesus is an abomination as he was both a surrogate and an adoptee.But wait, your religious argument has nothing to do with adoption or children or anything. You're against same-sex marriage simply because you think your god told you to be against it. So let's not pretend that you care one fig about the children. This has absolutely nothing to do with children. The fact that you don't complain about straight people doing the very thing that you accuse gay people of doing shows that you cries of "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" are nothing but ad hoc panicking that you don't believe.

quote:

---

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.

---

But that means you're specifically and expressly against straight marriage because it leads precisely to the violation of those rights.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

I'm not sure you understand. A single person can't adopt their own child (if they produce one) - the child is already theirs.

---

I'm not sure you understand. When we talk about single-parent adoption, we don't mean someone adopting their own child. We mean someone who isn't married adopting somebody else's child.That was a process invented by straight people to allow straights to have children in the absence of a partner with which to have them.But somehow, it's the fault of gay people and they're the ones that need to be punished for it.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

if gay couples are permitted to adopt orphans, they will naturally be allowed to adopt children produced by one half of the couple.

---

If straight couples are permitted to adopt orphans, they will naturally be allowed to adopt children produced by one half of the couple.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

permitting this promotes & supports a "market response" to the demand of gay couples to have own-produced children. "Own" in the sense that one of the couple would be a biological parent and the other of the couple (who will want to adopt the child) not a biological parent.

---

Permitting this promotes and supports a "market response" to the demand of straight couples to have own-produced children. "Own" in the sense that one of the couple would be a biological parent and the other of the couple (who will want to adopt the child) would not be a biological parent.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

such family units circumvent, by design, the rights of a child in regard it being raised by it's biological parents.

---

And thus, we need to to stop straight people from getting married because this entire scenario was created by straight people: A couple with children has an event such that one of the parents has sole custody of the children. That parent then remarries and the new spouse adopts the children of the biological parent.That's what straight people do. But somehow, this is only a problem if gay people would do it, as if the sexual orientation of the parents has any effect upon the legitimacy of the adoption.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

The situation outlined above involves a drive for the gay couple to have a child of their own (in so far as they can call be biologically connected).

---

But the situation outlined above is already happening every single day in straight couples. In fact, it was designed expressly of, by, and for straight people. But somehow, it's only a problem when gay people do it? Why does the sexual orienation of the parents have any effect? Your scenario was created specifically out of a situation that happens when straight people get married.Therefore, by your logic, we must deny straight people the right to marry because it directly leads to this massive violation of the rights of the child.Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

quote:

---

Satisfying that demand dissolves the rights of a child. That demand cannot exist for the aged couple.

---

But it exists for straight people. Precisely and specifically because they're getting married. A parent whose spouse is no longer in the picture (for whatever reason) marries someone new and the new spouse adopts the children. That's what you're describing.That's a directly outcome of straight marriage. Straight marriage leads to straight parenting leads to denial of the above rights.Therefore, straight marriage has got to go.If there is ever a time when you feel it is legitimate for a child to be raised by someone other than the biological parents of said child, why does the sexual orientation of the parents have any effect?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

That wouldn't really be adoption, now would it? That would be biological.

---

And? Just how do you think gay people have children? Most have their children the same way most straight people have theirs.

quote:

---

I have a child who is not biologically mine.

---

And by iano's logic, that means you should not be allowed to get married because it led directly to that child having her rights violated.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I am asking those who know more about the US court system. I don't even know much about the Canadian court system, so I'm at a total loss here. Latest Gay Rights In-The-Courts News StoryWhat, exactly does this mean?If the gay-side wins... then Proposition 8 would be immediately repealed (gays would be able to marry in San Franciso)?Regardless of which side wins... how likely is it that things will move to the Supreme Court next? Any ballpark figures on how long that would be?These are the important questions as I see them (from the article):

quote:

---

Jennifer Pizer, marriage director for the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal asks "Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people, especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a historically mistreated minority?"

---

This is what the article says the Judge will be looking at:

quote:

---

Among the questions Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker plans to entertain are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers.

---

I don't, specifically, see how the Judge's focal points come down on the larger issue (Pizer quote). Do I just not speak legaleze very well? Or is this court already not really looking at the important aspects?

Once upon a time, women were treated as sub-humans, not protected by the same laws as men, and ill-treated without consequence. That time is gone for the most part.Once upon a time, slaves were kept, treated as sub-humans, not protected by the same laws as non-slaves, and ill-treated without consequence. That time is gone for the most part.Once upon a time... blacks...Once upon a time... homosexuals.How can anyone not see the correlation?The shifting moral zeitgeist is slowly and painstakingly overcoming the prejudice and ignorance that led to these various groups being denied the same rights and priveleges of others.Hopefully, some day, a person's sexual inclination will be of as little importance to the state as their eye colour. That day is long overdue.

I think a big difference, that other people see, that you're missing is in the perceived choice to be homosexual and the lack of choice in race and gender. (for the record though, I doubt its a choice)

A good point, but even if it (being homosexual) is a choice, how is it any different from choosing to be a vegetarian, or a creationist, or any of the other million lifestyle choices we make?These choices inevitably separate us into sub-groups, but these sub-groups are meant to be equal in the eyes of the law aren't they?The prejudice against homosexuals seems to have faded (over the long term) in the same way that racial and gender prejudices have, so I still think it is fairly easy to see the correlation in terms of a shifting moral zeitgeist.With regard to the boy refusing to recite the pledge, good on him. He'd be equally within his right to object to the "one nation under God" part. One should not be forced to recite a mantra with hand on heart that one does not agree wholeheartedly with.

quote:

---

What, exactly does this mean?

---

See my thread, Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California for some discussion of this. It truly is a remarkable case in many respects.

quote:

---

If the gay-side wins... then Proposition 8 would be immediately repealed (gays would be able to marry in San Franciso)?

---

It's virtually inevitable that whatever side loses will appeal. If the judge strikes the gay marriage ban, either he or an appeals court could stay that ruling pending appeal. If the ruling is stayed, gay marriages would still not be allowed until the appeal process runs its course.

quote:

---

Regardless of which side wins... how likely is it that things will move to the Supreme Court next? Any ballpark figures on how long that would be?

---

The first appeal will be to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, the next step would be the Supreme Court. The Supremes would have the option not to hear the appeal, but I think that's unlikely.I saw an esitmate of 2-3 weeks for the trial. After that, it would probably take the judge anywhere from a month to several months to issue a decision. I know very little about appeal times in the Ninth Circuit, but would guess that would take between 6-18 months. I would guess that an appeal to the Supreme Court might take 1-3 years beyond that. I know these figures are very broad, but I'm really just giving a ballpark guesstimate. I tried to give extremes that outline the shortest and longest likely times.

quote:

---

I don't, specifically, see how the Judge's focal points come down on the larger issue (Pizer quote). Do I just not speak legaleze very well? Or is this court already not really looking at the important aspects?

---

Based on what I've seen, I don't think that the judge is focusing on those issues. Instead, it looks like he understands that these are factual issues that often arise in the gay marriage debate and thinks that a ruling on those questions based on evidence, instead of rhetoric, prejudice and anecdote, might be important.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It wouldn't be different, and funny you should mention vegetarians because that is the group I was going to use to further my point with an example, but I didn't. No, not at all, me thinks.McDonalds doesn't have to be serving of vegetarians but they do for women, or blacks.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Indeed. Yet McDonalds is not the State.Private organizations are able to discriminate. For instance, the Boy Scouts are able to discriminate legally against homosexuals and non-Christians, as well as on the basis of gender. The KKK is not forced to allow minorities to join.The State has to follow different rules. More strict rules. Because the State carries the force of law, while private organizations do not. The only caveat is that private organizations receiving public funds are subject to the stricter laws, not under penalty of law, but simply because the State is not permitted to fund organizations that discriminate according to the protected classes of religion, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or the perception of any the same.A Catholic Church does not need to perform a wedding ceremony for a Jewish couple, or an Atheist couple, or a Mormon couple. But the State does need to issue the marriage certificate for all of those couples. The private religious institution is legally able to discriminate on religious grounds, but the State is not permitted to do so.

But they can't refrain from serving blacks....Nor are they a private organization. I understand that. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.Currently, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman (i.e. DOMA). I don't see how that, as defined, must be applied to teh gays.And I've seen the arguments with the 9th and 14th amendments and discrimination and all that already. I don't think we need to re-hash them again.I think I'm gonna wait until the courts descide before I say what the State must do.

Iano struggles under a barrage: I'm thinking someday of a lesbian couple who decide to get artificially inseminated by the same anonymous donor on the same day and through a colossal stroke of luck land in the delivery room on the same hour of the same day, side by side in beds gripping each others arms and eating ice chips, screaming out at each other, both delivering 2 beautiful children at the same time. Wow! What a lovefest!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Oh, really? So does the death of a parent, incarceration or institutionilization of a parent, quite often so does divorce and always when an unwed mother gives up the child for adoption.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I agree completely. I understand. The ban went into effect immediately because it was a vote, which cannot be appealed like a court ruling. So even a court ruling against the ban will not go into effect immediately because it was (obviously) done in the court system and therefore can be appealed. I see. So one more step between here and Supreme Court. I agree that this will most likely (eventually) make it to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.And thanks for the ball-park time-line, it was exactly the sort of thing I was curious about. I see. In a way, the judge may be looking forward and seeing that nailing down some definitions would be helpful for further clarification of the issues. I can also understand how definitive, evidence-based answers to those question will lead to an easier and clearer approach to the "more important" issues I was talking about.Thanks for the answers, and I will be interested in reading the progress and updates of your new thread.