Heterosexuals are allowed to legally marry a consenting partner of their sexual preference. The same cannot be said for Homosexuals in the US. It is by way of the impact of the restriction that the civil rights of one group are violated while the other is not.
“Thou shalt not gather for worship on Saturdays”, is a restriction that holds a very different impact for a Seventh Day Adventist compared to a Methodist.
“All needles and syringes will be confiscated upon discovery.” is a restriction that holds a very different impact for someone with Diabetes compared to someone who sells medical supplies.
I personally know two gay couples who have successfully adopted (and know of several others). And I’ve seen countless gay folks visit their partners in the hospital.
Your argument - at least this part of it - is pure fiction invented to ‘prove’ your point.
And this, to me, undermines anything else you’ve said on the subject.
The ability for single gay people or gay couples to adopt widely varies by state in the U.S. There are some states, notably Utah and Florida. Utah’s statute says that a child can only be adopted by people in a “legally binding marriage”. Florida goes further and says no homosexual can adopt. The Florida statue was (or is perhaps) under appeal. In addition, there are a number of states that don’t allow “second parent” adoption, where unmarried people can both adopt the same child. And since marriage is legal in only a few states, that means adoption by a loving comitted gay couple isn’t permitted.
Is there a reason you’ve decided to come through and troll this thread with your overwhelming ignorance? Usually on the straight dope people at least come with what they believe to be facts when they make an argument. Your just coming in with stupid.
And it’s great that there are adoption agencies and hospitals willing to do what’s right, but the valid concern is what do about people who won’t. Heck, I wouldn’t have thought in 2009 that an interracial couple in the U.S. would be denied a marriage license, but there you go.
And the anti-miscegenation laws kept both blacks and whites from marrying outside of their race. Clearly there was nothing discriminatory about those laws either.
Lots of black people got to eat in restaurants, too, even before civil rights legislation. The point is, they can be (and often are) barred, because they’re not ‘related.’ When they are allowed in, in many states, it’s because their ‘real next of kin’ consent.
If you simply said, “I don’t believe gays should be allowed to marry,” then you might have a point, But you didn’t.
Claiming that gays are treated equally because straight people also can’t marry someone of the same sex is not simply disagreeing with my viewpoint; it is a willful misrepresentation of the principle of equality, and one that could only be made by someone (a) too stupid to understand the principles involved, or (b) intentionally seeking to promote inequality.
As i said, i’ll leave it up to you to decide which one applies in this case.
Well, if you happen to run across someone who is willing to discuss the issue of whether gays have or should have equal rights - rather than discussing how ignorant I am because we disagree - send them in here.
Better yet, start a new thread.
Oh yeah, and anyone who disagrees with me is…you know…uh…ignorant.
If we can’t agree on what equal rights means, that sounds like a stupid waste of time. And if you claim equal rights is gays can marry opposite sex people, and can’t have rights with their lovers like rights of survivorship, next-of-kin decision making privileges, and joint ownership of property, you’re wrong, whether or not anybody calls you a name. So the question is still whether you’re sincerely wrong (stupid), or willfully wrong (douchebag).
You can’t have a debate over whether something should exist if you don’t agree on the meaning of the term.
