User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 34 of 34

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Also, couldn't people like Sunset just give their child to some private orphanage/adoption agency with parental criteria that excludes homosexuals (though I vaguely remember hearing that certain New England states prohibit such practices, which is equally as wrong as preventing gays from adopting children through public institutions)?
    I believe the only current compromise to what I stated before is "open adoption," but even this has limitations. *Are there religious adoption agencies available? I am ignorant of this sector in general.*
    Last edited by iwakar; 04-24-2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason: *
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  2. #32
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    I believe the only current compromise to what I stated before is "open adoption," but even this has limitations. *Are there religious adoption agencies available? I am ignorant of this sector in general.*
    I'm not all that familiar with that sector myself, but I've found the article I referenced earlier, the government-mandated injustice of the situation stuck with me:

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Religious Freedom at Stake in Gay Adoption Debate

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I am of the same mindset. Civil union contracts for all, marriage for any of those who can receive one from a minister, priest, imam, rabbi, shaman, witch, or whatever.
    I'm very liberal, and wholeheartedly agree with this. I wouldn't care if marriage was legalized for gays (actually I'd be all for it). But I think it makes more sense to keep a religious term out of the "state" by making it civil unions that the state gives EVERYONE and then "marriage" is conducted by a religious organization. In Germany, the civil union ceremony is the bigger, more important one.

  4. #34
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maliafee View Post
    I'm very liberal, and wholeheartedly agree with this. I wouldn't care if marriage was legalized for gays (actually I'd be all for it). But I think it makes more sense to keep a religious term out of the "state" by making it civil unions that the state gives EVERYONE and then "marriage" is conducted by a religious organization. In Germany, the civil union ceremony is the bigger, more important one.
    I agree with the second part. That's a really good idea.

Similar Threads

  1. Catholic ban on women priests 'illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:59 AM
  2. Ban on Short Selling
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO