View Poll Results: How will you vote (or have you voted) in the Marriage Law Postal Survey

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 62.50%
  • No

    4 16.67%
  • Not voting (not enrolled)

    4 16.67%
  • Not voting (not interested or can't decide)

    0 0%
  • Not voting (boycotting survey)

    1 4.17%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 2599

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612

    Same-sex marriage [strictly on-topic thread]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But then referenda on marriage = one man + one woman passed in three more states, including CA.
    Ironically the passage of Resolution 8 in California was strongly supported by non-white voters, especially black voters, and it is therefore speculated that a somewhat ironic side-effect of Obama's ability to raise the black turnout was that Resolution 8 was (regrettably IMO) passed.

    Doesn't seem like its passage has anything much to do with the strength of the Christian Right.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwischenzug
    Though I'm not politically minded I'm learning quite a bit from this US election. You know what I believe? It might sound a bit outlandish but I believe people should be able to vote more the on issues and less on the person. Meaning, for example, if you want to ban gay marriage, do it on by a state by state basis and allow the people of each state to vote on that issue. If a bill or policy is having trouble passing because of some organization or lobbyist group, then put the issue to a vote. If a bill gets passed that people didn't like, they only have themselves to blame for not taking responsibility via voting.
    Indeed, but Obamov and the Dems want to take this right away from the states by appointing radical judges to impose their political preferences by fiat. CA's referendum on gay marriage was a response to such judicial tyranny.

    Obamov stated in 2001 that the Constitution was defective in not allowing government redistribution of wealth, and has stated that he wants judges who will take sides rather than rule on what the law says.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #3
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwischenzug
    It might sound a bit outlandish but I believe people should be able to vote more the on issues and less on the person. Meaning, for example, if you want to ban gay marriage, do it on by a state by state basis and allow the people of each state to vote on that issue. If a bill or policy is having trouble passing because of some organization or lobbyist group, then put the issue to a vote. If a bill gets passed that people didn't like, they only have themselves to blame for not taking responsibility via voting.

    Whether this is a left wing or right wing view, I don't know.
    Probably neither.

    I don't agree with it though. There is simply no reasonable reason that the State should prohibit gay marriage, as it does not harm anyone to allow gay people to marry in a civil ceremony. If specific churches want to refuse to marry gay people that's their business. In my view there should be constitutional restrictions on the ability of the people or "democratic" governments to restrict gay marriage, and gay marriage (in common with many other issues of personal liberty) should be protected from having restrictions placed on it by either the nation or the state, either through the legislature or by popular vote.

    Sometimes it is forgotten that we are supposed to be living in a liberal democracy, and what that should mean is that there are cases where the right of the majority (or their representatives) to interfere with the freedoms of consensual minorities should simply not exist. If you want a society where freedoms are always up for a vote then that is not a liberal democracy but a state of majority tyranny.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434

    Governments forcing recognition of gay “marriage” is intolerant

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If specific churches want to refuse to marry gay people that's their business.
    But the Gay-stapo wants to make it their business. Already, in the People's Republics of Canada and Sweden, pastors have been fined or even jailed for sermons in their own churches under homonazi laws against saying anything negative about homosexual behaviour: i.e. they must in effect renounce their religion of biblical Christianity.

    As Thomas Sowell (who is not a Christian AFAIK) said recently:

    Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay “marriage”.

    Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

    ...

    Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

    Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

    None of us has a right to other people's approval.

    Note that Proposition 8 was not about banning same-sex marriages, but about restricting government's ability to force the rest of us to recognize same-sex unions as marriage. S.T. Karnick writes in The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex “Marriage” Undermines a Free Society"

    ...
    Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.

    ...

    In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not.

    The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.
    ...

    Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex “marriage” ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Sometimes it is forgotten that we are supposed to be living in a liberal democracy, and what that should mean is that there are cases where the right of the majority (or their representatives) to interfere with the freedoms of consensual minorities should simply not exist. If you want a society where freedoms are always up for a vote then that is not a liberal democracy but a state of majority tyranny.
    All true; I tend to the libertarian view that government should punish actions that hurt others, not those that might hurt themselves. But Obamov wants a tyranny of an oligarchy of activist judges who follow the "living consitution" crap.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 11-11-2008 at 06:36 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #5
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But the Gay-Stapo wants to make it their business. Already, in the People's Republics of Canada and Sweden, pastors have been fined or even jailed for sermons in their own churches under homonazi laws against saying anything negative about homosexual behaviour: i.e. they must in effect renounce their religion of biblical Christianity.
    Separate issue. I'd be interested in any evidence that any attempt has been made to force churches to marry gay people.

    As Thomas Sowell (who is not a Christian AFAIK) said recently:

    [INDENT]Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

    Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.
    This is rather like going back 100 or so years and saying:

    "Another fraud being discussed this year is female suffrage.

    Voting has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant voting by men. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise when men vote."

    What is there in marriage law that cannot be easily translated to gay marriage? Furthermore, the "circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman" have shifted a great deal (at least in frequency) over that 100 years - and the law has frequently shifted with them.

    Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
    So? Gay unions often at least raise children and how children are raised is far more important than how they are produced. And as for marriage not being a right, since when are heterosexual couples of eligible age and wanting to marry refused permission to do so? It's certainly a legal and an actual right for heterosexual couples as well as a reasonable (if far from necessary) entitlement - what other kind of "right" does Sowell imagine exists?

    Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
    Actually in this particular debate we are discussing whether it is anybody else's business if gay people marry. The answer is that it isn't.

    None of us has a right to other people's approval.
    Sowell certainly doesn't have a right to mine for the feeble arguments he is making against gay marriage.

    All true, but Obamov wants a tyranny of an oligarchy of activist judges who follow the "living consitution" crap.
    Irrelevant since in this case those activist judges would be likely to interpret the constitution in a libertarian direction, which is welcome given the severity of the obstacles to changing it.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Separate issue. I'd be interested in any evidence that any attempt has been made to force churches to marry gay people.
    That cited article says:

    The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse … provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex “liberators” are in practice, including the following:

    Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. …

    And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

    Add this to the instances of fining and even jailing pastors for daring to oppose the homonazi agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    This is rather like going back 100 or so years and saying:

    "Another fraud being discussed this year is female suffrage.

    Voting has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant voting by men. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise when men vote."
    Not at all. Marriage has existed for millennia, and has always means man + woman; voting is a relatively recent invention, and there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to men.

    And the high black vote against this Gay-stapo judicial fiat shows they are not buying the crap that opposing gay "marriage" is like opposing inter-racial marriage. Of course it isn't, since race is not inherent in the definition of marriage, but man and woman is. The Gay-stapo argument is like accusing proponents of single-sex loos as akin to supporters of white-only loos.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 11-11-2008 at 08:02 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That cited article says:

    [INDENT]The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse … provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex “liberators” are in practice, including the following:

    Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.


    Well so it should. If an institution is getting tax-exempt status for doing good deeds then the government has every right to insist that it treat all people equally. If it doesn't want to do this it can go back to paying its normal taxes like anything else. This has nothing to do with libertarianism because (a) tax-exempt status of religious institutions is not an unconditional liberty anyway (b) true libertarians believe we should all be exempt from nearly all existing taxes so would only consider this debate to be one about one level of tax oppression vs another (and a far from straightforward one, since a tax exemption for churches means more tax oppression for the rest.)

    In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. …
    Again this is a separate issue with nothing to do with gay marriage.

    And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.
    And this is also a separate issue because she was objecting to photographing a "commitment ceremony" not a marriage. However, FWIW, this is an issue where I don't believe the state has any role. A business that discriminates over something as non-essential as a photograph should not be punished by Human Rights Commissions and the like. Rather it should be punished through outing as homophobic in free and fair debate, hopefully leading to a massive backlash, consumer boycott and bankruptcy.

    Not at all. Marriage has existed for millennia, and has always means man + woman
    No it doesn't. It can mean man + women in many countries as I already pointed out above.

    voting is a relatively recent invention,
    You mean "relatively recent", like in Ancient Greece? Sheesh, according to you that's over a quarter of the age of the earth ago!

    and there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to men.
    Not anymore. But once upon a time to argue that women should be able to vote would bring you even more ridicule than those arguing for gay marriage get from the most outrageous of homophobes.

    And the high black vote against this Gay-stapo judicial fiat shows they are not buying the crap that opposing gay "marriage" is like opposing inter-racial marriage.
    I'm not sure what it shows, but I doubt it's that, since the issue of inter-racial marriage is one that affects all races.

    Of course it isn't, since race is not inherent in the definition of marriage, but man and woman is. The Gay-stapo argument is like accusing proponents of single-sex loos as akin to supporters of white-only loos.
    No, it's like what would happen if there were loos for some sorts of people and no loos at all (or inferior ones) for others.

  8. #8
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    So are people opposed to the practice of legally binding civil unions between same-sex couples or are they simply against the use of the word marriage? For me I couldn't care less about the semantic debate. And I cant think of any valid reason for me to oppose same-sex unions. I just can't see it having any direct bearing me.

    Assuming same-sex marriage is legal, should churches be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples? What about inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, asian couples, elderly couples, dogs? At what point does it become discrimination or a farce? I agree with KB about them loosing their tax free status if they do refuse. Being tax free is essentially the same as being government funded.

    It is easy to why same-sex couples are demanding equal treatment by public institutions since they pay their taxes just like hetero couples. But to what extent should private institutions be allowed to discriminate? Personally I think price/income should be the only discriminator. If you are offering a service to memebers or the public you should offer it equally to everyone, except where it would be dangerous to do so.
    Last edited by TheJoker; 11-11-2008 at 08:39 PM.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531

    On the subject of homosexual couples.

    If two (or even more!) men or women want to live together, as well as to have sexual relationship, it's their business. They don't need my (or anyone else) approval.
    I am free to disapprove (and express it publicly). They are free to completely disregard it and tell me to go jump.

    However, they don't have right to force me to approve it. They can't force to say it's normal. They can't force me to use the word "gay" in the meaning "homosexual", even though that's what same-sex advocate are trying to do.
    As a result, the word "gay" complete lost it's original meaning.
    Also I don't want them to force teaching of homosexuality as normal relationship in school.

    Latest referendum in California was not about right of same sex couple. They already have the same rights as married couples. It was about redefining the meaning of word "marriage".

    Historically the raison-d-etra for marriage and family was rearing and bringing up children. Of course it's not the only reason people marry Nowadays, but it does not justify changing the meaning of the word and legal term.

    Homosexuals are free to pick up any fancy name for the same sex couple. They can even call their union marriage. But they can't force me to call it marriage.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    This discussion looks like it could well do with a thread split. Unless everyone is finished commending McCain on his gracious loser's speech and is happy to talk solely about the pros and cons of gay marriage.

    Regarding the raising of children issue, there are already many children being raised by gay couples and if that is the main reason we "allow" men and women to marry then there should be no impediment to gay marriage.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Latest referendum in California was not about right of same sex couple. They already have the same rights as married couples.
    Then why do you have authors like this Karnick person arguing that the entitlements of same sex couples (re treatment by employers and insurance agencies) are very much at stake.

    It was about redefining the meaning of word "marriage".
    Well there is already no consensus on that subject anyway. We have, in this world, people who think marriage is forever and people who think it is a codification of serial monogamy. We have people who think marriage is a relationship between a dominant man and a submissive woman whose place is in the kitchen (though this view is certainly on the way out) and people who think it is an equal alliance of the sexes. There are cultures where marriage is between a man and up to four different women, and others where it can be arranged by parents rather than agreed between the parties. There are people who think marriage is a licence to have sex or a licence to breed and others who regard marriage as valid but consider it irrelevant to those issues. And so on.

    Historically the raison-d-etra for marriage and family was rearing and bringing up children.
    It was also to define the husband's rights over the wife, an attitude that has fallen by the wayside. Who cares what things were "historically" when there is legitimate reason for change (and anyway, gay people can bring up children too).

    Homosexuals are free to pick up any fancy name for the same sex couple. They can even call their union marriage. But they can't force me to call it marriage.
    No one is forcing you to call it anything, just as nobody forces me to call all mixed-sex marriages "marriages". For instance, I could decide that from this point on I will call every marriage involving one or more people who do not support gay marriage a pseudomarriage. I could declare that if a person does not recognise the right of all people all consenting adult human couples not already married to anyone else to marry, then I consider their own "marriage" meaningless. Would the Polizei be at my door for that? I doubt it somehow.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 12-11-2008 at 12:39 AM. Reason: belated attempt at Jono-proofing

  12. #12
    Banned Hydra Crossfire (Axiom)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    The very simple has been politicised beyond recognition .
    The definition of "marriage" is the legal union between a man and a women .
    If the homosexuals want their own legal union then perhaps call it something else .
    Otherwise a change of definition is necessary

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Then why do you have authors like this Karnick person arguing that the entitlements of same sex couples (re treatment by employers and insurance agencies) are very much at stake.
    Ask Karnick, not me

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Well there is already no consensus on that subject anyway. We have, in this world, people who think marriage is forever and people who think it is a codification of serial monogamy. We have people who think marriage is a relationship between a dominant man and a submissive woman whose place is in the kitchen (though this view is certainly on the way out) and people who think it is an equal alliance of the sexes. There are cultures where marriage is between a man and up to four different women, and others where it can be arranged by parents rather than agreed between the parties. There are people who think marriage is a licence to have sex or a licence to breed and others who regard marriage as valid but consider it irrelevant to those issues. And so on.
    They all have two things in common:
    1. Between man and woman (or women)
    2. Children is the major issue they are trying to address.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    No one is forcing you to call it anything, just as nobody forces me to call all mixed-sex marriages "marriages".
    Change of law will

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    For instance, I could decide that from this point on I will call every marriage involving one or more people who do not support gay marriage a pseudomarriage. I could declare that if a person does not recognise the right of all people all consenting adult human couples not already married to anyone else to marry, then I consider their own "marriage" meaningless. Would the Polizei be at my door for that? I doubt it somehow.
    Actually, if you voice your objections against homosexuality too loudly in, say, Canada, you might find Polizei not only at your door, but in your house as well.

    Let me ask two questions:
    What right homosexuals do not have that married families do have?
    If the same-sex union is redefined as marriage, what extra rights would it give to same-sex couple?
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  14. #14
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Oh, I see there's more:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Note that Proposition 8 was not about banning same-sex marriages, but about restricting government's ability to force the rest of us to recognize same-sex unions as marriage.
    People can decide for themselves what they consider to be "a marriage". If the government considers two people to be married but an individual disagrees with the rites or laws under which they were married and thinks it isn't a "real" marriage, that's up to them. The law can't dictate what people think. So who would be "forced" to recognise anything and how? Aaah, I see, your next source has the answers to that ...

    Quote Originally Posted by S.T.Karnick (whoever that is)
    Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.
    Karnick goes on to suggest the rights of the following are at risk:

    * Churches. A moot point and a scare campaign unless any evidence can be supplied that the law would force all churches to perform gay marriages.

    * Insurance companies and employers: oooh, no, insurance companies and employers might be prohibited from scamming gay couples by treating them differently from same-sex couples. What a frightening impact that might have on their balance sheets given the enormous number of gay people getting married every second that they can. How did such noble institutions survive the rise of women's rights in the workplace without going under?

    In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position.
    Not if the same freedom to not treat unions as marriages is not extended to mixed-sex couples of marrying age. (And see below.)

    The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.
    This sounds like scare campaigning as well. Adoption agencies already have very extensive powers to discriminate against those couples where they can demonstrate that the welfare of the child is at elevated risk of harm by adoption by those parents. If they can't demonstrate it in this case it is a non-issue, if they can demonstrate it they should be allowed to refuse, and if they can demonstrate it but aren't allowed to refuse then that is a matter for adoption law reform and not a reason to stop gay people from marrying.

    Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex “marriage” ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not.
    This is disingeneous contradictory twaddle. Karnick argues that legalising gay marriage will force people to recognise gay couples as married, and then argues that the legality of mixed-sex marriage (as it exists) doesn't currently force people to recognise married couples as married. Bizarre ...

    The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.
    ...
    ... oh, but he's saying that's because "society" requires it and the law is simply the tail that is wagged by the dog. He doesn't bother considering whether the biases inherent in "historical and cultural preferences dating back millenia" might themselves be "unfair or oppressive" as they so often have been before.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    This sounds like scare campaigning as well. Adoption agencies already have very extensive powers to discriminate against those couples where they can demonstrate that the welfare of the child is at elevated risk of harm by adoption by those parents. If they can't demonstrate it in this case it is a non-issue, if they can demonstrate it they should be allowed to refuse, and if they can demonstrate it but aren't allowed to refuse then that is a matter for adoption law reform and not a reason to stop gay people from marrying.
    Generally speaking, you are right (in an ideal world). In reality, adoption agency follows certain procedures. If, on one hand, those procedures do not prescribe against adoption by same-sex couple (IMO, they should, and I am happy to discuss it), and, on the other hand, this agency is subjected to pressure from vocal activist group screaming "discrimination" each time application by same-sex couple is rejected, this agency will quickly start giving those same-sex couple a preferential treatment.
    If you observe real world time to time, you'd agree that's the most likely outcome.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ACF website updating [STRICTLY ON-TOPIC THREAD]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 31-08-2018, 07:00 PM
  2. off-topic flaming sf parliament thread
    By Redmond Barry in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18-04-2016, 05:54 PM
  3. NZ Chess Off Topic Thread
    By LNah in forum New Zealand Chess
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-12-2014, 05:28 PM
  4. off topic stuff from mobile phone thread
    By ER in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20-04-2009, 10:50 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
  •