Lesbian Rejected as Foster Parent Sues Federal Government

[Meretica]

That's the worst thing about progress - more often than not it happens too slowly.

Tell me about it they've been fighting for the Unborn for 40 years and it keeps getting worse. The Second Amendment would be gone if we didn't take a stand.

...that's called regression, not progression.

[Christian Confederation]

Tell me about it they've been fighting for the Unborn for 40 years and it keeps getting worse. The Second Amendment would be gone if we didn't take a stand.

...that's called regression, not progression.

Steps to a more moral society is progress

[Neuer California]

...that's called regression, not progression.

Steps to a more moral society is progress

So, out of curiosity, does expanding LGBT rights lead to a more or less moral society? If less, why?

[Necroghastia]

That's the worst thing about progress - more often than not it happens too slowly.

Tell me about it they've been fighting for the Unborn for 40 years and it keeps getting worse. The Second Amendment would be gone if we didn't take a stand.

I wish you'd take a stand about something on topic.

[Christian Confederation]

Steps to a more moral society is progress

So, out of curiosity, does expanding LGBT rights lead to a more or less moral society? If less, why?

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

[Neuer California]

So, out of curiosity, does expanding LGBT rights lead to a more or less moral society? If less, why?

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

How does it destroy marriage and families?

[Christian Confederation]

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

How does it destroy marriage and families?

Marriage is sacred bond between a husband and wife, One man and one Woman into one family.

[Meretica]

How does it destroy marriage and families?

Marriage is sacred bond between a husband and wife, One man and one Woman into one family.

Then is marriage not a basic right?

[Vassenor]

How does it destroy marriage and families?

Marriage is sacred bond between a husband and wife, One man and one Woman into one family.

So you're forcing your views onto cultures that support consenual polyamory and destroying marriage and families for them.

[Neuer California]

How does it destroy marriage and families?

Marriage is sacred bond between a husband and wife, One man and one Woman into one family.

According to certain religious figures and scriptures, but the US gov't is not bound by such things, being a secular institution, ergo it can define marriage any way it wants within its constitutional framework.

[Kilobugya]

Marriage is sacred bond between a husband and wife, One man and one Woman into one family.

Marriage is a social construct that has different shapes, limits and meaning for different people and in different culture. You can't just take one arbitrary definition and sets of limits for it and push it on others without any justification, that's not how social constructs work. Whenever you want to restrict a social institutions like marriage and keep some people outside of it, you need a very good reason to do it, not just referring to an arbitrary definition.

You can justify banning marriage before 18 because teenagers can be too easily coerced/forced/manipulated into it, you can justify banning marriage between a sister and a brother due to risk of genetic defects in children, you can justify banning polygamy because of the asymmetry it creates and risks of abuses. But putting arbitrary limits like banning interracial marriage or marriage between two people of the same sex without justification, just because "that's not what it is" ? That's totally irrational and highly harmful.

[The New California Republic]

So, out of curiosity, does expanding LGBT rights lead to a more or less moral society? If less, why?

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

No evidence whatsoever that it "destroys marriage and families".

[Kilobugya]

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

No evidence whatsoever that it "destroys marriage and families".

What really "destroys marriage and families" are unemployment. Insane working hours and workplace stress. Foreclosure and eviction. Oddly we don't see many of those "gay want to destroy marriage or family" fight against those...

[Liebendeland]

So, out of curiosity, does expanding LGBT rights lead to a more or less moral society? If less, why?

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

Agree for the families part

[Vassenor]

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

Agree for the families part

Still pretending that "gay parents corrupt kids to make them gay" isn't homophobic rhetoric, I see.

[The New California Republic]

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

Agree for the families part

No evidence that LGBT rights "destroys families".

[Ifreann]

Damn, we arguing about basic rights for gay people? It's 2008 all over again.

[Liebendeland]

Agree for the families part

No evidence that LGBT rights "destroys families".

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God. Adoption should be limited to infertile women. Gay marriage? Sure. Gay adoption? Er...

[Kannap]

So, out of curiosity, does expanding LGBT rights lead to a more or less moral society? If less, why?

Everyone deserves basic rights. But to destroy marriage and families in such a way I can support in no shape or form.

Allowing same sex couples to partake in marriage only strengthens the institution, rather than destroy it. Likewise when we as a nation started allowing interracial couples to marry.

[Ifreann]

No evidence that LGBT rights "destroys families".

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God. Adoption should be limited to infertile women. Gay marriage? Sure. Gay adoption? Er...

God isn't real.

[Liebendeland]

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God. Adoption should be limited to infertile women. Gay marriage? Sure. Gay adoption? Er...

God isn't real.

You wish.

[Kannap]

No evidence that LGBT rights "destroys families".

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God.

For people who believe in God in that particular way, sure. There are billions of people who don't.

[The New California Republic]

No evidence that LGBT rights "destroys families".

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God.

Nah, perhaps that's your idea of it as well as some of your fellow Christians' idea of it, but don't try to claim monopoly over what "family" is.

Adoption should be limited to infertile women. Gay marriage? Sure. Gay adoption? Er...

Not really giving a reason for that I see. If it's based upon the previous however, then that's a shaky foundation to say the least.

[Alleghennia]

No evidence that LGBT rights "destroys families".

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God. Adoption should be limited to infertile women. Gay marriage? Sure. Gay adoption? Er...

So...
Adoption should be Limited to those who cannot create Children, Like Infertile women?
Or Gays...
Or Lesbians...
What's the line?

[Kilobugya]

The entire idea of a family is to reproduce in the name of God.

Actually, the idea of a family predates the idea of a monotheist god by a few dozens of millennia, at least.

Adoption should be limited to infertile women.

You're contradicting yourself. If family is only to "reproduce in the name of God", then infertile women (or men), or people who don't want children shouldn't marry. And atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry or have children either, I guess ?

Gay marriage? Sure. Gay adoption? Er...

How does an interfile hetero couple and an infertile gay couple differ in any way for adoption ? The best couple, the one more able to provide a loving, caring and nurturing environment for the child should be chosen, the future parents skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ... are completely irrelevant for that.