hey people, i need our opinions...

i'm doing a debate for a class well actually 2 debates

i'm against capital punishment and for homosexual adoptions...
give me your opinions on each of the above topics....

thank you!

Based on your views you must / might be Canadian !

(its not a slight at all, I am Canadian)

Giving the Canadian perspective, we are guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is a fairly advanced bill of rights compared against many modern democracies.

You might consider looking at your bills of rights for your country as a basis for your argument.

In Canada, same sex adoption was not specifically mentioned within the charter of rights in 1982 but subsequent court challenges have established precedents (the Charter was designed to allow this in order that the Charter be a living breathing thing) which have allowed for same sex adoption in many Canadian jurisdictions.

One such precedent - (1999) Re A, Martin J stated that legislation should only look to the suitability of parents, rather than to their sexual orientation.

A quick search on the web turned up this, it may be dated:
In the case of Re K and B,(12) the Ontario Court found the Child and Family Services Act 1990 (Ontario) infringed section 15 of the Charter by not allowing same sex couples to bring a joint application for adoption. The court modified the Act's definition of spouse to include same sex couples, thereby permitting same sex joint applications under the Act. As the result of legislative amendments same sex couples may also jointly apply to adopt in the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan. These provinces have already amended laws to remove discrimination against gay men and lesbians, following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that homosexual couples should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.



Capital Punishment

Canada abolished C.P. in 1974. The last execution took place in 1962. Its fair to say that Canadians generally are not in favour of CP although every once in a while something heinous happens that causes us all to think hard about our views.

Over the past 10 years or so a number of convicted murderers have had their convictions overturned as a result of subsequent information - mostly DNA testing - that either completely invalidated the case or introduced so much doubt as to invalidate the conviction. Canadians tend to think hard about these false convictions when thinking about CP.

My personal opinion on this is that violent crime requires very strong deterents and that our current system needs to be made tougher, but not with the re-introduction of CP.

You missed a hell of a thread on the death penalty here a while back, here's the link, many many interesting views which should help you out:http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49789&highlight=death+penalty

Im against capital punishment.

Im for homosexual adoptions.

Given the position that some kids are in to get adopted and the vetting that goes into an adoption couple if any couple pass I dont see any reasons as to why they can't look after a kid fine. 2 mums or dads.

Originally posted by coolguy23
hey people, i need our opinions...

i'm doing a debate for a class well actually 2 debates

i'm against capital punishment and for homosexual adoptions...
give me your opinions on each of the above topics....

thank you!


Capital Punishment:
Mixed... Only for the reason that once a life is taken, it can never be changed, even if it turns out the person was innocent.

As for homosexual adoptions, I feel the same about it as I do about homosexual marriage. :puke:

:uhh: Not to offend anyone, JMPO.

BC12 :stickout

www.debatabase.com

Excellent resource.

In the last 2 months:
I fought against death penalty and lost
I fought agains prostitution and won
I will fight for nuclear power next week (I'll win this one guarenteed though :))

Here is one of my speeches just to give you some ideas :


BIRT The death penalty is an acceptable practice.

Speech (2nd speech overall, 1st negative)

An innocent man is tried and convicted of murder. After months in court, he’s sent to death row where he remains for years upon years of hell. After his eternity in prison, he’s finally sent to the gas chamber where he suffers a slow, painful death. And for what? Being wrongly convicted?
Despite what anyone says, there is nothing moral or ‘right’ about capitol punishment. Of the relatively few death penalties handed down over the last few years, many were likely given due to biases or flaws in the system. Whether these biases are due to race, sex, lack of funds, or simply flaws, where the wrong person was convicted based on the evidence provided.
------------------
I’d like begin by pointing out that we are using many stats from the USA as they are socially the closet country to us still using capitol punishment.(Therefore also likely most relevant to us here in Canada.)

Despite the common feeling that racism is no longer a part of our lives, we can prove otherwise. Look no further than the roster of people in the United State’s death row. Of the 18 people currently on death row, 16, or 89% are either black or Hispanic (source: CIA). Now consider that the nation’s population is made up of less than 15% black/Hispanics. Are that many more black/Hispanics criminals? We’d like to suggest not.
Our research has shown that blacks are at the most, four times more likely to take part in violent crime than whites (statistically speaking). This figure is the highest we could find and was found at a site discriminating against blacks. Even if this is correct, a maximum of 60% of those on death row should be black. Therefore, we still have 30% too many non-whites on death row.
A 1998 study by the Death Penalty Information Center revealed that of those found guilty of murder1, the odds of receiving the death penalty was over FOUR TIMES as high for black criminals than whites. (Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, NC, Mississippi) The race of the victims also show some disruption – although murders are split 50/50 between blacks and whites, 90% of all capitol cases involve those where the victims were white (US Bureau of Justice Statistics).
--------------------
In all democratic countries utilizing capitol punishment, there is a maze of federal and state procedures to be dealt with. These require the most knowledgeable and diligent lawyers. Unfortunately, these are also the most expensive lawyers, and most of those convicted cannot afford them. They are instead appointed with underpaid, state-appointed lawyers, who have been documented to sleep through sections of their client’s trial (Calvin Burdine’s lawyer – acknowledged by the US Appeals Court). It has also been said by judges, for example Supreme Justice Ruth Ginsburg “…People who are well represented… do not get the death penalty”
------------------



As aforementioned, sexism is another issue with the death penalty. Since (the Furman vs. Georgia case in) 1972, 13% of those arrested for murder were women. Only 2% of these women had death sentences imposed at trial level, and only 1% were actually executed (8 of 750 (1.1%) since 1972). (DeathPenaltyInfo.org)
------------------
Many feel that the death penalty is an effective form of deterrence. This is contradicted by an ’88 study conducted by the UN (updated ’96), concluding that there was no scientific proof that capitol punishment acted as an effective deterrence.
Their findings make perfect sense. Most murders are committed as:
a) an act of passion (heat of the moment) where little or no thought is given to punishment
b) planned and carried out by professionals (i.e. gangs, assassins) where they don’t plan on being caught.
The UN study actually pointed to Canada, where the homicide rate has dropped 43% since the death penalty was abolished in 1976. In states where death penalty has been phased out or re-implemented, there were no significant changes in homicide rates. (examples? ?).
Those who have killed in areas where the death penalty is a possible punishment also might feel they have nothing to lose by killing again.
-----------------
Both the Jamaican and the New Zealand governments continue to issue death penalties largely due to public sentiment. Both countries have considered dropping the punishment but backed out due to public outcries. (e.g. the Zimb. Ass. Of Crime Prev. & Rehab.)
However, victim’s families complain that the slow capitol punishment process prolongs their pain and only serves to make their healing more elusive. They say they need emotional and financial support, not more violence. (ACLU.org American Civil Liberties Union)
---------------------
Considering the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, why should the government seek it, often against the wishes of the victim’s own families?

Being Roman Catholic...

I am against death penalty in industrialized coumtries, as it is not neccesary... We can safely keep people for life in prison. Treason is the only offense to be punished by death. In third world countries, it may be neccesary, due to a lack of secure prisons, and therefore is neccesary for public safety.

As for homosexual adoption... well... homosexual marriages are wrong, and so is adoption, IMHO... There is no balance... You have balance with male and female role models. I'm prepared to be flamed... :mad:

- James:

Originally posted by zRedDice
Being Roman Catholic...

I am against death penalty in industrialized coumtries, as it is not neccesary... We can safely keep people for life in prison. Treason is the only offense to be punished by death. In third world countries, it may be neccesary, due to a lack of secure prisons, and therefore is neccesary for public safety. - James:

How can you equivocate on the death penalty based on geography, politics or culture? Surely in less developed areas of the world the rule of law is far less evenly applied, leading to huge potential for abuse of capital punishment by the state.

The US Catholic Bishops are against capital punishment - no where in their statements have I read that "its ok to kill offenders in the third world, just not in the US".

http://www.rc.net/hartford/st_joseph/deacon/deathteach.html

"The Roman Catholic discussion on the morality of the death penalty can best be understood as one that attempts to promote a consistent pro-life ethic across the moral spectrum. This consistent life ethic has emerged in a century where human technological progress has gone hand in hand with the invention of more lethal and efficient ways of killing people--this Pope John Paul II refers to as the culture of death. The insistence on the pro-life ethic is in concert with Pope John Paul II's call to build a civilization of love. This will only happen when the sacred dignity of each person is protected, honored and nourished throughout all stages of human becoming"

Culture of death indeed. If its ok for less developed nations where does the slippery slope stop? Ok for less educated Americans?

There are four main arguments that I can see against the death penalty

Killing people, even in punishment, is morally wrong
Capital punishment was originally ment not only to punish, but to frighten others. Our present day quick and easy killings don't do that.
The justice system is flawed, hence the reason why there have been many death row inmates freed.
Most other civilized countries don't do. Peer pressure is good in this case.


Onto gay adopting rights, I say hell yeah. The purpose of adoption, as far as I can see, is to make sure a child has a good home to live in. A homosexual couple can provide that just as well as a heterosexual couple can. Also, don't they have a right not be descriminated against because of their sexual orientation?

In RE:

If you have a situation where holding someone in custody is no longer possible, and that person directly becomes a threat to the safety of people, then it becomes an issue of the moral responsibility of the government to keep the people safe. I said third world for a reason. In the United States, Europe, and other - dare I say - "rich" areas of the world have the resources to hold people in custody, without allowing them to threaten innocent people. In many third world countires, especially in Africa, the government is not strong enough to do this, and therefore it becomes a problem.

- James

zRedDice:

Your arguement sounds logical but is flawed. More people are killed in the name of law and order in such non-rich areas of the world when the real rationale is political.

Killing a woman for adultery is fair game in many areas of the world, but clearly she poses no "danger to the public" for her crime. Let there be no doubt that her crime is "political" whether one drapes the crime in the robes of religion or not - its clearly political.

Your Pope and leaders condem capital punishment and the culture of death. Bravo for them. In this at least they lead a just cause.

I wasent planning on posting to this, but I just had a thought or two. First off capital punishment is wrong. Not because you end someones life, but because if they were really bad. Locking them up in a dark room for 30 years is much more painfull. As for gay rights. This stuff is so dumb. I always forget the goverments stand on this stuff, but when it comes to this it all boils down to religion. If the church and state were truely seperate then there would and should be no difference between adoptions between gay and stright married couples. same goes for the view if they should be allowed to marry. It is all just so stupid.

Yep I agree in capital punishment for homosexual adoptions.

interesting thread!!

well,, my view on capital punishment is this.. I AM for it!!! Although, I feel it should be altered a little bit!! :D If the criminal is convicted, beyond any possibility of reasonable doubt, then he/she should die the EXACT same way their victim died... And it should happen IMMEDIATELY!!! I think this would stop some a lot of crime from happening because as it is now, someone gets convicted, sentenced to death and waits for 10 or more years sometimes before the sentence is carried out.. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!!!

and as for gays adopting children.. absolutely!! I know a lot of gay men and women and they are just as able to love and care for a child as anyone else.. Sebesides, it would make a PTA meeting one hell of a fun night!!!

In my book, everyone stands equal.. be you gay, bi, str8, black, white, etc,,, I just live my life as happily as I can with the one I LOVE and try to spread that feeling to everyone around me.. You see, when I was 17yo (31 now :( ) I lost my very best friend in this world due to an accident... Never got to say goodbye or how much I cared for her.. I vowed that day many years ago to always take a step back and make sure people know you care and just make someone smile!!!

OK.. I should write a book... I KNOW!!! You all are the best, I have learned so freakin much here it is scary and I am ready to start reselling.. WOO HOO!!! The webbie boy is moving forward... thanks all!!

Originally posted by kevinwholder
well,, my view on capital punishment is this.. I AM for it!!! Although, I feel it should be altered a little bit!! :D If the criminal is convicted, beyond any possibility of reasonable doubt, then he/she should die the EXACT same way their victim died... And it should happen IMMEDIATELY!!! I think this would stop some a lot of crime from happening because as it is now, someone gets convicted, sentenced to death and waits for 10 or more years sometimes before the sentence is carried out.. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!!!

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Originally posted by Dogma



well,, you are correct!!! I guess then we will just have to help the families of the victims in breaking them out of jail and letting them complete the ole sentence!! ;)

:rolleyes:

I do see your point though.. just have a different view I reckon!! whether they pay now or later, it really does not matter.. It just matters that they WILL pay someday!!

I'm against capital punishment!

Why? Because when you take then down, they are gone from the world, free from their guilt and remorse (unless you believe in the heaven and hell debate)! Why not let them spend the rest of their lives sitting in a dark, empty room and letting them stew in their own guilt? I think that is much more satisfying for those who were victims of their crimes, and also for the victims' relatives.

Okay, I'm evil. So sue me :stickout

As for homosexual adoption, why not? When 2 people of the same gender make a commitment to stay true to each other for life, the commitment is usually much stronger than that of a heterosexual couple, because when they've chosen a partner and made it public, you can almost imagine the way the world is going to look at them, and as a result, they are less likely to divorce unlike today's many heterosexual couples. In such an environment, it will be more suitable for nuturing young children. Furthermore, who says that 2 mums or 2 dads can't give the same amount of love, or more for that matter, as a normal pair of parents? Chances are that they might love their adoptee even more to cover up for (what they personally feel) the lack of a mum/dad's love.

Simply put, my stand is no to capital punishment, but yes to homosexual adoptions. ;)

Originally posted by kevinwholder
well,, you are correct!!! I guess then we will just have to help the families of the victims in breaking them out of jail and letting them complete the ole sentence!! ;)
How the hell do you connect preventing unusual and cruel punishment and freeing people in jail?
Originally posted by kevinwholder
I do see your point though.. just have a different view I reckon!! whether they pay now or later, it really does not matter.. It just matters that they WILL pay someday!!
But you advocate an eye for an eye. That means, and by your own definition, that if I were to slowly burn someone will raping them that would have to be done to me. That is cruel and unusual. And who the hell would want to enforce/do that?!?!

Yes, we do have a different view. Yours supports illegal action.


The state has no right to take the life of anyone as punishment for a crime. It's not right. Most other countries have realized this long ago, we need to wake up and see what they see.

Colin:

TAKE A FREAKIN' PILL!!!!! Opinions are like a*&holes.. everyone has one.. I'm not trying to become a lawyer or even convict or punish anyone.. Would I REALLY do that?? NO!!!! My god.. was just posting a comment like the rest of you.. BTW, did you notice the lil' "wink" I placed in there??? guess not.. It's people like you I would NEVER do business with at any point or time.. Way to high strung!! <just my opinion> and please NO pm's.. I'm through with this one.. JEEEEES!!!! :rolleyes:

TAKE A FREAKIN' PILL!!!!! Opinions are like a*&holes.. everyone has one.. I'm not trying to become a lawyer or even convict or punish anyone.. Would I REALLY do that?? NO!!!! My god.. was just posting a comment like the rest of you..

More posts were thoughtful answers than not; and since there exist plenty of people who advocate vigillante justice, don't be surprised if someone questions you on a comment you have made.

Its called "attempting to understand".

It's people like you I would NEVER do business with at any point or time

Its great to have choice, isn't it. I'm sure there are hosts that feel the same way about particular clients.

;)

Originally posted by kevinwholder
Opinions are like a*&holes.. everyone has one..
We agree!
Originally posted by kevinwholder
I'm not trying to become a lawyer or even convict or punish anyone.. Would I REALLY do that?? NO!!!! My god.. was just posting a comment like the rest of you..
The original poster stated that s/he was participating in a debate and asked for opinions. It doesn't matter what you do for a profession, you posted a comment. Since she is anti-capital punishment I posted a counter-attack because that's what s/he is going to have to do.
Originally posted by kevinwholder
BTW, did you notice the lil' "wink" I placed in there??? guess not..
Actually I did, I also noticed the :rolleyes: immediately after it.
Originally posted by kevinwholder
It's people like you I would NEVER do business with at any point or time.. Way to high strung!! <just my opinion> and please NO pm's.. I'm through with this one.. JEEEEES!!!!
Okay. Don't worry, I don't vengefully attack people.
Originally posted by kevinwholder
:rolleyes:
it's those eyes again...

But I love my eyes!!! ;)

Heck, it is just an opinion and everyone is entitled to their own.. I read this a day later and woner what mood I was in when I read it.. Hmmm...

Anyway, no hard feelings.. If I offended ANYONE it was not meant to happen.. In reality I am a very peaceful and easy going person that doesnt normally get into debates such as this..

And ya know.. I WOULD do business with you.. Heck, I would even GO into biz with you because honestly you are likely a LOT like me, very stern with beliefs and goals!!! I can see that, I really think I can....

Gotta go,, PROMISE no more rolly eyes!!!:D

Have a GREAT day!!!!!!!!

Debating is interesting. I've noticed that many people, myself including, temporarily change when they debate. I debate not only on an informal level, but also on a competition level. Because of the competition debating, I tend to attack hard in informal debate because that is a necessity for competition debating. Attack each and every point. I'm sorry for bringing that aggressive style into the forum.

And don't worry, no offence was taken. I respect that we all have opinions and that sometimes we a) have to go against those opinions and/or b) have to play devil's advocate.

My reasoning for the death penalty seems a little different than most others, so I thought I'd drop my 2 cents.

The recidivism rate of violent offenders is in the 90 percentile. That fact therefore tells me that my wife and children are at risk when this person gets out, and that is all I need to support Capital Punishment, only I think it should be extended to include not only murderers, but rapists, pedophiles, and Barbara Streisand fans.

At the risk of sounding conceded, I'm betting most of the "anti-death penality" are young, have no wife and kids, and have never been the victim of violent crime.

What about Osama bin laden? Does he deserve the death penalty?


As far as the gay adoption thing...I don't give a crap honestly.

I am in my 40's, have a wife and two young and vibrant boys. Would I change my opinion if they were ever hurt in a violent crime?

I might well, I conceed that. A natural male response - take action into our own hands - would be a powerful calling.

Is that right? Probably not.

What I do support is complete overhaul of the penal system including sentencing, with the emphasis on penal, not correction, for violent crime offenders.

I don't think I can ever support the death penalty simply because convictions have been and will continue to be overturned. Protecting the innocent must also extend to those that have been wrongfully accused and convicted. That it happens is enough - even if wrongful convictions are statistically small in comparison to violent crime offences.

In addition, capital punishment crosses what I believe the boundaries of the state should be. If we add religious beliefs the opposition to captial punishment becomes complete.

Osama - I'm sure Dogma would enjoy debating where war begins vs punishment for crime. I wonder what might be accomplished if he were captured alive.

I'm more than prepared to say let viscious criminals rot in jail, for a lifetime.

Originally posted by mwatkins
Osama - I'm sure Dogma would enjoy debating where war begins vs punishment for crime. I wonder what might be accomplished if he were captured alive.
It would be coughunfortunatecough if he were to be accidently killed when found. I mean, that would be horrible. . .

@mwatkins -

You call it taking action into our own hands. I'm assuming by this you mean you retalitate "after the fact", or after the violent act has occured. What interests me is that you stated, "Is that right? Probably not."

I'm having a bit of trouble with this, since we seem to be using something of a moral calculator here. I'm fairly certain if I walked upon someone strangling my child and I killed that individual, it would be considered neither wrong nor illegal. So, if I discover the knowledge of the event via the police, it's supposed to suffice to yet the "justice" system handle it and it then becomes wrong simply because the murder has already occured?



@Dogma -

"Morally wrong" eh? ;)

I'm fairly certain if I walked upon someone strangling my child and I killed that individual, it would be considered neither wrong nor illegal. Certainly not if you kill the attacker in the process of defending your child.

Would you be convicted of a crime if you killed the attacker out of revenge rather than defence? Probably not in some states or jurisdictions and certainly so in others.
So, if I discover the knowledge of the event via the police, it's supposed to suffice to yet the "justice" system handle it and it then becomes wrong simply because the murder has already occured Yes, it is, because we don't expect the individual to dispense justice.

Society decides what is right or wrong in a collective manner. Dealing out justice at the individual level brings inevitable conflict with society.

I do feel that in many areas society has allowed justice / penal system to become too weak. For example, in my country Young Offenders charged and convicted of brutal assaults (such as a machete attack on a local school kid) can not be identified - not to the media, not to their schools, teachers, etc. They serve a minimal amount of time as YO's and return to normal society where they are anything but normal citizens. This is wrong.

Back in the 60's when I was growing up we never had such laws. If you did something heinous or plain wrong you would be exposed to the criticism of your community. YO laws take away the power of society to influence these people. Its nutz.

yes, hang them high with public executions. and do it quickly before a lawyer get's a chance to bring it back to trial.

gays adopting children. interesting, never thought of it, but I would venture that if the vote came accross my desk I would vote in favor of gays adopting children. but I would want a minimum age requirement of 30 years old....

adopting children should be for people above 30, this way you have been already burned a few times and can enjoy the privlage of child raising.

Mike

Accoding to a recent statistic, 2% of the population is homosexual; however, 40% of sexual crimes are performed by homosexuals.

I am not for a homosexual couple as parents. First, children need both a mother and a father. I consider myself very blessed to have a mother and father (words cannot express my thankfulness), and wish the same for everone else. Second, homosexuality is not a good influence on children. Just think about the biased and unnatural impact it could have on the children's own sexual orientation. Many believe that homosexual behavior is something from birth. I strongly disagree, and believe your environment where you are raised has a major impact. I was raised in a small town, and no one in my high school class is a homosexual, and no one in my class became one. I am very thankful for how I was raised, and it has impacted me very positively. Third, think how a young child could be ridiculed for having homosexual parents, probably not the case today, as this society has gotten more liberal lately, but it surely would have been when and where I was in grade school. Besides that, it would be very hard to either not have a dad or not have a mom (back to my first argument).

Now, as far as the death penalty, I have mixed feelings. I have several reasons to be against the death penalty. The first reason, quite simple, there are cases where the wrong person was convicted. Second, many times people actually change their lives around. Some of you may not relate to this, but someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her personal Savior, and repented of his/her sins, has changed in a big way, and can share great love with others. Third, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I am definitely against the death penalty as vengeance. As for punishment, I am still a little on the fence.

The death penalty is wrong for two reasons:

1. It certainly would suck more to be in prison for the rest of your life than to die instantly.
2. Who wants to make the permanent decision of killing someone when evidence may turn up the second the needle goes in that would set the offender free? I mean, one of the reasons no single person "flips the switch" is so they're not stuck with the guilt of killing someone - imagine what any of those people would go through after finding out they were wrong.

I don't think Osama bin Laden should be executed, simply because I haven't seen enough reasonable evidence. It seems that he was picked as a figurehead for the entire 9/11 attacks, and only admitted involvement after it was blamed on him. I mean, given a fair, unbiased trial, he would probably not be convicted, let alone sentenced to death. Anyway, say he is executed. What good will that do? Will the American people be avenged? Good for them. Another human being will be dead, so everyone can sleep better.

Homosexual marriages and adoptions are fine with me. Parents are parents are parents. Their sexual orientation has absolutely no bearing on their ability to raise children, and the children are predisposed to being gay. That just doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by rence
Accoding to a recent statistic, 2% of the population is homosexual; however, 40% of sexual crimes are performed by homosexuals.
Do you remember where you got those statistics? I would be interested in reading them...
Originally posted by rence
I am not for a homosexual couple as parents. First, children need both a mother and a father.
Why?
Originally posted by rence
Second, homosexuality is not a good influence on children.
Oh god...
Originally posted by rence
Just think about the biased and unnatural impact it could have on the children's own sexual orientation.
What is wrong with homosexuality? I'm assuming that you are religious (from reading your posts). Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor?"
Originally posted by rence
I strongly disagree, and believe your environment where you are raised has a major impact. I was raised in a small town, and no one in my high school class is a homosexual, and no one in my class became one.
How do you know that? Maybe they were afraid of your bigotry and didn't come out of the closet for fear of your homophobic views.
Originally posted by rence
Besides that, it would be very hard to either not have a dad or not have a mom (back to my first argument).
I know people who get along just fine.

I really don't understand the anti-gay sentiment. Why can't we accept people for who they are? They aren't evil people; they're not going to try to rape your son or daughter (only the priests...). Sure, a few do so, but so do us straight folks.

This is not a matter of bigotry or anything like that. As far as "love thy neighbor," I love everybody. I just believe that homosexuality is wrong for numerous reasons. Since Dogma asks, my first reason would be the simple fact that it's unnatural. You can't create re-produce children that way, so it should be obvious that it's unnatural. I could go into even more detail of why I believe it is wrong, but it would make this post so long you wouldn't want to read it.

Because I believe a certain action is wrong, how does that make me a bigot? I am sure you believe murder is wrong; does that make you a bigot for believing that murderers should serve time in prison?

I think the basic difference between you and me is that you likely believe homosexuals were born that way. I myself strongly believe that it is a choice.

Your defense of homosexuality would be that you see straight people doing bad things; well, yes what they are doing is just as bad, and probably shouldn't be raising children either.

Just because I don't think a homosexual couple should raise children does not mean that I don't love them.

Just because I think person is doing something wrong does not mean that I don't love him/her. I even have relatives and friends who are homosexual. Although, I don't agree with the actions/choices they have made, I still love them for who they are.

I love everyone for who they are and realize that we are all sinnners. IMHO It's just some people are not fit to raise children.

There are a lot of sexual things a man and woman can do that dont produce children :()

Should that be banned?

Also how many gay couples do you know(and dont say you have seen some on tv)? I think before you make any desision you should at least know one couple. Thats like saying I dont like sushi because its raw fish(which I like, and not all sushi is raw). Without ever even trying it.

Originally posted by davidb
There are a lot of sexual things a man and woman can do that dont produce children :()


But that's part of a relationship that's natural.

Originally posted by davidb
Also how many gay couples do you know(and dont say you have seen some on tv)? I think before you make any desision you should at least know one couple. Thats like saying I dont like sushi because its raw fish(which I like, and not all sushi is raw). Without ever even trying it.

How many couples do you know that are rapists, murderers, child molestors? Do you need to know at least one of them before deciding that they can't raise children?

Every time I see this thread topic surface to the top I can't help but think about a case that is in the news right now. When I think about this case, I keep hearing in my head the comment a poster made earlier about how capital punishment in less developed areas of the world meets his moral approval because they don't have the resources to properly detain convicts.

Consider this:

A woman in Africa has been sentenced to death by stoning for carrying a child out of wedlock. The child has since been born. The Sharia law under which this country is governed is deemed merciful as they have delayed execution until after the child is weaned sometime next year.

That the woman wasn't married, and delivered a baby, is all the proof required to be convicted of adultery. Makes for a short trial.

As for men, only two conditions can make them liable to the punishment of adultery: confession or the testimony of four trustworthy witnesses who must have witnessed the commission of the crime. Yakubu denied responsibility for Safiya's pregnancy, and there were no witnesses to invalidate his avowal of innocence.

Apparently few men ever admit their misdeeds or have spectators at the event ;)

Fair? No. Isolated case of injustice? No.

References
http://allafrica.com/stories/200111010492.html

http://globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=stoning&option=&start_row=10&current_row=10&start_row_offset1=&num_rows=1&search_results_start=1

June 4 - Lagos -- An Islamic high court has postponed the execution by stoning of a woman convicted of having sex out of wedlock until she weans the baby born of the liaison. Amina Lawal Kurami, 30, was convicted and sentenced by an Islamic court in March after giving birth to a baby girl. A judge yesterday, however, agreed that Ms. Lawal should not be executed until 2004, when the baby will be old enough for weaning -- if at all.

Hmnn, some comfort "if at all" that a mother can live with, baby at the breast, for the next two years.

Sorry, I was tired this morning, what I really ment to say was I think you should at least know a couple before you make the decision, and as for the other part of what you say. I not saying this to really change your mind, I just think before you can make a desision like that, you should at least attempt to know one(by this I dont mean putting a classified in the paper and asking to watch how a gay couple acts :() ). I think there is a difference between homosexuals and rapists. I understand your point, I just personally think its wrong.

On a side note, get 2 male dogs, you would be suprised how natural it is for 2 male animals to have a sexual attraction. :)

Even if I don't agree, I understand your points also. Just sharing what I believe, even if my point of view is not popular. It is my hope that I can share my views with others peacefully and in love (which is hard to do on this subject). So I too hope that I did not offend you.

An actually good article from FOX News (suprise!) that I agree with (double suprise!!): <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54572,00.html>

Originally posted by rence




How many couples do you know that are rapists, murderers, child molestors? Do you need to know at least one of them before deciding that they can't raise children?

I am going to have to disagree here. I am in favor of Gay adoption. Gay people can raise children just as well. I have seen a few gay couples raise children and they are going along very well. And I don't know what gives you the idea that Gay people are nothing but Murderers, Child Molestors, and Rapists. You only see the bad parts of Life. All Child Molestors, Rapists, etc are not gay. The news media only brings to your attention the bad stuff, not the good stuff. If you only knew how gay relationships are. They are just like straight marriages, they love each other and don't mind showing it.
It was brought up earlier that same sex parents might affect ther child. In ways it might, but who are you to say in it. Being Gay/Lesbian is not bad in and way. It is only bad in the eyes of the church. But in my eyes god is suppose to love everyone. NOT because of decisions they have made on who they like.

Gay adoptions should be allowed. I am 10+ for them.

Thanks,
Michael Barler

Originally posted by ChiChiNet


And I don't know what gives you the idea that Gay people are nothing but Murderers, Child Molestors, and Rapists. You only see the bad parts of Life.
I am afraid you misunderstood my point. I never said that all homosexuals are murders, childer molestors and rapistis.

Another poster pointed out that I should know at least one homosexual couple before making my decision. Well, biblically, homosexuality is basically adultery, which is a sin. It is a sinful life that I believe should not be a part of raising children. Child molestation is a sinful life that should not be a part of raising children. We all are able to decide that without knowing a child molestor. So why do I need to know a homosexual couple before deciding that they should [not] raise children?

On a side note, I know at least one homosexual couple, and no, I would not want children to be forced to be adopted by them. I know that's not fair for me to make my judgment on all homosexual couples due to just my own encounters. However, my opinion is not based on that, but on my belief that homosexual acts are sinful.