tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post116207298224335595..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Will Wisconsin become Jersey North?: Doyle and FalkRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162327982753440892006-10-31T14:53:00.000-06:002006-10-31T14:53:00.000-06:00Rick,How can you possibly sit here and write that ...Rick,<BR/>How can you possibly sit here and write that the constitutional amendment will have no effect on same-sex adoption? Of course it will! You are institutionalizing bigotry in the constitution. Therefore, there is no longer a reasonable argument that unequal protection in unconstittuional.<BR/><BR/>And to Dad29-- get your facts straight. No matter how often you repeat it, it is simply not true that children fare worse growing up in same-zex households. Read the American Academy of Pediatrics (those crazy liberal doctors...)meta-analysis for starters. <BR/><BR/>I think you all should get your own house in order before attacking mine. You all have huge divorce rates, extraordinary percentage of children born out of wedlock, child abuse and so on and so on. Pass an amendment about that, why don't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162216226935521432006-10-30T07:50:00.000-06:002006-10-30T07:50:00.000-06:00Here's how the amendment would affect the ability ...Here's how the amendment would affect the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children.<BR/><BR/>No effect. This would continue to be a policy choice made by individual states. There is, of course, a huge difference between recognizing and encouraging intact families of origin and trying to find the best place possible for kids when this is no loger possible.<BR/><BR/>We have some inkling of how same-sex marriage would affect a view that, all things equal, a mother and father are best. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption business because it refused to let go of that benighted notion.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162175373305208922006-10-29T20:29:00.000-06:002006-10-29T20:29:00.000-06:00Speaking of "asses," Anonymous, look in a mirror.R...Speaking of "asses," Anonymous, look in a mirror.<BR/><BR/>Re-read my comment, this time for meaning--you know, look up all the words you don't know, like HOMOSEX-adoptions...<BR/><BR/>Get back to me when you've taken your chill-pills.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162171285220501572006-10-29T19:21:00.000-06:002006-10-29T19:21:00.000-06:00"There are no longitudinal studies to support (or ..."There are no longitudinal studies to support (or disprove) the value of homosex-couple-adoptions. Moreover, it is a practice which the vast majority of the human race does not tolerate."<BR/><BR/>Wow -- what a load of crap! My 21-year old adopted Korean daughter came to my wife (she's a woman, daddy, and I am a man) and I from a country where ADOPTION is "simply not done" and where the vast majority of the people "do not tolerate" it. Should she have been deprived of a loving home and should we have been deprived of the many pleasures of parenthood?<BR/><BR/>Sometime I think you simply blow this stuff out your ass. And some of your comments suggest a relatively unhealthy fixation with that particular orifice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162132793678707442006-10-29T08:39:00.000-06:002006-10-29T08:39:00.000-06:00Amazon, you would propose that "equality" is a pri...Amazon, you would propose that "equality" is a primary value. It is not; hetero-marriage is antecedent and fundamental.<BR/><BR/>Civil society (the positive law) cannot create nor enforce a state which is un-natural; and when it does so, it does so at the very significant risk that positive law will become irrelevant and encounter active mockery, if not dissent.<BR/><BR/>Without in the least disparaging the efforts and sacrifices made by homosexual couples in adopting/raising children, we are also aware that such practices are relatively new--less than 40 years old--and rare--simply not done other societies.<BR/><BR/>There are no longitudinal studies to support (or disprove) the value of homosex-couple-adoptions. Moreover, it is a practice which the vast majority of the human race does not tolerate.<BR/><BR/>And your introduction of "bigotry" is disappointing; a typical response from someone who has no argument.<BR/><BR/>Too bad.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162080565223599542006-10-28T19:09:00.000-05:002006-10-28T19:09:00.000-05:00Protecting marriage from further erosion requires ...<I>Protecting marriage from further erosion requires a "yes" vote....</I><BR/><BR/>So it's equality versus marriage? If we treat couples equally it will harm kids? If heterosexuals are failing children now, we must save the kids by stopping gay people from marrying?<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, I admire the Shark for abjuring the homophobia that animates most of the "yes" crowd. On the other, I can't help but think that the "save the children" argument for discrimination is rather hollow and rests on an unsupported supposition. <BR/><BR/>In the end it's just a sophisticated (sophistical) argument for the bigotry of your bedfellows, Shark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com