quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
It is actually called the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, and nowhere does it say that an adopted child should be able to know both biological parents. It doesn't say that about children who aren't adopted either. In fact, that statement doesn't even make sense.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but making up things to support yours just makes you a lier as well as makes you sound kind of stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
It is actually called the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, and nowhere does it say that an adopted child should be able to know both biological parents. It doesn't say that about children who aren't adopted either. In fact, that statement doesn't even make sense.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but making up things to support yours just makes you a lier as well as makes you sound kind of stupid.

http://www.nya.org.uk/youthinformation-com/justice-and-equality/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child

Article 7 for example speaks about parents, not surrogate parents.
Article 8 speaks of family, not surrogate family
Article 9:

"Children and young people should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good, for example if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child. Children and young people whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child."

To me the whole set of UN Children's Rights rule out adoption by homosexuals. The spirit of the UN declaration is in favour of old traditional marriages and family values.

quote:


1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.

quote:

Absolutely no need. I had my education, speak four languages. had history and biology as well. For a long time the number of human beings on this planet were more or less in balance or steadlly increasing. A lot of childbirths, wars, famine, harvest failures, pestilences, tuberculosis and the like made sure the planet did not become overpopulated. In the 16th, 17th and 18th century Holland the average age of a human being to die was about 40 to 50 years old. Few became granddads. Things changed dramatically in the 20th century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Marriage has traditionally been a creature of state law. That is why each state has their own set of divorce laws. Regulation of marriage was not a power granted to the Feds, so it is reserved to the States.
Yes he did get Congress to pass a law about health care ( he personally didn't pass it). The big argument against that law is it exceeds the Fed's powers. We are still waiting for a decision on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Thats sort of the point. He has no policy, and there is nothng to celebrate. Obama is proving once again that he's an empty suit.

If he can pass health care, surely he can come up with a bill to introduce to Congress on Gay marriage. He nothing and he is offering nothing...

You don't seem to know much about politics yourself...

-SD-

quote:

Do you also believe that in addition to elders, anyone who has been declared infertile should not be permitted to marry?

If you do not carry this thought on to these levels, then yes, you are homophobic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Please, before you get both feet so far into your mouth you will never get them out acquire a fucking history book that was written for someone beyond the fifth grade.
Your abject ignorance of human history is mind numbing.

quote:

Absolutely no need. I had my education, speak four languages. had history and biology as well. For a long time the number of human beings on this planet were more or less in balance or steadlly increasing. A lot of childbirths, wars, famine, harvest failures, pestilences, tuberculosis and the like made sure the planet did not become overpopulated. In the 16th, 17th and 18th century Holland the average age of a human being to die was about 40 to 50 years old. Few became granddads. Things changed dramatically in the 20th century.

Please, before you get both feet so far into your mouth you will never get them out acquire a fucking history book that was written for someone beyond the fifth grade.
Your abject ignorance of human history is mind numbing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
By your, twisted and surreal, opinion the UN convention is opposed to foster care, all adoptions and divorce.

Maybe you should read articles 20 and 21 which specifically deal with foster care and adoption and never ever mention the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents.

quote:

The UN Declaration of Children"s Rights is in favour of adoption if it in the best interest of the child, but it does not mention homosexual couples anywhere. Why not? Because the spirit of the Declaration is based upon traditional views, traditional families and traditional values. Why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The UN Declaration of Children"s Rights is in favour of adoption if it in the best interest of the child, but it does not mention homosexual couples anywhere. Why not? Because the spirit of the Declaration is based upon traditional views, traditional families and traditional values. Why?

I started to drag my tired eyes over the Covenant (not, ahem, Declaration), to point out that it dates from 1989 (more than a decade before any country on Earth authorized same-sex marriage), and to ponder a polite, DCish way to ask "So can you point out all this 'traditional' language, 'cause it's eluding me?"

But then I realized four simple words, not mine, are exactly what needs to be said right now:

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Summary

When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

- The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.

- Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.

- Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

Read more: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
By your, twisted and surreal, opinion the UN convention is opposed to foster care, all adoptions and divorce.

Maybe you should read articles 20 and 21 which specifically deal with foster care and adoption and never ever mention the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents.

Not at all. The UN Declaration of Children"s Rights is in favour of adoption if it in the best interest of the child, but it does not mention homosexual couples anywhere. Why not? Because the spirit of the Declaration is based upon traditional views, traditional families and traditional values. Why? Because unlike 50% of the US citizens, a small majority in Canada, 50% of the Europeans and about the same in Australia the rest of the world does not think that way. Now, you can jump up and down as much as you want, but those are the facts. I happen to belong to a vast majority on this planet and I am not ashamed of it.

quote:

FR

Feeling a little impish this morning, so I can't resist sharing this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
In the past, I did some genealogy in my own family, people got a lot of children, that was needed because a lot of them died in infancy. Some of my ancestors got 20 children and only 8 made it to adults all the way back in the 16th and 17th century Holland. That is why the population was more or less in balance or steadily increasing. In the 20th century we had a population explosion. This was caused by more hygene, healthier food and medical inventions. At this point in history we are seeing a shift in populations. People grow older than in the past and therefore we need at least a balance in procreation and dying of people to maintain a civil world where older people are taking care for by the younger generation (taxes or actual direct care). And therefore promoting homosexual relationships will ultimately lead to disaster.