Kansas lawmakers pass adoption bill against gay couples

[Geaux4it]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The laws that prohibit government from discriminating based on sexual orientation have been enacted at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because the people wish their government to serve all citizens equally, and afford all citizens equal protection of the law.

^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

You really mean that you insist all outcomes must be the same. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

It really is an utterly insane conception of equal rights. By their reasoning, every woman who refuses to sleep with me because I'm fat, bald and ugly is violating my civil rights!

Straw man fallacy.

Laws prohibiting government from discriminating against citizens based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation apply solely to government and private sector entities funded by government doing the government’s business.

 

[dblack]

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Thank you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the outside looking in, I see both sides trying to use government mold society to their vision. Whatever happened to live and let live?

Yes live and let live. Lets gay folks adopt. In Kansas, they are nor using the government, they are being victimized by the government.

The law has nothing to do with the rights of gays to adopt children. This is about the rights of adoption agencies to discriminate, something we should be protecting rather than attacking.

We should not be protecting the right to discriminate.

It is odd how some actually cry that they are being persecuted for their religion when they are NOT allowed to discriminate against their fellow citizens.

It's not odd at all. Discriminating is how we express our values in society. What's 'odd', and actually quite dangerous, is the desire to, instead, force our values on society via government.

No one is ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

It is government that is being compelled by Federal law to not discriminate against citizens seeking services from the government or one of its private sector agencies.

 

[dblack]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

You really mean that you insist all outcomes must be the same. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

It really is an utterly insane conception of equal rights. By their reasoning, every woman who refuses to sleep with me because I'm fat, bald and ugly is violating my civil rights!

Straw man fallacy.

Laws prohibiting government from discriminating against citizens based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation apply solely to government and private sector entities funded by government doing the government’s business.

Nope. Not true. You're lying. You're not just wrong, you're deliberating spreading bullshit. I know you know better. Or are you so high you're forgetting PA laws?

I'm sorry, I said it wrong. Let's try again.

Wrong!

Authoritarian douchebag fallacy. -2 points!

 

[dblack]

Yes live and let live. Lets gay folks adopt. In Kansas, they are nor using the government, they are being victimized by the government.

The law has nothing to do with the rights of gays to adopt children. This is about the rights of adoption agencies to discriminate, something we should be protecting rather than attacking.

We should not be protecting the right to discriminate.

It is odd how some actually cry that they are being persecuted for their religion when they are NOT allowed to discriminate against their fellow citizens.

It's not odd at all. Discriminating is how we express our values in society. What's 'odd', and actually quite dangerous, is the desire to, instead, force our values on society via government.

No one is ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

It is government that is being compelled by Federal law to not discriminate against citizens seeking services from the government or one of its private sector agencies.

Flaming bullshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Personally I'm not gay so if you aren't why are you guys spending time obsessing abut what gay people do. Let them adopt children. Don't pretend that all mom and dad families have produced such outstanding results.

From the outside looking in, I see both sides trying to use government mold society to their vision. Whatever happened to live and let live?

Yes live and let live. Lets gay folks adopt. In Kansas, they are nor using the government, they are being victimized by the government.

The law has nothing to do with the rights of gays to adopt children. This is about the rights of adoption agencies to discriminate, something we should be protecting rather than attacking.

We should not be protecting the right to discriminate.

Of course we should. It's the job of an adoption agency to discriminate, to find what they consider "good" parents for the children under their care. What you want, is government to make the call on what constitutes good parents for the children.

Nonsense.

It is not the job of adoption agencies to discriminate predicated on ignorance, fear, bigotry, stupidity, and hate – to exclude perfectly appropriate parents for no other reason than being gay is unmitigated idiocy, and illegal in certain circumstances.

 

[IM2]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

You really mean that you insist all outcomes must be the same. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

No, I think he means all treatment is the same.

 

[dblack]

is not the job of adoption agencies to discriminate predicated on ignorance, fear, bigotry, stupidity, and hate – to exclude perfectly appropriate parents for no other reason than being gay is unmitigated idiocy, and illegal in certain circumstances.

Yes. That sums up your view: You think government should dictate how an adoption agency should do its job. Just as you think government should dictate pretty much every. *******. thing. The sad thing is, you seem to think that this will always, somehow, be according to your wishes. Then when we get a miscreant like Trump in office you're all in a tizzy because he's pushing shit you don't like. Wake the **** up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They let them give up the tax $$$ damn it! THAT is what this is about

Sure... that's the point of getting people on the dole in the first place, right? - to twist arms. That's the scam of the welfare state. Make everyone dependent on government and government controls everyone.

You'll have to explain to me how this became about welfare, Or I'll have to call a red herring fallacy on you.

You brought it up. You were justifying government interference in the operation of the adoption agency based on the presumed fact that they receive government money.

If they do...they cannot discriminate. However if they wish to forego government money, they can certainly do as they wish.

Yeah, I hear ya. It's the same old line. And frankly, it's WHY they want to get everyone dependent on government (in, seemingly, every way they can think of). Then they control everything.

Delusional, paranoid rubbish.

No one seeks to get everyone ‘dependent on government’ – the notion is a ridiculous lie.

 

[dblack]

Delusional, paranoid rubbish.

No one seeks to get everyone ‘dependent on government’ – the notion is a ridiculous lie.

Of course. All of our leaders are upstanding, virtuous souls with our best interests at heart. Wow....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The laws that prohibit government from discriminating based on sexual orientation have been enacted at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because the people wish their government to serve all citizens equally, and afford all citizens equal protection of the law.

What a crock of shit.

Those laws have been passed by legislators who are controlled by a small minority. Reflecting the will of the people my ass.

Obamacare never was popular, but it was really unpopular when it was passed. And the will of the people let B.O. know he fucked up royally by taking the house away from him....bigtime.

Gays don't want equal treatment....they want special treatment.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sure... that's the point of getting people on the dole in the first place, right? - to twist arms. That's the scam of the welfare state. Make everyone dependent on government and government controls everyone.

You'll have to explain to me how this became about welfare, Or I'll have to call a red herring fallacy on you.

You brought it up. You were justifying government interference in the operation of the adoption agency based on the presumed fact that they receive government money.

If they do...they cannot discriminate. However if they wish to forego government money, they can certainly do as they wish.

Yeah, I hear ya. It's the same old line. And frankly, it's WHY they want to get everyone dependent on government (in, seemingly, every way they can think of). Then they control everything.

Delusional, paranoid rubbish.

No one seeks to get everyone ‘dependent on government’ – the notion is a ridiculous lie.

Don't get out much, do you ?

 

[Silhouette]

Straw man fallacy.

Laws prohibiting government from discriminating against citizens based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation apply solely to government and private sector entities funded by government doing the government’s business.

Correction: There is nothing in the US Constitution about protecting what regular men and woman DO with their hoo hoos "as identity"...anymore than there are laws protecting regular men and women who feel oriented (habitually driven) to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel of a car. There are no federal laws elevating Drunk Driving Americans (DDAs) or Cleptomaniac Americans (CAs) etc. etc. etc. above other habitual behaviors. And no, not each habitual behavior must separately petition once one habitual behavior gains special legal elevation. The same Amendment you cite as your carte blanche is the same Amendment that's going to reveal the fallacy in the "behaviors as identity" unworkable premise.

Just because people doing weird sex stuff with the same gender can marry each other doesn't mean those behaviors suddenly can disenfranchise orphaned children who share the marriage contract from either a father or mother for life. There are more players in the marriage/adoption legal situation than just the adults. All will have their interests re: the contractual terms considered.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

Of course they don't hold people to the same standard. As we've already pointed out, people who want to get married to multiple partners are forbidden to do so. That isn't discrimination ? Not in the minds of the left. As long as they get what THEY think (and I use that term loosely) is right (which means good for them).

Enforced equality is bullshit.

Same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they could point to opposite sex couples who are essentially the same-as the court put it "similarly situated" and show that they were being arbitrarily treated differently. Sime no one is allowed plural marriage at this time- those seeking to engage in that practice would have a harder time claiming discrimination. However, if someone brings a case arguing against bans on plural marriage, the state would have to prove-at minimum- a rational basis for those bans which they may or may not be able to do. Please try to understand how things work.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

Of course they don't hold people to the same standard. As we've already pointed out, people who want to get married to multiple partners are forbidden to do so. That isn't discrimination ? Not in the minds of the left. As long as they get what THEY think (and I use that term loosely) is right (which means good for them).

Enforced equality is bullshit.

Same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they could point to opposite sex couples who are essentially the same-as the court put it "similarly situated" and show that they were being arbitrarily treated differently. Sime no one is allowed plural marriage at this time- those seeking to engage in that practice would have a harder time claiming discrimination. However, if someone brings a case arguing against bans on plural marriage, the state would have to prove-at minimum- a rational basis for those bans which they may or may not be able to do. Please try to understand how things work.

Oh, I understand it all to well.

The courts needed some bullshit excuse and they found it. Guess what ? Don't care ?

That isn't what this is about.......stupid. Look back and try to think.

 

[dblack]

Please try to understand how things work.

That's the problem.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Please try to understand how things work.

That's the problem.

Please explain. I agree with you....but I'd like to hear you point of view.

Me...I could give a shit.

I think the rest of the country needs to clean up it's act before telling gays what to do.

And I think there should plural marriage if people want it (and some do).

But if the polygamists and polyandrists of the country take to the streets, pushing obnoxious parades on people and villifying anyone who opposes them and (in general) using the same tactics the militant gay community has used......

I will be there to oppose them on the basis of their behaviour.

It's now how things should work...but it seems to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

Of course they don't hold people to the same standard. As we've already pointed out, people who want to get married to multiple partners are forbidden to do so. That isn't discrimination ? Not in the minds of the left. As long as they get what THEY think (and I use that term loosely) is right (which means good for them).

Enforced equality is bullshit.

Same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they could point to opposite sex couples who are essentially the same-as the court put it "similarly situated" and show that they were being arbitrarily treated differently. Sime no one is allowed plural marriage at this time- those seeking to engage in that practice would have a harder time claiming discrimination. However, if someone brings a case arguing against bans on plural marriage, the state would have to prove-at minimum- a rational basis for those bans which they may or may not be able to do. Please try to understand how things work.

Correct.

The prohibition of ‘plural marriage’ is Constitutional because it’s applied to all residents of a state equally.

Moreover, no state’s marriage contract law is written to accommodate three or more persons – because there is no law authorizing such a union, no violation of the Constitution exists.

If a state were to prohibit only Asian Americans from entering into ‘plural marriage,’ for example, such a measure would clearly violate the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is the joining of two consenting adults not related to each other in a union recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; clearly same-sex couples meet the qualifications for such a union.

And as the Supreme Court has held, to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

 

[dblack]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

Of course they don't hold people to the same standard. As we've already pointed out, people who want to get married to multiple partners are forbidden to do so. That isn't discrimination ? Not in the minds of the left. As long as they get what THEY think (and I use that term loosely) is right (which means good for them).

Enforced equality is bullshit.

Same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they could point to opposite sex couples who are essentially the same-as the court put it "similarly situated" and show that they were being arbitrarily treated differently. Sime no one is allowed plural marriage at this time- those seeking to engage in that practice would have a harder time claiming discrimination. However, if someone brings a case arguing against bans on plural marriage, the state would have to prove-at minimum- a rational basis for those bans which they may or may not be able to do. Please try to understand how things work.

Correct.

The prohibition of ‘plural marriage’ is Constitutional because it’s applied to all residents of a state equally.

Moreover, no state’s marriage contract law is written to accommodate three or more persons – because there is no law authorizing such a union, no violation of the Constitution exists.

If a state were to prohibit only Asian Americans from entering into ‘plural marriage,’ for example, such a measure would clearly violate the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is the joining of two consenting adults not related to each other in a union recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; clearly same-sex couples meet the qualifications for such a union.

And as the Supreme Court has held, to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

We don't need government telling us what kind of families we can form, nor how to raise our children.