Quantcast

Comments about ‘Senate panel tables same-sex adoption bill’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 7 2011 1:55 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
George
Bronx, NY

@Rosebyanyothername and those is of a like mind
The part we dont get is the fact that you do not seem to see that you are on the wrong side of history and the mountain of research that supports our cause. We will not go away and we will secure the rights of the LGBT people and all oppressed people, its that simple. The research has been documented over and over again in the courts and on thousands of threads just like this one. As people become educated about this and other issues of oppression you are losing your power to control others lives. At this point you can choice to remain ignorant of the facts and be on the wrong side of history or you can do the research and find the facts then choose to be on the right side of history or not its really up to you at this point. I frankly feel no need to convince you one way or the other.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"Thank heaven the bill was tabled, which should encourage the new mother quoted in the story to marry a spouse and provide a stable family for the child she loves. "

That's all well and good except you aren't allowing gay people to marry.

cambodia girl
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Basic Law of Nature 101
A child will never be born unless an egg from a Woman is fertilized by the sperm from a MAN. Once the same-sex community can rewire the "laws of nature" where same-sex partners can conceive is when the governmental law should allow same-sex couples to adopt. It seems to me that the basic laws of nature are totally being ignored.

What will you tell the child after the child learns that it took a MAN or a WOMAN to create them? Just wondering.

Shame on those who want to change the laws of nature and force something un-natural upon society. They have made their choice to have a relationship with someone of the same-sex. And please don't say "I didn't have a choice." Because you did and you do.

And one more question, Why aren't the co-habitating heterosexual couples getting married? I don't understand why they would want to have legal rights to a child when they are unwilling to marry their partner.

Where's Stockton ???
Bowling Green, OH

Someone is definitely not looking out for the welfare of children these days. Definitely isn't Romero...that's for sure.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

How is it logically consistent for a state to allow single people to adopt but to not allow a second person to be added in this way? If you care so much about kids being with two married parents of opposite genders then why do you allow single people to adopt anyway?

Jiggle
Clearfield, UT

@Kathy

Did you read the article? The article says: The bill would have allowed a child to be adopted by their parent's cohabiting non-spouse, who has developed a "parental relationship" with the child, as long as the child has only ONE legal parent. The father's aren't being ignored at all nor is anybody taking a child away from their father. Many fathers simply are not in their child's life by choice making it possible for another person who WANTS to be the child's parent to legally be able to do so! Not all children end up with 2 heterosexual parents! I think a two parent household is good even if those two parents are the same sex. They can help, support, and love the child or children and one another just like if grandma and daughter were doing it because the father bailed out. It really is no different!

JSB
Sugar City, ID

If unmarried cohabitating couples can adopt, then why not all sorts of other relationships? What if three roommates who love each other and are committed to each other, want to legally adopt a child? The issue is more than just a feel good, politically corrrect, apparently simple cure for what might apprear to some to be unfair and inconventient for some people. The long term social consequences for moving in this direction must be addressed or the social chaos that follows will make the todays problems seem insignificant.

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

@McBillay:

Does it really matter how many years you have been a roommate? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. And if politicians weren't trying to cull votes from people who want to change the definition of marriage, it always will be between a man and a woman. Two (or more) men, or two (or more) women in the same dwelling, who are not blood relatives, constitute roommates. Always have. Always will.

@ atl134:

"you aren't allowing gay people to marry."

You are correct. Neither me nor the God of Nature, who gave all men their inalienable rights according to the Declaration of Independence, allows for gay people to marry. Only politicians begging for votes would do this.

@Baccus0902:

"A secular society as ours in the United States..."

Sorry. Our society is not secular. Just because the Constitution doesn't allow any single religion to be established for everyone does not mean that this nation is not a religious society. Have you ever heard of our national motto, "In God We Trust?" Or part of our Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, "One nation, under God?"

Tators
Hyrum, UT

To mcbillay:
Please check your statistics. Very few same sex relationships last anywhere close to 20+ years. Yes, there are a lot of divorces in traditional marriages. Nevertheless, traditional relationships between a man and a women are shown to be much more stable and secure in multiple ways. It's not degrading. It's simply a fact.

To George:
There have been some very advanced and intellegent societies in the history of our world. None who were deemed lasting have ever accepted same sex marriages or condoned such relationships. When ancient Rome became "advanced" and "inclusive" of such relationships, it soon thereafter fell.
It's interesting that some people think we are now so much more advanced and superior to any other society in the entire history of the world by now becoming more accepting and "inclusive" of what the vast majority of societies in all of world history considered aberations and deviations of nature. Being more technologically advanced doesn't automatically make us more culturally and morally superior. In fact, far from it! With that in mind, which argument is it that is actually on the wrong side of history?

kemitc
Nashville, TN

In reading comments I wonder if some of these people really read the article or just read their personal views in to the article. This bill was not for roommates. Roommates share a dwelling bills and that id it. They do not share an emotional or loving bond with one another or a child. This is for loving couples who are in a same sex, loving committed relationship and wanting to protect the child(ren) they love. If something happens with the bio or legal parent than a will does not make a difference. In a state like UT it would also consider the states opinion, aunts, uncles, grandparents, or vindictive know it all neighbor and in the case if a parent was LDS the church. I am appalled of the stones being thrown. I am LDS and would support this law nationally. If you are unwilling to allow them to marry civil, Church or temple, then this is the only way they can protect their family. Keep throwing stones at others, but remember we as a Church have some nasty secrets in our beginning also beginning with our founder and first prophet..

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"When ancient Rome became "advanced" and "inclusive" of such relationships, it soon thereafter fell. "

Rome fell because it grew too large to control (stretched too thin) and most of their population were slaves (who would probably be just fine with the empire being overthrown. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it.

Bubble
SLC, UT

@Tators
what's funny is your argument has no evidence that the fall of rome had anything to do with homosexuality. rome also in braced many conservative ideals about wealth, power and religion. but what is really funny is that you actually think your lone of reasoning has not been tried and failed thousands of times on these threads. All you are doing is proving George's point that you have nothing new or relevant to add to the debate and that is why you are losing the fight.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Two men or two women love each other and desire to provide a family to one or more children.The children may be from previous relationships , adopted, etc. What is wrong with that?
A real case: I met this healthy and full of energy 13 year old student. He came from Russia to a childless marriage in Florida when he was 10. After few months his new parents gave him back because they realized that he was not what they expected. The adoption agency was confronted with sending the child back to Russia or quickly finding other suitable parents. This gay couple in a different state was also applying to adopt a child, they were notified of the case and move forward with the adoption. Three years later this boy tells everybody he has two fathers. The boy seems happy, certainly is very secure of himself and well adjusted. This is a true story and one I'm sure is not unique in the results around the country and the world.
Children need love, protection and guidance. Can two men provide that, YES. Can two women provide that, YES. Can a heterosexual couple provide that YES.
What is the difference?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"You're not LDS...that, or you're not even converted to your own religion. Kind of like that user I've seen on this board: lds4gaymarriage.

Please stop claiming you're a member of a certain religion when you obviously don't abide by or understand its doctrine. "

Thank you for reminding me why this (*points to self*) LDS member is inactive... I don't go to church to be judged based on political views. Even LDS leadership is fine with people opposing prop 8. "LDS members should feel free to disagree on the issue without fear of sanction." -Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy.

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

Someone explain to me why this doesn't work: Natural mother of beloved child names dear live-in friend (who acts parental toward child, too) as guardian in case natural mother dies before chld is 18. Then dear live-in parental acting friend writes child into her will- giving child all earthly belongings when she dies. Why doesn't that cover it? Why does the child need to be legally adopted?

Assuming same gender marriage is out of the question- which it is in Utah, how does the bill define whether the couple is committed and loving? By their sexual involvement? Do we really want to go there? Do we want that written into the bill? Two non sexual friends can love each other and live together. Like someone else mentioned, three women might all live together and feel "parental" towards the child. So which one would get to adopt? How are they - the ones supposedly enforcing this new law going to understand what the relationship really is without delving into the whle thing too far(how much do we want the government to know anyway), and just how committed the live-in "friend" is to the child?

Sorry Charlie!
SLC, UT

@o'really
so then you agree that the ban on same sex couples is just ridiculous? The government is already far to involved in banning gay couples from getting married so maybe they need to just stop interfering with gay couples right to marry.

Tustin Boy
Tustin, CA

It is amazing that you think the young lady should get married to a straight guy. I will tell you, that as a gay man, I was married to a straight woman. The marriage failed. Gay and straight together do not make a happy home, so how is a child better off in a home like that?

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

To Sorry...

No I don't agree. But that's beside the point. What IS the point of this proposed bill? If all the rights of the same gender "parent-like friend" of the child's real parent can be met without more legislation, I'm all for it. The fewer government bills to muddy the waters and confuse us, the better!

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

This is a Trojan Horse.

As soon as such a law is passed, the courts will immediately rule that if a child has two parents, the laws cannot block those parents from being married.

This bill is simply a back-door approach to overturning Utah law regarding marriage, as it sneaks same-sex marriage into the state.

Thank goodness cool heads at the state legislature prevailed and tabled this Trojan.

Really???
Kearns, UT

These judgmental comments from my so-called fellow "saints" make me sad. Since when did you all get so knowledgeable about what goes on in the hearts and minds of those people you deplore so much?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments