DISQUS

Michelle · 2 years ago

I know several gay couples who are much more stable than opposite sex married couples. How many articles in newspapers across the country each day are about some young husband or wife killing their kid because they were idiots? Why should those unstable people be allowed to have kids just because they're of the opposite sex, yet 2 people who are extremely stable, kind, supportive and utterly fantastic not be able to because they're of the same sex?

If the goal is to find unwanted kids a loving home, then the only thing people should look at is how loving/stable/financially sound that home is.

Who's Your Daddy · 2 years ago

What a joke, this country is going down in flames!

Terri · 2 years ago

If stringent policies are followed to make sure that a child is placed in a stable home and safe enviromnent as in any adoption, it would benefit the child if both committed people in a relationship have a legal say on the upbringing of the child. Many gay people would be very good parents, especially for a special needs child as they understand the difficulties of being "different". I'm glad that Colorado is finally getting out of the medieval and discriminary mindset on this issue.

Les · 2 years ago

I appreciate the comment at the top, requesting that posters refrain from "bashing" christians or gays.

However, you will find that the only arguments against this common sense legislature will be from a non-scientific, purely myth based religious viewpoint.

chris · 2 years ago

Les said at 2:57:

"However, you will find that the only arguments against this common sense legislature will be from a non-scientific, purely myth based religious viewpoint."

Les,

So what? You, I'm sure, will find that most support for this thoughtless bill comes from secular people trying to stick it to people of faith. Fundamentalism works both ways and secular fundamentalism is as profound a political and moral statement as Christian fundamentalism.

This is a moral debate: are kids best raised by a mother and father? There is plenty of common sense and science to argue in the affirmative. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that there is not. Why should religious voters not vote their values. Surely when you vote you are voting your secular values (or are those values simply and self-evidently true?).

But nevermind all of that. A majority of Coloradans spoke clearly on this issue when we voted down Referendum I which would have awarded adoption privliges to gay couples. In a majority-rule republic, it just so happens that Colorado is more traditional, more Christian than other places and we voted that way in November. Why does that disqualify our vote and our values?

Les · 2 years ago

chris said
"Fundamentalism works both ways and secular fundamentalism is as profound a political and moral statement as Christian fundamentalism."

I would like to respond with a quote from Richard Dawkins, regarding fundamentalism.

"Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book, and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief... The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book...

When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn't happen with holy books."

By the way, no where did I suggest that you, or other religious voters should not express their views at the polls. I'm not sure where you got that idea from...

I am simply suggesting that the best home for a child is with loving parents, who can provide safety, compassion, and a wealth of knowledge for a growing mind. Whoever they may be.

April · 2 years ago

I live with a partner of 8 years and so does my biological son. His father walked away and never looked back. Family Support Registry basically gave up looking for him.

When my partner and I got together, she immediately took care of my son. She has paid for everything for him up to his medical. Yet above all this, she has no legal rights over my son.

I hope this happens since it will be a blessing. My son does not want to be with anyone else in the event something happened to me.

We also have a little girl now via insemination. She is on the babies birth certificate since Colorado allows the United Parternity Act.

How is this any different?

mani · 2 years ago

There are a lot of reasons to hate this bill that have nothing to do with Gays. There are also some fantastic things in this bill that... repeat after me - have nothing to do with gays!That is the problem with the bill, it tries to address the entire adoption and parental rights issue with one bill. This is a terrible way to address any complex issue but shows gross incompetence when legislators are dealing with children.

roland · 2 years ago

Chris,
Religion isn't justification for discrimination.

anonymous · 2 years ago

I voted against referendum simply because I don't think gay adoption is right and I'm not basing my opinion on any faith, nor am I a "right wing conspirator" who is trying to ruin the country. I'm tired of hearing "How many articles in newspapers across the country each day are about some young husband or wife killing their kid because they were idiots?"
It is because 99.99% of all parents in the country are heterosexual. Eventually there will be homosexual couples that do something like that, expecailly as larger numbers adopt kids. Stop making it out to be that heterosexuals are evil awful parents, it's a stupid argument. Two parents are better than one. But two parents of opposite sex are best. I agree with chris. If people want to vote their values they are entitled. If people want to think that homosexuals are immoral they are entitled to that. I don't understand why gays want children. It is impossible for them to have them naturally. Since being gay is a natural occurence, it would seem natural that gays wouldn't want children.

Tom from Thornton · 2 years ago

Personal tastes aside and notwithstanding agency rules, existing criminal statutes and ability to support, etc; here is the law:

The Bill of Rights Article 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or desparage others retained by the people.

The 14th Amendment:

Section 1: All persons [very clear here].

Even though many of us would rather see a heterosexual couple adopting a child and that would tend to be more ideal; there is the already existing Constitutional law as mentioned above.

Therefore; notwithstanding agency rules, criminal statutes and ability to support, etc: It is none of our business if a gay couple choose to adopt.

Mountain Goat · 2 years ago

Kids need two parents...a mom and a dad.

Doug Brown · 2 years ago

I'm a big fan of what Tom from Thornton brings to some of these discussions.

Tom from Thornton · 2 years ago

Thanks Doug Brown.

Consider post #11 a VERY condensed version of what I think would be a majority opinion from the US Supreme Court.

Of course their opinion would contain a lot more high sounding verbage, plenty of Latin words, would be quite lengthly, and many an eye ball would glaze over...