We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Moral Adoption Act!
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Nationalist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2413
Description[?]:
| We believe it is essential to a child that they are brought up with a mum and the father. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning who can proceed with adoption; in case adoption is legal.
Old value:: Everyone may adopt children.
Current: Everyone may adopt children.
Proposed: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:04:13, June 06, 2007 CET | From | Independent Republican Party | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | Why would homosexual couples not be qualified to raise a child? They might even do a better job of parenting than some heterosexual parents. |
| Date | 04:49:06, June 06, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | *shrug* yay conservatism? Perhaps if we debated this more than just running with our opinion or what we think will garner us the most votes we could actually figure out what everyone wants. |
| Date | 19:13:51, June 08, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | FL is disgusting. It fills up every other debate its verbose bombast and then on this issue just shrugs. He accuses URP of taking away people's freedoms and then involves the state in excluding some people from the adoption process. |
| Date | 19:48:11, June 08, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | So you find the request for debate disgusting? Because that's all I've asked for on this issue. That's very interesting. Obviously, the call has gone out to explain our stance on this. From a natural evolution point of view, a homosexual couple is a genetic dead-end. A couple like that cannot reproduce. That's a fact. So since such a coupling is aginst nature, why would we entrust our children to it, when there's a heterosexual couple waiting list of over 2 years for infants? FL isn't opposed to gay marriage, but we need to see case studies where homosexual couples raise children that end up as successful adults (the film "Birdcage doesn't count). Present this evidence and we'll jump ship on this issue but until then we're forced to vote with our rational, however flawed you may find it to be. |
| Date | 19:55:10, June 08, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | why don't you find facts to support your radical claims that homosexuality is against nature and that children cannot be raised effectively by them. Afterall I am the one supporting the status quo and you are the one advocating change. I will not find facts to support claims you assume I make just because you demand it. |
| Date | 21:16:48, June 08, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | The genetic material of a same sex couple does not get passed on because that couple cannot concieve, right? And how a species propogates themselves is by passing along their genetic material to the next generation through reproduction, right? This is, in fact, the natural order of things. Thus, a same sex couple is against nature because they can't conceive a child. FL has no moral stance on this issue, we're merely requesting information and debate that supports, one way or the other, child development in a same sex household. I know, I'm being ridiculous asking for debate in a democracy, but those are the kind of wild revolutionaries the FL is. |
| Date | 07:52:25, June 09, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | The point is really moot. You've lost |
| Date | 18:02:59, June 09, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | Clearly. This is indeed my waterloo. Shame on me for asking for debate, then debating. I guess by bringing up a point, asking to be proven wrong, saying that I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and no one actually proving me wrong or even presenting an arguement, this means I lost. Yup. I'm a loser =) |
| Date | 14:05:47, June 13, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Liberal-Conservative Party | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | We support this legislation - homosexual couples cannot provide children with the adequate balance of masculine and feminine elements inherant in any healthy upbringing. Children raised by homosexuals are also likely to be ridiculed and rejected by the rest of society, and may develope anti-social habits as a result. Children raised by homosexuals are also far more likely to become homosexuals themselves later in life. We cannot allow homosexual adoption - we believe firmly in the structure of the traditional family, with a father and a mother, and we believe that allowing homosexual adoption allows for a corruption of family, and will eventually deteriorate the fabric of society. |
| Date | 20:19:23, June 13, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | LLCP: Children raised by homosexuals are also far more likely to become homosexuals themselves later in life. Can you prove this? |
| Date | 21:19:04, June 14, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | Oh NOW its ok to provide proof? I see. http://home.newadvent.org/2006/10/meet_dawn_stefa.html http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0COrMlnQ84wJ:www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html+homosexual+adoption&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us "Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability." |
| Date | 22:24:01, June 14, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Moral Adoption Act! |
| Message | http://www.narth.com/docs/endorses.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting Huh. I think i may have managed to prove myself wrong. Here's the thing, while I believe it is still unnatural (and this isn't quantum physics, its not natural) Most studies show that while same-sex couples aren't as good for a child as a heterosexual couple, they are still better than a single parent. The only problem with this statement is that homosexual couples are FAR more likely to split up. Now, there's convincing evidence for the other side as well, but it seems to me that the organizations touting this contrary evidence were formed for that very purpose, they aren't third parties, they have a vested interest. More importantly, statistics show that same sex couple are far and away the leaders in adopting children with terminal illnesses and behavioural problems: they take the kids no one else will. With these facts, I believe I'm in the wrong. While same sex adoption is by no means ideal, it still serves a purpose and i believe that most adoption agencies will give preference to heterosexual couples. Therefore, I believe we need to support this. See how easy it is for me to change my mind? If we had tried debating perhaps this would have less support. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 216 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 349 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 34 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Howard Zinn |