Ok imagine you have a baby, but cannot keep it for whatever reason, The baby goes for Adoption. Would you rather see it go to a random male gay couple or to a random straight couple? No answer needed here. The baby will not have a choice. And now everyone here can eat a fat dick
OK, here is my "pretentios pseudo liberal bullshit" response: No child is ever, EVER, adopted by a "random couple" or person. Adoption is long grueling process that is designed to select the individual or couple who are most able and qualified to adopt.
So far the only reason you have given that a same sex couple should not adopt is that there is not both a "vagina and penis".
Your argument is weak. Please return and give us a "down to earth actual-lefty shitless" reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt.
yes, thats the question, I can imagine a lot of additional problems for kids with gay parents, for me it comes down to simple math
penis + vagina = kids penis + penis = no
simple is right.
you've yet to elaborate on the "additional" problems children may encounter...
being made fun of by other kids? don't need gay parents for this.
feeling like your family is strange and different from everyone else's? don't need gay parents for this.
confused about one's sexuality? don't need gay parents for this.
uncertain about leaving the toilet seat up or down? don't need gay parents for this.
not sure if you're implying that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay him/herself and if you view this as a "problem", but seems like straight parents have this covered.
Double Gay Wedding, home of the the fire humantashen. I think this was my 5th gay marriage as an officiant. When you read the christian rights' arguments against gay marriage, it exactly parallels what white supremacists were saying about interracial marriage in 1965. These fools need to fall back.
The Reverend Wu! (Or is it Rabbi Wu?)
I had no idea.
Who invested you with the power to marry?
Rebbe Wu with a bit of Unitarian liturgy thrown in for the progressives in the house. I got one of the those mail order ministries and then registered with the county. I think I have done 8 or 9 at this point.
The woman in the daiquiri blue shirt is my "Auntie". Last year when I asked her what the gay community was thinking about the marriage issue she told me that they were bracing for years of backlash following the PDX, SF trials. Glad to see that we are seeing some progress. This shit is so embarrassing.
yes, thats the question, I can imagine a lot of additional problems for kids with gay parents, for me it comes down to simple math
penis + vagina = kids penis + penis = no
simple is right.
you've yet to elaborate on the "additional" problems children may encounter...
being made fun of by other kids? don't need gay parents for this.
feeling like your family is strange and different from everyone else's? don't need gay parents for this.
confused about one's sexuality? don't need gay parents for this.
uncertain about leaving the toilet seat up or down? don't need gay parents for this.
not sure if you're implying that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay him/herself and if you view this as a "problem", but seems like straight parents have this covered.
How about missing a father or a mother figure?
I used to be against gay adoption myself, but i've come to grips with the fact that kids are better off with gay parents than no parents at all. I'm still vehemently opposed to gay couples who want to have children via spermdonor or surrogate pregnancy. These people, conciously, take away the inalienable right of children to have both a father and a mother.
yes, thats the question, I can imagine a lot of additional problems for kids with gay parents, for me it comes down to simple math
penis + vagina = kids penis + penis = no
simple is right.
you've yet to elaborate on the "additional" problems children may encounter...
being made fun of by other kids? don't need gay parents for this.
feeling like your family is strange and different from everyone else's? don't need gay parents for this.
confused about one's sexuality? don't need gay parents for this.
uncertain about leaving the toilet seat up or down? don't need gay parents for this.
not sure if you're implying that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay him/herself and if you view this as a "problem", but seems like straight parents have this covered.
How about missing a father or a mother figure?
I used to be against gay adoption myself, but i've come to grips with the fact that kids are better off with gay parents than no parents at all. I'm still vehemently opposed to gay couples who want to have children via spermdonor or surrogate pregnancy. These people, conciously, take away the inalienable right of children to have both a father and a mother.
yes, thats the question, I can imagine a lot of additional problems for kids with gay parents, for me it comes down to simple math
penis + vagina = kids penis + penis = no
simple is right.
you've yet to elaborate on the "additional" problems children may encounter...
being made fun of by other kids? don't need gay parents for this.
feeling like your family is strange and different from everyone else's? don't need gay parents for this.
confused about one's sexuality? don't need gay parents for this.
uncertain about leaving the toilet seat up or down? don't need gay parents for this.
not sure if you're implying that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay him/herself and if you view this as a "problem", but seems like straight parents have this covered.
How about missing a father or a mother figure?
I used to be against gay adoption myself, but i've come to grips with the fact that kids are better off with gay parents than no parents at all. I'm still vehemently opposed to gay couples who want to have children via spermdonor or surrogate pregnancy. These people, conciously, take away the inalienable right of children to have both a father and a mother.
having two parents of the same sex does not mean there are no positive and consistent figures of the other sex in the child's/children's lives.
missing a father or mother figure is not limited to gay parenthood, lack of a present and committed mother or father is a reality in all kinds of straight situations. there are oodles of healthy, well-adjusted, lovely and loving people out in the world raised by only one parent. is it ideal? no. and after that we would just be talking in circles about it is better to have a healthy home with just one or two of the same than an unhealthy one that has all the prescribed "right" components.
Can I assume that you are also against single, straight women who also do donor births?
Seems like there are two streams going on in this thread: issues that apply to all parenting situations and issues that people are trying to make out to be exclusive to gay parents. I am not seeing good arguments for the latter.
states' rights rhetoric was code for being anti-choice?
As opposed to odub's code for being anti-choice?
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
states' rights rhetoric was code for being anti-choice?
As opposed to odub's code for being anti-choice?
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
He seems to object to the federal government depriving states of the choice to oppress their citizens.
I used to be against gay adoption myself, but i've come to grips with the fact that kids are better off with gay parents than no parents at all. I'm still vehemently opposed to gay couples who want to have children via spermdonor or surrogate pregnancy. These people, conciously, take away the inalienable right of children to have both a father and a mother.
This is one of the most inane things I've heard as an argument in this debate (and that's saying a lot).
In any case, just speaking practically, I don't really see how you could ever create a policy around outlawing the use of sperm donations to queer couples.
"Hey you - stop jacking off into that petri dish and you, put away that turkey baster, you're all under arrest!"
yes, thats the question, I can imagine a lot of additional problems for kids with gay parents, for me it comes down to simple math
penis + vagina = kids penis + penis = no
simple is right.
you've yet to elaborate on the "additional" problems children may encounter...
being made fun of by other kids? don't need gay parents for this.
feeling like your family is strange and different from everyone else's? don't need gay parents for this.
confused about one's sexuality? don't need gay parents for this.
uncertain about leaving the toilet seat up or down? don't need gay parents for this.
not sure if you're implying that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay him/herself and if you view this as a "problem", but seems like straight parents have this covered.
How about missing a father or a mother figure?
I used to be against gay adoption myself, but i've come to grips with the fact that kids are better off with gay parents than no parents at all. I'm still vehemently opposed to gay couples who want to have children via spermdonor or surrogate pregnancy. These people, conciously, take away the inalienable right of children to have both a father and a mother.
states' rights rhetoric was code for being anti-choice?
As opposed to odub's code for being anti-choice?
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
Actually, numerous polls have been done and the findings indicate otherwise.
If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there is a good possibility that not a single state would make abortion illegal. Texas is seen as the most likely exception, but it is far from certain that they would outlaw abortion.
The worst case scenario is considered to be that 2 - 3 states would change their laws, but that is considered an outside chance.
People often assume that voters will vote their religion or morality, but they are, IMO, more likely to vote their self-interest. Not always the same.
states' rights rhetoric was code for being anti-choice?
As opposed to odub's code for being anti-choice?
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
Actually, numerous polls have been done and the findings indicate otherwise.
If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there is a good possibility that not a single state would make abortion illegal. Texas is seen as the most likely exception, but it is far from certain that they would outlaw abortion.
We're talking two different scenarios. There's a huge difference between "Roe V. Wade" never existing vs. "if Roe v. Wade were overturned."
If Roe Vs Wade hadn't happened, and it was up to individual states to LEGALIZE abortion, I really wonder how long it would have taken for even half the states to have done so. You can't compare that scenario with asking, in 2009, how many states would seek to roll back the clock.
states' rights rhetoric was code for being anti-choice?
As opposed to odub's code for being anti-choice?
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
Actually, numerous polls have been done and the findings indicate otherwise.
If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there is a good possibility that not a single state would make abortion illegal. Texas is seen as the most likely exception, but it is far from certain that they would outlaw abortion.
The worst case scenario is considered to be that 2 - 3 states would change their laws, but that is considered an outside chance.
People often assume that voters will vote their religion or morality, but they are, IMO, more likely to vote their self-interest. Not always the same.
Makes sense. One of Dakota's all but outlawed abortion a few years ago. About a year later they overturned the law.
states' rights rhetoric was code for being anti-choice?
As opposed to odub's code for being anti-choice?
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
Actually, numerous polls have been done and the findings indicate otherwise.
If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there is a good possibility that not a single state would make abortion illegal. Texas is seen as the most likely exception, but it is far from certain that they would outlaw abortion.
We're talking two different scenarios. There's a huge difference between "Roe V. Wade" never existing vs. "if Roe v. Wade were overturned."
If Roe Vs Wade hadn't happened, and it was up to individual states to LEGALIZE abortion, I really wonder how long it would have taken for even half the states to have done so. You can't compare that scenario with asking, in 2009, how many states would seek to roll back the clock.
You have a point, Roe vs. Wade certainly sped things up.
Hard to say how things would have shaken out otherwise
This thread's really bringing the Ron Paul heads out of the woodwork.
Anyway, I'd really like to hear more from Lefty in response to Bassie's "don't need gay parents for that" post. Please dude, keep going, don't stop now, you've got them right where you want 'em!
maybe I'm living in la-la land up here, but what is there to really think about? if one believes that there is nothing strange or unhealthy about two people of the same sex having a relationship, then it follows that those two people can become parents. the biology aspect hardly rates at this point given all the options afforded to straight couples who cannot or choose not to conceive.
Bassie's "don't need gay parents for that" post is genius. Also, the shit that dudes like Salvia and Lefty are posting are hilarious because they're so absurd - until the point that I realize that a good percentage of people in our country share these alien views.
For the record, I grew up the child of a single parent and the lack of a father didn't F*ck me up in the slightest in the long run. And my wife's cousin and his partner have raised two incredibly happy and well adjusted kids.
(PS I kind of have to admit that the trailer to the new Star Trek flick looks pretty f*cking cool...)
maybe I'm living in la-la land up here, but what is there to really think about? if one believes that there is nothing strange or unhealthy about two people of the same sex having a relationship, then it follows that those two people can become parents. the biology aspect hardly rates at this point given all the options afforded to straight couples who cannot or choose not to conceive.
If you believe, like I do, that there are many problems with both the adoption and fertility industries. Then you would believe that there should be discussions about how they could be better. If you have those discussions you should include the concerns of lgbt community. You should also include the concerns of those people who have a problem with aspects of lgbt adoption and fertility.
having two parents of the same sex does not mean there are no positive and consistent figures of the other sex in the child's/children's lives.
, I never claimed that. But, in my opinion, a child deserves both a father & a mother figure as intended by nature.
missing a father or mother figure is not limited to gay parenthood, lack of a present and committed mother or father is a reality in all kinds of straight situations.
Two wrongs make a right, come on? Also, the lack of a committed mother or father is not limited to straight couples either. So, what is your point.
Can I assume that you are also against single, straight women who also do donor births?
Comments
OK, here is my "pretentios pseudo liberal bullshit" response:
No child is ever, EVER, adopted by a "random couple" or person.
Adoption is long grueling process that is designed to select the individual or couple who are most able and qualified to adopt.
So far the only reason you have given that a same sex couple should not adopt is that there is not both a "vagina and penis".
Your argument is weak.
Please return and give us a "down to earth actual-lefty shitless" reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt.
simple is right.
you've yet to elaborate on the "additional" problems children may encounter...
being made fun of by other kids? don't need gay parents for this.
feeling like your family is strange and different from everyone else's? don't need gay parents for this.
confused about one's sexuality? don't need gay parents for this.
uncertain about leaving the toilet seat up or down? don't need gay parents for this.
not sure if you're implying that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay him/herself and if you view this as a "problem", but seems like straight parents have this covered.
Actually, I think having two parents of the same gender would make this a no-brainer.
Rebbe Wu with a bit of Unitarian liturgy thrown in for the progressives in the house. I got one of the those mail order ministries and then registered with the county. I think I have done 8 or 9 at this point.
The woman in the daiquiri blue shirt is my "Auntie". Last year when I asked her what the gay community was thinking about the marriage issue she told me that they were bracing for years of backlash following the PDX, SF trials. Glad to see that we are seeing some progress. This shit is so embarrassing.
AS LONG AS YOU LIVE UNDER MY ROOF, YOU WILL LIVE BY MY RULES! YOU LEAVE THE TOILET SEAT UP!!!1!1!!![/b]
but I do think down is the way to go - little girls fall in and little boys have had VERY BAD experiences when the seat accidentally falls down
You look a bit like a bearded, older KitchenKnight. With a little less hair.
Take it up with your father.
No, the other one.
How about missing a father or a mother figure?
I used to be against gay adoption myself, but i've come to grips with the fact that kids are better off with gay parents than no parents at all. I'm still vehemently opposed to gay couples who want to have children via spermdonor or surrogate pregnancy. These people, conciously, take away the inalienable right of children to have both a father and a mother.
LOL
having two parents of the same sex does not mean there are no positive and consistent figures of the other sex in the child's/children's lives.
missing a father or mother figure is not limited to gay parenthood, lack of a present and committed mother or father is a reality in all kinds of straight situations. there are oodles of healthy, well-adjusted, lovely and loving people out in the world raised by only one parent. is it ideal? no. and after that we would just be talking in circles about it is better to have a healthy home with just one or two of the same than an unhealthy one that has all the prescribed "right" components.
Can I assume that you are also against single, straight women who also do donor births?
Seems like there are two streams going on in this thread: issues that apply to all parenting situations and issues that people are trying to make out to be exclusive to gay parents. I am not seeing good arguments for the latter.
Huh? What are you talking about?
My point was - and I'm certainly open to being challenged on it - if not for Roe v. Wade, abortion would be a states issue and I would think that many states would never have voted to make it legal.
He seems to object to the federal government depriving states of the choice to oppress their citizens.
This is one of the most inane things I've heard as an argument in this debate (and that's saying a lot).
In any case, just speaking practically, I don't really see how you could ever create a policy around outlawing the use of sperm donations to queer couples.
"Hey you - stop jacking off into that petri dish and you, put away that turkey baster, you're all under arrest!"
Actually, numerous polls have been done and the findings indicate otherwise.
If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there is a good possibility that not a single state would make abortion illegal. Texas is seen as the most likely exception, but it is far from certain that they would outlaw abortion.
The worst case scenario is considered to be that 2 - 3 states would change their laws, but that is considered an outside chance.
People often assume that voters will vote their religion or morality, but they are, IMO, more likely to vote their self-interest. Not always the same.
We're talking two different scenarios. There's a huge difference between "Roe V. Wade" never existing vs. "if Roe v. Wade were overturned."
If Roe Vs Wade hadn't happened, and it was up to individual states to LEGALIZE abortion, I really wonder how long it would have taken for even half the states to have done so. You can't compare that scenario with asking, in 2009, how many states would seek to roll back the clock.
Makes sense.
One of Dakota's all but outlawed abortion a few years ago.
About a year later they overturned the law.
You have a point, Roe vs. Wade certainly sped things up.
Hard to say how things would have shaken out otherwise
Anyway, I'd really like to hear more from Lefty in response to Bassie's "don't need gay parents for that" post. Please dude, keep going, don't stop now, you've got them right where you want 'em!
Laws, rules and ethics need to be updated and uniform.
It's a very complex problem and full of moral conundrums.
How gay couples and individuals fit into the discussion needs to be addressed.
I find the topic interesting and would like to hear from people who have moved beyond "Lefty's simple math" and really thought about the subject.
But perhaps that is a whole other thread for a whole other board.
if one believes that there is nothing strange or unhealthy about two people of the same sex having a relationship, then it follows that those two people can become parents. the biology aspect hardly rates at this point given all the options afforded to straight couples who cannot or choose not to conceive.
For the record, I grew up the child of a single parent and the lack of a father didn't F*ck me up in the slightest in the long run. And my wife's cousin and his partner have raised two incredibly happy and well adjusted kids.
(PS I kind of have to admit that the trailer to the new Star Trek flick looks pretty f*cking cool...)
If you believe, like I do, that there are many problems with both the adoption and fertility industries.
Then you would believe that there should be discussions about how they could be better.
If you have those discussions you should include the concerns of lgbt community.
You should also include the concerns of those people who have a problem with aspects of lgbt adoption and fertility.
No, actually, these people are bigots and their "concerns" should be ignored.
There is no more value in dialogue when it consists of rehashing points that should actually be basic asumptions again and again and again.
I never claimed that. But, in my opinion, a child deserves both a father & a mother figure as intended by nature.
Two wrongs make a right, come on? Also, the lack of a committed mother or father is not limited to straight couples either. So, what is your point.
Obviously. In fact it's much worse.
That kids should have a traditional mother and father?
OK.
So now that many (most?) kids don't, what then?
Leave them in the group homes and orphenages?