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 think that the issues I am talking about are complex. I think stakeholders and experts should work on solutions. If these people are simple bigots then, yes they should be ignored. But they may be uninformed, or they may have information that needs to be addressed. Either way I think it is possible for someone to have concerns and join in a fact based real world discussion. There can be 3 likely out comes: Their minds are changed. + Their minds are not changed but facts prevail. + They had real fact based concerns that are taken into account when new rules, ethical guidelines and laws are put in place. +
It may be that all or nothing is not the only and best choice.
The whole morality-is-determined-by-nature argument is fraught with holes. Most Americans live the most unnatural existence imaginable. And despite all evidence to the contrary, and that A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/08/out.of.wedlock.births/index.html">40% of children are born to unwed parents, same-sex partners are still seen as unfit to be parents.
Personally, I think that the whole "family values" argument is code for gay = dangerous/wrong. The media and film industries have been complicit in producing incredibly incorrect and biased perspectives of gay men and women. Not surprisingly, many people confound homosexuality with pedophilia, especially in the case of gay men. The reality is that gay men are not generally sexually attracted to boys (pedophilia). Gay men just like men, and are not per se immoral, deceptive, or diseased.
Salvia - thought I did, will try better next time. I still don't think you're making sense - apart from gays being just great at parenting, a fact that can't be disputed, aren't there more children in need than families to adopt them? Shouldn't a child be given a healthy, functional family of two same-sex people before an unhealthy male-female one?
Shouldn't a child be given a healthy, functional family of two same-sex people before an unhealthy male-female one?
Of course, but how do you determine that. Also, i get the feeling that you think that dysfunctional homes are more common with straight couples than gay couples. I don't understand that assumption.
Yes, I now there are, there are also orphanages now. A little levity.
In my state the norm is to put unwanted children, and children whose parents are unable to care for them, foster care. These children rarely come available for adoption and even more rarely as infants. Some children grow up in a single caring foster home. Some children grow up in a foster children that has many foster kids and a lock on the fridge and shared rooms and rules that make it little different than a group home. Most children who enter CPS bounce around between different foster homes and relatives, occasionally being reunited with a parent.
The foster care system, in this state, is always the first to get their budget cut. Their is no political constituency.
Shouldn't a child be given a healthy, functional family of two same-sex people before an unhealthy male-female one?
Of course, but how do you determine that. Also, i get the feeling that you think that dysfunctional homes are more common with straight couples than gay couples. I don't understand that assumption.
There's no assumption there - there's simply a lower standard applied to straight couples. "Gay" automatically is associated with a whole host of destructive behaviors. Even if none of those behaviors exist in a given couple, you (and others) have posited that a child might be less well off simply based on the genitals of one or the other parent.
Shouldn't a child be given a healthy, functional family of two same-sex people before an unhealthy male-female one?
Of course, but how do you determine that. Also, i get the feeling that you think that dysfunctional homes are more common with straight couples than gay couples. I don't understand that assumption.
There's no assumption there - there's simply a lower standard applied to straight couples. "Gay" automatically is associated with a whole host of destructive behaviors. Even if none of those behaviors exist in a given couple, you (and others) have posited that a child might be less well off simply based on the genitals of one or the other parent.
This may be true in the US. But not in my country, the Netherlands.
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.
Please forward the studies that show only 2-3 states would overturn or restrict abortion. I guarantee that OK, Utah, and good portion of the South would do so immediately. Even places like Nebraska and Kansas would probably move to severely limit or place tremendous burdens on women in an effort to stop them from getting abortions.
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 think that the issues I am talking about are complex. I think stakeholders and experts should work on solutions. If these people are simple bigots then, yes they should be ignored. But they may be uninformed, or they may have information that needs to be addressed. Either way I think it is possible for someone to have concerns and join in a fact based real world discussion. There can be 3 likely out comes: Their minds are changed. + Their minds are not changed but facts prevail. + They had real fact based concerns that are taken into account when new rules, ethical guidelines and laws are put in place. +
It may be that all or nothing is not the only and best choice.
Adoption is a complex issue.
There is nothing inherently more complex about adoption by same-sex couples.
Pretending that the two issues (adoption + same sex marriage) are inherently linked is just a ruse that bigots who are frightened to articulate their real feelings or are not entirely in touch with them employ.
Being gay is not some "well I guess they have a right to do it, but let's not expose the children" type schitt. It is not heroin use. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and the degree to which a person conceives of adoption as being linked to same-sex marriage is probably a good barometer of the degree to which they actually view homosexuality as being somehow wrong.
And being a bigot with a loud mouth does not somehow render a person a "stakeholder".
Being gay is not some "well I guess they have a right to do it, but let's not expose the children" type schitt. It is not heroin use. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and the degree to which a person conceives of adoption as being linked to same-sex marriage is probably a good barometer of the degree to which they actually view homosexuality as being somehow wrong.
Today, or tomorrow, it is easy for Utah or Kansas to outlaw abortion. They are secure in the knowledge that a quick trip to NV or MO will return their freedom of choice.
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 think that the issues I am talking about are complex. I think stakeholders and experts should work on solutions. If these people are simple bigots then, yes they should be ignored. But they may be uninformed, or they may have information that needs to be addressed. Either way I think it is possible for someone to have concerns and join in a fact based real world discussion. There can be 3 likely out comes: Their minds are changed. + Their minds are not changed but facts prevail. + They had real fact based concerns that are taken into account when new rules, ethical guidelines and laws are put in place. +
It may be that all or nothing is not the only and best choice.
Adoption is a complex issue.
There is nothing inherently more complex about adoption by same-sex couples.
Pretending that the two issues (adoption + same sex marriage) are inherently linked is just a ruse that bigots who are frightened to articulate their real feelings or are not entirely in touch with them employ.
Being gay is not some "well I guess they have a right to do it, but let's not expose the children" type schitt. It is not heroin use. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and the degree to which a person conceives of adoption as being linked to same-sex marriage is probably a good barometer of the degree to which they actually view homosexuality as being somehow wrong.
And being a bigot with a loud mouth does not somehow render a person a "stakeholder".
Can't argue with that.
If there is some convincing argument I don't know of it.
Let me throw one out, just for giggles, you can laugh at me and shoot it down. A young woman becomes pregnant and chooses to put her child up for adoption. The birth mother is deeply religious and believes, as her religion teaches, that homosexuality is wrong. She requests that the adoptive parents be a married man and a woman.
Seems to me that how an adoption agency deals with that information is worthy of a respectful conversation.
I would fully support the out come of that conversation being; we do not practice discrimination in our adoption policy. I would also support the outcome being; we do what we can to accommodate the wishes of the birth mother.
So lets flip the script. A young woman becomes pregnant and chooses to put her child up for adoption. The birth mother is Native American. She requests that the adoptive parent(s) be Native American.
I would fully support the out come of that conversation being; we do not practice discrimination in our adoption policy. I would also support the outcome being; we do what we can to accommodate the wishes of the birth mother.
I think an adopted child is lucky to get a couple of caring parents regardless of their sexual orientation.
Sayin'. I haven't seen any statistics???or anecdotal evidence for that matter???that show that homosexual parents have a higher instance of bad parenting than heterosexual parents. Hell, considering how long they've fought for the right to marry, I bet the divorce rate would be lower too.
If I recall correctly I don't think he said anything about them being bad parents.
I know gay couples who have kids and I think it will probably be a little more difficult for them than people who don't, just because it's not as socially acceptable (to the general populace) as having, say, divorced parents. So the reason I think it would be more difficult ... probably from about jr. high on ... is this:
I am not a bigot, I have no Problem with gay people, I think eveybody should live how they want. I myself was adopted, i know every Problem that comes with it to the fullest. I can only imgine these Problems being much greater if you get adopted by gay parents, especially Not Belonging / Abandonment / Feeling Alienated also peer pressure mobbing etc. I am sure there would be terrific gay parents, just like there will be bad straight parents. But all in all I am perfectly sure that it would be a lot easier for a child to feel at home with a mom and dad compared to a gay couple.
I am not a bigot, I have no Problem with gay people, I think eveybody should live how they want. I myself was adopted, i know every Problem that comes with it to the fullest. I can only imgine these Problems being much greater if you get adopted by gay parents, especially Not Belonging / Abandonment / Feeling Alienated also peer pressure mobbing etc. I am sure there would be terrific gay parents, just like there will be bad straight parents. But all in all I am perfectly sure that it would be a lot easier for a child to feel at home with a mom and dad compared to a gay couple.
Should a minority couple not have children because they might be a discriminated against? A good set of parents will be able to raise their children to deal with problems they encounter in life and the way the world is going, the least of which will be "LOL UR DADZ/MOMZ R HOMOZ." You do realize that the "problems" you describe are only perpetuated by attitudes such as your own, right?
I am not a bigot, I have no Problem with gay people, I think eveybody should live how they want. I myself was adopted, i know every Problem that comes with it to the fullest. I can only imgine these Problems being much greater if you get adopted by gay parents, especially Not Belonging / Abandonment / Feeling Alienated also peer pressure mobbing etc. I am sure there would be terrific gay parents, just like there will be bad straight parents. But all in all I am perfectly sure that it would be a lot easier for a child to feel at home with a mom and dad compared to a gay couple.
Should a minority couple not have children because they might be a discriminated against? A good set of parents will be able to raise their children to deal with problems they encounter in life and the way the world is going, the least of which will be "LOL UR DADZ/MOMZ R HOMOZ." You do realize that the "problems" you describe are only perpetuated by attitudes such as your own, right?
I am not a bigot, I have no Problem with gay people, I think eveybody should live how they want. I myself was adopted, i know every Problem that comes with it to the fullest. I can only imgine these Problems being much greater if you get adopted by gay parents, especially Not Belonging / Abandonment / Feeling Alienated also peer pressure mobbing etc. I am sure there would be terrific gay parents, just like there will be bad straight parents. But all in all I am perfectly sure that it would be a lot easier for a child to feel at home with a mom and dad compared to a gay couple.
Should a minority couple not have children because they might be a discriminated against?
Comments
I already mentioned that i prefer children living with gay parents than in orphenages. Please read my posts next time.
I think that the issues I am talking about are complex.
I think stakeholders and experts should work on solutions.
If these people are simple bigots then, yes they should be ignored.
But they may be uninformed, or they may have information that needs to be addressed.
Either way I think it is possible for someone to have concerns and join in a fact based real world discussion.
There can be 3 likely out comes:
Their minds are changed. +
Their minds are not changed but facts prevail. +
They had real fact based concerns that are taken into account when new rules, ethical guidelines and laws are put in place. +
It may be that all or nothing is not the only and best choice.
Group homes are so 80s and orphanages are so 20s.
Foster care.
Personally, I think that the whole "family values" argument is code for gay = dangerous/wrong. The media and film industries have been complicit in producing incredibly incorrect and biased perspectives of gay men and women. Not surprisingly, many people confound homosexuality with pedophilia, especially in the case of gay men. The reality is that gay men are not generally sexually attracted to boys (pedophilia). Gay men just like men, and are not per se immoral, deceptive, or diseased.
Salvia - thought I did, will try better next time. I still don't think you're making sense - apart from gays being just great at parenting, a fact that can't be disputed, aren't there more children in need than families to adopt them? Shouldn't a child be given a healthy, functional family of two same-sex people before an unhealthy male-female one?
Of course, but how do you determine that. Also, i get the feeling that you think that dysfunctional homes are more common with straight couples than gay couples. I don't understand that assumption.
Salvia is trying to sound a little more sophisticated. Yet, he too his exposed his true colors.
My favorite was his use of of, 'inalienable,' to describe the 'right of a child to have two parents'.
All the yux on the third page are just tired now...
But, Lefty choosing his parents and telling everyone to suck his fat dick were good enough for me to bookmark this for future lulz.
Yes, I now there are, there are also orphanages now. A little levity.
In my state the norm is to put unwanted children, and children whose parents are unable to care for them, foster care.
These children rarely come available for adoption and even more rarely as infants.
Some children grow up in a single caring foster home.
Some children grow up in a foster children that has many foster kids and a lock on the fridge and shared rooms and rules that make it little different than a group home.
Most children who enter CPS bounce around between different foster homes and relatives, occasionally being reunited with a parent.
The foster care system, in this state, is always the first to get their budget cut.
Their is no political constituency.
There's no assumption there - there's simply a lower standard applied to straight couples. "Gay" automatically is associated with a whole host of destructive behaviors. Even if none of those behaviors exist in a given couple, you (and others) have posited that a child might be less well off simply based on the genitals of one or the other parent.
This may be true in the US. But not in my country, the Netherlands.
True, but in his defense, it is kind of Lloyd Bank's fault...
Please forward the studies that show only 2-3 states would overturn or restrict abortion. I guarantee that OK, Utah, and good portion of the South would do so immediately. Even places like Nebraska and Kansas would probably move to severely limit or place tremendous burdens on women in an effort to stop them from getting abortions.
Adoption is a complex issue.
There is nothing inherently more complex about adoption by same-sex couples.
Pretending that the two issues (adoption + same sex marriage) are inherently linked is just a ruse that bigots who are frightened to articulate their real feelings or are not entirely in touch with them employ.
Being gay is not some "well I guess they have a right to do it, but let's not expose the children" type schitt. It is not heroin use. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and the degree to which a person conceives of adoption as being linked to same-sex marriage is probably a good barometer of the degree to which they actually view homosexuality as being somehow wrong.
And being a bigot with a loud mouth does not somehow render a person a "stakeholder".
TRUTH
Here is a .pdf with details on current laws in every state.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf
Today, or tomorrow, it is easy for Utah or Kansas to outlaw abortion.
They are secure in the knowledge that a quick trip to NV or MO will return their freedom of choice.
Can't argue with that.
If there is some convincing argument I don't know of it.
Let me throw one out, just for giggles, you can laugh at me and shoot it down.
A young woman becomes pregnant and chooses to put her child up for adoption.
The birth mother is deeply religious and believes, as her religion teaches, that homosexuality is wrong.
She requests that the adoptive parents be a married man and a woman.
Seems to me that how an adoption agency deals with that information is worthy of a respectful conversation.
I would fully support the out come of that conversation being; we do not practice discrimination in our adoption policy.
I would also support the outcome being; we do what we can to accommodate the wishes of the birth mother.
So lets flip the script.
A young woman becomes pregnant and chooses to put her child up for adoption.
The birth mother is Native American.
She requests that the adoptive parent(s) be Native American.
I would fully support the out come of that conversation being; we do not practice discrimination in our adoption policy.
I would also support the outcome being; we do what we can to accommodate the wishes of the birth mother.
Why would she have any influence on the process?
Can I donate sperm and ask that it only goes to a midget?
The Birth Mother has rights?
If I recall correctly I don't think he said anything about them being bad parents.
I know gay couples who have kids and I think it will probably be a little more difficult for them than people who don't, just because it's not as socially acceptable (to the general populace) as having, say, divorced parents. So the reason I think it would be more difficult ... probably from about jr. high on ... is this:
"Billy's parents are FAGS!"
Teenagers. Yes. They are dicks.
Good people make good parents regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, etc., etc.
Or my theories about male lactation, or as I like to call it, "Mactation".
I have no Problem with gay people, I think eveybody should live how they want.
I myself was adopted, i know every Problem that comes with it to the fullest.
I can only imgine these Problems being much greater if you get adopted by gay parents,
especially Not Belonging / Abandonment / Feeling Alienated
also peer pressure mobbing etc.
I am sure there would be terrific gay parents,
just like there will be bad straight parents.
But all in all I am perfectly sure that it would be a lot easier for a child
to feel at home with a mom and dad compared to a gay couple.
You probably want to get that checked out.
Should a minority couple not have children because they might be a discriminated against? A good set of parents will be able to raise their children to deal with problems they encounter in life and the way the world is going, the least of which will be "LOL UR DADZ/MOMZ R HOMOZ." You do realize that the "problems" you describe are only perpetuated by attitudes such as your own, right?
Brian please SFTU. Or post a find.
Yes. Also poor people.
The level of ignorance is nagl
How about gay poor people.
Dude is most likely right, though - you know that.
The kids will probably get ten tons of shit about it in school.
Does that outweigh having loving parents? Probably not.
But it's an added difficulty that adopted kids of straight parents won't have.
Does that mean gay people shouldn't be able to adopt? No.
Grafwritah for mod.