JohnGalt said:
STOP YELLING AT ME
DAMM!1T!!!!!!
Should Homosexuals Be allowed to adopt children? (Let's give this one more try)
- Thread starter Mystech
- Start date
STOP YELLING AT ME
DAMM!1T!!!!!!
What is a benefit, compared against nothing(which is how you establish what a benefit is), of having straight parents?
An advantage? Acceptance. Not worrying about people's sex, sexual orientations, and from this, skin color, etc. etc. Not judging people by who they sleep with but by their character.
An advantage? Acceptance. Not worrying about people's sex, sexual orientations, and from this, skin color, etc. etc. Not judging people by who they sleep with but by their character.
I believe it has now become obvious that ReighnStorm is either not reading the posts of others, or does not understand the question she is asking. Would you attempt to re-phrase your question in a number of ways, ReighnStorm? As it stands it appears you are being remarkably dissrespectful at the way people are heaping evedence and answers at your feet, and you act as if you see nothing.
In what Universe, ReighnStorm, is "good" constant?
To wit: If heterosexuals lived up to their obligations, the most part of this discussion could be avoided. It ain't gays producing the 110,000+ kids in the United States each year without a home.
So ... live up to your end, and you won't have to worry about anyone else's.
Stop going out of your way to compel us to believe you're stupid, and perhaps some of that frustration will abate. Were you dignified, respectful, or even simply decent, that would be one thing.
But if you are unable to grasp the point, and are unwilling to even try, perhaps you should reconsider whether this is a discussion you're prepared to take part in. In general terms, this community resents ageisms inasmuch as we don't appreciate condesenscion based on age, but in your case the only real question is whether you're nine years old or a severely stunted fourteen.
Since you have such a unique idea of what constitutes a benefit, perhaps you'd best outline your criteria, so we can cease frustrating you with the irrelevant upshots of having a stable family.
In the meantime, other homophobes and traditionalists may wish to consider disclaiming you, since you're the personification of everything reasonably vilified in the traditionalist voice.
If you brought a rational aspect to the discussion, you would find yourself better met. If you brought an iota of respect to the discussion, you would find yourself better met. However, as it is, you're widely regarded as an idiot, and as either a posting member or a moderator, there's not much I can do to change that image. It's up to you.
So let's start with an easy question: What constitutes a benefit for the purposes of your inquiry?
To wit: If heterosexuals lived up to their obligations, the most part of this discussion could be avoided. It ain't gays producing the 110,000+ kids in the United States each year without a home.
So ... live up to your end, and you won't have to worry about anyone else's.
Stop going out of your way to compel us to believe you're stupid, and perhaps some of that frustration will abate. Were you dignified, respectful, or even simply decent, that would be one thing.
But if you are unable to grasp the point, and are unwilling to even try, perhaps you should reconsider whether this is a discussion you're prepared to take part in. In general terms, this community resents ageisms inasmuch as we don't appreciate condesenscion based on age, but in your case the only real question is whether you're nine years old or a severely stunted fourteen.
Since you have such a unique idea of what constitutes a benefit, perhaps you'd best outline your criteria, so we can cease frustrating you with the irrelevant upshots of having a stable family.
In the meantime, other homophobes and traditionalists may wish to consider disclaiming you, since you're the personification of everything reasonably vilified in the traditionalist voice.
If you brought a rational aspect to the discussion, you would find yourself better met. If you brought an iota of respect to the discussion, you would find yourself better met. However, as it is, you're widely regarded as an idiot, and as either a posting member or a moderator, there's not much I can do to change that image. It's up to you.
So let's start with an easy question: What constitutes a benefit for the purposes of your inquiry?
Last edited:
ReighnStorm said:
haha....RS methinks you protest TOO much. ie., actions speak as loud as your projecting words
let me explain
ohhhhh, how you reveal yourself when you bring in how much of a man you are. i could die laughin i really could
do you get it yet?....how long i wonder will it take
continuuing. WHEN you proclaim your 'manliness' it is showing me and other ones with any savvy that all this shouting at Queers, at this forum and possibly others, is the eternal play-out of whats really goin on with YOU. with your own unsurity about your sexuality........would end that with LOL, but i am too sensitive for you now
but cant pretend to always be, depends how hard ya push me dude
you see, you and yours aren't harmless. on one level i CANm feel sorry for ya. but i have had friends battered by idiots such as yourself who hold homophobic views. just cause ye aint out bashin dont mean your prejudice doesn't add to the nasty stew
JohnGalt said:
What I don't understand is how you can say that when it's almost impossible to say that about ANYONE! As you well know, there are many cases of mothers who've wanted a child, seemed quite loving and careful ....yet killed their child!!! Post-partum syndrome or something like that?? See ...you can't even make that statement in truth, reliably, about anyone, yet you make it about someone who is already "a bit strange" in our society.
Listen, this is simple as far as I'm concerned: The state has to review the applicants for adoption in order to determine whether or not they'll allow the adoption. There are many factors to consider, some of which might be borderline, like income or income potential. Yet, you all seem to feel that throwing homosexuality into the review should have no effect in that applicants review process. Geez, that's just one more of many factors that has to be considered ...yet y'all want the reviewers NOT to consider it! Why? Why, for god's sake?!
Why are y'all so willing to take the chance of giving a kid to anyone with some of the factors being .....ahh, questionable? Is the kid of so little value that you'll just toss him/her to anyone who says they want him/her? ...just like that?
Homosexuals are different to most people ....who among you won't agree with that? And if they are, it's just one more factor in the adoption process.
Baron Max
Just another factor? An unnecessary factor, and that's the whole point. Also, such things as why you say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed is already on the test(pediphile, etc.).
When the state reviews the applicants, many of things on their ARE necessary. However, you can't just add more with no reason. If the fear was that a homosexual might rape the child, things of that order, that's already a factor. A straight person has to have those same questions.
It might be different if the homosexuals were fostering, as then the child would have already been used to straight parents. However, if adopted at birth, it will become second nature, no problem at all, just as no one has a problem with hetero parents.
When the state reviews the applicants, many of things on their ARE necessary. However, you can't just add more with no reason. If the fear was that a homosexual might rape the child, things of that order, that's already a factor. A straight person has to have those same questions.
It might be different if the homosexuals were fostering, as then the child would have already been used to straight parents. However, if adopted at birth, it will become second nature, no problem at all, just as no one has a problem with hetero parents.
JohnGalt said:
Ahh, but some people think it IS necessary ...and some of those people are the ones who'll take the heat if something goes wrong. Are you right or are they? And remember, they think that THEY are right.
I don't believe that I've ever said anything about "pedophilia" in any of my posts!! ...so please don't try to put words in my mouth!
JohnGalt said:
Why not? The world is not static, you know! New studies, new publications, new data, new/different viewpoints, etc. Just guessing, of course, but I'd say lots and lots of things have "just been added" since the adoption laws first began ...some with valid reasons, some maybe not.
JohnGalt said:
No little kids making fun of them? No little kids laughing at them at PTA meetings and such? No little kids teasing them for not having a "mommy", but having two "daddys"? No parents of the other kids not letting their kids play with them 'cause of their "parents"? No teachers being swayed, in grading or school work, by the fact that their parents are homos? No prejudices of any kind, huh?
No problems for the kid, huh? None? And are you willing to put a kid through all that just to have homo's be allowed to adopt? You're willing to gamble the entire life of those kids ....just for some "rights" for homo's?
I think that's a big, big gamble for a state to make without any substantiating evidence to the contrary. Studies are now underway with kids from homes where the parents split up due to one of them coming out of the closet. When those tests are concluded, perhaps the gamble won't be so great. But now? At this time? No, I don't think so.
Baron Max
Actually its already been happening for quite sometime, near as I can tell (as has been repeatedly stated) the AAP studies haven’t been finding any evidence of your fears. You said earlier in the thread... or maybe it was the other one, that we shouldn't take you seriously. Could you maybe... I don’t know, color code the things you want us to take seriously vs. the ones you don't? I don't want to waste my time thinking about your posts if even you acknowledge you don’t have anything worth saying.
ReighnStorm said:ARE YOU KIDDING ME ???
No, but I've got the sneaking suspicion that you’re trying to kid us all, or at least just doing a very good job of kidding yourself. Speaking of kidding, how old are you, exactly? It's not a particularly important question in the grand scheme of this debate, I know, but you strike me as someone who hasn't yet developed the ability to grasp exactly what it is that makes a reasoned point, or even the difference between a strong and weak argument, let alone a sound one.
Either public schools have done you a disservice, or you've got some more incubating to do before you're really prepared for this sort of thing.
Baron Max said:
Spymoose seems to have missed this one, but I'm sure he won't mind if I pick it up for him.
You're old and a bit senile, I understand, so I'll help you out with the implied context and meaning that you seem to have missed in your own post.
You ask whether Spymoose thinks that he knows better than those who work in adoption agencies, however your lack of reading comprehension has made you miss that it is not two his own credentials that Spymoose is referring. As he has stated earlier, both the American Psychological Association and the American Association of Pediatrics state that being raised by homosexuals does not seem to adversely effect any child.
And on another note, your post seems to imply that Spymoose was intended to convey the message that he feels that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, despite some sort of current ban on such. However, so far as I know (at least in the United States) there is no state which bans homosexuals from adopting children other than Florida. So apparently these adoption workers who's authority you are attempting to appeal too are already on Spymoose's side.
This being as it is, I would put you to the question: Do you know more about child-rearing and child psychology and what's good for children than all of the people who work in and for adoption agencies? If so, what are your credentials?
(Insert Title Here)
So, we're 110+ posts into this discussion. I was wondering if anyone could give me a summary of, say, the argument against? I'm not sure the outbursts of homophobia we've endured so far constitute a fair representation. As much as some of us are tempted to shrug and say, "Seems about accurate," we all know there's more to it than rainbow pabulum.
I mean, the closest thing we have to an argument so far seems to come from the guy we're not supposed to take seriously, anyway:
But look at the underlying propositions:
It's amazing what people will ask for in order to justify and empower their hatred. (Or, rather, theoretically, since we're not even supposed to take that argument seriously in the first place.)
More seriously, though: What's the problem with all these homophobic bigots? Do they no longer pretend a defense or justification for their behavior? Do they really think themselves decent as such?
I mean, if it's so damned important to keep children locked in a government system, if its so damned important to find something to hold against homosexuals, there must necessarily be a rational case in defense of that pursuit that reflects established and arguable facts.
Right?
(Right?)
So, we're 110+ posts into this discussion. I was wondering if anyone could give me a summary of, say, the argument against? I'm not sure the outbursts of homophobia we've endured so far constitute a fair representation. As much as some of us are tempted to shrug and say, "Seems about accurate," we all know there's more to it than rainbow pabulum.
I mean, the closest thing we have to an argument so far seems to come from the guy we're not supposed to take seriously, anyway:
Baron Max said:
But look at the underlying propositions:
• "No little kids making fun of them?" The effects of such irrational bigotry are not the moral responsibility of its object.
• "When those tests are concluded, perhaps the gamble won't be so great ...." Nothing like convicting a group of people in the court of public opinion with no substantial case while eternally asking for more data before obliging yourselves to treating them as human beings, eh?
• "When those tests are concluded, perhaps the gamble won't be so great ...." Nothing like convicting a group of people in the court of public opinion with no substantial case while eternally asking for more data before obliging yourselves to treating them as human beings, eh?
It's amazing what people will ask for in order to justify and empower their hatred. (Or, rather, theoretically, since we're not even supposed to take that argument seriously in the first place.)
More seriously, though: What's the problem with all these homophobic bigots? Do they no longer pretend a defense or justification for their behavior? Do they really think themselves decent as such?
I mean, if it's so damned important to keep children locked in a government system, if its so damned important to find something to hold against homosexuals, there must necessarily be a rational case in defense of that pursuit that reflects established and arguable facts.
Right?
(Right?)
Last edited:
I was adopted and I don't see any problem with the system, I have met my so called real parents and they are losers, I am happy I was given up for adoption, people are not going to adopt you just for fun here are many tests that potential parents have to go through before they are given a child that's why they are always such good parents. I would be a totally different person if I stayed with my real parents
Baron Max said:
Because everyone in any position to make a well informed and scientifically supported assessment of the situation recognize the fact that it really doesn't have any significant bearing on a child's developmental growth or wellbeing in and of itself.
Would you like a parent's religion or race to be taken into account when adopting a child? How about the color of their eyes, or the length of their last name? Kids with funny last names always get picked on by bullies in the school yard, you know.
Baron Max said:
I'm a little unclear on just what you mean here. Could you perhaps tell us in your own opinion (I feel fairly safe asking only for opinion as I doubt very much that you'd be able to offer up much else) what are these specific risks and "questionable" factors associated specifically with homosexual adoptive parents. Isn't this one of the questions we've been asking all along?
Baron Max said:
Are you trying to convince us that you and people like you are the only problem with same-sex couples adopting children? Because honestly I think you're making a fairly good case for just that.
On the other hand, I hope you realize that this is an equally valid argument for why African Americans and Hispanics shouldn't have children either.
tiassa said:
I really hate to say it, but thus far it seems that the most substantive points thus far have been:
"OMG homosexuals, Eeew! Hahaha, I mean am I right, people? Just yuck!"
and
"Give kids to homos, and they’ll get beat up one good."
The former is one that we've heard a lot of across quite a few posts. I really can't argue it except to extend a friendly appendage and assure those with an instinctual gut-clenching revulsion to the idea that it's only seems kinky the first time.
Whether the latter constitutes a genuine concern or a veiled threat may be something we could debate, but honestly I think we'd need to get a broader range of opinions on the sentiment before we can really take it seriously. Our current source on this is a bit unreliable to say the least.
And compare BM's supposed 'fear for the children' regarding society's view of them having Gay parents with mine
i am 'mixed race'. when my mum went with a black dude her dad, my grandpa was SO shoked he went blind for several months...!
in those times what she did was really really BOLD. All her family excluding ONE aunt--my gandpa's sister, turned their backs on my mum, previously having warned her all the shit you are warning whoever about what'll happen to the kids etc
and sure..i DIDs get abuse from varius kids at school etc--excacerabted cause of me also being Queer. but you know what, i have NON regret!....i am so rpoud of my mum for what she did. challenged the utter vile prejudices.....THAt is what we need. not PRETENDING to 'care' for kids when REALLY we are wanting to care for our OWN prejudice....hah. if you really cared for kids you would also question the fukin school system itself, which are more like open prisons where disenfranchized kids can bs so severely bullied many have gotten killed, commit suicide, etc
i am 'mixed race'. when my mum went with a black dude her dad, my grandpa was SO shoked he went blind for several months...!
in those times what she did was really really BOLD. All her family excluding ONE aunt--my gandpa's sister, turned their backs on my mum, previously having warned her all the shit you are warning whoever about what'll happen to the kids etc
and sure..i DIDs get abuse from varius kids at school etc--excacerabted cause of me also being Queer. but you know what, i have NON regret!....i am so rpoud of my mum for what she did. challenged the utter vile prejudices.....THAt is what we need. not PRETENDING to 'care' for kids when REALLY we are wanting to care for our OWN prejudice....hah. if you really cared for kids you would also question the fukin school system itself, which are more like open prisons where disenfranchized kids can bs so severely bullied many have gotten killed, commit suicide, etc
tiassa said:
Well, no ...not really! Bigots and homophob's can make up anything they want and call it rational, logical, "right" or anything else that they want. And more to the point, I suppose, if queers make some issue about it, they can just slough it off as "queer talk". See? Don't have to be a "rational case" for any of it (or for any thing, for that matter). "What I say IS rational, dammit!" ...or haven't you heard that before?
tiassa said:
As I'm sure that you're aware, humans do that all the time, have been doing it all down through history. Are you attempting to claim otherwise here?
Baron Max