Gay Adoption

[demagogic_schizoid]

Currently, this is an issue in Britain. I won't go into it, because the technicalities of the debate are dull. My question is just, are we in favour of it? Personally, I'm not at the moment. I'm not saying I could never be won round. I don't know much about homosexuality, my feelings towards it (not homosexuals themselves) are slightly negative right now because I see the homosexuals I personally know as quite damaged people, but I don't what came first, if you see what I mean. My real issue though on this topic is not with homosexuality, it is with the idea of giving a child to two people who purposefully shun the reproductive process. It troubles me. So vote away.

[Ivy]

We already give children to two people who purposefully shun the reproductive process: straight people who decide to adopt instead of conceiving more children to add to an already overpopulated planet.

[demagogic_schizoid]

We already give children to two people who purposefully shun the reproductive process: straight people who decide to adopt instead of conceiving more children to add to an already overpopulated planet.

do you think it's the same? I guess gay people shun heterosexual itself, which is what leads to reproduction. the people you are referring to do not do that.

[Ivy]

do you think it's the same? I guess gay people shun heterosexual itself, which is what leads to reproduction. the people you are referring to do not do that.

Yes, I think it's the same. In your OP you made a distinction between homosexuality and purposefully choosing not to reproduce biologically. Do you now want to go back to the homosexuality part?

[ApeTheDog]

Where exactly do you get the idea that being a homosexual equates being against reproduction?

It's unproven and, well, a shit argument. And what with this shitty argument being the only thing you go by to prove your point, I'd say you're left with a pretty shitty point as well.

A child doesn't need for it's mother and father to have a penis and a vagina. That's what it needs to be born - but what it needs to grow up is love, support, and people who are dedicated to teaching it what it needs to survive. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are probably just about equally adept at this.

[Jasz]

there is no relation between sexual orientation and parental skills.

i protest against disfunctional families, and obusive and neglective parents.

[Ivy]

Agree fully with Ape and Jasz.

Also, plenty of gay people reproduce biologically.

[cafe]

All other things being equal, I think it's okay.

[Rhu]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12618
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6665
[/archivist]

[PonderBee]

there is no relation between sexual orientation and parental skills.

i protest against disfunctional families, and obusive and neglective parents.

Yes and yes.

[immortalmack]

I think gay adoption ruins the natural growth of children.

[Ivy]

I think gay adoption ruins the natural growth of children.

In what way?

[Rhu]

I think gay adoption ruins the natural growth of children.


In what way?

90% of all midgets were adopted by gay parents. It's a statistic.

[immortalmack]

In what way?
Everytime I see gay couples with adopted children, there is at least one of the kids who are definately confused about themselves. It's easy to think that a gay couple,them being cuddly and squishy actin and tender looking, could make good parents but that too wild of a world to raise kids in. The media always wants to show us intelligent-rich gays but they never show you the fierceness of a dyke or the just plain ole punkishness of the males. this, in my mind, is not an ideal development ground for children to grow up in.
There are many better alternatives to gay adoption, like no parents at all and just being a ward of the state.
(this is just my opinion)

[omnirook]

This is one of those issues that just won't die.

Nobody rants and raves about dumping kids into orphanages or into foster care (where, I suspect, most foster "parents" like getting the checks more than they care about the children). That doesn't bother anybody. No, but let a stable, affluent gay/lesbian couple want to adopt, and we start foaming at the mouth - proof to me that the same mindless, heartless fascists who oppose abortion are the ones who oppose gay adoption: no concern whatever for the children, just a warped, twisted sense of "morality" that, really, boiled down, is nothing more than a sick desire to control while being self-righteous, vindictive, and sadistic.

EDIT: I just got a load of the post above mine, went up while I was writing: I rest my case.

[C.J.Woolf]

Nobody has addressed the elephant in the room yet, so I will.

Who believes that a child raised by gay parents would become gay whereas the same child raised by straight parents would not? I do not (I think nature is stronger than nurture here), but anyone who does believe it would likely vote No.

[Ivy]

Everytime I see gay couples with adopted children, there is at least one of the kids who are definately confused about themselves. It's easy to think that a gay couple,them being cuddly and squishy actin and tender looking, could make good parents but that too wild of a world to raise kids in. The media always wants to show us intelligent-rich gays but they never show you the fierceness of a dyke or the just plain ole punkishness of the males. this, in my mind, is not an ideal development ground for children to grow up in.
There are many better alternatives to gay adoption, like no parents at all and just being a ward of the state.
(this is just my opinion)

The fierceness of a dyke? Punkishness of the males? These just don't ring true for me based on the gay people I know. Particularly the parents. The world of the gay parents I know is not at all wild. I think you're engaging in sweeping generalizations based on your fantasy of what a gay person is like.

[omnirook]

Nobody has addressed the elephant in the room yet, so I will.

Who believes that a child raised by gay parents would become gay whereas the same child raised by straight parents would not? I do not (I think nature is stronger than nurture here), but anyone who does believe it would likely vote No.

Nonsense.

Similar arguments are used against gay teachers - that they will turn straight students gay - but nobody in that argument addresses that particular elephant, either - Why don't straight teachers turn gay children straight?

[Rhu]

Everytime I see gay couples with adopted children, there is at least one of the kids who are definately confused about themselves. It's easy to think that a gay couple,them being cuddly and squishy actin and tender looking, could make good parents but that too wild of a world to raise kids in. The media always wants to show us intelligent-rich gays but they never show you the fierceness of a dyke or the just plain ole punkishness of the males. this, in my mind, is not an ideal development ground for children to grow up in.
There are many better alternatives to gay adoption, like no parents at all and just being a ward of the state.
(this is just my opinion)

When they talk about straight couples raising kids, nobody shows pictures of the trailer trash running a meth lab in their run down shack and feeding their kids nothing but pop tarts. They don't show the welfare moms with babies stewing in soiled diapers. They don't show the guy who put his kid in the freezer to shut it up. They don't show the girl who gave birth at the prom and pitched her kid in the dumpster. They don't show drunk old daddy unzipping his fly and walking into his ten year old daughter's room while mommy cries and nurses her black eye. They don't show the blandly uncaring face of the parent who never had a single direct dealing with his kid, even as he is graduating from high school. They never show the mentally incompetent goblin couple churning out children rapid fire and wondering why there is such a high mortality rate. How much food do babies need, anyway?

[cjs55]

I've said this before.

I would always always always pick a stable straight couple to adopt over a stable gay couple. 2 reasons.

1) Generally speaking, naturally, kids are raised by a mother and a father. I don't mess with nature unless I have a good reason to and proof that it has no harmful effects. No one has provided any proof to me on this subject. I would like to see studies done.

2) Culturally, the kid is gonna have a harder time growing up.


Fuck, I'm so sadistic and bigoted! And I've got sick morals too. I'm proud of myself.


That all said, I would consider adoption by a stable gay couple better than being in an orphanage or a fucked up straight couple.

But, let's not mince words. None of you have any idea what you're talking about, and when dealing with aberrations (yes, a gay couple with a kid is an aberration), I think the burden of proof is on you.

[Ivy]

But, let's not mince words. None of you have any idea what you're talking about, and when dealing with aberrations (yes, a gay couple with a kid is an aberration), I think the burden of proof is on you.

Sure about that?

[omnirook]

I've said this before.

I would always always always pick a stable straight couple to adopt over a stable gay couple. 2 reasons.

1) Generally speaking, naturally, kids are raised by a mother and a father. I don't mess with nature unless I have a good reason to and proof that it has no harmful effects. No one has provided any proof to me on this subject. I would like to see studies done.

2) Culturally, the kid is gonna have a harder time growing up.


Fuck, I'm so sadistic and bigoted! And I've got sick morals too. I'm proud of myself.


That all said, I would consider adoption by a stable gay couple better than being in an orphanage or a fucked up straight couple.

But, let's not mince words. None of you have any idea what you're talking about, and when dealing with aberrations (yes, a gay couple with a kid is an aberration), I think the burden of proof is on you.

Which side of your ass side the above crap slide down? Look here, darling - I know my history. I know it well enough to be aware that the concept of the nuclear family w/the mommy and the daddy and the doggy is NEW - very, very, very, very, very new. Kids were NOT historically raised in such a family dynamic - and were only raised in such a dynamic for a brief period before that unsustainable dynamic began to collapse. More than 1/2 of the kids being born today are being born to single mothers, the father long gone. Many kids, an ever increasing number, are being raised by grandma. The fairy tale world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" and even "The Brady Bunch" was and is about as real as - Santa Claus. Get over it.

[cjs55]

And do you think this is a good thing?

(I doubt it).

Don't get me wrong, being an anthropology student I know of plenty of cultures in which sexuality is vague and kids are not raised in nuclear families. But I also know enough to know that they are "very, very, very, very, very new" is totally wrong. There are plenty of hunter-gather societies where (basically) nuclear (or extended) families are the norm.

That doesn't convince me about anything in this case however, as I am concerned about this culture in particular, in this genetic climate and in this social climate.

My above point stands. I specifically said, "I would give priority to a straight couple to adopt over a gay couple (given similar circumanstances)". You said, "But OMG most people aren't raised in a two parent household". I don't know the numbers off hand, but I can tell you that this is a straw man argument.

Straw men are only good for burning.



Sure about that?

Yep. Til someone shows me any sort of research done on the subject, it's safe to say none of us know what we're talking about. I won't accept singular experiences as evidence. I also don't know. But again, I believe the burden of proof is on the other side.

[Ivy]

Yep. Til someone shows me any sort of research done on the subject, it's safe to say none of us know what we're talking about. I won't accept singular experiences as evidence.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html

I've got a lot more in my bookmarks, but this is a good summary. The OP asked for personal opinions, not research.

[cjs55]

Thanks for the link. I'll read it.

My personal opinion is that we need research : ).

[omnirook]

And do you think this is a good thing?

(I doubt it).

My above point stands. Strawmen are only good for burning.



Yep. Til someone shows me any sort of research done on the subject, it's safe to say none of us know what we're talking about. I won't accept singular experiences as evidence. I also don't know. But again, I believe the burden of proof is on the other side.

A very good thing. The nuclear family was an horrendous device that served the aggressor state very well, especially in the service of industry - it set people into a brutal psychological dynamic that created emotionally crippled and stunted automatons. Earlier family dynamics were far, far healthier. There was only one problem w/them - they led to familial alliances among large numbers of people who were principally loyal to their blood, fuck the state. People knew their 5th cousins 5 times removed - can't have that. People don't like abusing and killing their relations. Shrink it down to an exploitable size where mommy and daddy are there (sort of) but where there is not sufficient wider kin support to create a potentially subversive element ... Fuck the nuclear family - it makes people miserable. I wouldn't pull a single hair to preserve it.

[NoahFence]

You who are opposed to gay adoption, verily, I say unto thee: STOP BASING YOUR DECISIONS ON THIS TOPIC ON INFORMATION GATHERED FROM Will and Grace!

Immortalmack, every single one of your arguments against gay adoption applies to interracial couples, or simply interracial adoption. Their kids, too, are confused. Their kids, too, are ridiculed at school for being different. Yet this, somehow, is not a factor in those cases, because their parents are not icky.

By saying that it should be illegal for gays to adopt because their children will be tortured, you are sanctioning the torture of children with gay parents. Ever think that maybe THIS is why the ones you've seen are confused? Because people won't just let them fucking BE?

What about men who just aren't manly, but still like boobies? Should nerds be forbidden to adopt? Based on your criteria, absolutely. No way will they have a normal life, whatever the hell that means.

As for gay parents being a worse option than NO parents?!? Dude, wtf. Seriously. Have you examined how confused and fucked up the kids with no parents are? Have you compared with the children of gay couples? I'm going to guess that you have not lifted a single finger to gather data on this topic, yet have reached this conclusion which would strip thousands upon thousands of people of their basic human right to have a family. You are comfortable and complacent in believing what you've been told about those wild and crazy gays.

Prove to you it won't hurt the kids? Nice tactic. Strip the rights first, make the gaywads do all the work, and to hell with them until then. How about you prove to me it will hurt the kids?

Yep, sure is easier just to go back to whatever you were doing and just let the cocksuckers get trampled. I mean, they always have been, they're used to it, right?

Fuck but this topic gets me mad.

[NoahFence]

Here's one more thought: Should gay people be prevented from having children biologically? What about artificial insemination? Or full implantation?

[cjs55]

Earlier family dynamics were far, far healthier.

Interesting post, but pretty one-sided. I think you are simply describing the effects of the industrial revolution, not the nuclear family. That is, the nuclear family was around before people were getting turned into emotionally crippled and stunted automatons. I think this is not effect of nuclear family, but rather of the culture surrounding it.

Many older cultures were still based around nuclear families at heart. Hunter-gather societies. Before society. Human beings have to invest more in their kids then other primates. A dad sticking around = Much better survival rate for the kid. The dad tries to make sure the kid is his, and then helps raise him. This is distinctly human. This isn't some horrible invention of modern times.

It's also simple genic evolution. You look out for those closest to you genetically, because they share more genes with you and you helping them to survive puts more of said gene out there. It's in our blood, as one might say. Chimps don't do it because the genetic lineage of the kid is unsure because they are too promiscuous.

It's also a way to make sure you spend time raising your kid, not someone elses (ironic, given this discussion). Remember now, I'm talking about the longview here, not personal psychology. These impulses can easily be hijacked and put to use in a case like adoption.

It's been the way it's done since the beginning of the human species.



And, today, are nuclear families with two caring parents a good idea? Better than just having one parent, I'd imagine, since we don't stay with our 5th cousins anymore.

[cjs55]

Here's one more thought: Should gay people be prevented from having children biologically? What about artificial insemination? Or full implantation?

This is unnatural, so it seriously concerns me. Homosexuals in nature would never have the opportunity to do this, while they would definitely have the oppurtunity to adopt. It reminds me too much of messing with stuff we don't know anything about (in the name of equality, in this case).

[NoahFence]

And, today, are nuclear families with two caring parents a good idea? Better than just having one parent, I'd imagine, since we don't stay with our 5th cousins anymore.

...unless, of course, the two caring parents have the same plumbing. 'cause then, you know, it's different. <_<

[cjs55]

Their kids, too, are confused. Their kids, too, are ridiculed at school for being different.

I would be very concerned about interracial child-rearing for these reasons. If this is the case, (which I'm not sure it is), then I think it's fairly selfish to raise a child under these circumstances. However, it is not adoption, which is a controlled procedure. It's good old-fasioned insemination through fucking (haha), which (unfortunately by my view) is part of a human beings natural right in this country. Adoption is not necessarily currently a personal right, although I suppose some of you would argue otherwise.

[cjs55]

...unless, of course, the two caring parents have the same plumbing. 'cause then, you know, it's different.

It is different.

As I said though, I differ from immortalmack, in saying that I am sure a homosexual stable couple would be better than no parents or an unstable heterosexual couple. My statement was that stable heterosexual couples would be given preference. And I currently stand by it. Even if there is no psychological impact on the child, the culture surrounding the kid would surely make it more difficult to grow up. Adoption should be about the best possible raising circumstances for the child, not about making everyone equal. We (should) discriminate in adoption towards the wealtier and more stable for this reason as well.

[NoahFence]

This is unnatural, so it seriously concerns me. Homosexuals in nature would never have the opportunity to do this, while they would definitely have the oppurtunity to adopt. It reminds me too much of messing with stuff we don't know anything about (in the name of equality, in this case).

Don't know anything about? I'm a product of such a union.

And by the way, "in nature" is stupid. Know why? Because In Nature, I'd club your brains out and take all your shit. How's that for a family value? We left nature long, long ago, because it sucks donkey ass and we hated it. Trying to dredge up the values of australopithicus to justify your argument is going to have you defending why my tribe shouldn't wipe out your tribe and take your nice cave.

[NoahFence]

I would be very concerned about interracial child-rearing for these reasons. If this is the case, (which I'm not sure it is), then I think it's fairly selfish to raise a child under these circumstances. However, it is not adoption, which is a controlled procedure. It's good old-fasioned insemination through fucking (haha), which (unfortunately by my view) is part of a human beings natural right in this country. Adoption is not necessarily currently a personal right, although I suppose some of you would argue otherwise.

No, I'm talking about black people adopting white kids.

(Search within yourself now...did that thought make you cringe?)

Actually I was specifically talking about white people adopting chinese kids, which turns out to be the same thing (in a legal sense) as an interracial couple adopting white kids. Unless it's okay for white people to adopt interracially, but not other races?

My position stands. It is easily seen that kids with no parents have lots of trouble. It is easily seen that the natural kids of interracial couples have no problems other than those foisted on them by an uncaring, bigotted society which stands by with blind eye and allows it to happen. But the same applies to orphans, they are the targets of ridicule and bullying for their differences. It stands to reason that the adopted kids of such a couple would not have more problems than the natural, plus whatever BS goes with discovering you're adopted, but that's universal...a white kid adopted by white parents will still face that particular BS.

Therefore, if natural children of mixed couples are better off than orphans, adoption by mixed couples is preferable to the alternative.

Extending this argument to homosexual couples is only difficult for those who wish it to be.

[Rajah]

I think gay adoption ruins the natural growth of children.


Everytime I see gay couples with adopted children, there is at least one of the kids who are definately confused about themselves. It's easy to think that a gay couple,them being cuddly and squishy actin and tender looking, could make good parents but that too wild of a world to raise kids in. The media always wants to show us intelligent-rich gays but they never show you the fierceness of a dyke or the just plain ole punkishness of the males. this, in my mind, is not an ideal development ground for children to grow up in.
There are many better alternatives to gay adoption, like no parents at all and just being a ward of the state.
(this is just my opinion)I'm interested in knowing how many gay couples you've seen that have adopted children. You know, such that you get to make a statement like:
Everytime I see gay couples with adopted children, there is at least one of the kids who are definately confused about themselves.

I'll hazard a guess that it's pitifully few.

Since you seem to accept personal experience and opinion as actual evidence, I'll play the hypothetical game. Let's say you've personally known three gay couples who've adopted a child. Again, I'm willing to bet that this is a gross exaggeration. Even if all three have a maladjusted adopted child, are you going to extrapolate from your very limited personal experience that gay adoption is harmful?

I'll go ahead and post some quotes for you. You know, from actual research:

-As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)

-There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.

-People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)

-Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)

-Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)

-Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)

-On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)

-Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

I'd have a lot more respect for you if you just would come out and say you don't favor gay adoption because you don't like homosexuality. Instead you invent "evidence" to support your position, which I frankly think is pathetic. If you're interested in adding anything of substance to this debate, other than an anti-gay attitude masked by faux evidence, I'd welcome it.

[cjs55]

I'd club your brains out and take all your shit.

No, you wouldn't.

I'll give you a hint: Chimps don't indiscriminately club each other. Maybe you can figure out the reasons sometime. On your own time.


We left nature long, long ago, because it sucks donkey ass and we hated it.

No, we didn't. We left nature only recently, and have been in quite alot of pain due to it.


Trying to dredge up the values of australopithicus to justify your argument is going to have you defending why my tribe shouldn't wipe out your tribe and take your nice cave.

But what does this have to do with anything? We still do this all the time. Have you been following the news? I just don't follow your point.

I understand that at the least you mean to say that what is 'natural' is not a useful distinction. That is fair, but I simply disagree with you. I think one of the major problems in modern times is that we have lost touch with our nature. But this may be an aesthetic concern.

Another place I come from is that I don't think the right to have children should be a given in the first place.

Obviously, we come from different places.

[NoahFence]

One last question for you CJ: how do you define "stable" in the context of a stable hetrosexual couple?

[Rajah]

One last question for you CJ: how do you define "stable" in the context of a stable hetrosexual couple?I'll weigh in with some personal evidence. My parents have been married for over 30 years. That is one seriously fucked-up, unstable relationship.

[cjs55]

(Search within yourself now...did that thought make you cringe?)

No. (trying to make me out to be 'das uber racist' is a waste of time).

I am also confused by your post. A black couple is not an interracial couple.



It is easily seen that the natural kids of interracial couples have no problems other than those foisted on them by an uncaring, bigotted society which stands by with blind eye and allows it to happen.

So, do you think it's a good thing to willingly force children to deal with this when the option is there to avoid it? I don't. Even if this is the only problem with it, it's enough for me to give preference to hetersexual couples over homosexual couples (given similar circumstances).

As far as any psychological effects, I haven't done my homework on that yet.

[cjs55]

One last question for you CJ: how do you define "stable" in the context of a stable hetrosexual couple?



I'll weigh in with some personal evidence. My parents have been married for over 30 years. That is one seriously fucked-up, unstable relationship.

My parents basically hate each other, they've been together for 25 years. But, they are stable. They did a fairly good job raising their kids, although you probably disagree : ). We had room to grow. I had room to play. I wasn't worried about anything. I got to be a happy kid and a troubled teenager and all that shit without being worried about my house not being there, or there not being food, or my parents hitting me. Stable = No money problems, no abuse, no psychotic parents, love and care for children. Just off the top of my head.

A prefered environment would certainly include loving parents, but honestly, I don't think it's as important as the stable bit. I might be biased in that regard though.

[Rajah]

My parents basically hate each other, they've been together for 25 years. But, they are stable. They did a fairly good job raising their kids, although you probably disagree : ). We had room to grow. I had room to play. I wasn't worried about anything. I got to be a happy kid and a troubled teenager and all that shit without being worried about my house not being there, or there not being food, or my parents hitting me. Stable = No money problems, no abuse, no psychotic parents, love and care for children. Just off the top of my head.

A prefered environment would certainly include loving parents, but honestly, I don't think it's as important as the stable bit. I might be biased in that regard though.
Interesting. Honestly, I was raised by one parent -- my mom. Succinctly, my dad was a self-absorbed absentee paycheck/prick. So we'll go ahead and put you on the "yay heterosexual parents" side, and me on the "stable heterosexual relationships are not required to yield relatively well-adjusted children" side. Shit, now there's no obvious conclusion that can be drawn. Oh well.

[NoahFence]

No, you wouldn't.

I'll give you a hint: Chimps don't indiscriminately club each other. Maybe you can figure out the reasons sometime. On your own time.

That sounds like a dig. Which is funny, because you're wrong. They most decidedly DO club each other. I'll give you "indiscriminately", though...they only club stragglers of groups other than their own.


No, we didn't. We left nature only recently, and have been in quite alot of pain due to it.

Spoke by one who's never clutched a tree limb for 48 hours without sleep because a lion has treed you! I'd call six thousand years a long time, personally. And I hesitate to say we've been in pain due to it, seeing as how we left nature to escape pain in the first place. Starvation, disease, being eaten by lions, freezing to death.


But what does this have to do with anything? We still do this all the time. Have you been following the news? I just don't follow your point.

Do people justify terrorism by calling it "natural"? Do people justify the Nazi's by calling them "natural"? See, the problem is, all these examples of "natural human behavior" are BAD. They are what we have worked to DITCH, not to enshrine and revere.

Turning around and saying that something "unnatural" should not be allowed is ignoring this. It is also ignoring all the absolutely wonderful "unnatural" things that we have. Your computer, for instance. Vaccines. There's quite a list.

Add to that, someone with a mental disorder jumping to their death is perfectly natural. They were born with a chemical imbalance which resulted in their demise.

And my personal favorite: how about rape? How much more "natural" can you get? You seriously going to tell me that chimps have come up with Women's Suffrage?


I understand that at the least you mean to say that what is 'natural' is not a useful distinction. That is fair, but I simply disagree with you. I think one of the major problems in modern times is that we have lost touch with our nature. But this may be an aesthetic concern.

I think we should be informed by our nature. By understanding our biological instincts and drives, we can better mitigate the damage they are capable of doing. The reason postal workers come to work with a gun? Pure nature, baby, a result of an overload of stress, and no tiger to run from or kill.


Another place I come from is that I don't think the right to have children should be a given in the first place.

Ahhhh, yep, that's a whole 'nother kettle of worms right there.


Obviously, we come from different places.

Yes, so it would seem.


No. (trying to make me out to be 'das uber racist' is a waste of time).

I am also confused by your post. A black couple is not an interracial couple.

I wasn't trying to do that...I felt that myself. I'm not a racist, but I still deal with social pressures just like anyone. Except that when I feel them, I analyze them to death instead of accepting them.

And a black couple with a white child is not an interracial couple, but it is interracial adoption.


So, do you think it's a good thing to willingly force children to deal with this when the option is there to avoid it? I don't. Even if this is the only problem with it, it's enough for me to give preference to hetersexual couples over homosexual couples (given similar circumstances).

What option is it you're talking about here, exactly? Are orphanages being closed down in your neck of the woods left and right? Parents lined up for miles for the chance to adopt, if only these darn gays would stop snatching up all the babies before they get a chance? No, sir, there's plenty for everyone.

And again, I bet if you asked any orphan, ANYWHERE, "Would you rather have parents AND be teased constantly, or stay here as an orphan?", you'll find they don't give a shit and would prefer to have a family.


As far as any psychological effects, I haven't done my homework on that yet.

I'd have a nasty comment about this in the conclusions-without-research department except that you seem to want to refuse everyone, unilaterally, until proven capable. While I disagree with this position, it's not stupid... so...okay then :)

And for the record, cjs, I do think you're wrong, but I don't think you're an asshole. It probably sounds like I might, but trust me, I wouldn't leave you to guess.

[cjs55]

I was gonna go, but damn, I just want to explain a bit more.


they only club stragglers of groups other than their own.

Of course I knew this. You seemed to make it out that early humans had no kinship ties whatsoever, and would just beat anyone without any thought to get some food or a cave.

When I say natural, I mean a very fuzzy line. I don't mean running from lions. I mean that point where a once natural human behavior (tool use, science, exploring the world) turns to unnatural (like say the sickening smog surrounding salt lake city, or skyrocketing cancer rates, or even stuff that's not so obviously shitty). Where we thought we were doing good, and then we have consequences that we didn't forsee. Or even worse, where we didn't care about doing good at all, and are so out of touch with our being (taoistic sense of nature) that we are destroying whats around us practically in spite of that fact.

You know that uneasy feeling you get when you watch gattica? That's the one I'm talking about.

Now you may say...what does this have to do with homosexual couples being infertilized? It doesn't. I'm just saying I'm concerned. Not that it's evil or wrong.


The reason postal workers come to work with a gun? Pure nature, baby, a result of an overload of stress, and no tiger to run from or kill.

I'd actually argue it's due to the meaningless of their life. This due to a disconnection from their nature. As in office space, "Human beings are not meant to sit and stare at a computer screen all day." (even though I basically do it for fun. heh.)

Rambling now...

Terrorism is an effective way to fight someone bigger than you are.

Vaccines could be seen as bad because they weaken the human species and lead to overpopulation. Thanks to my computer, I know lots of random shit, but am I a better person? Probably not. Are these necessarily good things? I don't buy it. I don't think the human species is all that much better off than it was 2000 years ago. If it is at all. Progress is a load of crap. A smart professor once told me "With every new technology to learn, an old knowledge is lost." What have we lost in our progress?



Add to that, someone with a mental disorder jumping to their death is perfectly natural. They were born with a chemical imbalance which resulted in their demise.

Um...yeah. I'm all for it too. Suicide is a good way to go even for the non-mentally disordered (best phrase ever).


You seriously going to tell me that chimps have come up with Women's Suffrage?

Chimps are smart enough not to live in a democracy, so no, they wouldn't have.

Women's suffrage isn't progress, cuz suffrage in the first place isn't progress : ).

Rape isn't all that natural for us. It is not nearly as effective in humans due to the fact that we have such a huge commitment to children.


In closing, when I say unnatural I mean that fuzzy line where a once natural activity becomes disconnected from itself and begins effecting shit in ways we can't forsee.

And in the end, it's simply an uneasy feeling when it comes to this subject, nothing more. I have that same uneasy feasling when it comes to antibiotics, or vaccines, or computers, or just about most modern life.

[attila_the_hunny]

There are many better alternatives to gay adoption, like no parents at all and just being a ward of the state.
(this is just my opinion)

You have apparently never been a ward of the state. I suggest you become one, because if you do, you will completely rebuke that statement.

My father is gay and so is my uncle, and whatever problems I have or baggage I hold have absolutely nothing to do with gayness.

[cjs55]

And for the record, cjs, I do think you're wrong, but I don't think you're an asshole. It probably sounds like I might, but trust me, I wouldn't leave you to guess.

Same to you, of course.

I have a confession to make. A theory I have about homosexuality (assuming it's genetic) is that it came about precisely to help raise children. There comes a point where a helping hand is more beneficial to the genetic descent than another active participant in the kid-making business. Obviously, I have some ties to feeling that homosexuals should be able to adopt.

I simply found the opposition lacking.

However I still agree with my initial claim, if only because of homophobia/bigotry. Why make things worse if you had a choice not to?

And it's odd...there are many children waiting to be adopted, but I know it's very difficult to adopt a child. Wonder how this all works exactly.

[Jennywocky]

I think the average person would agree that a stable marriage/family is better for kids than an unstable one (regardless of composition).

A lot of the remaining discussion in terms of heterosexual vs homosexual parenting here seems to be about arguing exceptions or generalities rather than nuances.

I think any differences would be in the nuances.

For example, if you had the average "good" heterosexual marriage, versus the average "good" homosexual marriage, would there be any differences in the details that could impact psychological and relational development -- whether for the children or for the parents?

I think that's the sort of question that would really get to the root of which (if either) is better for an individual.

This means we have to consider whether men and women contribute different sorts of things to a marriage and family. If they don't, then a matched pairing of men or of women wouldn't seem to matter. If they do, then the discrepancy would need to be explored in more detail.

Another interesting question: In a homosexual relationship (women or men), does the couple still tend to behave in the more traditionally defined gender roles? Does one take on the more feminine role and the other the masculine, or can both be masculine or both be feminine? If homosexual unions still instinctively gravitate into the typical gender roles, what does this suggest about the ideal parenting team? Anything?

There's also the problem where people are still debating how homosexuality (as we know it today) develops, and how much is nature and how much is nurture. Obviously there's a strong nature component, but how much of it is accentuated during normal personality development? So, in terms of the individual, what does "health" look like?

In a similar vein, is it logical to compare an immature heterosexual to an immature homosexual and say they're equivalent? (I've seen this argument made quite often, but I feel like it's a red herring.)

Note: I understand my questions might sound pointed, but I'm not pushing for a particular answer here, I'm just trying to get the discussion to a deeper level. There are both heterosexuals and homosexuals here in the forum who could contribute some real depth to the back-and-forth, so that's what I'm driving at. I feel like most of the conversation is stuck at a surface, social-politics level.

Meanwhile, I have seen some of the data Rajah brought up -- including that children of GLBT couples are no more prone to homosexuality or transsexuality than the average population.

And I'm interested in a stable family unit, regardless of who the parents might happen to be. As an adoptive parent, I'd rather see kids out of the orphanages and with people who love them, rather than remaining without any deep connections throughout their childhood.

[Hustler]

What about gay kids? People are only considering one side of this equation: the parents. But, I'd say it's definitely the case that there are orphans or otherwise adoptable kids who are of an age to understand sexuality out there who are gay. Surely they should not be denied having either homosexual or heterosexual parents, should they? Given that, would it not then be an act of special preference for homosexual children if they had the ability to be adopted by either homosexual or heterosexual parents but heterosexual (or unknown) children were only adoptable by homosexual parents? It seems in either case, restricting a child's access from the entire pool of available parents to some subset of that is unfair because, in all cases, it is surely in a child's best interests to have the best possible adoptive parents available to him. And, of course, it's also unfair to restrict them to just homosexual parents for the same reason. Besides which, most gay children in the world have heterosexual parents, so restricting the adoptable gay children to only being allowed homosexual parents would be decidedly "aberrant" and "unnatural." When viewed in this light, the whole argument of homosexual vs. heterosexual adoption is fairly ridiculous.

[Zergling]

When I say natural, I mean a very fuzzy line. I don't mean running from lions. I mean that point where a once natural human behavior (tool use, science, exploring the world) turns to unnatural (like say the sickening smog surrounding salt lake city, or skyrocketing cancer rates, or even stuff that's not so obviously shitty). Where we thought we were doing good, and then we have consequences that we didn't forsee.

All that an unforseen consequence means is that some decisions didn't work out as well as expected, however, whether the results make the total decision good or bad is still up for grabs. Every decision has onforseen consequences though, so if decisions are avoided because "there might be unforseen consequences" nothing would get done at all.

I can also work the fuzzy line backwards, and in a similar argument style as you argue that decisions made by hunter gatherers were bad. (The invention of fire lead to cutting down of forests and pollution, hunting abilities possibly helped cause extinctions in the Americas, the spreading out around the globe brought human caused problems to areas outside of Africa and the middle east, etc.) The "spreading out" though, is something all species appear to do (bacteria to big animals and plants), a lot of the time it is too hard to do though.

Nature also destroys nature a lot of the time (volcanos, meteors, continental drift bringing species into competetion that wipe each other out.), so the argument that when humans do it it isn't "natural" is wrong, people just control more resources for it, but also have the brains to plan long term and avoid problems.



I'd actually argue it's due to the meaningless of their life. This due to a disconnection from their nature. As in office space, "Human beings are not meant to sit and stare at a computer screen all day." (even though I basically do it for fun.

It is arguable that humans are not "meant" to live outside of the middle east/Europe/Africa, but they have done so for a long time.



Vaccines could be seen as bad because they weaken the human species and lead to overpopulation. Thanks to my computer, I know lots of random shit, but am I a better person? Probably not. Are these necessarily good things? I don't buy it. I don't think the human species is all that much better off than it was 2000 years ago. If it is at all. Progress is a load of crap. A smart professor once told me "With every new technology to learn, an old knowledge is lost." What have we lost in our progress?

Vaccines are simply a tool, perhaps made in more complex ways than fire and simple rock tools, but they are all used for the purpose of making humans able to do something that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. To argue that vaccines (or clothing, or any other tool.) are weakening the species, you have to consider the cost of adaptations, deaths, and other requirements for getting adapted to the disease, which could very well cause more problems than a vaccinated population would. (Sickle cell anemia and malraria is a good example of this, sickel cells may protect against malaria, but the costs to the population end up causing a far larger weakness that is almost certainly more difficult to cover than malaria protections.)



And in the end, it's simply an uneasy feeling when it comes to this subject, nothing more. I have that same uneasy feasling when it comes to antibiotics, or vaccines, or computers, or just about most modern life.

Unless there's aomething to back that uneasy feeling up, there's a lot of people with lots of feelings in this area, so in order to trust one over another some actual information is needed.


As for the subject of gay adoption, I don't have a problem with it at all.

[meshou]

The choice is not between a pair of potential gay parents and a pair of straight partents. It's between two gay parents or being bounced around from foster home to foster home, then dumped on the street without any support system when he's 18.

At least, assuming they're not going for the trendy white babies like everyone else. They're not at the moment, because straight couples get priority in most states, I believe.

Anyway, gay parents, all the way.

[immortalmack]

You have apparently never been a ward of the state. I suggest you become one, because if you do, you will completely rebuke that statement.

My father is gay and so is my uncle, and whatever problems I have or baggage I hold have absolutely nothing to do with gayness.

Yes I was! Now what do you have to say?

[meshou]

Yes I was! Now what do you have to say?You are a very angry young man. Perhaps having two stable parents in your life would have been good for you.

[Jennywocky]

What about gay kids? People are only considering one side of this equation: the parents. But, I'd say it's definitely the case that there are orphans or otherwise adoptable kids who are of an age to understand sexuality out there who are gay. ... When viewed in this light, the whole argument of homosexual vs. heterosexual adoption is fairly ridiculous.

:)

Good point to bring up -- I love being surprised...

Well, in general, there's some limitations to the idea, though:

1. Parents are choosing to adopt the children, in general, so of course that's what regulation is aimed at right now. Children do not get to go out and choose to adopt particular parents, usually, nor have the money to do so.

2. Many of the kids are young and haven't yet shown a sexual preference, so we're only really discussing kids (an even smaller pool) who have exhibited and identified themselves with homosexual orientation. [While one can argue logically that what applies to the whole must apply to a tiny subset, can you extrapolate that what applies to a very tiny subset should apply to the whole?]


3. Parents are the authority figure and have control over the kids and also set examples, not the inverse. While it seems the parental orientation is not impacting greatly the child's orientation, I suppose some people who are concerned about homosexuality are not concerned about the kids impacting the parents, just the parents impacting the kids. [The imbalance of power should be considered.]

I think you haven't really shown why, just because it seems ridiculous for homosexual kids to be confined to homosexual parents, the pseudo-inverse MUST also be ridiculous (that children of any sexual persuasion should be confined to heterosexual parents).

If you can flesh out the connection some more, go for it.


The choice is not between a pair of potential gay parents and a pair of straight partents. It's between two gay parents or being bounced around from foster home to foster home, then dumped on the street without any support system when he's 18.

That's definitely a big concern. I'd rather see them with stable parents than bumped around -- the latter is far more certain to screw them up psychologically than the ambiguous impact of parental sexual preference.

[immortalmack]

I'm interested in knowing how many gay couples you've seen that have adopted children. You know, such that you get to make a statement like:

I'll hazard a guess that it's pitifully few.

Since you seem to accept personal experience and opinion as actual evidence, I'll play the hypothetical game. Let's say you've personally known three gay couples who've adopted a child. Again, I'm willing to bet that this is a gross exaggeration. Even if all three have a maladjusted adopted child, are you going to extrapolate from your very limited personal experience that gay adoption is harmful?

I'll go ahead and post some quotes for you. You know, from actual research:

-As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)

-There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.

-People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)

-Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)

-Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)

-Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)

-On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)

-Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

I'd have a lot more respect for you if you just would come out and say you don't favor gay adoption because you don't like homosexuality. Instead you invent "evidence" to support your position, which I frankly think is pathetic. If you're interested in adding anything of substance to this debate, other than an anti-gay attitude masked by faux evidence, I'd welcome it.

I think everyone here knows how I feel about homosexuality and that's exactly why i don't like gay adoptions. It's sickening. Intentionally raising people in these controversial lifestyles are not the best enviroments to raise children.are just my opinions.
I know it's not a pleasant opinion but it's mine.

[immortalmack]

You are a very angry young man. Perhaps having two stable parents in your life would have been good for you.

Ward of the State and being away from your parents are two different things. i had both my parents growing up. Oh yeah, not have parents is a brutal way to grow up and I've known a few adoptees and foster kids but they turned out a hell of a lot better than the people I know whose parents were gay.

[Rajah]

I think everyone here knows how I feel about homosexuality and that's exactly why i don't like gay adoptions. It's sickening. Intentionally raising people in these controversial lifestyles are not the best enviroments to raise children.are just my opinions.
I know it's not a pleasant opinion but it's mine.:dont: Sorry, but based on my counterpoints, you don't get to play that card in this debate. All that's relevant is that you've owned up to it being just your opinion and nothing else.

[Jennywocky]

I've known a few adoptees and foster kids but they turned out a hell of a lot better than the people I know whose parents were gay.

Could you be more specific? (I.e., "better" in what ways?)

Curious...

[attila_the_hunny]

Yes I was! Now what do you have to say?

You're either lying or lucky. A large portion of my family have been in foster care, and they weren't so lucky.


Ward of the State and being away from your parents are two different things. i had both my parents growing up. Oh yeah, not have parents is a brutal way to grow up and I've known a few adoptees and foster kids but they turned out a hell of a lot better than the people I know whose parents were gay.

Oh, lying!

[immortalmack]

:dont: Sorry, but based on my counterpoints, you don't get to play that card in this debate. All that's relevant is that you've owned up to it being just your opinion and nothing else.

Rajah I confess your style of posting is impressive as hell to me. Please instruct me how to post like you so that I may prove superior at suppressing opinions.

Please I don't have to prove anything. It's homosexuals that's looking to be recognized by mainstream society!

[nfinityi]

My real issue though on this topic is not with homosexuality, it is with the idea of giving a child to two people who purposefully shun the reproductive process. It troubles me. So vote away.
Purposefully?

[Rajah]

Rajah I confess your style of posting is impressive as hell to me. Please instruct me how to post like you so that I may prove superior at suppressing opinions.I'll pretend you're asking seriously. I suggest actually comprehending what was asked of you, rather than assume the request must be some kind of attack. In this case, I never asked you to suppress your opinions; I asked you not to pass them off as hard fact that must apply in every instance.


Please I don't have to prove anything. It's homosexuals that's looking to be recognized by mainstream society!I don't see how these statements are at all related to one another. Let's address the first, because the second is irrelevant and not worth my time.

I don't care if you feel you have something to prove. Because this is a forum for social interaction (including debate*), my position is that if you offer an opinion or factual statement, and someone asks you about it, you should be prepared to offer further explanation. I'm not suggesting that in order to post in this forum, you have to be able to defend a dissertation on the topic of gay adoption. Yet, I do not think the choice phrase, "Please I don't have to prove anything," suffices.

It's courtesy. Offering your opinion with no more, in this context, simply wastes our time.





*Although the OP specifically indicated it sought opinions on gay adoption (and in fact said the technicalities were "dull"), the thread naturally evolved into a debate on the pros and cons of gay adoption.

[nfinityi]

Please I don't have to prove anything. It's homosexuals that's looking to be recognized by mainstream society!
Really? Prove to me that the only reason homosexuality, and all related nonsense is a hot-button issue, isn't because it's made a hot-button issue by certain heterosexuals.

[meshou]

Really? Prove to me that the only reason homosexuality, and all related nonsense is a hot-button issue, isn't because it's made a hot-button issue by certain heterosexuals.If you people just hid in your homes like good homosexuals, we wouldn't have to shove you back in!

All you queers wanting the right not to be fired just because you mention having a boyfriend. You make me sick. Why do you always have to make this such an issue?

[panda]

I wouldn't've minded being adopted by gay parents. And by gay, I mean lesbian. And by lesbian, I mean lipstick lesbian. And by adopted, I mean fucked.

I don't care who adopts who, or where, or when, or how, or nohow.

[Rajah]

I wouldn't've minded being adopted by gay parents. And by gay, I mean lesbian. And by lesbian, I mean lipstick lesbian. And by adopted, I mean fucked.hahaaha!

[Erratic]

Another interesting question: In a homosexual relationship (women or men), does the couple still tend to behave in the more traditionally defined gender roles? Does one take on the more feminine role and the other the masculine, or can both be masculine or both be feminine? If homosexual unions still instinctively gravitate into the typical gender roles, what does this suggest about the ideal parenting team? Anything?

The question that came up to my head when I read that was: What makes you think that stable heterosexual couples do "behave in the more traditionally defined gender roles"?

I am the child of a stable heterosexual marriage where gender roles didn't exist. I clearly remember that when I was a little kid I thought my aunt and uncle had something wrong with them because they treated their sons and daughters quite differently (in terms of "what they had to do", of course) and I just didn't get it. My little sister spent all her childhood saying she wanted to be a boy and behaving as such, and my parents didn't bat an eye (she forgot when she reached puberty). Society (or at least a part of it) is trying to get rid of gender roles, I sincerely doubt they're necessary for the proper development of a child. Oh, and even if you're raised without them, you'll learn about them... just turn on your TV or pick up a book, and there they are!

I'm also the child of the only atheist couple in a village with about 1000 inhabitants, and it wasn't until I went to college that I got to meet another person not from my family who hadn't been baptized (yay for Catholic countries!). I know what's like to be different because of your parents, and I've been discriminated against for this very reason (even by adults, who told their kids we were evil).

And you know what? Those are some of the things for which I'm most grateful to my parents. Some of them might have caused me problems, but they also made me stronger and who I am today. And I'm pretty sure that the fault was of those who slept through the "Love thy neighbor" sermon, not my parents' or mine. By the same token, I happen to think that if were worried about society's effect on these children, society is what has to be fixed, not the kids or their parents. Because as much as the government can rule who gets to adopt a kid and who doesn't, homosexuals have been creating families for much longer, and those kids haven't done anything wrong either.

[Jivinjeffjones]

If you people just hid in your homes like good homosexuals, we wouldn't have to shove you back in!

All you queers wanting the right not to be fired just because you mention having a boyfriend. You make me sick. Why do you always have to make this such an issue?

This word spoiled the flow of the irony somewhat. Remove it at once!

- Irony Police

[nfinityi]

Personally, I'm thankful that this thread has gotten as far as it has without a certain few people weighing in. I won't lie.

[Hustler]

I think you haven't really shown why, just because it seems ridiculous for homosexual kids to be confined to homosexual parents, the pseudo-inverse MUST also be ridiculous (that children of any sexual persuasion should be confined to heterosexual parents).
Because it would create a double-standard whereby homosexual children are privileged with a greater pool of parents to draw on for an adoption agency to assign them. I explained that in the post. If a homosexual child could be adopted by homosexual or heterosexual parents but a heterosexual child could only be adopted by heterosexual parents, the homosexual child has a greater chance of getting a better set of adoptive parents, everything else being equal.

Let's just use a rather extreme example to make it all clear. Suppose there are two children available for adoption from an orphanage. One is heterosexual and the other is homosexual. Let's say there are two sets of would-be parents, one a homosexual couple with a very stable life and high-paying, professional jobs. The other is a pair heterosexual crackheads who, somehow, is qualified to adopt. Both sets of parents are willing to adopt up to two children. Now, should the heterosexual kid get screwed by being adopted by the crackheads and the homosexual kid privileged to get the superior candidate just because he's homosexual? That doesn't seem fair, does it? Especially when, if you reversed the situation and the gay couple comprises crackheads and the heterosexual couple is made of stable, well-paid professionals, the homosexual child still gets to go with the superior choice. The heterosexual child was restricted in one instance but not the other.

I can't see there ever being a law in place that forbids heterosexual adults from adopting a homosexual child, so it creates a double-standard that privileges homosexuality among orphans by restricting adoptions of heterosexual children to only heterosexual parents.

[Jennywocky]

The question that came up to my head when I read that was: What makes you think that stable heterosexual couples do "behave in the more traditionally defined gender roles"? [etc]

Thanks for your coments, Erratic. I appreciated hearing from you, especially because you offer a cultural counterpoint to my own.

I do want to clarify that I was not describing "traditional roles" (i.e., predetermined sets of behavior dictated by social forces) as much as "general psychological tendencies" as determined by gender biology. It seems clear that males and females, while very similar in many ways, are differentiated by brain structure and biochemistry. I know I used muddy terminology here, I was mostly "sketching" with words and wasn't as clear as I should have been.

[Note: I think some of traditional concepts of gender roles stem in part from biological differences but have been reinforced and accentuated beyond what is beneficial and thus have become to some degree arbitrary and socially constructed.]



Society (or at least a part of it) is trying to get rid of gender roles, I sincerely doubt they're necessary for the proper development of a child. Oh, and even if you're raised without them, you'll learn about them... just turn on your TV or pick up a book, and there they are!

I know. It's sort of odd. If they were completely nurture, you'd think they'd go away with enough education... but they seem to persist. I'm inclined to think there is some middle ground; biology and culture are interacting...

[Jennywocky]

Because it would create a double-standard whereby homosexual children are privileged with a greater pool of parents to draw on for an adoption agency to assign them. I explained that in the post. If a homosexual child could be adopted by homosexual or heterosexual parents but a heterosexual child could only be adopted by heterosexual parents, the homosexual child has a greater chance of getting a better set of adoptive parents, everything else being equal.

I follow that much. I think I was viewing it more as a problem of ideals, not as a procedural issue (which is what this seems to be).

Again, though, you're decribing an extremely tiny subset of the bulk of adoptions -- the adoptive parents have to be gay [only 2-4&#37; of population is gay, according to revisions by some gay leaders, which fits with what the hetero population says; only a percentage of THESE are married; and only a percentage of THESE is trying to adopt] as WELL as the child [so now you're only looking at children who are young enough to not be adults but old enough to have an identifiable sexual preference AND able to be adopted, a small minority, I'd think] -- so even if this is an issue, why wouldn't it be handled as "special case?"

It seems ridiculous for you to weight both the same, to me; and definitely not as the large injustice you're describing it as.

It seems rather like arguing about how circumcision reduces disease/infection by 33%... and then you find out that in a given year 18 people who were circumsized got a disease, versus 27 who weren't... out of a population of hundreds of thousands of births. The specific event is being given far more weight than it's due.

[Hustler]

Again, though, you're decribing an extremely tiny subset of the bulk of adoptions -- the adoptive parents have to be gay [only 2-4&#37; of population is gay, according to revisions by some gay leaders, which fits with what the hetero population says; only a percentage of THESE are married; and only a percentage of THESE is trying to adopt] as WELL as the child [so now you're only looking at children who are young enough to not be adults but old enough to have an identifiable sexual preference AND able to be adopted, a small minority, I'd think] -- so even if this is an issue, why wouldn't it be handled as "special case?"
Now you're blurring the truth. 4% (questionable statistic, but it corresponds with Kinsey's estimate of 2-6% and the 2004 election exit poll figure of 4%) of the kids who don't yet have a known sexual orientation are also presumably gay. What about them? Why should those kids be restricted to only having heterosexual parents?


It seems ridiculous for you to weight both the same, to me; and definitely not as the large injustice you're describing it as.
It is to the heterosexual kid who watches his friend from the orphanage get adopted by a happy, stable, successful gay couple that he can't go to because he's not gay.


It seems rather like arguing about how circumcision reduces disease/infection by 33%... and then you find out that in a given year 18 people who were circumsized got a disease, versus 27 who weren't... out of a population of hundreds of thousands of births. The specific event is being given far more weight than it's due.
It doesn't seem like that at all. It seems like you don't care about marginalizing minorities. What percentage of the population would have to be gay for you to think that this double-standard in adoption procedure mattered?

If you want to get hung up on statistics, you can just scroll back and look at Rajah's very convincing post as to how homosexual adoption as a problem is greatly overblown and, how, it isn't really a problem, by all objective measures applied to analyzing it. I'm just pointing out a double-standard that is created through a policy of restricting the adoptive parents to heterosexual couples, and how this either marginalizes homosexual children by denying them the ability to be adopted by a homosexual couple or marginalizes heterosexual children by preventing them from having as wide a pool of potential adoptive parents, depending on how the rules are laid out.

So what about those 4% of kids who are homosexual? Should they just be ignored or dismissed or, as things are heading now, privileged? Further, the flip-side of the scarcity argument can be applied just as easily against an argument in favor of restricting homosexual adoptions. You're right; there are very few homosexual couples out there adopting children. So, even if it were a problem (which it apparently is not), so what? It would just be a tiny fraction of the population and not worth worrying about.

[meshou]

It is to the heterosexual kid who watches his friend from the orphanage get adopted by a happy, stable, successful gay couple that he can't go to because he's not gay.Most kids don't come out until they're at least teenagers. I believe it's very, very difficult to place a kid over two or so. By the time they're expressing themselves as sexual beings in any way, they've either been adopted or are too old to be wanted.

Until they have a blood test or something, I'm not sure how big an issue this is.

[SensEye]

I think the optimal situation is to have one parent of each gender for role model purposes. However, two parents of the same gender are probably somewhat superior to one parent or no parents.

So I would give preference to heterosexual couples but would not rule out homosexual couples if there is a surfeit of children up for adoption.

[Hustler]

Most kids don't come out until they're at least teenagers. I believe it's very, very difficult to place a kid over two or so. By the time they're expressing themselves as sexual beings in any way, they've either been adopted or are too old to be wanted.
That's irrelevant to the argument for two reasons: (1) 4% of all people are gay. Thus, some of those kids with as yet unidentified sexualities are or will be gay. (2) So what if most are that way? Some kids up for adoption will be gay orphans who are very much aware they are gay and possibly even out of the closet, and, believe it or not, people in their teens do get adopted.

[nfinityi]

That's irrelevant to the argument for two reasons: (1) 4% of all people are gay. Thus, some of those kids with as yet unidentified sexualities are or will be gay. (2) So what if most are that way? Some kids up for adoption will be gay orphans who are very much aware they are gay and possibly even out of the closet, and, believe it or not, people in their teens do get adopted.
But what she said does speak to the absurdity of a law against homosexual couples adopting heterosexual kids.

[Wolf]

Can unmarried straight couples adopt children?

On this debate, I will say that a heterosexual couple is better than a homosexual one for the development of the child, but I'd also say that a harmonious homosexual couple is better than a non-harmonious heterosexual couple. Same thing for stability...

Harmonious stable hetero couple > harmonious stable homo couple > stable hetero couple > stable homo couple > stable single parent (no boyfriend/girlfriend, or stable one) > hetero/homo couple > single parent > other options

Children should have consistency and role models that fit their gender roles so they don't have difficulty in them later in life. Parents are the primary gender role models for most children...

[Ivy]

Wolf, why do you think stable heterosexual couple > stable homosexual couple? The evidence doesn't really bear that out.

[omnirook]

I've been busy today - and I see that this thread has kept the Forum busy!

I've read through the thread - intractable problems always fascinate me - and this seems a most intractable problem!

I've noted before - but have not said anything - that homosexuality is a "hot" topic - really gets people going. Indeed, few topics seem to get people as riled. There's got to be a shit-load of psychological crap clinging to any such bugaboo.

The fucking Pilgrims should have drowned in a ship wreck - better for the subsequent history of this nation in particular and the world in general had every boatload of puritanical assholes that left Restoration England been sent to the bottom, where they belonged! Only a puritanical asshole could possibly be twisted enough to believe that God Almighty gives a crap about forms when substance is being shoved into the mud.

And that is exactly what is happening here. Most of those who rant and rave against homosexuality (at least in this country) are so-called Christians: as an agnostic to my very bones, I tell you that Jesus would not have recognized you as his followers! I will not go into the details, not again, of how I have yet to meet one "devout" Christian who was not a fiendishly warped emotional cripple, of how I have rarely come across a "devout" Christian who was a pinch of brains smarter than the nearest babboon - but I will tell you that, as per always, you bastards are more concerned w/form than substance: let a child live in an institution, let a child be bounced from one abusive foster "home" to another, let a child endure anything - anything! - so long as the queers don't get him. A heterosexual pair of drooling, dribbling, drunken, poverty-striken, illiterate, meanspirited, unemployed, and generally worthless "parents" - so long as they have that fucking ring - are better for a child than any pair of faggots or dykes could be, and that is that. We do not care about the child, not at all, not one bit - all that matters is that our fantasy ideal of a "daddy and a mommy and 2.5 children and a dog and a white picket fence" be maintained at all costs - all costs.

[Wolf]

Wolf, why do you think stable heterosexual couple > stable homosexual couple? The evidence doesn't really bear that out.
Gender variety.

This is merely my opinion...

[Ivy]

Gender variety.

This is merely my opinion...

Does gender variety have to come from parents or can it also come from uncles, aunts, grandparents, and friends?

Why is gender variety even necessary?

And I realize it is only your opinion, but surely your opinion is based on something, correct?

[Wolf]

Homosexuals tend to have different gender identities and roles that could affect the development of heterosexual children. It isn't merely acceptance or non-acceptance of the lifestyle - it will put the heterosexual child in a difficult situation later in life when they don't have a baseline knowledge of heterosexual relationships. Uncles, aunts, grandparents, friends, etc, are not a suitable substitute.

The same trouble could apply to homosexual children in heterosexual households (and, obviously, most homosexuals grew up in heterosexual families). The health of the relationship between the parents is going to be the most important model, coupled with gender role models, and that's a good portion of how I came up with the order of precedence... The fact is that heterosexual couples are also notably more stable is what pushed it completely over for me (people that have been divorced are likely to do it again, and I could have placed them above "single parents" on the order of precedence. I also considered the fact that homosexual couples have historically been far less stable than heterosexual ones)...

[omnirook]

Homosexuals tend to have different gender identities and roles that could affect the development of heterosexual children. It isn't merely acceptance or non-acceptance of the lifestyle - it will put the heterosexual child in a difficult situation later in life when they don't have a baseline knowledge of heterosexual relationships. Uncles, aunts, grandparents, friends, etc, are not a suitable substitute.

The same trouble could apply to homosexual children in heterosexual households (and, obviously, most homosexuals grew up in heterosexual families). The health of the relationship between the parents is going to be the most important model, coupled with gender role models, and that's a good portion of how I came up with the order of precedence... The fact is that heterosexual couples are also notably more stable is what pushed it completely over for me (people that have been divorced are likely to do it again, and I could have placed them above "single parents" on the order of precedence. I also considered the fact that homosexual couples have historically been far less stable than heterosexual ones)...

Your argument has one little - that is to say ENORMOUS! - thing wrong w/it - nowadays, most kids are NOT growing up in households with a mommy/daddy dynamic. Those kids who are not being raised by single mothers are being raised their grandparents, usually their widowed grandmothers. The stated ideal of the mommy/daddy household is just that - an ideal, and it bears little resemblance to reality. Since that is the case, it's a bit dodgy to use it in arguments about the proper make up homes, isn't it? - if heterosexuals cannot fill the prescription, then isn't a bit silly to hold the same failure (for different reasons) against homosexuals? - do the reasons really matter? - do you see a time coming when heterosexuals will be able to do "better" than they are doing now? - so much better that placing some children in homes w/homosexual adoptive parents would be as terrible as people make out? ... I don't believe that we can go back. I don't believe that we'll ever get back to where a majority of kids are growing up in the "traditional family." It's just not going to happen. And it won't be the queers who stop if from happening: heterosexual women are NOT going to back to the stiffling torture of the so-called "ideal family" - they're just not going to do it - and I don't blame them! Who wants to be a fucking doormat?

Now what? Society will go on as it has always gone on - no matter how much digging in of heels some do in their attempts to turn back the clock.

[Hustler]

This discussion gets interesting when you throw another sexual orientation or two into the equation. What about asexual or bisexual children and/or parents? I presume that demagogic_schizoid would not have a problem with a bisexual (albeit, not monogamous) couple adopting a child, but he would have a problem with an asexual couple adopting a child, whereas it sounds like Wolf would have a problem with a bisexual couple adopting a child but perhaps not an asexual couple, so long as the latter engaged in traditional gender roles. But, that's all assuming the child in question is heterosexual. What if the child is bisexual or asexual? Should all of these "non-standard" sexual orientations just be overlooked in the case of children, and ruled out in the case of parents? Should it strictly be a situation where the sexual orientation of the child is irrelevant and only heterosexual couples should be able to adopt, because most children are going to be heterosexual and, even for those who aren't, the heterosexual couple is the most "normal" and thus better equipped to provide a good home for the child? If that's the case, then Rajah's earlier post citing studies that showed adoption by homosexual parents was not problematic at all for the children rules out the validity of any claims against homosexual adoption.

It all seems pretty foolish to me.

[cafe]

Omnirook, I might be missing something, but I believe that Ivy, Noah, Fortunato, and I are all Christians and none of us have come out against here.

I, personally, went to an Independent Fundamental Baptist high school and an Assemblies of God Bible College. I am born again, speak in tongues, and come darn close to tithing 10% like a good Evangelical. I'm not in church three times a week because my husband works 60+ hours a week and my autistic sons do not like to leave the house, but we go fairly regularly (unless you're asking my very SJ uncle :rolleyes2:).

I would much rather see a kid in a good, gay home than in the foster system or a less good straight home. I would give a slight preference to a straight couple if all other things were equal, but only a slight one, unless the gay couple was ahead on the list. Then the good gay couple would get the kid ahead of the good straight couple. It's only fair.

What matters the most is that kids are cared for and loved. My own grandpa was a step-grandpa. He was a philanderer and would have ripped off his own mother without batting an eye or thinking twice, but that imperfect man loved me and I credit that love with making me confident enough to have healthy relationships with men, despite my unstable upbringing.

Parents aren't perfect, but having that fierce, adoring love you get from family is vitally important to kids as they grow up. Gay parents can give this. Straight parents can give this. Grandparents can give this. It just matters that they get it. You don't get a lot of that kind of love in a foster home. The temporary nature of the relationship causes people to be reserved with their love and attachment. And that is not good for kids.

Anyway, a little slack would be nice. Not all Christians are how you describe them. Some of us are getting or have gotten a clue.

[cobalt]

What about giving the birth parents the choice? If they're ok with it, then why should anyone else have more of a say in the matter? If it's not a situation where that's an option, the answer should be based on what is most probably best for the child.

Don't they already try to make sure that the parents are 'responsible' and financially stable? Since the ostensibly 'best' choice of birth parents is lost in an adoption situation, shouldn't children be placed in homes that give them the best opportunity to be in a loving home that gives them the type of direction, freedom, stability or whatever the particular child needs for their emotional and mental growth? I believe many factors are used in determining a potential parent's suitability for adopting.

Is this question asking whether sexual orientation should be used as a considering factor, like religion or financial status, or as an overriding factor, such as criminal history or mental illness?

[Lurker]

Everytime I see gay couples with adopted children, there is at least one of the kids who are definately confused about themselves. It's easy to think that a gay couple,them being cuddly and squishy actin and tender looking, could make good parents but that too wild of a world to raise kids in. The media always wants to show us intelligent-rich gays but they never show you the fierceness of a dyke or the just plain ole punkishness of the males. this, in my mind, is not an ideal development ground for children to grow up in.
There are many better alternatives to gay adoption, like no parents at all and just being a ward of the state.
(this is just my opinion)


I'm gay and I adopted my ex-partner's little girl. I guess I should just turn her into the state, since she will be better off there. Plenty of good logical arguments have already been made in this thread, and I'm not in the mood to write a long post. So, anyway, here's one word for this post: RETARDED.

[nfinityi]

Parents are the primary gender role models for most children...
You're sure about that? Especially in today's generation? Because I'm pretty damn sure I could make a case that this is complete BS. I could also point out numerous cases where children are raised by single parents of the opposite sex and turn out fine.

[Wolf]

Your argument has one little - that is to say ENORMOUS! - thing wrong w/it - nowadays, most kids are NOT growing up in households with a mommy/daddy dynamic. Those kids who are not being raised by single mothers are being raised their grandparents, usually their widowed grandmothers.
So true, and I listed single parents way down there on the list...


The stated ideal of the mommy/daddy household is just that - an ideal, and it bears little resemblance to reality. Since that is the case, it's a bit dodgy to use it in arguments about the proper make up homes, isn't it? - if heterosexuals cannot fill the prescription, then isn't a bit silly to hold the same failure (for different reasons) against homosexuals? - do the reasons really matter? - do you see a time coming when heterosexuals will be able to do "better" than they are doing now? - so much better that placing some children in homes w/homosexual adoptive parents would be as terrible as people make out? ... I don't believe that we can go back. I don't believe that we'll ever get back to where a majority of kids are growing up in the "traditional family." It's just not going to happen. And it won't be the queers who stop if from happening: heterosexual women are NOT going to back to the stiffling torture of the so-called "ideal family" - they're just not going to do it - and I don't blame them! Who wants to be a fucking doormat?

Now what? Society will go on as it has always gone on - no matter how much digging in of heels some do in their attempts to turn back the clock.
I'm going for ideals, I never even mentioned the situation many children find themselves in because we're talking ideals over reality.

I'm quite offended by your insinuation.

[nfinityi]

You know what always gets me in these discussions is that, children are always the last to be asked. Do children ever get to meet, or have any kind of say in which couple adopts them? If not, I'd say that's pretty fucked up.

[cobalt]

If they're old enough, they usually get to have a say in it.

[Jennywocky]

You're sure about that? Especially in today's generation? Because I'm pretty damn sure I could make a case that this is complete BS. I could also point out numerous cases where children are raised by single parents of the opposite sex and turn out fine.

Well, you could... but we're not discussing that. We're discussing comparisons, aren't we? Which is better or preferable?

(Not which one is merely adequate, or which one sometimes can succeed?)

That's all.

Heck, even Disney movies showcase one-parent families and make things look wonderful and plausible, but I wouldn't say a one-parent family is ideal if you compare it to a two-parent family with parents of the same quality.

Now, I will say that often nowadays we don't get a choice. Lots of people have to make do with what they have, and lots of parents stuck being sole caregivers do a wonderful job -- the best they can -- with what they've got. But it's hard for a single parent to have the energy to work non-stop and parent non-stop; two parents makes things a heckuva lot easier.

Anyway, I appreciate the posts, I've been finding them interesting reading.


If they're old enough, they usually get to have a say in it.

Yes, they usually get a say. I think, Brendan, though -- while idealistically I agree with you that kids of an old-enough age to be discerning should get a say -- that you're not considering the bulk of cases which include kids who cannot even speak yet, let alone comment on their potential new parents... as well as elementary school-age kids who are able to communicate clearly but don't necessarily have the life experience to yet make good judgments.

If children were simply pint-sized adults, I'd say they should have equal say about whether or not to be adopted; but they're not. They should be listened to and considered, and everyone should be attempting to do what is in the child's best interest; but the child can't realistically be expected to carry full responsibility for where s/he ends up.

[nfinityi]

Well, you could... but we're not discussing that. We're discussing comparisons, aren't we? Which is better or preferable?
Uhhh. Yeah. Exactly.

If all else is equal, shouldnt the child then be able to decide which couple they like better?

[cobalt]

If all else is equal, sure. When is that ever the case? Those types of arguments are typically used to make a factor overriding instead of just one of consideration. If all else is equal, the child should go to the home that has more financial resources. Or is in a better neighborhood. Or whatever. You appear to be trying to make it the most important factor, however.

[nfinityi]

If all else is equal, sure. When is that ever the case? Those types of arguments are typically used to make a factor overriding instead of just one of consideration. If all else is equal, the child should go to the home that has more financial resources. Or is in a better neighborhood. Or whatever. You appear to be trying to make it the most important factor, however.
No, I'm just trying to bring it to attention. No one ever considers what the child would prefer in these kinds of situations, when in fact, they are the core of the entire debate.

[Jivinjeffjones]

No, I'm just trying to bring it to attention. No one ever considers what the child would prefer in these kinds of situations, when in fact, they are the core of the entire debate.

How much training would the child undergo before deciding who they would prefer to live with? Are they qualified to make that sort of decision? Do children have any idea what's best for their own lives? Surely this would unfairly disadvantage the prospective parents who are less able to perform to the child's satisfaction in the narrow window they would have to present themselves? As well as giving the adopted child the burden of a ready-made "what if..." fantasy which could hinder future happiness.

[cobalt]

No, I'm just trying to bring it to attention. No one ever considers what the child would prefer in these kinds of situations, when in fact, they are the core of the entire debate.
I'm trying to imagine why you insist that 'No one ever considers what the child would prefer in these kinds of situations' I care. I can see that there are other people here that care. I know I was asked when I was adopted and felt that I had a choice in the matter. I've seen other adoptions where the child's opinion was considered. Would you care to restate your assertion?

[omnirook]

Omnirook, I might be missing something, but I believe that Ivy, Noah, Fortunato, and I are all Christians and none of us have come out against here.

I, personally, went to an Independent Fundamental Baptist high school and an Assemblies of God Bible College. I am born again, speak in tongues, and come darn close to tithing 10% like a good Evangelical. I'm not in church three times a week because my husband works 60+ hours a week and my autistic sons do not like to leave the house, but we go fairly regularly (unless you're asking my very SJ uncle :rolleyes2:).

I would much rather see a kid in a good, gay home than in the foster system or a less good straight home. I would give a slight preference to a straight couple if all other things were equal, but only a slight one, unless the gay couple was ahead on the list. Then the good gay couple would get the kid ahead of the good straight couple. It's only fair.

What matters the most is that kids are cared for and loved. My own grandpa was a step-grandpa. He was a philanderer and would have ripped off his own mother without batting an eye or thinking twice, but that imperfect man loved me and I credit that love with making me confident enough to have healthy relationships with men, despite my unstable upbringing.

Parents aren't perfect, but having that fierce, adoring love you get from family is vitally important to kids as they grow up. Gay parents can give this. Straight parents can give this. Grandparents can give this. It just matters that they get it. You don't get a lot of that kind of love in a foster home. The temporary nature of the relationship causes people to be reserved with their love and attachment. And that is not good for kids.

Anyway, a little slack would be nice. Not all Christians are how you describe them. Some of us are getting or have gotten a clue.

I appologize for my stridency. However, you must admit that the loudest voices raised against adoption by gay parents belong to Christian fundamentalists - and even other types of Christians, Roman Catholics, for instance, my father's family's brand of Christianity. In the rhetoric that has been employed to denounce not only adoption by gay parents but also in denouncing the idea that gay relationships should be given any form of social legitimacy, Christians have been the most vitriolic (w/some help from Orthodox Jews). Any suggestion that gay people can love and form lasting relationships has been met w/every form of resistence - as though the world itself would end if a gay couple had at least the right to see one another when one of them was in the hospital (I think it was Alabama that passed a "protection of marriage" act that denied the legitimacy of even power of attorney to gay couples and further violated the Constitution by announcing that it would not honor the gay marriages that had been legalized in Massachusetts when and if citizens of Massachusetts were on Alabama's soil, even if they were just passing through). Such hysteria needs to be met w/hysteria. To allow an adversary to rant and rave while keeping one's own voice down might look "cool" in the movies, but it does not work in real life. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, after all.

[sbw]

When they talk about straight couples raising kids, nobody shows pictures of the trailer trash running a meth lab in their run down shack and feeding their kids nothing but pop tarts. They don't show the welfare moms with babies stewing in soiled diapers. They don't show the guy who put his kid in the freezer to shut it up. They don't show the girl who gave birth at the prom and pitched her kid in the dumpster. They don't show drunk old daddy unzipping his fly and walking into his ten year old daughter's room while mommy cries and nurses her black eye. They don't show the blandly uncaring face of the parent who never had a single direct dealing with his kid, even as he is graduating from high school. They never show the mentally incompetent goblin couple churning out children rapid fire and wondering why there is such a high mortality rate. How much food do babies need, anyway?

do we have an applause-icon? because that ^ was the highlight of my day.

Scott

[Wolf]

I appologize for my stridency. However, you must admit that the loudest voices raised against adoption by gay parents belong to Christian fundamentalists - and even other types of Christians, Roman Catholics, for instance, my father's family's brand of Christianity.
I believe that you'd call me a fundie based on my background.


In the rhetoric that has been employed to denounce not only adoption by gay parents but also in denouncing the idea that gay relationships should be given any form of social legitimacy, Christians have been the most vitriolic (w/some help from Orthodox Jews). Any suggestion that gay people can love and form lasting relationships has been met w/every form of resistence - as though the world itself would end if a gay couple had at least the right to see one another when one of them was in the hospital (I think it was Alabama that passed a "protection of marriage" act that denied the legitimacy of even power of attorney to gay couples and further violated the Constitution by announcing that it would not honor the gay marriages that had been legalized in Massachusetts when and if citizens of Massachusetts were on Alabama's soil, even if they were just passing through). Such hysteria needs to be met w/hysteria. To allow an adversary to rant and rave while keeping one's own voice down might look "cool" in the movies, but it does not work in real life. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, after all.
I'm against gay marriage.

I'm also against government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage.

I have a radical view on it that I think even homosexuals would object to: The government shouldn't marry people, they should have a social union system that applies to all adults. Biological offspring should be automatic members and adults should be able to mutually select those within their family. Marriage is a religious construct that should be exclusively religious and completely separated from defining your social family to the government. These should be completely unrestricted social unions of any number of adults that agree to the union. I don't see why it needs to be restricted to sexual relationships, either - let's say you have a close friend that you absolutely trust and you mutually agree they should be family. I've known a number of people I would be happy to be "related to" from the government's perspective. Maybe your biological family is gone but you have friends that are as close as (or maybe closer than) family, why shouldn't the government accept the social group as legitimate?

Now this will get ripped apart, too, I'm sure.

[omnirook]

I believe that you'd call me a fundie based on my background.


I'm against gay marriage.

I'm also against government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage.

I have a radical view on it that I think even homosexuals would object to: The government shouldn't marry people, they should have a social union system that applies to all adults. Biological offspring should be automatic members and adults should be able to mutually select those within their family. Marriage is a religious construct that should be exclusively religious and completely separated from defining your social family to the government. These should be completely unrestricted social unions of any number of adults that agree to the union. I don't see why it needs to be restricted to sexual relationships, either - let's say you have a close friend that you absolutely trust and you mutually agree they should be family. I've known a number of people I would be happy to be "related to" from the government's perspective. Maybe your biological family is gone but you have friends that are as close as (or maybe closer than) family, why shouldn't the government accept the social group as legitimate?

Now this will get ripped apart, too, I'm sure.

Not by me. It's the exact prescription that I wrote in another thread. I don't believe in marriage as an institution. I've said that many times. However, if marriage is to be allowed for one group, it should be allowed for other groups - at least in the form of civil union. I would never force any church to violate it own rules - but I will object when that church attempts to force its rules on others ... My profile clearly states that I am bisexual. I admit that that makes me prejudiced in the favor of other sexual deviants - yeah, deviants: we, bisexuals, and gays are a minority and do deviate from the norm. Big deal ... Fuck marriage. Fuck family. Both are bullshit in the modern world. Believe me, I'd do more for my friend Bill than I would for most of the people who are related to me genetically. He's been there when I have needed him; the others have been there when they wanted something. (That said - there are members of my genetic family whom I hold dear - but my holding them dear has nothing to do w/our genetic relationship. Nothing.) ... People should be able to live as they want so long as they are not hurting other people: stealing from them, cheating them, abusing them, etc - but those things are allowed all the time. Corporations are allowed to rob people blind, are allowed to cheat and even kill them w/impunity. But - let somebody dress a little differently, have a different hairstyle, or love somebody who doesn't fit the picture, and, well, we're ready to go to war over it. It makes no sense. If people want to live together, it should make no difference - and they should not be deprived of any benefits that are accorded to other people. That is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause. Theoretically, the government may not favor one group over another - but the government does so all of the time.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Homosexuals tend to have different gender identities and roles that could affect the development of heterosexual children. It isn't merely acceptance or non-acceptance of the lifestyle - it will put the heterosexual child in a difficult situation later in life when they don't have a baseline knowledge of heterosexual relationships. Uncles, aunts, grandparents, friends, etc, are not a suitable substitute.I think that a stable dependable network of uncles, aunts, grandparents and friends is much, much more important to raise a child than the quantity and gender of the parents. As and African saying goes, "It takes a village to raise a child."

[Ivy]

I believe that you'd call me a fundie based on my background.


I'm against gay marriage.

I'm also against government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage.

I have a radical view on it that I think even homosexuals would object to: The government shouldn't marry people, they should have a social union system that applies to all adults. Biological offspring should be automatic members and adults should be able to mutually select those within their family. Marriage is a religious construct that should be exclusively religious and completely separated from defining your social family to the government. These should be completely unrestricted social unions of any number of adults that agree to the union. I don't see why it needs to be restricted to sexual relationships, either - let's say you have a close friend that you absolutely trust and you mutually agree they should be family. I've known a number of people I would be happy to be "related to" from the government's perspective. Maybe your biological family is gone but you have friends that are as close as (or maybe closer than) family, why shouldn't the government accept the social group as legitimate?

Now this will get ripped apart, too, I'm sure.

Why would it? I've seen it (or a form of it-- the basic idea being "marriage is religious and as restrictive as each religion wants, and civil union is governmental and available for everyone") from a million other people before, including plenty of gay activists. It's not exactly controversial. I happen to agree with that myself.

[NoahFence]

Yep, right there with ya. The government saying who can marry whom is purely and simply interferance with religious values. They should stay out of it, and give us the freedom to go to whatever church we want, and stop trampling the bill of rights. Only if a religious practice can be shown to hurt people should they be involved, and frankly, you being forced to think about the orgy of man-sex that goes on in a Unitarian church does NOT equal harm.

[Wolf]

If people want to live together, it should make no difference - and they should not be deprived of any benefits that are accorded to other people. That is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause. Theoretically, the government may not favor one group over another - but the government does so all of the time.
Which reminds me: Why do I pay more taxes than married people do? I certainly cost everyone, including the government, far less, but for some reason I'm penalized for being single...


Why would it? I've seen it (or a form of it-- the basic idea being "marriage is religious and as restrictive as each religion wants, and civil union is governmental and available for everyone") from a million other people before, including plenty of gay activists. It's not exactly controversial. I happen to agree with that myself.
Because I don't advocate exclusively binary unions with family that is only biological or adopted. I suppose you could call it identifying with a tribe, which is essentially a family that is not exclusively constructed based on biological bonds. If we're going to fix things and return the definition of marriage to the people/religions, then we should push to go all the way and not restrict civil unions to a mere pair. Most people find this crazy and unacceptable.


Yep, right there with ya. The government saying who can marry whom is purely and simply interferance with religious values. They should stay out of it, and give us the freedom to go to whatever church we want, and stop trampling the bill of rights. Only if a religious practice can be shown to hurt people should they be involved, and frankly, you being forced to think about the orgy of man-sex that goes on in a Unitarian church does NOT equal harm.
"Marriage" is religious. "Family", "Tribe", or "Union" should be a personal choice you define with the government for institutional/official purposes. They should have no bearing on religious decisions, though.

[meshou]

You don't nessicarily pay fewer than married people do. Filing jointly may bump them into the next bracket.

So if you were making 100 thousand and a couple were making that combined, they might pay fewer taxes then. But if you're making fifty and they're making fifty each and file jointly, they're probably each paying more out of their paycheck.

[Wolf]

You don't nessicarily pay fewer than married people do. Filing jointly may bump them into the next bracket.

So if you were making 100 thousand and a couple were making that combined, they might pay fewer taxes then. But if you're making fifty and they're making fifty each and file jointly, they're probably each paying more out of their paycheck.
...and you would be completely wrong. If I make X and they make X combined, they pay less. I'm penalized for being single.

[Ivy]

...and you would be completely wrong. If I make X and they make X combined, they pay less.

Isn't that what she just said?

[Wolf]

Isn't that what she just said?
No, she said that they would pay more, which is false.

[Rajah]

Here's an interesting article for you, wolf: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14060862/

[Ivy]

No, she said that they would pay more, which is false.

Did you read her explanation though? she said exactly what you did, which is that if they TOGETHER make X, and you make X alone, you pay more. So each one of them, as an individual, is likely paying more tax on their individual income than you are. Comparing like to like, individual to individual.

Edit: I don't actually know if this is true or not because I am financially stupid. But I can read you and meshou and see that you are saying the exact same thing.

[Wolf]

Here's an interesting article for you, wolf: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14060862/
I wasn't talking total costs, as it's clear that there are more costs involved.

When I was 19 I calculated that I wouldn't need to change my lifestyle one iota and the tax savings alone would be sufficient to support someone else that didn't work... Isn't that sad? I didn't consider for extra expenses, though, and I probably would have changed many things as a result, but in pure numbers, I'm penalized.

But if it's all true, provided I can ever afford to buy any property (hasn't been even an option since then), I guess I could win in the long run. Aside from the dying early part.

[Ivy]

I wasn't talking total costs, as it's clear that there are more costs involved.

When I was 19 I calculated that I wouldn't need to change my lifestyle one iota and the tax savings alone would be sufficient to support someone else that didn't work... Isn't that sad?

So your protestation is aimed more towards the one-income married couple?

[Rajah]

I wasn't talking total costs, as it's clear that there are more costs involved.

When I was 19 I calculated that I wouldn't need to change my lifestyle one iota and the tax savings alone would be sufficient to support someone else that didn't work... Isn't that sad?Hey, you asked why, and there's an explanation.

We could always go back to the marriage penalty of a few years back.

[Wolf]

So your protestation is aimed more towards the one-income married couple?
This was just the cold realization that I was paying out my nose on taxes and that the difference was pretty major.


We could always go back to the marriage penalty of a few years back.
I'd much prefer a flat tax...

[Jennywocky]

No, I'm just trying to bring it to attention. No one ever considers what the child would prefer in these kinds of situations, when in fact, they are the core of the entire debate.

I don't think that's true, is it? [i.e., that the children are never considered]

(If someone has some hard data, could they please contribute? Thanks.)

Aren't children old enough to weigh in actually asked about what they desire, so that the judge can make a decision? Heck, didn't a boy sue his actual parents for a divorce about seven years ago or so?

Anyway, it seems to be a pretty unfair and cynical view. A person who works in the adoption system does so generally because they care about children, not because they got stuck there. Many are parents themselves.

[Rajah]

Er, when I was a kid I wanted to be a princess. I don't think it would have been appropriate for me to decide what living situation was best for my development.

My nephew was put in that position, and went with one parent out of some misguided sense of duty. He was maybe 11. Fucked him up completely.

Completely unfair to put that decision in a child's hands.

[Jennywocky]

Such hysteria needs to be met w/hysteria. To allow an adversary to rant and rave while keeping one's own voice down might look "cool" in the movies, but it does not work in real life. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, after all.

While I empathize with you, Omni, and can understand why you're angry and feel threatened, I think there's a different between fighting back with passion and acting hysterically and saying caustic things.

The former wins respect; the latter makes people discount you.

I agree with much of what you said, but the manner in which you said it diluted your argument and made me *feel* like dismissing it, even though I intellectually found common ground.

This is not meant as a bust on you, because I know there are some religious ravers out there who are quite prejudiced against homosexuals and so the response is understandable. It's hard NOT to feel angry at them.

For what it's worth, I'm just saying that the moderate folks would probably be won over even more if you fought with passion, without resorting to this sort of vitriolic attack -- it just makes you sound like the people who are persecuting you, even if you are not, and gives more fuel to the anti-homosexual squad to use against you.


Not by me. It's the exact prescription that I wrote in another thread. I don't believe in marriage as an institution. I've said that many times. However, if marriage is to be allowed for one group, it should be allowed for other groups - at least in the form of civil union. I would never force any church to violate it own rules - but I will object when that church attempts to force its rules on others ...

I think that makes a lot of sense.

One of the big problems here is that legal marriage and religious marriage has been tied together (presumably when religion was more prevalent in the government). I'm not sure exactly how to untie them, since both the government AND religion has good cause to support the concept of a family unit -- so if they possess different definitions, suddenly it becomes confusing to know who is part of what family [i.e., these are all logistical/legal issues -- a lot of red tape to untangle.]

I watch the denominations arguing over whether homosexual marriage should be permitted. I'm not sure why they just don't split up more, rather than fight over "who wins." Maybe it's that INTP autonomy thing, but why doesn't the pro-homosexual church say, "Fine, we'll break off and do our own thing and call ourselves what we want?" Or vice versa? This is the United States, people should be allowed to believe what they wish even if others disagree as long as it doesn't directly impact others. It usually just comes across as a big pissing match, to me -- since both sides are fueled by religious zeal and want to "preserve" the version of the church they think is most right.

Just my thoughts...

[meshou]

Well, for every Martin Luther King Jr, there has to be a Malcom X. Martin Luther King Jr probably got more respect, but Malcom X probabloy generated more community self-respect.

There's a place for "hysteria" and a place for diplomacy.

[euterpenc]

I mean hey, what does nature know? We don't need a mother and a father!

This just seems like it will cause psychological issues with the child. We see how children missing a parent can turn out. I think this would be similar. In having same sex parents, one parental imago will be missing, and the child will have a difficulty understanding genders.

Plus, what about when the child finds out he is adopted? He'll never have a had a real mother or father. Like man, you may be all gay rights, which is fine, but like, messing with the kids' psyches like that...

[Ivy]

I mean hey, what does nature know? We don't need a mother and a father!

This just seems like it will cause psychological issues with the child. We see how children missing a parent can turn out. I think this would be similar. In having same sex parents, one parental imago will be missing, and the child will have a difficulty understanding genders.

Plus, what about when the child finds out he is adopted? He'll never have a had a real mother or father. Like man, you may be all gay rights, which is fine, but like, messing with the kids' psyches like that...

It's adorable that you think kids live with a mother and father in "nature." Indiginous cultures do childrearing a lot of different ways, and fathers are not always spectacularly involved. Sometimes not at all. For that matter, sometimes the mothers aren't involved, either-- there's one African culture where everybody in the tribe raises all of the children with no singular parental bond. All of the women continuously lactate and nurse all of the children. They just go to whichever woman is nearest. Works for them.

Kids do fine when they have people loving and raising them-- it doesn't seem to matter much exactly who those people are.

[Rajah]

This just seems like it will cause psychological issues with the child. We see how children missing a parent can turn out. I think this would be similar. In having same sex parents, one parental imago will be missing, and the child will have a difficulty understanding genders.Really? To me, it seems like this is a load of crap. If you think a child only gets gender cues from his parents, you're misguided.


Plus, what about when the child finds out he is adopted? He'll never have a had a real mother or father. Like man, you may be all gay rights, which is fine, but like, messing with the kids' psyches like that...Wait, so you're against adoption completely? What are you talking about?

[SensEye]

I still think a pair of mixed gender parents is optimal. Children can take cues about gender roles from other individuals, but parents in the home have the strongest influence.

Having said that, zeitgeists proposition that 'nature knows best' is laughable. The number of morons out there having babies is legion.

Soceity would be vastly better off as a whole if prospective natural birth parents had to go through the same qualification process as prospective adoptive parents before being allowed to 'have a child'.

However, it's much more politically palatable to engage in endless debate about the few hundred(?) gay couples per year who want to adopt versus the millions of unwed singles/poverty level couples churning out babies with nary a second thought.

[nfinityi]

I'm still waiting on demagogic_schizoid to adress the question I had with him, because (God help me) I think it would be a more interesting and revealing argument than this crap, in which, no one really has any clue what they're talking about.

[Ivy]

I'm still waiting on demagogic_schizoid to adress the question I had with him, because (God help me) I think it would be a more interesting and revealing argument than this crap, in which, no one really has any clue what they're talking about.

Brendan, since we're stating our opinions, I'd wager that each of us does have a clue of what we're talking about.

[euterpenc]

It's adorable that you think kids live with a mother and father in "nature." Indiginous cultures do childrearing a lot of different ways, and fathers are not always spectacularly involved. Sometimes not at all. For that matter, sometimes the mothers aren't involved, either-- there's one African culture where everybody in the tribe raises all of the children with no singular parental bond. All of the women continuously lactate and nurse all of the children. They just go to whichever woman is nearest. Works for them.

True as this may be, are cultures different than ours, and have a different psychology than ours. What matters is that the child has somewhere to project the father and mother archetypes. Preferably, the father is projected on a male, and the mother on a female. If it is forced to happen otherwise, than one of these archetypes is going to be distorted, and various problems may arise.

In the case of two guys, the mother archetype will have to come out somewhere. Idk if it will be projected on to one of the parents or on a female somewhere else. In the first case, the mother archetype will become associated with males, which is sure to cause some issue later on. In the second case, it just may be poor because the child will not get a mother in his childhood. Try as he might, a man can't become a woman.

[nfinityi]

Brendan, since we're stating our opinions, I'd wager that each of us does have a clue of what we're talking about.
To a certain extent. But as soon as you say "this is what's best for the child," opinion or not, you still have no clue wether or not it's actually what's best. It's just a gut feeling, which is why it's opinion as opposed to fact.

It's a tiring debate, and it's incredibly draining. Everytime I see something like this on the news it makes me depressed over why I can't be straight, because if you're gay, a shitload of people from both sides, well-intentioned or not, will debate about you in ways as if they know you. It's aggravating as Hell.

[Ivy]

True as this may be, are cultures different than ours, and have a different psychology than ours. What matters is that the child has somewhere to project the father and mother archetypes. Preferably, the father is projected on a male, and the mother on a female. If it is forced to happen otherwise, than one of these archetypes is going to be distorted, and various problems may arise.

In the case of two guys, the mother archetype will have to come out somewhere. Idk if it will be projected on to one of the parents or on a female somewhere else. In the first case, the mother archetype will become associated with males, which is sure to cause some issue later on. In the second case, it just may be poor because the child will not get a mother in his childhood. Try as he might, a man can't become a woman.

So you're abandoning the nature argument. It's for the best.

My opinion is that as long as a same-sex couple provides opposite-sex role models on a regular basis, the child's archetypes will turn out just fine.


To a certain extent. But as soon as you say "this is what's best for the child," opinion or not, you still have no clue wether or not it's actually what's best. It's just a gut feeling, which is why it's opinion as opposed to fact.

It's a tiring debate, and it's incredibly draining. Everytime I see something like this on the news it makes me depressed over why I can't be straight, because if you're gay, a shitload of people, well-intentioned or not, will debate about you in ways as if they know you. It's aggravating as Hell.

Perhaps you need to take a break.

[nfinityi]

Perhaps you need to take a break.
How do you suggest I do that? I'm assuming you mean in general.

[euterpenc]

So you're abandoning the nature argument. It's for the best.

My opinion is that as long as a same-sex couple provides opposite-sex role models on a regular basis, the child's archetypes will turn out just fine.

Well I seriously question the ability of a man, gay or not, to be able to fill a feminine role as well as a woman. I could only see this being done by someone who truly understands the archetype and has integrated it into his personality. Having the unconscious and its archetypes manifest in you beyond your control probably isn't the best way to express the archetype to a child.

[Ivy]

Well I seriously question the ability of a man, gay or not, to be able to fill a feminine role as well as a woman. I could only see this being done by someone who truly understands the archetype and has integrated it into his personality. Having the unconscious and its archetypes manifest in you beyond your control probably isn't the best way to express the archetype to a child.

I didn't say a man could fill that role himself. A gay man is still a man. What I said was as long as they provide opposite-sex role models (in the form of aunts, sisters, and so forth) on a regular basis, I believe it will be fine.

[euterpenc]

I didn't say a man could fill that role himself. A gay man is still a man. What I said was as long as they provide opposite-sex role models (in the form of aunts, sisters, and so forth) on a regular basis, I believe it will be fine.

Ohhhh. I thought you meant provide them in himself. Yeah I guess that makes sense. But how is that going to be regulated?

[Ivy]

Ohhhh. I thought you meant provide them in himself. Yeah I guess that makes sense. But how is that going to be regulated?

It isn't. Most parenting is unregulated, as it should be.

[Rajah]

It's a tiring debate, and it's incredibly draining. Everytime I see something like this on the news it makes me depressed over why I can't be straight, because if you're gay, a shitload of people from both sides, well-intentioned or not, will debate about you in ways as if they know you. It's aggravating as Hell.Oh, boo hoo. Are you seriously proposing that only gay people are equipped to debate issues affecting gay people? C'mon, Brendan; you know better than that. That's like me saying you have no right to weigh in on child welfare issues because, you know, you don't have kids.

[meshou]

I can see where he's coming from. If most of the world didn't have kids and it were up to debate what to do with them "breeders," it might get a little aggrivating.

[nfinityi]

Oh, boo hoo. Are you seriously proposing that only gay people are equipped to debate issues affecting gay people?
No. The point I was trying to make is that no one but a gay person knows what it's like to be a gay person, and that it's obnoxious to here other people, wether they approve or disapprove of you, try and talk about what you can, cannot, should or should not do, like they know at all.

C'mon, Brendan; you know better than that. That's like me saying you have no right to weigh in on child welfare issues because, you know, you don't have kids.
Yeah, and I would agree with you there.

[Rajah]

I can see where he's coming from. If most of the world didn't have kids and it were up to debate what to do with them "breeders," it might get a little aggrivating.It happens all the time, meshou. I've seen you weigh in on multiple threads discussing various groups to which you patently don't belong. Why should your position be invalidated?

[euterpenc]

It isn't. Most parenting is unregulated, as it should be.

Then we are taking a risk. What if the parents don't make the effort to give them female gender role models as above mentioned? Is there any basis on which we can think at least 51% of these adoptive parents will do this?

[euterpenc]

No. The point I was trying to make is that no one but a gay person knows what it's like to be a gay person, and that it's obnoxious to here other people, wether they approve or disapprove of you, try and talk about what you can, cannot, should or should not do, like they know at all.

Yeah, and I would agree with you there.

At the same time, nobody knows what it's like to be me, and know for instance, that gay marriage is bad. If you were me, you'd know gay marriage was bad.

This hypothetical. I'm just poking a hole in your arguement.

[Ivy]

Then we are taking a risk. What if the parents don't make the effort to give them female gender role models as above mentioned? Is there any basis on which we can think at least 51% of these adoptive parents will do this?

The risk is not clear enough to deny rights. If there ARE any ill effects from not having an opposite-sex role model, they're subtle enough not to be legally actionable (a la neglect or abuse).

We don't deny single women the right to adopt, or make them prove they'll provide male role models. If they can provide, they can adopt.

[Rajah]

No. The point I was trying to make is that no one but a gay person knows what it's like to be a gay person, and that it's obnoxious to here other people, wether they approve or disapprove of you, try and talk about what you can, cannot, should or should not do, like they know at all.I'm sorry, Brendan, but that's the way things are. These are societal issues, and thus affect more than just gay people. I do get that it sucks sometimes hearing people say what you are and aren't equipped to do. Case in point: There's a nasty undercurrent of sexism on the board, and at least three recent threads indirectly condemning me for being a working mom. You'd have to be blind not to see it. Regardless, it's just debate. Participate in it, or ignore it.

Frankly, Brendan, when it comes to this particular debate, I understand a lot more than you're giving me credit for.

[nfinityi]

At the same time, nobody knows what it's like to be me, and know for instance, that gay marriage is bad. If you were me, you'd know gay marriage was bad.

This hypothetical. I'm just poking a hole in your arguement.
And doing a terrible job of it, I might add.

[meshou]

It happens all the time, meshou. I've seen you weigh in on multiple threads discussing various groups to which you patently don't belong. Why should your position be invalidated?Oh, it shouldn't be, absolutely! If it makes logical sense, direct experience isn't paramount to having a reasonable position.

I just empathize with his position. It must be awkward and frustrating to have an entire country debating over whether you should be a second class citizen.

[Rajah]

Zeitgeist, nature or nurture? Which is it gonna be? You can't on one hand claim nature knows best, and on the other claim a child is going to be screwed up if he's not exposed to "proper" gender roles. Or are you just arguing to argue?

[Rajah]

Oh, it shouldn't be, absolutely! If it makes logical sense, direct experience isn't paramount to having a reasonable position.

I just empathize with his position. It must be awkward and frustrating to have an entire country debating over whether you should be a second class citizen.I get that as well. Practically, though, all you can do is pick a position and advocate. It seems pretty ridiculous to summarily throw out all opinions, good, bad or otherwise, just b/c you don't want to be talked about.

[euterpenc]

Zeitgeist, nature or nurture? Which is it gonna be? You can't on one hand claim nature knows best, and on the other claim a child is going to be screwed up if he's not exposed to "proper" gender roles. Or are you just arguing to argue?

Well both have an influence. Nature vs. Nurture is a dumb debate. Whoever thinks it's either one is denying reality.

The nature interacts with the nurture. Idk this is so obvious I feel like I don't even need to discuss it.

[Dempsey]

Going to be a fencesitter with this one. Ideally, kids need a mother and a father.

[nfinityi]

I'm sorry, Brendan, but that's the way things are. These are societal issues, and thus affect more than just gay people. I do get that it sucks sometimes hearing people say what you are and aren't equipped to do. There's a nasty undercurrent of sexism on the board. You'd have to be blind not to see it. Regardless, it's just debate. Participate in it, or ignore it.

Frankly, Brendan, when it comes to this particular debate, I understand a lot more than you're giving me credit for.
Wether that's the way things are or not is no excuse for how willfully ignorant people are when it comes to this topic. immortalmack makes no effort to get to know gay people, he just assumes he knows. The same goes for zeitgeist, and every time I try to let him in on the fact that HE HAS NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, he'll just reply "Oh, well that's my Ni talking, I just know things intuitively and you can't argue with that." Great. That's wonderful.

Wether or not these are just two isolated cases, it speaks to the immaturity and retardedness of society in general when it comes to "TEH OTHERS," no matter who they may be.

People fear that which they don't understand, and try to control it. Nobody takes the time to ask how I'm doing, or what it's like to be me, but then they have the audacity to say that I'm not mentally stable, based upon the fact that I'm gay.

Here's a question for ya: Do you think that being gay would still be distressing to the average gay person if being gay was not treated as leprosy by half the country?

[euterpenc]

I feel like it really isn't consequential to me either way. So I guess I'd say I'm for it. Taking up a stance against would be being dogmatic. At this point there is no way to say for sure if it will be good or bad, so otherwise we'd just be limiting people for the sake of fear, which is silly.

I guess I can sympathize with this in relation to getting caught with pot. People who me smoking doesn't even effect are deciding it is bad for me and everyone else. It is just ignorant, so I guess being against gay adoption or marriage would be too. Though I'm certain there will be differences in the resulting adults that these children will become, and I'd be interested to see the outcome.

[Ivy]

Well both have an influence. Nature vs. Nurture is a dumb debate. Whoever thinks it's either one is denying reality.

The nature interacts with the nurture. Idk this is so obvious I feel like I don't even need to discuss it.

I agree with this. Nature informs nurture.

At the same time, the nurture that nature prescribes is WAY less specific than most people want it to be. Kids need to be fed and loved, and not much else. Whether they are held as babies probably has more of an effect than who the specific people who love them are.

You guys might enjoy the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Katie Alison Granju. Cool anthropology study, but written in a way that is consumable by anyone.

[meshou]

Here's a question for ya: Do you think that being gay would still be distressing to the average gay person if being gay was not treated as leprosy by half the country?Mostly, no. There's some extent to which sexuality and its role in personal identity period is distressing to some people.

But yeah, it's tragic. You kind of need the other half to weigh in too, though, gay or not.

[nfinityi]

But yeah, it's tragic. You kind of need the other half to weigh in too, though, gay or not.
Why should I respect their opinion? They don't want to do what's right or fair, they just want not to have to think about it. And it is with this post that I'm taking Ivy's advice, taking a shower and going to the gym to run and lift and whatnot.

Be back in a few hours.

[euterpenc]

Being different is difficult for everyone, be it being gay or something else. You're not the only one.

It's not easy being me either, but that is true for everyone. Being gay doesn't mean you are that much worse off than others. Homosexuality isn't really that much of an issue. It may be frowned upon by some, but it is not persecuted.

Doing drugs is the same way, except there's persecution involved. Many people have shunned me as a pothead or loser cause I do drugs. It is just prejudice, and if people are going to do that to you, they aren't worth your time anyway.

You just need to be satisfied with yourself, and what others think doesn't matter unless they try to inflict violence upon you or stop you from getting a job or something.

[meshou]

I'm sorry, I meant the half on your side.

On the other hand, it used to be no one ever talked about this, and it was much much worse. Now that the fuckers are talking, it means they've lost a lotta lotta support.

[Rajah]

Wether that's the way things are or not is no excuse for how willfully ignorant people are when it comes to this topic. immortalmack makes no effort to get to know gay people, he just assumes he knows. The same goes for zeitgeist, and every time I try to let him in on the fact that HE HAS NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, he'll just reply "Oh, well that's my Ni talking, I just know things intuitively and you can't argue with that." Great. That's wonderful.You think you're the only person who's had that reaction on this board?


Wether or not these are just two isolated cases, it speaks to the immaturity and retardedness of society in general when it comes to "TEH OTHERS," no matter who they may be.Brendan, people are just trying to make sense of the world around us. If we see differences, we try to account for them and make sense of them. Separating people into groups is one way we do this. The problem is when we make value judgments about the person based on these differences. You and I both get that people hold unsupportable, erroneous positions about gay people. Now it's up to you to decide whether you care to attempt to educate them. You can spend your time complaining that people just don't get you, or you can try to make people understand you.


Here's a question for ya: Do you think that being gay would still be distressing to the average gay person if being gay was not treated as leprosy by half the country?Absolutely not, Brendan. So why are you so hellbent on attacking people who are right there with you, saying "Jesus, it's fucking stupid to treat gay people like lepers"?

[nfinityi]

Brendan, people are just trying to make sense of the world around us. If we see differences, we try to account for them and make sense of them. Separating people into groups is one way we do this. The problem is when we make value judgments about the person based on these differences. You and I both get that people hold unsupportable, erroneous positions about gay people. Now it's up to you to decide whether you care to attempt to educate them. You can spend your time complaining that people just don't get you, or you can try to make people understand you.
But that's just it! They don't want to understand me! I went to a public high school, I saw how difficult it is for teachers who have students who just flat out don't want to learn.

How am I supposed to work with that?

Absolutely not, Brendan. So why are you so hellbent on attacking people who are right there with you, saying "Jesus, it's fucking stupid to treat gay people like lepers"?
I was attacking the people who treat gay people like lepers, and then are surprised about why gay people have issues with society at large.

[nfinityi]

It's not easy being me either, but that is true for everyone. Being gay doesn't mean you are that much worse off than others. Homosexuality isn't really that much of an issue. It may be frowned upon by some, but it is not persecuted.

Doing drugs is the same way, except there's persecution involved. Many people have shunned me as a pothead or loser cause I do drugs. It is just prejudice, and if people are going to do that to you, they aren't worth your time anyway.
Wow. Based upon these two paragraphs I can say that you are blissfully unaware of a lot of shit out in the world. Shit that I can't show you.

Get out more.

[Rajah]

But that's just it! They don't want to understand me! I went to a public high school, I saw how difficult it is for teachers who have students who just flat out don't want to learn.

How am I supposed to work with that?

I was attacking the people who treat gay people like lepers, and then are surprised about why gay people have issues with society at large.Good! I'm glad you're directing your frustration. Because when you said this:


No. The point I was trying to make is that no one but a gay person knows what it's like to be a gay person, and that it's obnoxious to here other people, wether they approve or disapprove of you, try and talk about what you can, cannot, should or should not do, like they know at all....it wasn't productive.

Look, I know that there are closed-minded people who are going to reject your position. Tough for them. You decide if you want to come back and say it louder. It is frustrating, but this is how changes are made.

And sometimes, someone can come along and say something so completely ridiculous, so very out of touch with reality, it makes your job that much easier.


Being gay doesn't mean you are that much worse off than others. Homosexuality isn't really that much of an issue. It may be frowned upon by some, but it is not persecuted. See what I mean?

[euterpenc]

Wow. Based upon these two paragraphs I can say that you are blissfully unaware of a lot of shit out in the world. Shit that I can't show you.

Get out more.

Idk I get out a lot here a school. Lots of gays here, and everyone's happy, including the gay people. So it can't possibly be that horrible. If the gays here manage to be gay and happy, I'm sure you can. Moreover the stuff that is happening "in the world" really doesn't matter that much. What matters is your local reality. And I see no outside influences forcing you to do anything. You may feel forced, but that is your feeling, not the reality.

You can choose how you want to live and view things. I personally don't see the point of complaining about how the world is. I think it's better to just make the best of it and move on.

Idk I guess I just don't understand. Life doesn't seem that bad to me. I have chosen to live joyfully, whatever happens. We can live and choose to accept the world in all it's good an evil, or we can deny it. I find it is a lot more pleasant for me and those around me that I accept life rather than deny it.

[nfinityi]

Good! I'm glad you're directing your frustration. Because when you said this:

...it wasn't productive.

Look, I know that there are closed-minded people who are going to reject your position. Tough for them. You decide if you want to come back and say it louder. It is frustrating, but this is how changes are made.

And sometimes, someone can come along and say something so completely ridiculous, so very out of touch with reality, it makes your job that much easier.

See what I mean?
:lol: Thanks. That sort of brightened it for me. Yeah, I guess you're right. I'm sorry for lashing out indiscriminately, it was immature. I guess I can do what I can and try to be patient, as frustrating as it may sometimes be.

[meshou]

Oooh, dear, Ziet. College is like happy fun dream land. Of course they're happy. If anyone bothered them, they'd be banned from campus.

People are really fucking cruel to gay people. My sister smiles, but she knows most of her family would pretty much disown her if she told them. Mom's the most accepting mom she knows of... and my mom is rabidly evangelical and basically tells her to repent, but doesn't disown her or kick her out.

Don't assume that, just because some people are happy in spite of horrible horrible treatment, they aren't treated horribly, or that it's not a source of pain. As early as a decade ago, they drug some poor kid behind a truck just for being gay. The venom is still horrific.

[MasterMerk]

I have no problem with adopting gays. You can all come live with me if you want.

[Rajah]

:lol: Thanks. That sort of brightened it for me. Yeah, I guess you're right. I'm sorry for lashing out indiscriminately, it was immature. I guess I can do what I can and try to be patient, as frustrating as it may sometimes be.:)

It does suck, Brendan. Nobody likes to be marginalized. Everything in you screams about it being unfair that someone's making snap judgments about you without knowing a single damn real thing about your character. And you wonder why we're bothering discriminating based on this particular category -- why not eye color? or shoe size? or curly hair versus straight? or, hey, none at all? It is kinda arbitrary when you think about it.

And regardless of what some people suggest, you don't have to just roll over and accept things the way they are. You do have to recognize them as they are, and then work to change them, if you want.

[euterpenc]

Oooh, dear, Ziet. College is like happy fun dream land. Of course they're happy. If anyone bothered them, they'd be banned from campus.

People are really fucking cruel to gay people. My sister smiles, but she knows most of her family would pretty much disown her if she told them. Mom's the most accepting mom she knows of... and my mom is rabidly evangelical and basically tells her to repent, but doesn't disown her or kick her out.

Don't assume that, just because some people are happy in spite of horrible horrible treatment, they aren't treated horribly, or that it's not a source of pain. As early as a decade ago, they drug some poor kid behind a truck just for being gay. The venom is still horrific.

If I said something like that earlier then I admit I was wrong. Either, choosing to live happily in spite of it is still an option. Blaming external circumstances for your misery is just going to take control over your life away from you, in a bad way, usually.

Being happy despite oppression is not impossible. Man's search for meaning is an example, along with Chong's book about him going to jail. Another was the chinese invasion of tibet (I foget when) and the monks showed no condemnation of the chinese whatsoever. So it certainly isn't impossible to live joyously in the sorrows of the world. Whether or not you want to do this is up to you.

[MasterMerk]

If I said something like that earlier then I admit I was wrong. Either, choosing to live happily in spite of it is still an option. Blaming external circumstances for your misery is just going to take control over your life away from you, in a bad way, usually.

Being happy despite oppression is not impossible. Man's search for meaning is an example, along with Chong's book about him going to jail. Another was the chinese invasion of tibet (I foget when) and the monks showed no condemnation of the chinese whatsoever. So it certainly isn't impossible to live joyously in the sorrows of the world. Whether or not you want to do this is up to you.

"You can't help being raped, so you might as well try to enjoy it!"

[meshou]

"You can't help being raped, so you might as well try to enjoy it!"That's not quite fair. More like "Whether you are raped or not is out of your control. You may as well be happy in spite of that possibility."

The torment is horrible, and sure as hell makes it much, much harder to be happy. It's still an admirable position to decide no one can take your happiness from you.

The fight to choose to be happy in spite of hardship is just as much a part of the fight against the hardship as the political aspect.

[omnirook]

I mean hey, what does nature know? We don't need a mother and a father!

This just seems like it will cause psychological issues with the child. We see how children missing a parent can turn out. I think this would be similar. In having same sex parents, one parental imago will be missing, and the child will have a difficulty understanding genders.

Plus, what about when the child finds out he is adopted? He'll never have a had a real mother or father. Like man, you may be all gay rights, which is fine, but like, messing with the kids' psyches like that...

So, then single heterosexual people should not be allowed to adopt? - they are allowed to adopt, you know - but, by your reasoning, they should no more be allowed to adopt than gay people. After all, one gender is missing from the motiff that is presented by the adoption.

OK - only heterosexual couples may adopt. Presumably, they should be "stable" - how many years must they have been married to "prove" that they are stable? What happens if it is found out that the couple enjoys sex more if the husband wears his wife's panties? - perhaps the wife enjoys being tied up and whipped? Maybe the pair of them are into "swinging" ... What happens if they get divorced? Just how many Mr and Mrs Cleaver's do you believe are out there, anxiously hoping to adopt?

[omnirook]

To a certain extent. But as soon as you say "this is what's best for the child," opinion or not, you still have no clue wether or not it's actually what's best. It's just a gut feeling, which is why it's opinion as opposed to fact.

It's a tiring debate, and it's incredibly draining. Everytime I see something like this on the news it makes me depressed over why I can't be straight, because if you're gay, a shitload of people from both sides, well-intentioned or not, will debate about you in ways as if they know you. It's aggravating as Hell.

Pookie, it doesn'tmatter what you are, somebody's going to have an attitude toward you. Get over it. As soon as a label, any label, can be pinned on you, you have enemies. Jews are hated from every direction - I don't see many Jews laying down and giving in (good for them!). Queers are hated from all directions - what are you going to do? Give up, give out, give in? I don't know about you, but I'm stuck being who and what I am, and it just isn't too much trouble for me to stick up for myself. Even if you were a woman, I'd tell you to grow a pair and knock off the whining.

[omnirook]

Well I seriously question the ability of a man, gay or not, to be able to fill a feminine role as well as a woman. I could only see this being done by someone who truly understands the archetype and has integrated it into his personality. Having the unconscious and its archetypes manifest in you beyond your control probably isn't the best way to express the archetype to a child.

My father was the 2nd of 4 children and the only boy. My father's elder sister was 14 years his senior. His younger sister was almost 2 years his junior; his youngest sister was a little more than 3 years his junior. An odd spacing of children, yes, but that was how it worked out. And it killed my grandmother, who died before my father's 4th birthday. My father had only a few, fragmentary, sketchy recollections of his mother, the clearest one being of her standing in a hall, near a closet door ...

Anyway, my grandfather did the best that he could. He relied on the elder girl to do most of the housework and child-rearing while he went out to whatever work he could get in Depression era New York.

My grandfather's health began to deteriorate. Nobody understood what was wrong w/him - why he began to forget things, even his address, so that sometimes he could not find his way home. My father was a little less than 7 years old when his father got put into the Creedmore Mental Asylum. He was diagnosed w/early senile dementia - Alzheimer's Disease, but it wasn't called that back then.

From the age of 7 to the age of 10, my father was put into an orphanage. Why? His elder sister was not married, and the State of New York would not give her custody of her siblings. My father and his 2 younger sisters were put in orphanages, a separate one for boys and a separate one for girls. Catholic orphanages.

Meanwhile, my father's elder sister continued the fight to get custody of her siblings. It was to no avail until she herself had gotten married. Luckily, her husband was a kind man and was willing to take in his wife's brother and 2 sisters. But a lot of damage had been done in the meantime. A lot of damage.

My father had been systematically abused. He had been mistreated by the orphanage's establishment, the priests and nuns, and he had been mistreated by his fellow orphans. One of the nuns had told my father that his mother had been a whore. Why? She was too old to have gotten pregnant that last time and should have given up sex even w/her husband a long time ago - dying after giving birth was how God punished her wickedness! The older boys in the orphanage were sexually abusing my father, using him as a penis pinata and threatening him w/a cut throat if he told anyone. You can imagine the kind of shape he was in when his siter finally did get custody of him.

The sisters didn't fare any better. They also got the "Your mother was a whore" treatment in their orphanage, the middle girl was also sexually abused, and no one really knows what happened to the youngest one to this day - she came out of the orphanage and did not speak for YEARS and would scream at the top of her lungs if anybody even looked as though he/she were about to touch her. My aunt does not remember her time in the orphanage, does not even remember having been there. All we know is that her husband is a saint because he has put up w/his wife's endless emotional problems for more than 5 decades.

Oh, they would have been so much worse off in the care of their unmarried elder sister!

What happened to my grandfather? Well, my father had eased his own time in the orphanage by dreaming about seeing his father again. And he did. After his elder sister got custody of him and took him home, she used to take him to Creedmore to visit their father every Sunday. My grandfather only remembered my aunt; he did not remember my father, though he tried at first to pretend that he did. But, eventually, he just stared at my father and then took him for any little boy. At least my grandfather had always loved children and was happy enough to have a "strange" little boy visit him. In the end, my grandfather did not even know my aunt. He forgot his English and would speak only in Neapolitan. The last time that my father saw his father, his father was seated on a chair, staring blankly ahead, unresponsive to anybody. A few days later, he had a stroke and died.

Point? My father grew up in a shit-load of trouble. His "archetypes" turned out fine - he was a good husband and a good father. Before you begin slinging around Jungian terminology, you should understand that terminology. Per Jung, the archetypes are INBORN - they require NO outer stimulus to be instantly understood by any person who is sane. The archetype of the mother, the archetype of the father is universal - even in the above given example where a child has a whole tribe of mothers and fathers. What matters is that the mother and father filling the role of the archetype are loving, not that he or she conform to an 18th Century ideal of wedded monogamy (and, yes, that is how YOUNG the nuclear family is - and that can be proven).

[meshou]

Omnirook, I disagree. I think, despite Jung's beliefs, male and female rolemodels are really essential for many children.

Kids start modeling themselves after the people they see in their lives. You can't keep the two year old girls away from make-up and baby dolls. They really mimic the same sex parents (or person of the same sex that is closest to them), and I really think having seen someone they identify with interact with the world is very important to kids learning how to regulate their emotions.

Kids know who and what they are from an early age, and they need to see someone "like them," and how they interact with the world.

To use Jung, those archiatypes are innate, but they need feeding in order to develop well. At the very least, a somewhat involved aunt or uncle might be best for a kid.

[euterpenc]

My father was the 2nd of 4 children and the only boy. My father's elder sister was 14 years his senior. His younger sister was almost 2 years his junior; his youngest sister was a little more than 3 years his junior. An odd spacing of children, yes, but that was how it worked out. And it killed my grandmother, who died before my father's 4th birthday. My father had only a few, fragmentary, sketchy recollections of his mother, the clearest one being of her standing in a hall, near a closet door ...

Anyway, my grandfather did the best that he could. He relied on the elder girl to do most of the housework and child-rearing while he went out to whatever work he could get in Depression era New York.

My grandfather's health began to deteriorate. Nobody understood what was wrong w/him - why he began to forget things, even his address, so that sometimes he could not find his way home. My father was a little less than 7 years old when his father got put into the Creedmore Mental Asylum. He was diagnosed w/early senile dementia - Alzheimer's Disease, but it wasn't called that back then.

From the age of 7 to the age of 10, my father was put into an orphanage. Why? His elder sister was not married, and the State of New York would not give her custody of her siblings. My father and his 2 younger sisters were put in orphanages, a separate one for boys and a separate one for girls. Catholic orphanages.

Meanwhile, my father's elder sister continued the fight to get custody of her siblings. It was to no avail until she herself had gotten married. Luckily, her husband was a kind man and was willing to take in his wife's brother and 2 sisters. But a lot of damage had been done in the meantime. A lot of damage.

My father had been systematically abused. He had been mistreated by the orphanage's establishment, the priests and nuns, and he had been mistreated by his fellow orphans. One of the nuns had told my father that his mother had been a whore. Why? She was too old to have gotten pregnant that last time and should have given up sex even w/her husband a long time ago - dying after giving birth was how God punished her wickedness! The older boys in the orphanage were sexually abusing my father, using him as a penis pinata and threatening him w/a cut throat if he told anyone. You can imagine the kind of shape he was in when his siter finally did get custody of him.

The sisters didn't fare any better. They also got the "Your mother was a whore" treatment in their orphanage, the middle girl was also sexually abused, and no one really knows what happened to the youngest one to this day - she came out of the orphanage and did not speak for YEARS and would scream at the top of her lungs if anybody even looked as though he/she were about to touch her. My aunt does not remember her time in the orphanage, does not even remember having been there. All we know is that her husband is a saint because he has put up w/his wife's endless emotional problems for more than 5 decades.

Oh, they would have been so much worse off in the care of their unmarried elder sister!

What happened to my grandfather? Well, my father had eased his own time in the orphanage by dreaming about seeing his father again. And he did. After his elder sister got custody of him and took him home, she used to take him to Creedmore to visit their father every Sunday. My grandfather only remembered my aunt; he did not remember my father, though he tried at first to pretend that he did. But, eventually, he just stared at my father and then took him for any little boy. At least my grandfather had always loved children and was happy enough to have a "strange" little boy visit him. In the end, my grandfather did not even know my aunt. He forgot his English and would speak only in Neapolitan. The last time that my father saw his father, his father was seated on a chair, staring blankly ahead, unresponsive to anybody. A few days later, he had a stroke and died.

Point? My father grew up in a shit-load of trouble. His "archetypes" turned out fine - he was a good husband and a good father. Before you begin slinging around Jungian terminology, you should understand that terminology. Per Jung, the archetypes are INBORN - they require NO outer stimulus to be instantly understood by any person who is sane. The archetype of the mother, the archetype of the father is universal - even in the above given example where a child has a whole tribe of mothers and fathers. What matters is that the mother and father filling the role of the archetype are loving, not that he or she conform to an 18th Century ideal of wedded monogamy (and, yes, that is how YOUNG the nuclear family is - and that can be proven).

There are exceptions to every rule.

[nfinityi]

There are exceptions to every rule.
That is incredibly weak and you know it.

[Theodoret]

Being happy despite oppression is not impossible. Man's search for meaning is an example, along with Chong's book about him going to jail. Another was the chinese invasion of tibet (I foget when) and the monks showed no condemnation of the chinese whatsoever. So it certainly isn't impossible to live joyously in the sorrows of the world. Whether or not you want to do this is up to you.

Apologies for picking on you, but there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between your understanding of what it is to be a gay man in Western society, and reality.

Perhaps these links might help illustrate the point:

The Experience of Harrasment and Violence of Gay Men in the City of Edinburgh (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/crf41-00.asp) (btw Edinburgh is a pretty cosmopolitan place compared to some parts of the UK).

Homophobic Bullying in UK Schools (http://www.coastkid.org/si-ssas.html)

Leaving the issue of homophobia aside, on the subject of gay adoption I think there is a false choice being promoted in this topic "Should wards of the state be adopted by gay or straight couples?". Given that there are less potential adopters than adoptees, surely the question to address is "Is it better for wards of the state to be adopted by gay couples or left in orphanages?".

I take the view that arbitrarily reducing the pool of adopters by potentially 4% because that segment doesn't represent some idealised vision of parenthood is foolish. Its not as if the state is doing a very good job of caring for them, given the poor opportunities they get in orphanages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5273986.stm).

[nfinityi]

Apologies for picking on you, but there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between your understanding of what it is to be a gay man in Western society, and reality.

Perhaps these links might help illustrate the point:

The Experience of Harrasment and Violence of Gay Men in the City of Edinburgh (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/crf41-00.asp) (btw Edinburgh is a pretty cosmopolitan place compared to some parts of the UK).

Homophobic Bullying in UK Schools (http://www.coastkid.org/si-ssas.html)

Leaving the issue of homophobia aside, on the subject of gay adoption I think there is a false choice being promoted in this topic "Should wards of the state be adopted by gay or straight couples?". Given that there are less potential adopters than adoptees, surely the question to address is "Is it better for wards of the state to be adopted by gay couples or left in orphanages?".

I take the view that arbitrarily reducing the pool of adopters by potentially 4% because that segment doesn't represent some idealised vision of parenthood is foolish. Its not as if the state is doing a very good job of caring for them, given the poor opportunities they get in orphanages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5273986.stm).
I would like to congratulate you on having made the most eloquent post in the entire thread.

[euterpenc]

That is incredibly weak and you know it.

Well he gave one example. That doesn't say anything except that the proposed rule isn't infallible, which is obvious anyway.

[nfinityi]

Well he gave one example. That doesn't say anything except that the proposed rule isn't infallible, which is obvious anyway.
What rule? All I see are half-educated, unfounded, prejudiced suppositions coming from your side of the argument. Who (besides you of course) said anything about a rule?

[euterpenc]

Apologies for picking on you, but there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between your understanding of what it is to be a gay man in Western society, and reality.

Perhaps these links might help illustrate the point:

The Experience of Harrasment and Violence of Gay Men in the City of Edinburgh (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/crf41-00.asp) (btw Edinburgh is a pretty cosmopolitan place compared to some parts of the UK).

Homophobic Bullying in UK Schools (http://www.coastkid.org/si-ssas.html)

Leaving the issue of homophobia aside, on the subject of gay adoption I think there is a false choice being promoted in this topic "Should wards of the state be adopted by gay or straight couples?". Given that there are less potential adopters than adoptees, surely the question to address is "Is it better for wards of the state to be adopted by gay couples or left in orphanages?".

I take the view that arbitrarily reducing the pool of adopters by potentially 4% because that segment doesn't represent some idealised vision of parenthood is foolish. Its not as if the state is doing a very good job of caring for them, given the poor opportunities they get in orphanages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5273986.stm).

True as these things may be, my stance holds: you are the one who chooses whether or not you are happy. If you know what Man's Search for Meaning is, you'd know that it is about how some people survived concentration camps because they believed there was still a meaning to their life, even under such adverse conditions. Now if it can happen there, in a concentration camp, finding meaning while being gay should be a cake walk.

[meshou]

...You're right. But whether you CAN be happy as a gay person and whether people should (and do) try their damndest to make you fucking miserable are seperate issues.

Gay people can be happy. The issue is, should half of fucking America make it as hard as possible.

[Theodoret]

True as these things may be, my stance holds: you are the one who chooses whether or not you are happy. If you know what Man's Search for Meaning is, you'd know that it is about how some people survived concentration camps because they believed there was still a meaning to their life, even under such adverse conditions. Now if it can happen there, in a concentration camp, finding meaning while being gay should be a cake walk.

That is one of the guiding principles in cognitive behavioural therapy. Whilst the general thrust of this is not invalid, I would suggest "finding meaning while being gay should be a cake walk" is very easy to say when you are not gay.

CBT is a useful tool to dig yourself out of the pit of clinical depression. However, if one is thrust into this pit by unwarranted societal pressures is it unreasonable to protest to those exerting the pressures, and to ask for something better?

[euterpenc]

That is one of the guiding principles in cognitive behavioural therapy. Whilst the general thrust of this is not invalid, I would suggest "finding meaning while being gay should be a cake walk" is very easy to say when you are not gay.

CBT is a useful tool to dig yourself out of the pit of clinical depression. However, if one is thrust into this pit by unwarranted societal pressures is it not unreasonable to protest to those exerting the pressures, and to ask for something better?

Blaming the world sure won't help. Especially if it is unlikely or will take tremendous effort to change.

It would depend one which is done with less effort; which has the lowest cost and highest benefit. Changing the world or changing yourself? Usualy the latter is easier. And if you're going to say you shouldn't have to change, you may as well go kill yourself now, cause if life said that about the enviroment we'd all not exist. It's called adaptation. Make the best of what you have and be happy with it. If you want to change it, change it, but if this is your express objective, you should buck up stop bitching, and address the problem with practical solutions.

Edit: To help let our your frustrations: Ra - Do you call my name

Hey life sucks, I know. Just try to not let it get to you.

[euterpenc]

You're right. But whether you CAN be happy as a gay person and whether people should (and do) try their damndest to make you fucking miserable are seperate issues.

Gay people can be happy. The issue is, should half of fucking America make it as hard as possible.

I'd say the answer is obviously no. But letting them get to you is only giving them more control.

[Theodoret]

I don't think you can accuse the gay community of sitting around complaining.

In Britain we now have equal age of consent, legislation forbidding discrimination upon grounds of sexuality in the workplace, the repeal of laws forbidding gay men and women from serving in the armed forces, and civil partnerships. Laws are now being passed through Parliament to allow gay adoption. We also have gay politicians elected to high office, and significant pressures have been brought to bear on the police to change their approach towards gay victims of crime.

However, this has not been brought about through the unilateral actions of the gay community. Why? Because gay men and women make up between 2-15% of the population (depending on which study you trust). At the very best that means 85% of the population are not gay, and to get the backing of a good portion of the heterosexual population (which is required in a democratic society) has indeed required significant "bitching".

What practical steps am I taking to improve the position of homosexuals in society? Well whenever the topic comes up I endevour to change the minds of those who take an opposed or apathetic stance towards gay rights. Posting in this thread is a small part of that.

[Veradicere]

Currently, this is an issue in Britain. I won't go into it, because the technicalities of the debate are dull. My question is just, are we in favour of it? Personally, I'm not at the moment. I'm not saying I could never be won round. I don't know much about homosexuality, my feelings towards it (not homosexuals themselves) are slightly negative right now because I see the homosexuals I personally know as quite damaged people, but I don't what came first, if you see what I mean. My real issue though on this topic is not with homosexuality, it is with the idea of giving a child to two people who purposefully shun the reproductive process. It troubles me. So vote away.


How is being willing to adopt children that you didn't even produce "shunning" the reproductive process? They may not be reproducing themselves, but they certainly aren't shunning the process if they are willing to devote their lives to a product of it.

Secondly, why do you view homosexuality as purposeful? Personally, I think homosexuality is as "purposeful" as any other preference. I prefer oranges over apples, but did I really "choose" to like oranges over apples?
Certainly not consciously, and choice implies a conscious decision. Furthermore, could I "choose" to like apples more than oranges? No. Not any more than you could you start enjoying eating shit.

Plus, do you actually know of anyone who isn't "quite damaged" in one way or another? If so, it's probably just because you don't know them well enough yet. Or they are good at hiding it.

PLUS, being damaged doesn't necessarily make you a bad parent. But being perfect probably will.

[omnirook]

How is being willing to adopt children that you didn't even produce "shunning" the reproductive process? They may not be reproducing themselves, but they certainly aren't shunning the process if they are willing to devote their lives to a product of it.

Secondly, why do you view homosexuality as purposeful? Personally, I think homosexuality is as "purposeful" as any other preference. I prefer oranges over apples, but did I really "choose" to like oranges over apples?
Certainly not consciously, and choice implies a conscious decision. Furthermore, could I "choose" to like apples more than oranges? No. Not any more than you could you start enjoying eating shit.

Plus, do you actually know of anyone who isn't "quite damaged" in one way or another? If so, it's probably just because you don't know them well enough yet. Or they are good at hiding it.

PLUS, being damaged doesn't necessarily make you a bad parent. But being perfect probably will.

Thank you. Very well put.

"We each of us have a wounded psyche, and we are all of us stumbling about in the dark" - Quentin Crisp, the stateliest of England's "stately homo's," who "brazened it out" to "grow old disgracefully," so that he might "flop into his casket," grateful that the long nightmare was at last at an end ...

[euterpenc]

I don't think you can accuse the gay community of sitting around complaining.

In Britain we now have equal age of consent, legislation forbidding discrimination upon grounds of sexuality in the workplace, the repeal of laws forbidding gay men and women from serving in the armed forces, and civil partnerships. Laws are now being passed through Parliament to allow gay adoption. We also have gay politicians elected to high office, and significant pressures have been brought to bear on the police to change their approach towards gay victims of crime.

However, this has not been brought about through the unilateral actions of the gay community. Why? Because gay men and women make up between 2-15% of the population (depending on which study you trust). At the very best that means 85% of the population are not gay, and to get the backing of a good portion of the heterosexual population (which is required in a democratic society) has indeed required significant "bitching".

What practical steps am I taking to improve the position of homosexuals in society? Well whenever the topic comes up I endevour to change the minds of those who take an opposed or apathetic stance towards gay rights. Posting in this thread is a small part of that.

More power to you then. As long as you don't force me to take action in any direction, keep doing what you're doing.

[omnirook]

I don't think you can accuse the gay community of sitting around complaining.

In Britain we now have equal age of consent, legislation forbidding discrimination upon grounds of sexuality in the workplace, the repeal of laws forbidding gay men and women from serving in the armed forces, and civil partnerships. Laws are now being passed through Parliament to allow gay adoption. We also have gay politicians elected to high office, and significant pressures have been brought to bear on the police to change their approach towards gay victims of crime.

However, this has not been brought about through the unilateral actions of the gay community. Why? Because gay men and women make up between 2-15% of the population (depending on which study you trust). At the very best that means 85% of the population are not gay, and to get the backing of a good portion of the heterosexual population (which is required in a democratic society) has indeed required significant "bitching".

What practical steps am I taking to improve the position of homosexuals in society? Well whenever the topic comes up I endevour to change the minds of those who take an opposed or apathetic stance towards gay rights. Posting in this thread is a small part of that.

:theclap: Me, too ...

Blacks have had it rough, no denying that. That is why I resent it that black Americans are among those most opposed to gay rights. The belief that sexual orientation is a matter of choice is particularly widespread among black Americans, is their constant complaint against any attempt by gays to equate the struggles of the 2 groups (as though there are no black gays!). Black American leaders have groused that it is wrong for gays to try and "piggy back" on the Civil Rights Movement because gays choose to be what they are. Nonsense!

[meshou]

More power to you then. As long as you don't force me to take action in any direction, keep doing what you're doing.No one can make you do anything! But inaction is a choice, and every choice has a concequence. Inescapable.

[nfinityi]

More power to you then. As long as you don't force me to take action in any direction, keep doing what you're doing.
Where did that come from? No one planned on forcing you to do anything at all. What is it with you and your obsession over wether or not your doing what other people want you to do?

[euterpenc]

No one can make you do anything! But inaction is a choice, and every choice has a concequence. Inescapable.

Or is it? Only if you believe in time...

[omnirook]

The United States Constitution is a very short document - and a rather vague one, at least as concerns the hot questions that surround the topic, Human Rights.

No doubt the authors of the Constitution were deliberate in leaving the Constitution less than precise. After all, they could not quite agree among themselves what exactly Human Rights meant, and they at least had the foresight to include means whereby future generations could interpret the Constitution as time and needs demanded. They allowed for 2 kinds of re-interpretation, the first, more difficult kind being the amendment, which required a difficult-to-achieve agreement among the various constituent states, as well as a 3/4 majority agreement in the Congress itself. And the framers of the Constitution also allowed for judicial interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution - the courts would be allowed to decide what the Constitution meant as cases were tried. This second form of re-interpretation has been, by far, the more common.

The point of the above is to make it clear that the founders of this Republic had realized that they could not write a Constitution that would not need to be changed as time went on. Had they not made change possible, the country would not have lasted. It has lasted largely because change has been possible.

With few exceptions, the changes that have taken place have been of the "progressive" kind - in other words, the legislature and the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, have almost invariably elected to widen the scope of what is deemed Human Rights. Naturally this has angered social conservatives - generation after generation of social conservatives. Good!

Though there have been periods of back-sliding - the Supreme Court rulings that allowed for racial segregation, for instance - ultimately the trend toward widening the scope of protection has been relentlessly progressive. The recent back-sliding as regards the rights of gay people is taking place in a legal environment that will not allow such back-sliding to stand for long. It took generations for the Supreme Court to overturn its own anti-black rulings. It will not take nearly as long to overturn the anti-gay rulings. Already the underpinnings for anti-gay legislation have been knocked out. The most significant of recent Supreme Court rulings was the one that took the government out of people's bedrooms. No matter what statutes remain on the books, there is not one anti-sodomy law that is still valid anywhere in the United States. Southern states might well keep such laws on their books - but the laws are invalid, and the southern states cannot use them to prosecute anybody; they have been overturned, and it was not the Warren court that overturned them - it was the court appointed by Reagan and Bushes 1 & 2 - a so-called "conservative" court.

Eventually, the issue of gay rights will go the way that the issue of black rights has gone. I have no doubt of it. There will remain prejudice against gay people, yes, as there remains prejudice against black people, but that prejudice will not be codified into law and will not be allowed expression w/o punishment.

[attila_the_hunny]

Cheer up, Brendan. At least members of your sex get to chime in instead of having only females decide what your sexual orientation is capable of.

[slacker]

"JUDGING by the loud howls of concern this week, the lot of children in Britain and America is a rather terrible one. On Wednesday February 14th Unicef published a report comparing the well-being of young people in 21 rich countries, and concluded that British and American youths endure the worst quality of life of any. In contrast, North European children, especially the Nordics, apparently have a lovely time." http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8696443

Instead of focusing on the sexual orientation of prospective adopters, maybe we should be focusing on nationality instead... say no to U.S. & British adopters!

[demagogic_schizoid]

Secondly, why do you view homosexuality as purposeful? Personally, I think homosexuality is as "purposeful" as any other preference. I prefer oranges over apples, but did I really "choose" to like oranges over apples?
Certainly not consciously, and choice implies a conscious decision. Furthermore, could I "choose" to like apples more than oranges? No. Not any more than you could you start enjoying eating shit

It doesn't matter if it's purposeful or not. Let's say homosexuality is not a choice but someone's very nature. In that case, a gay persons very nature is telling them not to reproduce, to shun heterosexual sex, the act which leads to a child being born. Surely there is a reason why only a man and a woman can create a child. Doesn't this trouble you?

[Ivy]

It doesn't matter if it's purposeful or not. Let's say homosexuality is not a choice but someone's very nature. In that case, a gay persons very nature is telling them not to reproduce, to shun heterosexual sex, the act which leads to a child being born. Surely there is a reason why only a man and a woman can create a child. Doesn't this trouble you?

...I'm really trying to figure out why it should but no, it really doesn't. No more than an asexual opposite-sex couple would, or anyone else who doesn't want to breed but wants to raise children anyway. Besides that initial act, parenting has very little to do with sexuality.

[demagogic_schizoid]

...I'm really trying to figure out why it should but no, it really doesn't. No more than an asexual opposite-sex couple would, or anyone else who doesn't want to breed but wants to raise children anyway. Besides that initial act, parenting has very little to do with sexuality.

So why can't two men reproduce?

[Ivy]

So why can't two men reproduce?

Well, the man has a pee pee and the woman has a geener, and when a man and a woman love each other very much...

Who cares? Some infertile couples can't reproduce either. They still have a lot to offer a child through adoption.

[nfinityi]

So why can't two men reproduce?
What if a child, through odd circumstances ended up growing up in a church, with a priest as a father figure and a nun as a mother figure. Both of them have taken vows ot celibacy, is that not shunning the reproductive process?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Some infertile couples can't reproduce either.

That's due to a medical condition not due to their sexual orientation, which is central to their very nature.

[Ivy]

That's due to a medical condition not due to their sexual orientation, which is central to their very nature.

I'm really not seeing the big deal here. It seems academic when what children need is love and resources.

[Rhu]

That's due to a medical condition not due to their sexual orientation, which is central to their very nature.
That's a statement that to me is subject to... subjectivity. For some people, sexuality is a facet of their nature, for others, sexuality is their single defining feature.

But, yeah. What Ivy said. What does ability to conceive have to do with ability to nurture?

[HilbertSpace]

So why can't two men reproduce?

I think your argument (and most of the anti-homosexual adoption arguments that have been presented in this thread) impart a moral dimension to biology that just isn't there. Humans, more so than other species, adapt intellectually as well as genetically.

Genetics is an excellent predictor of what was, but has a lag time that may be significant. For instance, there may be no reason, from a selection point of view, why a child raised in a homosexual household would be worse off than one raised in a heterosexual one (all else being equal). However, with a couple billion years of sexual reproduction built into our bodies, you can't expect that to be a determining factor - the genotypes are too far apart. It would be expected, in any case, that intellectual adaptation would occur first.

The two more legitimate arguments presented, I think, are sociological and psychological. The sociological one (that children with homosexual parents will be made targets of an uncaring society) is unfortunately self-fulfilling and circular - and are the same ones that have been used against inter-racial marriage and the mixing of sexes and races* in the classroom.

The psychological seems to depend on the conclusion that sexual deviation indicates a more extensive psychological abnormality that would render one unfit to raise a child. Based on personal and anecdotal evidence, I do not think this is true in the general case. Even if it were true, justice would still seem to imply that we should evaluate individuals on an individual basis where possible.


*I mean race in terms of social perception, not biology.