Post by: Mulliga on February 11, 2007, 06:10:50 AM
Post by: Laurent du Var on February 11, 2007, 06:27:23 AM
They didn' try hard enough to get pregnant ?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 11, 2007, 07:25:29 AM
I'm not sure what the research on same-sex couples shows, if just having two involved parents outweighs the lack of symmetry, but I think it is fairly well settled that kids in single parent households lacking fathers show consequences of such a lack in cases where, for example, an uncle, grandfather or other consistant male role model isn't available to "fill in". I'm sure there are similar studies on lack of a mother.
Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 11, 2007, 08:13:42 AM
but I think it is fairly well settled that kids in single parent households lacking fathers show consequences of such a lack in cases where, for example, an uncle, grandfather or other consistant male role model isn't available to "fill in". I'm sure there are similar studies on lack of a mother.
Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.
Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.
Less so than if they're in a two-parent household where, say, the father is a violent alcoholic or the mother is a coke-snorting bum, or the parents despise each other and fight continually. I think far more damage is done by that sort of thing, which is why I tend to lose patience with the "MUST HAVE TWO PARENTS" extremists.
To me, the ideal household is one in which the parent or parents loves the kid and puts the kid's welfare above their own, and gives them valuable life lessons. I could care less what the household "looks like" as long as it does that, and I can't fathom why anyone else would, either.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 11, 2007, 08:24:28 AM
but I think it is fairly well settled that kids in single parent households lacking fathers show consequences of such a lack in cases where, for example, an uncle, grandfather or other consistant male role model isn't available to "fill in". I'm sure there are similar studies on lack of a mother.
Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.
Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.
Less so than if they're in a two-parent household where, say, the father is a violent alcoholic or the mother is a coke-snorting bum, or the parents despise each other and fight continually. I think far more damage is done by that sort of thing, which is why I tend to lose patience with the "MUST HAVE TWO PARENTS" extremists.
To me, the ideal household is one in which the parent or parents loves the kid and puts the kid's welfare above their own, and gives them valuable life lessons. I could care less what the household "looks like" as long as it does that, and I can't fathom why anyone else would, either.
Well yeah, two good parents trump two bad ones, one good parent trumps two bad ones, but that is apples and oranges.
The question is what rational concerns could possibly exist between adoption by two good hetero parents and two good homo parents assuming those concerns aren't based on a personal pronblem with homosexuality.
My point was that even in a good two parent homo couple there is a lack of one sex role model versus the same good couple that is hetero and that to some folks that may be a non-biased, rational, legitimate concern. apples to apples
Post by: The Rabbi on February 11, 2007, 08:36:22 AM
And Laurent, I love your new sig line. But now quote the rest of what I wrote.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 11, 2007, 08:44:05 AM
It legitimates a decadent devient lifestyle and tends to perpertuate same.
Woah, way to stereotype. I guess you don't have any gay friends..I know some who are completely and utterly BORING. They'll even admit that their "wild lifestyle" consists of coming home from work, watching TV and falling asleep. Oh, yeah, and one likes scrapbooking.
That's just...way off from reality.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 11, 2007, 08:46:34 AM
He isn't saying all homosexuals are livin' la vida loca.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 11, 2007, 09:39:56 AM
I do not believe "decadent/deviant" is a good con-argument either. Decadence/deviance implies choice; most homosexuals don't have one. If there is something "decadent/deviant", it is the Rosey-O'Donnell liberal perspective that homosexuality is something natural and of equal value or validity as heterosexuality. Homosexuality is no more natural (or decadent/deviant for that matter) than any other congenital deformity.
Post by: Mannlicher on February 11, 2007, 11:22:05 AM
Post by: Laurent du Var on February 11, 2007, 11:30:54 AM
their children in an oldfashioned way. Becouse of divorce and recomposed families that chance is getting smaller and smaller. But we should still aspire to that ideal.
The next best solution if one must have children for whatever reason is adoption;
Adoption means a third party needs to decide wether you're fit to raise a child or not.
There is a choice to make : A traditionnal couple or the gay couple because I don't think there are that many children availlabel for adoption unless your name is Madonna, Stone or Jolie. Also I think we're talking mostly about gay men, since lesbian couples seem to have ways to get pregnant these days, which for me is no problem at all.
Last I'd say dead parents or bad parents if they had a word to say about who's adopting their kids, I doubt the choice would fall on the gay couple, but that's just my 2 cents.
Rabbi, I loved your old sig line, I'd rather fight the ventilator than being bombed....
Post by: mountainclmbr on February 11, 2007, 11:52:59 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 11, 2007, 05:01:33 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on February 11, 2007, 06:07:52 PM
Quote
I would suggest one concern for people that doesn't revolve around the sexual orientation may be the lack of a role model of the same or opposite sex.
I'll + one carebear's comment, but I think child/parental learning is (or should be) deeper than "role model" implies. I don't buy into Freud wholeheartedly, but he definitely exposed large veins of gold in his theories on parental influence on psyche. Taking one gender or the other out of the equation is a deficit to the child.
I'll repeat myself in the futile hope that it will prevent the response of "well straight people are bad too" - "..all other character issues of the involved parties being equal.."
Post by: Ezekiel on February 12, 2007, 05:37:21 AM
Quote
what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt?
Not really aware of any, unless you're an uber-closeted homophobe.
"Kids need folks that love them."
Seems pretty simple, no?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 05:41:52 AM
- " what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt? "
They didn' try hard enough to get pregnant ?
They didn' try hard enough to get pregnant ?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2007, 05:50:06 AM
i can safely say i more often than not disagree with maned wolf but he sure hit the nail on this one. i work with kids and know sevrasl from gay parents that were straight and several from straight paerents that were not. i know a gay couple and have talked with the one lady at length about kids and she said she always wanted to raise a son. and she'd raise a fine one . there are many gay folks who would and do make awesome parents as there are many straight couples shouldn't have goldfish
On this issue, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who wants GOVERNMENT to mandate anything to do with anyone's sexual orientation or government legislation restricting their suitability as a parent if they've not committed any crime? Well, that sort can only be labeled by one label...big-government, meddling LEFTIST.
The same argument HAS been used by leftists to suggest that those who "like guns" are a danger to children, remember? Remember all the statistics they keep spewing that the kids are more likely to get shot by accident, be more violent, all that garbage? See how the arguments against this fit exactly the same way, with the same flawed premises?
You can't be selective in what you want the Big Government bludgeon to be used for, just things you don't like, and still claim to be a conservative...'cause anyone who does that isn't, and needs to take a long look in the mirror, and realize what they're asking for.
Once you let that dog off its leash and try to sic it on what you personally don't like, it's loose, and it'll eventually come bite your a** too.
Post by: mfree on February 12, 2007, 05:52:55 AM
Are they (a) stable enough to perform long term parenting and (b) in and amongst themselves good parents?
AND(A,B)=ADOPTION(BOOLEAN)
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 06:26:03 AM
So, aside from "It's immoral" or "It's unnatural," what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt?
Are those two reasons insufficient or non-rational?
RE: "It's immoral"
I don't favor a nanny-state in charge of teaching us all good morals, but when govt. is directly responsible for the welfare of children (as is the case with adoption), it has to be a nanny. Is there a point at which standards for adoption must make moral distinctions? Or can apparent moral standards be viewed as a value-neutral concern for the well-being of the child? For example, would or should state adoption guidelines rule out homes where there the heterosexual parents are open about having multiple sexual partners or viewing/making pornography? What if the parents are law-abiding people who advocate for drug legalization or work to implement sharia (Islamic) law in America?
RE: "It's unnatural"
Well, there's a sense in which we can all agree that it is unnatural and another sense in which we can agree that it isn't. Insofar as it is not the usual way that the sexes relate to one another socially or biologically, wouldn't "it's unnatural" be a reasonable argument against homosexual adoption? For the same reasons as above?
Quote from: ManedWolf
Once you let that dog off its leash and try to sic it on what you personally don't like, it's loose, and it'll eventually come bite your a** too.
Understand that you are misrepresenting the opposing argument. No one has opposed homosexual adoption because they don't like it, but because they believe it to be morally wrong by an objective standard or because they believe it is objectively harmful to children. There's no like or dislike involved. Is there a right to adopt, regardless what others think of your behavior?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 06:48:34 AM
To hell with their sexual orientation or genders.
Are they (a) stable enough to perform long term parenting and (b) in and amongst themselves good parents?
AND(A,B)=ADOPTION(BOOLEAN)
Are they (a) stable enough to perform long term parenting and (b) in and amongst themselves good parents?
AND(A,B)=ADOPTION(BOOLEAN)
But does homosexuality inherently disqualify them from a or b? That's one of the biggest questions here, but you assume it to be a non-issue. This doesn't get us any closer to an answer.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 07:19:32 AM
Quote from: Fistful
Is there a right to adopt, regardless what others think of your behavior?
There is not. However, there is the right to be considered as a coequal candidate for adoption. The debate here is whether homosexuality, in and of itself, is a valid reason for disqualifying someone out of hand for such candidacy.Either homosexuality is a choice, or it is not. Certainly homosexual behavior is a choice, just as heterosexual behavior is (before anyone jumps on this to tell me that it's not a choice, it's the Way of Nature, answer this question: Have you ever had sexual attraction to someone of the opposite sex, but not acted upon it? If so, you made a choice. Your orientation caused you to have a desire, and your intellect chose not to pursue it). But so far the evidence is that the actual orientation itself is not generally chosen.
Earlier in the thread, CAnnoneer referred to homosexuality as "no more natural (or decadent/deviant for that matter) than any other congenital deformity." While I consider his views on this to be unnecessarily repugnant, let's take a look at it from this perspective: If homosexuality is a congenital deformity, then it is absolutely not a choice.
Further, if we should refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt under the notion that they are congenitally deformed, it would therefore also be necessary to exclude any and all people who have other deformities as well. How could a woman with only one hand be a good mother, after all? It's fairly obvious that anyone who is not of purest genealogical stock should not be given the opportunity to raise a child.
Oh, wait, if homosexuality is a congenital defect, then there's...(counting on fingers)...zero chance of it "infecting" a child. Just like a woman missing a hand will not cause an adopted child to grow a stump. Oops.
So now we're left with behavior. It can be argued up and down and left and right that homosexual behavior is either wrong or not wrong. But apart from the fact that it involves either two "innies" or two "outies", there is no deviance that a homosexual couple can get up to that a straight couple cannot.
What a couple does in the bedroom behind closed doors is something that should not be a part of a young child's realm of knowledge. If it is part of the child's knowledge, then Mom and Dad, or Mom and Mom, or Dad and Dad aren't being discreet, and their orientation bears upon that...not at all.
If we can assume for the sake of argument that a gay couple would be as discreet as the model straight couple everyone wants to adopt Little Molly (as Stand_watie said, "all other character issues of the involved parties being equal"), then we're down to an argument of choices.
Which of these choices should the government use as a touchstone for whether a couple is fit to be adoptive parents:
Whether they choose to own guns?
Whether they choose to go to a particular church?
Whether they choose to support the correct political party?
None of these are valid governmental reasons for granting or dismissing a petition for adoption. Why? Because none of them (other than in a purely subjective sense) reflect upon how well they will raise the child.
Whether they choose to love someone who happens to have similar plumbing?
Again, not valid. Because (again, as Stand_watie said, "all other character issues of the involved parties being equal") there is nothing but a subjective indication that such a couple would be inadequate parents.
Anything that a gay couple can do, any perversion of wit or behavior or environment, can also be visited upon a child by a straight couple. So the only question that should remain is:
Does this couple have a loving home, and the committed intent to share that loving home with the child they wish to adopt?
If the answer is "yes", then color (not a choice), orientation (not a choice), religion (a choice outside the realm of government control), philosophy (a choice outside the realm of government control), partnership (a choice outside the realm of government control)...none of these should matter.
-BP
Post by: Antibubba on February 12, 2007, 07:41:51 AM
Also, this talk of not having enough of one gender's influence is crap. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers-all can be good role models. Long before gay or women's rights a lot of people grew up without a mother or father.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2007, 07:45:42 AM
Quote
Understand that you are misrepresenting the opposing argument. No one has opposed homosexual adoption because they don't like it, but because they believe it to be morally wrong by an objective standard or because they believe it is objectively harmful to children. There's no like or dislike involved.
Fistful, that's still the same argument the anti-gun sorts use. They think guns are inhererently EVIL, remember? They argue that having them around is harmful to children, etc, etc...
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
Earlier in the thread, CAnnoneer referred to homosexuality as "no more natural (or decadent/deviant for that matter) than any other congenital deformity." While I consider his views on this to be unnecessarily repugnant,
I don't see how it can be "repugnant". Subjective attitudes can be. Objective facts cannot be. Most homosexuals have the misfortune of being born with bodies and brains of opposing gender and there is established anatomical and physiological evidence of that. Please explain why such a mismatch is not a congenital deformity.
Quote
Further, if we should refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt under the notion that they are congenitally deformed, it would therefore also be necessary to exclude any and all people who have other deformities as well.
I already considered that counterargument but waited for somebody to state it before moving the discussion in that direction.
If the particular deformity is irrelevant to the particular task, then there are no problems. For example, Hawking makes a great scientist although having vanishing muscle control. Should he be allowed to be a rifleman in the USMC? Similarly, a deformed extremity will have very little influence on parenting capabilities. However, a deformed sexuality likely will have negative effects on the psychological development of a child because sexuality is such a major, deep-rooted part of a person's psychology. And that is what, IMO, disqualifies homosexual couples.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 08:09:50 AM
But so far the evidence is that the actual orientation itself is not generally chosen.
If you mean a homosexual orientation, that would be merely your opinion. The evidence for genetic determination is inconclusive, at best. But let's presume you are correct. It would still be reductionist to claim that all "congenital defects" are equal. So, whether you would agree or not, there is still room to make a case that some abnormalities should disqualify one for adoption, and some should not.
Quote
Anything that a gay couple can do, any perversion of wit or behavior or environment, can also be visited upon a child by a straight couple.
Except raising them in a homosexual household. Like I told mfree, you can't argue for your position by simply saying that same-sex parents won't be a significant problem. That's the point at issue, isn't it? It's a logical fallacy called question-begging. You argue that the parents just need to keep sex in the bedroom and it won't be an issue. But we're not discussing whether parents have sex on the kitchen table, the issue is whether they are the same sex and how this may affect the household in general. You also falsely compare unknown problems in the heterosexual home (any perversion of wit or behavior or environment) with a known factor of the homosexual household.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 08:22:53 AM
Quote
Understand that you are misrepresenting the opposing argument. No one has opposed homosexual adoption because they don't like it, but because they believe it to be morally wrong by an objective standard or because they believe it is objectively harmful to children. There's no like or dislike involved.
Fistful, that's still the same argument the anti-gun sorts use. They think guns are inhererently EVIL, remember? They argue that having them around is harmful to children, etc, etc...
So? Perhaps you don't understand my point. The anti-HA side has made arguments based on a) the well-being of the adoptee and/or b) an objective, moral standard. But instead of responding to these arguments, you very cheaply and baselessly accuse them of some capricious insistence on their own personal preferences. That is a straw man. It so happens that some of us believe in transcendent moral codes that have nothing to do with what we like. I'd love to be neutral on the issue of homosexuality, it would be so much easier, but the truth gets in the way of that. It also happens that some (not me) don't care what Steve and Jimmy do in their bedroom, but DO think it would be harmful for a kid to be raised in such a home.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 08:42:45 AM
The problem with "an objective, moral standard" is that the morals behind the standard are intrinsically subjective.
If someone's morals are based upon the teachings of the Catholic church, you have an objective moral standard that differs from the teachings of the Qu'ran, which offers an objective moral standard that differs from the teachings of Talmudic law, which offers an objective moral standard that differs from the teachings in the Sikh temple, which offers....ad infinitum.
There is no objective moral standard. There are as many moral standards as there are belief systems in the world.
Quote
Like I told mfree, you can't argue for your position by simply saying that same-sex parents won't be a significant problem.
Conversely, you can't argue for your position by simply saying that same-sex parents will be a significant problem. Because the will/will not question hinges upon the moral standard, and so your position is only supportable if your moral standard is the correct one. Whose divinely-inspired and therefore inarguably correct moral standard shall we use for the remainder of this debate? The Talmud? Sharia? The Wiccan Rede? The Golden Rule? "Be excellent to each other"?
Whose "objective" moral standard is the right one?
-BP
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 08:47:31 AM
In adoption, the gov has been given custody of children and thus has associated responsibilities for their welfare. Thus gov has the right and obligation to screen potential adopters in accordance with welfare consideration. Therefore, exclusion of homosexuals can be done on that basis.
In lesbian biological parenthood, the gov has no custody of the child at any stage and so the adoption question is moot.
In gun control, the gov does not possess the guns in the first place while 2A guarantees gunownership. So, gun control is undeniably illegal.
BrokenPaw, fistful has the right to have his opinion be religiously motivated. Also, the secular con-argument can and does state that homosexuality would be damaging to the child's psychological health.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 09:08:43 AM
Quote
BrokenPaw, fistful has the right to have his opinion be religiously motivated. Also, the secular con-argument can and does state that homosexuality would be damaging to the child's psychological health.
The secular con argument may very well state that. But how compelling is the evidence, and upon what standard is it based?
Fistful and I rarely agree, but I would like to think he understands that I am not telling him he does not have the right for his opinion to be religiously motivated. And I didn't even touch upon that. Fistful may have any and every opinion fistful wants to have, and I will fight for his right to have them. I imagine that he feels the same about me; my opinions are not his, but he supports my right to have them.
But we're not talking about fistful's opinion. We're talking about the government having an opinion. And the government's opinion cannot be determined by fistful's opinion. Or mine. Or yours. The government's opinion can only be determined by objective fact, or it has no legitimacy at all. And I was pointing out that an "objective moral standard" is not actually objective, and thus cannot be the basis for governmental policy.
Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.
-BP
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 09:20:46 AM
I was not really arguing against HA, just criticizing the arguments of the other side. I'll also criticize weak arguments for my own position when I see them and if I get to it. The point is that a person's view of morality cannot simply be dismissed as personal dislike. And as you point out, I can't argue that homosexual adoption is wrong just because it's wrong. And you can't argue that the homosexuality of parents won't matter because it won't matter. Either point needs more to back it up.
Post by: richyoung on February 12, 2007, 09:32:34 AM
Fistful and I rarely agree, but I would like to think he understands that I am not telling him he does not have the right for his opinion to be religiously motivated. And I didn't even touch upon that. Fistful may have any and every opinion fistful wants to have, and I will fight for his right to have them. I imagine that he feels the same about me; my opinions are not his, but he supports my right to have them.
But we're not talking about fistful's opinion. We're talking about the government having an opinion. And the government's opinion cannot be determined by fistful's opinion. Or mine. Or yours.
But we're not talking about fistful's opinion. We're talking about the government having an opinion. And the government's opinion cannot be determined by fistful's opinion. Or mine. Or yours.
Slept through your American History classes? Last time I checked, a representative democracy, or republic, is supposed to do JUST THAT - derive its opinion from fistfuls. And yours. And mine. Collectively. I seem to recall they are called "elections"...
Quote
The government's opinion can only be determined by objective fact, or it has no legitimacy at all. And I was pointing out that an "objective moral standard" is not actually objective, and thus cannot be the basis for governmental policy.
Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.
-BP
Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.
-BP
So fistful can have an opinion - he just isn't allowed to act on it if its based in religion. If its based on Dr. Spock, the Jane Fonda Workout, or anything BUT religion, then its OK? Considering this country was founded as a Christion nation, that seems kind of funny to me....
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 09:46:45 AM
Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.
So you would object to the govt. forcing adoption agencies to consider homosexual applicants?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/15/no_penalty_for_catholic_adoption_agencies_refusing_gay_applicants/
Quote
And I was pointing out that an "objective moral standard" is not actually objective, and thus cannot be the basis for governmental policy.
Is this statement based in fact or is it a moral statement? How do you prove from fact that govt. policy should not be determined by subjective morality? The point is not whether my morality is subjective or objective. If you reread me, you'll find that I have never stated that HA should be disallowed merely for moral reasons. The point is that people such as Maned Wolf should not get away with painting honest moral belief as mere preference, yet it happens all the time. The anti-gun version of this is to say, "You just don't like being told what guns you can or cannot buy, no matter who gets killed." This reduces the pro-gun position to a mere selfish desire to have toys. It's not a fair or a valid way to argue. Even if you disagree with the anti-HA position, recognize the possibility that your opponent has the interests of children at heart and not his own, no matter how misguided you may think him to be. Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 09:55:42 AM
Quote from: fistful
I'll also criticize weak arguments for my own position when I see them and if I get to it.
I knew there was a reason I liked you. I do this too.Quote from: richyoung
Slept through your American History classes? Last time I checked, a representative democracy, or republic, is supposed to do JUST THAT - derive its opinion from fistfuls. And yours. And mine. Collectively. I seem to recall they are called "elections"...
Goodness, I'm glad someone came along to point out how the majority's opinion is inherently the correct one.
Quote
So fistful can have an opinion - he just isn't allowed to act on it if its based in religion. If its based on Dr. Spock, the Jane Fonda Workout, or anything BUT religion, then its OK? Considering this country was founded as a Christion nation, that seems kind of funny to me....
Er...no. Fistful can have an opinion. And he can act upon it whether he got it from the Bible, or Doctor Spock, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But not if he got it from Jane Fonda, because that would be wrong. I'm not going to help drift the thread into (yet another) debate about whether this is a Christian nation or not. But I will point out that you can't have it both ways, Rich. When the majority goes against your beliefs, you haul out the "Christian Nation" canard, and when the majority agrees with you, you point at the "Collective Opinion" argument. Which is it? Is this a Christian nation, or is it a nation governed by collective opinion?
-BP
(I have to assume that, as an anion carries negative charge, and a cation carries positive charge, a Christion carries righteousness.
)Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 10:04:37 AM
So you would object to the govt. forcing adoption agencies to consider homosexual applicants?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/15/no_penalty_for_catholic_adoption_agencies_refusing_gay_applicants/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/15/no_penalty_for_catholic_adoption_agencies_refusing_gay_applicants/
Absolutely I would object to the government forcing private adoption agencies to consider candidates that did not meet the agencies' criteria. I would not expect a catholic agency to allow a gay couple to adopt, any more than I would expect a catholic church to marry a gay couple. And for the government to try to force them to would be abhorrently wrong.
Quote
Is this statement based in fact or is it a moral statement? How do you prove from fact that govt. policy should not be determined by subjective morality? The point is not whether my morality is subjective or objective. If you reread me, you'll find that I have never stated that HA should be disallowed merely for moral reasons. The point is that people such as Maned Wolf should not get away with painting honest moral belief as mere preference, yet it happens all the time. The anti-gun version of this is to say, "You just don't like being told what guns you can or cannot buy, no matter who gets killed." This reduces the pro-gun position to a mere selfish desire to have toys. It's not a fair or a valid way to argue. Even if you disagree with the anti-HA position, recognize the possibility that your opponent has the interests of children at heart and not his own, no matter how misguided you may think him to be.
I think that giving the government extra power to rule over people's lives based upon the opinion of other people is a dangerous road to tread.Government's power should (and must be) limited to protecting the rights of people from the infringement another person would inflict upon them. So for the government to have valid jurisdiction in this adoption debate, it would have to be demonstrated that adoption by a gay couple infringes on the inalienable rights of the child.
And unless and until we can prove that gay couples are harmful, objectively, then we can't definitively say that the child's rights are being infringed. Worse, it's likely that a stable gay couple would be less harmful to a child's rights than (as others have pointed out) the foster care system.
-BP
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 12, 2007, 10:05:52 AM
Quote
The Golden Rule?
Ok, I must establish a debate ground rule....here and now.....
We CANNOT apply the golden rule to homosexuality in this forum again....
"do onto others as you would have done unto you"......
Quote
Oh, Steve....do unto me again! Again!
..........sorry, couldn't resist.....
Post by: cordex on February 12, 2007, 10:46:18 AM
Quote
Understand that you are misrepresenting the opposing argument. No one has opposed homosexual adoption because they don't like it, but because they believe it to be morally wrong by an objective standard or because they believe it is objectively harmful to children. There's no like or dislike involved.
Fistful, that's still the same argument the anti-gun sorts use. They think guns are inhererently EVIL, remember? They argue that having them around is harmful to children, etc, etc...
You are making an awfully weak argument in drawing that amazingly tenuous connection between anti-gun and anti-homosexual adoption advocates. "They both think something is evil, so they're both wrong!"
Is tyranny bad? Is slavery evil? Is government oppression wrong? If you answered yes to any of those questions, are you making anti-gun type arguments?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 10:48:34 AM
I have to assume that, as an anion carries negative charge, and a cation carries positive charge, a Christion carries righteousness.
That's why we're better than you pagions.
What kind of charge do you guys have anyway? Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 10:57:54 AM
Now I understand your position far better. Thanks for the clarification. The original had very different connotations as I perceived them. To make a more effective argument, you might want to approach it from the direction of a secular government making secular decisions, i.e. separation of church and state. Thus fistful is free to form his opinions based on his religious convictions but a secular government has no religion and thus must form opinions based on something else. That approach also takes care of any contradictions that might exist between faiths in terms of government decisions.
richyoung,
What you are describing is a true democracy, which unfortunately is equivalent to bolshevism. Thankfully, our form of government is a constitutional secular republic that is set up specifically to make certain the majority does not dictate over the minority, at least on the most fundamental issues, at least in principle. Also, the founding fathers being Christian in no way should be used as a basis for preferential reference to christian viewpoints in gov policy, just as them being slaveowners does not add any more credibility to KKK, or them being white to supremacist ideals. I'd like to believe our constitution transcends religious and racial boundaries, if not by intent then by effect.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 11:04:11 AM
Quote
That's why we're better than you pagions. What kind of charge do you guys have anyway?
Well, duh, we have the Charge of the Goddess.[1]I figured that would be more or less self-explanatory...
CAnnoneer,
Thanks. I usually do take the "secular government, secular decisions" position (if you've ever read any of my soapboxing on the subject of gay marriage, you'll have seen that).
Mostly I want the government out of the meddling business.
-BP
[1] Yes, yes, I know, this is technically only for Wiccions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 11:17:59 AM
I agree with much of what you said in posts 32 and 33. "Christian nation" is one of those phrases that has various meanings and various implications. It should be used carefully and I don't think rich was very careful.
I think private groups should have latitude to do as they deem best for children, but it seems government must have some oversight in this. I can't see how govt. can escape making "moral judgements."
As I asked earlier:
Is there a point at which standards for adoption must make moral distinctions? Or can apparent moral standards be viewed as a value-neutral concern for the well-being of the child? For example, would or should state adoption guidelines rule out homes where there the heterosexual parents openly admit to having multiple sexual partners or viewing/making pornography? What if the parents are law-abiding people who advocate for drug legalization or work to implement sharia (Islamic) law in America?
What exactly is harmful to children? Sure, some will want to ban religious people or gun owners from adopting, but we have to decide what the standard will be.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 11:24:21 AM
Approved:
Christions
Pagions
Wiccions
Mormions
Zoroastrions
Presbyterions, if they agree to pay a special tax.
Banned:
Muslims
Buddhists
Hindus
Bahai
Atheists
Agnostics
Rosicrucians
And Scientologists, thank goodness they didn't meet the test.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 11:46:53 AM
Quote
Is there a point at which standards for adoption must make moral distinctions? Or can apparent moral standards be viewed as a value-neutral concern for the well-being of the child? For example, would or should state adoption guidelines rule out homes where there the heterosexual parents openly admit to having multiple sexual partners or viewing/making pornography? What if the parents are law-abiding people who advocate for drug legalization or work to implement sharia (Islamic) law in America?
This is a difficult question, but my answer to it would be similar to my answer to the gay marriage question: Let individual groups decide the criteria they will have. Just as a gay couple would not (or should not) expect to marry in the Catholic church, so also they should not expect to be able to adopt from a Catholic adoption agency. But there should be no governmental prohibition on them going to another organization, with different beliefs, in order to be joined, or (in this case) to adopt.
But placing arbitrary limits on who is a "fit" parent gets very ugly very quickly. Do we rule out people who make porn? On what grounds, if they go off to work every day and then come home and take care of the kids well, what difference does it make? If they watch porn? Well, that rules out a heck of a lot more people than a ban on gay adoption. If the parents are law-abiding but are working to implement more or less any policy change they like, there's no reason (absent other problems) to prohibit. If they work to implement sharia, they can adopt from a Muslim adoption agency...
My basic premise is this: I have yet to see a government program designed to protect me from myself that did not, in the end, both cost me money and cause more harm than good.
-BP
Post by: richyoung on February 12, 2007, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: fistful
I'll also criticize weak arguments for my own position when I see them and if I get to it.
I knew there was a reason I liked you. I do this too.Quote from: richyoung
Slept through your American History classes? Last time I checked, a representative democracy, or republic, is supposed to do JUST THAT - derive its opinion from fistfuls. And yours. And mine. Collectively. I seem to recall they are called "elections"...
Goodness, I'm glad someone came along to point out how the majority's opinion is inherently the correct one.
...thats kind of the definition of democracy - the majority opinion may not be the correct one, but it is likely to be the one implimented eventually. Got some other system?
Quote
I'm not going to help drift the thread into (yet another) debate about whether this is a Christian nation or not. But I will point out that you can't have it both ways, Rich. When the majority goes against your beliefs, you haul out the "Christian Nation" canard, and when the majority agrees with you, you point at the "Collective Opinion" argument. Which is it? Is this a Christian nation, or is it a nation governed by collective opinion?
"canard" implies deliberate falsehood. If I'm mistaken as to the character of this nation, then I've been mislead by the ones who founded it - almost all of whome refered to it as a "Christian Nation". What else could it be? Do you seriously contend that "Freedom of Religion" extends to human sacrifice? After all, worshipers of Ba'al, the Carthaginians, the Aztecs, the Incas, some Native Americans - all practiced it, all were known to the FF... As to the rest, ...used to be a constitutionally limited republic. Ah, those were the days! Lincoln was the first to yank us off that path, and FDR pretty much stuck a fork in that concept.
Quote
(I have to assume that, as an anion carries negative charge, and a cation carries positive charge, a Christion carries righteousness. )
) Yep.. Kant tipe....
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 01:04:23 PM
Cordex's post on morality in law was excellent.
Quote from: BrokenPaw
But placing arbitrary limits on who is a "fit" parent gets very ugly very quickly. Do we rule out people who make porn? On what grounds, if they go off to work every day and then come home and take care of the kids well, what difference does it make? If they watch porn? Well, that rules out a heck of a lot more people than a ban on gay adoption. If the parents are law-abiding but are working to implement more or less any policy change they like, there's no reason (absent other problems) to prohibit. If they work to implement sharia, they can adopt from a Muslim adoption agency...
I wouldn't prevent drug legalizers from adopting, so long as they were law-abiding. Naturally, anyone at obvious risk of serving jail time wouldn't be a good adoptive parent. The Sharia types I'm not sure about. Anyone who's day to day business is to produce content that fits the legal definition of pornography, I would prevent from adoption as I believe it would be irresponsible to hand over a child to such people, no matter how nice some of them might be. The same would go for any parent that lists pornography as one of his hobbies. If porn is one of the major pursuits of your life, I'm not going to be responsible for giving you a kid. You need help. I'm afraid I would have to put homosexual couples in the same category.
Now that's passing judgement on some people. But what choice do we have? Like I keep saying, when kids don't have any other legal guardian, they need a nanny state. You may say that the homosexuality of the parents won't affect the kids. I think it will.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 12, 2007, 02:32:39 PM
What part of Bah'aion doesn't work?
Quote
That's why we're better than you pagions. What kind of charge do you guys have anyway?
I don't know what it carries, but it is more powerful by moonlight and seems impeded by clothing.
Post by: Antibubba on February 12, 2007, 10:33:52 PM
Quote
We must ban all religions whose names cannot fit into the ion joke.
Approved:
Christions
Pagions
Wiccions
Mormions
Zoroastrions
Presbyterions, if they agree to pay a special tax.
Banned:
Muslims
Buddhists
Hindus
Bahai
Atheists
Agnostics
Rosicrucians
And Scientologists, thank goodness they didn't meet the test.
Approved:
Christions
Pagions
Wiccions
Mormions
Zoroastrions
Presbyterions, if they agree to pay a special tax.
Banned:
Muslims
Buddhists
Hindus
Bahai
Atheists
Agnostics
Rosicrucians
And Scientologists, thank goodness they didn't meet the test.
Fistful, I'm hurt! How could you exclude the first one: Zionism??
Post by: richyoung on February 13, 2007, 04:25:57 AM
richyoung,
What you are describing is a true democracy, which unfortunately is equivalent to bolshevism.
What you are describing is a true democracy, which unfortunately is equivalent to bolshevism.
Uh,.... no. Bolshevism is/was a branch of the Russian Communist Party, (or more properly, its anticedants). which was supposedly strictly democratic within itself; hardly a true democracy.
Quote
Thankfully, our form of government is a constitutional secular republic
Got to disagree with you about the secular. You use the word as though it and theocratic were mutually exclusive polar opposites. They are not. While the United Sttates was not, and is not, a theocracy, it is also, (or at least, wasn't founded) as a secular nation. Numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers reference the fact that not only is this to be a Christian nation, but that the form of government would fail with any other kind of citizens. WHich seems apt, as we are now in the proces of failing....
Quote
that is set up specifically to make certain the majority does not dictate over the minority, at least on the most fundamental issues, at least in principle. Also, the founding fathers being Christian in no way should be used as a basis for preferential reference to christian viewpoints in gov policy,
...you mean like national holidays for Christ's birthday, for thanksgiving to the Lord, having "In God We Trust" on the money, chaplains for the armed services AND the Congress, swearing in on the Bible, etc, etc, etc? If we are NOT a Christian nation, pray tell, what are we? All the listed actions contraindicate secularism, and there is certainly no compelling evidence for Buhdism, Shintoism, paganism, the Moonies,...
Quote
just as them being slaveowners does not add any more credibility to KKK, or them being white to supremacist ideals. I'd like to believe our constitution transcends religious and racial boundaries, if not by intent then by effect.
The Constitution did not "transcend" religious and racial bounderies - it pushed them down to the state and lower levels. Thats all it could do.
Post by: brimic on February 13, 2007, 05:34:01 AM
Quote
I know some who are completely and utterly BORING. They'll even admit that their "wild lifestyle" consists of coming home from work, watching TV and falling asleep. Oh, yeah, and one likes scrapbooking.
That's just...way off from reality.
That's just...way off from reality.
Itspretty blatantly obvious that you don't have kids.
Post by: brimic on February 13, 2007, 05:39:05 AM
It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 13, 2007, 08:17:55 AM
Quote
It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.
Is that a factual statement? Not calling you a liar, but I've always been given to understand there was a lack of adoptive parents compared to the kids in foster care.
Or is it true for cute infants but not surly pre-teens?
Post by: roo_ster on February 13, 2007, 09:05:51 AM
Quote
It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.
Is that a factual statement? Not calling you a liar, but I've always been given to understand there was a lack of adoptive parents compared to the kids in foster care.
Or is it true for cute infants but not surly pre-teens?
Adoptions elsewhere can cost less, but have other time/cost issues (hetero & homo couples in my admittedly small data set).
Not nearly as many takers for the surly pre-teens who have been scarred by the foster care system. The gay couples who I know who have adopted have opted for foreign-born infants/near-infants rather than US-born older children.
Which brings me to wonder why in the world are we (for the larger part) using the foster parent system and not the orphanage system? I know several adults who were brought up in orphanages and went to school with a bunch. Generally a much better-adjusted person than scarred veterans of the foster care system, has been my experience.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 09:11:32 AM
Quote
The gay couples who I know who have adopted have opted for foreign-born infants/near-infants rather than US-born older children.
Aha!! That just proves that queers hate America!
Kidding, folks. Just kidding.
Post by: brimic on February 13, 2007, 12:08:35 PM
Quote
Quote
It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.
Is that a factual statement? Not calling you a liar, but I've always been given to understand there was a lack of adoptive parents compared to the kids in foster care.
Or is it true for cute infants but not surly pre-teens?
It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.
Is that a factual statement? Not calling you a liar, but I've always been given to understand there was a lack of adoptive parents compared to the kids in foster care.
Or is it true for cute infants but not surly pre-teens?
I honestly can't see a huge amount of harm with a homosexual couple adopting a teen who is messed up already, but I doubt that those children are high up on the list for Homosexuals to adopt.
Post by: SteveS on February 13, 2007, 12:44:47 PM
Which brings me to wonder why in the world are we (for the larger part) using the foster parent system and not the orphanage system? I know several adults who were brought up in orphanages and went to school with a bunch. Generally a much better-adjusted person than scarred veterans of the foster care system, has been my experience.
Cost, for one. Placing a child in a residential setting is far more expensive than placing them in a home and paying the caregivers a stipend.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 13, 2007, 06:49:29 PM
And no pudding if they don't finish their meat.
Post by: tyme on February 14, 2007, 04:22:20 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
A kid that grows up in a same-sex union will be even more messed-up than one in dysfunctional heterosexual families.
Link? I've read a fair amount that says there's no significant data that gay adoption screws up the kids.
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Like it or not, youngsters learn by example and spend most of their semi-sentient years doing enormous amount of ingraining by imitating adults.
That's an argument not just against gay adoption, but against allowing any homosexual(s) to raise a child. There's no principled way to prevent gay parents from naturally having babies via 3rd parties, or from using artificial insemination or surrogates, so it seems patently absurd to me that the government should categorically deny gays from being able to adopt.
Again, where's the evidence that gay parents cause problems with childhood development? Gays are still humans, and there are all sorts of different parental arrangements in the animal kingdom. If a single parent of unknown sexual orientation can raise a child, why not gay parents? There's plenty of evidence that sexual orientation is not one of the qualities of parents that's imitated. Exhibit 1: Mary Cheney. (and OMG, she's pregnant! Don't know precisely how, and don't care. That's so cool... daughter of the VP having a baby to be raised presumably by herself and her lesbian partner!)
Quote from: Antibubba
Would 1 mother and 1 father be the ideal? Sure.
I'm not so sure. I like (in theory) Heinlein's concept of a line marriage, though in most places that sort of arrangement would be a social nightmare for everyone involved. I wonder how much of society would end up in line-marriage type arrangements if infidelity wasn't (i.e. if society lost its perception that marriage is 1:1). I think it's a superior family model. More parents means there's more chance that some respectable father and mother figure(s) are in each child's life, and more adults in a family means less financial pressure, which is a major cause of domestic unrest and poor parenting. There's more oversight by more adults; a badly-behaving parent can be kicked out with much less impact than a traditional divorce, particularly since the badly-behaved parent is unlikely to have been very involved in any of the children's lives.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 04:42:49 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Like it or not, youngsters learn by example and spend most of their semi-sentient years doing enormous amount of ingraining by imitating adults.
That's an argument not just against gay adoption, but against allowing any homosexual(s) to raise a child.
Not at all. There's a big difference between removing a child from his parent or guardian, and giving a child to someone that he doesn't already have a connection with.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 05:59:33 AM
Quote from: tyme
Link? I've read a fair amount that says there's no significant data that gay adoption screws up the kids.
It is a known psychological fact that boys that grow up in a family of highly dominant mothers and virtually absent fathers have a greatly increased chance of becoming "socially" gay. The same is true for boys growing up in exclusively male environments. Since they are not born that way, this is evidence of preventable psychological damage incurred by departure from traditional gender roles and/or absence of representative role models. Ergo, it makes sense to expect the same to happen with same-sex couples.
Quote
That's an argument not just against gay adoption, but against allowing any homosexual(s) to raise a child.
Indeed it is, and a good one too. But, while the gov is in a position of custody (and therefore responsibility) in adoption, it has no such standing in the case of pregnant lesbians.
Quote
There's plenty of evidence that sexual orientation is not one of the qualities of parents that's imitated. Exhibit 1: Mary Cheney.
Gay children may be born or grow up in heterosexual families. How is this relevant to the discussion? By your logic, should the gov let drug-addicts adopt because druggies may grow up in drug-free families? Essentially, you are saying "notA may produce B" refutes "A is conducive to B". That is an obvious logic error.
Post by: tyme on February 14, 2007, 07:56:06 AM
Quote
It is a known psychological fact that boys that grow up in a family of highly dominant mothers and virtually absent fathers have a greatly increased chance of becoming "socially" gay. The same is true for boys growing up in exclusively male environments. Since they are not born that way, this is evidence of preventable psychological damage incurred by departure from traditional gender roles and/or absence of representative role models.
I guess this hinges on the threshold for considering someone "socially gay," and whether attitudes like preferring art over baseball (I presume that's what "socially gay" means) are properly called "psychological damage." I tracked down the Stacey and Biblarz article that seems to be at the center of the controversy, but it'll take me a while to digest it.
At first glance, it's unclear whether those decreased masculine behavioral traits are the result of the parents' sexual orientation, or instead the result of parents that are tolerant of non-normative social behavior. They might even adopt different behaviors to defend against or isolate themselves from discrimination by other kids. If that's the case, while it's unfortunate, it's still unreasonable to discriminate against gay adoptive parents because other parents can't teach their kids to treat kids of gay parents with respect.
Quote
Gay children may be born or grow up in heterosexual families. How is this relevant to the discussion? By your logic, should the gov let drug-addicts adopt because druggies may grow up in drug-free families? Essentially, you are saying "notA may produce B" refutes "A is conducive to B". That is an obvious logic error.
Percentages and extent. Drug addict families are highly likely to have degenerate and/or criminal children. Most drug use precludes and distracts from rational parenting, so addicts are unfit parents at best because they're negligent, at worst because they're abusive. I have yet to find a reference to a study that finds children of gay parents are disproportionately gay, and I don't consider slight merging of gender behaviors to be a problem. So what if they're a bit different? They have rational parents who care about them, and who can help them with problems.
Post by: roo_ster on February 14, 2007, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
A kid that grows up in a same-sex union will be even more messed-up than one in dysfunctional heterosexual families.
Link? I've read a fair amount that says there's no significant data that gay adoption screws up the kids.
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Like it or not, youngsters learn by example and spend most of their semi-sentient years doing enormous amount of ingraining by imitating adults.
That's an argument not just against gay adoption, but against allowing any homosexual(s) to raise a child. There's no principled way to prevent gay parents from naturally having babies via 3rd parties, or from using artificial insemination or surrogates, so it seems patently absurd to me that the government should categorically deny gays from being able to adopt.
Again, where's the evidence that gay parents cause problems with childhood development? Gays are still humans, and there are all sorts of different parental arrangements in the animal kingdom. If a single parent of unknown sexual orientation can raise a child, why not gay parents? There's plenty of evidence that sexual orientation is not one of the qualities of parents that's imitated. Exhibit 1: Mary Cheney. (and OMG, she's pregnant! Don't know precisely how, and don't care. That's so cool... daughter of the VP having a baby to be raised presumably by herself and her lesbian partner!)
Quote from: Antibubba
Would 1 mother and 1 father be the ideal? Sure.
I'm not so sure. I like (in theory) Heinlein's concept of a line marriage, though in most places that sort of arrangement would be a social nightmare for everyone involved. I wonder how much of society would end up in line-marriage type arrangements if infidelity wasn't (i.e. if society lost its perception that marriage is 1:1). I think it's a superior family model. More parents means there's more chance that some respectable father and mother figure(s) are in each child's life, and more adults in a family means less financial pressure, which is a major cause of domestic unrest and poor parenting. There's more oversight by more adults; a badly-behaving parent can be kicked out with much less impact than a traditional divorce, particularly since the badly-behaved parent is unlikely to have been very involved in any of the children's lives.
I always thought of RAH's group marriage descriptions as comic relief, like his nudity kick in some novels. He sure didn't practice group marriage in his own life (married serially to two different women, AFAIK).
Group "marriages" have been tried in this country and proven to be astounding failures, most imploding in a few short years. They don't go well with Western Civ and economically developed countries.
----
As to why gay parents may have a detrimental effect on kiddos, look no further than how children develop. One of the most marked behaviors of children is imitating those around them, especially their parents. Seeing how the rates of mental disorders & communicable disease, and life expectancy are much worse for homo than they are for hetero folks; I think increasing the liklihood of such a behavior/lifestyle/whatever is detrimental to the child's development.
Like fistful said, children born to two lesbians are their kids & gooberment ought to keep thier hands off, just as it ought to keep its hands off any parents who engage in lawful behavior that may increase the odds of negative outcomes with their kids. Adoption is an entirely different deal, however, with the gooberment having an obligation to do what is best for the kids.