[quote]smh23 wrote:
At the very least you should concede that the poor and the morbidly obese would fall short and should therefore not be allowed to adopt. [/quote]
No he shouldn’t. You want him to, but he shouldn’t. Fall short of what? Obesity and poverty doesn’t negate the possibility of an intact home. And the ‘poor’ do need to meet certain financial obligations by the way. [/quote]
The intact home is not an end, it is a means to the end of “ensuring that children are raised in the best possible environment.” Not my words.
With that end in mind, things like poverty and morbid obesity inarguably come into play.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
At the very least you should concede that the poor and the morbidly obese would fall short and should therefore not be allowed to adopt. [/quote]
No he shouldn’t. You want him to, but he shouldn’t. Fall short of what? Obesity and poverty doesn’t negate the possibility of an intact home. And the ‘poor’ do need to meet certain financial obligations by the way. [/quote]
The intact home is not an end, it is a means to the end of “ensuring that children are raised in the best possible environment.” Not my words.
With that end in mind, things like poverty and morbid obesity inarguably come into play.[/quote]
Walk through a ghetto. Look at the crime and poverty. More specifically the inter-generational cycles of crime and poverty. Knock on the doors and ask to speak to the man of the house. Morbid obesity is way down on the totem pole. And again, while income requirements are fairly low, you do have to show certain financial obligations are met.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t an advantage in being raised by one’s parents. We’re discussing adoption, so that particular possibility is not in play at all and I’m not sure why you brought it up.[/quote]
Well, then, I misunderstood your point - are you claiming that there is no advantage to being raised by one’s parents? Or do you think there is an advantage to being raised by one’s parents?
I never wanted to show some sort of irreplaceable function of homosexuality, as if it’s a chunk of pork in a wasteful spending bill that we can simply trim away. That it exists and is not going to cease existing is more than enough reason to debate its role and place in our society.[/quote]
There is no role for it in society. It’s simply how some people enjoy their bedroom escapades. Society has no positive interest in that. It could vanish tomorrow and society wouldn’t stumble.
I’m not asking for you to justify simply being homosexual. I’m asking for you justify it being raised above all other imaginative human relationships still left out in the cold, through positive state action, to be given order, title, status, and privilege.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t an advantage in being raised by one’s parents. We’re discussing adoption, so that particular possibility is not in play at all and I’m not sure why you brought it up.[/quote]
Well, then, I misunderstood your point - are you claiming that there is no advantage to being raised by one’s parents? Or do you think there is an advantage to being raised by one’s parents?[/quote]
This depends on your parents, and what you mean by “advantage” and advantage “over what.” If your dad kicks your ass every day and your mother is a hopeless drunk, its probably not an “advantage” over some other better arrangement. If this were the case I’d rather be raised by a good, single mom or dad or grandparent or whatever. If you have good parents I would think its an “advantage” to be raised by your parents if they are in a stable relationship over not being raised by your parents in some other, less stable arrangement. But I’m not sure what the point is here.
I never wanted to show some sort of irreplaceable function of homosexuality, as if it’s a chunk of pork in a wasteful spending bill that we can simply trim away. That it exists and is not going to cease existing is more than enough reason to debate its role and place in our society.[/quote]
There is no role for it in society. It’s simply how some people enjoy their bedroom escapades. Society has no positive interest in that. It could vanish tomorrow and society wouldn’t stumble.
I’m not asking for you to justify simply being homosexual. I’m asking for you justify it being raised above all other imaginative human relationships still left out in the cold, through positive state action, to be given order, title, status, and privilege.
[/quote]
I would say the same thing about religion (no role for it). It’s simply how people enjoy their fantasies and the stories made up long ago. That said I don’t want to ban it from people. Banning stuff is not the job of government and it’s not the job of society. And I know plenty of gay people who would make MUCH better parents than hetero ones. You’re acting as if this is impossible to be or that society would go straight down the tubes if we allowed this.
I have no idea why people desire to control others so much, but when you are a product of the ultimate in controlling (religion) I guess one can’t be surprised.
I would say the same thing about religion (no role for it). It’s simply how people enjoy their fantasies and the stories made up long ago. That said I don’t want to ban it from people. Banning stuff is not the job of government and it’s not the job of society. And I know plenty of gay people who would make MUCH better parents than hetero ones. You’re acting as if this is impossible to be or that society would go straight down the tubes if we allowed this.[/quote]
This isn’t about banning homosexuality anymore than no recognition of marriage by the state is the banning of heterosexuality.
I would say the same thing about religion (no role for it). It’s simply how people enjoy their fantasies and the stories made up long ago. That said I don’t want to ban it from people. Banning stuff is not the job of government and it’s not the job of society. And I know plenty of gay people who would make MUCH better parents than hetero ones. You’re acting as if this is impossible to be or that society would go straight down the tubes if we allowed this.[/quote]
This isn’t about banning homosexuality anymore than no recognition of marriage by the state is the banning of heterosexuality.
[/quote]
“This isn’t about banning blacks or women this is about banning their right to do something.” Said someone backasswards way back then. You can try to justify it all you want. It’s comical. We will move on without you. We always do.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t an advantage in being raised by one’s parents. We’re discussing adoption, so that particular possibility is not in play at all and I’m not sure why you brought it up.[/quote]
Well, then, I misunderstood your point - are you claiming that there is no advantage to being raised by one’s parents? Or do you think there is an advantage to being raised by one’s parents?[/quote]
Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.
But I wouldn’t argue that adoptive parents are incapable of doing a fantastic job. Success is far more dependent on things like financial stability, stability of the parents’ relationship, attitudes toward child-rearing, etc. I contend that these factors are of immeasurably more importance than the sexes/sexual orientations of the parents
Look, I’ve only met two people raised by gay parents (lesbians in both cases). Both were straight and both were reasonably successful–one of them was a married graduate student at Columbia Law School.
Anecdotal, for sure. But it raises the question: who’s got a better chance of raising a successful kid/citizen/taxpayer: an unhappily married, poor, and uneducated heterosexual couple, or two affluent lesbians in a loving monogamous relationship?
This is a fabricated choice, designed to elicit a specific response. But it isn’t entirely meaningless either.
I would say the same thing about religion (no role for it). [/quote]
I’m not arguing for my religion to recognized as the official religion of the US. Or, to be accurate to this discussion, to join another as the two official religions of the US.
Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.[/quote]
Ok, so you wouldn’t be surprised to learn of an advantage with biological parents - but what do you personally think?
Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.[/quote]
Ok, so you wouldn’t be surprised to learn of an advantage with biological parents - but what do you personally think?[/quote]‘’’
What does this have to do with anything? Kids who need to be adopted by definition have biological parents who can’t or won’t care for them.
Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.[/quote]
Ok, so you wouldn’t be surprised to learn of an advantage with biological parents - but what do you personally think?[/quote]
I don’t know.
If there is an advantage, I don’t think it’s substantial in absolute terms, and relative to other advantages or disadvantages that determine the quality of a kid’s home life, I think it’s vanishingly small and effectively meaningless.
If there is an advantage, I don’t think it’s substantial in absolute terms, and relative to other advantages or disadvantages that determine the quality of a kid’s home life, I think it’s vanishingly small and effectively meaningless.[/quote]
Ok, that’s what you think, fair point, I’ve learned what I need to learn. I am at an end in this thread. Again, good discussion - thanks.
Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.[/quote]
Ok, so you wouldn’t be surprised to learn of an advantage with biological parents - but what do you personally think?[/quote]‘’’
What does this have to do with anything? Kids who need to be adopted by definition have biological parents who can’t or won’t care for them.
[/quote]
If there is an advantage, I don’t think it’s substantial in absolute terms, and relative to other advantages or disadvantages that determine the quality of a kid’s home life, I think it’s vanishingly small and effectively meaningless.[/quote]
Ok, that’s what you think, fair point, I’ve learned what I need to learn. I am at an end in this thread. Again, good discussion - thanks.[/quote]
I’m not arguing that there isn’t an advantage in being raised by one’s parents. We’re discussing adoption, so that particular possibility is not in play at all and I’m not sure why you brought it up.[/quote]
Well, then, I misunderstood your point - are you claiming that there is no advantage to being raised by one’s parents? Or do you think there is an advantage to being raised by one’s parents?[/quote]
Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.
But I wouldn’t argue that adoptive parents are incapable of doing a fantastic job. Success is far more dependent on things like financial stability, stability of the parents’ relationship, attitudes toward child-rearing, etc. I contend that these factors are of immeasurably more importance than the sexes/sexual orientations of the parents
Look, I’ve only met two people raised by gay parents (lesbians in both cases). Both were straight and both were reasonably successful–one of them was a married graduate student at Columbia Law School.
Anecdotal, for sure. But it raises the question: who’s got a better chance of raising a successful kid/citizen/taxpayer: an unhappily married, poor, and uneducated heterosexual couple, or two affluent lesbians in a loving monogamous relationship?
This is a fabricated choice, designed to elicit a specific response. But it isn’t entirely meaningless either.[/quote]
The two kids I went to school with raised by gay parents were both straight and both successful as well. The idea that gay people can’t raise kids is laughable. I work near a poverished conservative school district and a lot of kids who went there would be lucky to have those gay parents as their own. They would be much better off.
You argued your position well and without an appeal to faith. While your religion may have shaped your views on gay marriage, that thread remained firmly based in secular appeals to reason.
[/quote]
A secular argument doesn’t negate bigotry.
I don’t remember (I’ll check back later) if you did this, but others used blacks in the place of gays.
So, despite how I make my argument, must I not be a bigot? I would deprive homosexuals of state recognized marriage, after all. As others have said, what if I did as much for members of different races wanting to marry each other? Blacks and whites being an obvious consideration here.
So, am I a bigot? This question is for everyone who took the opposing position throughout, but especially those who made the black/gay comparisons.
Feel free to be honest, it’s not something that is going to bother me. But we did see a couple of decent exchanges between me and some others. I’m wondering if that decency is despite me being a bigot, or because deep down something is a bit different here than in a question of a black man marrying a white woman.