The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Draka]

not at all - I've made the point perfectly clear.

Just because a drug abuser has her child taken away does not mean that a homosexual should have as well.

A biological parent has the right to look after their child unless an authority decides otherwise.

but someone does not have the right to adopt a child unless the authority agrees.


You seem to think that by creating some kind of inverted link here you are proving that homosexual adoption should not be an issue.

and note of course that now this mini-debate has steered away from the main topic and just moved into the realm of how one issue does or does not affect another.

Excuse me, but the OP has already been steered away from a long time ago. I've tried to bring it back up several times but it was Jungle who got on the "gays are bad parents" kick. Not me.

And you still aren't getting the argument. You keep saying one has nothing to do with the other but you aren't realizing it is the use of an example to combat something Jungle already said. How many times must this be explained to you? Or is Me Myself right and I'm expecting too much from you?

Jungle says the reason gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt is that they are dangerous to children. That they are more likely to abuse or neglect children. He says that the reason their biological kids can't be taken away is that the government doesn't do that basically. He said it was left to "providence". My point was that government does indeed take biological children away from parents perceived to be a danger to their children and gave an example where this is true.

Look, we both know that prospective adoptive parents go through all kinds of screening before they are approved to be viable adoptive parents. The problem here is that Jungle is automatically wanting to disqualify all gay adoption applicants on his premise that they are too dangerous to be raising children period. If that is the case to him, if they are that dangerous that they shouldn't even be considered to be able to take care of children, then why aren't their biological children taken from them based upon that same perceived danger?

 

[9Westy9]

Excuse me, but the OP has already been steered away from a long time ago. I've tried to bring it back up several times but it was Jungle who got on the "gays are bad parents" kick. Not me.

And you still aren't getting the argument. You keep saying one has nothing to do with the other but you aren't realizing it is the use of an example to combat something Jungle already said. How many times must this be explained to you? Or is Me Myself right and I'm expecting too much from you?

Jungle says the reason gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt is that they are dangerous to children. That they are more likely to abuse or neglect children. He says that the reason their biological kids can't be taken away is that the government doesn't do that basically. He said it was left to "providence". My point was that government does indeed take biological children away from parents perceived to be a danger to their children and gave an example where this is true.

Look, we both know that prospective adoptive parents go through all kinds of screening before they are approved to be viable adoptive parents. The problem here is that Jungle is automatically wanting to disqualify all gay adoption applicants on his premise that they are too dangerous to be raising children period. If that is the case to him, if they are that dangerous that they shouldn't even be considered to be able to take care of children, then why aren't their biological children taken from them based upon that same perceived danger?

:clap

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Excuse me, but the OP has already been steered away from a long time ago. I've tried to bring it back up several times but it was Jungle who got on the "gays are bad parents" kick. Not me.

And you still aren't getting the argument. You keep saying one has nothing to do with the other but you aren't realizing it is the use of an example to combat something Jungle already said. How many times must this be explained to you? Or is Me Myself right and I'm expecting too much from you?

Jungle says the reason gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt is that they are dangerous to children. That they are more likely to abuse or neglect children. He says that the reason their biological kids can't be taken away is that the government doesn't do that basically. He said it was left to "providence". My point was that government does indeed take biological children away from parents perceived to be a danger to their children and gave an example where this is true.

Look, we both know that prospective adoptive parents go through all kinds of screening before they are approved to be viable adoptive parents. The problem here is that Jungle is automatically wanting to disqualify all gay adoption applicants on his premise that they are too dangerous to be raising children period. If that is the case to him, if they are that dangerous that they shouldn't even be considered to be able to take care of children, then why aren't their biological children taken from them based upon that same perceived danger?

The point this question raised wasn't nearly as compelling as you seem to think it is. I was just going to ignore it but since people keep bringing it up I'll actually give you a thoughtful answer. The reality is that drug addicts pose much more of an immediate threat to the child's life, meaning their physical safety. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have no buisness raising children like teenage single mothers who provide upbringings which make their child much more vulnerable to drug abuse, crime, depression,and other social problems. While these conditions make it far more likely that their children will be less than an asset to society, their very existence probably isn't in imminent danger like that of a child's living with a crackhead.

 

[Draka]

The point this question raised wasn't nearly as compelling as you seem to think it is. I was just going to ignore it but since people keep bringing it up I'll actually give you a thoughtful answer. The reality is that drug addicts pose much more of an immediate threat to the child's life, meaning their physical safety. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have no buisness raising children like teenage single mothers who provide upbringings which make their child much vulnerable to drug abuse, crime, depression,a nd other social problems. While these problems make it far more likely that their children will be less than an asset to society, they're lives probably aren't in the imminent danger as that of a child living with a crackhead.

You are the one that has been talking about how bad gay parents are and that they shouldn't be allowed to even be considered as prospective adoptive parents because you presume they are a danger to a child. Single people can apply to be adoptive parents. They are not presumed to be dangerous. There are many heterosexual couples who are dangerous towards children. Yet you seem to think that heterosexuals should be allowed to apply just on the mere basis that they are heterosexual. Why not just let the system in place that vets applicants do its job? Whether single, hetero couple, or gay couple, let the application vetting process work as it should. If you trust the system enough that bad hetero parental choices are taken out of the running to adopt a child, then one should think that bad gay parental choices will be taken out of the running as well. Trying to exclude an entire group of people based on a flimsy excuse that doesn't hold water across the board doesn't fly well.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The point this question raised wasn't nearly as compelling as you seem to think it is. I was just going to ignore it but since people keep bringing it up I'll actually give you a thoughtful answer. The reality is that drug addicts pose much more of an immediate threat to the child's life, meaning their physical safety. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have no buisness raising children like teenage single mothers who provide upbringings which make their child much more vulnerable to drug abuse, crime, depression,and other social problems. While these conditions make it far more likely that their children will be less than an asset to society, their very existence probably isn't in the imminent danger as that of a child's living with a crackhead.

What does any of that have to do with gay parents? I bet they are statistically better parents than straight parents. The only reason to limit their right to be parents is hatred and bigotry.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What does any of that have to do with gay parents?.

Good question

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but someone does not have the right to adopt a child unless the authority agrees.

But what about when the authorities are wrong about who should and who shouldn't adopt? Research has shown time and time again that homosexual parents are just as capable as heterosexual parents, yet many "authority" figures throw around many damaging lies about homosexual parents, such as claiming the children of homosexual parents have a higher chance of being homosexual themselves even though this claim simply is not true. It actually wouldn't surprise me one bit if in America during the 1960's and earlier if it was very common for African Americans to be denied adoption rights because the "authorities" claimed they would make bad parents.

What does any of that have to do with gay parents? I bet they are statistically better parents than straight parents. The only reason to limit their right to be parents is hatred and bigotry.

Probably, but it would likely be attributed to homosexual parents typically having more planned (adopted) children than unplanned children like their heterosexual counterparts.

 

[nnmartin]

You keep saying one has nothing to do with the other but you aren't realizing it is the use of an example to combat something Jungle already said. How many times must this be explained to you?

It seems to me that you are just deliberately not understanding what I am saying.

Now, if you explain this idea of yours 100 times more I will still not agree with you.

Even 500 times in fact.

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make - it is a false one!

 

[nnmartin]

But what about when the authorities are wrong about who should and who shouldn't adopt?

Then it's time to throw a hissy fit and run up and down the streets stamping your feet.

Proclaim from the rooftops - discrimination, discrimination - the law is wrong!:sarcastic

 

[Draka]

It seems to me that you are just deliberately not understanding what I am saying.

Now, if you explain this idea of yours 100 times more I will still not agree with you.

Even 500 times in fact.

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make - it is a false one!

How is it false to say that the government, via social services, will remove biological children and babies from parents deemed to be dangerous? That's not false, that's entirely true. You're just taking issue with the example I gave of someone who is likely to have their child taken from them for the child's own good. I have no idea why you are having issue with it at all really. The example isn't the point, the fact that social services acts against parents deemed dangerous to their children is the point. What the heck is your issue with my point? It's not false, so what's the problem?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It strikes me as an interesting "what-if" if you read the other thread on it, but nothing more.

Interesting note, much of homophobia is tied up with misogyny...

Drofille: I mean this with all sincerity. I want to have a serious discussion with you on the subject of gay couple's fitness to raise children. I genuinly want to hear your side of the story, especially if you're a professional woman as you claim. Obviously, I'm not a professional social scientist but I'm a college grad and I at least have a clue about how to make an informed opinion as well as form an argument. I want the discussion to be in a calm and rational manner with no accusations of bigotry from you and no criticism from me about your lifestyle, just a serious, adult look at what "science" has been able to tell us about how gay couples function. My opinion on the subject has been formed by the results of studies/sources, many of which are pro-gay, that I've found to be quite troubling. I'd love for my concerns to be alieved if it's possible but I warn you that I'll be asking tough questions. Shadow, I wouldn't mind hearing from you either if you can abide by the conditions. We can even move it to one of the discussion forums

 

[nnmartin]

The example isn't the point, the fact that social services acts against parents deemed dangerous to their children is the point. What the heck is your issue with my point? It's not false, so what's the problem?

It is false because you are attempting to link two unrelated issues together.

Because a drug abuser has a child taken away from her does not automatically mean that a homosexual should do also.

Homosexual adoption is anther issue again.

You are making false comparisons.

 

[Draka]

It is false because you are attempting to link two unrelated issues together.

Because a drug abuser has a child taken away from her does not automatically mean that a homosexual should do also.

Homosexual adoption is anther issue again.

You are making false comparisons.

No, I'm not. It's very simple and I still have no idea what your comprehension problem is.

1. Jungle said gay people make for dangerous parents so they shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

2. When asked if they were so dangerous as parents then why shouldn't they lose custody of their biological children he said the government doesn't do that.

3. I made point that people considered dangerous to their children, such as drug abusers, can have their children removed from them by the government. So the government does indeed remove children from perceived dangerous parents.

4. Right back to him saying that gays are too dangerous to be adoptive parents...if they are too dangerous to be adoptive parents then why is it not dangerous for their own biological children to remain with them?

Major point: Either gays are too dangerous to be parents and not only should they not be allowed to adopt children, but they should lose custody of their own biological children for the health and safety of the children in question OR gays are not too dangerous to be parents, as evidenced by the fact that the government doesn't appear to be removing their biological children from them due to any perceived danger and so therefore the argument that they are too dangerous to adopt goes out the window.

 

[9Westy9]

No, I'm not. It's very simple and I still have no idea what your comprehension problem is.

1. Jungle said gay people make for dangerous parents so they shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

2. When asked if they were so dangerous as parents then why shouldn't they lose custody of their biological children he said the government doesn't do that.

3. I made point that people considered dangerous to their children, such as drug abusers, can have their children removed from them by the government. So the government does indeed remove children from perceived dangerous parents.

4. Right back to him saying that gays are too dangerous to be adoptive parents...if they are too dangerous to be adoptive parents then why is it not dangerous for their own biological children to remain with them?

Major point: Either gays are too dangerous to be parents and not only should they not be allowed to adopt children, but they should lose custody of their own biological children for the health and safety of the children in question OR gays are not too dangerous to be parents, as evidenced by the fact that the government doesn't appear to be removing their biological children from them due to any perceived danger and so therefore the argument that they are too dangerous to adopt goes out the window.

He might get it eventually

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Drofille: I mean this with all sincerity. I want to have a serious discussion with you on the subject of gay couple's fitness to raise children. I genuinly want to hear your side of the story, especially if you're a professional woman as you claim. Obviously, I'm not a professional social scientist but I'm a college grad and I at least have a clue about how to make an informed opinion as well as form an argument. I want the discussion to be in a calm and rational manner with no accusations of bigotry from you and no criticism from me about your lifestyle, just a serious, adult look at what "science" has been able to tell us about how gay couples function. My opinion on the subject has been formed by the results of studies/sources, many of which are pro-gay, that I've found to be quite troubling. I'd love for my concerns to be alieved if it's possible but I warn you that I'll be asking tough questions. Shadow, I wouldn't mind hearing from you either if you can abide by the conditions. We can even move it to one of the discussion forums

I would like to point out, not against your own character but in general, being a college grad does not necessarily mean you can make informed decisions or construct an argument. I have had teachers with Masters and Doctorates degrees that could not do either. One teacher with a masters degree believed he was using his mind to spin some wire shaped top, when he was not able to actually produce any movement until he was physically touching what was a very shaky and unstable table, and one teacher with a doctorates who tried to use the second law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution, even though what she claimed the second law states actually was something very different that what it actually states, and the fact it has absolutely nothing to do with biology demonstrated (along with many other times she was blatantly wrong) she could not debate her way out of a wet paper bag.
One of the easiest ways to demonstrate the fallacy of believing a nuclear family, mom and dad, type of family is not superior is the fact that throughout history it is not very common and has been practiced by only a handful of societies. It's pervasiveness today is a relatively new phenomena. But there are a range of methods in which children are raised, from having a very loosely defined father figure, being raised by the women of the immediate family (in some cultures the men have very little to no say so or authority over their children), by the men of the immediate family, sometimes the entire community helps raise a child, sometimes the father is very close to a child and sometimes they are distant, sometimes there are many more parent figures than two, sometimes it is only one parent, and since most cultures have practiced some form of polygamy then there are many children that have had multiple mother figures and/or multiple father figures. A cross-culture examination makes it very unfair to assume a mother/father nuclear family is the only appropriate way to raise a child.
As for our own culture, it's actually quite nice as we have a very large variety of demographs to study. We have some that are more family/group oriented than others, with grand parents, parents, children, and grandchildren often living together for much of their lives; a large sample of single parents; a large sample of nuclear families; and even a sample of polyamorous and open relationships to examine. But no matter how the family is structured, the optimal environmental setting for a child is a home life that is well structured with consistent rules, discipline, and expectations, as well as a consistency concerning those who are involved in the child's life. Showing support and encouragement for the child is also a factor that weighs in as being far more important than the number of parents or the sex of the parents. It has also been demonstrated that teaching a child to be accepting of others, exposing them to little violence, and teaching them positive behaviors and traits over negative behaviors and traits has a far more significant impact in helping them develop into well functioning members of society than the number of parents and sex of the parents.
Now as for numbers, very obviously one parent is not ideal as it puts much strain on the parent and child alike, as a single parent often has less time and resources to invest in child rearing, and the child is likely to have less parental involvement. Two parents, under ideal circumstances, helps to balance the time and resources, and increases the likeliness of parental involvement in the child's life. Having more parents can increase the availability of time and resources, and can almost assure a constant parental involvement, but as long as the home life is consistent the benefits seem to be more economical and seem to not have a significant influence on the well being of a child.
As for the sex of the parents, it is commonly believed a daughter must have a mother to be taught to act like a woman, and a son must have a father to learn how to act like a man. This observation demands that traditional gender roles be adhered to, which can be damaging to a child's development especially since so very few people actually do adhere to strict gender dichotomies, but is completely ignoring the fact of social influences and that the child will learn gender roles from peers, other adults and relatives, media, and the other mediums that constantly bombard everyone with messages of how men and women are supposed to act, behave, dress, and other gender-based expectations. Women in western societies, especially teenaged and young adult women, are plagued with self-image and self-esteem issues because of the unrealistic expectations of ideal beauty that are thrust upon them by society and the media. Typically (but not always) these behaviors are not learned from parents, but from others. It is so powerful that Anorexia Nervosa is very rarely found outside of Western culture.
From my perspective, the issue is best decided when you look at the overall picture, which includes social influences and cross-examinations of other cultures. To only look at our own is to exclude most of the available data concerning child rearing. Cultures are different, but when we can observe many of them and find universal trends we get a better idea of what is going on. And there aren't many universal trends in the terms of family structure.

 

[nnmartin]

Major point: Either gays are too dangerous to be parents and not only should they not be allowed to adopt children, but they should lose custody of their own biological children for the health and safety of the children in question OR gays are not too dangerous to be parents, as evidenced by the fact that the government doesn't appear to be removing their biological children from them due to any perceived danger and so therefore the argument that they are too dangerous to adopt goes out the window.

ok, well I will say it straight up then:

1. Homosexual has the right to look after their own child - because it is theirs biologically.

2. Homosexual cannot adopt because of the perceived risk.

So it is the biological right here which supersedes the perceived risk.

In the case of the drug abuser it can be proved far more objectively that the parent would be a risk to the child.

The same-sex situation is far more subjective.

That is the long and short of it.

 

[Drolefille]

ok, well I will say it straight up then:

1. Homosexual has the right to look after their own child - because it is theirs biologically.

2. Homosexual cannot adopt because of the perceived risk.

So it is the biological right here which supersedes the perceived risk.

In the case of the drug abuser it can be proved far more objectively that the parent would be a risk to the child.

The same-sex situation is far more subjective.

That is the long and short of it.

Found your problem.
The risk is all in your head. It's not real.

 

[Me Myself]

ok, well I will say it straight up then:

1. Homosexual has the right to look after their own child - because it is theirs biologically.

2. Homosexual cannot adopt because of the perceived risk.
.

I confirm Drole´s finding. The problem is that YOU percive they are a risk, but there exist NO STUDIES that are RELIABLE that can say your perception is based on reality.

 

[nnmartin]

of course it's not just me that says it is a perceived risk - many others also share this opinion and have also put forward studies which they believe prove it.

However, as with other threads in the forum I fail to see how subjective reasoning is not considered a viable method.

Outside of the debate forum world, subjective reasoning is used all the time.

think about the Job interview, the date, the new friend, the business etc...

It is an essential deciding principle in life.

Can you convince a judge that subjective factors have no value? - highly unlikely.

 

[Me Myself]

of course it's not just me that says it is a perceived risk - many others also share this opinion and have also put forward studies which they believe prove it.

NO study provided here.

About "subjective reasoning" it is used sparringly depending on the subject.

In this specific case, evidence needs to be provided to use homosexuality as a exclusive feature when looking for suitable parents the same way people shouldn´t use race as a feature to exclude parents that want the child even if it is of a different race than them.

The reality that no study has claimed that black people are less inteligent or less human in anyways than white people makes it to be DISCRIMINATION to think they are just because you have a hunch feeling of black people not being trutable.

So this is an analogous case, in which without evidence, you are being plain discriminative for hunch´s sake.