Discussion on Morals

[WITHTEETH]

Intreseting that the cause was Afganistan. all i knew was that it was due to economics. Did they have another economic problem besides funding war? i know it was the same time they were in afganistan when the collapsed . what year did they collapse 1989 or 91?

[Cantousent]

If you believe that the Soviet Union didn't suffer from it's attempt on Afghanistan, I'm truly surprised. By the way, take a look at some of the people tied to the conflict, including our friend, Osama.

[Kalfear]

If you live in a place where gays are discriminated against and not tolerated by society, perhaps being adopted by a gay couple would lead to the child being harmed.  But we can't assume that everywhere is like that.  This is an argument not for banning adoption by gays, but for allowing it (and also asking adoption officials to consider this factor in judging the suitability of gay couples).

 

But nevertheless, we need to balance the potential for unhappiness caused by bullies, against the very real happiness that comes from having loving parents.  And remember that real progress can be made in overcoming intolerance and discrimination if the issue is brought out into the open.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats nice to assume Steve but its not realistic. Right now, as western society works, gays are tolerated but NOT veiwed as equal. Your kidding yourself if you think on a whole that they are. BTW, that doesnt mean society is right, that just means thats the way it is.

 

And when looking at laws and social structure (which is where Adoption would fall under) you cant say "well if these people live in this neighborhood of this specific city then they can adopt but if you cross the street they cant because of a different enviroment". Thats just ludicrise to think.

 

The laws and social and political agendas need to cover all aspects related to topic area. Adoption is a FEDERAL issue in both Canada and the United States, thus the country make up is the pulse for decisions. Not any individual neighborhood, village, town, city, province, state.

 

In regards to gays adopting in the states, it doesnt matter if the parents from San Fransico or West Texas, one law covers them all. And even though gays are allowed to adopt in both Canada and the USA currently, it is NOT in the childs best interest to allow it.

 

And a loving family is great! Ask a kid how much that loving family means when he is in a school yard fight every day for a year BECAUSE OF WHO HIS FAMILY IS. Sorry but as I said before, Ill say again, the laws should reflect whats BEST for the child, the parents (new or old) should not be reflected in the decision what so ever! Its all about the child!

 

Hell, I grew up in a small town that was VERY unbias in a normal family and even then I couldnt give you a fair or accurate estimate of how many fights I got into regarding being adopted between grades 1 and 6. I literally lost count. And thats being in a NORMAL middle class white family surrounded by normal middle class white people (you dont get any better area situations then that to judge from).

 

And yes, real progress can be made by bringing an issue out in the open. BUT thats between the ADULTS. You dont (or shouldnt) sacrafice children to get your point across! Fix the bias FIRST before bringing children into the equation. Simple as that.

 

Sorry but as I said in first post about this topic, its one that is very close to my heart. I lived through it (not having gay parents but being adopted) so I know the challenges they face in normal situations. I shudder at what adopted children will face having gay parents in todays social climate.

 

There really is no arguement that will change my mind on this either. Its like a reformed drug addict trying to explain to someone thats never tried drugs on what addiction is like. You have no clue until your faced with the problem yourself. You can use philosophy, create what you think are decent arguements and valid opinions, in the end it really is just, you have no idea. Its really not something people can learn by reading books and listening to lectures and what not. Either you know or you dont, is no middle ground.

 

This is an argument not for banning adoption by gays, but for allowing it (and also asking adoption officials to consider this factor in judging the suitability of gay couples).

 

NO, this is a discussion about morales and different topics and how morales effect them. This SPECIFIC topic though shouldnt take morales into account. ONLY the child should matter. IE: not what is morally right but what is ACTUALLY right. Big difference between those two. What is moral may not be the best course of action bepending on the situation and parameters. The parameters here are whats best for the child, not the parents, not the social structure, not the morale high ground. What is LITERALLY best for the child.

 

And for the record, damn right gays should be disallowed from adopting until such a time as society in general will not penalize the CHILD for the actions of his/her adopted parents.

 

99.99% of the time I am driven by whats right, and do the right thing. The right thing here would be to say all people who will love and care for a child should be allowed to adopt. BUT I cant say that because those parents, because of their lifestyle currently, will harm the child inadvertantly. and I repeat again, ITS ALL ABOUT THE CHILD! So no, gays should not be allowed to adopt, it might not be fair but thats life because their actions will directly effect the child.

 

Let me put it this way. When I was growing up if you walked up to me and punched me for no reason. Morally I should turn the other cheek and walk away. Reality though is I would pound you into the ground (or attempt to anyways). The way things SHOULD be are not always what they WILL be. Thats the difference between what you suggest and I do. Your thinking of how things should be, I speaking on how they are.

[Cantousent]

I only take exception to one part of your statement: My mother, a divorcee, married my father when I was 8 years old. I got in plenty of scrapes as a result of the ugly areas where we lived, but not because I had a single mother nor because my dad adopted me when he married my mom. There comes a point where the loving family is worth the extra troubles in the schoolyard. There comes a point where the loving family is the source of strength to endure troubles in the schoolyard that are part of every child's experience.

 

Homosexuality should be a factor in assessing claims for adoption, but I don't think it should be the whole length of the yardstick by which we measure prospective parents. Instead, it should be factored in the interest of the child. You're experiences and mine are different. My childhood was spent living in government subsidized housing, in the care of a mother reduced to using food stamps to buy groceries for her six children. When she married my father, I went to that "middle class" neighborhood.

 

From what you're saying, it's almost as if you regret being adopted. I'm saddened to think that's the case.

[Reveilled]

Just to throw an idea out there on the USSR thing and whether or not people are better off as a result, it wasn't just the Russians who were in the Soviet Union. Sure, they may have made up the majority of the Soviets, and they might be no better off than they were before, but what about the Georgians or the Ukranians?

 

I'm not saying whether that would be worth it or not, I'm just pointing out somewhere you don't seem to have looked.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Ask a kid how much that loving family means when he is in a school yard fight every day for a year BECAUSE OF WHO HIS FAMILY IS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is a little overdramatic. While I'm sure there is a lot of bullying of kids with gay parents, I don't accept that it is inevitable or that school authorities can't do anything about it. If you're in an area where even the school authorities discriminate against gays, and are allowed to get away with it, then there's a problem. But I think that's becoming rarer.

 

Hell, I grew up in a small town that was VERY unbias in a normal family and even then I couldnt give you a fair or accurate estimate of how many fights I got into regarding being adopted between grades 1 and 6. I literally lost count. And thats being in a NORMAL middle class white family surrounded by normal middle class white people (you dont get any better area situations then that to judge from).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but I don't think a white middle class area is necessarily the most tolerant it's possible to get. I'm sorry that you experienced bullying in this way, though. When I taught in Japan, there was a kid whose parents were - shock horror - DIVORCED! This is still very rare in Japan. The girl in question was bullied, but the school fought hard to stop it and succeeded.

 

And for the record, damn right gays should be disallowed from adopting until such a time as society in general will not penalize the CHILD for the actions of his/her adopted parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the state bans gays from adopting, then it's reinforcing the anti-gay prejudice of some in wider society. It is not a neutral action, it is a damaging action. It is in the wider interest of the child to grow up in a society which is tolerant. You might argue that for one individual you can prevent a gay couple adopting her, possibly making her life a little easier, but reinforcing prejudice. But then if you repeat this a thousand times, you're sending out a powerful, negative message that gays are not suitable parents. It is wrong for the state to do this.

 

As I write this, I'm reflecting on my own views, and I am worried that the position that I'm arguing is about sacrificing the individual for the benefit of wider society, something I don't really believe in. Ultimately, I don't think it is sacrificing the individual, because I don't accept the nightmare vision of a gay-adopted child that is being presented. Discrimination and intolerance can be actively fought and overcome through concrete society-wide efforts. States and community leaders have a responsibility to do this, and I think there are examples where this has happened. I imagine a child with gay parents in my own community and I just can't see the terrible bullying and ostracism that is being suggested.

[213374U]

Just to throw an idea out there on the USSR thing and whether or not people are better off as a result, it wasn't just the Russians who were in the Soviet Union.  Sure, they may have made up the majority of the Soviets, and they might be no better off than they were before, but what about the Georgians or the Ukranians?

I don't know about Georgia or the eastern countries that used to be part of the old USSR (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc), but Ukraine for one isn't doing that bad. For instance I think their importance as a touristic destination is rapidly increasing. And as for the others, well, they are now free from the Russian rule, so it's up to them to get the country going. At least now they have a chance to to run the country, which they didn't have under the USSR.

[Kalfear]

Ask a kid how much that loving family means when he is in a school yard fight every day for a year BECAUSE OF WHO HIS FAMILY IS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is a little overdramatic. While I'm sure there is a lot of bullying of kids with gay parents, I don't accept that it is inevitable or that school authorities can't do anything about it. If you're in an area where even the school authorities discriminate against gays, and are allowed to get away with it, then there's a problem. But I think that's becoming rarer.

 

What you think is not relevant though, what you know is. I can make the assumption because I am adopted AND know a fair number of homosexuals and seen the average treatment they get in normal day life. Adding 1 and 2 togather (being knowledgeable in both) is easy for me.

 

School authorities have nothing to do with it. Do you think any school authorities today actively discriminate against race? relegion? ect? Of course not, however that DOESNT stop such discrimination from happening.

 

Your being very nieve in how you look at the world around you. I can understand it, you have never faced those issues so you cant relate to them. I didnt understand racism for many many years as I had never seen it in action. Growing up where I did there was one black family and they were totally and completely accepted by community. Moved to Edmonton and still didnt see racism in action, had a number of black friends. Took one trip to Washington DC and couldnt believe the obvious tension I saw when a black girl moved her stuff so she could share seat with me (had hurt knee so was in pain standing, she made a very nice gester that was appreciated). So I never truely understood racism until I was 35 years old, because thats the first time I ever truely encountered it.

 

But dont confuse lack of knowledge with, thats how the world works, thats a nieve approach to any topic.

 

 

Hell, I grew up in a small town that was VERY unbias in a normal family and even then I couldnt give you a fair or accurate estimate of how many fights I got into regarding being adopted between grades 1 and 6. I literally lost count. And thats being in a NORMAL middle class white family surrounded by normal middle class white people (you dont get any better area situations then that to judge from).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but I don't think a white middle class area is necessarily the most tolerant it's possible to get. I'm sorry that you experienced bullying in this way, though. When I taught in Japan, there was a kid whose parents were - shock horror - DIVORCED! This is still very rare in Japan. The girl in question was bullied, but the school fought hard to stop it and succeeded.

 

LOL, Id say a white male growing up in a white demographic is a very fair test model.

 

No outside bias involved. White male in a middle class family growing up in a white middle class area the perfect test area. If it was a black female in a lower class family growing up in a white middle class area, you would have a number of extra factors to calculate in. So Id definately argue with you about the fairness of the situation at hand.

 

Again with the school????? You do realize MOST problems happen off school grounds or away from school presence. School cant solve all of societies problems. Most bias is learned at home, not at school to be fair (not all but most).

 

Oh, and Im just using my example as an example. The trend will change from person to person, place to place. But it outlines the greater issue. If your harrassed for being adopted, added with how society in general looks at homosexuals, that is definately going to add to problems the child encounters. Again, you need actual knowledge for this topic. Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one. Opinions dont mean squat though, real facts and knowledge do.

 

And for the record, damn right gays should be disallowed from adopting until such a time as society in general will not penalize the CHILD for the actions of his/her adopted parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the state bans gays from adopting, then it's reinforcing the anti-gay prejudice of some in wider society. It is not a neutral action, it is a damaging action. It is in the wider interest of the child to grow up in a society which is tolerant. You might argue that for one individual you can prevent a gay couple adopting her, possibly making her life a little easier, but reinforcing prejudice. But then if you repeat this a thousand times, you're sending out a powerful, negative message that gays are not suitable parents. It is wrong for the state to do this.

 

Its only reinforcing the anti part if the states says its because gays cant parent. If the states makes it clear the whys to the decision then only the most bias will assume what you just did. And they going to assume that regardless what state does.

 

Sorry, but laws made for the protection of children (and there already is many), people accept as "for the best of the child". Read anymore into that and either your a fanatical participate of pro or against groups on the topic. Your refuseing to look at whats BEST for the child and useing the child to promote your own veiws.

 

As I write this, I'm reflecting on my own views, and I am worried that the position that I'm arguing is about sacrificing the individual for the benefit of wider society, something I don't really believe in.  Ultimately, I don't think it is sacrificing the individual, because I don't accept the nightmare vision of a gay-adopted child that is being presented.  Discrimination and intolerance can be actively fought and overcome through concrete society-wide efforts.  States and community leaders have a responsibility to do this, and I think there are examples where this has happened.  I imagine a child with gay parents in my own community and I just can't see the terrible bullying and ostracism that is being suggested.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats exactly what you are doing though Steve. Using the child to promote your own values and veiws. Your values and veiws dont matter in this equation, only whats best for the child matters.

 

Sorry but if you honestly and truely dont think ostracism and bullying is happening in your neighborhood, its either because your own kids doing the bullying or your outta touch. Doesnt have to be about adoption, homosexuals, race, but the ostracising of children by children (usually learned by parents) happens in every neighborhood in every country to some extent.

 

Also, as I said before above, you dont know. You have no knowedge to learn from so you are forced to imagine only. You will never truely understand this topic because you cant learn about it from books. Its like some Univesity bussiness major telling a High School educated Cook (whose been in restraunt feild for 15 years) how to run a restraunt. Its a joke, until that person gets hands on knowledge, he has no clue what hes speaking about regardless of where he went to school. Same thing applies here, either you know or you dont.

 

And when it comes to children, Id prefer people didnt guess to be honest

 

I mean, do you think you know what it was like to be a orphan in 18th century England because you read Oliver Twist? LOL, I spent 4 years in a orphanage and I DONT have any clue what it was like back then. That much I can say for sure.

[metadigital]

@Kalfear, I have another controversial thought for your consideration:

 

I understand that it is neither fair nor morally acceptable to place young, innocent children in the exposed situation of a "different" upbringing. But, I also know that this may be the best and most effective way to bring about the changes needed in society.

 

Out of the greatest evils must come some great good. Generally the people who have changed society have been victimized by it in some way earlier, and they are (over-) compensating for this initial scenario.

 

So, although it would be difficult to prove, I propose the hypothesis that perhaps a child of a same-sex couple might actually help transform the society into a more tolerant one.

 

Controversial, I know, but is it an unethical way to break the catch-22 deadlock? (Or at least speed it up ...)

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

<_< Abortion?

Ahhh Screw it.

Legalize MURDER! (w00t)

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Just to throw an idea out there on the USSR thing and whether or not people are better off as a result, it wasn't just the Russians who were in the Soviet Union.  Sure, they may have made up the majority of the Soviets, and they might be no better off than they were before, but what about the Georgians or the Ukranians?

I don't know about Georgia or the eastern countries that used to be part of the old USSR (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc), but Ukraine for one isn't doing that bad. For instance I think their importance as a touristic destination is rapidly increasing. And as for the others, well, they are now free from the Russian rule, so it's up to them to get the country going. At least now they have a chance to to run the country, which they didn't have under the USSR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

States like Estonia could be considered to be doing very well indeed, a NATO & EU member.

 

Hard to say really. Depends how you define improvement.

[Kalfear]

@Kalfear, I have another controversial thought for your consideration:

 

I understand that it is neither fair nor morally acceptable to place young, innocent children in the exposed situation of a "different" upbringing. But, I also know that this may be the best and most effective way to bring about the changes needed in society.

 

Out of the greatest evils must come some great good. Generally the people who have changed society have been victimized by it in some way earlier, and they are (over-) compensating for this initial scenario.

 

So, although it would be difficult to prove, I propose the hypothesis that perhaps a child of a same-sex couple might actually help transform the society into a more tolerant one.

 

Controversial, I know, but is it an unethical way to break the catch-22 deadlock? (Or at least speed it up ...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

heh Meta, thats basically what Steve was saying as well (just you alot more blunt about it).

 

*for the record: dont think of it as catch 22, heh. We both just have differing veiw points I dont think less of Steve or yourself or anyone for disagreeing, this just a topic I have a unbending veiw on is all Neither of us right or wrong really. Reality of it is adoption is legal by a gay person as proven already by some celeb homosexuals. While they hardly the best test subjects because of their celeb status, Im sure they will set the bar for others regardless what I or anyone else says or thinks.*

 

As I said to him, When it comes to adoption, its all about the child. Thats where it starts and ends.

 

Im not a homophobe in any way but if keeping the child safe means a homosexual (or a single parent (in some cases), or a what ever) never is able to adopt. Welp im fine with that to be honest. It starts and stops with whats best for the child and only the child. Nothing else matters.

 

Sorry ( and yes I know my veiw on this topic seems harsh and unbending) but when it comes to children, they are all that matters. I really could care less on who's social values (im not just talking gay people here either) are being steped on, if its for the betterment of the child, step away

 

Your a alcholic, grats!!!!! you cant adopt!

Your a Crackhead? let me introduce you to forced sterilization (that should go over well)

 

Above two things not to suggest ANY comparrison to homosexuals and drunks or crackheads, just to stress that when it comes to children its gloves are off. Go to the extreams if need be! Adults can stick up for themselves, can defend themselves, can articulate their opinions and agendas, children cant! So children should never be put in the situation where they are used to promote some agenda or social program.

 

Slightly off topic, but you must understand Im very vocal in wanting the ENTIRE Adoption program in Canada reworked as it is. Just unfortunately I have no real avenues or contacts to do so.

 

One of the agencies that really needs reworking is Foster children homes. For every GOOD foster family out there, there is anouther that is stockpileing the children so they can collect the government subsidy cheque each month per/child. I want to see these foster families have to report with reciepts where that money going each month so the money sent to help support the child is actually being spent on the child.

 

I want to see far far far deeper background checks on would be parents (forget the gay and straight issue, im talking ALL would be adopters). Simple truth is, a child sent to a family with a alcoholic has a better chance just staying in the dang orphanage in many cases. Either way, come 15-16, that child is going to bolt out on his/her own.

 

Thank God they changed the medical History laws so no children can have happen to them what happened to me (didnt know family medical history so a hereditary disease was diagnosed 13 years to late). Now a days you have to include your family medical history when giving up a child for adoption. That law was long over due.

 

Point is, there is STILL many many many things wrong in the foster parent and adoption programs that require ALOT more attention immediately then the topic we discussing here. Its long over due that polititions started drafting laws that benefited the children first and formost.

 

Society can work its own problems out with out placing children on the front lines.

 

LOL, and to go REALLY off topic. I heard something today on Radio that made me kinda laugh and think of this thread.

 

You realize, WE, people with no power or vocal outlet (that Im aware of anyways, guess any of yas could be the President or Prime Minister but Ill go on a ledge and say I doubt it! hehe) discussing this topic and what do I hear on radio?

 

Some member from a Toronto Gay organization (sorry didnt catch names and all that, just background noise while driving) complaining that Gay history is not taught in public and Chatholic schools so they (the organization) have to gather the information and history to teach younger homosexuals about it.

 

I know it off topic but couldnt help but laugh, we seem (all of us) more interested in real topics regarding society then the actual front men/women of the activist organizations!!! LOL, anyways, made me laugh!

 

(snickers) whats next? lets see the women libbers got manhole covers changed to personhole covers in the 80s, maybe this time next year we will have to refer to them as alternative personhole covers!!!!!! Just gotta wonder!!! LOL

[Commissar]

Just to throw an idea out there on the USSR thing and whether or not people are better off as a result, it wasn't just the Russians who were in the Soviet Union.  Sure, they may have made up the majority of the Soviets, and they might be no better off than they were before, but what about the Georgians or the Ukranians?

I don't know about Georgia or the eastern countries that used to be part of the old USSR (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc), but Ukraine for one isn't doing that bad. For instance I think their importance as a touristic destination is rapidly increasing. And as for the others, well, they are now free from the Russian rule, so it's up to them to get the country going. At least now they have a chance to to run the country, which they didn't have under the USSR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

States like Estonia could be considered to be doing very well indeed, a NATO & EU member.

 

Hard to say really. Depends how you define improvement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Baltic states are all better off economically than when they were under Soviet rule. Most of the 'stan' states - Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and the like - are a hell of a lot worse. Belorus is in that category as well. Georgia and Ukraine (despite the recent "revolution") and Russia are about the same, though there's a hell of a lot of Russians who think that the fall of communism was the worst thing that ever happened. And I don't mean like a small sect, I mean...well, like I said. A hell of a lot. One of the reasons why an authoritative Putin is viewed with favor by Russians.

 

Giving Reagan credit for defeating the Soviet Union is like calling the guy who slips on a banana peel on the sidewalk, falling down and accidentally tripping the robbers as they're running out of the bank a brave hero. We didn't know at the time that the economic model of the USSR wasn't going to work; it was theorized by some economists at the CIA and think tanks, but it was only a theory. We had an arms race because we were afraid that we'd eventually have to go to war, and we wanted better equipment; there was not, to my knowledge, a secret plan to outspend the Soviets until they were economically exhausted, and thus bring about bloodless defeat. It just kind of happened, and Reagan got credit for it.

 

I actually give much more credit to the Eastern European populations that revolted - despite such draconian measures as the secret police like the Stasi in East Germany employed. While they weren't part of the USSR, they were part of the Eastern Bloc, and, I might add, demonstrated that if a people as a whole want a change of government enough, they can make it happen without outside intervention. And yeah, that's a thinly-veiled call for Iraqis to sack up rather than have us do all the work.

 

Credit also has to be given to Gorbachev; he probably could've held on if he wanted to, but instead decided that a massive change was needed. That took some balls.