Gay Marriage and adoption!

[Judge Hades]

I say marraige should be allowed as wel as adoption, if the couple seems fit to be parents.

[themadhatter114]

Yeah, they should seek the best parents, but race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be. I don't believe in restrictions but I'm all for giving preference.

 

What?

 

In what ways does race determine how good of a parent someone will be?

In what ways does religion determine how good of a parent someone will be?

In what ways does sexual orientation determine how good of a parent someone will be?

 

And since they apparently do, which race, religion, and orientation is best suited for parenting, and why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess you were in such a hurry to retort that you didn't read the next two sentences.

Edited June 8, 2006 by themadhatter114

[alanschu]

He's asking for preference, not restriction.

 

The way I read his words was that certain races/religions/orientations determine how good of a parent they will be.

 

race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be

 

 

I guess you were in such a hurry to retort that you didn't read the next two sentences.

 

 

All other things being equal, a child is better off with a mother and father.

All other things being equal, a child is better off with parents of the same ethnicity

 

Well, when reading that race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be, I didn't really see the link to the next two sentences.

 

Yeah, all other things equal, it's probably best to put a child with parents of the same ethnicity. It looked like you were claiming that "race, religion, and orientation are factors of how good a parent someone will be."

 

In other words, it looked like you were making a claim that the quality of someone as a parent is affected, at least in some way, by that person's race, religion, and sexual orientation. In other words, when I read your post it sounded like you were claiming that, all other things being equal, you could determine the quality of someone as a parent by their race/religion/sexual orientation.

 

I don't disagree that, if everything else is equal, matching people together homogeneously would probably be best. But that's not what I took from your post.

[themadhatter114]

He's asking for preference, not restriction.

 

The way I read his words was that certain races/religions/orientations determine how good of a parent they will be.

 

race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be

 

 

I guess you were in such a hurry to retort that you didn't read the next two sentences.

 

 

All other things being equal, a child is better off with a mother and father.

All other things being equal, a child is better off with parents of the same ethnicity

 

Well, when reading that race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how good of a parent someone will be, I didn't really see the link to the next two sentences.

 

Yeah, all other things equal, it's probably best to put a child with parents of the same ethnicity. It looked like you were claiming that "race, religion, and orientation are factors of how good a parent someone will be."

 

In other words, it looked like you were making a claim that the quality of someone as a parent is affected, at least in some way, by that person's race, religion, and sexual orientation. In other words, when I read your post it sounded like you were claiming that, all other things being equal, you could determine the quality of someone as a parent by their race/religion/sexual orientation.

 

I don't disagree that, if everything else is equal, matching people together homogeneously would probably be best. But that's not what I took from your post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that for a given child, they would be factors, but not as some blanket "+10 points for being white, +50 points for being a Christian, etc." way. And I don't mean to imply things like "gays make bad parents," simply that mother/father is more conducive to a healthy parenting environment. And that's a personal bias, that I feel is reasonable, and I don't think it should be mandated. I just think that adoption agencies should be protected from litigation if they happened to have a similar policy.

[alanschu]

I'm thinking the term "good" maybe should have been replaced with "appropriate."

 

What do you think?

 

race, religion, and orientation should be considerations because they certainly are factors that determine how appropriate of a parent someone will be

 

:D

[themadhatter114]

That would work...if I could find the 'edit' button.

[alanschu]

It disappears after an hour.

[themadhatter114]

It disappears after an hour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that is unfortunate. Perhaps a mod will edit it for me.

[alanschu]

Meh. Most people aren't as anal as me and probably won't care.

[Dyan]

"No absolutely not". - in concerns to adoption. Why? Because society isn't ready for it, that's why. Let gays marry/civl union/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it - but not adoption. At least, not yet. Maybe in the future when hopefully, everyone will be a tad more tolerant but not before then. Kids getting targeted because the couple who raised them are gay? I can see the headlines now. There would be some absolutely horrific attacks. It isn't worth it, imo.

[Judge Hades]

Meh.  Most people aren't as anal as me and probably won't care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, Alan is well versed in being anal.

 

Okay, that just sounded wrong.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Llyranor]

You're one to talk. You're the master of anal.

[Judge Hades]

No I'm not.

[alanschu]

Sorry Hades. I'm merely the prince of anal. I'd have to say you are the king.

 

 

As for "fallout" of gays adopting/raising kids....hasn't it already happened? Not fallout that is, but the raising...without fallout.

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

No I'm not.

 

REALLY.

 

Anyway, it seems that George W. has shown himself to be a bigot and the vast majority of the Republican party is joining with him. A bigot has no place in a public office.

[213374U]

In what ways does sexual orientation determine how good of a parent someone will be?

You don't know that. I don't think anyone does for sure. For every "expert" that says something in that respect, two others pop up claiming the opposite. Therefore, if well being of the child is to be the primary consideration when choosing candidates for adoption, it just doesn't make sense to expose the child to circumstances whose effects nobody can't predict.

 

Adoption isn't a right, it's a privilege, and a responsibility.

 

As for marriage, meh. Marriage is stupid anyway...

 

edited for typos

Edited June 8, 2006 by 213374U

[alanschu]

You don't know that. I don't think anyone does for sure. For every "expert" that says something in that respect, two others pop up claiming the opposite. Therefore, if well being of the child is to be the primary consideration when choosing candidates for adoption, it just doesn't make sense to expose the child to circumstanes whose effects nobody can't predict.

 

I know. It looked like he was making the claim that sexual orientation made a difference, so I was asking him in what ways.

 

It turned out to be a miscommunication anyways.

[Judge Hades]

Besides, what determines a person's sexual orientation is lagely biological. You can't make a gay person straight or a straight person gay by environment alone.

[213374U]

Besides, what determines a person's sexual orientation is lagely biological.  You can't make a gay person straight or a straight person gay by environment alone.

Proof, doctor?

[LoneWolf16]

Besides, what determines a person's sexual orientation is lagely biological.  You can't make a gay person straight or a straight person gay by environment alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do know that some choose that route, right?

[Pidesco]

How would sexual orientation be genetic? If that was true homosexuals would drive themselves to extinction pretty quickly, as they wouldn't reproduce.

[213374U]

How would sexual orientation be genetic? If that was true homosexuals would drive themselves to extinction pretty quickly, as they wouldn't reproduce.

OWNED!!!

[alanschu]

I remember Lucius getting on my case about it because I couldn't really explain to him what I was talking about.

 

 

An open, conscious choice towards homosexuality is likely not the case. For someone to "choose" homosexuality, they'd probably have to have some sort of sexual attraction to the same sex.

 

But how does one "choose" who they find attractive?

 

 

How would sexual orientation be genetic? If that was true homosexuals would drive themselves to extinction pretty quickly, as they wouldn't reproduce.

 

Just because something is biological doesn't mean it is genetic.

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[Pidesco]

How would sexual orientation be genetic? If that was true homosexuals would drive themselves to extinction pretty quickly, as they wouldn't reproduce.

 

Just because something is biological doesn't mean it is genetic.

 

 

Could you elaborate?

[Judge Hades]

It is simple. There are physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, number man, in how they respond to varying stimulus as well as the activity in brain activity and formation.

 

Hell, the fact that homosexuality is found in other primates show that it is a biological function. If you are a Darwinist you would realize that homosexuality is evolutionary maladaptive and that would be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that it is largely biological.

 

 

Links on a few studies:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/5/...ourcetype=HWCIT

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/89/15/7199...ourcetype=HWCIT

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/2...ourcetype=HWCIT