Should gays be allowed to adopt children?

[Phoenix Wright]

"Should gays be aloud to adopt children?" Pfft, of course not. Why should they have the right? They're GAY.

Seriously, I have lesbian teachers at my school who have adopted children. Besides the fact they don't have a dad, they're two completely normal young kids.

Personally, I think that everyone should have (almost "needs to have," almost...) at least both a father figure, and a mother figure in their life.

EDIT: Yes, in my eyes not having both parents is abnormal. Obviously I'm not saying families are "weird" for that reason, though. I'd never say that.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Santa Snake

[Defeatist Elitist]

For the majority, this also involves mainly white parents. I don't think you'd state that black individuals should not be incapable of adopting as a result of this, however.

I can't really understand what you're trying to say I'd think in the second part of your post, there's a double negative that I'd guess was unintentional. I think I agree with your meaning, though. Anyway, what does this have to do with my post?

So essentially, fat and ugly individuals should not be allowed to adopt any children (along with those carrying any physically notable issue, including say amputees), white individuals should not be allowed to adopt if living in a black neighborhood, black people should not be capable of adopting in a white neighborhood, and so on and so forth.

So essentially, setting up straw men is the same as good debating.

You're usually better than this. I didn't say any of that bullshit, which by the way is all illegal.

So when does this stop being about stupid shit and actually about the validity of the individual as a parent?

Do you have any backing whatsoever that shows a homosexual parent is necessarily incapable of raising a child in a fair environment?

These questions really don't belong next to each other, even if they are connected in that you'll find answers for both in earlier posts I've made.

So what's up with you and Crystal Shards that you're having so much trouble reading my posts? Maybe you should try increasing the text size. I'd also be happy to clarify what I was saying if you're confused, but I'd like this to be the last time that you put words in my mouth. This has also been a problem in that other topic, "Question about the Christian God". It's never been in good faith and it sidetracks discussions just when they're starting to make progress.

Dude. Dude. It is very clear what he is referring to. It is not straw manning.

Want me to help out?

You said that for the interests of that child, they should have a normal life, to release some stress, and avoid mockery and whatnot.

He responded asking if you thought other people who could cause stress or mockery should be allowed to adopt. It is a completely reasonable thing to ask.

Maybe you misinterpreted, I don't think he was trying to say that is what you said, he was pointing out a huge flaw in your logic.

Edited December 17, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Hero]

Dude. Dude. It is very clear what he is referring to. It is not straw manning.

Want me to help out?

You said that for the interests of that child, they should have a normal life, to release some stress, and avoid mockery and whatnot.

He responded asking if you thought other people who could cause stress or mockery should be allowed to adopt. It is a completely reasonable thing to ask.

Maybe you misinterpreted, I don't think he was trying to say that is what you said, he was pointing out a huge flaw in your logic.

If you're commenting on what I think you are, it wasn't a question at all. He was saying that those were "essentially" my beliefs, despite the fact that I hadn't even touched any of those subjects.

I don't see any misinterpretation or logical flaws. Now let's go back to the line that started this line of discussion:

I agree, with the one reservation that a traditional couple should be given precedence over a nontraditional one when all other things are equal, simply for the sake of giving the child as "normal" a life as possible.

Notice the clause, "when all other things are equal". You, Crystal Shards and Esau all seem to have missed this. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but in that sentence I was talking about when there are multiple couples looking to adopt a certain child, which is actually not an uncommon occurrence in certain communities. I'm not talking about anyone being allowed or not allowed to adopt, I made my position on that issue clear a long time ago.

As for my position on other groups that could cause stress and mockery, I think that these should be considered. I think it's important that adoption agencies look at all the information before they give a kid up because making an adult feel happy or accepted isn't worth ruining some kid's childhood for. But only so long as the system works the way it was intended to. There are certain things that it is illegal in the US to consider while placing children in adoptive families, most importantly race, and I don't think that this should be changed because there was abuse in this area before.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Hero

[Defeatist Elitist]

Dude. Dude. It is very clear what he is referring to. It is not straw manning.

Want me to help out?

You said that for the interests of that child, they should have a normal life, to release some stress, and avoid mockery and whatnot.

He responded asking if you thought other people who could cause stress or mockery should be allowed to adopt. It is a completely reasonable thing to ask.

Maybe you misinterpreted, I don't think he was trying to say that is what you said, he was pointing out a huge flaw in your logic.

If you're commenting on what I think you are, it wasn't a question at all. He was saying that those were "essentially" my beliefs, despite the fact that I hadn't even touched any of those subjects.

I don't see any misinterpretation or logical flaws. Now let's go back to the line that started this line of discussion:

I agree, with the one reservation that a traditional couple should be given precedence over a nontraditional one when all other things are equal, simply for the sake of giving the child as "normal" a life as possible.

Notice the clause, "when all other things are equal". You, Crystal Shards and Esau all seem to have missed this. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but in that sentence I was talking about when there are multiple couples looking to adopt a certain child, which is actually not an uncommon occurrence in certain communities. I'm not talking about anyone being allowed or not allowed to adopt, I made my position on that issue clear a long time ago.

As for my position on other groups that could cause stress and mockery, I think that these should be considered. I think it's important that adoption agencies look at all the information before they give a kid up because making an adult feel happy or accepted isn't worth ruining some kid's childhood for. But only so long as the system works the way it was intended to. There are certain things that it is illegal in the US to consider while placing children in adoptive families, most importantly race, and I don't think that this should be changed because there was abuse in this area before.

We understand what you are saying.

You seem to misunderstand us.

Our point (at least mine, and I think there's) is that it is inconsistent, and rather discriminatory to say that X thing should be a "disadvantage" when adopting for Y reason, when Z thing is perfectly acceptable, despite it having Y "problem" as well.

[Esau of Isaac]

I can't really understand what you're trying to say I'd think in the second part of your post, there's a double negative that I'd guess was unintentional. I think I agree with your meaning, though. Anyway, what does this have to do with my post?

The portion where you pointed out the majority of parents are heterosexual as one means by which to argue that adopting parents should be heterosexual.

So essentially, setting up straw men is the same as good debating.

You're usually better than this. I didn't say any of that bullshit, which by the way is all illegal.

It's the same goddamn thing. Just as childishly dimwitted as limiting parenthood based on race.

So what's up with you and Crystal Shards that you're having so much trouble reading my posts? Maybe you should try increasing the text size. I'd also be happy to clarify what I was saying if you're confused, but I'd like this to be the last time that you put words in my mouth. This has also been a problem in that other topic, "Question about the Christian God". It's never been in good faith and it sidetracks discussions just when they're starting to make progress.

It's an extension of your logic. I am using reductio ad absurdum to show to you how intensely illogical your point is. I don't know how you're assuming that I'm mistaking your argument, unless you wrote it in another language that looks and reads suspiciously like English.

If you're commenting on what I think you are, it wasn't a question at all. He was saying that those were "essentially" my beliefs, despite the fact that I hadn't even touched any of those subjects.

And you criticize my incapability to comprehend others' statements?

I don't see any misinterpretation or logical flaws.

That's why I responded to you; that's why anyone responds to anyone in a debate.

Notice the clause, "when all other things are equal". You, Crystal Shards and Esau all seem to have missed this. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but in that sentence I was talking about when there are multiple couples looking to adopt a certain child, which is actually not an uncommon occurrence in certain communities. I'm not talking about anyone being allowed or not allowed to adopt, I made my position on that issue clear a long time ago.

Okay, so again, and this time I will pose as a question; since African Americans are a minority group, do you believe it fair for whites to receive preferential treatment when it comes to adopting kids?

Edited December 17, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

Yeah, I read your other posts, and I still find your support lacking. So please, humor me. Give me my proof, and address Esau's concerns.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Crystal Shards

[Hero]

It's the same goddamn thing. Just as childishly dimwitted as limiting parenthood based on race.

Why didn't you just say this instead of falsely characterizing my post?

It's an extension of your logic. I am using reductio ad absurdum to show to you how intensely illogical your point is. I don't know how you're assuming that I'm mistaking your argument, unless you wrote it in another language that looks and reads suspiciously like English.

I know the kind of effect that you were going for. You took something that sounds ridiculous and said it was "essentially" my argument, despite the fact that I never said anything like it. You could have said that the reasoning behind my argument could have been used to support those conclusions, but you chose not to. The way I see it, you crossed the line between rhetorical flourishes and outright dishonesty.

Maybe instead of continuing to defend this, call me a hypocrite and call what I say "stupid shit" in your next post you could fully explain your opinion on the topic? With the exception of one line I quoted above, all I've heard from you is attacks.

Okay, so again, and this time I will pose as a question; since African Americans are a minority group, do you believe it fair for whites to receive preferential treatment when it comes to adopting kids?

I do believe that in a perfect world potential adoptive parents should be given higher priority when they're the same race as the child being adopted. In this world, no. I'm in support of the law against any racial discrimination in adoption. The system has been abused before and is still too open to abuse.

Yeah, I read your other posts, and I still find your support lacking. So please, humor me. Give me my proof, and address Esau's concerns.

This PDF file supports what I've said earlier and is the best collection of statistics that I've found. The site it's hosted on, frc.org, seems like it advocates political views I don't agree with, but the file itself comes from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which doesn't seem too sleazy

The PDF is 19 pages long, but the most juicy information is all in the last few pages.

[Esau of Isaac]

Why didn't you just say this instead of falsely characterizing my post?

I didn't falsely characterize your post. It was all a fair application of your logic, and was communicated in such a manner. I never stated that you explicitly called for any of this, I stated that the application of your logic necessitated such a use, and then pointed out the illogic and unfairness in such a stance.

Stop attempting to make it look like I somehow unfairly kicked your argument in the balls.

I know the kind of effect that you were going for. You took something that sounds ridiculous and said it was "essentially" my argument, despite the fact that I never said anything like it. You could have said that the reasoning behind my argument could have been used to support those conclusions, but you chose not to. The way I see it, you crossed the line between rhetorical flourishes and outright dishonesty.

The way I see it, you are trying to act the part of a victim when any possible misinterpretations have been cleared up.

Maybe instead of continuing to defend this, call me a hypocrite and call what I say "stupid shit" in your next post you could fully explain your opinion on the topic? With the exception of one line I quoted above, all I've heard from you is attacks.

I am of the opinion that homosexual individuals should receive the same adoption capabilities as heterosexual parents.

I do believe that in a perfect world potential adoptive parents should be given higher priority when they're the same race as the child being adopted. In this world, no. I'm in support of the law against any racial discrimination in adoption. The system has been abused before and is still too open to abuse.

Okay. Why do you believe that? Why, in a perfect world, would such a practice be fine?

This PDF file supports what I've said earlier and is the best collection of statistics that I've found. The site it's hosted on, frc.org, seems like it advocates political views I don't agree with, but the file itself comes from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which doesn't seem too sleazy

The PDF is 19 pages long, but the most juicy information is all in the last few pages.

Which portion of this .pdf are you citing?

Edited December 20, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Candlejack]

As long as somebody does the dishes.

[lolDeath]

All dirty buttfuckers have warped moral values. Now if you'll excuse me, I must go throw on the ol' uniform and shove my dick in a jar of peanut butter before I play with my dog.