Gay Adoption, a more serious take

[Symmetry]

Now obviously Mr Scotty has his ever evolving thread ranting against homosexuals elsewhere on the forum, but in its most recent form he's suggested that gay adoption be banned as if adoption is some sort of zero-sum game. That a kid adopted by gay parents is being taken away from straight adoptive parents.

As if there's a war on for abandoned children in the world, and homosexuals adopting somehow ruins everything.

So, anyway, having taught kids who lived in orphanages (in Japan), and worked with kids in permanent care (in the US), the question kind of bothered me.

There were no mother-father couples trying to take these (often troubled) kids on. Is the idea that a successful gay couple might adopt a child so much of a problem that people really think that a few of the kids shouldn't be allowed a chance at a home?

[Army of GOD]

I don't know if prospective parents need to take a psychiatric test or whatnot to adopt (squishy mentioned the Kinsey scale or whatevski in the other thread, so I guess that's it?) but if a gay couple pass any test they should be allowed to adopt just as much as a straight couple.

Then again, the only argument against this is blind hatred, so it's essentially the same as arguing with a sandwich.

[Symmetry]

I don't know if prospective parents need to take a psychiatric test or whatnot to adopt (squishy mentioned the Kinsey scale or whatevski in the other thread, so I guess that's it?) but if a gay couple pass any test they should be allowed to adopt just as much as a straight couple.

Then again, the only argument against this is blind hatred, so it's essentially the same as arguing with a sandwich.

Well said.

I just wanted to highlight how stupid the argument against gay people adopting being that kids are better off with a mum and dad is. Far too many kids in orphanages and care homes don't have that option at all, disregarding anyone's beliefs in whether gay homes are better or worse than straight couples.

There will always be kids needing homes.

[Phatscotty]

Now obviously Mr Scotty has his ever evolving thread ranting against homosexuals elsewhere on the forum, but in its most recent form he's suggested that gay adoption be banned as if adoption is some sort of zero-sum game. That a kid adopted by gay parents is being taken away from straight adoptive parents.

As if there's a war on for abandoned children in the world, and homosexuals adopting somehow ruins everything.

So, anyway, having taught kids who lived in orphanages (in Japan), and worked with kids in permanent care (in the US), the question kind of bothered me.

There were no mother-father couples trying to take these (often troubled) kids on. Is the idea that a successful gay couple might adopt a child so much of a problem that people really think that a few of the kids shouldn't be allowed a chance at a home?

Lies

[Symmetry]

Now obviously Mr Scotty has his ever evolving thread ranting against homosexuals elsewhere on the forum, but in its most recent form he's suggested that gay adoption be banned as if adoption is some sort of zero-sum game. That a kid adopted by gay parents is being taken away from straight adoptive parents.

As if there's a war on for abandoned children in the world, and homosexuals adopting somehow ruins everything.

So, anyway, having taught kids who lived in orphanages (in Japan), and worked with kids in permanent care (in the US), the question kind of bothered me.

There were no mother-father couples trying to take these (often troubled) kids on. Is the idea that a successful gay couple might adopt a child so much of a problem that people really think that a few of the kids shouldn't be allowed a chance at a home?

Lies

So what did you vote for?

[Phatscotty]

I have not voted, because your options are far too serious.

Kids would be better off staying in orphanages

Kids would be better off in a life-time of care homes

The Gays are stealing babies

Kittens are cute, but gay people can't look after them


Kittens are cute, and deserve a home

If you have to twist the issue this badly, maybe it's time to re-evaluate if it's you that is twisted, because this is even worse than trolling North Carolina does not allow gay people in their state....another huge lie.

The question is, why do you get off making thread titles and polls that are meant to increase animosity?

[GreecePwns]

Phatscotty, if a kid has been in an orphanage for more than half his life, can we agree that there is no parent who will adopt the child? Why should a gay couple be excluded from adopting them?

You used to present reasoned arguments, but lately you've shown your true self: a social conservative with speaks of libertarianism when its convenient. Mitt Romney is just the candidate for you, really.

[Woodruff]

I have not voted, because your options are far too serious.

Kids would be better off staying in orphanages

Kids would be better off in a life-time of care homes

The Gays are stealing babies

Kittens are cute, but gay people can't look after them


Kittens are cute, and deserve a home

If you have to twist the issue this badly, maybe it's time to re-evaluate if it's you that is twisted, because this is even worse than trolling North Carolina does not allow gay people in their state....another huge lie.

He really hasn't twisted the issue here. Why do you fear it so much?

The question is, why do you get off making thread titles and polls that are meant to increase animosity?

Wait...you're actually asking this question? When do you ask of yourself the same?

[2dimes]

If a gay looks after kittens the kittens will catch gay then once they grow up they won't make new kittens.

[aad0906]

Would love to see the law proposal that will "allow gay couples to adopt troubled children but not un-troubled children", that will surely create a lot of stir. Forgive me for not knowing but in the US are or are gay couples banned from adopting children? Or is that a state-by-state issue? Do some states allow and others prohibit? Just curious.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, if a kid has been in an orphanage for more than half his life, can we agree that there is no parent who will adopt the child? Why should a gay couple be excluded from adopting them?

You used to present reasoned arguments, but lately you've shown your true self: a social conservative with speaks of libertarianism when its convenient. Mitt Romney is just the candidate for you, really.

I get your point.

Romney is not my guy, not even close. Sure, he isn't a Marxist, but that doesn't make him my guy.

But, if he were my guy, we would adopt a child together.

[Symmetry]

Would love to see the law proposal that will "allow gay couples to adopt troubled children but not un-troubled children", that will surely create a lot of stir. Forgive me for not knowing but in the US are or are gay couples banned from adopting children? Or is that a state-by-state issue? Do some states allow and others prohibit? Just curious.

I've not restricted this to the US, but rather gay adoption in general.

In my experience, if you'll allow it, few adoption cases come without trouble. There are, of course, newborns abandoned at birth, and some might even come without problems, but the majority of kids in care come with problems. People willing to adopt them and look after them should be lauded, gay or straight, as long as they can provide what the kids need.

[Dukasaur]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

[Haggis_McMutton]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

[Dukasaur]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Yeah, I suppose it could be intentionally humourous.

[beezer]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll.

Now Sym should ask you how you would have worded it differently, and proceed with dismissing whatever you answer.

[Army of GOD]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Yeah, I suppose it could be intentionally humourous.

Because jokes are usually unintentional?

[BigBallinStalin]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Yeah, I suppose it could be intentionally humourous.

Because jokes are usually unintentional?

For PS, they are.

[Army of GOD]

AntiAircraft Fitz, as well

[BigBallinStalin]

So, what's this thread have to do with cheeseburgers?

[Symmetry]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Perhaps it might be worth reading the arguments, rather than getting tied up in the poll, or the title.

I'm not particularly interested in adding credibility to gay people being allowed to adopt, nor am I interested in being called a moron. I just want to point out the reality of adoption.

There are more kids out there who could do with a stable family than straight couples who want to adopt. It's not a zero-sum game between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[Dukasaur]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Perhaps it might be worth reading the arguments, rather than getting tied up in the poll, or the title.

I'm not particularly interested in adding credibility to gay people being allowed to adopt, nor am I interested in being called a moron. I just want to point out the reality of adoption.

There are more kids out there who could do with a stable family than straight couples who want to adopt. It's not a zero-sum game between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

and I agree with you on that. However, a poll that only allows for total agreement ("I see no problem") or for varying degrees of sillyness ("I think gay panty raids should focus on kittens" or whatever other ridiculous choices were offered) is inherently unfair.

What should one do in a case of partial agreement, if one's opinion is "I see plenty of problems with it, but I'm quite willing to accept those problems as the lesser of two evils, with children abandoned in underfunded orphanages being a much greater evil." ?? If that is my opinion, it would be dishonest to select Option 1, but ridiculous to select any other option.

Interestingly enough, that is my opinion, but having no legitimate option to choose, I had to select Option 5, which is not my true opinion, as a protest against the unfairness of the loaded question.

And before you go all spinny on me, I did not call you a moron; I called the options given moronic. I'm perfectly aware that you are one of the smarter people around here, but your sense of good sportsmanship in debates is not always evident.

[Phatscotty]

If you want a few great examples and tips Symm, I'm glad to help.

You should make your polls more like mine, which are completely fair and honest. The structure almost always looks like this:

1- F yes!
2-pretty much yes
3-nutral
4-pretty much no
5-F no!
6-IDK

[Symmetry]

A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Perhaps it might be worth reading the arguments, rather than getting tied up in the poll, or the title.

I'm not particularly interested in adding credibility to gay people being allowed to adopt, nor am I interested in being called a moron. I just want to point out the reality of adoption.

There are more kids out there who could do with a stable family than straight couples who want to adopt. It's not a zero-sum game between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

and I agree with you on that. However, a poll that only allows for total agreement ("I see no problem") or for varying degrees of sillyness ("I think gay panty raids should focus on kittens" or whatever other ridiculous choices were offered) is inherently unfair.

What should one do in a case of partial agreement, if one's opinion is "I see plenty of problems with it, but I'm quite willing to accept those problems as the lesser of two evils, with children abandoned in underfunded orphanages being a much greater evil." ?? If that is my opinion, it would be dishonest to select Option 1, but ridiculous to select any other option.

Interestingly enough, that is my opinion, but having no legitimate option to choose, I had to select Option 5, which is not my true opinion, as a protest against the unfairness of the loaded question.

And before you go all spinny on me, I did not call you a moron; I called the options given moronic. I'm perfectly aware that you are one of the smarter people around here, but your sense of good sportsmanship in debates is not always evident.

I add the kittens option specifically for people who object to the phrasing. It's been my general procedure for creating polls for a long while. That's what it's there for.

As for the rest, I'm not sure I'd quite use the phrase "lesser of two evils" to describe adoption or care homes for orphaned or abandoned kids. Maybe this is me spinning a little, or perhaps you used the term carelessly, but it seems like describing helping kids who've lost their parents (and it should be emphasised, of course, that having parents ain't always a benefit) as an evil is, at best, poor phrasing.

[PLAYER57832]

Would love to see the law proposal that will "allow gay couples to adopt troubled children but not un-troubled children", that will surely create a lot of stir. Forgive me for not knowing but in the US are or are gay couples banned from adopting children? Or is that a state-by-state issue? Do some states allow and others prohibit? Just curious.

Adoption is generally regulated within individual states. In Florida, homosexuals can be foster parents, but cannot adopt (unless the law changed recently). They are noted for allowing a homosexual couple to foster, very successfully, several kids with AIDS.. but won't allow that couple or even one of the individuals to adopt the kids they have had for several years.

Another case highlighted Texas law, when a child was removed after a new social worker discovered that the foster parent was homosexual (this was not hidden, the other social worker thought the home was reasonable despite the homosexuality).

California, by contrast, has for years allowed homosexual adoptions.

In ALL states, adoptive parents going through any kind of agency are screened pretty well. The criteria vary.. Catholic Charities, for example, famously won't adopt out to homosexuals at all. Some adoptions don't go through an agency. A parent can generally decide to hand over their child to whomever they want.
However, one note should be added. In the US, fully healthy white babies and even fully healthy babies of other races (or mixed) are pretty much "wanted", with long waiting lists. Older kids, kids with any kind of disability, sibling groups.. they can have a hard time finding a good home. Some agencies will sort of "overlook" the restrictions if the child being adopted meets one of these criteria.