Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:44 pm**

Lootifer wrote:I work for a State Owned Enterprise in the Electricity Sector.

There, happy now?

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:45 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with this ... it denigrates the status of children to human pets. If people want a fun experience they should get a cat, not a human.

I agree with gay adoption - as an alternative to foster care or orphanages - only for pragmatic reasons, not for any cause of justice or equality. The only rights that should be considered are the rights of the child. Adults should have no rights to acquire humans just so they can enjoy a unique experience.

Stop making me agree with you. I find it disconcerting.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:06 pm**

One of the problems with the ongoing debate here is that many people assume that parents play a an extremely dominant role in the development of their kids. Of course, the parents do play a large role; however, the question remains: compared to what? Who else or what else is also influential?

According to Judith Rich Harrison's The Nurture Assumption, it's mostly about the kids' peer groups and their parents' genes:

Summary from wiki:

Spoiler

In this book, she challenges the idea that the personality of adults is determined chiefly by the way they were raised by their parents. She looks at studies which claim to show the influence of the parental environment and claims that most fail to control for genetic influences. For example, if aggressive parents are more likely to have aggressive children, this is not necessarily evidence of parental example. It may also be that aggressiveness has been passed down through the genes. Indeed, many adopted children show little correlation with the personality of their adoptive parents, and significant correlation with the natural parents who had no part in their upbringing.

The role of genetics in personality has long been accepted in psychological research. However, even identical twins, who share the same genes, are not exactly alike, so inheritance is not the only determinate of personality. Psychologists have tended to assume that the non-genetic factor is the parental environment, the "nurture". However, Harris argues that it is a mistake to use "'nurture' ... [as] a synonym for 'environment.'"[4] Many twin studies have failed to find a strong connection between the home environment and personality. Identical twins differ to much the same extent whether they are raised together or apart. Adoptive siblings are as unalike in personality as non-related children.
...
Harris' most innovative idea was to look outside the family and to point at the peer group as an important shaper of the child's psyche. For example, children of immigrants learn the language of their home country with ease and speak with the accent of their peers rather than their parents. Children identify with their classmates and playmates rather than their parents, modify their behavior to fit with the peer group, and this ultimately helps to form the character of the individual.

Contrary to some reports, Harris did not claim that "parents don't matter". The book did not cover cases of serious abuse and neglect. Harris pointed out that parents have a role in selecting their children's peer group, especially in the early years. Parents also affect the child's behavior within the home environment and the interpersonal relationship between child and parent.

What really matters is not the parents' sexual orientation, but the parents' genes, the childrens' peer groups, and also the parents themselves.

The Official Beebs Overview

1) Many have overestimated the role of parents in here and have neglected other significant factors.

2) Those who oppose adoptions to gay couples will have to provide credible support that gay couples raise kids who fare worse off than kids raised by heterosexual parents.

3) And if (2) is the case, then they have to argue for a morally acceptable and also a credible cost-benefits argument in favor of prohibiting gays from adopting kids.

4) Alongside (3), then comes the means, i.e. how will such a prohibition or what-have-you be implemented? Through formal institutions (i.e. the state), or informal institutions (i.e. community-based approval/disapproval, child adoption services--some of which may fall under the formal category, etc.).

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:08 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with this ... it denigrates the status of children to human pets. If people want a fun experience they should get a cat, not a human.

I agree with gay adoption - as an alternative to foster care or orphanages - only for pragmatic reasons, not for any cause of justice or equality. The only rights that should be considered are the rights of the child. Adults should have no rights to acquire humans just so they can enjoy a unique experience.

I completely agree but it is hard to seperate equality out of the equation:

- Perfectly well balanced loving parents who plan to dedicate their entire existence into raising this child in the best way possible - DENIED (same sex couple)

- [Some random strawman couple where the potential parents are going to do a worse job of raising the children for one reason or another] - ACCEPTED (hetrosexual couple).

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:20 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.
Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents.
So then when a divorce happens, the children should become wards of the state, in your view?

Do the parents disappear in cases of divorce? Or are the parents still in the child's life and still provide the nurturing that children need and deserve; although in most cases, on a one on one basis? In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this discussion as everyone would live happily ever after. So I'm not really sure what divorce has to do with wards of state woody as I in no way eluded to that.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:46 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with this ... it denigrates the status of children to human pets. If people want a fun experience they should get a cat, not a human.

I agree with gay adoption - as an alternative to foster care or orphanages - only for pragmatic reasons, not for any cause of justice or equality. The only rights that should be considered are the rights of the child. Adults should have no rights to acquire humans just so they can enjoy a unique experience.
Stop making me agree with you. I find it disconcerting.

My job here is done. Saxi's Audi.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:59 pm**

bedub1 wrote:I think this question is too narrow.
Should single men be allowed to adopt?
Should single women be allowed to adopt?
Should non-married couples be allowed to adopt?
Should married couples with low income levels be allowed to adopt?
Should Liberals be allowed to adopt?
Should Conservatives be allowed to adopt?
Should Religious people be allowed to adopt?
Should Atheists be allowed to adopt?
Should Agnostics be allowed to adopt?

EDIT: Oops...I forgot a couple things
Should poor people be allowed to adopt?
Should minorities be allowed to adopt?
If a married man and woman with children get divorced, should the children be taken and given up for adoption?
Should single women be allowed to give birth, or should they have abortions forced upon them?

I'd side-step this by saying that it depends on the rules designed by the adoption agencies and on whatever regulations the State and/or federal government have established.

Income, job stability, having a home, etc. are important factors, and since these factors probably fail to encompass less tractable variables (e.g. love, commitment, etc.), then a better design of rules and the adoption of rules should be at State level. City-level would be ideal, but it also depends on the means of which parentless kids are distributed.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:00 pm**

MeDeFe wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.
Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents. Each gender provides something to the child that one inherently cannot do; not to say that one can't try but it's a very different type of nurturing, period! As children grow older they will not only identify the differences with their parents but will also endure the mean, spirited children that we have in our schools today regarding their "parents". On the flip side, I agree; every child deserves the love of two person(s) taking on the role of parents, I just think that it would be more suited for the children long term with a man and woman taking on that role. Just my thoughts on the matter.
None of this makes adoption by gay couples seem like a bad idea in any way, though.

And that is the REAL point. Few people would argue that the BEST model is a man and a woman who live together in a reasonably run family unit. However, the real key to that is not the "man/woman" aspect, it is the "reasonable family unit" part. Plenty of married couples are horrid parents. Plenty of single people struggle mightily and barely handle parenting alone (or are plain horrid). A stable, loving, homosexual couple is better for the child than EITHER of those options. If nothing else, few homosexual couples become parents "by accident". That, ALONE means they have a high rate of sucess, compared to heterosexual couples.

Also, who is to say that your ideas of gender specificity are "the" only model. In fact, they are not. The "traditional" parent rearing model you envision is really only about 200 years old, at most.. and only for certain classes of individuals. (wealthy people, for example, typically use governesses or nannies, tutors, etc.; poor folks often had to send kids off to work very early, giving them little real parenting).

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:02 pm**

I think the people in charge of giving away the child should have some say in the decision, and I think the child should have a say too.

Seems fair

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:16 pm**

codeblue1018 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.
Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents.
So then when a divorce happens, the children should become wards of the state, in your view?
Do the parents disappear in cases of divorce?

Fairly often, yes.

codeblue1018 wrote:Or are the parents still in the child's life and still provide the nurturing that children need and deserve; although in most cases, on a one on one basis?

Not in most cases, I don't believe. I believe in most cases, survival takes precedence, along with what seems to be the requisite "poisoning the children toward the other".

codeblue1018 wrote:In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this discussion as everyone would live happily ever after. So I'm not really sure what divorce has to do with wards of state woody as I in no way eluded to that.

And yet, you're trying to paint it as the perfect world that it's not.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:18 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:I think the people in charge of giving away the child should have some say in the decision

I agree, as long as they're not being bigoted.

Phatscotty wrote:, and I think the child should have a say too.

I can agree with that.

Phatscotty wrote:Seems fair

As long as they're not being bigoted.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:24 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:I think the child should have a say too.

I'd agree that if the child was of an age they could express an opinion and expressed revulsion or opposition to living with a gay person, or Jews, or Baptists, or white people, or whomever, it would be beyond irresponsible for any agency to place them there for the sake of some grand social experiment in equality. I'm pretty sure this is already accounted for, however.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:29 pm**

Sandusky adopted a kid?

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:31 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:
fusibaseball wrote:To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.
Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents.
So then when a divorce happens, the children should become wards of the state, in your view?
Do the parents disappear in cases of divorce?
Fairly often, yes.

codeblue1018 wrote:Or are the parents still in the child's life and still provide the nurturing that children need and deserve; although in most cases, on a one on one basis?
Not in most cases, I don't believe. I believe in most cases, survival takes precedence, along with what seems to be the requisite "poisoning the children toward the other".

codeblue1018 wrote:In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this discussion as everyone would live happily ever after. So I'm not really sure what divorce has to do with wards of state woody as I in no way eluded to that.
And yet, you're trying to paint it as the perfect world that it's not.

Woody, read what I write please. It's not a perfect world is what I meant, hence the "in a perfect world" comment.

If I were divorced, I would make sure my son saw his mother as much as possible if I had custody and if she did; I'd make sure I saw my son as much as humanly possible also. I believe most divorced parents would feel the same way. I will agree that there are plenty of deadbeat parents out there, however, clearly not the majority. I see this daily woody; it is clear to me that in most cases of divorce, the children are cared for, loved and spend equal time with either parent, which in these unfortunate situations, that is the best alternative.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:33 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I think the people in charge of giving away the child should have some say in the decision
I agree, as long as they're not being bigoted.

Phatscotty wrote:, and I think the child should have a say too.
I can agree with that.

Phatscotty wrote:Seems fair
As long as they're not being bigoted.

Why would anyone be bigoted against the people giving away the child and the child? Do they have ideas that the adopting parents are bigoted against?

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:37 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:Sandusky adopted a kid?

He adopted, he fostered many kids as well. He created charities (Second Mile is the most significant of those) for kids. He had a genuinely very good reputation. That was partly why it took so long for people to believe the charges.

See, the problem with teaching kids things like "don't talk to strangers" is that they tend to envision something like a monster. Nice guys who buy them things and are friendly, genuinely outwardly nice guys (aside from the obvious) are not "bad guys". "bad guys look ugly, are mean...etc. We, in society somehow tend to think that way, also.

And, frankly, your rhetoric here is just a continuation of that kind of erroneous and very harmful bias. Sandusky was not homosexual, was not really "odd", despite the fact that half of State College is now proclaiming they "knew something was different about him". (seriously) He was NICE guy. Most successful pedophiles appear that way, appear very straight-laced.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:45 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I think the people in charge of giving away the child should have some say in the decision
I agree, as long as they're not being bigoted.

Phatscotty wrote:, and I think the child should have a say too.
I can agree with that.

Phatscotty wrote:Seems fair
As long as they're not being bigoted.
Why would anyone be bigoted against the people giving away the child and the child? Do they have ideas that the adopting parents are bigoted against?

This is called an "open adoption". And today, most adoption agencies have some form of this. They try to take things like religion, etc into account. In some cases, the mother gets to actually choose the adoptive family. In other cases, just makes more general "requests". That is, at least if the child is white and fully healthy or with one of the "innocuous" "defects" like blindness.

As for the "being bigoted", that gets touchy. Its hard to even assess, for one thing. However, a prospective parent who is seen to be "to picky" in what they want in a child is just not going to have as easy a time adopting, at least through most agencies. Remember this is about placing a child with parents who will love that child.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:25 pm**

Phatscotty wrote: Why would anyone be bigoted against the people giving away the child and the child? Do they have ideas that the adopting parents are bigoted against?

You're missing the point [on purpose].

Here is an example of bigotry:

- Perfectly well balanced loving parents who plan to dedicate their entire existence into raising this child in the best way possible - DENIED (same sex couple)

- [Some random strawman couple where the potential parents are going to do a worse job of raising the children for one reason or another] - ACCEPTED (hetrosexual couple).

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:35 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:Or are the parents still in the child's life and still provide the nurturing that children need and deserve; although in most cases, on a one on one basis?
Not in most cases, I don't believe. I believe in most cases, survival takes precedence, along with what seems to be the requisite "poisoning the children toward the other".

US divorces vary by state. Some states have pretty good systems that involve counseling for all involved, mediation for all but the most serious cases and so forth. Others are travesties.

In many cases, the man is effectively nothing but a check book. For a while, many psycologists actually fed into this. Many times, kids would return from a short visit with Dad and totally act up. The wonderful psycologists often labeled the Dad as a "bad parent", "causing trauma". In truth, it was a symptom of kids not having enough time with Dad. (usually was Dad labeled the bad guy). Some places still think the old way, though. And, there are plenty of "man hating" attorneys out there (seriously!) who see almost every man as an abuser, women as victims. And plenty of women are masters at manipulation themselves. (not to mention the con men, etc.. don't let me seem to be claiming that only women are bad guys.)

Sometimes jobs, other issues take the non-custodial paretn away. Sometimes the other parent really NEEDED to be taken out of the picture.

Sometimes parents just cannot let go of their anger and wind up putting the kids in the middle.

It is hard to have a happy marriage. It is even harder to have a happy divorce for the kids.

codeblue1018 wrote:In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this discussion as everyone would live happily ever after. So I'm not really sure what divorce has to do with wards of state woody as I in no way eluded to that.

in some states, children of divorced parents actually do become semi wards of the state for the proceedings, with their own representation until the custody matters are settled. I actually think its a decent system. Kids interests may not agree with either the Dad's or Mom's fully. What is best for them is some kind of system that gets the parents to work together as much as possible on parenting.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:39 pm**

Don't libtards want to kill children by keeping abortion legal? I don't see why they think they should have a say in the actually alive kids' lives.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:43 pm**

Furthermore, the Taliban are a clear and present threat to our nation. We must support more funding for our troops!

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:45 pm**

you are both half right.

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:56 pm**

Well, let's have the independent weigh in.

What's your position on the gay abolition of Taliban-conceived marriages involving the adoption of three or more gay children?

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:58 pm**

Mission accomplished sparky!

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:03 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:Don't libtards want to kill children by keeping abortion legal? I don't see why they think they should have a say in the actually alive kids' lives.

Only conservitards actually believe that is true.

Conquer Club

Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption

Re: Gay Adoption