Well a gay dad could teach his son how to have safe vigorous sex with multiple strangers and be damn proud of it too!
Oh not all gays are like the image scott evil is creating in my mind?
I didn’t think so, each person stands on their own merits and shouldn’t be prevented from being an adoptive parent just because of sexual orientation.
Cagiva, wanna keep those trashy personal insults out of GD? Thanks ever so.
:rolleyes:
Esprix
Belladonna and Dangerosa, you made me laugh so hard I wet my pants and now my cookies are ruined!
You keep cookies in your pants? Or is “cookies” a slang term for something else.
This guy better not run into my lesbian sister, her partner and their two daughters.
And what should we do if a child is being raised by the opposite gender parent because the other parent died or deserted the family? Do we make the parent marry for the child’s sake? Even if they don’t love or want a new spouse. That would be a great two-parent family :rolleyes:
Everyone knows that a child would prefer to grow up in an orphanage, feeling unwanted and most probably unloved, having to share caretakers with 10? 15? 20? other children, rather than be adopted by homosexuals wishing to provide a loving, stable home for that child…
Among all the anti-gay prejudices and laws, I probably despise this one the most, because it’s not only anti-gay, it’s also anti-child. To be so inhumane in the name of “morals”! THAT is immoral!
I’m sure you’re all familiar with this case: http://www.lethimstay.com , where a gay couple in Florida has been providing a foster home for several kids with HIV. One of the boys, who has been in this home since he was 9 weeks old, stopped testing positive and is under age 14 – so now he’s considered “adoptable”. Just not by his foster parents, because they’re gay. If you haven’t read about the story, please do. If that doesn’t make your blood boil… :mad:
What? did I open up the wrong thread? No this is in the BBQ pit, where the trash is heaped so high one needs a crane to see over the pile of shit here.
Touchy aren’t we?
Psst! Esprix, look up!
It’s the BBQ, insults definitely allowed AND
Caviga – Ding! We have a winner. And I was trying so hard to be nice about the piled-high hypocrisy here.
Getting… Angry… Must… Rantttttt…
I’m so glad that we’ll give the thousands of overlooked babies languishing in adoption centers, (silly straights paying $5000 to baby-finders in eritea!) to two fathers who will teach them unabashedly about periods, because being gay means you’re qualified, in between bouts of vigorous but safe casual sex with multiple partners, and don’t you straights complain about that, you wouldn’t understand, it’s a gay thing.
I have a table for standard, party of two…
I think Squish was talking about when your vagina starts spiting out cookies automatically (if you stuff it with flour and chocolate chips instead of yarn). If you are still wearing your underwear when it happens, and then pee your pants, the cookies are ruined.
(Whole new meaning to bun in the oven - not to mention a whole new reason to practice kegals during and after pregnancy).
Ya know Ace, you are right…this isn’t about a better home than an institutional or foster care (although there are plenty of older children languishing in these enviorments), because there aren’t enough healthy white american babies.
AND IT DOESN’T MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE.
A straight person providing a stable home has no more right to a baby than a gay person providing a stable home.
You must like the Pit Ace0Spades. Here, you don’t have to support your arguments, treat people with respect and compassion, and avoid rampant generalizations – those were never your strong suits, anyway.
Ace, I try to understand what people are saying behind their assumptions and not deem them assholes for saying something that seems obnoxious – but you’re definitely pushing the envelope.
My assumption, shared by I think every poster here, is that every adoptable child deserves the best parent(s) that can be found for him. If that means a traditional 1950s nuclear family, great. If that means the child’s widowed grandmother who loves him/her, great. If that means two men or two women who have created themselves into a family and are looking to nurture a child, also great.
One concern that has been pointed out elsewhere by people who try to reason about the subject, and my wife, who is emphatically not anti-gay, has argued with me cogently for this point of view, is that a large proportion of gay people, having experienced rejection by their social community and having had to focus internally and deal with a great deal of pain, may not be “socially equipped” to be an effective parenting unit. She (and I) hasten to add that that is not to tar all gay people nor to draw a line between gays and straights – we know several straight young people who would make as effective parents as their weight in tree shrews, thanks to their extreme self-centeredness. But it is an argument against some gay people adopting.
On the other hand, I’ve seen numerous cases here of gay people reaching out to lend a compassionate helping hand to others with problems, and that’s merely with what little help one can be across the Internet. I could easily see andygirl or matt_mcl and/or Hamish as highly effective in a parenting role, just to name three (and three quite young people, BTW). I had rather see gobear or Homebrew raising a child than a fair proportion of the clowns who cannot think for themselves and who have wandered onto this board of late – several names come to mind, as they will to you. (Note that Homebrew has two children of his own, for whom he seems to be a near-ideal father, and I hope to meet him and them someday when I venture west from here.)
As noted, this is trying to examine the potential parenting skills of people on an individual basis, not on the basis of some stereotype.
Thank you Dangerosa – that’s an honest statement, and one I can agree with – if people are equally qualified, they shouldn’t be discriminated against. ADA.
Hamish, I like the pit? That’s some chuztpah from someone who likes to call people bigoted Nazi’s in GD. Don’t worry – I don’t take it personally. Did you ever find a study on the outcomes of gay quebecois parents? Or did once again factual answers get shut down as being too politically touchy? The Straight Dope once again didn’t show enough “respect and compassion?”
I’m sorry if I offended the rest of ya, but the echo chamber of got to be a bit much. Why not post the Rosie O’D column to GD – I bet you’d get some responses both interesting and supported. That is, if you want to hear opposing views.
-Ace
Just one, actually. But he’s a handful. Otherwise, thanks for the kudos and I’ll look forward to you visiting.
Your argument in that thread was based in the idea that gay people were plotting to spread homosexuality by adopting children and making them gay, raising the shadow of an us-against-them, gay people out-populating straight people, over-run-by-the-pink-menace scenario. This was scarier than anything I’ve ever heard Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson say. If that’s not bigotry, I don’t know what is.
One of our local weeklies, the Voir, did an excellent job of debunking the gay-parents-create-gay-children myth about a week after that thread vanished from GD. If I’d known we’d cross swords on this subject again, I would have saved it. Frankly, I’d hoped you’d learned something. Apparently not.
And I can’t believe you have the nerve to accuse me of being non-factual. You’re the guy who presented his all-lesbians-hate-men-and-own-only-female-dogs theory as if it were a proven fact.
Polycarp
First and foremost, I hardly think I’m pushing the envelope to attack factual and logical errors anywhere on the Straight Dope Message Board. It’s the SD – at the end of the day, we stand for truth. And respect, compassion, and, well, niceness (to a point) are subordinate to that. There’s plenty of websites where gay posters will get nothing but respect and compassion – that’s not here.
If gays want to be treated equally, they shouldn’t squall every time somebody jumps into one of their threads with pointed attacks on their position. Feel free to call me bigoted, etc. You may want to check my postings on other subjects first. I think you’ll find I treat bullshit very even-handedly.
Poly, one of the frustrations in dealing with touchy minority topics, and this is one of the reasons that makes the SDMB such a perfect place to discuss it, is even the most fundamental truths are refuted by members of the persecuted minority, leading to debasement of the discussion, debasement of the truth.
For instance, your third paragraph, which would be self-evident to a normal thoughtful person, becomes a football on the slippery slope of the gay adoption argument, and the debate would open up to ad hominem attacks, and vehment denials by some that this could ever be the case.
Now I can understand that there are some people in this fucked up world that would take that admission, and change the goal-posts in some venal attempt to reinstate oppression. I think those people are few and far between, and certainly none of them bother convincing people on this obscure message board.
As none of us are ‘in power,’ I fail to see why we should not stay focused on our mission of alleviating ignorance, which is to say, not participating in the echo chamber of group think.
Now I’m going to say something really painful. In the gay community, the ‘defend the ramparts’ mentality of denying basic facts to destroy the debate is most similar to – the right wing conservative community. Both believe all facts that support their position, and believe all facts that undermine their position are flawed, an unsupportable duality.
Consider the possibility of constructive criticism creating a better argument, a factual arguement, one not upheld by beams of faith and assumptions. But to come up with a factual argument for gay adoption, the gay community would have to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
As for the individuals on this SD, I don’t discount anecdotal information, so I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I certainly think anyone who can hold a debate on the SDMB would make a better than average parent, and don’t wish to withhold the wonders of children or any other social right that is due members of the board.
However, assuming this is an unacceptable argument, and is open to contrarian assumption. If you can’t construct a convincing argument outside of the echo chamber, what chance do you have when you step outside, and find the rest of society that needs convincing?
Staying honest,
Ace
Good gravy, it is the Pit! I withdraw the admonition.
Ace, do you really think that if a male couple adopts a child, they’re out having casual sex? 
I’d think they’d have to be settled and monogamous before they’d be allowed to adopt a child. Isn’t that true of any couple that applies to adopt - they have to show a stable home environment?
Furthermore, I certainly hope your implication isn’t that all straight couples who adopt aren’t capable of liberal sexual ethics?
Frankly, I’ve found that all my friends - gay, straight, bi or otherwise - usually benefitted from a household that wasn’t full of strict sexual taboos. My family discussed sex fairly openly (not the mechanics, mind you, but it wasn’t an embarrassing, taboo subject in the house), and, IMHO, my whole family has an amazing healthy relationship with each other and our respective partners. Personally, I don’t see it as a bad thing.
Esprix
Esprix
Hamish, you’re quite lucky I’ve ranted out for the day, as I’m afraid your post is complete manure. If anyone doubts this – I may not be able to post continuous debunkings – please check the GD thread of the similar name:
No, that was not the main point in the thread. The main point was we must do what’s best for the children.
Where did I say “plotting” and “making them gay?” Bullshit. I said it was possible that more gay kids would be raised, something many people acknowledge as a possibility. Needs more research? Yes. Plotting a pink menace? That was your invented conspiracy, not mine.
Let me help you out. Bigotry is non-factually based. I’m not bigoted against serial murders, I’m just sensible not to hire them.
So excellent you forgot to post it to GD? Do they not have websites up in Canada? I’d love to see something factual out of you.
You admitted you overreacted, something you’re once again guilty of, and I should learn things?!
This was NEVER said. Find where I said “all lesbians.” I said some do, which wasn’t much challenged!
Perhaps I am again wrong, but I still see this as an attack on me and not my argument. I think I’m beginning to see the benefits of GD…
Oh, and brilliant post that completely dodges the challenges to your statements - but a nice diatribe on “the quest for truth” nonetheless. :rolleyes:
Esprix
Actually, no - research has been done, and guess what? Kids are no more or less likely to “become gay” than with heterosexual parents. Ooo, what a shock! (After all, you can see what a tremendously good job my heterosexual parents did making me straight! :rolleyes: )
What’s best for a child is to give him/her a loving family.
Esprix
Then WTF is your problem with this topic? We’ve been around on it before. There is no evidence that a gay person or couple that passes a homestudy is any less fit to parent than a straight person or couple who passes a homestudy. There is no evidence - based on studies - gay people have been parenting for years - that their child is more likely to be gay. There is no reason to believe that a child with gay parents is likely to be more screwed up than the kid whose parents are Science Fiction Fans or Baptists or Dairy Farmers.
(And if personal experience counts - children of SF Fen are doomed).