Then norm = the norm. :rolleyes:
Sorry, it’s late here!
You seem to be making an unsupported leap from “children raised by gay parents will be somewhat more likely to be gay themselves” to “gay parents are deliberately attempting to breed gay children”. Even supposing that gay parents will produce more openly gay children (a defensible supposition even if homosexuality is 100% genetic, simply because say, extremely conservative religious parents are more likely to raise children whose homosexuality is permanently stifled), this is still not the same thing as a deliberate attempt to breed a race of homosexuals.
Of course gay parents will affect their childrens’ attitudes towards homosexuality (even if they don’t really succeed in producing a population of children with a significantly greater proprotion of homosexuals). And Christian parents will breed little Christians, atheists will breed little atheists, liberatrians will breed little libertarians. According to your standard, all adoptive parents are “using children as pawns” for “breeding engineering” on behalf of their assorted agendas according to your standard–I mean, that’s what adoptive parents do, they “engineer” children to accept this or that set of values and ideas, a process also known as “raising kids”. I suppose we should abandon adoption altogether, and have orphans raised by emotionless computers. And let’s not forget about all those natural-born children either–people deliberately creating children for the purpose of creating new legions of Lutherans, Jews, Secular Humanists, opera lovers, suburbanites, lawyers, Star Wars fans, athletes, bookworms, environmentalists, hunters, Democrats, Socialists, anti-Semites, vegetarians, meat eaters, sweets lovers, homophobes, liberals, Unitarians, bigots, multiculturalists, slow drivers in the left lane, tax cheats, law-adiding citizens, handymen, ballroom dancers, and human cannonballs. Clearly, we must have all children taken from their “parents” at birth and raised by the robo-nannies to prevent them from being used as “pawns” to further all these nefarious agendas.
Of course, in the real world, depite everything that parents (adoptive or otherwise) can do, children are cantankerous little beasts and often wind up developing minds of their own, despite everyone’s best efforts.
The latest news on this from the UK is that the amendment put to Parliament that would have excluded gay couples from adopting as a couple (rather than one of the couple adopting as an individual) has been defeated, so gay couples will be able to adopt.
But what if the robonannies were gay?
I wouldn’t go so far to say that the gay community is deliberately planning to out-breed the straights by leveraging the adoption process – but it is a beneficial side effect, and one that is alternatingly acknowledged and ducked. Hence the “It doesn’t happen” “So what if it does?” twin arguments. Again, this is my answer to the “So what if it does?” crowd. In the stead of extremely good science to the contrary (and certainly I wouldn’t assume un-closeted gay kids to count here, that’s a net benefit), let me argue commonsense over whether it does or it doesn’t: The argument for a “gay gene,” a gene that has been annulling the reproductive process for millennia – has there been, in the history of genetic theory, a more absurd gene? Secondly, it’s a cliché that we are grounded in male-female relationships by our parents, and that we’ll usually emulate them and end up marrying someone like our mother. Does this trope’s insight vanish under our scenario of two mothers?
I’ll concede that the Star Wars fans must be stopped. Of course, the differences between natural childbirth and governmental allowed adoption are obvious. Again, a natural birth is a right, adoption is not. That’s the difference, and that’s why we weigh the potential harm to the children. Further, your charming argument ignores current reality – our government already makes these decisions over who can adopt, or are you saying whomever wants children should have them? Wife abusers, for instance, can have a natural child, but that doesn’t entitle them to one from the state!
If you find another parallel of non-reproductive parents that wish raise children like themselves, ignoring how flawed that childhood might be, using the Government’s womb in place of their own, rest assured I’ll be against that too.
That would be one word for it. I can think of several others, none of which are appropriate out of the BBQ Pit.
Really. I’m sure a few have. I’m sure a few came to the opposite conclusion. It might be interesting to see who’s doing these studies, how the studies were conducted, etc. But of course, you don’t mention even one for us to discuss and debate. I’ve known loving single mothers with intelligent, well-adjusted children.
Most of the people I grew up with were from “broken homes” or raised by unmarried parents. Some of the worst and least-responsisble parents I’ve known have been legally married.
I hear a lot about “appropriate gender roles” in this debate. What are “appropriate gender roles?” Mom in the kitchen baking cookies, dad home from a long day in the office? Boys in shop, girls in home economics?
“Ward, will you talk to the Beaver again?”
I thought “gender roles” were a kind of nonsense we were trying to get rid of. So we could stop being judged as “men” and “women” and move on to being judged as just “people.”
Followed the link. It took me to the “Ethics and Public Policy Center,” which clearly states its mandate:
'Nuff said. The link specifically is a couple of lines of book review for something called No Basis, which purports to find flaws in existing studies of gay parents raising children. Hard to judge from a short blurb, but it didn’t seem to make mention of any counter-arguments of its own, or present any contradicting studies.
When in the names of all the gods did Ellen say that? Link please. I’d also like to hear about how you arrived at the “some percentage of the current gay populace.”
I can speak for myself, and say that my sexual orientation is something that’s been with me as long as I can remember. I consider it inborn. The overwhelming number of gays and lesbians I know believe the same. Canadian folk-grunge musician Ashley MacIsaac once said he chose to be gay, but he’s the only one I know of, and as an exception practically proves the rule.
:rolleyes:
Should have noticed this was coming, sooner or later. If you really want to breed fear against a minority, bring up breeding.
Yes, that’s right Ace0Spades. It’s a plot, and you’ve just figured it out. We’re planning to raise gay children, breeding an army of homosexuals, soon we’ll have one in every neighbourhood, convincing the little girls to play with trucks and the boys to play with dolls. Next stop, communism.
This might surprise you, but your argument is not original. The idea that it’s us-or-them-and-they’ll-overwhelm-us-by-sheer-numbers-and-power is the argument of Nazis against Jews and the Klan against black people. Congratulations in finding a way to apply it to gays.
We are not social engineering, okay? We simply want to be recognized as equal partners in society. We want our relationships recognized as equal relationships. We want to be able to walk down the street at night holding hands without being afraid that some band of punks is going to drag us into an alley and kill us. We want to know that the next generation of gay kids isn’t going to be thrown out of their homes for being gay. And we want the right to raise kids, as any other couple would.
Most of the lesbian and gay parents I know are careful not to try and push any sexual orientation. A few are actually terrified their children will be gay, because some idiot try and put 2 and 2 together and come up with 1,826. A gay parent has a gay child, it will always be assumed that the parent made them that way, even if the statistics for gay children raised by gay parents is no higher than for the general population.
I think prejudice could be defined as seeing patterns in society that aren’t there. This is one of them.
What you have interpreted as “social engineering” is in fact a debating tactic – why would it be a bad thing if there were more gay people, unless society considers being gay a bad thing? It’s not a plot – it’s just meant to expose prejudices inherent in the argument.
:rolleyes:
I’m not touching that one with a ten-foot pole. Some things are better left unsaid.
Let’s see. Lesbians are misandrist. Only adopt female dogs. How do you come to this conclusion? Circle all that apply.
[list=1]
[li]Someone said so on TV?[/li][li]You met a lesbian, she wasn’t very nice to you, and she owned a female dog?[/li][li]It was in either The Enquirer or The Star, along with the latest predictions of Nostradamus?[/li][/list=1]
None of the lesbians I know are misandrist. Most of them have close male friends. I’m sure a few such women exist, of course – prejudice creates prejudice after all, and I’m sure a few lesbians have given up on the entire male world because of the sexism and homophobia they’ve encountered – but they’re far from the majority as you seem to portray them.
You draw the line at risk of harm to the child.
As for being raised by a bigot, my father was a very extreme one, a true believer in the superiority of certain races. I’ve made a concerted effort to confront and and rid myself of the prejudices I was raised with – my own experience with prejudice as a gay man helped accelerate this. If I were adopt – and I’d like to some day – I would make every effort to ensure that my child would not be raised racist.
I’m not a duplicate of my father. Almost no one is a duplicate of their parents. I find your premise flawed.
You see, it isn’t gay people who are suggesting social engineering, it is you. You take an unproven premise, probably baseless, about children of gay parents being “injured psychically.” You then place gay parents on the bottom rung of your adoption hierarchy.
Okay, did that make sense to anyone else? If, by “gay gene theory,” you mean the belief that homosexuality is genetic, how would that lead to rejection of straight children, 96% of the time. If you mean the study of gay men and their brothers, I don’t see what relevance that has either.
Really. Do you really believe this? That gay parents will toss away their straight children, like trash, because they aren’t straight? I’m sorry, but I cannot imagine a single gay parent actually doing this, much less 96% of them. And what kind of a figure is 96% anyway? It sounds very exact. Where did you unearth this theory?
Never understood this argument.
Firstly, this would not be grounds to deny members of any one religion adoption. We all know that, right?
Secondly, it’s a vicious circle. Prejudice exists – so gay people can’t adopt – so gay people are always a category apart or below – so homosexuality never comes to be accepted as normal in society – so prejudice exists – so gay people can’t adopt…
Thirdly, I find this argument really strange because most of the time, I knew nothing in elementary school about my classmates’s families. I didn’t find out until grade 11 that one of my classmates – a guy in the gifted program who was also captain of the basketball team – had a lesbian mother.
Once again. Unfit parents on what grounds? Nothing you said is a fact, all conjecture and opinion. You do not have anecdotal evidence. You do not have statistics. Your perception of us and of our community and our lives seems to be based entirely in rumour and assumption.
If this is the case against gay adoption, I think you’ve just made the case for :mad:
Once again, rhetorical device. They are trying to expose your prejudices. In other words, it doesn’t happen, but imagine a world in which it did. Why would that be a bad thing?
You are trying to create a fear of a “pink menace” – your little caveat of “not deliberately” does nothing to undermine that argument. Trying to inspire fear of the straight population being overwhelmed, forced into hiding.
The argument would be silly if the situation weren’t so serious – this argument has appeared again and again through 150, and where people have listened to it, taken it seriously, it has lead to violence. Your use of it here is irresponsible, and I’m just glad that most people on the boards are sensible enough to see it for what it is.
Most gay people know it’s inborn. Frankly, it’s beginning to get on my nerves that some people seem convinced that they know us better than we know ourselves.
For the record, the genetic question is one not yet solved by science, but which is taken seriously. The 1993 admittedly-flawed Dean Hamer study suggested that the “sexuality genes” were on the tip of the X chromosome, a region, as I understand it, given to frequent mutation. Factor in that most gay people had to marry to protect themselves, and prior to about 250 years ago almost all marriages were arranged, and you can see the theory is less “absurd.”
Besides, inborn does not necessarily mean genetic, only present at birth. Many researchers do not believe left-handedness is genetic, but that it is already determined at birth.
So, you’re worried that two mothers would interfere with the natural functioning of the Oedipus Complex? I’m sorry, I’m not a fan of Freud.
Gays aren’t wife-abusers. To equate my loving relationships with brutal physical violence is insulting and dehumanizing.
White adoptive mom of Asian child here…
When you go into the whole adoption thing, you are asked to make a lot of decisions about what you choose to deal with. Are you interested in a non-infant? A special needs child? Physcially challenged or mentally challenged? Both? Only a girl? A non-white child? Asian? Black? Hispanic?
When you adopt and you say “I only want a white child,” your social worker will likely say “why.” If you say “I want my child to look like me,” there will be lots of discussion about your adoptive child NEVER being your bio child and your expectations for adoption. This throws up all sorts of red flags for your social worker. The better answer is “I don’t think I’m cut out to have a multicultual family.” Being a “racist” in this context is not necessarily being a racist at all. Its acknowledging that our society is far from color blind and it takes a special person to exist in a multi-racial family.
Social workers try not to approve homestudies of wife beaters (note I didn’t say "give children to, because they often simply “facilitate placement” and don’t make the decisions themselves on what child goes where) because they believe a wife beater (and a beaten wife) aren’t in a position to love and cherish a child, although its fairly easy to pass the homestudy and hide all sorts of things from the social worker (can’t hide felony convictions, they show up on the background check - also, you’ll need to provide your tax return, so if you are going to lie about your income, you’d better lie the same as you did to the IRS). They do approve homestudies for Christians who are intolerant of non-Christians and for atheists (although its easier to join the Unitarian church than to risk having a non-understanding social worker). They approve homestudies for single women and single men. And gay and lesbian couples. And people who go to Star Trek conventions. And people who downhill ski. And straight couples who use handcuffs in the bedroom. They probably approve homestudies for racists, too (but if you are dumb enough to mention the white sheets during the homestudy, you probably won’t get approved). Social workers try to make sure you are going to make room in your life to love and cherish a child - that’s about it.
Hamish, I’m making the argument in a forum for such. People wanted to hear what the good faith, non-regligous arguments were against gay adoption. Take them for what they are.
I’m articulating what many, many people feel. Beyond that, I can’t address your arguments that contain accusations of bigotry, nazism, or violence. They’re not accurate, and I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with ad hominem and emotionally charged outbursts. If you wish to continue to insinuate crimes of character rather than whatever arguments I’ve raised, please raise them in the pit.
If you wish to debate my points, I’m happy to work through my argument with you – I will, however, not stand for personal attacks.
Find me a personal attack in what Hamish had to say. Go ahead. Find me where he called you a bigot. Hint for those following at home - vigorous attacks of one’s argument are not vigorous attacks of oneself.
Of course he was emotional - you were giving reasons (such as they were) why he and his friends and lovers ought to be denied fundamental human rights. But he was debating you. He rebutted your points by requesting citations, refuting unsupported statements, and making counter-statements.
If you like, I could go through his argument with you. Howevever, if you cannot be bothered to respond to the points he made, you should not be in this thread.
By the way, Ace, I addressed most of the points you made in support of your view in my own post up a little ways, and came out with the idea that they do not suggest that gay couples would not, in general, make good adoptive parents.
Would you consider reviewing my post and reacting to it?
matt_mcl, here you go:
That’s 1.
And yet it got mentioned anyhow. Being sly with the implication of bigotry doesn’t lessen the charge.
Finding a way? So I’m charged personally am search for ways to be bigoted against gays? Whatever.
Matt, if you want to pick out the wheat from that chaff, I’m happy to mull over whatever debate points you found – but let’s try not to make this a personal issue – I’m not an elected official, just a poster on a board with a few maverick opinions. I’m willing to be wrong, but I’m not willing to be assaulted.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but he explicitly said that he was not going to attack you personally outside the pit.
As for your third “interpretation,” it is so out there as to be ludicrous. You are not “charged personally am search to be bigoted against gays” (yikes! Babelfish is not your friend) - you have already found them, and expressed them somewhat more fluently than that in your posts above.
Sure, Polycarp. I thought most of what you said was accurate. Here are my caveats:
This I take it, is from personal experience. Unfortunately, the adoption agency isn’t interviewing those third parties, are they? A quality role model needs bonding time with the child, not just weekend visits with some football tossing uncle. And what if the child doesn’t want to leave the uncles house – would both mothers be willing to let him have guy time? Your argument raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps if gay parents had a contractual role model, nah, that’d probably be way too unwieldly.
I certainly don’t argue from a religious basis. Gay couples are fine; Gay adoption is flawed, as per my argument above.
Anyone here see the NY Times article about Sperm Donors this morning?
Sure, Polycarp. I thought most of what you said was accurate. Here are my caveats:
This I take it, is from personal experience. Unfortunately, the adoption agency isn’t interviewing those third parties, are they? A quality role model needs bonding time with the child, not just weekend visits with some football tossing uncle. And what if the child doesn’t want to leave the uncles house – would both mothers be willing to let him have guy time? Your argument raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps if gay parents had a contractual role model, nah, that’d probably be way too unwieldly.
I certainly don’t argue from a religious basis. Gay couples are fine; Gay adoption is flawed, as per my argument above.
Anyone here see the NY Times article about Sperm Donors this morning?
Yeah, sure. That’s like “I won’t mention how Bill Clinton might have caused 9-11.” You’ve mentioned it, ok?
Listen, if you always shut down legitimate debate by imputing evil motives to the other side, don’t complain about the quality of the debate.
Again, if you wish to debate my character, we know where to post.
And if you wish to debate my argument, I welcome it. It’s be a nice change of pace.
Apologies for the double post, typos, etc… SMDB Hamster self-destructed.
Look, I may have flown off the handle. But frankly, your post terrified me, and with good reason.
Midway through the 19th century, some Europeans began making an argument they called “Social Darwinism.” This was a pseudo-scientific argument that postulated that the various races and ethnic groups were in competition, and that the ones who were most “successful” would inherit the world. It was thought that a major aspect of this success was the ability to “out-breed” the other races.
Society was inundated with propaganda from these people, and this propaganda became the “moral” justification – that is the rationalization – for colonization. It’s typified in the quote, “It’s the white man’s burden to control the lesser races.”
Although there is not one scrap of evidence to support it, it is the theory that will not die. It feeds nationalism. It was one of the primary causes of World War I and World War II.
Like most of our worst ideas, the West has exported it well. “Social Darwinism” has become the new face of old prejudices everywhere. Old religious and tribal comflicts have metamorphosed into “competition among groups,” and become reinvigorated in the process.
I opened this thread expecting the usual “I-consider-homosexuality-immoral” attitudes. Fine. I’m used to that. But when you invoked the Social-Darwinist point of view in your first two posts, I became scared. There is already a pretty ugly backlash forming against us for asking for the same rights everyone else enjoys. I should have known that sooner or later, Social-Darwinism would be applied to gay people.
Sure. Whip people up in fear. That’s the point of the argument, ultimately - of your suggestion that gay parents (or at least “96%” of them) will reject a straight child, creating a climate of fear and forcing straight people into the closet.
In other words, it’s Us or Them. That’s the Social-Darwinist paradigm. Draw the lines very precisely, so everyone knows who’s who, and who’s the enemy. This is what you’ve done by essentially postulating a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy of which I am, supposedly, a part.
I’m scared. I’m scared because I know that while I live in a time where things are good, there have been many other points in history (Weimar Republic Berlin, early Renaissance Italy, post-Cromwell England, etc.) where we enjoyed some measure of freedom only to see it get stolen away again. I’m terrified to see that happen again in my lifetime.
We are a group of people who harm no one, who’ve contributed our fair share and often more than our fair share to the world. Our love has been returned with hatred.
I’m not hoping to turn a child gay if I ever adopt. But you know what? I am hoping I can teach my child to judge people for who they are, not what they are. Maybe if there were a lot more of us who were parents, there’d be fewer people who could get away with painting us as some sort of shadowy threat.
I apologize, Nerrie for departing from the OP, but this is the crux of the issue. The only opposition to gay adoption comes from people who believe there is something wrong with homosexuality itself. Gay adoption is one of the big milestones towards fully integrating us within society. And people who don’t want us in society, or who want us hidden, are going to fight us every step of the way.
What planet did that come from? You are seeing things that simply are not there.
I’m calling your bluff. If you believe that Hamish’s posts constituted a personal attack, then report them to a moderator. He or she will decide.
As for “shutting down legitimate debate by imputing evil motives” - excuse me, Hamish is not the one who postulated that gay adoption would lead to the progressive oppression of heterosexuals.
He and I know nothing of your motives in expressing these viewpoints. We find the viewpoints you have expressed to be repugnant. That’s why Hamish has told you so, and explained why that is.
This disingenuous little divagation of yours is becoming intensely tiresome, and I regard it as a stalling tactic. Hamish raised valid points au jus. Quit woolgathering and answer them.
are rejected by straight parents. Gay parents could provide a home for them and adopt them!
Far better then being left in the streets. In fact, a good solution for all around.
This is a serious suggestion.
An excellent idea, berdollos, and one that already happens a lot. Though not as much as it should.
(Did you see Torch Song Trilogy?
“Mom, he’s gay.”
“He’s gay already?!”
“Mom, he came that way.”)