SnoopyFan, get in here and explain yourself, please...

The BBQ Pit
1

In this thread in GD, Paco asked this question in his OP:

You responded with the following drive-by post:

You were asked by at least two people in that thread to explain that post but you have not yet returned to the thread. You posted under your drive-by that you thought you were in IMHO (which, apparently, you have gotten the idea is the forum for bigoted thread sniping) so maybe you are not aware that you have been asked for clarification of that post. I’m hoping that a pit thread will get your attention.

Please explain why a society which would allow gay adoption would be “morally gone.” If you think that gay adoption is immoral, please explain why. Do not just post a judgemental swipe and then run away. We are here to fight ignorance. If you have a moral insight you should share it with us. When you post this kind of stuff without explaining it, it makes you look like a certain other poster with a 4 in her name. Please prove to us that you are better than that poster.

2

I forgot to say fuck.

3

Drive-byers are scardy-ass punks.

4

Oh goody. We had a few months break from these threads in the Pit, and now we have this one and another one also developing (albeit on a different subject … specifically, the decision by the DSM way bacy in the 70s to cease including homosexuality as a disorder). Is the cycle of life on the SDMB back to this now again?

5

Are you condemning Doggy-Knees** thread calling-out SnoopyDog? Or are you referring to the threads that precipitated this one? It’s not clear from the tone of your post iampunha.

** Whenever I see Diogenes’ user name, I always mentally call him Doggie-Knees. I am sorry if this causes offense, but I just HAD to use it at least this one time, OK? :smiley:

6

Don’t you know anything? It’s all these Goddamned (Literally!) homosexuals that caused 9/11! God is angry with us! Quick, let’s take all queers and throw them in a giant bonfire, so that we may cleanse our collective sins! And when we do that, we can go back to wiping out the negroes, and then the Atheists and Agnostics and Protestants and Mormons! Then we can all rape and beat our wives, get drunk, and then go to church the next day!

Remember, God is perfect, so that means his hate is perfect, too!

::sigh::

7

kambuckta: I am expressing frustration that as much as we set people straight (oh, the delicious irony) on this issue, people keep on coming back with more … ah, creatively different arguments. At least, of the current influx, they aren’t all dueling bibliolatrists. I have no beef with doggyknees in his decision to pit the person in question. If anything I have beef with how some of the stupidest people on earth (who happen to be able to type) can find their way to this MB. Did someone put that “Stupid heads! Over here! Ejamakayshin time! But fight back, no matter what they say!” sign back up?

8

I dunno. It seems like “Homosexuality is immoral”, like any of those “X is immoral” statements is fundimentally unrebutable. So those debates just tend to be of the “It’s immoral!” “No it isn’t!” variety…bunch of assertions and talking past each other.

9

At least one of the current “homosexuality=bad” people is not taking the usual road of attempting to use the Bible to support that mindset. That is the “creatively different” argument I mean. At least in one case we have a most interesting viewpoint regarding the DSM.

That X thing is (im)moral, I would think, is a subjective truth and as such is unrebuttable and, being subjective, is equally indefensible.

Shit … did we just enter GD territory? I knew I shouldn’t eaten that Smartfood before bedtime…

10

I will now, and forever more, see Diogenes as Doggie-Knees. Thank you :slight_smile:

11

Doggy knees: a sign that the bottom of his barrel needs sanding, because it’s too ruff.

12

Splort!! I’d forgotten about his living in a barrel; my preferred image is of him going about Great Debates with a lantern, looking for an honest man!

However, considering the horrendous English wordplay perpetrated by kambuckta, it’s worth noting that the word Cynic derives from the Greek for “dog,” kynos (cognate with Latin canis, French chien, etc.).

As for SnoopyFan, he seems to have decided to just be a drive-by, hurling out an insult and running off to play where he won’t be called on his words. Talk about “morally gone!” :rolleyes:

13

Wouldn’t that imply, Poly (why do I sense a lot of “playing off each other” today in the future, re: our posts? [because SOMEONE is going to twist that…]), that SnoopyFan was once “morally there”?

It’s ever so much easier to castigate without having to bother with the whole thinking aspect of that.

14

Thanks for the clarification there iampunha. AFTR, I don’t see any rise in homosexuality as having any connection whatsoever to the ‘moral standards’ of a community either.

15

Why I think it would be morally wrong to allow homosexual adoption:

Because every kid deserves the best effort possible to have a mother AND a father.

Do I believe that gay people are inherently bad parents? No. One of my college roomies had a gay dad and he was great, father-wise (however she was really fucked up emotionally from watching her father leave her mother for his lover when she was just a kid).

I don’t think single people should be allowed to adopt a child, either, unless it’s a family situation (like, you’re single but your cousin is a crackhead and you’re able to take care of her kid, etc., so you adopt them).

I just don’t think a child being intentionally put into a situation in which they will be missing a parent is the way to go, and a society that would allow this is on the decline. Both moms and dads are important. Two mommies don’t make up for not having a father and two dads don’t make up for not having a mom. Can these situations work? Sure. But why should we resort to it unless it is absolutely necessary? It’s not like we have a shortage of married male/female couples wanting to adopt a child and give the kid a chance at having both a Mom and a Dad.

Look, my parents divorced when I was a baby. I’ve never met my father and it has affected me deeply. I just don’t want to see any kid go through that kind of pain unnecessarily, and I think it’s wrong to intentionally do that to a kid.

As for SnoopyFan, he seems to have decided to just be a drive-by, hurling out an insult and running off to play where he won’t be called on his words. Talk about "morally gone!"

First off, I am a woman. And, every now and then, I pull myself away from the computer and don’t read the boards constantly (shocking, I know). As far as the other thread goes, I didn’t see the requests for explanation because I figured “I’m sorry, I didn’t see this wasn’t an IMHO thread” would have covered it, thus I didn’t go back.

16

Uh huh.

Sure.

Because there are things that can only be learned from a man, and others that can only be learned from women.

Right.

:rolleyes:

17

I guess I fail to see how having both parents be the same gender is akin to missing a parent. Certainly you don’t believe that both people in a homosexual relationship bring the same sort of things to the table, to you, SnoopyFan?

18

We’re talking about kids who are starting with neither. Even if you were correct in your assertion that two same sex parents are less ideal than hetero parents (which I do NOT concede) less than ideal is a long way away from “morally gone.”**
[/quote]

If they’re not inherently bad parents then why is it immoral to let them adopt? (And do I really have to point out all the guys who fuck up their kids by running off with women?)

We’re not talking about single people we’re talking about married people, or at least people who are living in committed, monogomous relationships.

Kids who are adopted by same-sex couples will not be “missing a parent.” They will have both parents taking care of them.

Cite? I’m not aware of any data which states that two women or two men cannot provide the same quality of care as a hetero couple. Can you provide the appropriate cites please?

Yes, as a matter of, we do have a shortage of hetero couples who are willing to adopt certain kinds of children, but regardless of that, you still haven’t shown that a hetero couple is better than a same-sex couple and you still haven’t shown any reason at all why allowing gay adoption would be “morally gone.”

We’re not talking about taking parents away from kids, we’re talking about providing them with parents. How is that immoral?

Let’s make it simple. If a child needs a family, and two loving people are willing to provide that family, is it your contention that it is a better moral choice to deny that child a family than to allow a same-sex couple to raise it?

19

So you should have been taken from your mother and placed with a mixed-sex couple?

If this were true there would be no children available for adoption at all, because they would have all been adopted by married male/female couples.

I really get tired of people who have particular backgrounds deciding that because their life was lacking that automatically everyone of a vaguely similar background must be lacking in exactly the same manner. Just because you feel like you missed out by not having known your father doesn’t mean that a child being raised by two mothers (or two fathers) is going to have a deficient childhood.

20

Get thee away, Satan!

What if one of the guys acts really feminine? One of my oldest friend’s partners shares makeup tips with my wife.:wink:

I think that a stable loving home life is very important. On that we all probably agree. The question is whether a gay couple can provide that. Until there is real evidence that they can’t I tend to think that they can. I’ve seen a fair amount of parenting by gay people. It seemed pretty good to me.