Marriage Rights

[lgoasklucyl]

Incestuous couples have obvious biological ramifications to offspring, homosexual marriages do not. Female-female couples CAN produce their own offspring, and male-male couples can just as well adopt. These partnerships have been EXTENSIVELY studied and it has been determined that there is no developmental difference in children of same-sex couples.

Bestial couples are not allowed to be considered married- there is no legal ramifications there. I don't think his goat is going to be worried about getting medical treatment from his HMO. Also, there's obvious danger in these relationships, and the animal cannot consent. Since the animal cannot willingly consent, the married cannot be legalized.

Grouping same-sex couples with those two types is insulting. It is acceptable. They are human being born with a biological disposition to be attracted to other males. These neurotransmitters lead you to oppress them and take rights away from them every other citizen has? Well, I suppose the next group to lose their rights should be the Albino individuals for the lack of melanin creating cells they were born with.

You're confusing the issue. Consent isn't the keystone of my position here, the crux of the matter is whether we can consider homosexuality normal or not, and since given that there is no moral a priori to differentiate it from any other paraphilia, like necrophilia or autophilia or homosexual incestuous relations or whatever it might be, homosexual couples can only have contracts drawn up between them involving the exercise of rights they already possess not be recognized as a valid family unit.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence, and frankly it seems completely improbable to me that you can seriously reject every principle of developmental psychology since Freud in the name of political correctness. No doubt some homosexual couples have replicated a healthy environment, healthier perhaps than certain heterosexual couples, but all that tells me is that heterosexual couples should be more thoroughly vetted.

Now, if you're talking about the specific case in California right now, I can't comment in much depth because I frankly don't have the sufficient details, but its a different issue because the State does grant with marriage a whole lot of stuff I don't think it necessarily should, whence your inequality grievance. That though, is an entirely different kettle of fish to the slightly more abstract and moral argument I'm trying to make, and you'd need to elucidate me on the details before I could properly discuss that case with you.

I barely mentioned consent in my argument- merely with the philias regarding marriage to animals or inanimate objects. These relationships cannot show a two way intent to marry, nor will the animal, car, or deceased corpse miss out on benefits awarded to couples considered married by the state.

If you would like to discuss the adoption case, read up. Rest assured there ARE homosexual couples who may affect the developmental processes just as much as heterosexual couples (let's keep the example of the heterosexual couple that kept their daughter isolated for the first 9? years of her life- not teaching her anything regarding proper skills with cognition or socialization in mind), but that's a given with ANY parents. If you would care to read up on different studies that show empirically no difference in the children of homosexual couples, here you go:

Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Allen, Mike, Burrell, Nancy. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol 32(2), 1996. pp. 19-35.

Parent-child relationships and sexual identity in male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals. Thompson, Norman L., Schwartz, David M., McCandless, Boyd R., Edwards, David A. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 41(1), Aug 1973. pp. 120-127.
-Has some interesting results, but the correlations are so minute that the ultimate conclusion is that they cannot be generalized across a population, and that (as I stated earlier) parenting affects are case-by-case, not sexual predisposition-sexual predisposition.

Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual: A reply to Cameron. Morrison, Todd G. Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol 39(1), Jan 2007. pp. 153-154.
-You can read the original study by Paul Cameron if you would like, you might fancy it for your argument before you read this rebuttal which clearly states how poorly executed Cameron's study was- again, entirely not able to be generalized. Also, assumptions were made based on poorly used methods of calculation. There you go- they raise the children and they CAN become heterosexual and produce their own families- just what you had hoped for. Homosexual parents starting a multi-generational family- the worst fear of your argument.

Comment on Cameron and Cameron (2002): 'Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties'. Brubaker, Lowell L., Nagasaki Wesleyan U, Nagasaki-ken. Psychological Reports, Vol 91(1), Aug 2002. pp. 331-332.
-Another analysis of a poorly reported study. This study analyzes their methods and results, showing that the 'problems' they reported were nothing more than the average problems reported by children across heterosexual couples (a control group was not used = poor study.). Such things as bullying and teasing at school were blown out of proportion and represented as 'serious psychological issues'. This studies refutes all evidence in that study.

I was picked on to death all through high school. I had heterosexual parents. No psychological trauma here.

Edit: Be forewarned- these are not 'wikipedia' articles. I have done extensive research in the area during my studies in Human Development and Family Studies, and these are REAL articles.

[PLAYER57832]

You're confusing the issue. Consent isn't the keystone of my position here, the crux of the matter is whether we can consider homosexuality normal or not, and since given that there is no moral a priori to differentiate it from any other paraphilia, like necrophilia or autophilia or homosexual incestuous relations or whatever it might be, homosexual couples can only have contracts drawn up between them involving the exercise of rights they already possess not be recognized as a valid family unit.

What right do you have to decide another's moral code? Because that is precisely what you are arguing. And by that token, others can decide that you don't have the right to practice your religion ... or do anything else they find objectionable.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence

Exactly ... and though this was brought up months ago in the marriage thread, you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them. Worse, you reject the evidence that was presented simply because you dislike it and not because it lacks scientific credibility. (or, in some cases, you just refuse to even look at the information).

[lgoasklucyl]

You're confusing the issue. Consent isn't the keystone of my position here, the crux of the matter is whether we can consider homosexuality normal or not, and since given that there is no moral a priori to differentiate it from any other paraphilia, like necrophilia or autophilia or homosexual incestuous relations or whatever it might be, homosexual couples can only have contracts drawn up between them involving the exercise of rights they already possess not be recognized as a valid family unit.

What right do you have to decide another's moral code? Because that is precisely what you are arguing. And by that token, others can decide that you don't have the right to practice your religion ... or do anything else they find objectionable.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence

Exactly ... and though this was brought up months ago in the marriage thread, you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them. Worse, you reject the evidence that was presented simply because you dislike it and not because it lacks scientific credibility. (or, in some cases, you just refuse to even look at the information).

That's why I quoted credible journals which utilize extensive review boards before publishing material. Rejecting such material would be foolish of him and just make him as ignorant as everyone else making the assumption that children in same-sex marriages are developmentally screwed. With regards to the issue on moral code, he's going to bring up what right we have to tell people they cannot marry donkeys, their ford taurus, the deceased corpse of grandma joe, or their 12 year old daughter Suzie- all of which have obvious reasonings which have been stated many times, yet he still lumps homosexuals into the same category.

[PLAYER57832]

You're confusing the issue. Consent isn't the keystone of my position here, the crux of the matter is whether we can consider homosexuality normal or not, and since given that there is no moral a priori to differentiate it from any other paraphilia, like necrophilia or autophilia or homosexual incestuous relations or whatever it might be, homosexual couples can only have contracts drawn up between them involving the exercise of rights they already possess not be recognized as a valid family unit.

What right do you have to decide another's moral code? Because that is precisely what you are arguing. And by that token, others can decide that you don't have the right to practice your religion ... or do anything else they find objectionable.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence

Exactly ... and though this was brought up months ago in the marriage thread, you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them. Worse, you reject the evidence that was presented simply because you dislike it and not because it lacks scientific credibility. (or, in some cases, you just refuse to even look at the information).

That's why I quoted credible journals which utilize extensive review boards before publishing material. Rejecting such material would be foolish of him and just make him as ignorant as everyone else making the assumption that children in same-sex marriages are developmentally screwed. With regards to the issue on moral code, he's going to bring up what right we have to tell people they cannot marry donkeys, their ford taurus, the deceased corpse of grandma joe, or their 12 year old daughter Suzie- all of which have obvious reasonings which have been stated many times, yet he still lumps homosexuals into the same category.

Except we already gave him sources. He could not be bothered to even check them out, just said they must be false.

[lgoasklucyl]

You're confusing the issue. Consent isn't the keystone of my position here, the crux of the matter is whether we can consider homosexuality normal or not, and since given that there is no moral a priori to differentiate it from any other paraphilia, like necrophilia or autophilia or homosexual incestuous relations or whatever it might be, homosexual couples can only have contracts drawn up between them involving the exercise of rights they already possess not be recognized as a valid family unit.

What right do you have to decide another's moral code? Because that is precisely what you are arguing. And by that token, others can decide that you don't have the right to practice your religion ... or do anything else they find objectionable.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence

Exactly ... and though this was brought up months ago in the marriage thread, you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them. Worse, you reject the evidence that was presented simply because you dislike it and not because it lacks scientific credibility. (or, in some cases, you just refuse to even look at the information).

That's why I quoted credible journals which utilize extensive review boards before publishing material. Rejecting such material would be foolish of him and just make him as ignorant as everyone else making the assumption that children in same-sex marriages are developmentally screwed. With regards to the issue on moral code, he's going to bring up what right we have to tell people they cannot marry donkeys, their ford taurus, the deceased corpse of grandma joe, or their 12 year old daughter Suzie- all of which have obvious reasonings which have been stated many times, yet he still lumps homosexuals into the same category.

Except we already gave him sources. He could not be bothered to even check them out, just said they must be false.

We give religious folk solid, emperical, current evidence and it's false and 'made-up', yet they quote a 2000 year old book of parables and expect us to write social policy based on it.

[PLAYER57832]

We give religious folk solid, emperical, current evidence and it's false and 'made-up', yet they quote a 2000 year old book of parables and expect us to write social policy based on it.

Except now you are making your own prejudical statements. I (and many others here) are fully religious, yet I see it and that book you consider parables to be part of why I believe homosexuals should be treated with tolerance and moderation.


Ironically, part of the answer is given above. Buddhist and Hindus do not encite so much anger because they are quite plainly just not Christian and therefore outside its bounds, but many homosexuals (not all, of course) want to be recognized as Christians within the Christian church. That both muddies and complicates the matter.

I make no claim on determining the morality of those outside my church, but within .. is an entirely differant matter. (again, my church has a stance of tolerance/uncertainty about this, but not all do ..and within their bounds, they have the right to that assertion). As I said before, I would have no issue with a Buddhist moving next to me, DO allow my children to play with children of other faiths, but I would absolutely object to someone of another faith coming in as a pastor of my church or trying to teach Sunday school (except as a visitor, explaining their faith). So, much of the anger is because people DO feel that homosexuals are trying to actually change their faith. Some are. And, many see recognition of marriage as part of this issue.

I don't agree they are correct, but that is part of why this issue is considered unlike other civil rights issues.

[Napoleon Ier]

What right do you have to decide another's moral code? Because that is precisely what you are arguing. And by that token, others can decide that you don't have the right to practice your religion ... or do anything else they find objectionable.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence

Exactly ... and though this was brought up months ago in the marriage thread, you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them. Worse, you reject the evidence that was presented simply because you dislike it and not because it lacks scientific credibility. (or, in some cases, you just refuse to even look at the information).

Has the average lay person seen the actual evidence done by actual real scientists on the fact that a paedophile might just not quite be the ideal adoptive parent? Probably not. It's still obviously a bloody stupid idea. Of course homosexual adoption is a long way further up on the logarithmic obviously-wrongo-scale, but my point is this, you're the one saying that gay parents are fine at adopting. You, not I, need to provide the evidence before you allow them to do so. The axiom on which all this discussion must be based is "what is best for the child?". To say that well, you need to prove to me that gays are bad parents before we disallow them from adopting is outrageous: that would be like having two utter randomers turn up to an agency, complete crackheads for all anyone knows, and the secretary says, "well go ahead, pick out any one of the sweet little dears you like, and unless someone comes back with a peer reviewed study or medical certificate proving that you two are unfit to adopt, well we just have to let you!".

I don't know what the legislation of morality stuff is about, I'm not trying to outlaw homosexuality, just not have it recognized as glue for a unit of family, which frankly seems pretty bloody obviously right.

[PLAYER57832]

What right do you have to decide another's moral code? Because that is precisely what you are arguing. And by that token, others can decide that you don't have the right to practice your religion ... or do anything else they find objectionable.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence

Exactly ... and though this was brought up months ago in the marriage thread, you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them. Worse, you reject the evidence that was presented simply because you dislike it and not because it lacks scientific credibility. (or, in some cases, you just refuse to even look at the information).

Has the average lay person seen the actual evidence done by actual real scientists on the fact that a paedophile might just not quite be the ideal adoptive parent?

Yes.

Probably not. It's still obviously a bloody stupid idea. Of course homosexual adoption is a long way further up on the logarithmic obviously-wrongo-scale, but my point is this, you're the one saying that gay parents are fine at adopting. You, not I, need to provide the evidence before you allow them to do so.

Except you HAVE been shown evidence again and again. You refuse to even look. (see the above posts or go back the the homosexual marriage thread and for all those links you chose to ignore before. And persist in feeling your opinion outweighs the scientific evidence.

The axiom on which all this discussion must be based is "what is best for the child?". To say that well, you need to prove to me that gays are bad parents before we disallow them from adopting is outrageous: that would be like having two utter randomers turn up to an agency, complete crackheads for all anyone knows, and the secretary says, "well go ahead, pick out any one of the sweet little dears you like, and unless someone comes back with a peer reviewed study or medical certificate proving that you two are unfit to adopt, well we just have to let you!".

Fallasy #1. First, you make the wrong assumption that no research has been done and neatly decline to even investigate the evidence that has been provided.

Fallasy #2: you continue to equate homosexuality with all sorts of completely unrelated deviant behaviors which ARE known to be bad for children.

In fact, you DO have to prove "fitness" before you are allowed to adopt. And in fact, though many peer reviewed studies continue to assert that homosexuals adopting children does NOT harm those children, many states do not allow them to adopt. NO MATTER how many tests of fitness they pass. (and they DO pass them!).

To contrast, crackheads, pedophiles, etc are most certainly bad for children.

Your basic argument is I don't like it, so it must be bad.


Fallasy #3: that a heterosexual is just naturally a better parent than a homosexual. In some cases, this is true. Certainly, all but a few will assert that a stable, loving, well -equipped (emotionally, financially, educationally, etc..) heterosexual couple will be better for a child than a similar homosexual couple. BUT, and this is a pretty big "but", the truth is that those wonderful, ready-to-adopt heterosexual couples don't always exist. Further, the differance is pretty small. Right now, in many states single individuals are allowed to adopt. I would suggest, (BEING a parent myself) that they will have a harder time than a loving homosexual couple.

I don't know what the legislation of morality stuff is about, I'm not trying to outlaw homosexuality, just not have it recognized as glue for a unit of family, which frankly seems pretty bloody obviously right.

No, you are just trying to push it into some dark corner where you can ignore it. And are content to keep your head buried in your views instead of possibly looking at evidence and perhaps having to challenge those views.

Again, I would never assert that homosexuality is a preferred lifestyle, a better lifestyle or even, necessarily a fully moral lifestyle. (in the same sense that I would say it could be argued that folks of other religions follow a differant set of morals and therefore do not necessarily follow the moral code that I do...) In fact, I would suggest that many who are homosexual would say it is an extremely painful lifestyle and NOT one they would have willingly just chosen. What I say is that lifestyle/moral code is not HARMFUL to me or my children and therefore in a free society, I have no right to object to it. Discussion of morality, I keep for within my church, where it is pertinent.

Now, I am not saying that every act done in the name of homosexual freedom is OK, any more than I would say the same of heterosexuals. Some homosexuals are absolutely stupid jerks or plain insane. So, too are many heterosexuals. The problem is being a jerk or insane, not the sexual orientation of those individuals.

[Napoleon Ier]

"You DO have to prove 'fitness'"....

Bloody good thing too.

You however said in reply to my admission of being ignorant of any evidence either way, and I quote, that "you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them", clearly implying that the burden of evidence lies on me to prove someone is unfit, rather than the other way around.

No one has ever provided me with any (empirical) evidence about homosexual parenting, until Igowhatsit just now. Now, because I haven't addressed it within the 20 minutes since it was posted, doesn't in fact mean I'm "neatly ignoring it", but rather a) that I have actual things going on in my life that do demand more immediate attention, and b) that I'd like to devote a little more than cursive glance at what appears to be a fairly decent body of evidence before making a judgement. When the facts change, change my mind. You may well have assumed that like yourself when presented with a new perspective, I would revert by instinctive reaction toward my previously held conviction. However, I am a rationalist, not some kneejerk ideologue and sound-bite sensationalist. So before making rash assertions about my character or anything else, I suggest you consider the facts more carefully. That is after all, what is becoming of a "Scientist".

[PLAYER57832]

"You DO have to prove 'fitness'"....

Bloody good thing too.

You however said in reply to my admission of being ignorant of any evidence either way, and I quote, that "you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them", clearly implying that the burden of evidence lies on me to prove someone is unfit, rather than the other way around.

No one has ever provided me with any (empirical) evidence about homosexual parenting, until Igowhatsit just now.

You were provided with many links and quotes in the previous thread... and you did choose to ignore them.

Now, because I haven't addressed it within the 20 minutes since it was posted, doesn't in fact mean I'm "neatly ignoring it", but rather a) that I have actual things going on in my life that do demand more immediate attention, and b) that I'd like to devote a little more than cursive glance at what appears to be a fairly decent body of evidence before making a judgement.

Yet you found the time to respond and repeat your claim that "no one has provided me with scientific evidence". If you need more time, that is admirable, but don't then turn around and continue to claim there is no evidence. THAT is part of being a scientist.

When the facts change, change my mind. You may well have assumed that like yourself when presented with a new perspective, I would revert by instinctive reaction toward my previously held conviction.

... and so you jump to another assumption. Based upon what evidence? That you have not convinced me? The thing is you presented me with very, very little that I have not heard before (nothing in this thread certainly). I can refute most of what you try to claim because I HAVE considered the evidence, seen various sides and examined them.

You, by contrast, make it plain that you have not ever considered much of what we say, have never examined any of the evidence presented. You make it plain by such statements as "there is not scientific evidence.." when there is, and you have previously been given links to it. You make it plain when you cite sources that have long since been disproven (not in this thread), and claim no knowledge of that ... etc.

However, I am a rationalist, not some kneejerk ideologue and sound-bite sensationalist. So before making rash assertions about my character or anything else, I suggest you consider the facts more carefully. That is after all, what is becoming of a "Scientist".

I am finding it pretty hard to keep a straight face here. Review your posts, with as much objectivity as you can.. and review mine. Exactly who is the "knee jerk ideologue"???

[Napoleon Ier]

I think you'll not find a single position I hold to be ideologically inconsistent with the next. Now, I can respond to you, since you systematically misinterpret my posts,which doesn't take much refuting. I need to devote a little more time and energy to Igasluke's actual studies. There is a more obvious socio-cultural rebuttal, but that takes a little time if I'm to do justice to it.

[HapSmo19]

Pages = 9
Posts = 120
Net progress = ZERO
Watching people beat their heads against a wall = Priceless

[Neoteny]

That probably says something about the proto-masonic-socio-ethno-patriarchal status of our discussions.

[porkenbeans]

Marriage is just a word. Words are the property of NO HUMAN BEING. ...Thats all.

Or the property of us all... as we learn them, they belong to us like any other possession like any other tool.

Its called freedom of speech my friend. Many before us have given their lives to defend this basic right. No one owns any words. We are all free to say what we will.

[Snorri1234]

That probably says something about the proto-masonic-socio-ethno-patriarchal status of our discussions.

I agree.

[mpjh]

Anybody notice how justnotintoyou showed up exactly at the point that BES left?

[Napoleon Ier]

That probably says something about the proto-masonic-socio-ethno-patriarchal status of our discussions.

Bah! Show me a man who says you can't understand the whole of modern society according to that status alone and I'll show you a bloody liar.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you'll not find a single position I hold to be ideologically inconsistent with the next.

True. They are all based on a very narrow view of the world.

Education is about expanding one's knowledge and views.

[bbqpenguin]

I happen to be 149% Christian (not quite as devout as you are an atheist ), but from what i read (too lazy to read that whole novel), i believe i agree wholeheartedly. gay marriage should be accepted by society and definitely legal.

there are two main objections to gay marriage

objection 1: the bible says gay marriage is bad, so we shouldn't allow it. i will address this from two directions

direction A. this argument shouldn't hold any water in the first place because (most of us) live in 'free' countries where we're , theoretically, allowed to do whatever we want so long as we don't infringe on another person's rights. so, even if your religion says gays are all going to hell, that doesn't mean people should not be legally allowed to make the choice to go to hell. this doesn't mean you have to support or even like it, but no one, ESPECIALLY not the government, should be able to tell you who you can and can not marry. in fact, if you want to marry a person from the same sex, a person with no sex, a goat, or even a boulder, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to (the only exception to this would perhaps be children). let people make their own choices; if God really has a problem with it, then they'll have to answer for it later. a greater sin, in my opinion, is to deprive someone of their free will, one of God's greatest gifts (or curses, depending on who you ask lol)

direction B. the Bible says repeatedly and, rather pointedly at times, that homosexuality is bad. it also says that it's unclean to eat shellfish, women are too stupid to teach, and that unwed girls who have sex should be stoned to death. so, if you truly think God dislikes homosexuals, then you better hope you've never had lobster otherwise you'll have a lot to answer for when Jesus comes back. the Bible says a lot of things that don't necessarilly make sense; remember that its books were written thousands of years ago by humans, and remember how imperfect we are! i have a hard time believing that God is really bothered by two people loving each other, even if they both happen to have a vagina....



objection 2: homosexuality is detrimental to society and gay marriage erodes our culture's foundations
ok,this is just stupid. if you truly believe this, go choke yourself or something.






finally, marriage in general should be a social and, depending on how your cookie crumbles, religious institution only. the government and law should have nothing to do with marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

edited to make less cluttered

[PLAYER57832]

direction B. the Bible says repeatedly and, rather pointedly at times, that homosexuality is bad. it also says that it's unclean to eat shellfish, women are too stupid to teach, and that unwed girls who have sex should be stoned to death. so, if you truly think God dislikes homosexuals, then you better hope you've never had lobster otherwise you'll have a lot to answer for when Jesus comes back.

Change that to the "old Testament says" and you are correct. However, Jesus specifically did away with some of those. Others are not truly commandments as such, but lifestyle guides that made a lot of sense back then, given the climate, culture, etc. For example, all but the most Orthodox of Jews don't consider it necessary for women to bath in a synogogue pool any more, since we all have indoor plumbing. But, we all still do wash our hands! (I hope )


But, I , too, am a Christian who believes our faith is about how we are supposed to live more than about how we are to tell others to live.

[bbqpenguin]

direction B. the Bible says repeatedly and, rather pointedly at times, that homosexuality is bad. it also says that it's unclean to eat shellfish, women are too stupid to teach, and that unwed girls who have sex should be stoned to death. so, if you truly think God dislikes homosexuals, then you better hope you've never had lobster otherwise you'll have a lot to answer for when Jesus comes back.

Change that to the "old Testament says" and you are correct. However, Jesus specifically did away with some of those. Others are not truly commandments as such, but lifestyle guides that made a lot of sense back then, given the climate, culture, etc. For example, all but the most Orthodox of Jews don't consider it necessary for women to bath in a synogogue pool any more, since we all have indoor plumbing. But, we all still do wash our hands! (I hope )


But, I , too, am a Christian who believes our faith is about how we are supposed to live more than about how we are to tell others to live.

ah, but the New Testament isn't innocent of silly things no one believes any more, either
for instance, Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians, 14 (34) the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. (35)If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a women to speak in church."


but then again, I never really liked Paul anyway. regardless, there are several more instances like this where the literal interpretation simply doesn't cut it in the New Testament, though this sort of thing surely is more common in the Old

[FabledIntegral]

"You DO have to prove 'fitness'"....

Bloody good thing too.

You however said in reply to my admission of being ignorant of any evidence either way, and I quote, that "you still persist in your claims without even bothering to verify them", clearly implying that the burden of evidence lies on me to prove someone is unfit, rather than the other way around.

No one has ever provided me with any (empirical) evidence about homosexual parenting, until Igowhatsit just now. Now, because I haven't addressed it within the 20 minutes since it was posted, doesn't in fact mean I'm "neatly ignoring it", but rather a) that I have actual things going on in my life that do demand more immediate attention, and b) that I'd like to devote a little more than cursive glance at what appears to be a fairly decent body of evidence before making a judgement. When the facts change, change my mind. You may well have assumed that like yourself when presented with a new perspective, I would revert by instinctive reaction toward my previously held conviction. However, I am a rationalist, not some kneejerk ideologue and sound-bite sensationalist. So before making rash assertions about my character or anything else, I suggest you consider the facts more carefully. That is after all, what is becoming of a "Scientist".

Your evidence sucks - that's just as much saying you have to prove that heterosexual couples are as fit for adoption. Or single mothers shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because it's not traditional either. You are highly mistaken when you say "they need to prove they are competent parents," etc. etc. because their sexual preference is irrelevant. How about a SINGLE gay woman raising a child that she adopted? Is that any different except for the fact there will only be one figurehead instead of two? How does sexual preference play into the equation whatsoever? I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals that would make shitty parents, but there are probably a relatively equal proportion of heterosexuals to complement it.

Absolutely amazed that you think sexual preference can somehow screw up the way someone is raised.

[clapper011]

Anybody notice how justnotintoyou showed up exactly at the point that BES left?

yes, but it is not bes

[PLAYER57832]

Your evidence sucks - that's just as much saying you have to prove that heterosexual couples are as fit for adoption. Or single mothers shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because it's not traditional either. You are highly mistaken when you say "they need to prove they are competent parents," etc. etc. because their sexual preference is irrelevant. How about a SINGLE gay woman raising a child that she adopted? Is that any different except for the fact there will only be one figurehead instead of two? How does sexual preference play into the equation whatsoever? I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals that would make shitty parents, but there are probably a relatively equal proportion of heterosexuals to complement it.

Absolutely amazed that you think sexual preference can somehow screw up the way someone is raised.

I want to clarify one point. I am the one who first said that people have to prove they are fit parents in adoptions. I was speaking of the actual current law/adoption process.

People DO have to provide "fitness". In all states, prospective parents have to show that they are emotionally stable, financially able to support a child, etc. To a point, this is not only reasonable, but very good. Who wants your local junky or pimp adopting? Many states do allow single individuals to adopt, but often they do have to through more intensive screening. Also, they don't necessarily get equal consideration (depends on the agency and state).

Homosexuals, to contrast, are outright forbidden from adopting in many jurisdictions (Florida, for example). In some cases, they can foster children, but not adopt. In all jurisdictions, they will generally be scrutinized a bit more than a heterosexual couple. Sometimes that scrutiny is well-intended. A homosexual couple does have extra roadblocks and knowing they can deal with them is important. However, a lot of times it is plain bigotry. I believe as you have indicated that this is wrong, but it is the reality. And it is part of why homosexuals want the law to be changed to allow same sex marriages.

I do believe, as I think most do, that a stable husband/wife household can ideally provide the best home, but people are rarely ideal. What is important is that every child gets a loving family and has a parent or parents to support him/her. Sadly, that often doesn't happen, and its not because those parents are homosexual. It is far, far better for a child to get a home with a homosexual couple than to sit in our foster care system until 18.

[lgoasklucyl]

Here's my question regarding the adoption debate, which leads into homosexuals being able to be the cornerstone of fully functioning multi-generational families:

Based on all the emperical evidence I supplied stating that homosexual couples make just as sufficient parents as heterosexual couples- why should homosexuality even be taken into consideration during the adoption process? ESPECIALLY with emperical evidence backing their competency, it just furthers the solid proof that it exists solely out of stereotyping/discrimination and for no other viable purpose. If there is no evidence proving they are not competent, what makes this any different than holding race, gender, or religious beliefs against someone during the adoption process? You're born with race and gender (for the most part), just as one is with a predisposition to be attracted to the same sex. Is it really fair to judge someone and remove this opportunity from their life AND the life of the child who may now sit in foster care/at a shelter for 17 years without parents solely based on the activities of two individuals in a bedroom?

You take adoption over abortion- support the obvious side that can lead to adoption being more viable.