Gay Adoption

[Lootifer]

I wanna know what part sector/kind of organisation is funding PS's new expert guest speaking role...?

[Woodruff]

But it can't be true, because I heard that allowing gay marriage would lead to beastiality, not the other way around.

It will lead to gay adoption

Is it a problem for children to be raised in loving homes instead of on the street?

I thought poverty and lack of medical care forced kids to sleep on the street. Now not allowing gay marriage causes it?

Learn how to read. Seriously. It's pretty basic.

Your comment implied that if there if gay marriage is allowed, there are less kids on the street. Therefore you are also implying that not allowing gay marriage keeps more kids on the street.

It implied no such thing. My comment, in direct response to Phatscotty's fear of gay adoption, was to ask if there was a problem for children to be raised in loving homes instead of on the street. I did not, in fact, relate to anything regarding gay marriage and was, in fact, directly responding to the fear of gay adoption.

If that's not want you meant, don't criticize my reading skills, you should check your skills at communicating your points.

Honestly, even following your implication, I don't see how you got where you think you did. Again, my question related ONLY to gay adoption and did not even suggest any relation to gay marriage. Further, gay adoption does not necessarily have anything at all to do with gay marriage. They are two separate and distinct issues. It is possible to adopt without being married. And finally, my question did not in any way imply that gay marriage would lead to less kids on the street, rather my question rather explicitly drew a choice between children being raised in loving homes (via gay adoption) as opposed to on the street.

Again, learn how to read.

[Woodruff]

I wanna know what part sector/kind of organisation is funding PS's new expert guest speaking role...?

You're so cute, expecting an answer and all.

[Lootifer]

I wanna know what part sector/kind of organisation is funding PS's new expert guest speaking role...?

You're so cute, expecting an answer and all.

Like I always said at university when trying to pick up girls: "Persistence beats resistance"

[Phatscotty]

Patricka. It was a dodge move. Don't over analyze it though. He just changed the subject. He turned a simple statement of "this will lead to gay adoption" into "he fears gays adopting". He wants to direct the light away from the reality that 90% of people are against gay adoption, which makes it one of the most agreeable and mainstream views in the country. Only the question "Should America have a military" has more agreement amongst Americans. Then he changed the definition of the subject from his newly created "fear" statement into whether or not children should "live in the streets as compared to in a home". It's the same thing Obama and the media is doing to Romney concerning his tyranny refusing to enforce the law concerning illegal immigration. They are bashing him in an attempt to force Romney to play in the new construct that Obama created, in whether he will rescind the executive order or not if elected.

It's a trap, and probably most visible one I have ever seen anyways...So what he want's to do is make his own unrelated question, which is also 90%+ likely to get the answer "Children living in a home, of course, is better than living in the streets". That way he can pre-emptively claim the moral high ground in a way that has 0% to do with the original topic matter, but it doesn't matter, because he would have claimed it, and he would ride that high ground into page 27 while still not having said anything of value.

[Woodruff]

Patricka. It was a dodge move. Don't over analyze it though. He just changed the subject.

Dodge move? Tell me, Phatscotty...exactly what was I dodging? Please, explain that. I need an answer here.

He turned a simple statement of "this will lead to gay adoption" into "he fears gays adopting".

If it's not fear, then why are you against homosexuals being able to adopt? Please answer.

He wants to direct the light away from the reality that 90% of people are against gay adoption, which makes it one of the most agreeable and mainstream views in the country.

There was a time when there were other issues that were seen in that very some "most agreeable and mainstream view" that we now consider to be absolutely repugnant by a vast majority. Would you like me to list them for you, Phatscotty, or would you like to admit that the Tyranny of the Majority is a thoroughly stupid way to deal with social justice?

Then he changed the definition of the subject from his newly created "fear" statement into whether or not children should "live in the streets as compared to in a home".

I changed the definition of the subject? Phatscotty...seriously, do you even pay attention to what you type?

It's the same thing Obama and the media is doing to Romney concerning his tyranny refusing to enforce the law concerning illegal immigration. They are bashing him in an attempt to force Romney to play in the new construct that Obama created, in whether he will rescind the executive order or not if elected.

It was a very simple question, one of many that you're refusing to answer because you know deep in that black pit of a heart of yours that you're quite simply in the wrong from a humanity perspective.

It's a trap, and probably most visible one I have ever seen anyways...

See, you could just expose the alleged trap by actually...you know...answering the question. If you have an honest answer to the question, then you need not fear any trap, Phatscotty. You should have the moral courage to stand by your beliefs, rather than hiding in the shadows being ever fearful of "the trap". So answer away!

So what he want's to do is make his own unrelated question, which is also 90%+ likely to get the answer "Children living in a home, of course, is better than living in the streets".

Do you disagree with that position, Phatscotty? Also, it's highly unlikely to be as low as 90%.

That way he can pre-emptively claim the moral high ground in a way that has 0% to do with the original topic matter, but it doesn't matter, because he would have claimed it, and he would ride that high ground into page 27 while still not having said anything of value.

It has a great deal to do with the original topic, SINCE YOU'RE THE ONE THAT MADE IT THE TOPIC that gay marriage would lead to gay adoption. See, you're trying to pretend that I'm the one that has changed the course of this discussion, but it was you Phatscotty...I did not bring up gay adoption, you did.

[Woodruff]

I wanna know what part sector/kind of organisation is funding PS's new expert guest speaking role...?

[2dimes]

If you feel his question wasn't loaded, perhaps you will have no issue answering this one. What percent of same-sex couples would provide a loving home?

I welcomethe question but know it is impossible to say with certainty, not because of their sexual preference but because they are imperfect beings like me. There would be some couples who would make better parents than me and my just barely heterosexual wife.

There would of course be some that should not be allowed to care for children. I hope that they would not wish to adopt. We are left to rely on the people working as screeners to stop any that would try.

Sorry, if I could know who would be suitable and who wouldnot I would make an effort to use that power.

[2dimes]

Patricka. It was a dodge move. Don't over analyze it though. He just changed the subject. He turned a simple statement of "this will lead to gay adoption" into "he fears gays adopting". He wants to direct the light away from the reality that 90% of people are against gay adoption, which makes it one of the most agreeable and mainstream views in the country.

Fair enough don't allow it in your region due to public opinion. I'll leave you with this though.

Just because 90% of the people in a certain region are cannibals. Does not make it right.

[Bones2484]

Where did the 90% number come from? Is that in a specific state/county or the US as a whole? I am assuming it is referring to the entire country since the sentence goes on to say "most agreeable and mainstream views in the country".

http://voices.yahoo.com/gay-adoption-america-97133.html

Way back in 2002 (I was too lazy to find more recent numbers, but trends have it increasing in favorability) it was at 47% approval...

[saxitoxin]

the reality that 90% of people are against gay adoption

well, it was 48% as of '06 so unless it's skyrocketed ...

http://www.people-press.org/2006/03/22/ ... y-service/

that said, I certainly agree with you that a child raised by a male/female under-50 couple will be better off than a child raised by a female/female, male/male, single male, single female or male/female over 50 unit --- I'd support granting M/F couples under 50 highest priority for adoptions but it's hard to make the case that bouncing a child through 8 different foster homes in 8 years is better than having them raised by a single female or a female/female couple

unfortunately, as with all things in U.S. politics, it's all-or-nothing; no middle ground

[2dimes]

You're so right Saxi I should kill my wife, marry you and finish raising my kids. But I suppose since one of my other personalities outed us as belonging to Yahushua I probably won't.

There sure are a bunch of advantages to two different people being parents.

When I get some cool idea like launching my five year old son in a home made rocket he just might survive in. There's my wife stopping me before I even buy the liquid oxygen.

When she's menstrating and being a screeching cow scolding our nine year old daughter for no known reason. There I am calmly telling her to stop before I have to go to jail for knocking out her tooth.

Yup, two parents of opposing gender is the optimum way to go probably.

[Phatscotty]

Where did the 90% number come from? Is that in a specific state/county or the US as a whole? I am assuming it is referring to the entire country since the sentence goes on to say "most agreeable and mainstream views in the country".

http://voices.yahoo.com/gay-adoption-america-97133.html

Way back in 2002 (I was too lazy to find more recent numbers, but trends have it increasing in favorability) it was at 47% approval...

I heard it on Fox News



I think all polls to date on the issue have been misrepresented. Many polls over the years and many people right here in this very forum have stated that the majority of Americans support gay marriage.....yet a majority has never voted in favor of gay marriage at state level, not once.

I have to go with how people vote rather than what they say in public about how they feel on the issue. Obviously, people feel pressured and bullied and are scared to say what the believe because of political correctness, because when they decide in private, it shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the majority is in favor of traditional marriage.

[2dimes]

Dog gone it. Why is it when I'm somewhat serious it looks super sarcastic. Yet if I'm pouring on the sarcasm it reads like I'm just a bully.

[Woodruff]

Dog gone it. Why is it when I'm somewhat serious it looks super sarcastic. Yet if I'm pouring on the sarcasm it reads like I'm just a bully.

For what it's worth the "barely heterosexual wife" and "knock out her tooth" had me laughing.

[Woodruff]

Where did the 90% number come from? Is that in a specific state/county or the US as a whole? I am assuming it is referring to the entire country since the sentence goes on to say "most agreeable and mainstream views in the country".

http://voices.yahoo.com/gay-adoption-america-97133.html

Way back in 2002 (I was too lazy to find more recent numbers, but trends have it increasing in favorability) it was at 47% approval...

From the same place all of Phatscotty's statistics come from...the 1940s.

[2dimes]

Dog gone it. Why is it when I'm somewhat serious it looks super sarcastic. Yet if I'm pouring on the sarcasm it reads like I'm just a bully.

For what it's worth the "barely heterosexual wife" and "knock out her tooth" had me laughing.

Well I don't know if venting here is better or worse. We used to have the intimate times. Twice for sure since that's how my kids happened. As far as my understanding goes since I made the error of marrying her I'm not supposed to go have sex with anyone else. Grrr!

"Hey homosexual people are you paying attention? You will be way less sexual if you go and get married. This is why the divorce rate is rampant!!"

[2dimes]

Oh and don't yell at a little kid. That's worse than if I actually were to hit you. How can you let that happen?

Now the kids yell at each other like that's normal.

Ok fine, I have no business talking about what is and isn't normal but I just hope that's not it.

[Woodruff]

Dog gone it. Why is it when I'm somewhat serious it looks super sarcastic. Yet if I'm pouring on the sarcasm it reads like I'm just a bully.

For what it's worth the "barely heterosexual wife" and "knock out her tooth" had me laughing.

Well I don't know if venting here is better or worse.

I would suggest that if it helps, then it is absolutely better. People need that. If it does not help, it is either worse or irrelevant. Of course, that changes if she logs into ConquerClub.

[Woodruff]

Now the kids yell at each other like that's normal.

That's probably normal for brothers/sisters, especially if they're close to the same age. But I certainly get your point regarding adults/children.

[PLAYER57832]

Now the kids yell at each other like that's normal.

That's probably normal for brothers/sisters, especially if they're close to the same age. But I certainly get your point regarding adults/children.

A lot of the "current thinking" about kids is a few folks taking some honest science, twisted by half-hearted articles and reports by people just interested in entertainment, not really information.

For example "Don't say 'no'". The truth is partly in the old joke on a toddler's shirt "my name is 'no-no' "... some parents spend so much time saying "no", that it just plain loses its effect and meaning. However, the real issue is that for very young kids, telling kids "no" really means asking them to not just stop what they are doing, but to also think of something else positive to do. So, for very young kids, you get better results if you tell them what you actually want them to do, rather than just "no". There are exceptions, of course. I mean, if a kid is hitting another, its "NO".. followed by correction measures. However, if you catch 2 kids about to reach for the same toy, you can suggest, "take turns", (taking turns is easier for young kids to "get" than "sharing".. though we adults often blurr the two concepts).

Similarly, a lot of parents take the "kids need choices" way too far. A rule I learned is that one choice per year of age, for younger kids. A two year old can handle green or red, a three year old might do green, red or orange? (not exact, of course). BUT.. and this is where so many goof, all the choices offered have to be "OK choices". And.. that is another goof. Sometimes we ask young kids what they feel is a question without realizing it. "Pick up your toys, OK" -- the answer is "no, mommy" (evidenced by actions). Kdis do learn "adult speak" pretty quickly, particularly in a family (day cares, may have changing clientel, so it may not apply as well), but the more we avoid it, the better.

When you get to older kids, a different set of issues evolves. The old "learn through experience, rather than words". And as all the parents here know, the trick is to let your kids learn through experience, but SAFELY. And that is a real trick!

Anyway, this is quickly turning into a lecture on parenting, which I did not intend, not a chatty --- yep, kids fight, adults add to it, sometimes because we "over-think" things commentary.

[Woodruff]

Now the kids yell at each other like that's normal.

That's probably normal for brothers/sisters, especially if they're close to the same age. But I certainly get your point regarding adults/children.

A lot of the "current thinking" about kids is a few folks taking some honest science, twisted by half-hearted articles and reports by people just interested in entertainment, not really information.

For example "Don't say 'no'". The truth is partly in the old joke on a toddler's shirt "my name is 'no-no' "... some parents spend so much time saying "no", that it just plain loses its effect and meaning. However, the real issue is that for very young kids, telling kids "no" really means asking them to not just stop what they are doing, but to also think of something else positive to do. So, for very young kids, you get better results if you tell them what you actually want them to do, rather than just "no". There are exceptions, of course. I mean, if a kid is hitting another, its "NO".. followed by correction measures. However, if you catch 2 kids about to reach for the same toy, you can suggest, "take turns", (taking turns is easier for young kids to "get" than "sharing".. though we adults often blurr the two concepts).

Similarly, a lot of parents take the "kids need choices" way too far. A rule I learned is that one choice per year of age, for younger kids. A two year old can handle green or red, a three year old might do green, red or orange? (not exact, of course). BUT.. and this is where so many goof, all the choices offered have to be "OK choices". And.. that is another goof. Sometimes we ask young kids what they feel is a question without realizing it. "Pick up your toys, OK" -- the answer is "no, mommy" (evidenced by actions). Kdis do learn "adult speak" pretty quickly, particularly in a family (day cares, may have changing clientel, so it may not apply as well), but the more we avoid it, the better.

When you get to older kids, a different set of issues evolves. The old "learn through experience, rather than words". And as all the parents here know, the trick is to let your kids learn through experience, but SAFELY. And that is a real trick!

Anyway, this is quickly turning into a lecture on parenting, which I did not intend, not a chatty --- yep, kids fight, adults add to it, sometimes because we "over-think" things commentary.

All I know is there were times when I sincerely wanted to kick my sister's ass, and I'm sure she felt the same way, and it had nothing to do with our parents.

[john9blue]

Anyways, I got the job.

same here, i just accepted my first full-time permanent job a few days ago

umad?

[2dimes]

Sure my kids fight but more typically they yell at each other. When they do something my wife does not like she yells at them.

My wife had stopped yelling at me because I let her know I would not hang around while that happened. She busted out the screeching in the car recently and came very close to going to her mother's house for a birthday party without me. She stopped yelling only after I explained, "I don't want to go to this event either. I don't want to be yelled at. I refuse to do both. You may continue untilI get out of the car."

If my kids are yelling at each other in another room. I go in and explain they should stop yelling so they can try to figure out how to speak to each other. Or if only one is yelling at the other I explain, "This is part of why the other will think it's a good idea to yell at you instead or speaking at a normal volume next time you disagree.

One problem here is the nine year old knows you don't blast milk on everything then walk away with your bowl of cereal leaving a puddle on the counter. What she does not realize is you can explain this to a five year old without yelling.

Now if my kids are yelling at each other in another room then my wife goes in, instead of the yelling stopping while she talks to them there will be three people yelling instead of two.

[natty dread]

Anyways, I got the job.

same here, i just accepted my first full-time permanent job a few days ago

umad?

he's probably mad at you for fucking all those horses.