Presumption of Legitimacy-Gay and Lesbian Parenting and their Rights

Your opinion piece, so-called "study" has been debunked. Do you have anything else?

Claiming that children are not Pomerarians as though I or anyone else claimed they were; this is the beginning of a strawman argument and is dishonest debating.

 

You only call it a strawman because you are taking his arguements too literally. take them into context.

 

Ok first of all Smartmouthwoman is in fact a woman, she is not a he. Please be respectful. I think Smartmouthwoman can speak for herself just fine as well.

Second of all I have taken nothing out of context. Sam, perhaps instead of diving headfirst into our discussion and making wild accusations and assumptions you just stand by and observe for a change?

 

I agree with smartmouthwoman. Children are not like pomeranians, or pet dogs. They have more needs.

 

your book of fantasy has no relevance in reality

 

how about actual studies and not right wing religious claptrap

 

Nobody here has claimed that children are pomeranians or pet dogs or anything of the like! See? You have built a strawman, a false argument that someone has claimed children are like pets and then you have easily knocked it down because it's a very easy argument to destroy. Of course children are not like pets and no one here thinks they are nor claimed as such.

 

Exactly right! We agree on something. Then why do you persist in doing exactly that? Here is an editorial that I recently had published that addresses that exact issue. I hope that you can trouble yourself to read it instead of just blowing it off while continuing to bloviate about something that you know nothing about:

.......

 

Sorry, but you're the one making a big deal out of pomeranians. I only used that example because you asked if my brother had children. Trust me, I loved my brother to pieces, but he and his many partners would be the LAST people I'd want to see raising children.

Let's face facts... most gays are extremely self absorbed. Not an ideal parenting trait.

 

I'll read it with a grain of salt. Surely you don't claim your editorials are anything but personal opinions.

Nice editorial. Probably a reason you didn't quote statistics.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

 

Marriage equality would involve extending marriage to any two consenting adults who desire marriage. I bet the letter was railing against "gay marriage".

 

\

It more than an opinion. It's based on my experience in the field whereas you have yet to tell us how you know so much or why you think that you do. Statistics? What statistics would you like?

 

It more than an opinion. It's based on my experience in the field whereas you have yet to tell us how you know so much or why you think that you do. Statistics? What statistics would you like? I did not include stats in the letter because of limited space[/QUOTE]

 

Statistics about the stability of homosexual relationships... infidelity, in particular. Is it your opinion that gay couples are as monogamous as straight couples in committed relationships?

 

No I'm not. You brought up the strawman that children are the same as pets and then Sam decided to latch onto that and develop it into a full strawman to knock down.

That's quite nice and all but nobody here has claimed that kids = pets. Do you think that gay couples all view children this way or something?

Let's face the facts, humans in general are extremely self-absorbed. Should no one have kids because of this? Most people, gays included, can and do overcome their selfishness when it comes to caring for their children.

All you are presenting us with are traits that all humans inherently have and thus are making the argument that really no person should have kids because of their personal selfishness/behaviors/divorces/affairs/etc.

 

whats the difference between a strawman and a full strawman?

 

Same here and my brother is STRAIGHT! But he is also a heroine addict so he probably should never have kids. Plenty of people shouldn't be parents, I think it has little to do with their sexual orientation and more to do with whether or not they have the selflessness and discipline to raise children. Not everyone is suited for the role of parenting.

In the course of adoption it should be reviewed on a case by case basis. If the couple has no history of criminal past, abuse, violence, drug use, if they have been together or married for a long time, if they are financially stable, etc.

It should have nothing to do with their sexual orientation because you get bad apples in every group. There should not be a full exclusion based on the few bad apples.

 

smartmouthwoman was in the process of starting a strawman when she mentioned that kids are not dogs/pets. You turned it into a complete strawman by creating an argument with it and easily knocking it down. That's what I meant when I said you took what she said and turned it into a 'full' strawman.

Now can we get back on topic please?

An entire group of people should not be excluded from adopting some children out of the system and giving them a loving home just because of a few bad apples in their group, who arguably, probably don't even want to or would even try to adopt kids in the first place.

Saying gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of these other people who misbehave is wrong. Each couple/individual should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

And if you mention sin and the Bible again I am going to add you to my ignore list. Your religious beliefs have no place in our secular government and they do not get to dictate who gets to adopt kids or not especially since you can't prove the Bible is a book of fact, I am of the opinion that it is a book of fiction.

 

Yes, but the overall statistics show gay adoption is harmful. do you have any studies that show otherwise?

 

Yes, you are. I said my brother and his friends had Pomeranians. I said gays would be better off raising Pomeranians. Then I said children are not Pomeranians. YOU'RE the one who keeps making the comparison to children, not me. Children are not pets.

Yes, all humans are self-absorbed. It's a survival trait. If you want to argue that gay men are no more self-absorbed than anybody else... then it says to me you don't actually know any gay men and this conversation is over. Agree to disagree, so to speak.

 

And we've come full circle.

The OP and his/her supporters claim gay couples should have just as much right to adopt children as anybody else.

The opposing side tries to explain why that might not be such a good idea, but instead of addressing those concerns, the gay rights crowd yells STRAWMAN and changes the subject.

Back to the original, based-on-nothing-but-emotions claim. As if the welfare of children is somehow secondary to the welfare of gays.

Maybe I don't understand the argument... gay couples and even gay singles adopt children all the time now. It's not easy... adopting children is never easy, nor should it be. But it's possible.

Exactly what is it gay rights advocates on this thread want that they don't already have?

 

The short answer is yes, when those relationships are supported and validated to the extent that heterosexual relationships are. There is a lot of conflicting and biased information out there on the longevity of gay relationships. If those relationships are in fact shorter or less stable, it does not mean that it is a direct result of being gay, or the nature of being gay. I think that one needs to look at specific time frames and places and determine the extent of social acceptance and support as one possible intervening variable.

All minorities face pressures and stresses on their relationships that other do not. It could also be that couples who are motivated to adopt are more stable and committed than others. And don't forget, when it comes to adoption, there is extensive screening to assess the relationship. Therefore, at some point in time or in some place gays fair less well in terms of longevity, that is not a good reason to deny adoption to gays because 1) many do stay together and 2) straight couples do not have a great track record either. Maybe as a society, we should find ways to support loving relationships instead of condemning, marginalizing and undermining them. Maybe then we would have more stable and nurturing intact homes for the kids that everybody claims to care about. However, as I've said before, it's often apparent to me that the children are just being used as pawns to advance the anti-gay agenda. Having said that, I will share this with you:

With legal marriage rights, civil unions, and domestic partnerships comes the reality that some couples must face divorce. While more couples are gaining legal access to the rights afforded by marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships there are some couples that find that they need to dissolve such legally binding relationships.
The number of gay marriages was recorded for the first time in the 2010 census. In November 2011 the esteemed Williams Institute published a body of research which included rates that same-sex couples were getting married and divorced.

Here is a summary of what these researchers concluded: http://www.marriageequality.org/divorce.
One more thing. You dismissed my previous post as opinion. Well let me ask you this. One of the points that I made was “Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents”. That is more than an opinion. That is sound logic which I invite you to demonstrate how it can be false

 

The short answer is BS. Thru my brother, his friends and gay work friends, I've been around gay people all my life... which is longer than 26 years in the biz.

Most gay men are promiscuous. The whole gay 'experience' is about sex without commitment so it's ridiculous to claim gay men don't have MULTIPLE sex partners until they find Mr. Right. Few straight men can say that, for sure. Unless you want to argue that gay men have just as much difficulty finding a willing partner as straight men. That might be good fodder for it's own thread, huh? In the Humor & Satire section. LOL

 

Did you actually not understand anything that I said beyond the first sentence? Did you not read the part where divorce among gays where marriage is legal is comparable to straight marriages? You're in Texas for Christ sake. Are gay relationships supported and validated there?Being gay is not about sex without commitment. Remind me to tell you about some of my escapades as a single straight man, and later while married.

Let me tell you a story:

I have gay neighbors. They are a married Caucasian couple-both professional men in their early 30s. One is a school social worker, and the other is a financial advisor for a well-known investment house. They introduced me to their 3 year old African American, special needs child and said that he is their son, who they adopted through the state. His parents were killed in an auto accident a year ago and the child had been in 3 foster homes since then. There was no extended family able and willing to care for him. Special needs children, especially minorities are very hard to place and to find a stable home for, but these two men stepped up to take that responsibility.
I now know that in what little spare time they have, they do volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity, and occasionally deliver meals on wheels. They plan on having two more children by a surrogate mother with each of them donating sperm for that purpose. Each will then adopt the child of the other as the second parent.
Can you honestly tell me that these two men, who are contributing to society and the community in many ways, do not deserve the benefits, protection and status of being married? Can you explain to me why it is more important to prohibit same sex marriage and adoption by gays than to allow this child to have the stability and security of having married parents? Can you say that this is not a family in every sense of the word? Please be honest and give your reasons.