 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Oh super! The back to the middle ages social sewing circle swells. |
Where's my needle and thimble, hun?
quote:
Being gay or lesbian does not automatically mean one is a bad parent. Just as being heterosexual does not mean you are fit to parent either. |
But all other things being equal, placing a child in a home with a mommy and daddy is better for the child. Adoption does not exist to promote someone's "I want to be a parent too" agenda...
quote:
Gay men and lesbians don't necessarily adopt as some lifestyle choice- perhaps you're confusing us with some Hollywood starlets- Angelina Jolie, Joan Crawford, I couldn't really say. |
Who cares about their motives? It isn't about them, it's about the child. Sheesh! And liberals calls us libertarians selfish?
quote:
As for endangering a child's life- it's plain and simple scaremongering bullsh!t on your part P.A. . Yet again conflating paedophiliac tendencies with homosexuality- congratulations for sneaking that in, all that's left is Kenobi's comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and sex addiction and it'll be a prejudiced royal flush. |
Will we have to search other threads for PA's "scaremongering" too? It isn't about pedophilism (hell, they come in all stripes), it's about the child growing up, going to school, and being faced with ridicule if not outright violence from other kids. It's about the child having a connection to his parents and not adding more emotional instability to an already troubled child. How did you homosexuals feel about your parents while growing up? Did you hide your orientation from them? Was there even a slight disconnect given your parents were heterosexual and you weren't? I'd rather see homosexual children adopted by homosexual couples for the same reason heterosexual children should be adopted by heterosexual couples (if sexuality can be determined that early). And I agree with many child welfare people who want black children adopted by black couples as a first resort and not have white couples given the same priority. It's about establishing as many possible connections between the orphan and adults, not "I want a child and I don't care if I'm the most suitable option"...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I would rather see children adopted by gay couples than be murdered in their mother's womb. Life ain't fair and much of the time all you have to pick from is an odd collection of short sticks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
I can see Berz's point. While I think that gay people should be able to do whatever they want, I can't help but think I would rather have been raised by a mum and a dad than by two dads. However, there are many children who need adoption, and I would far rather they were adopted by loving gay parents that kept in the system. So I would support a law saying that gay people should be able to adopt, but personally I would rather see children adopted by a mother and a father than by gay parents. I would like to see what child-welfare workers think on this. Because all I've seen is the gay lobby saying they should be allowed to, and the conservative lobby saying they shouldn't. I don't really care what either of those thinks, when it comes to adoption, it's about what's best for the child. If that's with gay parents, then fine, if that's not, then fine. Has anyone seen a statement by a child-welfare lobby group, or other such affiliate, on whether it's a good idea to allow it or not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
PA: I have to say I think that article goes too far:
quote:
the promiscuous nature of gay relationships |
Are they any moreso than heterosexual relationships? Comparing a loving, stable, gay relationship to a loving, stable, straight relationship, is there any more promiscuity likely? I doubt it. I do understand the sexual identity problems, if someone is raised by two gay people, they may feel weird when at school and they are assumed to like girls, when they've always seen a gay relationshiop first and foremost. In a heterosexual family, there is a 90% chance that the child will be the same sexual orientation as their parents. 1 in 10 children have to go through the confusion of being a different sexual orientation than the most obvious relationship they see is. However with gay couples adopting, 9 in 10 children will be a different sexual orientation from their parents, the most obvious loving relationship. That could cause confusion in more children.
I think PA overstates that dangers, but I think Ming is wrong that there is "no other argument on why they shouldn't besides their bigotry against gays." There are other arguments, and some child-welfare groups seem to think that it isn't a good thing for the child. The gay rights issue of adoption does matter, but when it comes to any adoption, IMHO, the child's welfare is more important.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
berz:
quote:
But some people would make more than others without the state, so we can have rules that reflect that moral reality or we can have rules that violate it. |
Rubbish. "Without the state" there would BE NO MONEY. If you choose to take part in money, you buy into the state system. Money WAS CREATED BY THE STATE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH!
When agriculture was adopted, and surplus food was created, government became necessary to store the surplus, and decide who was freed up from tending the fields to do other work and get to eat anyway. It also came in handy to feed old people who could remember how to deal with catastrophes that occurred before the working populace was born, and to feed sick people who could then survive to contribute once again, rather than starve.
The redistribution of surplus did more benefit to the society as a whole.
It still does.
Grow up. All the benefits you enjoy accrue from this system. It is your duty as a citizen to contribute to it.
It is patently absurd, and childish, to call taxes "stealing". It is also greedy.
My prejudice, as a straight married man with two sons, is that gay parents are more likely to be superior parents than straight parents. I believe they would be better at communicating with their children about prejudice and sexual orientation. I believe that they would be more likely to have to equal, involved interested parents than straight couples. I believe that the children growing up would benefit from the adversity they would face from homophobic children, and become more tolerant and understanding of the differences of others in society. I believe that there are far more straight couples who want to adopt a child due to status and conformity reasons, than gays who want to make a statement about rights (<0). Gays already are non-conforming.
As I said, my prejudice. I would be inclinded to favour prospective gay parents over straight ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I'm against gays adopting children. Not because they can't raise them properly. I'm sure they can.
But they are placing kids in harm's way by adopting them. |
How so?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
As an aside, while reading this thread, I am torn between smashing my fist into the monitor and laughing my damn fool ass off.
Progressive tax code as a civil rights violation... what a riot!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Did you forget my orientation? |
Not at all, but any Libertarian with brains would balk at your argument.
quote:
Since it has escaped your less than all encompassing attention  , we're not here arguing against discrimination. That would be your leftist friends who are decrying discrimination and unequal treatment. You'll have to explain your desire to discriminate to them since they don't like discrimination. |
You've missed the point. "To Discriminate" means to pick or sort out. Moral discrimination does so by assigning values. Every moral rule does this, including ones endorsed by Libertarianism. For example, Libertarians think it's OK to discriminate against thieves. There's nothing wrong with this, in their view, because it isn't wrongful discrimination.
You've complained that your enemies are inconsistent because they favour discrimination in one area and not in another. That's idiotic, since they only consider one to be wrongful and the other justified.
Similarly, Libertarians aren't logically inconsistent by saying both that it's wrong to treat anyone's right to life any less than anyone else's and that it's OK to treat criminals differently than the rest of the population.
As Skywalker noted, your argument is a bad one. It has nothing to do with my distaste for Libertarianism or any normative claims at all - this is a strictly logical matter.
quote:
These aren't your goods to "distribute". |
Only if you believe in Libertarianism, which I don't. So just stating it as though it were fact is begging the question.
And Libertarians do believe in redistribution of goods - from those who have taken them illegally back to the rightful owners. There is a Libertarian rule that states that only property that has been transferred voluntarily is rightfully owned. If the present distribution of property does not satisfy that criterion, then redistribtion is morally required (i.e. we should restore property to its rightful owners).
quote:
Yes, libertarians discriminate against thieves. I like discrimination, I do it every day when I buy something. |
Now you're getting it.
quote:
Wow! Talk about missing the point. I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who argue that discrimination is wrong when it comes to homosexual couples adopting children while supporting a discriminatory tax code. And for these same people to couch their argument in terms of "civil rights" is even more ridiculous, I now have a civil right to adopt a child but not be treated equally wrt the taxes? |
There's no hypocrisy here since there is no necessary incompatibility between thinking that it is wrong to treat people differently in this respect because of their sexual orientation and believing it is right to treat people differently at tax time. They would argue that it is fine to tax the wealthy more than the poor because to tax them the same amount would put an unequal burden onto the poor for whom the sum would be a greater burden due to the principle of diminishing marginal utility.
quote:
Taking $10 from anyone is wrong, it's called stealing and making it legal can't change the immorality of the act. |
That may be the case. But you are arguing that these people are hypocritical - i.e. being inconsistent with their own beliefs. But they aren't. They are inconsistent with your beliefs, but that doesn't make them hypocrites.
quote:
But obviously the people who support this law believe that "diminishing marginal utility" requires that children be adopted by married heterosexuals. Why? For the good of the children, a factor the homosexuals conveniently ignore. Adoption is not about giving homosexuals a child, it's about finding suitable homes for orphans. |
Diminishing marginal utility has nothing to do with adoption that I can see.
Diminishing marginal utility states that when holdings increase utility diminishes. For example, if you have only ten dollars, ten dollars is worth a lot more to you than it is to someone with ten million dollars. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has ten negatively impacts that person's welfare much more than taking it from the millionaire, who probably wouldn't even notice the negative impact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Sky -
Sure it's hypocrisy, discrimination is okay for me, but not for thee. Furthermore, if liberals want to go down the road of justifiable discrimination to mask the hypocrisy, i.e., we have good reason to discriminate but not you, then you'll have to argue that it is just as good for an orphan to be adopted by homosexuals as it is for married heterosexuals. That dog won't hunt... Adoption is, or should be, finding suitable homes for children without families, not soothing some desire to parent... |
There is no hypocrisy! NO ONE is talking about "discrimination" - that's STUPID. Discrimination is making a choice based on information. They are rather talking about discrimination based on certain factors - such as race, sexual orientation, or level of income. Each is a SEPERATE case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Sky -
Sure it's hypocrisy, discrimination is okay for me, but not for thee. Furthermore, if liberals want to go down the road of justifiable discrimination to mask the hypocrisy, i.e., we have good reason to discriminate but not you, then you'll have to argue that it is just as good for an orphan to be adopted by homosexuals as it is for married heterosexuals. That dog won't hunt... Adoption is, or should be, finding suitable homes for children without families, not soothing some desire to parent... |
There is no hypocrisy! NO ONE is talking about "discrimination" - that's STUPID. Discrimination is making a choice based on information. They are rather talking about discrimination based on certain factors - such as race, sexual orientation, or level of income. Each is a SEPERATE case. |
Reserve me a spot at that wall.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
 |
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
A guy I knew from school got raped behind a restaurant a few miles away, that turned him gay. So...
Last edited by Park Avenue on 31-01-2004 at 03:28
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2004 14:47
My 15 minutes have been cut short by Ben
|