Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Adoption

LGBT Adoption

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:06 PM

Cheile, on May 28 2004, 12:54 PM, said:

harassing of children of gay couples would more than likely be condoned by the admin b/c they would think the parents are immortal/
immortal? I didn't realize that being gay turned one into a Highlander?  ;)
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:17 PM

Obviously Cheile meant "immoral" (not that I agree).
Posted Image

#23 Douglas

Douglas
  • Islander
  • 424 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:20 PM

Never mind.  Move along

Edited by Douglas, 28 May 2004 - 06:22 PM.


#24 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:20 PM

Cheile to respond substantively:  Your logic could easily have been used as a reason to prevent "mixed race" couples from marrying/having children/adopting.  Obviously there was a time when a child of such a union would routinely face a certain stigma (I'm sure there remain pockets in this country where that unfortunately is still true).  That was not a valid reason to deny two consenting adult who were in love to marry or have children back then and it's *still* not a valid reason.
Posted Image

#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:23 PM

Douglas, on May 28 2004, 04:18 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on May 28 2004, 11:15 PM, said:

Obviously Cheile meant "immoral" (not that I agree).
Yeah, but she said we could quote her on it  :D   :lol:
Actually that was Broph-in the context of making fun of an obvious typo.  Look I am impatient with spelling and grammar and the like myself but honestly aren't there plenty of *real* ways to refute this particular argument without resort to making fun of typos?
Posted Image

#26 Douglas

Douglas
  • Islander
  • 424 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:32 PM

Fair enough; I'd already changed it.  I realized I had gotten the source wrong and edited.

Denying adoption rights based on how other people may respond just doesn't work.  Do we apply this to adoptions of children of different race, on the grounds of the 'different' family contributing to social ostracism?  No, and the denial of adoption based on the reaction other people might have doesn't have any real basis.

#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:35 PM

Agreed.  Denying these adoption rights on the basis of potential prejudice face by the child caters to and fosters the very prejudice we worry about the child facing.
Posted Image

#28 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 10:55 PM

Wow.   I think we've found one thread we all can basically agree on!  Success! ;)

It shouldn't matter who the other parent is.  To the child, being brought up in a safe, nurturing environment is what is most important.  And there are plenty of heterosexual parents who are NOT fit to have a child.  How many of them leave their kids to fend for themselves?  Beat them?  

And they deserve to have kids because they are STRAIGHT?  Hahahahahahhahahaa.  Wow.  That's really funny.  No, actually, it's sad.  

I don't see Rosie O'Donnell's kids in any danger of being made fun because of who their mother is.  Nor who she chooses to love.

*sigh*
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#29 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 11:00 PM

^

Not really. The people who don't agree are just being smart enough not to say anything lest they get jumped on. ;)
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#30 Lord Ravensburg

Lord Ravensburg

    All your lightsabers are belong to me

  • Islander
  • 533 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 11:40 PM

Right now I'm sort of raising my eyebrow at how someone with only 3 posts would just throw this incendiary bombshell out there, and then stay silent during the entirety of the ensuing discussion.

#31 ZipperInt

ZipperInt
  • Islander
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 11:42 PM

Hehe, I was going to point something to that effect out, but I'm not so good at calling those types of things without making personal remarks... :devil:
The second greatest podcast in the history of ever:
http://geeksonaplain.blogspot.com/

#32 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 11:44 PM

Lord Ravensburg, on May 28 2004, 09:38 PM, said:

Right now I'm sort of raising my eyebrow at how someone with only 3 posts would just throw this incendiary bombshell out there, and then stay silent during the entirety of the ensuing discussion.
maybe they wanted to see what would happen.... :whistle:
Posted Image

#33 rodglas

rodglas

    Beneath the Surface; Lies the Future

  • Islander
  • 458 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 12:33 AM

Josh, on May 28 2004, 10:58 PM, said:

^

Not really. The people who don't agree are just being smart enough not to say anything lest they get jumped on. ;)
Not entirely true, my own moral opposition to homsexuality aside, given that it is legal and gay family units are slowly becoming more accepted in society.

I am not a supporter of gay specific rights, but adoption is not an issue of sexual orientation but rather of parental fitness.  I would suspect that children of gay parents would be the least likely to feel the pressure of their parents sexual values.

This isn't like gay marriage where you have to create a a brand new right, (or at least cange a much older one) gays have always had as much right to adopts as any straight couple.

Rod.
"Requested items: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of fullerene cable, one low yield nuclear warhead. Stated purpose: birthday party for foreign dignitary." --Argosy Special Operations Service requisition form, CY 9512

#34 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 12:58 AM

*pokes head in*

:welldone:  Islers.  Really. :D

:thumbs-up:

Thank you for the quotes, Beldame. :)

#35 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 01:59 AM

Chipper, on May 29 2004, 04:53 AM, said:

Wow.   I think we've found one thread we all can basically agree on!  Success! ;)
Scary, isn't it.
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#36 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 07:58 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on May 28 2004, 11:42 PM, said:

Lord Ravensburg, on May 28 2004, 09:38 PM, said:

Right now I'm sort of raising my eyebrow at how someone with only 3 posts would just throw this incendiary bombshell out there, and then stay silent during the entirety of the ensuing discussion.
maybe they wanted to see what would happen.... :whistle:
That could be, but for some reason I don't think it is....


IMO, what probably happened was that the responses in this thread surprised, and probably scared the thread starter. More the likely, IMO, the thread starter probably felt that we would agree with his/her opinions. And when that not only didn't happen, they got nervous and decided not to post again.

of course, this is just my opinion....
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#37 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 09:56 AM

Chipper, on May 28 2004, 09:53 PM, said:

there are plenty of heterosexual parents who are NOT fit to have a child.  How many of them leave their kids to fend for themselves?  Beat them? 

And they deserve to have kids because they are STRAIGHT?
Nonsense. Nobody said that applying one restriction meant not applying any others as well. The first post in this thread had plenty of easily attackable material in it; there's no need to get so excited over another chance to attack non-pro-gay people that you go making up stuff that isn't there. You have no idea how long somebody's list of reasons not to allow someone to adopt might be until (s)he lists them all and tells you (s)he's done. So you just concocted the answer that you found most easily attackable: that the first or only one you've seen has to be the only one.

That straw-man assertion was the kind of thing that might have made people who at least partially agreed with the original post or agreed with SOME parts not bother; it was quite predictable that even that much would attract the usual standard attacks without any real look at the actual contents of people's posts. Anything less than praise for the great and wonderful homosexual population with a bunch of disclaimers about how bad straight people are has to be homophobic, and nobody could possibly deviate from your own view even slightly on a minor point without being The Devil. Yeesh.

Edited by Delvo, 29 May 2004 - 09:58 AM.


#38 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 02:49 PM

Oh, so now I go try and attack non-pro-gay people?  That's nonsense.  THe entire concept that you shouldn't allow people to adopt someone on the sipmle basis that they are gay is just idiotic, and I'm sure you agree.  But what I took from the first post is that the sexuality of the parents is one of the most important factors in the poster's mind, it seems, for adoption.  Maybe that's my mistake but hey, that's how I see it.

Yeesh yourself.  It shouldn't matter the sexuality, but how the parents would treat the kid.  If a gay couple wasn't fit to be parents, I'd keep the kid from them.  It's simple.  
If a person defended a position with truly unbiased information (as the poster did not, because it is obvious that the sources s/he quoted are not supporters of homosexual couples) that we could truly argue about, I'd go for it.  But I saw it as another post against the gay lifestyle and the "harmful" affect on children.

Because I mean, hey, you OBVIOUSLY don't have gay children living with heterosexual parents.  :rolleyes:
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#39 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 03:03 PM

Josh, on May 27 2004, 09:27 PM, said:

This is, without a doubt, the funniest thread I've encountered in OT. Of course, it's all going to broil down to gay marriage in the end (don't they always?), but for now, I'm just going to keep on laughing and stare in disbelief at the people who actually believe this bull.
I'll just stand here with Joshie and laugh at the sheer ignorance, assumption of facts not proven (given the very short period of time in which openly gay people have even been *allowed* to adopt children) and the assumption that heterosexuals are somehow well-adjusted and able to parent just because they a) exist and b) aren't gay.  :lol:  :D  :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#40 Atavus

Atavus

    Buying more stuff on eBay

  • Islander
  • 4,116 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 03:39 PM

Chipper, on May 29 2004, 07:47 PM, said:

Because I mean, hey, you OBVIOUSLY don't have gay children living with heterosexual parents.  :rolleyes:
Of course that's not the case, we just pop up out of the earth, ready-made, just like a LoTR dwarf does as rumor suggests! ;)

As to the original post, as much as I disagree with taran's opinion, I don't see any point in posting any arguments if s/he isn't active in the thread.
Avid fan of "Everybody Loves Hypno-Toad" and Sophie

3000 posts and counting! :) - 18 October 05



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Adoption

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users