Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
My point is: just because "A" is better than "B", that doesn't necessarily make "A" a good or desirable thing.

But if A is an improvement over B, then why not choose A over B?

Because B is happening anyway.

Because there may be far better options than A.

A gay couple is raising a child. As far as I can see there are only two options, the couple can be married or not.

What are the "far better options" that you see?

The gay couples should not have been given the child to begin with.  Why couldn't the child have been given to a worthy and desiring OS couple?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 6:42:00 PM (view original):

And you still haven't addressed the fact that we still allow single parents to keep their children, and I firmly believe that a same-sex couple is a better parenting unit than a single parent.

Are you suggesting that children be taken away from single parents and given to SS couples?

If not, then please explain what the point of that comment is.

Of course not, you and mike are both exceptional at being deliberately obtuse.  The point is that there are already many, MANY children in worse situations than a child adopted by a same-sex couple, and nobody questions the legality of it.  So why does everyone want to challenge the legality of this one particular parental arrangement?  It's because they're personally uncomfortable with homosexuals.  Frankly, if the right people - IE, people perceived to be similarly concerned - question deeply enough, it generally comes out that people are afraid that children raised by homosexual couples will be more likely to be homosexual themselves.  And since they think homosexuals are basically inferior people, that is a problem.

Aside from this latent and ridiculous fear, what specific harms can you think of inherent to being raised by a same-sex couple?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Well I agree with you on that, at least the part where they won't be GOOD at having things, although the implications on personal freedoms of saying they shouldn't be allowed to is actually a little scary to me.  Seems innocuous, but potentially isn't...

This is actually the crux of this discussion.   One side is "Let's do it and figure it out later" while the other side is "Let's figure it out and maybe do it later."

I prefer the way of the carpenter.  Measure twice, cut once. 

It's been my observation from my own experiences, both thinking back to when I was a child and now as a parent, that men (fathers) and women (mothers) both bring something different and unique to the family and parenting experience.  That leads to a more rounded upbringing for children.  That's the traditional family unit (a mother, a father, one or more children).  I don't believe that homosexual couples (two fathers or two mothers), in general, can bring that same kind of upbringing to a child.

That's not to say that they can't be good parents in their own right.  But I believe that a child up for adoption, in the long run, would be better served in a heterosexual parent family than in a homosexual parent family, so that they can get a more well rounded upbringing.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:46:00 PM (view original):
It's not homophobic.  You are homophobic, and since you can't win the argument that allowing same-sex couples to adopt children provides a better option for those children than being in the foster system, you have to propose that we fix the foster system.  The problem is that it's not that easy to do...  You can make adoption easier by simply not allowing biological parents to make later claims on their children.  It's a ridiculous loophole, and should not exist.  But even so, including foreign children, there are not NEARLY enough adoptions in this country to empty the foster system.  Even if you include same-sex couples who want to adopt.  So you're really still not accounting, numerically, for the fact that children would be better off with same-sex parents than foster parents.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 

So people are significantly different in other countries?  Same-sex parents work differently there?

And again, answer the most important question - if you're going to offhandedly dismiss statistics from other countries and not allow same-sex parents to adopt in this country, how are you planning to "find out how it works?"

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):

It's been my observation from my own experiences, both thinking back to when I was a child and now as a parent, that men (fathers) and women (mothers) both bring something different and unique to the family and parenting experience.  That leads to a more rounded upbringing for children.  That's the traditional family unit (a mother, a father, one or more children).  I don't believe that homosexual couples (two fathers or two mothers), in general, can bring that same kind of upbringing to a child.

That's not to say that they can't be good parents in their own right.  But I believe that a child up for adoption, in the long run, would be better served in a heterosexual parent family than in a homosexual parent family, so that they can get a more well rounded upbringing.

Again, I don't disagree with any of this.  I already conceded that an opposite-sex partnership is preferable for child-rearing.  But the reality is that no matter how you try to spin it, it really isn't an option of same-sex parents vs. opposite-sex parents.  It's a question of same-sex parents vs. no parents.  Furthermore, you still haven't responded to why you don't have an issue with single-parents but do have a problem with same-sex parents.  Single parents also provide only one side of the gender spectrum, but they also provide only one breadwinner, only one person to talk to, only one person to help nurture the child.  I think it's pretty clear that if you're not worried about specific HARMS of being raised by same-sex parents, a same-sex couple is preferable to a single parent.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 6/30/2013 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Seriously. You don't give a **** about kids, so it's not that. Marriage, you did it because the wife wanted it, so it's not that. You are not particularly religious, so it's not that.

Just say you don't like gay people. What's wrong with admitting it? It won't be popular, bit at least you could stop the bullshit justification.

LOL.

I know gay people.   But, to me, they're just people.  However, I must admit, none are clamoring to get married or raise children.    So, in my limited experience, I'm wondering why it's such a big deal.   And why, to non-gays, it seems to be a bigger deal. 

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
My point is: just because "A" is better than "B", that doesn't necessarily make "A" a good or desirable thing.

But if A is an improvement over B, then why not choose A over B?

Because B is happening anyway.

Because there may be far better options than A.

A gay couple is raising a child. As far as I can see there are only two options, the couple can be married or not.

What are the "far better options" that you see?

The gay couples should not have been given the child to begin with.  Why couldn't the child have been given to a worthy and desiring OS couple?

Who says they were "given" the child? It could easily be the biological child of one of the parents.

The parents are either allowed to marry or not. What other options do you see?

If you're talking about a single parent because of an unwed mother situation, that's slightly different.  That shows a level of irresponsibility, and I would question the qualifications of an irresponsible parent.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 

So people are significantly different in other countries?  Same-sex parents work differently there?

And again, answer the most important question - if you're going to offhandedly dismiss statistics from other countries and not allow same-sex parents to adopt in this country, how are you planning to "find out how it works?"

Do you not think other countries have different values?  Different views?  Different standards?

If you answer "no", I'll pay for your vasectomy.   I don't want you breeding in my country.

Stupidfuck.