Posted by dahsdebater on 7/1/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Proving that OS parents are preferable to SS parents still doesn't mean SS adoption shouldn't be legal until you can find (fabricate) some numbers that suggest that there are enough OS parents in this country to raise all the children we have.  Since there aren't, that should take you a while.

That or convince me that SS parents are worse than foster parents.  I'm highly skeptical.  Mike suggested that, but he's an idiot.  I think you're too smart for that.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what you do.

You say that marriage is better for families than civil unions, right? (Civil unions can apply to straight couples)

I did not say that marriage was better for families than civil unions.

I said that children are better served with OS parents than SS parents.

Are you twisting my words to intentionally be an ***, or are you really that stupid that you can't follow what I'm saying?

So, in terms of raising children, marriage and civil unions are equally beneficial?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what you do.

You say that marriage is better for families than civil unions, right? (Civil unions can apply to straight couples)

I did not say that marriage was better for families than civil unions.

I said that children are better served with OS parents than SS parents.

Are you twisting my words to intentionally be an ***, or are you really that stupid that you can't follow what I'm saying?

So, in terms of raising children, marriage and civil unions are equally beneficial?

Are you talking about traditional OS marriage, or new-fangled SS marriage?

Are you talking about OS civil union, or SS civil union?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/1/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Proving that OS parents are preferable to SS parents still doesn't mean SS adoption shouldn't be legal until you can find (fabricate) some numbers that suggest that there are enough OS parents in this country to raise all the children we have.  Since there aren't, that should take you a while.

That or convince me that SS parents are worse than foster parents.  I'm highly skeptical.  Mike suggested that, but he's an idiot.  I think you're too smart for that.

Please find me a post where I said that SS adoption shouldn't be legal.

My comment (for the umpteenth time) was that adopted children are better served placed with OS parents than with SS parents.  I'm skeptical that for any child placed with a SS couple that there wasn't a deserving OS couple getting passed over.

Unless you can convince me that that's not the case.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what you do.

You say that marriage is better for families than civil unions, right? (Civil unions can apply to straight couples)

I did not say that marriage was better for families than civil unions.

I said that children are better served with OS parents than SS parents.

Are you twisting my words to intentionally be an ***, or are you really that stupid that you can't follow what I'm saying?

So, in terms of raising children, marriage and civil unions are equally beneficial?

Are you talking about traditional OS marriage, or new-fangled SS marriage?

Are you talking about OS civil union, or SS civil union?

Does it matter?

If so, two scenarios:

OS m vs OS cu

SS m vs SS cu

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/1/2013 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/1/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Proving that OS parents are preferable to SS parents still doesn't mean SS adoption shouldn't be legal until you can find (fabricate) some numbers that suggest that there are enough OS parents in this country to raise all the children we have.  Since there aren't, that should take you a while.

That or convince me that SS parents are worse than foster parents.  I'm highly skeptical.  Mike suggested that, but he's an idiot.  I think you're too smart for that.

Please find me a post where I said that SS adoption shouldn't be legal.

My comment (for the umpteenth time) was that adopted children are better served placed with OS parents than with SS parents.  I'm skeptical that for any child placed with a SS couple that there wasn't a deserving OS couple getting passed over.

Unless you can convince me that that's not the case.

Your middle paragraph certainly sounds as if you are suggesting that SS adoption shouldn't be legal...

The total number of children, foreign + domestic, adopted in the United States each year is a little under 140,000.  That includes same-sex adoptions, international adoptions, adoptions out of foster care - all instances in which any individual(s) accept legal guardianship of a child who is not his/her/their biological child.  Over 10% of these are adoptions by family members, most of whom were not specifically looking for children and probably were not candidates to adopt children out of the general pool of children seeking families.

The total number of children entering foster care each year is a little over 250,000.  I'm pretty good at math, and I'm fairly certain 250,000 > 140,000.  And some of those 140,000 are family, some are same-sex already, some are single.  I have a hard time believing you can find any numbers to bear out your assertion that "any child placed with a SS couple" had an OS couple passed over for their custody.  Given that there are over 100,000 children still seeking families at any given time.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what you do.

You say that marriage is better for families than civil unions, right? (Civil unions can apply to straight couples)

I did not say that marriage was better for families than civil unions.

I said that children are better served with OS parents than SS parents.

Are you twisting my words to intentionally be an ***, or are you really that stupid that you can't follow what I'm saying?

So, in terms of raising children, marriage and civil unions are equally beneficial?

Are you talking about traditional OS marriage, or new-fangled SS marriage?

Are you talking about OS civil union, or SS civil union?

Does it matter?

If so, two scenarios:

OS m vs OS cu

SS m vs SS cu

Yes, it matters.

I'd say both scenarios are basically equal.

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/1/2013 7:25:00 PM (view original):
You think you can change the adoption laws sufficiently to produce 100,000 more adoptions per year?  Or really, 125000+ when we consider the potentiality of removing SS applicants and family adoptions who never enter foster care in the first place...  Only 14% of adoptions in the US are of foreign-born children.  Sure, domestic red tape slows things down.  But not as much as so many people think.

And those 14% were included in my adoption totals anyway, so I was already giving you credit for changing the laws so everyone adopts US-born children.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what you do.

You say that marriage is better for families than civil unions, right? (Civil unions can apply to straight couples)

I did not say that marriage was better for families than civil unions.

I said that children are better served with OS parents than SS parents.

Are you twisting my words to intentionally be an ***, or are you really that stupid that you can't follow what I'm saying?

So, in terms of raising children, marriage and civil unions are equally beneficial?

Are you talking about traditional OS marriage, or new-fangled SS marriage?

Are you talking about OS civil union, or SS civil union?

Does it matter?

If so, two scenarios:

OS m vs OS cu

SS m vs SS cu

Yes, it matters.

I'd say both scenarios are basically equal.

So, with regards to raising children, there's nothing extra special provided by marriage?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 7:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/1/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what you do.

You say that marriage is better for families than civil unions, right? (Civil unions can apply to straight couples)

I did not say that marriage was better for families than civil unions.

I said that children are better served with OS parents than SS parents.

Are you twisting my words to intentionally be an ***, or are you really that stupid that you can't follow what I'm saying?

So, in terms of raising children, marriage and civil unions are equally beneficial?

Are you talking about traditional OS marriage, or new-fangled SS marriage?

Are you talking about OS civil union, or SS civil union?

Does it matter?

If so, two scenarios:

OS m vs OS cu

SS m vs SS cu

Yes, it matters.

I'd say both scenarios are basically equal.

So, with regards to raising children, there's nothing extra special provided by marriage?

"Extra special" provided by marriage over civil unions?

No, nothing substantial.

I can't wait to see the massive logic fail that you're headed for.  I don't know exactly what it will be, but by God, I know it's coming.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/1/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/1/2013 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/1/2013 2:57:00 PM (view original):
Again, in our rush to make everyone "equal", some of us prefer to move a little more cautiously.    Other prefer to say "**** it.  We can fix it later if it's broken!!"

How exactly do you want to determine if things should be allowed?

Right now we have 20 years of adoptions in the US and several countries in Western Europe, Australia, and South America that allow it. If that's not good enough to say, "hey look, those kids turned out fine," what is?

A whole 20 years?   So an adopted baby would be, oh, I don't know, 20-21?   Do we know those kids "turned out fine"?    They're barely adults.

****.  Maths must be hard.

So,for the third time, what exactly would you suggest?

Since, you know, 20 years and 14 countries isn't good enough.