The Petition to End Proposition 8

[FilmJunkie1114]

This is more a support of the opportunity for gay couples to have the opportunity to have marital unions than anything else. If you support this cause, please pledge it by adding your name here:

http://petitionspot.com/petitions/EndProposition8

Some of you will probably roll your eyes, which I can live with, but if you feel it is a valid cause, I think adding your name would be pretty cool. And don't feel awkward to place your name on there if you are straight; I am as well, and I started the damn thing.

[gayzilla]

I'll certainly add my name. Though I probably expect this thread to be deleted, or atleast moved. Unfortunately, if you don't live in California there's little you can do about Prop 8 except send money.

But the good news is that its looking highly likely that Prop 8 will be validated but cause it contradicts with several clauses already in the California constitution. It's like if they had 2 amendments, one to allow same-sex marriage, and the other to ban it and they both passed, it would be a conflict, which is what the current situation has developed into.

Maybe they'll move this to the politics thread and let us in there.

[FilmJunkie1114]

if they moved this there and added me, that would be cool; I get restricting it, since politics and religion are those two issues that many people can't discuss in a rational, reasonable, yet respectful manner, but I certainly don't care to ignite needless fires, but a spirited, calm political discussion is always a fascinating venture.

[JJFlamingo]

SPAM

[therealjohng]

I'm moving this to politics since it has nothing to do with movies.

[Pentangeli]

In light of my country's recent disgrace regarding adoption, I'm inclined to support Proposition 8, and every other movement to deny gay people equal rights. The final step in gay people's victory will be the right to take children from their grandparents, despite both the grandparents and grandchildren wishing to be kept together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1131247/AMANDA-PLATELL-Social-services-Stasi-hang-heads-shame.html

[The Postmaster General]

I'm having a hard time seeing what that has to do with them being gay, despite the article mentioning they are gay over 20 times. There is no evidence that their gayitivityness has anything to do with the adoption, and for all we know this could have come about through a bribe or some sort of favor. I feel bad for the grandparents, assuming that the article didn't fail to address any issues like them being unable to care for the children, or legally unable to adopt them, but even on the surface, I don't see what the couple being gay has to do with anything. There has to be some reason the grandparents aren't being given regular visitation rights. or weren't allowed to legally object to it.

[Jon Lyrik]

Pent. seems to be a reactionary type.

[Pentangeli]

Pent. seems to be a reactionary type.

In a system where children -- who wish to live with their grandparents -- are forced to live with a gay couple, I'm most certainly a reactionary type.

[Vong]

I don't see what the couple being gay has to do with anything.

Because they're gay....DUH!!!!

:rolleyes:

[Jon Lyrik]

In a system where children -- who wish to live with their grandparents -- are forced to live with a gay couple, I'm most certainly a reactionary type.

I'm guessing less because of the age limits and more on the gay part.

[The Postmaster General]

I wonder how the article would have read if they were interracial couple.

So everyone is kind of with me that this has nothing to do with them being gay (the adoption) but it's being turned into propaganda against gays adopting?

To elaborate, would the outcome have been any different if the couple were not gay? Can someone in the know tell me a bit more about this publication running the article? What is its reputation? It seems very agenda based, even more an editorial based. It provided no evidence whatsoever that the sexuality of the couple had anything to do with anything, yet used the word "gay" at least 20 times, which is kind of queer.

[Pentangeli]

The issue with interracial couples adopting, and parents adopting a child of a different race, is a bizarre one in Britain. Public opinion polls *1*, listed in various newspapers (of both left and right center politics) all show a majority percentage believing race shouldn't be an issue. And yet adoption agencies do have an issue with it, and there is a hefty section of legislation regarding race-related adoption.

Contrasting to that, British opinion polls *2* are very much mixed regarding same-sex couples adopting. Often a majority is shown to be in opposition. In Scotland where the situation of these children took place, around 90% of Scottish people are against gays adopting. And yet British adoption agencies are eager to place children with gay couples, and the children in question get no say in the matter. Normal couples who have passed the requirements get put on a waiting list, whereas gay couples get preferential treatment and don't need to wait as long. In the case of these young children, there were eligible normal couples wanting to adopt, and yet the adoption agency used it as a gay rights issue and gave preference to the gay couple.

The main issue with this story is gay couples getting their rights, which isn't popular among the public, whereas some people have been given no rights on account of ageist policies. If gay rights comes at the expense of straight couples's rights to adopt, by gay couples getting preferential treamtent; or if gay rights conflicts with the wishes of the children, then i'm against gay people having such rights.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*1* I'm affraid I found no links to any opinion polls regarding Britain's view on race-related issues concerning adoption. The information I referred to was obtained through the actual newspapers and not online articles.

*2* The only valid sources regarding the view on gay adoption -- though neither provide a poll -- I have found on the internet are from the Daily Mail (conservative), which mentioned around 90% of Scottish people are against gay couples adopting, and the other source is from the Guardian (liberal) which stated around a third of British people were opposed to gay couples adopting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1130289/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-To-place-children-gay-men-adoptive-mother-father-available-sickening-assault-family-life.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/12/gay-adoption

[Jon Lyrik]

It looks more like you should be attacking the adoption agencies for ageism rather than aiming at the gay couples. What, are most gay couples supporting this when looking at the whole picture?

[Pentangeli]

It looks more like you should be attacking the adoption agencies for ageism rather than aiming at the gay couples. What, are most gay couples supporting this when looking at the whole picture?

No I don't necessarily believe that gay couples would support ageism. People who have encountered struggles in their life will more likely have sympathy for others who fight for equality.

I don't have a problem with the gay couple. My anger is at the adoption agency, and obviously Government, which have forced the children away from their grandparents.

If gay people can have equality without it infringing on other people's freedom, I have no problem with them. However there seems to be something sinister and corrupt going on in Britain which isn't focused on equality for gay people, but instead is actively giving them preferential treatment. And that I don't agree with.

[Criminal Rock]

No I don't necessarily believe that gay couples would support ageism.

If the gay community does not support ageism, then why not oppose Proposition 8? Give both gay couples and elderly couples equal opportunity, even elderly gay couples... give them a shot to. Why the fuck not...

If your problems lay with gay couples receiving preferential treatment in adoption cases (specifically, from adoption agencies), why not just oppose that specifically instead of opposing the entire notion of allowing gay couples to adopt? Especially if you "don't necessarily believe that gay couples support ageism". Seems counter productive to the cause of equality for all, and to be honest, quite silly.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, I don't know Pent, wouldn't what you were saying be the same as saying you don't support equal rights for blacks because you believe that affirmative action is wrong?

[Pentangeli]

wouldn't what you were saying be the same as saying you don't support equal rights for blacks because you believe that affirmative action is wrong?

No.

Do you believe they are similar? if so, why?

[shoe1985]

I could care less what gays do. If they want to marry or adopt a child, fine. But, this was voted on by the people, and lost. End of story.

[The Postmaster General]

Pent -

Oh, that's true. Then I would have to be hypothetical and ask if you would support equal rights for blacks if blacks were being giving priority in adopting children?

[Pentangeli]

Pent -

Oh, that's true. Then I would have to be hypothetical and ask if you would support equal rights for blacks if blacks were being giving priority in adopting children?

I think I edited my post from what you've replied to. I was interested in your thoughts on the similarities between the two hypothetical situations.

Race should be a non-issue in America. The creation of modern America is one which involved people from various continent. It must be multi-cultural, with people of various races having equal rights, I can't see any other way. So the problem with that hypothetical would be the preferential treatment, meaning inequality for other races, which I don't agree with. I would support equal rights for blacks, but obviously the problem of them getting extra rights or preferential treatment would need to be rectified. Simple.

But adoption is so much more complex, especially where non-natural parenting is concerned.

[The Postmaster General]

Well, the blacks and affirmative action thing isn't a hypothetical, but as you said earlier that wouldn't apply because that is denying someone the right to earn money, which is different than adoption, a right that might be seen as a lifestyle choice (maybe?)

I reckon that I was comparing the two on the basis as rights for individuals which may in some ways be seen as giving preferential treatment based on factors seemingly unrelated on the surface.

On you recent response, I ask if you view homosexuality as a choice.

[Vong]

I ask if you view homosexuality as a choice.

http://sydlexia.com/blogstuff/ackbar_its_a_trap.jpg

[The Postmaster General]

I'm not sure whom you think is trapping whom, but I'd like to think that we are all above that sort of mentality and are more concerned with discussing our thoughts in relation to one another's than trying to PWN one another.

On another note, no offense intended toward your taste in witty captioned pictures, but that particular picture is an EPIC FAIL.

Hey Vong, I got your nose.

[Vong]

Well I was debating between using this photo and another one ("This Will Not End Well"). This picture seemed more appropriate since you are opening a new door in the discussion and no doubt will turn ugly for Pentangeli, thus leading me to warn him not to procede.

I'm all for discussion on matters such as this, but I find that humour is often needed in situations where things can get tense.

Hey Bubba, I got your wallet.

[Pentangeli]

On you recent response, I ask if you view homosexuality as a choice.

I'm not an expert on the scientific analysis of sexuality. However, I do consider sexuality to be more specifically focused around one of two primal desires, to dominate or to be dominated. Neither necessarily associated with the s&m scene.

I'll try and approach your question by analysing what I already know, me. Personally, I like to be in control. Why? perhaps I see that as the role of the man, with women being submissive. And why would I think that? is it genetic, or simply a psychological reaction to my environment.

I consider blonde women and Oriental women to possess a more vulnerable appearance than other races, which explains why I have a thing for blondes and oriental women, particularly those who are slim with straight hair, oh and with a pretty, feminine voice. Women of that description make me feel powerful.

But if that's the case, why do I not have an attraction to girls (children), who are obviously most vulnerable. Surely that would make me most powerful. That can be answered by my need to be desirable in the eyes of the woman, its why I work out and generally take care of myself. Obviously children are not developed sexually, and would not find people desirable in a manner i've described. This knowledge, in concurrence with ethics, unconciously manifests within an aversive reaction. The same could be applied to women who resemble someone who has turned me down, I might develop a dislike for that type due to a sense of powerless over them. Some men who's sexuality is of a need to be dominant, may not have a desire to be considered attractive, having no compassion or consideration for others's perception, may be what causes some men to be paedophiles, or commit rape.

Homosexuality might be similar. If so, then a man, for example, who desires to be submissive, and he associates men as being dominant, he might question his gender role, although not necessarily wishing to change gender, and might form a preference for the same gender. He'll then associate a certain type with what he considers conveys a more dominant image, and will likely be attracted to that. I'm unsure as to why any man, who wishes to be dominant, would find another man attractive, when (some) women are clearly the fairer of the species. Perhaps the answer is found within the reason why some straight women like gay porn.

Is attraction a choice, or genetic, or a psychological reaction to my environment. Despite my best efforts, I'm affraid I can't answer that, or the question you've posed.

[The Postmaster General]

Well I was debating between using this photo and another one ("This Will Not End Well"). This picture seemed more appropriate since you are opening a new door in the discussion and no doubt will turn ugly for Pentangeli, thus leading me to warn him not to procede.

I'm all for discussion on matters such as this, but I find that humour is often needed in situations where things can get tense.

Hey Bubba, I got your wallet.

I just don't want Pent to hold back because people are going ot make him out to be an ass. I've never had an opportunity to hear the POV of someone who thinks gayness is solely a choice, and am eager to hear as such, assuming he does think that (see below). I have thoughts of my own on it (see below)

Regarding the picture, I was just giving you shit. I have a sense of humor too, but it's generally obtuse or dry in style. Think of me like your straight man, although for purposes of this thread, I might act slightly less straight just because it would be funny. You know what I mean hot lips?

I'm not an expert on the scientific analysis of sexuality. However, I do consider sexuality to be more specifically focused around one of two primal desires, to dominate or to be dominated. Neither necessarily associated with the s&m scene.

I'll try and approach your question by analysing what I already know, me. Personally, I like to be in control. Why? perhaps I see that as the role of the man, with women being submissive. And why would I think that? is it genetic, or simply a psychological reaction to my environment.

I consider blonde women and Oriental women to possess a more vulnerable appearance than other races, which explains why I have a thing for blondes and oriental women, particularly those who are slim with straight hair, oh and with a pretty, feminine voice. Women of that description make me feel powerful.

But if that's the case, why do I not have an attraction to girls (children), who are obviously most vulnerable. Surely that would make me most powerful. That can be answered by my need to be desirable in the eyes of the woman, its why I work out and generally take care of myself. Obviously children are not developed sexually, and would not find people desirable in a manner i've described. This knowledge, in concurrence with ethics, unconciously manifests within an aversive reaction. The same could be applied to women who resemble someone who has turned me down, I might develop a dislike for that type due to a sense of powerless over them. Some men who's sexuality is of a need to be dominant, may not have a desire to be considered attractive, having no compassion or consideration for others's perception, may be what causes some men to be paedophiles, or commit rape.

Homosexuality might be similar. If so, then a man, for example, who desires to be submissive, and he associates men as being dominant, he might question his gender role, although not necessarily wishing to change gender, and might form a preference for the same gender. He'll then associate a certain type with what he considers conveys a more dominant image, and will likely be attracted to that. I'm unsure as to why any man, who wishes to be dominant, would find another man attractive, when (some) women are clearly the fairer of the species. Perhaps the answer is found within the reason why some straight women like gay porn.

Is attraction a choice, or genetic, or a psychological reaction to my environment. Despite my best efforts, I'm affraid I can't answer that, or the question you've posed.


I see what you mean, because you can't label your own attraction as by choice or as a predisposition. That's totally fair. Then by that, I guess my next question would be why should homosexuality be an issue when determining the denial of right? Is it based on adhering to tradition?

And you work out? Hm. Me and Vong would like to see some pictures!! :eek:

[Vong]

Hm. Me and Vong would like to see some pictures!! :eek:

Whatchu talkin' bout hombre?

[The Postmaster General]

I thought you said you was alright spider.

[Pentangeli]

Then by that, I guess my next question would be why should homosexuality be an issue when determining the denial of right? Is it based on adhering to tradition?

Following tradition merely because its the established thing isn't a factor here. The philosophy from which the tradition is based could be valid and subsequently play a factor in one's belief.

As for the "denial of rights", it would depend on what those rights were.

[The Postmaster General]

Following tradition merely because its the established thing isn't a factor here. The philosophy from which the tradition is based could be valid and subsequently play a factor in one's belief.

So is that a yes? I didn't ask why.

As for the "denial of rights", it would depend on what those rights were.

The right to adopt, what else?

[Pentangeli]

So is that a yes? I didn't ask why.

I answered your question. If you want a more precise answer, you'll have to be more precise with your questions.


The right to adopt, what else?

This thread was originally regarding the right to marriage, so there was more than one rights issue in discussion.

On the issue of adoption, do you believe a child should have a choice concerning who the prospective parent is?

[The Postmaster General]

I answered your question. If you want a more precise answer, you'll have to be more precise with your questions.

Well, my question was...

I see what you mean, because you can't label your own attraction as by choice or as a predisposition. That's totally fair. Then by that, I guess my next question would be why should homosexuality be an issue when determining the denial of right? Is it based on adhering to tradition?

To which you responded...

Following tradition merely because its the established thing isn't a factor here. The philosophy from which the tradition is based could be valid and subsequently play a factor in one's belief.


Then in response, I asked...

So is that a yes?

To which you responded...

I answered your question. If you want a more precise answer, you'll have to be more precise with your questions.

So, to make the question more precise:

Is that a yes, as in you do feel that adhering to tradition plays a role in your opinion that homosexuals should be denied the right to adopt, given that you can't label your own attraction as by choice or as a predisposition, and therefore cannot say with certainty whether homosexuality is a choice or not?

This thread was originally regarding the right to marriage, so there was more than one rights issue in discussion.

Yes, I understand that, but we have been talking about the rights to adopt for quite some time now. The issue of marriage hasn't pertained to the discussion for at least 1 page. Sorry for any confusion my casuality may have caused.

On the issue of adoption, do you believe a child should have a choice concerning who the prospective parent is?

Off hand, no, because you might risk that the child would turn down adoptive parents based on reasons secondary to whether the parent would be in their best interest. Most children up for adoption aren't in this type of situation and many are living in foster homes, where some of them, especially older ones, would rather stay as they have had previous bad experiences with adoptive parents. Children can't decide if they can live with their divorced father or mother until the age of 11. I can't even find in the article how old these kids are.

I do, though, in this case, feel that the grandparents should be able to sue to gain custody of the children, and that this should be decided in a court. Again, though, the article doesn't go into much detail as to why the grandparents were threatened with losing visitation rights --- that part makes no sense to me, unless they did something resembling hate speech or other illegal activity that has shown the potential for them not being in the children's best interest.

Like I said early on, the article is hatefully one-sided, and clearly written to undermine homosexual unions. I have little reason to doubt that if the adoption agency heard them threatening the gay couple to give them the kids, using hate speech and other violent remarks, that the article writer would have reported it as the poor grandparent were told that further actions to receive custody would result in lose of visitation rights. Something else of note, these grandparents have already raised a daughter who became a drug addict, so I'm not really in a position to say they are really the best suited to care for these kids - but that's no my business really. If the adoption agency has acted unaccordingly with the law or with procedure they should be dealt with.

[Pentangeli]

Is that a yes, as in you do feel that adhering to tradition plays a role in your opinion that homosexuals should be denied the right to adopt, given that you can't label your own attraction as by choice or as a predisposition, and therefore cannot say with certainty whether homosexuality is a choice or not?I previously stated that tradition, i.e a long standing custom, does not play a factor in any perception I have about any issue.

Although I can't conclude whether the specifics of my sexuality (preference for very feminine women) is determined by genetics or environmental factors which have affected my psychology, I can say my sexuality is normal in that heterosexuality is necessary for natural procreation of a species. Although IVF exists, it is not natural, which isn't to pass judgement regarding its ethics. As same sex couples cannot reproduce naturally, it is therefore an unnatural environment for a child to be raise, which again is not to pass judgement on the ethics of the situation.

[regarding the issue of adoption, if child should have a choice concerning who the prospective parent is?] Off hand, no, because you might risk that the child would turn down adoptive parents based on reasons secondary to whether the parent would be in their best interest. Most children up for adoption aren't in this type of situation and many are living in foster homes, where some of them, especially older ones, would rather stay as they have had previous bad experiences with adoptive parents. Children can't decide if they can live with their divorced father or mother until the age of 11. I can't even find in the article how old these kids are.

I do, though, in this case, feel that the grandparents should be able to sue to gain custody of the children, and that this should be decided in a court. Again, though, the article doesn't go into much detail as to why the grandparents were threatened with losing visitation rights --- that part makes no sense to me, unless they did something resembling hate speech or other illegal activity that has shown the potential for them not being in the children's best interest.

Like I said early on, the article is hatefully one-sided, and clearly written to undermine homosexual unions. I have little reason to doubt that if the adoption agency heard them threatening the gay couple to give them the kids, using hate speech and other violent remarks, that the article writer would have reported it as the poor grandparent were told that further actions to receive custody would result in lose of visitation rights. Something else of note, these grandparents have already raised a daughter who became a drug addict, so I'm not really in a position to say they are really the best suited to care for these kids - but that's no my business really. If the adoption agency has acted unaccordingly with the law or with procedure they should be dealt with.The children in question are a five-year-old boy, and a four-year-old girl.

In Britain, from the information i've gathered, the child can choose from the age of thirteen.

The grandparents were refused custodial rights on account of their age, nothing else but their age. No mention of abuse. They were to get visitation rights, which they wouldn't have been given if they were abusive or dangerous to the children.

They were threatened with a denial of visitation rights on account that -- after they were denied custodial rights -- they wanted the children to go to one of the many heterosexual couples wanting to adopt and not the gay men. The social services informed them to accept the decision or they'll never see their grandchildren again. Essentially it's a case of gays in Britain getting rights at the expense of the rights of others.

[Preston_79]

Just read this article on this adoption issue you're talking about. Fucking outrageous. 59 and 46 too old? If one of the gay parents was a family member I'd feel differently, but complete strangers, no way.



http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14964

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, the age thing is ridiculous. Personally I think based on the fact that their daughter became a drug addict and had her kids taken away, I think based on that alone, these grandparents should be allowed to raise the children. They deserve a second chance, and being old they are trophies in society. More people should respect the old - not the mom, because she's only 46, but the dad is a pillar.

[Preston_79]

Saying the grandparents failed the first time shows lack of life experience. I had friends growing up who had wonderful parents, but couldn't be controlled. Good parents sometimes raise bad kids. Anyone who'd been around the block would know this.

[QUENTIN]

Saying the grandparents failed the first time shows lack of life experience. I had friends growing up who had wonderful parents, but couldn't be controlled. Good parents sometimes raise bad kids. Anyone who'd been around the block would know this.

Good points Preston.

Because not all drug addicts had delinquent or unfit parents, obviously no drug addicts had delinquent or unfit parents.

Furthermore, if there's one thing Bubba has routinely demonstrated over his 7+ years here, it's that he lacks life experience.

What does that schmuck know about parenting or drugs, right?

[Preston_79]

Good points Preston.

Because not all drug addicts had delinquent or unfit parents, obviously no drug addicts had delinquent or unfit parents.

Furthermore, if there's one thing Bubba has routinely demonstrated over his 7+ years here, it's that he lacks life experience.

What does that schmuck know about parenting or drugs, right?


When the court said the gay couple can adopt the kids it was because of the grandparents age, not because their daughter became a drug addict. To say someone can't raise any more children becuase one of their children became addicted to drugs is short sighted and in my humble:D opinion not very well thought out. There's no evidence saying the daughter became a drug addict because of the parents. None. There's no mention when she even started doing drugs. The courts were smart enough to see this and that's why it wasn't part of the decision making. Age was the factor.

[QUENTIN]

When the court said the gay couple can adopt the kids it was because of the grandparents age, not because their daughter became a drug addict. To say someone can't raise any more children becuase one of their children became addicted to drugs is short sighted and in my humble:D opinion not very well thought out. There's no evidence saying the daughter became a drug addict because of the parents. None. There's no mention when she even started doing drugs. The courts were smart enough to see this and that's why it wasn't part of the decision making. Age was the factor.

For the courts, yup that very may have been the only factor.

But then Bubba wisely brought up the question of whether parents who raised a drug-addicted child should be given two more children to raise.

The daughter becoming a drug addict may have had nothing to do with her parents and how they raised her. Or it may have had everything to do with her parents and how they raised her.

Many drug addicts come from loving homes and happy childhoods. Even more don't. I know several stripes of both.

We know next to nothing about the details and circumstances in this particular case. Which is why discounting outright that those grandparents may be unfit to raise children based on a record of failure is foolish (as would declaring it obvious that they are unfit would be, which no one has done). They may be the best or worst parents in the world, we don't know. Bubba merely raised it as something to consider that no one seemed to be taking into account. The article makes no mention of it one way or another, but the article isn't really about the fitness of the parents, it's about how awful gays are and how they're gonna steal your kids.

Like much of this thread, the article and the issue as it's being presented doesn't seem to be about ageism so much (though that should be the complaint here) as it is an argument carefully constructed to conceal its nonetheless obvious real point and underlying message: "Fuck those goddamn faggots."

[Criminal Rock]

Like much of this thread, the article and the issue as it's being presented doesn't seem to be about ageism so much (though that should be the complaint here) as it is an argument carefully constructed to conceal its nonetheless obvious real point and underlying message: "Fuck those goddamn faggots."

First thing I noticed to. I even proposed my questions knowing this.

And by the way, I'm still interested in hearing a response to what I asked.

[The Postmaster General]

Something else that seems to not be considered is that fact that the adoption agency is bound by laws protecting confidentiality. They are not at liberty to say why they denied an adoption, yet private citizens can claim whatever interpretation they like in making their claims heard. It isn't like the adoption agency can really step up and go, "Nah man, they ain't tellin' ya the whole story."

[Preston_79]

Like much of this thread, the article and the issue as it's being presented doesn't seem to be about ageism so much (though that should be the complaint here) as it is an argument carefully constructed to conceal its nonetheless obvious real point and underlying message: "Fuck those goddamn faggots."


I agree that's the underlying message from that article. Just because I hate the Religious fundamentalist though doesn't mean I'd hand over these kids to the gay couple just to throw it in their faces. If the gay couple were already part of the family I'd have no problem with it. If the Grandparents were despicable and dangerous individuals I wouldn't care, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Me personally I could care less if gay people adopt. The manner in which they're doing it I don't agree with. I just don't agree with the court saying in your 40's and 50's is too old. Woman in their 40's are having children all the time and we don't take those kids away.

How's about the woman who just had quintuplets. She can't provide for them without help. Should we take those kids away? Of course not.

[Pentangeli]

Something else that seems to not be considered is that fact that the adoption agency is bound by laws protecting confidentiality. They are not at liberty to say why they denied an adoption, yet private citizens can claim whatever interpretation they like in making their claims heard. It isn't like the adoption agency can really step up and go, "Nah man, they ain't tellin' ya the whole story."

The adoption agencies and social services are not at liberty to say, and in this case they didn't. The courts, through the media's attention, have made the matter public knowledge, and we know the reasoning is based upon ageist policies.

[Pentangeli]

If the gay community does not support ageism, then why not oppose Proposition 8? Give both gay couples and elderly couples equal opportunity, even elderly gay couples... give them a shot to. Why the fuck not...

Your recent post brought your initial response to my attention. It wasn't my intention to ignore you, especially as you've raised an interesting question.

To give people of a certain age the right is not to automatically justify the rights for gay couples to adopt. A big difference here is that one groups right is affected by prejudice, whilst the rights of the other group isn't necessarily the case.

To deny someone the right to adopt on account of ageism, is to define their ability by age, and is most certainly a prejudice.

To deny a gay couple the right to adopt is not necessarily a decision founded upon prejudice, and not to pass judgement on whether they are of sound moral values and economic stability. Gay couples cannot reproduce naturally. In their relationship they cannot naturally become parents. Therefore, some people argue that gay couples cannot produce, or reflect, a suitable/natural environment for children. There is also the arguement that children would benefit from being placed with a couple who could provide a positive female and male influence, something which would be denied to the child if placed with a gay couple.

[Criminal Rock]

Your recent post brought your initial response to my attention. It wasn't my intention to ignore you, especially as you've raised an interesting question.

To give people of a certain age the right to adopt is not to automatically justify the rights for gay couples to adopt. A big difference here is that one group’s right is affected by prejudice, whilst the rights of the other group isn't necessarily the case.

To deny someone the right to adopt on account of ageism, is to define their ability by age, and is most certainly a prejudice.

To deny a gay couple the right to adopt is not necessarily a decision founded upon prejudice, and not to pass judgement on whether they are of sound moral values and economic stability. Gay couples cannot reproduce naturally. In their relationship they cannot naturally become parents. Therefore, some people argue that gay couples cannot produce, or reflect, a suitable/natural environment for children. There is also the argument that children would benefit from being placed with a couple who could provide a positive female and male influence, something which would be denied to the child if placed with a gay couple.


So, I can conclude that you oppose the idea of gays adopting, as you believe the act of homosexuality in itself is unnatural, and that the child will grow up in an unnatural environment, which, in some manner, can cause harm to it. Is this correct?

You know, I read what you say and I can't help myself but to think you are the kind of person that sees gays as completely separate from the rest of society. Despite their sexuality, they possess the ability to conceive children and become parents in a literal manner, however being a parent does not mean being a man or being a woman. Being a parent, or a good parent rather, is to have the means and ability of creating a stable environment for a child in which it can grow and develop into a sane person. So, to me, the idea that a gay person cannot be a parent because of their sexuality is completely false and, in this case, brought on by prejudice regardless of what you may think or say... it's like saying a gay person can't raise a dog, it's beyond ridiculous.

Not only is it proven that gays can raise quote/unquote -normal children just like anyone else, it is almost common sense by now.

[Pentangeli]

So, I can conclude that you oppose the idea of gays adopting, as you believe the act of homosexuality in itself is unnatural, and that the child will grow up in an unnatural environment, which, in some manner, can cause harm to it. Is this correct?
My standpoint is irrelevant, in that it neither strengthens or weakens the argument.

Despite their sexuality, they possess the ability to conceive children and become parents in a literal manner
Yes, but not with each other, which is the whole point.

[it is] proven that gays can raise quote/unquote -normal children just like anyone else.
Psychology isn't something easily measurable, it is difficult to know what affect there has been on their psychology, and it is impossible to know the differences had those children lived with a normal couple instead, i.e a couple with the potential to conceive a child.

Why should a child have to live with two gay men when it doesn't reflect natural life, and there are heterosexual couples wanting to adopt. Children are what matter here, not gay rights.

[Preston_79]

Children are what matter here, not gay rights.


Ain't that the truth. This isn't a gay rights issue to me even though it can be made into one. It obviously is to some people. It's about capable people being told their too old to raise kids, their own grand kids. Like I've stated I would like to see gay couples adopt, but this is the wrong way to do it regardless of who you partner up with. Just becuase you don't like the people saying homosexuals shouldn't adopt doesn't mean you justify taking kids away from capable straight people and handing them over to homosexual couples.

[Criminal Rock]

My standpoint is irrelevant, in that it neither strengthens or weakens the argument.

In the first paragraph, I was making sure we were on the same page since you never made a clear opinion on homosexuality... you never said, "I am against the act of being gay" unless I missed a post somewhere, though I hardly ever do. I asked those questions because it was, to be frank, quite silly to me the way you used your opposition to Prop 8 to forward your view on Ageism in adoption cases. They have absolutely no connection unless you are against homosexuality. Basically, Instead of assuming that was, in fact, what you believe, I had to make sure.

And how does it not weaken your argument? You believe homosexuals are incapable of raising a child properly, and I explicitly made clear to you that being gay has nothing to do with your ability to parent, that the act of raising a child is about maturity and responsibility, it is not exclusive to sexuality. That is my point and my point is 100 percent correct.


Yes, but not with each other, which is the whole point.

Jesus fucking Christ... Did you just read into that one line and omit everything I had said to you? Of course that’s not the fucking point. Way to take what I said completely and purposely out of context... here's what I said in full.

Despite their sexuality, they possess the ability to conceive children and become parents in a literal manner, however being a parent does not mean being a man or being a woman. Being a parent, or a good parent rather, is to have the means and ability of creating a stable environment for a child in which it can grow and develop into a sane person.

How and why would you purposely respond to that one line when it was obviously not the ultimate point I had made? Why don't you respond to the point I had actually made?

Psychology isn't something easily measurable, it is difficult to know what affect there has been on their psychology, and it is impossible to know the differences had those children lived with a normal couple instead, i.e a couple with the potential to conceive a child.

Of course it is impossible to know how different a child would be if said child were to grow up under a different household. The same thing goes for every single person on this planet, not just kids with gay parents. I'm not arguing that at all, what I am arguing for are the cases in which children grow under the parenthood of gay couples and eventually live normal and comfortable lives.

Why should a child have to live with two gay men when it doesn't reflect natural life, and there are heterosexual couples wanting to adopt. Children are what matter here, not gay rights.

And again, I agree that children matter more in this situation, but the rights of gays apply when you want to deny them theirs, concerning adoption cases, for invalid reasons. They are human, they are just as capable as anyone else. The child will not suffer in any way, there is no evidence supporting this.

here are several articles proving me correct on all points, that children adopted and raised by gay parents or a single parent turn out to be just like every other kid.

What happens to kids raised by gays? (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm)

Gays raising children (http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html)

EDIT: here are a few more...

Research Shows Children Raised By Gay Parents Turn Out the Same (http://www.bloggernews.net/17669)

The kids are all right (http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html)

[Preston_79]

Man this is getting further and further off topic. There should just be a thread about Gay adoption. But, as long as we're discussing the issue.

Seems obvious that Pentangeli wouldn't have brought this up in regards to Prop 8 if he believed gay couples should adopt. He doesn't.

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest gay couples can't raise well adjusted kids. I can't imagine a gay couple steering their offspring toward a homosexual lifestyle. Why would they do that? Gay people who want to adopt are no more the sexual deviant than a straight person. Gays and straights should be given the same considerations when adopting and I'm sure there will never be a shortage of kids needing homes.

[The Postmaster General]

The adoption agencies and social services are not at liberty to say, and in this case they didn't. The courts, through the media's attention, have made the matter public knowledge, and we know the reasoning is based upon ageist policies.


Yes, we've well established the policies against their age was the factor here, but we've also decided that the outcome of the grandparents not having custody would be the same rather it be a straight or gay couple.

The point that seems to be the issue here is to why the grandparents were threatened with loss of visitation rights; I haven't seen any explaining as to why them appealing, or filing a law suit would result in them not seeing their grandkids. I can't say with certainty, but would be willing to bet money that it's not as the article proposes that it somehow has to do with gay rights.

That seems to be the issue at hand. If the children had been given to a straight couple, this discussion would not even be happening. The major point of discussion seems to be here that because a gay couple was allowed to adopt, these grandparents were stripped of any chance they have to fight it, out of fear that they will never see their children, and nowhere have I seen that clarified. It is under this pretense that I point out that we don't know both sides of the story.

Looking back, I do see that I specifically stated "reason to adopt" or something to that affect, but that was a blanketing statement meaning we don't know what the adoption agency knows. From my initial posts an onward, I have been making the point that it seems like something is up if they are threatening against the visitation rights, and that it's hard to buy that gayitivity is the reason why.

Based on things I've seen happen, such as father's show up to visit their kids while intoxicated, becoming violent or abusing toward the adoptive parent, or the mother, I am inclined to think that there is a part of the story that lays in the grandparents lap that we are not hearing about. Ultimately that is neither here nor there, and we could speculate all day. The one thing we do know is that we don't know both sides, the complete story, and clearly the views we are being presented with show bias favoring the grandparents. That much seems factual.

[Pentangeli]

And how does it not weaken your argument? You believe homosexuals are incapable of raising a child properly, and I explicitly made clear to you that being gay has nothing to do with your ability to parent, that the act of raising a child is about maturity and responsibility, it is not exclusive to sexuality. That is my point and my point is 100 percent correct.
Words are cheap. You claim your opinions are 100 percent correct, yet offer no facts to support them.

The main facts contained in this thread are to be found within the posts I have made. That same-sex couples cannot reproduce in their relationship, and hence are unnatural parents. The question of gay rights to adopt, is essentially the question: "should children be placed in an unnatural situation".

Of course it is impossible to know how different a child would be if said child were to grow up under a different household. The same thing goes for every single person on this planet, not just kids with gay parents. I'm not arguing that at all, what I am arguing for are the cases in which children grow under the parenthood of gay couples and eventually live normal and comfortable lives.

I find your blasphemous words to be highly offensive, not to mention susceptable to being reported.

Back to the topic at hand. It is you who miss the point. My response was very much focused on your main point, that which you have repeated (quoted above). You claim that the parenthood of gay couples can lead to children developing "normal" and "comfortable" lives, yet you offer no evidence of this. My response was with regard to your point, and how "normal" is not something easily measured in terms of psychology, which to some is a pseudo-science.

Unless of course "normal" was indicitive of superficial matters such as working for a living and becoming part of society, which ultimately makes no analysis on the mental well-being of said individuals. I am in no doubt that a person who was raised by a gay couple can go on to find a job, and do as others do. My focus is purely on the psychological well-being of those in question, to which the links you've provided make no allusion.

[Preston_79]

I find your blasphemous words to be highly offensive, not to mention susceptable to being reported.



For real?

[Criminal Rock]

Words are cheap. You claim your opinions are 100 percent correct, yet offer no facts to support them.

Throwing the opinion card, eh? ... So are you saying that raising a child isn't about maturity and responsibility, and is exclusive to sexuality?

The main facts contained in this thread are to be found within the posts I have made. That same-sex couples cannot reproduce in their relationship, and hence are unnatural parents. The question of gay rights to adopt, is essentially the question: "should children be placed in an unnatural situation".

Your "facts" are actually stereotypes based off false assumptions. I gather my information from organizations like the American Psychological Association, in which after 3 decades of research and 60+ separate studies on the issue of gay parenthood and child psychology, they have concluded,

There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.

Research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

Source (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html)

Not only have I said this to you a number of times before on my own, I have posted several links in which they quote the exact same god damn thing, yet you continued to totally ignore every legitimate point I make for the sake of not being wrong, but the fact remains you are... you are dead wrong on the issue. The psychological wellbeing of a child is not in jeopardy under the parenthood of a gay couple as there is a genuine amount of scientific evidence supporting this.

I find your blasphemous words to be highly offensive, not to mention susceptable to being reported.

Report away, blasphemy is not against the rules on this board... unless, of course, you're reporting me to the Big G, but I'm sure there's not much he can do to help you in this case.

Back to the topic at hand. It is you who miss the point. My response was very much focused on your main point, that which you have repeated (quoted above). You claim that the parenthood of gay couples can lead to children developing "normal" and "comfortable" lives, yet you offer no evidence of this. My response was with regard to your point, and how "normal" is not something easily measured in terms of psychology, which to some is a pseudo-science.

...My focus is purely on the psychological well-being of those in question, to which the links you've provided make no allusion.

Check out the links toward the bottom of my last post, specifically the "The Kids are All right" link written and posted by the American Psychological Association. In this very article it says,

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parenting...

Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the three decades of research showing that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents, notes Cerbone. One such study, published in Child Development (Vol. 75, No. 6, pages 1,886–1,898) in 2004, compares a group of 44 teenagers with same-sex couples as parents with an equal number of teenagers with opposite-sex couples as parents. All participants were part of a national, randomly selected sample of teenagers from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

There were very few group differences between the kids who had been brought up by same- or opposite-sex parents," says Patterson, who conducted the research with students Jennifer Wainright and Stephen Russell, PhD, now an associate professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. One group difference that Patterson was surprised to find: Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates. However, says Patterson, the difference was small and needs to be studied further.

No allusion to their psychological well-being, huh? Seems like you didn't even read the articles I had posted and then assumed there wasn't any evidence supporting anything I had said... good for you.

[Pentangeli]

No allusion to their psychological well-being, huh? Seems like you didn't even read the articles I had posted and then assumed there wasn't any evidence supporting anything I had said... good for you.
.

You'll have to provide something which exhibits the details of the research. I want to know how the case studies were selected. I want to know what method was used to conduct the psychological evaluation. And I want to know if these case studies were of non-biological parents, or if the case studies were focused primarily with step-families were one or both of the biological parents had become gay/ admitted to being gay.

[Jamesadin]

You'll have to provide something which exhibits the details of the research. I want to know how the case studies were selected. I want to know what method was used to conduct the psychological evaluation. And I want to know if these case studies were of non-biological parents, or if the case studies were focused primarily with step-families were one or both of the biological parents had become gay/ admitted to being gay.

I trust the American Psychology Association, not the Book of Leviticus.

[Pentangeli]

I trust the American Psychology Association, not the Book of Leviticus.

You trust the APA, do you...ok...and you don't trust the book of Leviticus...ok...thanks for letting us know.

I don't know much about the APA, I don't live in America. So I was actually asking your man there to provide some more detailed information about the research provided. I mean if that's all right with everyone.

[Criminal Rock]

You'll have to provide something which exhibits the details of the research. I want to know how the case studies were selected. I want to know what method was used to conduct the psychological evaluation. And I want to know if these case studies were of non-biological parents, or if the case studies were focused primarily with step-families were one or both of the biological parents had become gay/ admitted to being gay.

"I" have to? I think it's time you do your own research, bud. There is a reference section at the bottom of the APA Policy Statement within the "Source" link I just posted, why don't you start by checking that out.

Or, to simplify everything, you can email the organization and ask them directly. I'm quite sure they would be more than willing to help you get the information you seek.

[Pentangeli]

"I" have to? I think it's time you do your own research, bud. There is a reference section at the bottom of the APA Policy Statement within the "Source" link I just posted. Or, to simplify everything, you can email the organization and ask them directly. I'm quite sure they would be more than willing to help you get the information you seek.

Those facts will be needed to substantiate some point you were trying make. I wont be doing the work for you. I'm really not interested in the conformation bias inherent within Psychology and other pseudosciences. But I was willing to entertain your view.

[Jamesadin]

You trust the APA, do you...ok...and you don't trust the book of Leviticus...ok...thanks for letting us know.

I don't know much about the APA, I don't live in America. So I was actually asking your man there to provide some more detailed information about the research provided. I'm mean if that's all right with everyone.

Meaning: Where do you form your opinion on this topic? I don't know if you are a religious person, but it seems that a good portion of people who hold the same beliefs as you get their information from the Bible. Regardless, a study which has been conducted over decades by hundreds of academics and scientists would, in my mind, be more valid than religious opinion.

[Criminal Rock]

Those facts will be needed to substantiate some point you were trying make. I wont be doing the work for you. I'm really not interested in the conformation bias inherent within Psychology and other pseudosciences. But I was willing to entertain your view.

Wait a sec... now you are doing the work for me? For some odd reason I remember providing the links to information and subject matter relevant to my argument...

If you are not willing to put in the brain-work and do the research on your own, then any argument you provide is unfounded and completely worthless. Why else would I listen to you if you have nothing you can prove? It'd be like talking to a brick wall...

As I said, you can email the APA or look at the references within the source link I posted. You're not a baby, I'm not going to spoon feed you.

[Pentangeli]

Meaning: Where do you form your opinion on this topic? I don't know if you are a religious person, but it seems that a good portion of people who hold the same beliefs as you get their information from the Bible. Regardless, a study which has been conducted over decades by hundreds of academics and scientists would, in my mind, be more valid than religious opinion.

Right, i'm with you now.

I am a theist. And although I'm interested in Christianity, I don't agree with all of it, eg turning the other cheek...that aint happening. Most of the OT I don't value.

On issues such as this, I never bring in religious views.

[Pentangeli]

Wait a sec... now you are doing the work for me? For some odd reason I remember providing the links to information and subject matter relevant to my argument...
I never claimed to have done any work for you. I stated that I wont be doing the research to support the points you've made. That's something for you to do.

If you are not willing to put in the brain-work and do the research on your own, then any argument you provide is unfounded and completely worthless. Why else would I listen to you if you have nothing you can prove? It'd be like talking to a brick wall...
The argument i've made is something you've tried to prove wrong. Its pathetic that you now expect me to find the details to support your claims.

As i've already told you, I'm not interested in the conformation bias inherent within Psychology and other pseudosciences

[Criminal Rock]

If it's questions you want answered, then reading the articles (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html) is what you need to do as all the information you want is there regarding the APA's selection of subjects, if the children are biologically related to their gay fathers/mothers, etc.

I have explained my argument thoroughly and provided you with data and their sources to back it up. If you have discrepancies with my sources, or more specifically, the APA's method of gathering data, that is simply not my concern and you'll have to contact the organization directly as it is their publication, and because I had nothing to do with their research.

[The Postmaster General]

I only have anecdotal evidence of gay parents doing well raising children, but that's neither here nor there in terms of proving anything except to myself. At the least, I would be curious to know of anecdotal evidence of gay parents raising children poorly. I'm sure it's out there, and probably an equal ratio of bad straight parenting. Either way, I feel it's more substantiated than a hunch guess based on the value of a tradition that one neither adheres to nor fully can say they support.

[Pentangeli]

I only have anecdotal evidence of gay parents doing well raising children, but that's neither here nor there in terms of proving anything except to myself. At the least, I would be curious to know of anecdotal evidence of gay parents raising children poorly. I'm sure it's out there, and probably an equal ratio of bad straight parenting. Either way, I feel it's more substantiated than a hunch guess based on the value of a tradition that one neither adheres to nor fully can say they support.

I agree with you on some points. Tradition shouldn't play a part, it is not necessarily built upon facts, and is likely to contain bias. But similarly, and here's where I disagree with you, merely offering observations, whether it be unscientific or one containing conformation bias, is also not necessarily built upon facts and is likely to contain bias.

Two men cannot reproduce together. Fact.

Within their relationship they are not able to become natural parents. Fact.

Two gay men raising a child, or children, is not a reflection of nature. But man-made ideology inflicted upon those children. Fact.

Now my argument is founded upon those facts, and my belief that such an environment should not be inflicted upon a child.

And with that, and the lack of substance supporting the counter arguments, I will resign from this thread until something new and concrete comes into play.

[The Postmaster General]

Two men cannot reproduce together. Fact.

Many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce together. Fact.



And with that, and the lack of substance supporting the counter arguments, I will resign from this thread until something new and concrete comes into play.

You've been trying to argue? Now it makes sense.

[The Postmaster General]

Yes, we've well established the policies against their age was the factor here, but we've also decided that the outcome of the grandparents not having custody would be the same rather it be a straight or gay couple.

The point that seems to be the issue here is to why the grandparents were threatened with loss of visitation rights; I haven't seen any explaining as to why them appealing, or filing a law suit would result in them not seeing their grandkids. I can't say with certainty, but would be willing to bet money that it's not as the article proposes that it somehow has to do with gay rights.

That seems to be the issue at hand. If the children had been given to a straight couple, this discussion would not even be happening. The major point of discussion seems to be here that because a gay couple was allowed to adopt, these grandparents were stripped of any chance they have to fight it, out of fear that they will never see their children, and nowhere have I seen that clarified. It is under this pretense that I point out that we don't know both sides of the story.

Looking back, I do see that I specifically stated "reason to adopt" or something to that affect, but that was a blanketing statement meaning we don't know what the adoption agency knows. From my initial posts an onward, I have been making the point that it seems like something is up if they are threatening against the visitation rights, and that it's hard to buy that gayitivity is the reason why.

Based on things I've seen happen, such as father's show up to visit their kids while intoxicated, becoming violent or abusing toward the adoptive parent, or the mother, I am inclined to think that there is a part of the story that lays in the grandparents lap that we are not hearing about. Ultimately that is neither here nor there, and we could speculate all day. The one thing we do know is that we don't know both sides, the complete story, and clearly the views we are being presented with show bias favoring the grandparents. That much seems factual.


Reposted as truth and for lack of counterpoints to argue otherwise.

[Criminal Rock]

Two men cannot reproduce together. Fact.

Within their relationship they are not able to become natural parents. Fact.

Two gay men raising a child, or children, is not a reflection of nature. But man-made ideology inflicted upon those children. Fact.

Not a single point you have made has a thing to do with the ability of raising a child.

You have not cited a single source in which describes the destructive nature of gays raising children.

There is sufficient evidence showing no meaningful difference psychologically between children raised by gay couples and those by heterosexual couples.

[The Postmaster General]

No worries, it was just arbitrary standards that he doesn't want to address once they are shown invalid toward the discussion. It's also worth note that initially the topic of the grandparents being denied adoption was raised with the issue surrounding them not being denied visitation rights. Clearly we all agree it's a case of ageism. Beyond that, the issue was pushed that because it was a gay couple, that somehow resulted in the visitation rights issue. Yet, as I keep pointing out - this is a one sided story, clearly showing nothing to do with gay rights one way or another.

Yes, it is clear that the topic of discussion has been raised as an outlet to speak an opinion about a disapproval of a homosexual lifestyle. I have no outward reason to take issue with that on an internet discussion board, and nor does anyone else, because we know there's little point in reasoning regardless of which side you fall on.

And it is probably for that reason which this stance has been veiled as an attempt to discuss the adoption rights of grandparents. Clearly any attempts otherwise would be ousted faster than a celebrity Perez Hilton had gone down on while high on inhalants.