adoption by gay couples?

[lyra]

A wise person once told me that it''s not always best to ask why, but rather to think what now? Do we really need to know what makes a person gay, or can we just accept it and move on? I guess I''m lucky to live in Canada. We have for the most part, a way of accepting without needing to fully understand or overanalyze. My parent''s generation was different from my generation, and my children''s generation is again different and more accepting of others than mine. It''s a natural progression, and yes, it''s going to take many more generations for any true equality, but I believe it will happen. Either that or we will destroy ourselves.

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 6/30/2010 8:13:57 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/30/2010 7:48:23 PM

Author: iluvcarats

We give more rights and respect to illegal aliens than we do to gay, tax paying American citizens.

If you are a tax paying US citizen you deserve equal rights.


No matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.


Period.

BIG FAT FREAKING DITTO!!!!


And I want to thank Kenny and ImDanny for participating in this thread in a rational and level-headed manner. I realize you both face challenges due to unkind and unfair judgment from society. You''re both welcome to move to Massachusetts/Boston any time. Swimmer and I will take you out and show you around town.

Many thanks!

 

[kenny]

Thanks HH.
I hope I make it to Boston some day.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/30/2010 6:15:32 PM
Author: Imdanny

Date: 6/30/2010 6:06:25 PM

Author: Jennifer W

I''m sorry. Sorry you feel that way, sorry you''re made to feel that way. I guess I wasn''t aware of that. You do know that it isn''t universal, that many (most?) people do not hate you because of your sexuality, right?



Jen

Yes, thank you.

I think this thread proves that- how many great posts in this thread. I was thinking about that yesterday. Very thoughtful, supportive, articulate posts that people took a lot of time and energy to write. I appreciate it!

[/quote]
I wish I belonged to the articulate group - I''ve been super short on time the last couple days so I''ve been a little more flippant instead.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/30/2010 6:43:51 PM
Author: kenny
You know, there is nothing in PS rules about gloating.


I want to gloat.

I''m going to gloat.

I''ve earned it.


This issue is going my way.

Yes it is two steps forward and one step back but it is only a matter time before all gay discrimination is a thing of the past.

It may be a long time.

Maybe I won''t see it in my lifetime.

But is IS a sure thing.

Equality IS inevitable!


I am heartened there are so many pro-equality responses in this thread.

You ladies are raising tomorrow''s voters.

Frankly it feels a little like being let out of a jail cell.


Thank you and a big hug all you supporters of equality.

Some of us are raising tomorrow''s gay parents Love this - gloat away!

One thing I haven''t seen (and I admit that I haven''t read every post yet) is anything about gender mosaics. That''s a particularly interesting aspect of the community... because it challenges the concept of sexual identity in its entirety and IMO has a great deal of potential scientific weight toward both figuring sexuality out as well as de-stigmatizing homosexuality.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/30/2010 3:44:25 PM
Author: somethingshiny
I believe this is the most frustrated I''ve ever felt on PS.


Everyone has an opinion on this subject and everyone is entitled to it without being forced into the ''other side.'' I don''t want or try to change people''s beliefs, especially when it comes to moral rights and wrongs. But, I absolutely despise it when people use Christianity as a reason to hate anyone. Being Christian isn''t about being right. It''s about being forgiven and being loved and understanding that those are the two most important things.

For me, opinions have NOTHING to do with the basic issue at hand. You can think being homosexual is wrong or gross or whatever - but when a group of people votes to CONTROL another group based on their opinions - that to me is where it gets truly vile. You can have an opinion that it is wrong and I can have an opinion that you''re wrong. Those are just opinions. But as soon as we vote to control the opinions and morals of OTHER people - that''s a problem.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/30/2010 5:46:31 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Off topic... feel free to skip...


Kenny~ I''m actually considering homeschooling to preserve our family values. I don''t think you''re trying to say that all homeschooling is a cult and a way to poison young minds, but regular people are now considering it to avoid the hate, favortism, sports-first-mentality that is in some school systems.


I kind of agree with the old minds dying out philosophy. My dad is a flat out racist, sexist, homophobic, etc person. There is no changing him. My sis really wanted to date a black guy but knew that if it worked out, she''d never be welcome in her parents'' home. I know that if one of my children is gay, they will no longer have a grandfather. I''d like to say it''s because we live in a podunk town and he never got out. But, the fact is, we lived in a major metropolitan area for a long time and it only made him more hateful.

that is really sad - I''m sorry that you''ve experienced that... I have an older cousin who was all of those things, but her daughter is now gay so she''s gotten over homosexuality - as long as her gay daughter doesn''t mix with "those other" races. I have cut her out of my life. I miss her, but I cannot be around such narrow minded hatred. It disgusts me. How can you stand to be around it still as an adult when you have a choice?

 

[Lovinggems]

I think it''s great because it increases the pool of potential loving parents. However, they should be screened for suitability just like any other couples.

 

[HappyNewLife]

I was in a hetero marriage and had two children, then realized my true identity and am now engaged to a woman. She is fan-freaking-tastic with my girls, I am SO SO lucky. The idea that someone as amazing with kids as her not being able to adopt baffles me. But, I guess, in our case it worked out because although the girls are not biologically hers, she might as well be their (other) mother in many regards.

 

[somethingshiny]

Sara~ With regards to your question, "How can you stand to be around it still as an adult when you have a choice?": I can''t stand it. He knows after years of me walking out of a room that I don''t tolerate his words on the subjects. He never speaks that way in front of my child. When JT was an infant my dad used the N word and I told him in no uncertain terms that "our" family would not talk that way. My dad respects me and my family enough to keep his mouth shut. As far as the person he is, yeah, this part of his character really upsets me. But, like so many people, he has characteristics that are also great. I will not cut him out of my life just because I don''t agree with his thoughts on some subjects.

 

[MissMina]

Tab Hunter is gay ??!!??

 

[Prana]

Date: 7/1/2010 10:53:18 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 6/30/2010 3:44:25 PM
Author: somethingshiny
I believe this is the most frustrated I''ve ever felt on PS.


Everyone has an opinion on this subject and everyone is entitled to it without being forced into the ''other side.'' I don''t want or try to change people''s beliefs, especially when it comes to moral rights and wrongs. But, I absolutely despise it when people use Christianity as a reason to hate anyone. Being Christian isn''t about being right. It''s about being forgiven and being loved and understanding that those are the two most important things.

For me, opinions have NOTHING to do with the basic issue at hand. You can think being homosexual is wrong or gross or whatever - but when a group of people votes to CONTROL another group based on their opinions - that to me is where it gets truly vile. You can have an opinion that it is wrong and I can have an opinion that you''re wrong. Those are just opinions. But as soon as we vote to control the opinions and morals of OTHER people - that''s a problem.

Cehra- I agree with you, it is an absolutely disgusting concept.

 

[Delster]

Date: 6/30/2010 8:13:57 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/30/2010 7:48:23 PM

Author: iluvcarats

We give more rights and respect to illegal aliens than we do to gay, tax paying American citizens.

If you are a tax paying US citizen you deserve equal rights.


No matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.


Period.

BIG FAT FREAKING DITTO!!!!


And I want to thank Kenny and ImDanny for participating in this thread in a rational and level-headed manner. I realize you both face challenges due to unkind and unfair judgment from society. You''re both welcome to move to Massachusetts/Boston any time. Swimmer and I will take you out and show you around town.

This may be opening a whole other can of worms but this statement has played on my mind over and over since I read it and I just can''t wrap my head around it. I find the idea that the entitlement to have one''s human rights respected is somehow linked to one''s citizenship entitlements or one''s capacity to pay taxes just so deeply offensive. Human rights are based in a person''s humanity, not in whether they are a citizen of a particular nation or whether they pay taxes to that nation.

 

[Clairitek]

Date: 7/1/2010 3:34:59 PM
Author: girlface

Date: 7/1/2010 10:53:18 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 6/30/2010 3:44:25 PM
Author: somethingshiny
I believe this is the most frustrated I''ve ever felt on PS.


Everyone has an opinion on this subject and everyone is entitled to it without being forced into the ''other side.'' I don''t want or try to change people''s beliefs, especially when it comes to moral rights and wrongs. But, I absolutely despise it when people use Christianity as a reason to hate anyone. Being Christian isn''t about being right. It''s about being forgiven and being loved and understanding that those are the two most important things.

For me, opinions have NOTHING to do with the basic issue at hand. You can think being homosexual is wrong or gross or whatever - but when a group of people votes to CONTROL another group based on their opinions - that to me is where it gets truly vile. You can have an opinion that it is wrong and I can have an opinion that you''re wrong. Those are just opinions. But as soon as we vote to control the opinions and morals of OTHER people - that''s a problem.

Cehra- I agree with you, it is an absolutely disgusting concept.

Cehra- I was saying the EXACT SAME THING to my friend last night when we were discussing this thread. I lived in GA for the 2004 election and we had to vote about allowing gay marriage. Well, I think what we voted on exactly was to put something in the state constitution to ban it. I could be wrong about that though. I was totally disgusted that myself or any other voting citizen of GA got to decide about that. I don''t think its my business at all who gets to legally marry.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 7/1/2010 3:39:44 PM
Author: Delster

Date: 6/30/2010 8:13:57 PM

Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/30/2010 7:48:23 PM


Author: iluvcarats


We give more rights and respect to illegal aliens than we do to gay, tax paying American citizens.

If you are a tax paying US citizen you deserve equal rights.



No matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.



Period.

BIG FAT FREAKING DITTO!!!!



And I want to thank Kenny and ImDanny for participating in this thread in a rational and level-headed manner. I realize you both face challenges due to unkind and unfair judgment from society. You're both welcome to move to Massachusetts/Boston any time. Swimmer and I will take you out and show you around town.

This may be opening a whole other can of worms but this statement has played on my mind over and over since I read it and I just can't wrap my head around it. I find the idea that the entitlement to have one's human rights respected is somehow linked to one's citizenship entitlements or one's capacity to pay taxes just so deeply offensive. Human rights are based in a person's humanity, not in whether they are a citizen of a particular nation or whether they pay taxes to that nation.

ETA: Delster if I misread your post please let me know.

I too do not want to open this can of worms (boy is it a big one), but since you quoted my post I feel the need to respond.

Obviously human rights surpass everything else in the world. However, I 'personally' feel it's Kenny's right as a human being to marry whomever he likes and adopt a child regardless of whom he marries or where he lives. And it's his right as an American citizen to receive the same benefits and treatment as the next American citizen.

It is not his human right to go to a foreign country illegally and receive benefits that were established to help citizens of said country.

Right now the national debate over gay marriage in the US is a political one and unfortunately the political machine in the States is also very closely related to citizenship paying taxes. While our country was established as a place where religious and individual freedom were celebrated, we're also country built on a foundation of citizenship and people contributing to the benefit of the greater group via paying into a tax system that supports those who have less than the rest of us. That's the way the system was designed and that's the way it's supposed to work. Most Americans I know, even the very conservative right wingers I know would not argue with tax payers receiving benefits in a time of need; because they've contributed to the system. They essentially paid for the right to have access to that benefit when they need it.

Our current problems with illegal immigration are taking food and benefits from people who have contributed to this system and need help. We're not talking about people legitimately seeking asylum due to their human rights being infringed upon, we're talking about people who cross our borders to have their children, raise them in the US and reap the rewards of our very generous social benefit system without contributing in return.

 

[Laila619]

Date: 7/1/2010 3:39:44 PM
Author: Delster

Date: 6/30/2010 8:13:57 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/30/2010 7:48:23 PM

Author: iluvcarats

We give more rights and respect to illegal aliens than we do to gay, tax paying American citizens.

If you are a tax paying US citizen you deserve equal rights.


No matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.


Period.

BIG FAT FREAKING DITTO!!!!


And I want to thank Kenny and ImDanny for participating in this thread in a rational and level-headed manner. I realize you both face challenges due to unkind and unfair judgment from society. You're both welcome to move to Massachusetts/Boston any time. Swimmer and I will take you out and show you around town.

This may be opening a whole other can of worms but this statement has played on my mind over and over since I read it and I just can't wrap my head around it. I find the idea that the entitlement to have one's human rights respected is somehow linked to one's citizenship entitlements or one's capacity to pay taxes just so deeply offensive. Human rights are based in a person's humanity, not in whether they are a citizen of a particular nation or whether they pay taxes to that nation.

Really? If someone is here ILLEGALLY, they should still receive the same rights and perks as legal immigrants who did things the proper way and who do pay taxes?

 

[sctsbride09]

That was a very thoughtfully written post, HudsonHawk. And so true. Its not that any of us is against immigrants, hardly, or else we would be against ourselves, right? What people are angry about is that people who came ILLEGALLY are getting benefits that LEGAL citizens pay for. If you want to come here, great, do it the right way and pay.your.taxes. End thread jack.

I was going to avoid this thread all together, since it got so heated, but for the record I am totally fine with gay people adopting children. I see no reason to deny them the ability to parent, just because the want to have sex with a person with the same sexual organs. To be honest, I am shocked there is even an issue on this. It seems to me that by denying a gay person the ability to marry OR adopt children, their constitutional rights are being deprived because some religious views get in the way. Is there not supposed to be a separation between church and state?Or does this not qualify?

I am not a lawyer, but this just seems illegal to me..

 

[sctsbride09]

BTW, in my previous post I wasnt trying to knock religious people, whatever floats your boat.. But when it gets in the way of someone elses rights? Come on..

 

[kenny]

Discussing why gays are denied equal rights without the R-Word is like discussing bread making without the F-Word, flour.

 

[Delster]

Date: 7/1/2010 3:55:30 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 7/1/2010 3:39:44 PM

ETA: Delster if I misread your post please let me know.


I too do not want to open this can of worms (boy is it a big one), but since you quoted my post I feel the need to respond.


Obviously human rights surpass everything else in the world. However, I ''personally'' feel it''s Kenny''s right as a human being to marry whomever he likes and adopt a child regardless of whom he marries or where he lives. And it''s his right as an American citizen to receive the same benefits and treatment as the next American citizen.


It is not his human right to go to a foreign country illegally and receive benefits that were established to help citizens of said country.


Right now the national debate over gay marriage in the US is a political one and unfortunately the political machine in the States is also very closely related to citizenship paying taxes. While our country was established as a place where religious and individual freedom were celebrated, we''re also country built on a foundation of citizenship and people contributing to the benefit of the greater group via paying into a tax system that supports those who have less than the rest of us. That''s the way the system was designed and that''s the way it''s supposed to work. Most Americans I know, even the very conservative right wingers I know would not argue with tax payers receiving benefits in a time of need; because they''ve contributed to the system. They essentially paid for the right to have access to that benefit when they need it.


Our current problems with illegal immigration are taking food and benefits from people who have contributed to this system and need help. We''re not talking about people legitimately seeking asylum due to their human rights being infringed upon, we''re talking about people who cross our borders to have their children, raise them in the US and reap the rewards of our very generous social benefit system without contributing in return.

HH, no I don''t think you misread me, and in fact we''re on quite a similar page I think.

Also you’re right, it is a huge can of worms and I’m going to try to avoid the whole immigration issue as it’s rather off-topic and I’m also wary it might veer to the wrong side of forum policies on political debate. I will just say that there’s actually fairly little in your views on immigration policy as you describe them in this post that I would disagree with. In fact, I’ve gotten myself in hot water in discussions over here for refusing to join in pity parties for people who can’t visit home due to having gone to the States illegally…

What prompted me to reply to the earlier posts was my perception that it amounted to weighing up of groups of people’s entitlements to rights based on citizenship and tax contributions. As I read it, it resonated of putting a limitation on entitlement to rights based on nationality and tax paying potential. Your post above (the one I’m quoting now) is a lot more nuanced and doesn’t make me do the double-take I did at the exchange first time round.

And seeing as I’m in here and posting on this topic, I should probably put in my 0.02c on the topic in hand – I would support gay couples being entitled to adopt. Our parliament is debating civil partnership legislation and I am in favour of it. I 1000% agree that it''s a gay person''s right "as a human being to marry whomever he likes and adopt a child regardless of whom he marries or where he lives." I''m quoting you because I can''t say it any more eloquently than that!

 

[sctsbride09]

You are absolutely right Kenny. Its just so damn unfortunate that so few of a particular group, basically get to be in control of such a large group, although I dont believe its ALL religious people by any means. My uncle and his partner have been together almost 17 years, longer than some peoples marriages last..They wanted to adopt a boy from India early in their relationship, but decided against it for very similar reasons to yours. They just were not ready to put their child on the "battleground", which I can completely respect. I really hope that people will change, it sounds like we have alot of terrific parents on this board that are working towards breaking the cycle of bigotry. I just hope I see the change in my lifetime.

 

[Delster]

Date: 7/1/2010 4:06:17 PM
Author: Laila619


Really? If someone is here ILLEGALLY, they should still receive the same rights and perks as legal immigrants who did things the proper way and who do pay taxes?

The central plank civil and political rights, yes, absolutely (and for clarity, where my mind is going here in particular is to the right to due process).

By the same token, I have no quibble with regulation of immigration, would support it, and have gotten into arguments for refusing to express support for people from my country who have gone the illegal route into the States.

I actually never said that I believe a person in a country illegally should be able to avail of all the rights and perks of a legal immigrant or a citizen.

What I said I found shocking was I felt was the undertone in the original posts that a person''s entitlement to basic rights is somehow linked to their citizenship or their tax paying potential - that a citizen or a taxpayer is more entitled to their rights than non-citizens or non-taxpayers.

In my view, Kenny, or imdanny, or pennquaker, or any other gay person, is not more entitled to marry because of their citizenship or their tax dollars. They are entitled as human beings to protection of their right to marry, full stop.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 7/1/2010 4:49:52 PM
Author: Delster

Date: 7/1/2010 4:06:17 PM

Author: Laila619



Really? If someone is here ILLEGALLY, they should still receive the same rights and perks as legal immigrants who did things the proper way and who do pay taxes?

The central plank civil and political rights, yes, absolutely (and for clarity, where my mind is going here in particular is to the right to due process).


By the same token, I have no quibble with regulation of immigration, would support it, and have gotten into arguments for refusing to express support for people from my country who have gone the illegal route into the States.


I actually never said that I believe a person in a country illegally should be able to avail of all the rights and perks of a legal immigrant or a citizen.


What I said I found shocking was I felt was the undertone in the original posts that a person''s entitlement to basic rights is somehow linked to their citizenship or their tax paying potential - that a citizen or a taxpayer is more entitled to their rights than non-citizens or non-taxpayers.


In my view, Kenny, or imdanny, or pennquaker, or any other gay person, is not more entitled to marry because of their citizenship or their tax dollars. They are entitled as human beings to protection of their right to marry, full stop.

All people are deserving of civil and human rights. However, everyone is not deserving of US government programs and funding. Those should be reserved for US citizens, (whether they pay taxes or not.)

 

[Steel]

I''m just back on line now and speed skimmed the replies - all 5 pages of them...

But I thought about it yesterday and today, so am glad to see it still up and running.



I''m sorry that many have felt upset at my thoughts, I am. But they are my thoughts, my beliefs if you will. This thread was up and running for a few days and I saw it bobbing up and down on Hangout before I decided to post my opinion. Normally I would not reply to a thread like this because I believe that PS (in general) is a ''go with the flow'' place. Where a counter thread opinion is only ever superseded depending on your colloquial ''place'' or ''popularity'' by the other members. As I am not one of those few I tend to keep to myself on hotter topics or topics where I have had a counter view. However I saw this one come up to the top of the page a few times and having read a similar thread (by a member who I have the utmost respect for) where he said his hesitance to adopt based on public views, I saw this thread was completely positive and felt that was not true to life. I understand that this member would never change his mind based even a little bit on the positives of this thread but I thought that it would be interesting for him that I post here; considering that he is familiar with my presence on PS. That was the reason I clicked reply. Now it was not just about him, but that was the reason I chose to reply at all, responding to his intimation that the public might not be receptive at large and PS posters being overwhelming positive. It is said that debate is welcome, it should be, but on reading this thread I wonder, for the future, how many counter view members will choose to hit reply on PS seeing the name calling and responses which followed in this one? Debate is welcome but counter views are not? I don''t buy that and it will not stop me. In fact perhaps I should post more?




On to the topic and surrounding issues:



Not that it is anybodies business but I am certainly not anti-gay. In fact I am anti-very little.



I simply believe that if a child is rendered in the unfortunate position where he or she needs temporary or permanent rehoming, that the criteria for that rehoming be ideal. Yes I said ideal. I know that has bugged some of you so let me expand on that one. The placement of a minor is done by the appropriate authorities and a set of criteria or standards or ideals are drawn up to be universally applied. They attempt to guarantee a level of care. One of those criteria is that I would not choose to allow a gay person or couple to adopt.

The reason I would ''fail'' a gay couple is not simple but it encompasses this: A child is created predominately by nature and without intervention. Many reasons require or demand that the natural parents not continue to parent, including by their own choice. Then ''We'' as a society step in. ''We'' create standards to judge to ensure the maximum benefit for a minor. Ideals in this situation are not created to serve a lowest common level of care but a highest. More often children in care have suffered and need to be ensured the best possible environment. Therefore the ideals were created and my belief is that that ideal standard is to replace natural parents (male & female) with non-natural parents (male & female); this addresses only one ideal.

I most certainly am aware that very little about the ''system'' is ideal and accept that if abuse were to continue in a care home before re homing and a gay couple or single were ''ready and waiting'' that would seem on its facts to be absurd. My point is that that should not occur because the system should be efficient and if not, then that requires attention.



It has been thrown about a bit here that I would prefer yadda yadda ya to happen to the child when they might instead go to a loving gay couple if they otherwise fit the criteria to adopt. This is one of many attempts to skew my words. Why would anybody want a child to be in a negative position? A child in that case should be removed from the situation and placed into care. How does not allowing a gay person to adopt put the child into harm? That is sensationalism and not constructive. To clarify: If the child is in danger and needs to be removed from their home then remove them. Not allowing a gay couple to adopt does not interfere with that. If the care homes are at max occupancy then that is a different topic.


As far as bigotry goes.......right back atcha.
"noun,plural-ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one''s own.

2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot."



I only took offence at one segment of this thread. That was the praise given for members who mentioned that they did not object to me posting my comments; that they did not find them personally offensive (paraphrasing). I took offence that the +1''ers clapped those who posted that they were not offended on the back; as if they were commended for ''rising above'' my comments. That I found offensive. My comments do not need rising above.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/1/2010 2:57:06 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Sara~ With regards to your question, ''How can you stand to be around it still as an adult when you have a choice?'': I can''t stand it. He knows after years of me walking out of a room that I don''t tolerate his words on the subjects. He never speaks that way in front of my child. When JT was an infant my dad used the N word and I told him in no uncertain terms that ''our'' family would not talk that way. My dad respects me and my family enough to keep his mouth shut. As far as the person he is, yeah, this part of his character really upsets me. But, like so many people, he has characteristics that are also great. I will not cut him out of my life just because I don''t agree with his thoughts on some subjects.

I might handle it the same way - a cousin and a father are not the same... however if he did start tainting the way my child thought I''d be over him in a heartbeat.

BTW My father - the ultimate stuck in the 60''s hippy going senile from smoking so much weed - was "sold" the concept of (coerced into) voting yes on prop 8 by a man at my brother''s church and I asked him what the heck he was thinking - I tried to use weed as an example, how one person''s preference should not another person''s choice make... give me the several months it took to sell him on pro-8 and I''d get through his weed ravaged skull. Makes me sick and I told him so. Really makes me sick that some UCK took advantage of an old man''s waning ability to reason for his own sick agenda.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/1/2010 4:06:17 PM
Author: Laila619

Date: 7/1/2010 3:39:44 PM

Author: Delster

Date: 6/30/2010 8:13:57 PM

Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/30/2010 7:48:23 PM


Author: iluvcarats


We give more rights and respect to illegal aliens than we do to gay, tax paying American citizens.

If you are a tax paying US citizen you deserve equal rights.



No matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.



Period.

BIG FAT FREAKING DITTO!!!!



And I want to thank Kenny and ImDanny for participating in this thread in a rational and level-headed manner. I realize you both face challenges due to unkind and unfair judgment from society. You''re both welcome to move to Massachusetts/Boston any time. Swimmer and I will take you out and show you around town.

This may be opening a whole other can of worms but this statement has played on my mind over and over since I read it and I just can''t wrap my head around it. I find the idea that the entitlement to have one''s human rights respected is somehow linked to one''s citizenship entitlements or one''s capacity to pay taxes just so deeply offensive. Human rights are based in a person''s humanity, not in whether they are a citizen of a particular nation or whether they pay taxes to that nation.

Really? If someone is here ILLEGALLY, they should still receive the same rights and perks as legal immigrants who did things the proper way and who do pay taxes?

Where did you get that? she wasn''t talking about perks or even the right to welfare (another topic) but you know, the right to breathe, the right to live, the right to love whomever you love... HUMAN issues, not state or national or international issues.

 

[packrat]

I''ve been listening to The Rainbow Connection and Bein'' Green on youtube and I don''t know about anyone else, but I think I''ll go live on Sesame Street where it doesn''t matter if you''re different, just that you''re nice.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 7/1/2010 6:57:55 PM
Author: Steal
It has been thrown about a bit here that I would prefer yadda yadda ya to happen to the child when they might instead go to a loving gay couple if they otherwise fit the criteria to adopt. This is one of many attempts to skew my words. Why would anybody want a child to be in a negative position? A child in that case should be removed from the situation and placed into care. How does not allowing a gay person to adopt put the child into harm? That is sensationalism and not constructive. To clarify: If the child is in danger and needs to be removed from their home then remove them. Not allowing a gay couple to adopt does not interfere with that. If the care homes are at max occupancy then that is a different topic.

I think the problem here Steal is how different it is in the states. There are 500,000 kids in the foster system, 1/3 of which are disabled in some way. These children get screwed, plain and simple. They come from a place so bad they had to be removed, passed between homes, the victims of terrible crimes by their foster parents and then kicked out without any kind of support the day they turn 18. I am at work so I do not have a link to the study, but roughly half of all kids who have been in foster care have post traumatic stress disorder, more than our returning soldiers. Add that they are 3 times more likely to kill themseves according to health and human services. If that weren''t enough, the number one adoption subgroup in this country is healthy white babies. Over two, any other race or in any way unhealthy and "Ideal" couples won''t touch them for a number of reasons, not all of them selfish. Unfortunately, that is a VERY small percentage of who needs homes in this country. Honestly, after the number and horror of foster care that I know (a friend is a social worker and Denver is actually a "good" place) I honestly believe I might rather be dead than in foster care.

So to answer your question, that is how not allow gays to adopt can directly lead to kids being raped, mistreated, killed, etc since gays are willing to adopt the kids no one else wants because no one will let them adopt otherwise. It is no different that the more people adopting animals, the les are killed because there are too many without homes. It sounds callous, but it is the same too many needing homes+not enough homes=dispair, so adding loving homes helps balance the equation.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 7/1/2010 6:57:55 PM
Author: Steal



I only took offence at one segment of this thread. That was the praise given for members who mentioned that they did not object to me posting my comments; that they did not find them personally offensive (paraphrasing). I took offence that the +1''ers clapped those who posted that they were not offended on the back; as if they were commended for ''rising above'' my comments. That I found offensive. My comments do not need rising above.

Steal, as I''m sure you''re aware, I am one of the people to whom you are referring here. However, I am not, as you put it, a "+1er." I cannot be a "+1er" to Penn''s post because I''m not in Penn''s position. In fact, when I responded to Penn''s post, I told Penn that he handled some of the things that have been said much *better* than I would have in his position. In other words, even if I were in the same position as Penn, I probably still would not say "+1" or "ditto" or some such thing to his post. If I were in Penn''s position, I certainly would have something to say, but it would not be that.

If what I said to Penn earlier in this thread offended you, please know that it was not at all my intention to do so. I do have great respect for Penn for NOT being offended by some of the things that have been posted here (by you and by others), and I stand by that.

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:08:53 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM

Author: ericad

So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

Steal, you said everything you needed to say in this post. You believe in discriminating against gay people, whether they are the biological parent or not.

As soon as a gay person is a member of a couple, according to you, they become disqualified from being a fit parent.

You can rationalize your anti-gay views however you want to, but I for one am not fooled by all of your talk about biology, nature, and idealism.

Gay people have biological parents, are part of nature, and have ideals, just like anyone else.

There is no reason that someone who is gay cannot be a fit parent (and especially to their own child). I think it's offensive for you to suggest otherwise. Other people can disagree with me, but that's how I feel about it.