Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
Infact, you and those like you choose to ignore the evidence of centuries of precedence in favour of your own bigoted, prejudiced homosexual outlook.


A more apt and reality based analogy would be comparing apple sauce, which has been served for centuries, to tomato sauce, which was once believed to be poisionous because it is a member of the nightshade family.

(BTW, it turns out that, of the two, tomato sauce is higher in nutrients, lower in sugar and has the added benifit of possiby preventing some forms of cancer.)

Can you explain why gay single parents are considered unsuitable and straight single parents are considered suitable, especially considering your impetus for gays not adopting has typically involved a "mother and a father" argument, which straight single parents obviously cannot provide just based on the numerics of the situation...


And once again garysher asks a blatantly stupid question regarding a speculated opinion that I never even hinted at.
No. I am not saying that.

What does this line of pretense get you? You ask a stupid question about whether or not I have a position that nobody in their right mind would think I have, and then I say "No".

It just makes no sense. All you do is reiterate your poor reading comprehension skills over and over and over again to your own detriment.


But I do have an interest in the welfare of the orphans.
There is NO evidence showing ANY detriment to the children being raised in gay house-holds. Absolutely none.

This has nothing to do with "scoring points". Those who are capable and willing to sacrifice time and money and provide an orphan with a loving home should be able to if there is no real reason for preventing them.

We let straight single parents adopt, so that knocks out the vast majority of "adoption" arguments against gay adoption. The only thing left is the "morality" argument which you alluded to in one post.
And if you are telling orphans they cannot have a home with a capable parent JUST because of YOUR morality, that is YOUR selfishness.


And this is how garysher works.
He throws out this response, and in a few posts he'll be pretending he has "refuted" my argument, and try to refer back to arguments he never actually made...

Meanwhile, he has completely failed to address the point...

And for the record, the fact that straights have raised kids for centuries IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING regarding gay capability to raise kids.

That's like trying to compare apple sauce, which has been served for centuries, to orange juice which has been expressly forbidden during that time due to prejudice and bigotry.

Ah, yes! The good old APA. I've always thought it was in their best interests to see that people remain as crazy as possible so they can line their pockets!

Which is better for a child?
Being adopted by NO parent, or being adopted by a qualified parent?

Because your plan in NO WAY takes kids from "single parent" homes to put them in "mother / father" homes.
All it does is reduce the population which can adopt, and thus increases the number of kids who need to be adopted. Kids who actually HAVE a parent in the current status quo would have none under your plan.


So please. Don't eat the "bread" but rather starve waiting for the "cake"...


Most intelligent thing you've said all day...


This isn't about "statistics".
These are kids who HAVE good parents under the status quo, but not YOUR PERSONAL "ideal"...
Gays who love these kids and raise them just as any straight parent does. With NO research showing any difference in the child.

And why do you keep trying to back-pedal onto the "morality" issue.
You keep trying to claim that gays are inferior parents, and over and over again now all you talk about is your own personal, arbitrary "morality" issues.

And I say again.
If you don't want a kid to get adopted by a particular parent based SOLELY on your arbitrary "morality" issues, then that is pretty damn selfish of you.


And again, you would INCREASE the number of orphans who know NO parents by setting up a standard of SOLELY having "mother / father" parents adopting.
The child sees NO DETRIMENT being adopted by gay parents. NONE whatsoever.
Gay parents meet the child's needs JUST AS WELL as straight parents do.
So how can you claim it's a "need" when gays do the job just as well?


Again, having only ONE scenario allowed, straight parenting, is not "precedence".
We overlooked "centuries" of precedent when we allowed women to vote. When we allowed blacks to vote.

The TRUE precedent here is the CONSTITUTION.

And don't speak to me of your personal mumbo-jumbo on "Mother Nature". Just because you try to pretend "nature" has an intelligence doesn't mean that we have to throw human research out the window.

And for the record, "majority of Americans" SUPPORT gay adoption.
The ONLY state that prohibits gay adoption is Florida.
There are a few other states that have tried to prohibit gay adoption, and the legislation attempts were SHOT DOWN.

Say, I just got to thinking. Now im not saying the study done in Canada was wrong or anything. Nor do I believe it isnt possible for a gay couple to raise a proper functioning child, but its against the law to speak out against homosexuality there. They wouldnt be allowed to say anything negitive about it. They would litteraly be fined and or put in jail, for portraying homosexuality in a negitive light.

You are not even allowed to read a bible vs about homosexuality out loud in public.

Those gosh-derned Canucks!

Okay, all joking aside, there's much I admire about Canada, but it does seem the P.C. thought police have run a little amuck up there.

Even in this country, there seem to be many people who think "freedom of speech" means "Freedom of speech, until somebody says something that offends me or hurts my feelings."

Luckily, we have the 1st Amendment to protect us from such hysteria.

Garysher is correct about this: there have been several studies evaluating the wellbeing of children of same-sex couples, and all have used small sample sizes. This is because it is very difficult to study huges numbers of children in-depth enough to evaluate their wellbeing.

However, even studies with small sample sizes are worth considering. And no one can deny that every single reputable study on the topic says that children of same-sex couples do as well or better than children of opposite-sex couples.

Though studies with a higher sample size would make things more certain, the current evidence we have suggests that same-sex parents are as good or better than opposite-sex parents for a child.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason to believe that a child would benefit from having opposite-sex parents instead of same-sex parents. I mean, no one's ever done a study checking whether left-handed people are better parents than right-handed people, because really there's no reason to believe that any difference should exist. The same is true of the gender of the parents.

Which brings me to my next point: no other combination of people has been forced to prove their worth before being granted equality. We didn't conduct studies to see if blondes are as good at parenting as brunettes. We didn't compare blacks and whites. We didn't compare Christians and Jews. We didn't compare Urban-dwellers to Rural-dwellers. No: we automatically gave these other groups the freedom to raise children because people deserve to be allowed to raise their children according to their own standards.

What if I said, "Two blonde parents can't provide their child with both a blonde and a brunette parent." You'd probably think, "Who gives a fuck?" Similarly, who cares whether a child has both a mother and a father? As I said above: every single reputable study on the subject says that two parents of the same sex are just as good, and there's no reason to believe otherwise.