Support NeoGAF

[galeninjapan]

Yes, because parents should always consider the potential reaction of a child's peers when planning out their lives.

Thats the point, an adopted couple is not the parents untill after they adopt the kid. Thus if gay couples cannot adopt then they cannot be the parents.

 

[djtiesto]

I just think it's so sad that we, as a society, haven't gotten past this. And, white flight to the exurbs, gay marriage restriction laws, subtle racial discrimination... all seem even more common nowadays than they were even a few years ago (or maybe I'm just less ignorant - I live in a fairly progressive area and don't really have much experience in being outside of NY state)

<-- dated a girl who was really a lesbian

 

[akascream]

The concern over "bullying" assumes that the kid being raised is like you: a totally insecure American male.

Petty insults aside, I think it is not only fair to say that children are immature, I think it is thier very nature. But again, this isn't about thier growth process, but the wants of an agenda to gain an inch towards legal adoption. As if this agenda really cares about the un-fostered any more than anyone else outside of some legal ground. Good grief.

 

[FoneBone]

I wouldn't advise showing anger, or offense when arguing, especially when the one you're arguing against has shown none towards you. Its very boring, and makes you appear irrational, which isn't good since you have sound arguments to offer.

No offense, but it's very easy to say that when you don't have your existence being insulted. That's not worthy of "offense" or "anger"?

 

[Nerevar]

But again, this isn't about thier growth process, but the wants of an agenda to gain an inch towards legal adoption. As if this agenda really cares about the un-fostered any more than anyone else outside of some legal ground. Good grief.

How come aka isn't banned yet? I mean seriously, he hasn't backed up any of his claims and consistently make sweeping generalizations about a "gay agenda" that he can provide no proof of. He repeats deragotory comments (such as "homosexuality is unnatural", "homosexuality is just a fetish", etc.) despite multiple posts with proof to the contrary (like Mandark's, which he casually ignores), and is unable to validate his claims with any proof of his own. I honestly don't see what purpose he's serving outside of "riling up the leftists". He's like the perfect guest on Scarborough country or the O'Reilly Factor and I really thought people like -Jinx- and Drinky were going to put a lockdown on this sort of atittude?

 

[galeninjapan]

How come aka isn't banned yet?

Because you dont ban people for having a different opinion as you. Thats taking a step backwards.

 

[Nerevar]

Because you dont ban people for having a different opinion as you. Thats taking a step backwards.

you also don't engage in meaningful arguments by selectively picking out pieces of an individual's argument. Read the whole fucking post and respond before making statements like this. I have no problem with him having a dissenting opinion, but being factually unable to back up his statements and beliefs while repeating them ad nausem in the face of evidence the contrary doesn't actually encompass productive discussion.

 

[levious]

Thats the point, an adopted couple is not the parents untill after they adopt the kid. Thus if gay couples cannot adopt then they cannot be the parents.

My point wasn't rooted in any particular stage of a family. An interracial couple would be just as foolish for deciding not to have kids because of potential reaction from the child's peers. Or a couple wishing to adopt having concerns over adopting a child of a different ethnicity of their own.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Because you dont ban people for having a different opinion as you. Thats taking a step backwards.

In addition to what Nerevar rightly posted, there's a distinct difference between "Red is better than blue," "Fuck you you're banned for that" and someone who argues for institutionalized bigotry with no rational claims as to its necessity and naked ignorance of his own terminology ("gay lifestyle?").

What it would be wrong to ban him for is his self-loathing attraction to men.

 

[akascream]

I'm sorry, I didn't notice any proof of homosexual reproduction. I've made it clear this is my definition of natural sexual activity. As the function of sex is reproduction. Either way, I'm not obligated to respond to anything, and am mostly just trying not to monopolize the conversation because my pov is obviously no more important than anyone elses. It would be unfair to capitolize on the one-sided nature of this community.

I'm not sure why you think homosexuals should be treated special though. If you want to be treated like everyone else, it's time you guys stop expecting everyone to walk on egg shells. It's time to 'take it like a man'.


Oh, and I'm still waiting on proof that irregular housholds don't effect children. You certainly won't hear me calling for a ban on everyone that makes the assumption, however.

 

[Che]

What the hell is wrong with having gay parents? Some of you people make it sound like it's something bad. Comments like "instead of having noone it's better to have gay parents" sound incredibly retarded to me. I would definately prefer having gay parents instead of having some stupid rednecks who would only teach me how to be a religious ignorant hypocrite and hate anyone different than me.

 

[Che]

Not everyone who agrees with these laws is a homophobe.

Oh yes he is.

 

[levious]

I'm not sure why you think homosexuals should be treated special though. If you want to be treated like everyone else, it's time you guys stop expecting everyone to walk on egg shells. It's time to 'take it like a man'.


Oh, and I'm still waiting on proof that irregular housholds don't effect children. You certainly won't hear me calling for a ban on everyone that makes the assumption, however.

http://www.sciencenetlinks.org/sci_update.cfm?DocID=245

If a teenager has two moms instead of a mom and a dad, how will the kid get along? "Just fine," according to University of Virginia psychologist Charlotte Patterson.

She and her colleagues studied data from a broad national survey of adolescent health. They found that the children of same-sex couples performed just as well in school as their peers, and were no more or less likely to have started dating or experimenting with sex.

Patterson:
And also in terms of psychological adjustment, we found that they were about equally likely as other kids, kids from opposite-sex parent homes, to have symptoms of depression on the negative side or good self-esteem on the positive side.

Also aka, sorry if you've said it before and I missed it, but could you clarify what you mean by gays wanting "special" treatment?


edit: also, studies are very new on this, and a lot of studies you read besides the one I posted involve child born into traditional families but later moved into non-traditional ones after divorce and one parent coming out. I'd say those children are worse off of course than those born into a same sex parented family for stability reasons.

 

[akascream]

Thanks for the link. I'll give it a look in a bit.

Also aka, sorry if you've said it before and I missed it, but could you clarify what you mean by gays wanting "special" treatment?

I think many gays in this community expect people with opposing views to be banned. Pure and simple.

 

[Nerevar]

Oh, and I'm still waiting on proof that irregular housholds don't effect children. You certainly won't hear me calling for a ban on everyone that makes the assumption, however.

"Irregular" households? What about single parents then? That's "irregular"? Should these children be taken away from their parents? Sociological studies sure seem to demonstrate that children of single parents fare much worse than children of gay parents - is this grounds for them to be put into foster homes because their parents aren't "normal" aka?

I think many gays in this community expect people with opposing views to be banned. Pure and simple.

I'm not gay, nor do I want you to be banned for your views. I want you to be banned because you are incapable of defending your views and your inability to respond to people who provide evidence to the contrary for your points. Specifically, respond to Mandark's post. Then I'll withdraw my request.

And for the record, aka, you've gone on the record as equating homosexuality to pedophelia and bestiality in the past. So yes, I do think you're a bigot.

 

[totoro'd]

I'm sorry, I didn't notice any proof of homosexual reproduction. I've made it clear this is my definition of natural sexual activity. As the function of sex is reproduction.

So every time you have sex, the goal is reproduction? Wow, you must have alot of children.

I'm not sure why you think homosexuals should be treated special though. If you want to be treated like everyone else, it's time you guys stop expecting everyone to walk on egg shells. It's time to 'take it like a man'.

Why do people keep saying gays want special rights? They want the same rights as everyone else

 

[levious]

ah, sorry, didnt' realize your comment was directly related to board activity.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I'm not sure why you think homosexuals should be treated special though. If you want to be treated like everyone else, it's time you guys stop expecting everyone to walk on egg shells. It's time to 'take it like a man'.

You're really not making any sense now. The first two sentences contradict one another. How does wanting equal rights equate to special treatment?

In addition, there are rather odd undertones to many of your posts. What is this "you guys?" You do realize many, if not most of the people on this board arguing against legalized intolerance are straight. If you're walking on eggshells, that's due to your own inability to deal with the world around you, not others'. You seem rather paranoid.

 

[akascream]

What about single parents then? That's "irregular"?

Yes, it is not an optimal situation for raising children. Obviously.

How many single mothers that are not at home during the day are given foster children?

 

[Che]

I think many gays in this community expect people with opposing views to be banned. Pure and simple.

It's like saying blacks in this community expect racists to be banned. I say good riddance.

 

[Nerevar]

Yes, it is not an optimal situation for raising children. Obviously.

How many single mothers that are not at home during the day are given foster children?

yet this bill expressly gives Texas welfare the right to take a child away from a homosexual family - do you support doing the same thing for single mothers or single fathers?

 

[levious]

How many single mothers that are not at home during the day are given foster children?

single parent households comprise over 40% of foster homes. I don't know the working situation of those parents but it tells me clearly that there is a GREAT need for foster parents. Blocking same sex couples from participating is really not wise, for the sake of the program as a whole.

 

[akascream]

It's like saying blacks in this community expect racists to be banned. I say good riddance.

Except African Americans are a race of people, not a sexual fetish swept up in self importance.

 

[akascream]

yet this bill expressly gives Texas welfare the right to take a child away from a homosexual family - do you support doing the same thing for single mothers or single fathers?

I do not support taking away the biological children from functional parents. If gay people could bear children, I still think it would be unhealthy, but unless there is abuse, it is not my place.

So I would say that the biological child of two gay parents shouldn't be taken away.

 

[Xenon]

Why stop at just the foster parents. They should take away the children from all the gays and have them de-gayed so they wont infect the other children.

=\

somewhere in texas(cap ommitted) a teen boy who has two hot lesbian foster parents is crying right now.


Seriously, this is just another example of the hypocrisy of the extreme right. They bash the gay community for not supporting family morals while trying to prevent them from having a family. idiots

 

[levious]

how about the biological child (say sperm donor) of a woman with a same sex partner. Then the partner adopts the child as well. You think the state should have any right to interfere with that situation? Or prevent it for that matter?

 

[akascream]

single parent households comprise over 40% of foster homes. I don't know the working situation of those parents but it tells me clearly that there is a GREAT need for foster parents. Blocking same sex couples from participating is really not wise, for the sake of the program as a whole.

I would expect those parents would be home during the day. Or at least represented themselves that way to a case worker.

If there are completely unsupervised foster children in homes of working single parets, I'd say that is wrong and shouldn't happen either. I'm not sure how two wrongs would make a right though.

 

[akascream]

how about the biological child (say sperm donor) of a woman with a same sex partner. Then the partner adopts the child as well. You think the state should have any right to interfere with that situation? Or prevent it for that matter?

Yeah, if the biological parent has custody, I'd say the state has no right to step in unless there is abuse. Some would consider the abnormal situation abusive by nature, but taking a child away from a biological parent is moreso imo, and parental rights is a tough issue.


Anyway, I'm going to step back again. I'm taking up too much real estate in this thread heh.

 

[Nerevar]

Except African Americans are a race of people, not a sexual fetish swept up in self importance.

Can you even in any remote way back this up?

I do not support taking away the biological children from functional parents. If gay people could bear children, I still think it would be unhealthy, but unless there is abuse, it is not my place.

So I would say that the biological child of two gay parents shouldn't be taken away.

So you recognize that parenting is not an intrinsic result of the biological capacity to have children? Then how come you haven't even bothered looking at this post in the same thread?

 

[Nerevar]

I would expect those parents would be home during the day. Or at least represented themselves that way to a case worker.

If there are completely unsupervised foster children in homes of working single parets, I'd say that is wrong and shouldn't happen either. I'm not sure how two wrongs would make a right though.

I'm confused - a single foster parent is ok as long as that person "stays home at the day to supervise the children"? You also admit that this is an "irregular" household - so what exactly is your problem with gay foster parents again?

 

[akascream]

Can you even in any remote way back this up?

I'm not sure there is much to back up. But with a ban looming over my head, how could I resist dancing in circles for you.

Homosexual behavior is irregular, non-reproductive sex. We tend to label indulgant sexual behavior as fetishes in our society.

I'm confused - a single foster parent is ok as long as that person "stays home at the day to supervise the children"? You also admit that this is an "irregular" household - so what exactly is your problem with gay foster parents again?

My comment was from the pov of the case worker. I would have expected they be home, or at least have represented themselves to the case worker this way for that 40% to be possible. Not that it was right.

There still isn't the especially complicated nature of obvious sexual abnormalities in a single parent environment. Unless that parent is gay. Arguing comparisons is stupid.

 

[mrmyth]

Except African Americans are a race of people, not a sexual fetish swept up in self importance.

I don't know how you can't be gay yourself. You spend so much time with a head up your ass.

 

[Nerevar]

Homosexual behavior is irregular, non-reproductive sex. We tend to label indulgant sexual behavior as fetishes in our society.

Well then, how could I resist correcting your gross misuse of the word "fetish":
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

Read a dictionary, it might help.

My comment was from the pov of the case worker. I would have expected they be home, or at least have represented themselves to the case worker this way for that 40% to be possible. Not that it was right.

So do you support letting people (who obviously pass all the other background checks) who are single mothers / fathers be foster parents? You haven't addressed this yet, and instead have danced around the point.

There still isn't the especially complicated nature of obvious sexual abnormalities in a single parent environment. Unless that parent is gay. Arguing comparisons is stupid.

How is it a "sexual abnormality"? Because societal mores say it is so? Don't pull that "unnatural" bullshit either, unless you want to actually address Mandark's post where he counterpoints your most bigoted points.

 

[mrmyth]

And pretty much everything you ever post sounds incredibly retarded to me, so I guess we're even.

Since you willfully misunderstood my point, I'll reword it. Ideally, every child should have a loving mother and father. That would be the best situation. The problem is that there aren't enough to go around. It's not ideal, but it's better to have two mothers or two fathers than none at all.

Ideally everyone should have loving parents. This 'have a mom and dad' shit is an outdated ideal, even in our society. All this talk about having a man and a woman in the household is bullshit. The average American father isn't expected to do shit but work.

 

[akascream]

Again, arguing comparisons is invalid. It is a poor attempt at attaching value to an idea through association, and completely ignores several important issues, and everyone ends up arguing the semantics of completely irrelevant points.

Yes, there are heterosexual situations that are not healthy for raising children. But there is nothing inherant in heterosexual behavior that is especially damaging. Can we say the same of a homosexual environment?

Anyway, forgive me if I abstain for a few pages. I'm trying to learn from the last thread like this heh.

 

[Che]

Except African Americans are a race of people, not a sexual fetish swept up in self importance.

I'm not sure there is much to back up. But with a ban looming over my head, how could I resist dancing in circles for you.

Homosexual behavior is , non-reproductive sex. We tend to label indulgant sexual behavior as fetishes in our society.

Pathetic... Since gays are born gays it's a natural thing like blacks are born blacks. Now if you want to tell me that just because gays are a minority they're something "irregular" then you're ignorant my friend. "Indulgant sexual behavior" is someone having sex with a fucking chicken not someone who was born gay and wants to have gay sex. Unless you believe what these disgusting religious fundamentalists are saying, that homosexuality is a lifestyle and can be cured. But I don't thing you're that retarded.

 

[Nerevar]

Yes, there are heterosexual situations that are not healthy for raising children. But there is nothing inherant in heterosexual behavior that is possibly damaging. Can we say the same of a homosexual environment?

wow, you still refuse to acknowledge a point with scientific evidence that directly contradicts your own

This is why I think you deserve a ban Aka - because you refuse to acknowledge points that directly contradicts yours (such as your gross mislabeling of homosexuality as a "fetish"). Arguing with you is like banging your head on a wall, in the end you accomplish nothing but frustrating yourself because the wall refuses to move no matter how hard you push. And, in the end, it's pointless and stupid.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Except African Americans are a race of people, not a sexual fetish swept up in self importance.

haha, you're too funny. self importance? gay people don't want to be more 'important' or treated differently to anyone else. that's the point - they want to be treated the same.

Anyway, forgive me if I abstain for a few pages. I'm trying to learn from the last thread like this heh.

seeing as you've yet to grasp the definition of the word 'fetish' it's probably best you take a breather and consult a fucking dictionary.

 

[Drinky Crow]

aka, you are being willfully retarded.

But there is nothing inherant in heterosexual behavior that is possibly damaging. Can we say the same of a homosexual environment?

Bull-fucking-shit. There's plenty of examples of damaging heterosexual behavior, including pedophilia and just about every sexual "fetish" out there. A homosexual environment is no better or worse than a heterosexual one -- it boils down the convictions and strength of the individual parents, NOT their chromosome pairing.

If you suggest that homosexuality is a "fetish" one more time, I'll give you a free month-long pass to OA, where they'll appreciate your disingenuous and ignorant commentary.

 

[darscot]

Wow when I left last night this thread was going strong I'm not surprised it still is.

Once you have a kids you realize very quickly that there are three types of nurses working in the maternity ward. First you have the baby loving nurses, then come the mommy loving nurses followed by the male nurses. Guess what the sexual orientation of the last two groups are? To say that a gay couple is not capable of caring for some crack heads baby untill an adoptive parent is found is laughable. Who the fuck do you guys think has been doing it at the hospital? What's next no gay nurses! Good luck keeping hospitals open with out them.

 

[galeninjapan]

institutionalized bigotry with no rational claims as to its necessity and naked ignorance of his own terminology

It is not bigotry, why do you keep calling people this. You claim people to bigots and ignorant yet you dont even look at the other side of the arguement. You hide behind "You're ignorant and stOOpid why should I look at your side" Jesus, Half the country doesnt beileve in your side! Are they all bigots and ignorant? No, they just have a different fucking view.

 

[Triumph]

It is not bigotry, why do you keep calling people this. You claim people to bigots and ignorant yet you dont even look at the other side of the arguement. You hide behind "You're ignorant and stOOpid why should I look at your side" Jesus, Half the country doesnt beileve in your side! Are they all bigots and ignorant? No, they just have a different fucking view.

Just because they have a different view doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean that it is not rooted in ignorance and bigotry.

And where is Olimario in this thread? I would expect him to be bragging about the idiocy going on in his home state.

 

[galeninjapan]

Just because they have a different view doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean that it is not rooted in ignorance and bigotry.

You are right that it does not make it correct. But what is correct? The two sides have opposing views about what is correct. I do not believe this argument is rooted in ignorance and bigotry. There are many good people and well educated people on BOTH sides of the argument. It isn’t Rednecks Vs. the New York Elite. There are people in Texas that agree with your side as I am sure there are people in New York that agree with my side.

It is just a difference in opinion, and until you stop call people bigots and ignorant your argument seems childish. Which is a shame because I think this is an issue that our society needs to address and find a solution that can make everyone happy. It's all about compromise people.

 

[bob_arctor]

I'd rather have no one.

:lol Moron.

 

[maharg]

There are many good people and well educated people on BOTH sides of the argument. It isn’t Rednecks Vs. the New York Elite.

A person does not have to be a redneck to root their arguments in ignorance and bigotry.

It is just a difference in opinion, and until you stop call people bigots and ignorant your argument seems childish. Which is a shame because I think this is an issue that our society needs to address and find a solution that can make everyone happy. It's all about compromise people.

Compromise is you live your life, I live mine, the gay guy down the street lives his. There is no compromise in instituting laws founded on creating inequity in society. Every inch these sorts of laws move forward is an inch away from compromise.

It's absurd to blame gays and their supporters for the lack of compromise. They aren't lobbying for anti-christian laws.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Okay, shoving the stupidity (you know who) in this thread to the side, and apart from whatever people think about same-gender couples as parents in general: the kicker in the new regulation allowing kids to be ripped away from current homes is just a lovely message to send: "Hey kids, these people who have been treating as family aren't REAL LIVE PEOPLE! They're one of our many breeds of sub-people. Welcome to the exciting new world of prejudice and bigotry. We have such sights to show you..."

 

[ge-man]

I missed most of the debate, but I'll reiterate what I said in another thread with a similar subject, which was I think the excuses being brought up against these measures are bunk. Kids might be bullied over having queer parents, but they may also be bullied because they are short or fat or refuse to give up their toy truck. I think we all too often forget that childhood is tough for just about everyone, period. The fact that people are trying to fight against responsible adults taking homeless children in is both another example of this distortion of the sanctity of childhood and a sad reminder that folks have not stopped seperating sexuality from being moral or responsible.

Society isn't falling apart from more liberal views. I'd argue that the fundementalism and fanaticism of recent times is a greater threat--but that's another thread.

 

[Eric-GCA]

Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.

 

[Mandark]

Main Entry: fe·tish
Variant(s): also fe·tich /'fe-tish also 'fE-/
Function: noun
Etymology: French & Portuguese; French fétiche, from Portuguese feitiço, from feitiço artificial, false, from Latin facticius factitious
1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : PREPOSSESSION c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3 : FIXATION

Main Entry: fix·a·tion
Pronunciation: fik-'sA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the act, process, or result of fixing, fixating , or becoming fixated : as a : a persistent concentration of libidinal energies upon objects characteristic of psychosexual stages of development preceding the genital stage b : stereotyped behavior (as in response to frustration) c : an obsessive or unhealthy preoccupation or attachment

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[brooklyngooner]

It is not bigotry, why do you keep calling people this. You claim people to bigots and ignorant yet you dont even look at the other side of the arguement. You hide behind "You're ignorant and stOOpid why should I look at your side" Jesus, Half the country doesnt beileve in your side! Are they all bigots and ignorant? No, they just have a different fucking view.

Let's get a few things straight, Holmes:

There's a difference between personal feelings of revulsion/disapproval/whatever you choose to call it of homosexuality and actually enacting laws that reflect this. The former is lamentable but does not concern me. The latter is repellant; we've gone down that road in this country before and akascream may choose not to see the similarities between minority groups and civil rights but if he'd pick up a book he'd be able to see it quite clearly.

When you push for laws creating a completely seperate set of standards for one group of people versus another, there had better be overwhelming evidence that such standards are necessary to the health and well-being of society. Such evidence, the burden of proof, is on those pushing for these laws as they are creating wholly separate standards based on sexuality. What you and akascream and others in Texas and elsewhere are attempting to do is create laws that are not grounded in any scientific basis; there are no statistics nor scientic consensus that children raised by gay foster parents turn out worse for wear than those raised by straight ones. There is, however, a mountain of evidence that there are many abusive heterosexual parents and not enough foster parents to go around. To deny foster children potential homes is to punish orphans for your own uncomfortability with homosexuality.

No one is pushing a "homosexual agenda." Gay marriage doesn't mean akascream will be required to marry a gay man. It does not mean his church or synagogue, were he a member, will be required to marry homosexuals. Similarly, this doesn't mean he's got to give his children to gay foster parents.

Also, lose the silly elitist aspect of his argument as its untenable. I'm all for equality. Creating laws to keep other people at a disadvantage to you is the very definition of elitism.

Funny how people like akascream never advocate laws that give them second-class status.