7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course it has lots to do with discrimination.

Let's break this down with an example.

An adopted child allowed to a marginal heterosexual couple just because of their genders and denied to a gay people that can offer a wonderful home just because of their genders. 

But adoption policies are really tangential to the main issue -- MARRIAGE EQUALITY. 

As far as single people wanting to adopt, policies on that depend on the policies of specific adoption agencies. 

 

Take sexual orientation out of this for a moment. How about a heterosexual couple living together but not officially married, vs. that same marginal couple. They will also be denied the ability to adopt, just as the homosexual couple would. 

 

This is not discrimination. It is about a set of (imperfect) rules that have been imposed in order to try and solicit the optimal outcome for the child. So no, I flatly reject your statement of "Of course it has lots to do with discrimination."  I think it has very little to do with discrimination.

 

39 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

While I find this an interesting argument, it should be made clear that absolutely nobody has ever said a homosexual couple can not raise a child. That is a specious argument that you are throwing in to try and reframe the discussion. The issue under discussion is whether or not adoption and surrogacy should be extended to homosexual couples. In the event a homosexual couple can acquire a child through natural means, absolutely nobody is saying they do not have the same rights as everyone else to raise the child.

 

This is strictly about whether or not extraordinary means via social institutions should be extended to homosexual couples, and whether or not this a right everyone deserves. Non married people are already denied this right, so there is no fundamental reason why homosexuals couples are being persecuted by this rule. Furthermore, in the case of adoption, the couples background is extensively investigated, and adoption is denied in the case of an unfit home. For surrogacy, heterosexual married couples where the woman is infertile are denied surrogacy options in the case where no female blood relatives are available.

 

There are many, many cases where these social institutions are denied to any number of people and it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference, so it seems to me this does represent a specific case of discrimination, but rather a more nuanced set of rules dictated by social norms.

 

I can appreciate that everyone wants this option, but so far, nobody has made a valid argument why homosexual couples should be entitled to adopt children when entire groups of others are denied this chance. The problem is this has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with considering the needs of the child. And in this case, society currently takes the most conservative view of what makes the optimal home for a child.  It is not personal and in my opinion not discriminatory.

 

 

 

"it should be made clear that absolutely nobody has ever said a homosexual couple can not raise a child".  I think you're wrong

57 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

"it should be made clear that absolutely nobody has ever said a homosexual couple can not raise a child".  I think you're wrong

There's definitely at least active member here arguing endlessly that gay people should NOT raise children based on a bunch of hate speech propaganda from extremist far right wing anti-gay websites. Maybe that's different than cannot. Obviously they can and they do! 

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

Take sexual orientation out of this for a moment. How about a heterosexual couple living together but not officially married, vs. that same marginal couple. They will also be denied the ability to adopt, just as the homosexual couple would. 

 

This is not discrimination. It is about a set of (imperfect) rules that have been imposed in order to try and solicit the optimal outcome for the child. So no, I flatly reject your statement of "Of course it has lots to do with discrimination."  I think it has very little to do with discrimination.

 

That example is totally messed up. 
That couple in your ridiculous example COULD get married instantly and remove that criteria.

Your argument does not wash.

It is by the very definition of discrimination discrimination. 

Don't run from that truth.

Indeed discrimination is part of life. We all do it and it's often defensible if it's based on FAIR criteria. 

Such as a job applicant with no experience vs. a very qualified one. Most employers would discriminate against the no experience applicant unless they were specifically looking for a low cost trainee.

Please don't bother me anymore with specious arguments that rejecting gay parents ONLY because they're gay is not discrimination. That argument is just too ridiculous to take seriously.

Man up and BE HONEST.

You support discrimination based on that. Just own it. You can argue that sincerely if you wish. But don't run from the truth. 

The way I read your POV stripping away the artifice that rejecting gay couples just based on being gay couples isn't discrimination (IT IS) is that discrimination in this case is the correct thing to do.

I disagree. That's fine. 

I would agree discrimination would be correct for many, many other reasons.

Such as -- 

Drug addiction

Felony records

Unable to provide a stable home, etc. etc.

Edited May 7, 20188 yr by Jingthing

11 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

You don't have any gay friends. And yes, you do criticize the gay community by telling them they should not be allowed to raise children. In fact that is far worse than criticism. That is telling others what they should and shouldn't do based on your own narrow-minded views. How would you like it if people said narrow-minded individuals should not be allowed to raise children? I don't think you'd be too pleased. 

You don't know if I have gay friends or not, my own nephew is gay ,so since it's non chattable issue I shan't bother. I have never said gay people should not raise children that are their own. I have expressed my opinion that I am against gay couples adopting other people's children  (except if it is an express wish of the parents ).

I am against marriage, but support civil union with equal rights. This LGBTIQQ stuff is rediculous so I continue use the universally understood word of gay for same sex couples. Which I believe the gay community will eventually go back to. It's a time waster and irrelevant to the cause. I do believe and statistics show a majority of gays were molested as children or were raised in drug addicted or abusive families. It's not a criticism, it's a sad fact. 

I don't believe religion, or homosexuality should be taught in schools, both are confusing and not necessary for my family. 

I strongly am against the promotion of drugs, cigarettes, homosexuality and radical brainwashing of religion to children. 

None of these things are critical of the gay community, nor homophobic, nor racist. They are serious issues and if the gay c continue to bury their head in the sand and refuse to accept or even discuss the issues in a rational way, then expect the fight for equal rights to be long. 

 

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That example is totally messed up. 
That couple in your ridiculous example COULD get married instantly and remove that criteria.

Your argument does not wash.

It is by the very definition of discrimination discrimination. 

Don't run from that truth.

Indeed discrimination is part of life. We all do it and it's often defensible if it's based on FAIR criteria. 

Such as a job applicant with no experience vs. a very qualified one. Most employers would discriminate against the no experience applicant unless they were specifically looking for a low cost trainee.

Please don't bother me anymore with specious arguments that rejecting gay parents ONLY because they're gay is not discrimination. That argument is just too ridiculous to take seriously.

Man up and BE HONEST.

You support discrimination based on that. Just own it. You can argue that sincerely if you wish. But don't run from the truth. 

The way I read your POV stripping away the artifice that rejecting gay couples just based on being gay couples isn't discrimination (IT IS) is that discrimination in this case is the correct thing to do.

I disagree. That's fine. 

I would agree discrimination would be correct for many, many other reasons.

Such as -- 

Drug addiction

Felony records

Unable to provide a stable home, etc. etc.

Unfortunately, you are trying to change the topic from marriage verse civil union to a different topic, should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? 

You should start a new topic based on that and allow people to express their views. You really need to get over your personal pity party, that everyone that disagrees with the gay c is homophobic or secretly gay or generally hates you because you are gay. 

A story. 

 an American black man that was telling me his first experience of racism. He had been dating a white girl. the father caught  them kissing with the man tongue in her mouth. The father went into a rage and ordered the man off the property and demanded he stay away from his daughter. I asked how old he was at that time, feeling quite sorry for him. As it turns out he was 17 and the girl was 13. So I said to him, it's likely the man was upset because you were tongue kissing his 13 year old daughter and it had nothing to do with racism. 

No, he's racist the man insisted. After that, the guy would not speak to me again and proceeded to tell work colleagues that I was racist. 

The pity party of everyone hates me because I'm gay is just not true anymore. Society already gets that thete are gay people and taking steps to address issues.But there are certain norms in society that everyone is expected to conform to so to protect everyone's comfort zones. Such as following the laws of sexual consent and age. Dressing appropriately in public. following dress codes at work. Strict criteria for adoption. being overly effectionate in public. And so on. 

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

I don't believe religion, or homosexuality should be taught in schools, both are confusing and not necessary for my family. 

 

Public schooling is not just about your family.  It's about making our children well-adjusted and ready to cope with all of the variety and differences they're going to encounter when they move out into society.

 

Just because you might feel awkward having to explain same sex relationships to your children, doesn't mean that schools shouldn't do it either.  If anything, it's an argument in favor of schools doing it (because you won't).

 

You've also made another good argument in favor of teaching about homosexuality: it's (apparently, to you) confusing.  Schools exist to clear up confusion and fight ignorance.  

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 20188 yr by attrayant

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Public schooling is not just about your family.  It's about making our children well-adjusted and ready to cope with all of the variety and differences they're going to encounter when they move out into society.

 

Just because you might feel awkward having to explain same sex relationships to your children, doesn't mean that schools shouldn't do it either.  If anything, it's an argument in favor of schools doing it (because you won't).

 

You've also made another good argument in favor of teaching about homosexuality: it's (apparently, to you) confusing.  Schools exist to clear up confusion and fight ignorance.  

 

 

 

you do understand this is Thailand?

Yeah...indoctrination camps, ...I mean "schools" today will get your kids ready for what they need in "todays society". How to be gay friendly, how to respond with the correct gender, out of the 76 new ones now, how to be friendly with islam, how to hate Christians, how to trust your Governments, ect. Forget about :How to do math, how to think, how to have morals, how to learn about history. 

Can't do math, your screwed...can't think, you will follow,  no morals, you will accept whatever perversion that comes along, ...don't know your History, you won't have a clue what is happening to you today.    (bring out the haters)

40 minutes ago, welovethailand said:

(bring out the haters)

 

More like "Bring out the FBI to check your hotel room for AR-15s".

6 hours ago, greenchair said:

Unfortunately, you are trying to change the topic from marriage verse civil union to a different topic, should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? 
...

That is totally incorrect. I don't appreciate members lying as blatantly as you just did.

The ONLY reason I have posted at all on PARENTING RIGHTS for same sex couples is because the topic was BROUGHT UP by other members, including YOU and those comments invited REBUTTAL. Several times. Where you try to spread anti-gay hate speech from far right wing anti-gay hate speech websites that attempt to suggest that gay people are unfit parents because of the long list of negative character flaws which you attribute to most gay people. 
Maybe you think you're fooling some people here with your occasional game of being polite and denying that you've said what you've said which is basically vile anti-gay hate speech. It won't work on me.

 

I will also add here a pushback to a narrative that you've been pushing here about the Thai proposal, also a total lie.

You've been trying to suggest that the Thai proposal is something like equal civil rights almost the same as marriage but just called something different.

That has been true in some other countries before, such as Australia. 

That is NOT the case in the Thai proposal!

What you say this thread is about is not what you say it is. 

It is not a debate of civil unions, similar to marriage VS. marriage.

That is your fantasy construct. What the YOU want to talk about.

In reality the Thai proposal isn't even close to marriage equality with a different name. It is ONLY about assets.

Edited May 8, 20188 yr by Jingthing

On 5/5/2018 at 3:39 PM, pornprong said:

Conservative = fear the future will be worse

Progressive = hope the future will be better

Y'all know that conservatives say the exact opposite about progressives? Isn't it interesting, yet funny how both sides think that the other side believes that they wish for a better future, while believing the opposing party will bring decline to society?

9 hours ago, greenchair said:

You don't know if I have gay friends or not, my own nephew is gay ,so since it's non chattable issue I shan't bother. I have never said gay people should not raise children that are their own. I have expressed my opinion that I am against gay couples adopting other people's children  (except if it is an express wish of the parents ).

I am against marriage, but support civil union with equal rights. This LGBTIQQ stuff is rediculous so I continue use the universally understood word of gay for same sex couples. Which I believe the gay community will eventually go back to. It's a time waster and irrelevant to the cause. I do believe and statistics show a majority of gays were molested as children or were raised in drug addicted or abusive families. It's not a criticism, it's a sad fact. 

I don't believe religion, or homosexuality should be taught in schools, both are confusing and not necessary for my family. 

I strongly am against the promotion of drugs, cigarettes, homosexuality and radical brainwashing of religion to children. 

None of these things are critical of the gay community, nor homophobic, nor racist. They are serious issues and if the gay c continue to bury their head in the sand and refuse to accept or even discuss the issues in a rational way, then expect the fight for equal rights to be long. 

 

"statistics show a majority of gays were molested as children or were raised in drug addicted or abusive families. It's not a criticism, it's a sad fact. "  What utter nonsense. Show your sources for this "fact". 

1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

"statistics show a majority of gays were molested as children or were raised in drug addicted or abusive families. It's not a criticism, it's a sad fact. "  What utter nonsense. Show your sources for this "fact". 

Previously I demanded the same thing.

He linked to extremist far right wing anti-gay hate speech sites.

Since then, he doesn't even bother because the sources of his anti-gay extremism once revealed are obviously total garbage.

Now he acts (it's a total act) that his opinions are only based on his personal experience with his myriad so called gay friends.

If these friends are real (want to buy a bridge from me?) then one has to wonder if they know their "friend" is a serial poster of anti-gay hate speech endlessly spouting a long list of how horrible gay people are especially in regards to their fitness to be around children (because supposedly most of them were molested as children, which is a totally bogus LIE). 

Thats funny. You keep saying the "gays' were abused at young ages. I would say, "little children" were abused at young ages,  which scarred their perception of themselves, which made them put themselves down, and somewhere down that slope, a "gay" reached out to them and made them feel 'accepted" again..sort of.