I've Got Two Dads.... And They Adopted Me!

[Jingthing]

Another link supporting my opinion that you can't really separate research studies about children raised in gay families from the politics of gay equality:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/influential-pediatricians-group-backs-gay-marriage-says-kids-raised-that-way-do-just-as-well/2013/03/20/2982882a-91b8-11e2-9173-7f87cda73b49_story.html

CHICAGO — The nation’s most influential pediatrician’s group has

endorsed gay marriage, saying a stable relationship between parents

regardless of sexual orientation contributes to a child’s health and

well-being.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ new policy, published

online Thursday, cites research showing that the parents’ sexual

orientation has no effect on a child’s development. Kids fare just as

well in gay or straight families when they are nurturing and financially

and emotionally stable, the academy says.

Maybe not in the USA.

In my opinion, this is much bigger than just the USA. If you're saying things are peachy in the UK, great. But its a big world out there. And in the minority of countries that even have basic civil marriage/union rights for gay people, the legal situation for children of gay people usually comes up as a big issue. So yes politicians will be looking at research studies in those countries, and in new countries that start to open up on gay civil rights.

In that sense, yes I think its great the studies are showing positive information. If that continues, that will be helpful in MANY countries. But I'm also saying civil rights shouldn't be directly tied to the results of such studies, because they could just as easily come up showing negative information. It is not fair to discriminate against an entire class of people based on such research information. Bringing us back the Dominicans. Nobody is studying their capability to raise children, and if they did, and they rated poorly, what government would dare STOP them from having children?

Please note, I just picked Dominicans randomly as an example. But one does wonder. All those cigars, pork fat laden diet, and all that Caribbean rum drinking, can't be good for the kiddies, can it?

Look, I'm convinced this is an international issue and its something many countries (and religions) are going to be dealing with for many years. Do you think Papa Francisco will change his mind about allowing gays to marry and have children if you tell him about great research studies? Of course not. The argument against that kind of thinking is a civil rights and fairness argument.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It's got nothing at all to do with 'equal rights'. It's to do with whether children adopted by gay parents are brought up as well as those adopted by straight couples. Who the hell is George Will? For once can we keep shouty US politics out of this?

If it has nothing to do with civil rights, why aren't ethnic groups singled out for special studies on their suitability as parents? .....

They are - with far greater frequency and in far more depth than studies of LGBT parents, as a quick search would confirm.

Unfortunately that doesn't suit your "everyone hates us" agenda.

[Jingthing]

It's got nothing at all to do with 'equal rights'. It's to do with whether children adopted by gay parents are brought up as well as those adopted by straight couples. Who the hell is George Will? For once can we keep shouty US politics out of this?

If it has nothing to do with civil rights, why aren't ethnic groups singled out for special studies on their suitability as parents? .....

They are - with far greater frequency and in far more depth than studies of LGBT parents, as a quick search would confirm.

Unfortunately that doesn't suit your "everyone hates us" agenda.

If you read the thread, you would know I already referenced cases of that kind of thing being done to different ethnic groups. Did you miss the item about sterilization which apparently I won a prize for? Of course anyone with basic education would know of cases in the world where ethnic groups have been singled out in such ways.

In history such "studies" have very frequently been politicized in hateful ways. I am just saying be careful about assuming the studies will always be positive and relying too much on such studies to justify gay civil rights in the nations (MOST) that still don't have full gay civil rights.

The point is in modern, advanced, civilized societies it is no longer acceptable to single out ethnic groups this way. So WHY is it OK to single out gay people?!?

In such modern societies, people would be HORRIFIED, and rightfully so, if a study showed Dominicans made poor parents and thus we can't allow Dominicans to have children.

I never said everyone hates us. Where did you ever get such a RIDICULOUS idea? Some people do, absolutely, and that is a verifiable fact. I am assuming that you also realize that MANY people do hate gay people, correct? Is that a problem to talk about?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

...But I'm also saying civil rights shouldn't be directly tied to the results of such studies, because they could just as easily come up showing negative information. It is not fair to discriminate against an entire class of people based on such research information. Bringing us back the Dominicans. Nobody is studying their capability to raise children, and if they did, and they rated poorly, what government would dare STOP them from having children?

Please note, I just picked Dominicans randomly as an example. But one does wonder. ....

Do you think Papa Francisco will change his mind about allowing gays to marry and have children if you tell him about great research studies? Of course not. The argument against that kind of thinking is a civil rights and fairness argument.

I think we can alll understand what you are saying, but you have done nothing to balance LGBT couples' right to adopt with children' s rights to a good and safe home (as far as is practical). Axe murderers are a minority too - should they also be allowed to adopt to preserve their civil rights and be fair? And should any studies that suggest they don' t make good parents also be ignored because they may show "negative information"? Or should we use some common sense, look at the children's interests, consider if they will be suitable parents or not, then make a balanced decision?

One does indeed wonder why you picked "the Dominicans", who are a rather bizarre choice as the Dominican Republic only allows heterosexual couples married for 5 years to adopt, making them an odd (or just ill-informed) choice for a comparison.

Pope Francis can neither allow nor disallow LGBT parents to adopt children, except using the threat of excommunication - something the Catholic church has never suggested. All he can do is express his disapproval, which everyone is free to disregard if they wish.

[Jingthing]

I think you just compared gay people to axe murders as some kind of equivalent identity group. On the gay forum, and I was the one to win the prize?

On the Dominicans, I obviously meant Dominican background parents OUTSIDE the Dominican Republic in cases where they might be a minority group under scrutiny (as are GAY parents). How absurd it would be for a nation to criminalize parenthood of their OWN nationals.

This discussion here is a getting a little too "hot" for comfort and thus I will politely and voluntarily take my leave from it. I've already made the points I wanted to make quite clearly for those willing and able to digest them. Adios.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It's got nothing at all to do with 'equal rights'. It's to do with whether children adopted by gay parents are brought up as well as those adopted by straight couples. Who the hell is George Will? For once can we keep shouty US politics out of this?

If it has nothing to do with civil rights, why aren't ethnic groups singled out for special studies on their suitability as parents? .....

They are - with far greater frequency and in far more depth than studies of LGBT parents, as a quick search would confirm.

Unfortunately that doesn't suit your "everyone hates us" agenda.

If you read the thread, you would know I already referenced cases of that kind of thing being done to different ethnic groups. Did you miss the item about sterilization which apparently I won a prize for? Of course anyone with basic education would know of cases in the world where ethnic groups have been singled out in such ways.

In history such "studies" have very frequently been politicized in hateful ways. I am just saying be careful about assuming the studies will always be positive and relying too much on such studies to justify gay civil rights in the nations (MOST) that still don't have full gay civil rights.

The point is in modern, advanced, civilized societies it is no longer acceptable to single out ethnic groups this way. So WHY is it OK to single out gay people?!?

In such modern societies, people would be HORRIFIED, and rightfully so, if a study showed Dominicans made poor parents and thus we can't allow Dominicans to have children.

I never said everyone hates us. Where did you ever get such a RIDICULOUS idea? Some people do, absolutely, and that is a verifiable fact.

I have read the thread (although I failed to understand the relevance of your reference to sterilization), which is why I noted your repeated assertion that ethnic groups aren't singled out for studies on their suitability as parents while only gays are - an assertion that is simply untrue, as there have been many such studies made in the USA (presumably a "modern,advanced, civilized society") relatively recently, as well as elsewhere " in the world".

While the Multi Ethnic Placement Act prevents any question of ethnicity and culture even being raised when discussing adoption in US federally funded adoption agencies, a report endorsed by the major child welfare and adoption agencies in the States has said that ethnicity and culture of the children and the parents should be a consideration, outweighing what is simply "politically correct".

"WHY is it OK to single out gay people?" (if indeed they are being singled out) For the simple reason that adoption by gays is a recent phenomena and their ability as parents has yet to be proven - something these studies are now doing. The alternative, which you appear to favour, would be to say that it doesn't matter if gays are good parents or not or if its in the children's interest or not as long as the interests of the gays are satisfied.

Where did I get the idea that you like being persecuted? From your posts everytime anyone questions the morality of being gay, gay adoption, gay marriage, gay rights, etc. and you take such questioning, even if it is perfectly justifiable and rational (as in this case) as an affront not only to you but to all gays.

I don't have anything to hide or to be ashamed of so I have no problem with such studies or questions - if you do, that's your problem, nobody else's.

(...and no,I didn't compare gays to axe murderers - I was simply taking your argument that everyone had some civil right to adopt children to its bizarre conclusion)

Edited March 21, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

...

Where did I get the idea that you like being persecuted? From your posts everytime anyone questions the morality of being gay, gay adoption, gay marriage, gay rights, etc. and you take such questioning, even if it is perfectly justifiable and rational (as in this case) as an affront not only to you but to all gays.

...

Isn't it wonderful for you that you get the last word?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jingthing