Muppets...

nesf

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0526/mcdowellm.html

As per title. You'd swear this was the 1930s.

Edit: Apparently they were from the ancient order of hibernia or something.

crosstownk

Muppets indeed.

Thirdfox

"Threw a copy of the Constitution" lol!

No valid points can be made without rational discussion

constitutionus

yeah heard about this and though it was hysterical. apparently they hit him square in the chest with a copy of the consitution , i mean who just happens to be carrying that about

Thirdfox

*shifts around uncomfortably* ...er yeah, who would be stupid enough to carry the Constitution around with them?



...it's the cheapest law related book available!

crosstownk

Constitution - a weapon of mass destruction................?

nesf

Correction: Ancient Order of Hibernians

Thirdfox

Ours is too small and light to be of any danger... it does have somewhat sharp edges though - and don't forget about the potential papercuts!

crosstownk

nesf wrote:

Correction: Ancient Order of Hibernians

Ah - I see. Kinda like the Stonecutters:D

rymus

crosstownk wrote:

Kinda like the Stonecutters:D

<karl>Ssssshut uuuuuuuuup...</karl>

Karl Hungus

Can anyone explain this to me:

They accused him of making laws that would hand their children over to 'perverts'.

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

nesf

Karl Hungus wrote:

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Well, it's quite obvious really. Mr McDowell is paving the way for unmarried mothers to enter the daycare/creche industry.

Tar.Aldarion

Throwing the constitution at somebody, brilliant. Must get around to that.

easy_as_easy

*checks off list of things to do before Im 30....

FillSpectre

Karl Hungus wrote:

Can anyone explain this to me:



Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Yeah. The new laws are about to give cohabitating same sex couples legal rights over the children they raise together. So if a lesbian couple are raising kids together and the birth mother died the remaining care giver (parent) would have leagal rights over the child.

It is really difficult to sort out as you may be trying to work out the rights of a genitic parent with those of somebody who has been raising them.

I'm sure they did a story line on ER about this.

I would think very few irish people really want gay couples raising children. I am very libreal but still think gay adoptions are questionable.

humanji

FillSpectre wrote:

Yeah. The new laws are about to give cohabitating same sex couples legal rights over the children they raise together. So if a lesbian couple are raising kids together and the birth mother died the remaining care giver (parent) would have leagal rights over the child.

It is really difficult to sort out as you may be trying to work out the rights of a genitic parent with those of somebody who has been raising them.

I'm sure they did a story line on ER about this.

I would think very few irish people really want gay couples raising children. I am very libreal but still think gay adoptions are questionable.

Why? Are homosexuals less capable of loving a child?

jor el

Karl Hungus wrote:

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Ah the rationale of an extremist. You see by labeling gays and lesbians as perverts and sneaking the word 'children' into the same sentance you plant the notion that all homosexuals are in fact pedophiles. So if the new laws allowing same sex marrige are enacted then obviously we all have to hand our children over to the pedos and there isn't a damn thing we can do about.

The emoticon :rolleyes: springs to mind. But, you throw enough sh*t and eventually some of it sticks. There are many people in Ireland who subscribe to this train of thought.

What the long term psychological damage (if any at all) there would be to a child being raised by two daddys or two mammys is I have no idea. I don't see how it would automatically be a bad thing, but until there are many children being raised in such circumstances then we probably won't know for sure.

FillSpectre

jomanji wrote:

Why? Are homosexuals less capable of loving a child?

I simply think adoption should be very strict and have a very high requirement considering there are very few children to adopt.

Love has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't think a child should be given to a couple where one of the people is bipolar either but I am not saying take the children away from such people. Adoption is about selection for the best future not dictating how a person can live and who gets to have children.

humanji

FillSpectre wrote:

I simply think adoption should be very strict and have a very high requirement considering there are very few children to adopt.

Love has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't think a child should be given to a couple where one of the people is bipolar either but I am not saying take the children away from such people. Adoption is about selection for the best future not dictating how a person can live and who gets to have children.

But that's nothing to do with them being gay. If they're unfit parents then they shouldn't have kids, simple as that. But they can't be labelled unfit parents just because they are gay.

FillSpectre

jomanji wrote:

But that's nothing to do with them being gay. If they're unfit parents then they shouldn't have kids, simple as that. But they can't be labelled unfit parents just because they are gay.

I was talking about adoption. Personally I think gay adoption is questionable for the sake of the child, this is the only reason I have given thus far. Unfortunately many people who are unfit as parents have children. THe state can't dictate everything so people are left with their children.Unfit is a point of view and don't belive that a gay couple is the best avilable option for adoption as a rule. If you can't have kids due to your sexual preference I see that as enough reason not to allow adoption or IVF. As I accept it is natural to be gay I also accept it is as such natural they don't have children. If they do have children then they should have all the rights and so should their partners. Technically that is adoption but I mean state agency adoption when speaking earlier.

delly

As a straight married man who has a distain for all things religious, I can’t see any reason for restricting gay couples to adopt. I just have a simplistic view that if a child goes to a loving household, then the couple in that household have an obligation to protect and bring up that child, regardless of what sexual preferences the occupants of that house have.

If a person in a gay couple suffers from a psychological illness like being bipolar, then it would be justified to refuse adoption in the best interests of the child, but likewise if it was a straight couple.

I dunno, it really confuses me sometimes to understand why some people still have a backward view in this day and age.

chillywilly

rymus wrote:

<karl>Ssssshut uuuuuuuuup...</karl>

cant tell you homer its secret:D

humanji

FillSpectre wrote:

I was talking about adoption. Personally I think gay adoption is questionable for the sake of the child, this is the only reason I have given thus far. Unfortunately many people who are unfit as parents have children. THe state can't dictate everything so people are left with their children.Unfit is a point of view and don't belive that a gay couple is the best avilable option for adoption as a rule. If you can't have kids due to your sexual preference I see that as enough reason not to allow adoption or IVF. As I accept it is natural to be gay I also accept it is as such natural they don't have children. If they do have children then they should have all the rights and so should their partners. Technically that is adoption but I mean state agency adoption when speaking earlier.

I still don't see how it makes them unfit to adopt. If a child is in need of a home and a couple have the means to support it and will nurture and love the child, then that's all that matters to make them fit parents, isn't it?

And am I the ony one to never have heard of this Hibernian group? It's like our own little Priory Of Sion! lol

grimloch

jomanji wrote:

I still don't see how it makes them unfit to adopt. If a child is in need of a home and a couple have the means to support it and will nurture and love the child, then that's all that matters to make them fit parents, isn't it?

I'd imagine that it has much much more to do with the child. Say two homosexuals adopt a boy. I'd be fairly confident that that child will be subjected to torrents of abuse once he hits school. Or possibly worse than just the verbal abuse.

stevenmu

Karl Hungus wrote:

Can anyone explain this to me:



Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Afaik it's to do with homosexuals teaching in schools or working in child care. I'm just guessing at their point of view here, it's not my own, but they see homosexuality as being a 'perversion' of normal sexual behaviour. Normal sexual behaviour presumably being that which is approved by the church. Paeodphilia is also a perversion of normal sexual behaviour and if someone indulges in one perversion, then they're more likely to indulge in another.

(remember, that's not my view, just what I think theirs is)

FillSpectre

delly wrote:

I dunno, it really confuses me sometimes to understand why some people still have a backward view in this day and age.

I am not religious and have a gay family memeber. I have a differrent view that does not make it backwards.

I don't think single people should be allowed adopt but it doesn't mean I think single parents are unfit. Single paretns have always been around this is natural in society. Children to adopt are like hens teeth I beleive the closest to nature should be given to these children. I accept being gay is part of nature but for them to have children is not. I am not saying they can't have kids just not through state adoptions. It is really off topic now

Some idiots choose to believe gay people are perverts I don't agree and I am hoping that recognistion of gay couples happens sooner than later. All issues of parental rights should be given. Gay people should have the same rights to their children they raise. I think the state adoption agency should not allow such couples adopt from them.

Thirdfox

stevenmu wrote:

Normal sexual behaviour presumably being that which is approved by the church.

Perversion can be more than a religion's view. It can also be scientific too. I wouldn't call homosexuality a perversion but I would be against same-sex adoption too. I am agnostic and base my beliefs on the pragmaticism of science. Making a choice (or if you were born with such an inclination) closes off options in life for you in my opinion.

There's a thread about homosexuality in the humanities forum. Most people there are pro-homosexual rights. Although as for myself in my experience I found that in our college group (supposedly most liberal outlook) people were 50/50 for same-sex marriages.

FillSpectre

jomanji wrote:

I still don't see how it makes them unfit to adopt. If a child is in need of a home and a couple have the means to support it and will nurture and love the child, then that's all that matters to make them fit parents, isn't it?

No not in my view. I never said these people were unfit. I can get understand you disagree or have another view, I have stated mine. THere is no point asking the same question in a different way. Either tell me how your view differs to mine or where you feel my view is wrong but asking questions is neither stating how you feel or expanding the point you have.

jomanji wrote:

And am I the ony one to never have heard of this Hibernian group? It's like our own little Priory Of Sion! lol

Well as you can see they are quite old. Yes I have heard of them and there was a big fuse last year becasue they handed out some awards. The are basically the masons except poorer and catholic.

delly

grimloch wrote:

I'd imagine that it has much much more to do with the child. Say two homosexuals adopt a boy. I'd be fairly confident that that child will be subjected to torrents of abuse once he hits school. Or possibly worse than just the verbal abuse.

Reminds me of people who say that I should get my children christened just to stop them being bullied in school. Our society today is made up of so many different cultures, that we have to sort the people who are doing the abusing rather than restricting the people who want equal rights.

FillSpectre wrote:

I am not religious and have a gay family member. I have a different view that does not make it backwards.

I don't think single people should be allowed adopt but it doesn't mean I think single parents are unfit. Single parents have always been around this is natural in society. Children to adopt are like hens teeth I believe the closest to nature should be given to these children. I accept being gay is part of nature but for them to have children is not. I am not saying they can't have kids just not through state adoptions. It is really off topic now

Some idiots choose to believe gay people are perverts I don't agree and I am hoping that recognition of gay couples happens sooner than later. All issues of parental rights should be given. Gay people should have the same rights to their children they raise. I think the state adoption agency should not allow such couples adopt from them.

I can honestly say that I have zero exposure to anybody who is gay, and I understand that you have a tolerant view, but years from now people will be laughing at views that gay people shouldn’t adopt because its not part of nature. Some people believe that IVF is against nature, but I would see it as an acceptable means of having a baby.

grimloch

delly wrote:

Reminds me of people who say that I should get my children christened just to stop them being bullied in school. Our society today is made up of so many different cultures, that we have to sort the people who are doing the abusing rather than restricting the people who want equal rights.

The abusers should be sorted out yes, but for the time being it's most certainly a barrier to same sex adoption.

Orion

jomanji wrote:

And am I the ony one to never have heard of this Hibernian group? It's like our own little Priory Of Sion! lol

Probably . These are the same muppets who run the St. Patricks Day parade in New York ... the ones who throw hissy-fits when the Gay community want to be a part of the parade.

FillSpectre

delly wrote:

Reminds me of people who say that I should get my children christened just to stop them being bullied in school. Our society today is made up of so many different cultures, that we have to sort the people who are doing the abusing rather than restricting the people who want equal rights.

I was put in hospital 3 time while in secondary school becasue my brother was gay. Idiots thought that meant I was gay therfore I should be beaten up. A skull fracture was one of my trips and I know I am lucky to be alive.

We live in this world and the reality is that these kids would be tourtured in school and society in general.

delly wrote:

I can honestly say that I have zero exposure to anybody who is gay, and I understand that you have a tolerant view, but years from now people will be laughing at views that gay people shouldn’t adopt because its not part of nature. Some people believe that IVF is against nature, but I would see it as an acceptable means of having a baby.

So you are libreal for libreals sake no actual reason or understanding of the situation. That is worse than a backward view in my opinion. Years from now people won't laugh at gay people adopting becasue 50 years ago it was against the law and now it is legal are things better? Are gay men attacked on the streets? Recent report from school saying homophobic taunts are normal in schools. etc... You sound like somebody who has no idea what he is talking about.

I am one of those who believe IVF is wrong too. IVF does actually produce more birth defects than natural conception. THat doesn't sound like a good idea to me or for the gene pool. Messing with eveloution seems generally like a bad idea to me.

Do you know anybody adopted even? It can be difficult enough to deal with that and some people won't let their children be adopted if they think there is a possibility of a gay couple taking care of the child.

delly

FillSpectre wrote:

I was put in hospital 3 time while in secondary school becasue my brother was gay. Idiots thought that meant I was gay therfore I should be beaten up. A skull fracture was one of my trips and I know I am lucky to be alive.

We live in this world and the reality is that these kids would be tourtured in school and society in general.


So you are libreal for libreals sake no actual reason or understanding of the situation. That is worse than a backward view in my opinion. Years from now people won't laugh at gay people adopting becasue 50 years ago it was against the law and now it is legal are things better? Are gay men attacked on the streets? Recent report from school saying homophobic taunts are normal in schools. etc... You sound like somebody who has no idea what he is talking about.

I am one of those who believe IVF is wrong too. IVF does actually produce more birth defects than natural conception. THat doesn't sound like a good idea to me or for the gene pool. Messing with eveloution seems generally like a bad idea to me.

Do you know anybody adopted even? It can be difficult enough to deal with that and some people won't let their children be adopted if they think there is a possibility of a gay couple taking care of the child.

For the record I know lot of adopted people, adults and children.

Its clear that you have suffered in a very personal way from people who have targeted you, just because of your brother. I didn't mean to upset you and as somebody who openly doesn't have direct experience of the subject, I shall leave it at that.

mayordenis

well its not quite a mop and its not quite a puppet,
but oh man are they hilarious.

FillSpectre

delly wrote:

For the record I know lot of adopted people, adults and children.

Its clear that you have suffered in a very personal way from people who have targeted you, just because of your brother. I didn't mean to upset you and as somebody who openly doesn't have direct experience of the subject, I shall leave it at that.

It is clear becasue I said harm happened to me personally. I am not upset about it as I am old enough and smart enough to know what fear does to people.

The point is you assumed my view was backward while yours was right. You have little or no concept of the potential problems but instead of thinking about it you think make it liberal is the best option. I am a liberal in the extent that I see where restrictive practices aren't the best solution therfore libvrealisation may be best.

For future refernce for yourself I suggest you only call other views "backward" when you do know what you are talking about. Try to think about an issue in furture.

humanji

Well Fillspectre, it's terrible that you were bullied like that, but that doesn't mean it'll happen to everyone with gay family members, or who themselves are gay.

Saying that gay people shouldn't adopt because there's a chance the kid might be bullied just doesn't ring as a valid argument to me. It seems like you're keeping equal rights from people as a result of a traumatic personal experience. That's just unfair on all the gay couples who could provide a wonderful environment for a wanting child.

FillSpectre

jomanji wrote:

Well Fillspectre, it's terrible that you were bullied like that, but that doesn't mean it'll happen to everyone with gay family members, or who themselves are gay.

You are having trouble understanding me. I never said I was bullied I said I was attacked. I did not say they shouldn't adopt due to being bullied. I stated my reasons which you seem to forget the minute I mention them and your only reason seems to be they can be caring too which I don't think is enough.

Can you now actually say why you think a gay couple should be allowed adopt as opposed to saying there is no reason they shouldn't. It is a priviledge so it is not a case of if other people can they should be allowed. Do you think single people should be allowed adopt?

humanji

FillSpectre wrote:

You are having trouble understanding me. I never said I was bullied I said I was attacked. I did not say they shouldn't adopt due to being bullied. I stated my reasons which you seem to forget the minute I mention them and your only reason seems to be they can be caring too which I don't think is enough.

Can you now actually say why you think a gay couple should be allowed adopt as opposed to saying there is no reason they shouldn't. It is a priviledge so it is not a case of if other people can they should be allowed. Do you think single people should be allowed adopt?

I only assumed you were bullied because you were attacked on three different occasions because of your brother.

How can you not understand that my view point is that there is no reason not to allow gay people to adopt. A gay couple can give everything that a heterosexual couple can. It's the people not their sexual persuasion that counts. Several times you have stated that they shouldn't but you've yet to make a clear reason and you're coming back at me simply because I don't understand your reason. You say being gay is natural and would obviously lead me to assume that you have no problem with gay people. But you don't want them to have full equal rights because you believe that simply shouldn't have children because they can't have children. I honestly don't mean to be having a go at you, it's just that this really doesn't make sense to me.

nesf

FillSpectre wrote:

I wouldn't think a child should be given to a couple where one of the people is bipolar either

Why? Would there be varying degrees of bipolar that are acceptable or would being treated help or is it just a blanket ban based on an extremely general term?

Dudess

mayordenis wrote:

well its not quite a mop and its not quite a puppet,
but oh man are they hilarious.

No! You only got that half right! It's "well, it's not quite a mop and it's not quite a puppet, but maaaaaaan heh heh heh... so, to answer your question I don't know".

FillSpectre

jomanji wrote:

I only assumed you were bullied because you were attacked on three different occasions because of your brother.

How can you not understand that my view point is that there is no reason not to allow gay people to adopt. A gay couple can give everything that a heterosexual couple can. It's the people not their sexual persuasion that counts. Several times you have stated that they shouldn't but you've yet to make a clear reason and you're coming back at me simply because I don't understand your reason. You say being gay is natural and would obviously lead me to assume that you have no problem with gay people. But you don't want them to have full equal rights because you believe that simply shouldn't have children because they can't have children. I honestly don't mean to be having a go at you, it's just that this really doesn't make sense to me.

First off you keep assuming. THere is a real a clear danger to a child in such a family structure.

I understand your logic there is no reason they shouldn't have children and have even stated it. My point is it is not a case of there is no reason why the should not there is no reason they should be given children. It isn't a process of elimination it is a process of best selection. The best chances for a child not what is fgair for other people's rights. It is not a right to be able to adopt it is a priveledge. If their nature doesn't allow them to have children then yes that is a a reason.

The idea should be putting a child in the best supportive environment with the best chances. The reality is a child would not have a n easy life due to social pressure that in itself is enough reason for a negative. Demand for rights should not be seen as more important than the reality for the child.

I don't know how many gay people you know but my friends who are gay don't think adoption into a gay relationship is fair on the child.

It is not about who is gay it is about what is best for the child.

nesf

*taps foot impatiently*

I'm still waiting for you to explain your bipolar comment you know.

FillSpectre

nesf wrote:

*taps foot impatiently*

I'm still waiting for you to explain your bipolar comment you know.

Nothing to explain I stated how I feel, If you can't understand it then that is your problem.

nesf

FillSpectre wrote:

Nothing to explain I stated how I feel, If you can't understand it then that is your problem.

No mate, you stated an extremely broad generalisation that is quite insulting to anyone with bipolar who has children. This isn't a question of understanding rather it is a question of whether you intended the insult or not.

simu

Oh but it's what he feels. How can you argue with a feeling? Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel!

FillSpectre

nesf wrote:

No mate, you stated an extremely broad generalisation that is quite insulting to anyone with bipolar who has children. This isn't a question of understanding rather it is a question of whether you intended the insult or not.

You can feel insulted all you like I have no point suggested that anybodies' children should be taken away from them. I have stated I feel children who are adopted should be put in the best possible situation. If you actually read the whole thread you would know that I insulted nobody and retained the same view.

I hold the adoption process at a higher level than normal life. If you read the thread you would know that I was not insulting anybody. You chose to take it as an insult and you can keep it that way if you choose as I take things like "mate" as petty attempts of intimidation from scum bags when I hear it said. It certainly is a question of understanding as you couldn't put together what I repeated many time about adoption.

FillSpectre

simu wrote:

]Oh but it's what he feels. How can you argue with a feeling? Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel!

And you are the mod of Philosophy! How childish:rolleyes:

nesf

FillSpectre wrote:

You can feel insulted all you like I have no point suggested that anybodies' children should be taken away from them. I have stated I feel children who are adopted should be put in the best possible situation. If you actually read the whole thread you would know that I insulted nobody and retained the same view.

I hold the adoption process at a higher level than normal life. If you read the thread you would know that I was not insulting anybody. You chose to take it as an insult and you can keep it that way if you choose as I take things like "mate" as petty attempts of intimidation from scum bags when I hear it said. It certainly is a question of understanding as you couldn't put together what I repeated many time about adoption.

You take things like "mate" as petty attempts of intimidation from scum bags? Watching Home and Away must be very frightening for you...

Look, my point was that whether it was intended or not, you are insulting people with bipolar with what you said. Saying you hold adoption at a higher level than normal life does not justify any blanket statements you choose to make. You haven't claimed that kids should be taken off people with bipolar and I wasn't claiming this but what you did do was make a blanket statement against people with the condition and explicitly say that they should be discriminated against in adoption selection. I do agree with the logic of this to an extent but you cannot simply lump everyone with bipolar into the same boat and expect the point to hold.

Your points thus far in this thread have been consistent in that you hold "the adoption process at a higher level than normal life" but that is simply a broad generalisation and you have not showed why you believe that people with bipolar are all less fit as parents than people without bipolar. You can claim to hold some golden standard for adoption if you wish, but the onus is on you to explain your reasons for the exclusion of this group or that group from this standard of yours. Or perhaps justifying your "higher standard" might be a good place to start. It's all well and good to talk of supportive environments and best chances but you need to try and nail down what factors in the parents actually affect this the most (a very hard thing to do since this is both very subjective and elitist by default) and then start looking at groups to exclude in order to maximise this.

FillSpectre

nesf

I am not insulting anybody. You want to say I am all day won't make any differnce to me. You know nothing about my health or what I have experienced in my life. Don't assume to know that you know more about this condition than me.

I have repeatedly pointed out that adoption is not a right but a privledge. You don't exclude people instead only some people can qualify. You chose to call it exclusion but the point is it is limited. The child should be put in the best possible environment. I beleive certain situations are not ideal I mentioned bipolar as one of them. If you know so much about the condition maybe you can fill in the blanks of possible reason why they are not best parents for stable life of a child.

Again I point out you know nothing about me or my experience. I would say my experience on bipolar parent,adoption and gay people might give me insight. You want to say it is an insult I am telling you I am insulting nobodydy and still maintain the best environment should be provided and I do not consider a bipolar parent the best. I don't need to expand it but if you insist it is an insult explain exactly what the actual insult is. I never said they were unfit to parent, dangeous or anything else just not the best. Are you telling me they are the best parents in the world if they are mild? No need to explain this to you if you are aware of the condition which I assume you must be to jump to defence when there is nothing to defend. Nothing wrong with single parents but it is not ideal or the best for adoption. Am I now insulting single parents? No stating how I feel about the subject of adoption.

humanji

FillSpectre wrote:

First off you keep assuming. THere is a real a clear danger to a child in such a family structure.

Now you're the one who's assuming. Having gay parents isn't an automatic death sentence. The child isn't going to be victimised for the rest of their life. Sure, there's a posibility, but should none of us drive because we could crash? Should we not go out in the sun because we might get cancer? We can't see the future, and to assume the future merely because of your past experiences isn't the way to go about things.

You mentioned several times that the best parents should be selected. And so they should. Nobody is denying that, but being gay shouldn't automatically disqualify you from being shortlisted.

nesf

FillSpectre wrote:

I am not insulting anybody. You want to say I am all day won't make any differnce to me. You know nothing about my health or what I have experienced in my life. Don't assume to know that you know more about this condition than me.

I know nothing about your health and don't assume to know much about your experiences in life other than what you've chosen to share on this thread. I haven't claimed to. What I have been trying to point out is that bipolar isn't a simple black and white condition. Your experiences with it are not the sum-total of the condition and cannot be taken as typical of the disorder unless you are a professional in the area and have been working with many people with the disorder of varying severities for a long time.

It's not that I'm assuming that I know more than you about this condition it's just that what you've been saying and what I've seen, experienced and read about don't dove-tail well. There are varying degrees of this condition, you probably know this already. You cannot simply lump everyone who suffers from the condition in together and treat them the same. Some with treatment lead perfectly normal lives other than having to take a few pills every night, some are not so lucky. You must not fall into the trap of treating them all as the same when speaking in generalised terms on broad issues like adoption. I completely agree that a goodly portion with bipolar should not be allowed to adopt for the sake of the child but there are people with the condition for whom this would not be true. If, for instance, when treated, a person with the condition at most suffers bouts of sleep disturbance would you consider this person unfit to adopt?

FillSpectre wrote:

I have repeatedly pointed out that adoption is not a right but a privledge. You don't exclude people instead only some people can qualify. You chose to call it exclusion but the point is it is limited. The child should be put in the best possible environment. I beleive certain situations are not ideal I mentioned bipolar as one of them. If you know so much about the condition maybe you can fill in the blanks of possible reason why they are not best parents for stable life of a child.

I do agree that it is a priviledge, don't get me wrong, but I strongly believe that we must take the distinction very seriously. We are excluding people when we call it a priviledge, there is no other way to look at it, the important point is that we need to justify why we exclude some and choose others. Painting broad strokes excluding people is simply not enough. For instance with bipolar it would need to be taken on a case by case basis. Is this person judged to be fit to be a parent by their psychiatrist? i.e. does a medical professional judge this person's condition as potentially detrimental to a child or not? There is a very important distinction there. One is an unfair and insulting generalisation, the other is sensible and while subjective is much fairer.

FillSpectre wrote:

Again I point out you know nothing about me or my experience. I would say my experience on bipolar parent,adoption and gay people might give me insight.

Here is my main issue with your posts on this thread. You are leaving your personal experiences rule your opinions on this subject rather than tempering them with something less subjective and by doing so actually have an argument that's justifiable or defendable. There is value in personal experience on these issues but if you don't look outside your own experience then your view will always be limited on these issues. As difficult as it is, when one is discussing an issue as broad and important as rights to adoption one needs to step out beyond one's own experiences and see the bigger picture. We are all guilty of not doing this a lot of the time tbh but that doesn't make it right.