Thoughts on this...

JimiTime · 11-03-2011 01:08AM

twinQuins wrote: »

Because it exposes how untenable your position is?

No, because its a ridiculous scenario that has no basis in reality.

Why?

Do your own research Mr flippant.

11-03-2011 01:22AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Eh, no. Creating the extreme and completely unreal scenario to make that point renders it null.

How is it extreme? You don't think unsuitable people ever apply for adoption?

JimiTime wrote: »

Which at the very least should involve both a father and a mother.

A mother and father is the foundation, not simply one of the criteria.

Nope, its foundational, not simply 'part of the criteria'. Anything beyond that is very much exceptional, so any language should be explicit in its seeking of a mother and father.

Despite the fact that you've agreed a stable loving homosexual couple are preferred to a straight couple who aren't suitable? How does that work?

The Brigadier wrote: »

You are ignoring the third option - not placing the child as neither option is suitable.

Really? You think the best option for a child is to be shuttled around foster homes or placed in care instead of being placed with a loving, stable homosexual couple?

twinQuins · 11-03-2011 01:37AM

JimiTime wrote: »

No, because its a ridiculous scenario that has no basis in reality.

It's meant to illustrate a point.

Do your own research Mr flippant.

Oh dear, am I going to have to get my link to burden of proof again...

Shall I take it to mean you have nothing to back up your position, then?

JimiTime · 11-03-2011 02:25AM

twinQuins wrote: »

It's meant to illustrate a point.

A point that has no basis in reality.

Shall I take it to mean you have nothing to back up your position, then?

You can take it to mean anything you like tbh, I certainly don't mind.

JimiTime · 11-03-2011 02:39AM

28064212 wrote: »

How is it extreme? You don't think unsuitable people ever apply for adoption?

You are asking how your illustration of that completely unrealistic scenario was extreme? Seriously?

Despite the fact that you've agreed a stable loving homosexual couple are preferred to a straight couple who aren't suitable? How does that work?

had a feeling it might get to this unfortunately. 'Aren't suitable'. Thats quite an ambiguous term, and as we've had a scenario in the UK where a Christian couple were denied fostering rights on the basis of their Christian views on homosexuality, its not a universally understood term in this context.

I said in relation to your completely unrealistic scenario, considering that they are the ONLY options available, then it was obvious what would be better. The fact is, that your imaginary scenario has no basis in reality, so its meaningless.

The Brigadier · 11-03-2011 10:03AM

28064212 wrote: »

Really? You think the best option for a child is to be shuttled around foster homes or placed in care instead of being placed with a loving, stable homosexual couple?

Well when couples are being turned down because they hold Christian beliefs I doubt there is a shortage of prospective parents.

I do believe that two fathers (or two mothers) is an unsuitable option.

It is silly to start comparing unsuitable options and trying to assign them worth on some sort of arbitrary scale.

twinQuins · 11-03-2011 12:43PM

JimiTime wrote: »

A point that has no basis in reality.

Which misses the point spectacularly.

You can take it to mean anything you like tbh, I certainly don't mind.

Alright, so your proposition of a mother and father being better than two parents of the same sex is false. Bald assertions don't make for convincing arguments, by the way.

11-03-2011 12:49PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I said in relation to your completely unrealistic scenario, considering that they are the ONLY options available, then it was obvious what would be better. The fact is, that your imaginary scenario has no basis in reality, so its meaningless.

So you agree that a homosexual couple may be better parents than a heterosexual couple in some circumstances.

The Brigadier wrote: »

I do believe that two fathers (or two mothers) is an unsuitable option.

Really? You think the best option for a child is to be shuttled around foster homes or placed in care instead of being placed with a loving, stable homosexual couple?

The Brigadier wrote: »

It is silly to start comparing unsuitable options and trying to assign them worth on some sort of arbitrary scale.

Why are you bringing the word "unsuitable" into it? It is not "silly" to compare possible options and assign them worth. It is not an arbitrary scale either

JimiTime · 11-03-2011 01:13PM

28064212 wrote: »

So you agree that a homosexual couple may be better parents than a heterosexual couple in some circumstances.

I am saying that both a mother and a father are what a child needs, and that this foundation should remain unchanged.

The Brigadier · 11-03-2011 01:13PM

28064212 wrote: »

So you agree that a homosexual couple may be better parents than a heterosexual couple in some circumstances.

28064212 wrote: »

Really? You think the best option for a child is to be shuttled around foster homes or placed in care instead of being placed with a loving, stable homosexual couple?

As I mentioned earlier it doesn't seem to be an issue. We don't seem to have a shortage of volunteers to adopt.

28064212 wrote: »

Why are you bringing the word "unsuitable" into it? It is not "silly" to compare possible options and assign them worth. It is not an arbitrary scale either

Do you know what the word arbitrary means? By what non arbitrary means can you compare the worth of a gay couple and a straight drug using couple.

JimiTime · 11-03-2011 01:17PM

twinQuins wrote: »

Which misses the point spectacularly.

It doesn't. It fails as illustrative due to the fact that it doesn't illustrate reality.

Alright, so your proposition of a mother and father being better than two parents of the same sex is false. Bald assertions don't make for convincing arguments, by the way.

As I said, you can take it to mean anything you like, I certainly don't mind.

11-03-2011 01:28PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I am saying that both a mother and a father are what a child needs, and that this foundation should remain unchanged.

By that foundation, all gay couples and single parents are excluded from adoption. Yet you agree that it's better to be placed with a stable loving family regardless of gender than with a "bad" family which does have a mother and a father

I am saying that a child should be placed in the best home available
You are saying that a child should be placed in the best home with a mother and a father, except when the best home may not contain a mother and a father

The Brigadier wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier it doesn't seem to be an issue. We don't seem to have a shortage of volunteers to adopt.

Even if it's true (which you haven't shown in any way), it is still incredibly irrelevant.

The Brigadier wrote: »

Do you know what the word arbitrary means? By what non arbitrary means can you compare the worth of a gay couple and a straight drug using couple.

What? How about comparing them this way:

In this home, the child will be exposed to drugs and drug-users
In this home, the child will not be exposed to drugs or drug-users

How do you think prospective adoptees are rated? They draw names out of a hat?

The Brigadier · 11-03-2011 01:40PM

28064212 wrote: »

Even if it's true (which you haven't shown in any way), it is still incredibly irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant. If parents are being excluded on the basis of having a strong Christian belief then it is only logical to believe that we have a wealth of suitable adoptors to choose from.

28064212 wrote: »

What? How about comparing them this way:
In this home, the child will be exposed to drugs and drug-users

In this home, the child will not be exposed to drugs or drug-users

How do you think prospective adoptees are rated? They draw names out of a hat?

What sort of drugs are we talking about? Are we talking about crack cocaine, heroin, the occasional spliff, a pint?

If we are to gauge the suitabilty of prospective parents we need someone to look at things and decide what is most suitable. As we can't use some sort of scientific test we probably need to use some sort of arbitrator or arbitrators to decide.

I think a child growing up with two fathers is wrong. Is it more or less wrong than being brought up with a married couple who smoke the occasional spliff? Is it more or less wrong than being brought up by Pol Pot? Is it more or less wrong than being brought up Elton John and David Furnish (a gay couple who take drugs - double whammy)

11-03-2011 01:49PM

The Brigadier wrote: »

Of course it is relevant. If parents are being excluded on the basis of having a strong Christian belief then it is only logical to believe that we have a wealth of suitable adoptors to choose from.

Did you read the original article? First of all, the couple are not prospective adoptees, they are foster carers. Secondly, your logic is equally applicable to paedophiles: oh we exclude paedophiles from adopting, therefore we have lots of suitable alternatives (and no, before it's brought up, I am not comparing this couples beliefs to paedophilia). Thirdly, they were not excluded because of their beliefs, they were excluded because they would express that belief to children in their care.

The Brigadier wrote: »

If we are to gauge the suitabilty of prospective parents we need someone to look at things and decide what is most suitable. As we can't use some sort of scientific test we probably need to use some sort of arbitrator or arbitrators to decide.

I think a child growing up with two fathers is wrong. Is it more or less wrong than being brought up with a married couple who smoke the occasional spliff? Is it more or less wrong than being brought up by Pol Pot? Is it more or less wrong than being brought up Elton John and David Furnish (a gay couple who take drugs - double whammy)

That's exactly what I'm saying. The adoption agency should be trying to find the best available option for a child. Sometimes that option is a gay couple, sometimes it's a single parent, and sometimes it's a heterosexual couple.

The Brigadier · 11-03-2011 02:19PM

28064212 wrote: »

Did you read the original article? First of all, the couple are not prospective adoptees, they are foster carers. Secondly, your logic is equally applicable to paedophiles: oh we exclude paedophiles from adopting, therefore we have lots of suitable alternatives (and no, before it's brought up, I am not comparing this couples beliefs to paedophilia). Thirdly, they were not excluded because of their beliefs, they were excluded because they would express that belief to children in their care.

I can't see any problem with them expressing that belief.

28064212 wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm saying. The adoption agency should be trying to find the best available option for a child. Sometimes that option is a gay couple, sometimes it's a single parent, and sometimes it's a heterosexual couple.

First of all thanks for conceeding the point about the use of an arbitrary scale.

It is good that we also agree on children being adopted by the best parents.

What we don't agree on though is that a same sex couple are not suitable parents.

twinQuins · 11-03-2011 02:52PM

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't. It fails as illustrative due to the fact that it doesn't illustrate reality.

This is maddening. It's not meant to be illustrative of reality it's meant to test the internal consistency of your position. That's the whole point of these hypothetical scenarios.

As I said, you can take it to mean anything you like, I certainly don't mind.

But you said "do your own research" suggesting that there's something out there you base your opinion on. All I'm asking is, what is that. I'm not a mind-reader, Jimi, I can't just assume that whatever I find is correct, it's your job to tell me why.

However considering you're more than likely to fob me off with some snarky comment again, let me save you the trouble and just point out that the research points to there being no difference between children raised by homosexual parents and heterosexual parents.

Your position of heterosexual parents being better is not supported by the evidence. For someone so keen on basing things in reality you're not very consistent about it.

11-03-2011 02:56PM

The Brigadier wrote: »

I can't see any problem with them expressing that belief.

Thankfully, the state disagrees with you.

The Brigadier wrote: »

What we don't agree on though is that a same sex couple are not suitable parents.

That's debatable at best. What we can agree on (I would hope) is that there are some gay couples who would be better parents than some straight couples

The Brigadier · 11-03-2011 02:59PM

28064212 wrote: »

That's debatable at best. What we can agree on (I would hope) is that there are some gay couples who would be better parents than some straight couples

I would conceed that some gay couples are less unsuitable.

But in a state where this is allowed :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VP9XUsTUaeI

I do wonder if the lunatics are running the asylum.

11-03-2011 03:07PM

The Brigadier wrote: »

I would conceed that some gay couples are less unsuitable.

Which is the better option for a child:

Being placed with a loving, stable homosexual couple
Being shuttled around foster homes or placed in care
Being placed with a "more unsuitable" heterosexual couple

?

The Brigadier wrote: »

But in a state where this is allowed :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VP9XUsTUaeI

Do you actually look at any of the links or do you just google related terms and post the first result that comes up? It's not allowed in the UK, that's why they have to go to the USA to do it

The Brigadier · 11-03-2011 03:12PM

28064212 wrote: »

Which is the better option for a child:
Being placed with a loving, stable homosexual couple

Being shuttled around foster homes or placed in care

Being placed with a "more unsuitable" heterosexual couple

?

I would need more information before being able to answer that.

28064212 wrote: »

Do you actually look at any of the links or do you just google related terms and post the first result that comes up? It's not allowed in the UK, that's why they have to go to the USA to do it

That video was posted on the blog of my parish priest last year. It was discussed in great detail.

I am well aware that they had to go to America but they are UK nationals resident in the UK and in my mind child services should be all over that in a heartbeat.

Did you actually watch the whole video?

11-03-2011 03:22PM

The Brigadier wrote: »

I would need more information before being able to answer that.

Why? You've already conceded that "some gay couples are less unsuitable". In a situation where the "least unsuitable" available couple is gay, should the child be placed with them?

The Brigadier wrote: »

I am well aware that they had to go to America but they are UK nationals resident in the UK and in my mind child services should be all over that in a heartbeat.

How could child services be all over something when a child isn't even involved yet? And secondly, are you saying that the police should be involved in stopping people flying to Amsterdam to partake in an activity that is legal in that jurisdiction?

The Brigadier wrote: »

Did you actually watch the whole video?

No, I don't have speakers, so I looked up a news article on it. I fail to see what relevance it has to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss designer babies, start a topic for it

JimiTime · 11-03-2011 06:09PM

twinQuins wrote: »

This is maddening. It's not meant to be illustrative of reality it's meant to test the internal consistency of your position. That's the whole point of these hypothetical scenarios.

But you said "do your own research" suggesting that there's something out there you base your opinion on. All I'm asking is, what is that. I'm not a mind-reader, Jimi, I can't just assume that whatever I find is correct, it's your job to tell me why.

However considering you're more than likely to fob me off with some snarky comment again, let me save you the trouble and just point out that the research points to there being no difference between children raised by homosexual parents and heterosexual parents.

Your position of heterosexual parents being better is not supported by the evidence. For someone so keen on basing things in reality you're not very consistent about it.

no problem.

twinQuins · 11-03-2011 06:42PM

Jimi, I realise you're trying to get to me but it's not going to work.

Keylem · 11-03-2011 09:33PM

The whole point of adoption initially, was for married couples who were unable to have children of their own due to medical or unknown reasons, could have a child. As for same sex couples, even Elton John used a surrogate mother! Then there was a lesbian couple who recently had their own quintuplets, probably due to artificial inseminaton - adoption is a whole different thing! I personally don't agree with people adopting children, when they are physically capable of having their own, assuming there is no medical impediment. It took a male and a female to create the child, and it should be a male and female that looks after it, that is the nature of things. Just because the law says it's okay for ssc to adopt, doesn't mean it's right!

OTOH, there is not enought babies placed for adoption, as they are getting killed by abortion!

AhSureTisGrand · 11-03-2011 09:42PM

Keylem wrote: »

OTOH, there is not enought babies placed for adoption, as they are getting killed by abortion!

You speak as though we're falling short of some target for children in need of a family

11-03-2011 09:47PM

Keylem wrote: »

OTOH, there is not enought babies placed for adoption, as they are getting killed by abortion!

Wtf? "not enough babies placed for adoption"? Would you prefer to meet a target of children having to be taken away from their natural parents?

Oh and by the way nobody has the right to a child :mad:

11-03-2011 09:50PM

Keylem wrote: »

The whole point of adoption initially, was for married couples who were unable to have children of their own

Actually, the initial aim of adoption was to provide abandoned children with homes.

You talk about the "nature of things". The nature of things is that biological parents raise their children. That's what "should" happen. Adoption is to provide a fall-back when that isn't possible

Zombrex · 11-03-2011 09:54PM

Keylem wrote: »

OTOH, there is not enought babies placed for adoption, as they are getting killed by abortion!

Given how traumatic adoption can be for the children that is a very good thing.

A termination before the child's mind exists (before they exist in essence) is far better than brining a child into this world just to then mess it around.

Ideally all adoptions should have been early term abortions. It is cruel to bring a child into existence just to then abandon it.

Children that never existed don't know they never existed, they don't suffer.

Keylem · 11-03-2011 09:55PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Wtf? "not enough babies placed for adoption"? Would you prefer to meet a target of children having to be taken away from their natural parents?

Oh and by the way nobody has the right to a child :mad:

I'm not talking about taking children away from natural parents, I'm talking about an alternative to abortion. I myself am a parent through adoption and I can guarantee my children are certainly not traumatised by it, and they are young adults. I also have friends who were adopted at birth and they are certainly happy people!

11-03-2011 10:11PM

Keylem wrote: »

I'm not talking about taking children away from natural parents, I'm talking about an alternative to abortion. I myself am a parent through adoption and I can guarantee my children are certainly not traumatised by it, and they are young adults. I also have friends who were adopted at birth and they are certainly happy people!

What exactly ARE you talking about then when you say "not enough" children are being set up for adoption eh?

Thoughts on this...

Comments