Dec 19 2007, 9:24 pm
|
|
Jp
  |
Ironman certainly makes a good point, but I'd have to agree with Hazman. That's a problem with the school system, not with homosexual adoption - it's certainly unfortunate, but avoiding homosexual adoption won't fix the issue, and kids like that will find something they can use no matter what.
|
No, actually it iss a terrible point built on a flawed assumption. It is just as likely that the parents don't want to be seen as homophobic bigots and will clamp down on the kids for making fun of Jon's two daddy's or whatever. It also totally ignores the fact that the kid will already be equipped to deal with non-traditional relationships.
The most important thing in evaluating what is best for the child is looking for a stable, safe environment where the child will get love, support, and guidance. What some ignorant jackass may think is largely irrelevant. Trying to avoid every chance for social teasing is absurd as that would only leave attractive, intelligent, athletic parents with no flaws as valid parental candidates. Learning to deal with social conflict is part of life. Addressing problems, not running from them, is a part of improving our communities. I can just imagine if all the civil rights supporters decided to just leave segregated and racially hostile areas.... The funny thing is that it doesn't matter if you are a racist, gay hating bigot. That's fine. You can express your flawed views and reveal yourself as an utter cretin. Just don't harass other people, trespass, assault, etc. We as a society control action, not thought. Think about shooting people all day if you want. Just don't do it. | |
OneFishDown wrote:
ironman is making a point and you're all slightly missing it. he isn't talking about it in terms of the government and what it should and shouldn't allow, he's talking about it in terms of the children and what's best for the kids. So you think being an orphan is better than getting picked on from time to time? Jmurph is right, the best environment for a child is one that gives him the love and attention that he needs. I don't think he will would be singled out any more than a kid who looks a little goofy, and probably less than a kid with a speech problem(I was both of those kids, by the way). Especially if his parents weren't that flamboyant gay stereotype. | |
this issue is larger than just homosexual adoption, its about the integration of homosexuals into society. idealists see an opportunity to integrate gays into society as a purely good move. in the long run it is a good move, but that's in the long run. people forget that there can be practical problems in the short term.
in terms of this case, it would be silly for the government to stop gay couples from adopting children. but its just as silly to think that there are no negative consequences. ironman was pointing out that the real world isn't all sunshine and lollipops, and he's absolutely right. people were so passionate about saying "zomg u r wrong" that they didn't take the time to understand what he was saying and see how he may be right. its also a bit silly to claim that since kids get teased about other things, having one more thing to be teased about isn't bad. think of it another way: everyone feels pain some time in life. whether you stub your toe or fall off your bike, you're going to feel pain sometime. therefore, i should be allowed to kick you in the nuts. you would otherwise feel pain anyway, what's a little more? you certainly wouldn't want to be kicked in the nuts, so why would you think that a child wouldn't mind having another reason to be made fun of? Addressing problems, not running from them, is a part of improving our communities. I can just imagine if all the civil rights supporters decided to just leave segregated and racially hostile areas.... just because you're not running from a problem doesn't mean that you're addressing it. if a black family is living in a racially hostile area but they aren't active civil rights supporters, they aren't addressing the problem. they're subject to the hostility of the neighborhood, but why? if they have no strong reason to stay in that community, they are better off moving to a less hostile area. if that family does move to a less hostile area, it doesn't mean that they are running from the problem. they aren't civil rights supporters, so the problem would be solved at the same rate whether they stay in that community or not. leaving that community isn't running away, its common sense. if its not going to make a difference, why subject yourself to that hostility? | |
OFD: I see what you are saying, but I thoroughly disagree in this instance. A potential target for teasing is not a physical assault and I believe the analogy is too flawed to pursue. For one thing, as I pointed out, there is no certainty that it is even a point of teasing. I bet if that kid is good looking, social, athletic, and smart, he won't get harassed about his two dads, for example. Heck, if he dads do stuff like throw cool birthday parties and drive everybody to the game, I bet they will be regarded as the cool dads.
And even if there is a potential reason for teasing,as I pointed out, it pales in comparison to the big needs. It is hard enough to find stable, emotionally supportive parents. Do we need to add minimal concerns like teasing potential to that? It's kind of like saying we need more engineering teachers but we don't want those with bad hair because that may be distracting. As to social conflicts, like any conflict, you only have 3 options. You can submit, you can run, or you can resist. I am unaware of examples where the first two produced any positive social change. Of course, some conflicts are so one sided that resistance is doomed, but even there, it can sometimes stand as a symbolic victory. I don't judge any individual's decision, though- I can't see myself risking my children's safety to make some purely symbolic point,like living in a warzone out of protest, for example, even if I might risk my own. | |
Is this by any chance a response to my post of the same title? lol.
Anyways, I personally don't like the idea that much, but as far as things go, I don't see a legal reason to keep gays from adopting. And as for the teasing thing, some kids will be teased regardless, and some kids wont be teased regardless. It all depends on their attitude to the situation and what impressions they make. | |
an analogy is a comparison that shows how different things are alike. being able to show how items being compared in an analogy are different is always possible. it doesn't mean that the analogy is flawed.
if the two items being compared by an analogy weren't allowed to have any differences, the analogy wouldn't have much of a purpose, "being adopted by a gay couple is like being adopted by a gay couple..." the purpose of the analogy was to show that its easy to dismiss someone else's pain not because its an insignificant amount of pain, but because its someone else's pain. very few of us (if any) were adopted by gay couples, so its hard for us to imagine what that's like. we've all experienced physical pain; its something that people can understand and relate to. i agree with what most people are saying, but i don't agree with why many of them are saying it. to say that homosexual adoption is acceptable all things considered, you actually have to consider all things. some people weren't. by ignoring certain factors, you're acting like a greedy algorithm: yes, you're making the best choice given the immediate circumstances, but that's not always the best choice overall. being correct isn't as important as you might think. what's more important is knowing why you're correct. if you don't know why you were correct once, you may have trouble being correct again :-) | |
Like I said, which is worse, being an orphan or having gay parents? I am thinking about the child here, and it's clear that being adopted by a gay couple is far better than not being adopted at all. It's not like gay people are just robbing kids out of straight people's arms. It's easy for me to "dismiss" their pain because I had to deal with being harassed and bullied just the same. And I have no doubt that I was better off dealing with that than not having parents.
Honestly, chances are I would have been harassed just the same had I not had parents, and then I wouldn't have had parents to comfort me. | |
I think that fat people adopting children is more detrimental than gay people.
| |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Honestly, chances are I would have been harassed just the same had I not had parents, and then I wouldn't have had parents to comfort me. Agreed. | |
Gimme a kid i'll raise 'em.
| |