protect our children from anti-family forces out to corrupt them!
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
So if I pass a law negating your marriage and have the state take away your children, because society deems "people like you" as being dangerous to children, would you be consoled with your comfortable office and computer?
Melon
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
melon said:
Wikepedia has some interesting things to say about fascism. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
A brief excerpt:
Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements, including Nazism, spread across Europe between World War I and World War II.
The most restrictive definitions of fascism include only one government, that of Mussolini in Italy. However, the term is frequently applied to Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and is used to refer to similar regimes and movements across Europe in the same time period, such as Hungary's Arrow Cross, Romania's Iron Guard, Spain's Falange, and the French political movements led by Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot. More broadly, it is sometimes (by both supporters and opponents) applied to other authoritarian regimes of the period such as those of Imperial Japan under Hideki Tojo, Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss and Greece under Ioannis Metaxas. Its use for similar but longer-lived regimes such as Spain under Francisco Franco and the Estado Novo of António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal is widespread among opponents of those regimes but is often disputed by their supporters. This trend toward the term being used only by opponents is amplified in the case of more recent authoritarian regimes such as Indonesia under Suharto, and Chile under Augusto Pinochet.
When you use the term "Fascists" to define people who disagree with you, I just want us to make sure what we're talking about here.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Grabs popcorn...
nathan1977 said:
I use the term narrowly, but I do believe that what FOTF wants for America is no different at all from the fascist regimes of Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, or even Duplessis in Québec. I'm not referring to the extreme situations of Hitler and Mussolini.
Franco, Salazar, and Duplessis all enjoyed wide support from the Catholic Church in their day, because they acted as de facto theocracies. Dobson would love for America to follow suit.
In practice, this is little different from Iran today, which is a theocracy that holds elections.
Melon
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
If you are going to toss around words like "fascist" (instead of the forbidden “Nazi”) it is not unreasonable to be called on it.
It doesn't automatically mean your underlying argument is invalid in any way. But now we get sidetracked over the right to place extreme labels.
And calling someone on such use of labels is not a matter of being
It doesn't automatically mean your underlying argument is invalid in any way. But now we get sidetracked over the right to place extreme labels.
And calling someone on such use of labels is not a matter of being
Irvine511 said:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
so what is telling someone that they should be happy because even though they are effectively 2nd class citizens and publicly accused of being child molestors via innuendo, hey, at least you're not in a nazi death camp?
the adoption thing irks me even more than the marriage thing. many gay people want to step in and adopt the various mistakes made my straight people, to effectively sweep up after they've had some fun (and didn't abort!), and then people turn around and speak of how "every child deserves a mother and a father" and "we don't want those people raising our children" and it's enough to make me scream bloody murder.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
The last bit is unnecessary, I wasn't mocking you like that. I am still trying to understand why you thought "perspective" was uniquely missing from this thread to begin with. Perhaps you were referring strictly to the fascism comment, in which case I simply misunderstood you.nbcrusader said:
AliEnvy
Refugee
Irvine511 said:
That drives me nuts too. It's as if since you're gay, you naturally shouldn't have any recreation impulses whatsoever so there can only be one reason you'd want to be around children.
Calluna
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm sure you mean procreation not recreation impulses, right?AliEnvy said:
That drives me nuts too. It's as if since you're gay, you naturally shouldn't have any recreation impulses whatsoever so there can only be one reason you'd want to be around children.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Where are you getting that? Not once have I suggested anything even close to that effect.
As you have said times before, words matter. Your ability to make an excellent point can be derailed by poor word choice or use of hyperbole.
This thread is a clear example. Melon was making apoint regarding Ohio politics, tossed in "fascist" and the core point was ignored because of word choice.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
We really should have a good old drag-em-down conversation about fascism one of these days, guys. Nazi Germany was one (not entirely but somewhat unique, woohoo, bad grammar there!) example of that phenomenon, but by no means the last word on the subject. If you're waiting for things to get as bad as Nazi Germany, you'll be waiting a long time. Thankfully (but don't forget, the Nazis loved their kids and dogs too).
Last edited:
fly so high!
Refugee
financeguy said:
*sits next to finance guy , nicks some popcorn, puts feet up*
nbcrusader said:
Better yet, conservatives sit back and hype on the hyperbolic statements, while ignoring the good points to derail the conversation.
Want to address this someday, or do you intend to continue your encyclical on your narrow definition of "fascist"?
Melon
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
firstly, the post wasn't at you directly, but to several posters who have been saying, essentially, that we don't live in a fascist country and we should thusly count our blessings and get "persepctive" on things.
that misses the point of the thread entirely, as yolland has pointed out repeatedly. simply because i have enough to eat doesn't mean that the stereotype of the "evil gay" -- you know, analogous to the "evil Arab" that has likewise been around for decades -- isn't still wielded, quite effectively, by conservative politicians to mobilize their ignorant masses to deny me certain aspects of citizenship and personhood.
i see no hyperbole in anything written above.
[q]As you have said times before, words matter. Your ability to make an excellent point can be derailed by poor word choice or use of hyperbole.[/q]
this clearly isn't an example of any of those times.
and Melon aptly defended his use of the word "fascist" -- it's not to say that America is a fascist country or that Ohio is a fascist state; but it is to say that there are fascist impulses in Ohio politics, and he went on to elucidate the differences between what people think of as fascist countries (i.e., N. Korea) when they really aren't fascist but Stalinist or some other -ist.
AliEnvy
Refugee
Calluna said:
I'm sure you mean procreation not recreation impulses, right?
Maybe I'm just deviant and it was a freudian slip.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
Okay, here's my point in this whole thing: what we say reveals what we think. By summarily referring to opponents of a particular worldview as "fascist," you lose your own credibility because you have written off anyone who disagrees with you. You've lost the chance for intelligent, well thought out debate or discussion, and instead resorted to vitriolic hyperbole which 1. alienates, and 2. isn't even rooted in reality. (How is Focus on the Family fascist again, when you compare the organization to the fascist governments listed in the article I posted?)
Consider as well that fascism is just as possible from the left as from the right (consider the African and Latin American dictatorships that were founded in Leftist ideology and soon became corrupt dictatorships), so if your reason for arguing against people who don't believe in gay adoption is because you think they're "fascist," you're casting a much bigger net than maybe you know, and perhaps including yourself in it.
There are legitimate, well-reasoned and well-thought-out arguments to be made on both sides of this debate. However, when you start demonizing your opponents, you lose the opportunity to engage and inform them, as well as yourself.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
the whole "fascist" point was Melon's argument, so i'm not going to make it for him, but couldn't the alienation you point to be the result of a misunderstanding of what fascism actually is? that fascism isn't North Korea but Italy's Mussolini? and if there's a widespread misudnerstanding of fascism, then so be it, but Melon shouldn't have to water down his points in order to prevent alienating people and the credibility he's lost has been lost only in the minds of people who don't know what they're talking about historically.
the point about fascism coming from the right or the left is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. you're also, again, conflating labeling an impulse as "fascist" with the painting of a whole society, or even political party, as fascist.
i'd also say that i can't think of a legitimate, thought-out argument to oppose gay adoption. if one does exist, i'm all ears.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
Outlining my perspective on gay adoption (and mine might be very different from prevailing ideas for/against, so they're not indicative of any perspectives other than my own), requires breaking down my perspective on family structures (and the value of and necessity for mothers and fathers), which is rooted in a more general perspective on sexuality, which is rooted in...etc., all of which has been discussed at length in various forums.
My perspectives have nothing to do with hatred, fear, etc. -- a producer friend of mine who is gay and has a three-year-old son is a genuinely gentle human being and we get on just fine. It simply with a perspective on what is best. For me, gay adoption is the tip of a much broader iceberg, as it is for many.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
simply because there might be an "ideal" family structure out there, does this mean that we then deny children eager potential parents because they might not meet this standard, especially when we can show that children are not harmed at all when they come from non-traditional families? likewise, do we prevent single straight women from adopting? single straight men? if a divorce were to occur, and mom turned out to be a lesbian, should the children then be given over to still-straight dad? is adoption for straight couples only? can we not point to a million-and-one different examples of extreme neglect of foster children by straight couples?
it seems to me that more than a few children grow up very successfully outside of the "traditional" structure -- and upon what grounds do you let an "ideal" image of something become an acceptable basis for preventing other people from creating families?
and, while you might not "hate" said iceberg, it does seem as if you fear it.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
As my wife and I are looking into adoption, these issues are near to our hearts. The National Council on Adoption has some pertinent perspectives on these matters. They've published a list of adoption principles which I think are interesting. The full list is here: http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/about_Philosophy.htm
An excerpt:
There is no right to adopt, only the right of the child to be adopted: The purpose of adoption is to provide the best possible parents for children, not to provide children for adults who desire to parent them. Adoption policy and practice guided by the best interests of the child recognizes no 'right to adopt,' only the right of the child to be adopted when his or her biological parents cannot or will not parent. Adult assertions of a right to adopt reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principle of adoption: The whole purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests of children.
...
Consistent with the child’s best interests, preference in adoption placements should be given to families that offer married mother-and-father parenting: Recent research has confirmed the teaching of centuries of historical experience that married mother-and-father parenting is most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. Because the goal of marriage is to be lifelong, married-couple parenting provides children greater security and permanence, and data show that adoptive parents divorce at lower rates than biological parents. Children also benefit from receiving both maternal and paternal love, which are complementary and distinct, and from having both male and female role models in their immediate family. For all these reasons, adoptive placements should be with husband-and-wife couples, whenever possible.
Before his passing in 2004, the founder of the NCFA, Bill Pierce, had some comments on gay adoption; they are linked below. (Disclaimer: they were published in the National Review.) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pierce051002.asp
These are the compelling arguments I was talking about.
An excerpt:
There is no right to adopt, only the right of the child to be adopted: The purpose of adoption is to provide the best possible parents for children, not to provide children for adults who desire to parent them. Adoption policy and practice guided by the best interests of the child recognizes no 'right to adopt,' only the right of the child to be adopted when his or her biological parents cannot or will not parent. Adult assertions of a right to adopt reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principle of adoption: The whole purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests of children.
...
Consistent with the child’s best interests, preference in adoption placements should be given to families that offer married mother-and-father parenting: Recent research has confirmed the teaching of centuries of historical experience that married mother-and-father parenting is most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. Because the goal of marriage is to be lifelong, married-couple parenting provides children greater security and permanence, and data show that adoptive parents divorce at lower rates than biological parents. Children also benefit from receiving both maternal and paternal love, which are complementary and distinct, and from having both male and female role models in their immediate family. For all these reasons, adoptive placements should be with husband-and-wife couples, whenever possible.
Before his passing in 2004, the founder of the NCFA, Bill Pierce, had some comments on gay adoption; they are linked below. (Disclaimer: they were published in the National Review.) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pierce051002.asp
These are the compelling arguments I was talking about.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
[q]— William L. Pierce was the founding president of the National Council For Adoption, where he served for 20 years. He currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, publisher of Adoption/Medical News, and executive director of the USA Committee for the International Association of Voluntary Adoption Agencies and NGOs.
[/q]
the Discovery Institute is the most aggressive proponant of Intelligent Design in the US. it's hard to take his reading of studies seriously when he chooses to ignore basic science.
but aside from that ... you raise some interesing points ...
[q]There is no right to adopt, only the right of the child to be adopted[/q]
i agree with this, but it misses the mark as an argument against gay adoption. what gay people are asking for is the right to be considered as acceptable adoptive parents without their sexual orientation being held against them. i would never demand to adopt. i would demand for the right to be considered for adoption.
[q]Recent research has confirmed the teaching of centuries of historical experience that married mother-and-father parenting is most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. Because the goal of marriage is to be lifelong, married-couple parenting provides children greater security and permanence, and data show that adoptive parents divorce at lower rates than biological parents. Children also benefit from receiving both maternal and paternal love, which are complementary and distinct, and from having both male and female role models in their immediate family. For all these reasons, adoptive placements should be with husband-and-wife couples, whenever possible.
[/q]
my understanding of recent research is that having same-sex parents isn't at all detrimental to the child; if anything, the research shows that children raised by two mothers tend to be more open-minded, emotionally expressive, and kinder to their peers. also, many people will say that gay people generally make better parents because they tend to be older, they tend to be very well educated, they tend to have resources, and they tend to really, really want to adopt a child.
i have a big problem with notions of "maternal" and "paternal" love and how they are distinct and complimentary. it subscribes to notions of sex-roles that are increasingly irrelevant. i agree about the benefits of stability for a child, but i would argue that lesbian couples are more monogamous and have a lower "divorce" rate than to straight couples. male and female role models can be important, but i don't see how a child will necessarily be deprived of such role models in a same-sex household especially when there is extended family involved.
this bit in Pierce's article really bothered me:
[q]9. If, as I believe, there is a shortage of appropriate families to foster or adopt children the proper response is to change the incentives and supports to eliminate the shortage of appropriate families.[/q]
so let's pay straight people more to adopt more? i can't think of anything worse for a child -- to make it about money so that we get straight people adopting for the worst reasons while gay couples are denied consideration on the basis of an immutable characteristic that has no bearing on their ability to raise children, as Pierce also pretty much concurs:
[q]5. The best place for a child in need of placement, all things being equal, is a private family with parents whose health and lifestyles are such that they are likely to provide the child appropriate care and modeling at least until the child is 18.[/q]
i don't see how the above is incompatible with a same-sex couple.
what i think is sad is that i know of three gay people who are going to go the fertilization route instead of adopting. the first is a married couple (they live in MA) who would love to adopt a child from Vietnam, since one of the pair is 1/2 Vietnamese. because they are married, it now seems as if this will be a major obstacle to overcome with the Vietnamese government. so, they are now seeking other means, and a child will remain an orphan (while the single straight woman next door to me just adopted a child from Guatemala with no problems at all). the 2nd is a single gay man who would be an ideal father, but he's pretty much come to the conclusion that it is both cheaper and easier to go the insemination-and-surrogate route than to adopt a child.
it just strikes me as really, really sad.
[/q]
the Discovery Institute is the most aggressive proponant of Intelligent Design in the US. it's hard to take his reading of studies seriously when he chooses to ignore basic science.
but aside from that ... you raise some interesing points ...
[q]There is no right to adopt, only the right of the child to be adopted[/q]
i agree with this, but it misses the mark as an argument against gay adoption. what gay people are asking for is the right to be considered as acceptable adoptive parents without their sexual orientation being held against them. i would never demand to adopt. i would demand for the right to be considered for adoption.
[q]Recent research has confirmed the teaching of centuries of historical experience that married mother-and-father parenting is most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. Because the goal of marriage is to be lifelong, married-couple parenting provides children greater security and permanence, and data show that adoptive parents divorce at lower rates than biological parents. Children also benefit from receiving both maternal and paternal love, which are complementary and distinct, and from having both male and female role models in their immediate family. For all these reasons, adoptive placements should be with husband-and-wife couples, whenever possible.
[/q]
my understanding of recent research is that having same-sex parents isn't at all detrimental to the child; if anything, the research shows that children raised by two mothers tend to be more open-minded, emotionally expressive, and kinder to their peers. also, many people will say that gay people generally make better parents because they tend to be older, they tend to be very well educated, they tend to have resources, and they tend to really, really want to adopt a child.
i have a big problem with notions of "maternal" and "paternal" love and how they are distinct and complimentary. it subscribes to notions of sex-roles that are increasingly irrelevant. i agree about the benefits of stability for a child, but i would argue that lesbian couples are more monogamous and have a lower "divorce" rate than to straight couples. male and female role models can be important, but i don't see how a child will necessarily be deprived of such role models in a same-sex household especially when there is extended family involved.
this bit in Pierce's article really bothered me:
[q]9. If, as I believe, there is a shortage of appropriate families to foster or adopt children the proper response is to change the incentives and supports to eliminate the shortage of appropriate families.[/q]
so let's pay straight people more to adopt more? i can't think of anything worse for a child -- to make it about money so that we get straight people adopting for the worst reasons while gay couples are denied consideration on the basis of an immutable characteristic that has no bearing on their ability to raise children, as Pierce also pretty much concurs:
[q]5. The best place for a child in need of placement, all things being equal, is a private family with parents whose health and lifestyles are such that they are likely to provide the child appropriate care and modeling at least until the child is 18.[/q]
i don't see how the above is incompatible with a same-sex couple.
what i think is sad is that i know of three gay people who are going to go the fertilization route instead of adopting. the first is a married couple (they live in MA) who would love to adopt a child from Vietnam, since one of the pair is 1/2 Vietnamese. because they are married, it now seems as if this will be a major obstacle to overcome with the Vietnamese government. so, they are now seeking other means, and a child will remain an orphan (while the single straight woman next door to me just adopted a child from Guatemala with no problems at all). the 2nd is a single gay man who would be an ideal father, but he's pretty much come to the conclusion that it is both cheaper and easier to go the insemination-and-surrogate route than to adopt a child.
it just strikes me as really, really sad.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
The National Council For Adoption is an advocacy group with its own agenda, not an official spokesman for all adoption agencies. I did not find any citations of or links to peer-reviewed, scholarly research on adoption on their website, only their own publications. As for Pierce's article, it is a list of opinionated assertions, not a scientific argument referencing other research or proferring its own. I find it hard to believe that he was unaware of the major and throughly documented research report released by the American Academy of Pediatrics several months before his article, which found no empirical support for the argument that children raised by gay or lesbian parents fare worse than their peers. Here are references to and abstracts from that report, as well as a more recent scholarly study. **There are plenty of others--this is just what came up in the first 3 pages of results from one search on one multitopic academic database.**
Last edited:
I just find it appalling for all the credible scientific research that's in favor of gay parenting, Congress will always look at the shit published by those nutty ID types.
It's no wonder then that our intelligence on "the war on terror" has been crap, because the Republican Party can't even get scientific fact correct, let alone espionage.
Melon
It's no wonder then that our intelligence on "the war on terror" has been crap, because the Republican Party can't even get scientific fact correct, let alone espionage.
Melon
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
He was a senior fellow. You don't know whether he was a proponent for or against ID. When it comes to advocacy, yes, the NCA is an advocacy group -- one that has been at the forefront of rights for adopted children since its inception 25 years ago. If you'd like to disregard his perspective (as an expert in the field of adoption for 20+ years), you may do so by all means, but the fact remains -- the man knew whereof he spoke.
You raise some interesting points as well. We can get into the flawed nature of the AAP's study (well-publicized at the time -- by many in the scientific community, incidentally -- for a biased sample selection and lack of proper control groups, among other data constrictions that make the findings problematic). I have a feeling however that would degenerate into a "You have your statistics, I have mine" back-and-forth, which would just prove my initial point, which was simply that there are perspectives on both sides of this discussion, and they can't be disregarded.
So you're saying that men and women aren't different? And that those differences don't manifest themselves in parenting styles? And that those differences aren't ultimately beneficial to the child? This is problematic at a variety of levels, including your own example:
By this logic, you actually seem to contradict yourself. By inference, two fathers would teach children to be more closed-minded, emotional repressed, and alienated from their peers. Did you mean to condemn gay fatherhood?
Or can we say perhaps that flawed research leads to flawed conclusions?
As I say, the tip of the iceberg.
nathan1977 said:
If he's even at the Discovery Institute, he's a conservative Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
So, of course, he's going to come to an anti-gay conclusion. Clearly, if he believes in ID, despite the fact that it's pseudoscience, he's going to have no problem being anti-gay or claiming that gays are dangerous or harmful to children in spite of all credible scientific studies.
After all, these "think-tanks" exist solely to feign credibility for conservative Christian ideology. They will never ever contradict their religious beliefs, which is why these groups have zero credibility from the start.
Melon
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
No one criticized the AAP report's "sample selection" or "lack of proper control groups"--there weren't any samples or control groups involved! It was a scientific research review, not an experimental study.nathan1977 said:
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
^ What does any of that have to do with the National Council on Adoption?
