equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

So, you're arguing that a child having and being raised by biological parents does not, in any way, strengthen the bonds?

No, in fact there is evidence that adopted children can often feel a bond that biological children don't, there is never a question if they were an accident or burden because they were "chosen", that their parents went out their way financially and emotionally "have" them.

Yes there are medical issues and physical issues such as Deep mentioned, but the "bonds" can go both ways.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by financeguy

So you see no difference between, for example, being borne to a crack whore in Harlem as opposed to a regular middle class family?

Get real.

That's not at all what I was saying. I think you're confused as to what question AEON asked. AEON proposed a question in which he said all four of these couples are upstanding citizens with secure financial situations, and then asked me to rank them as to what is "optimal." That was the question I thought you were referring to. I don't recall Harlem crack addicts being asked about before this.

Originally Posted by AEON

Are any of those ways "better" than another - or are you suggesting all of the ways are essentially the same?

You said they're all good people with secure homes, why do we need to go any further? Those are by far the most important factors, aren't they?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

So you see no difference between, for example, being borne to a crack whore in Harlem as opposed to a regular middle class family?

Get real.

I'm assuming you missed AEON's setup with "all things being equal". Or did you just choose to ignore again?

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AEON

A_Wanderer, you are a self-proclaimed scientist - certainly you can follow the discussion to see it is currently revolving around what is optimal and not merely what is acceptable.

I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious, and have been trying to justify it by clutching at any argument you can find.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by financeguy

That said, that might involve such politically 'unpopular solutions as discouraging divorce, which seemingly is a big no-no, as it's probably 'anti-freedom', or 'anti-human rights', or some such.

You do realize that before divorce laws were re-written in the West that women had basically no means of leaving a marriage with an equal split of property and a variety of other issues?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BVS

I'm assuming you missed AEON's setup with "all things being equal". Or did you just choose to ignore again?

My post was in response to a post that stated "There's no such thing [as ideal or optimal upbringings], and the sooner we get past that, the better."

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

But the question was based on the assumption there were no observable problems.

If you have two couples willing to adopt - one is heterosexual and one is homosexual - would it not be more beneficial to place the child in the home that also has the added benefit of a mother role and a father role. Or are you of the opinion that the mother role and father role is not important?

I'm of the opinion that children raised by responsible, loving parents (not the lack of orientation qualifier) who take an active role in their child's development tend to grow up just fine. So if there's a homosexual couple willing to adopt, and all signs indicate that they are responsible adults who will take a loving and active role in their child's development, then no, I do not believe they should be moved to the back of the line until all heterosexual couples are sorted through first. That strikes me as a bit barbaric, frankly.

"Gee, we appreciate your interest in adopting a child, Mr. and Mr. Smith. You seem like a very loving, responsible couple who are eager to start a family. Unfortunately, there's a slight possibility that a better, more straight couple is out there. So if you wouldn't mind waiting a few months/years until we either find that couple or decide to settle for you, that'd be just swell. No hard feelings right?"

Seriously, AEON, do you realize the implications of what you're proposing here?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Or are you of the opinion that the mother role and father role is not important?

i'm told i'd make a great mother.

[melon]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Perhaps not per se, But there are also studies which show children of gay couples are sometimes disadvantaged by being bullied at school, for example.

And women who wear sexy dresses are just asking to be raped, right? Do you not see the trouble with your above logic?

Overall, I personally think that with moves towards reducing population growth, scientifically possible but controversial techniques of generating life by means of such processes as IVF to allow for gay couples that demand kids 'of their own' may become socially unpopular.

But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine? I'm sorry, but this entire line of argumentation reeks of heterosexism.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

You do realize that before divorce laws were re-written in the West that women had basically no means of leaving a marriage with an equal split of property and a variety of other issues?

Certainly. But there are also divorce cases where the husband has exploited the system to renege on his responsibilities.

I am definitely not arguing for getting rid of divorce entirely, I'd be in favour of making it more difficult however.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by melon

But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine?

No, I disagree with that also.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Seriously, AEON, do you realize the implications of what you're proposing here?

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

[melon]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious, and have been trying to justify it by clutching at any argument you can find.

I think you've pretty much summed up the entire thread here.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

No, I disagree with that also.

You disagree with IVF? Why?

[melon]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I am definitely not arguing for getting rid of divorce entirely, I'd be in favour of making it more difficult however.

How is keeping two people forced into a loveless marriage beneficial? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that when divorce was banned in Ireland, it didn't keep families together; it just made for a lot of separated spouses having extramarital relationships.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

is it too difficult to judge each situation on the merits of the individual parties involved?

or do we need sweeping authoritative rules to follow?

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by AEON

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

So, you think single parent homes need to be eliminated as well?

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AEON

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

No more radical than a child might possibly be better off in a home with two mothers.

This argument doesn't work because same-sex parents don't fare any worse than straight couples. It also fails for childless couples, of any orientation.

Crying that somebody should think of the children is a lame tactic designed to take equal rights out of the discussion.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm of the opinion that children raised by responsible, loving parents (not the lack of orientation qualifier) who take an active role in their child's development tend to grow up just fine. So if there's a homosexual couple willing to adopt, and all signs indicate that they are responsible adults who will take a loving and active role in their child's development, then no, I do not believe they should be moved to the back of the line until all heterosexual couples are sorted through first. That strikes me as a bit barbaric, frankly.

Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

What I find radical is that you seem to be perfectly willing to have a responsible and loving couple - one that is eager to adopt and give a child in need a loving, warm and secure life - wait indefinitely while everyone else is sorted through, simply because they're gay.

Given two responsible, secure and loving couples, one heterosexual and one homosexual, do you think it possible that the homosexual couple could be better parents than the heterosexuals?