McCain on Adoption by Gay Parents

[Major]

I think McCain is getting some Wesley Clark syndrome, where his advisors say "repeat these lines" and he does so without regard for context or having them make sense.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/mccain-on-gay-1.html#more


McCain On Gay Adoption



In an interview with Stephanopoulos, McCain backtracked on his use of the word timetable (by my count, he uses the phrase "conditions on the ground" seven times), but near the end there is also this somewhat bizarre exchange over gay adoption:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you mean by that, it’s not the reason you’re running for president of the United States?

MCCAIN: Because I think — well, I think that it’s — it is important for us to emphasize family values. But I think it’s very important that we understand that we have other challenges, too. I’m running for president of the United States, because I want to help with family values. And I think that family values are important, when we have two parent — families that are of parents that are the traditional family.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there are several hundred thousand children in the country who don’t have a home. And if a gay couple wants to adopt them, what’s wrong with that?

MCCAIN: I am for the values that two parent families, the traditional family represents.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

[Trader_Jorge]

Really a bungled/sloppy thread intro by Major, but that notwithstanding...

I'd have to think an overwhelming % of the country is firmly against two gays adopting a child. I personally find it repugnant, as should anyone who goes to Church and actually listens.

[CometsWin]

The guy thinks he's living in the 50's. He'll just ignore the issues he's not confortable speaking about. Viagra and birth control?!?! Gay adoption!?!? I support traditional values and two parent families, anything that doesn't fit in that box is errr... god bless America.

[BigBenito]

I was going to ignore TJ, but after reading someone's post about just pretending he is Stephen Colbert.... TJ becomes hilarious. It might have been word for word Colbert, if he had thrown in a comment about America.

Try harder, TJ... you'll get Colbert perfectly eventually! I believe in you.




(McCain is too chicken **** to just come out and say he's against it.)

[Major]

I'd have to think an overwhelming % of the country is firmly against two gays adopting a child. I personally find it repugnant, as should anyone who goes to Church and actually listens.

That may be true, but then why couldn't McCain come out and say he's against it?

He said he's for two parent families and their values. Gay families have two parents... so is he even against it? All McCain seemed to know about the issue is to keep repeating the words "family values".

[StaticC4]

That may be true, but then why couldn't McCain come out and say he's against it?

He said he's for two parent families and their values. Gay families have two parents... so is he even against it? All McCain seemed to know about the issue is to keep repeating the words "family values".

McCain is probably thinking of the "good days" of 1960s where ignorance and racism was accepted by society.

[plcmts17]

I'd have to think an overwhelming % of the country is firmly against two gays adopting a child. I personally find it repugnant, as should anyone who goes to Church and actually listens.

I just had a laugh thinking that traitor_j went to church, but then again he's probably a devout believer of John Hagee. Well, at least I now know where he's getting most of your material from.

[Trader_Jorge]

McCain is probably thinking of the "good days" of 1960s where ignorance and racism was accepted by society.

It is neither ignorant nor racist to believe that a child (without a choice) should be subjected to growing up in a household with two gay parents.

When you choose to lead an openly homosexual lifestyle, there are certain things that you ought to forego. Marriage is one of them, as is adoption.

[rocketsjudoka]

The delivery was a little mangled but I think I understand his position, I don't agree with it though. He's saying he's generally against it but its not a very important issue to him and he would leave it mostly up to the states.

[CometsWin]

It is neither ignorant nor racist to believe that a child (without a choice) should be subjected to growing up in a household with two gay parents.

When you choose to lead an openly homosexual lifestyle, there are certain things that you ought to forego. Marriage is one of them, as is adoption.


It's not racist but it's pretty damn ignorant. What part of being gay prohibits the development of parenting skills? Quote a study please, not what you allegedly heard in Church. Thanks in advance.

[Trader_Jorge]

It's not racist but it's pretty damn ignorant. What part of being gay prohibits the development of parenting skills? Quote a study please, not what you allegedly heard in Church. Thanks in advance.

It is not ignorant to think that the time tested method of a father and a mother raising a child is the best way to do so. In case you were unaware, two men are not able to conceive a child. Neither are two women. There is a reason for that. The best upbringing comes from a two-parent household with a mother and a father. Subjecting an unsuspecting child to the deviant lifestyles of two gay parents is an atrocity.

[BigBenito]

It is not ignorant to think that the time tested method of a father and a mother raising a child is the best way to do so. In case you were unaware, two men are not able to conceive a child. Neither are two women. There is a reason for that. The best upbringing comes from a two-parent household with a mother and a father. Subjecting an unsuspecting child to the deviant lifestyles of two gay parents is an atrocity.

Nice work, Colbert. Bringing up reproduction, even though we're talking about adopting/raising a child. That was very Cobertesque! Don't forget to bring up Newt's strategy of creating massive orphanages... that'll really get the base going! I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have children raised in an institution instead of EEK! a gay family!


My vote is to have the children raised in the church. Priests are so kind to children.

Family values! Family values! Family values! Family values! Family values!


P.S. Do you practice any other parts of Leviticus? I stoned my child to death just last week... I didn't like the tone he was giving me!

[CometsWin]

It is not ignorant to think that the time tested method of a father and a mother raising a child is the best way to do so. In case you were unaware, two men are not able to conceive a child. Neither are two women. There is a reason for that. The best upbringing comes from a two-parent household with a mother and a father. Subjecting an unsuspecting child to the deviant lifestyles of two gay parents is an atrocity.


First of all, we're talking about adoption... when a child has no parents, I assume you're familiar with the meaning of adoption. I think we could all generally assume that one parent is better than no parent and that two gay parents are better than no parents. Second of all, you cannot demonstrate that an inability to conceive children prohibits a person from developing the skills required to be a good parent. Third of all, if deviant lifestyle is the threshhold by which a person is allowed to be a parent then there are tens of millions of heterosexuals that should have their children taken away from them. There's a difference between a deviant lifestyle, one that strays from the norm, and an immoral or illegal lifestyle. The atrocity here is that there are those who would deny children caring, loving parents because they happen to be gay.

[pmac]

I'm not quite sure i agree with TJ or CometsWin but i think it is truly sad that McCain couldn't just say how he felt on the situation. Basically he was saying 'I disagree with it but i'm not gonna give my opponent or the media a sound bite to run with'. I wish we could all here each candidates views without them trying to talk to us like children.

[DonnyMost]

Mmm, nothing like the sight of a tired, dying, old thought pattern steeped in ignorance, hatred, and bigotry violently flapping its gums on a BBS as the reality based solution takes another steady step towards the daylight of acceptance.

[FranchiseBlade]

It is not ignorant to think that the time tested method of a father and a mother raising a child is the best way to do so. In case you were unaware, two men are not able to conceive a child. Neither are two women. There is a reason for that. The best upbringing comes from a two-parent household with a mother and a father. Subjecting an unsuspecting child to the deviant lifestyles of two gay parents is an atrocity.
There are plenty of studies that show that children who grow up in families with same sex parents do just as well as children from hetero parents. I'd be willing to bet they are less bigoted towards homosexuals and more tolerant however.

[KingCheetah]

In red Texas two parent foster households are prevalent and highly supported.


Major gaffe again by McCain.

[Jugdish]

teh gayz lol ew gross

[Refman]

It is not ignorant to think that the time tested method of a father and a mother raising a child is the best way to do so.
But to subject the same child to a neverending string of foster homes, where non is permanent and some are abusive is just fine?

We are talking about a child with no parents and no home. The "best way to do so" goes right out the window. We are already talking about a less than optimal situation.

I am torn on the issue of gay adoption. I can understand the points that are made by both sides of the debate.

Gay marriage on the other hand...call it a civil union if you'd like...keep the churches out of it if it makes you feel better. The FACT is that in the case of long term relationships where property is purchased jointly and so on...there needs to be a system for dividing the property upon dissolution of the relationship. For heterosexuals, it is called divorce court. To not have a similar mechanism for homosexual couples amounts to a denial of equal protection under the law.

[TheMountainTop]

I'm against Gay Adoption!

No two men and no two women should be able to adopt kids!

Parenthood is something that is between two responsible adults of the opposite gender.

And yes we should let an orphan be an orphan when it comes to a gay couple trying to adopt them.

[Refman]

And yes we should let an orphan be an orphan when it comes to a gay couple trying to adopt them.
That is pretty easy for you to say if you have never been an orphan with no home. Some of these foster homes are wretched places filled with real abuse.

Which is worse, having loving gay parents or abusive foster parents? Not to mention the fact that in the foster system these kids get passed from home to home like a relay baton.

This analysis also ignores the fact that many foster parents have more foster kids than their house can reasonably hold because their monthly check is based on head count.

A child who grows up in those conditions will grow up damaged. There is a larger, and very real, societal cost that will only be realized years later.

I am glad for you that you can just cavalierly declare that these kids don't deserve a loving home.

THAT is the source of my conflict on this issue. I can certainly understand the sentiment of not wanting children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. This question becomes a lot closer once you know the realities of the foster care system.

Again...we are talking about perceived abuse vs. real abuse. People feel that placing a child in a home where the parents are gay is abusive. Meanwhile, foster homes are filled with real physical and sexual abuse. Forget for a moment about neglect.

[gifford1967]

Jesus, there are some scary, ignorant twits in this thread. Anyone who thinks that it is preferable for a child to be raised in an institution or in non-permanent homes, than it is to be raised by two loving parents of the same gender has no concept of the reality of orphanages, group homes, and foster care.

I know personally a number of gay couples who have adopted children and my experience is that they tend to be on average more engaged, conscientious parents than the average heterosexual parents. Probably because they don't take the ability to be a parent for granted.

[KingCheetah]

What if it certain qualifiers were in place - such as: two women could raise a child as a couple, but they couldn't play soft ball.

[Major]

Parenthood is something that is between two responsible adults of the opposite gender.

Do you believe kids should be taken away from single parents, divorced parents, and irresponsible parents?

[mc mark]

I'm against Gay Adoption!

No two men and no two women should be able to adopt kids!

Parenthood is something that is between two responsible adults of the opposite gender.

And yes we should let an orphan be an orphan when it comes to a gay couple trying to adopt them.


.
WOW!!! :eek:

neanderthal?

[basso]

The delivery was a little mangled but I think I understand his position, I don't agree with it though. He's saying he's generally against it but its not a very important issue to him and he would leave it mostly up to the states.

yes, an inartful muddle, and a bit of a dodge, but i think he's wrong on the merits, and as an adoptive parent himself, and one who stepped outside his immediate cultural background when he and his wife adopted (one of his daughters was adopted from Bangladesh), you'd think he'd get that.

[Cannonball]

If you asked the orphans if they'd rather be adopted by a traditional heterosexual couple or a gay couple, the overwhelming majority would probably go with the straight couple. But if you asked them if they'd rather be adopted by a gay couple or not at all, a majority would probably choose to be adopted. People who have never been in a foster home shouldn't be telling these kids they're better off not having parents at all. Why don't they let the kids decide? If they don't want to be adopted by a gay couple then they don't have to be. But if they've been in foster care for years and years and never had anyone to love them as parents and they just want a family regardless of sexual orientation, who's place is it to deny them that?

Why don't we make it illegal for lesbians to be artificially inseminated while we're at it.

[Groogrux]

Divorce is a sin. If a husband and wife get a divorce, any children produced by that marriage should go into state care.

I think the right should campaign on that. I mean, if they want to stay consistent with their beliefs.

[Phillyrocket]

Having worked for CPS, and in several group homes, and as a child and family counselor let me give my opinion.

First of all foster homes and group homes both get good and bad press. We used to call it a pendulum. If a story came out about abuse in a group home suddenly foster care is the answer. If a foster parent gets caught in the headlines abusing a child group homes are better.

Group homes are good for children who need a restrictive environment because of sexually acting out, violent, and extreme needs behavior. I was a case manager for a 7 year old girl who was a sexual predator, keeping her in foster care was extremely difficult because she would prey on her siblings and many parents would give her up. Someone like that may need the type of restrictive environment where she would get 24 hour care and supervision.

That being said group homes can be bad because the staff tend to be underpaid, overworked, they have a high liability, there is little room for career advancement. Getting hit, bitten, attacked, etc, is part of the job. Therefore you are not going to get the best workers because few want to work in these conditions. So yes there are cases of abuse. Some malicious and terrible and some, to play devils advocate, are often the response of a tired inpatient caregiver using excessive force to defend themselves. Group homes also constantly have new children and workers coming in and out. That kind of inconsistency is not good for a developing child.

Foster care is seen as the better choice because it allows the child to have a home environment where they are most likely to succeed. One that is not restrictive so that they may have friends, normal school and activities. Obviously the same risks of abuse exist.

There are nowhere near enough foster parents available. Group homes will always exist however because of the need of "shelters." Shelters are where an AHIT, (after hours investigation team), worker will need to drop a child off if he has to remove a child late at night.

Any type of foster care is better then a group home. I don't care if it's lesbians, gays, a single parent, aunt and uncle, grandma and grandpa, whatever. Any child who has been in a group home for awhile would kill for a chance to live in a home with his own room, toys, and most importantly consistentcy.

The ignorance spouted by TJ sickens and saddens me.

[Trader_Jorge]

What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in. The pro-gay parents faction has presented a totally false choice: "An endless cycle of foster care versus Gay Adoption". That is not the choice. Sending an unsuspecting child with no choice to grow up and learn from members of society who have willfully chosen to live a deviant lifestyle is repugnant. This is not the only alternative to foster care. You could improve foster care facilities and methods. You could promote adoption among two-parent, heterosexual couples. You could promote birth control, sex-ed, etc. There are so many better choices than gays adopting children.

Again, when you choose to live an openly gay lifestyle, you must understand that you forego things best left to heterosexuals. Marriage and raising kids is part of that equation. You can't have it both ways -- it's just not fair to the children, AND it's morally reprehensible.

Christians who favor gay adoption -- I challenge you to go to church and explain to your fellow paritioners why you feel the way you do. You can not justify this without sacrificing your beliefs, and there is no disputing that.

[basso]

Why don't they let the kids decide?

often they can't speak for themselves, or speak at all.

[JayZ750]

What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in.

history will call you ignorant.

[KingCheetah]

An endless cycle of foster care ...

Gays are taking over the foster care system and the military.

[gifford1967]

What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in. The pro-gay parents faction has presented a totally false choice: "An endless cycle of foster care versus Gay Adoption". That is not the choice. Sending an unsuspecting child with no choice to grow up and learn from members of society who have willfully chosen to live a deviant lifestyle is repugnant. This is not the only alternative to foster care. You could improve foster care facilities and methods. You could promote adoption among two-parent, heterosexual couples. You could promote birth control, sex-ed, etc. There are so many better choices than gays adopting children.

Again, when you choose to live an openly gay lifestyle, you must understand that you forego things best left to heterosexuals. Marriage and raising kids is part of that equation. You can't have it both ways -- it's just not fair to the children, AND it's morally reprehensible.

Christians who favor gay adoption -- I challenge you to go to church and explain to your fellow paritioners why you feel the way you do. You can not justify this without sacrificing your beliefs, and there is no disputing that.

It's hard to imagine more intellectually dishonest blather, than than this. If taxes were actually raised to make these changes, no one would squeal louder than him. The only things that matter to tater_j are low taxes and government subsidized torture porn.

[KellyDwyer]

I notice he ran away when Leviticus was brought up.

Is that typical with him?

If not, can he sell me his daughter so that she can work on my yard? Crabgrass is going nuts outside, and I just don't have the time.

[Cannonball]

often they can't speak for themselves, or speak at all.

There are plenty of older foster children. And typically, the older they are the less likely they'll be adopted because people prefer to adopt infants. Not all foster kids are babies.

[Refman]

What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in.
So you believe in denying a child a loving home. Okie dokie.

This is not the only alternative to foster care. You could improve foster care facilities and methods. You could promote adoption among two-parent, heterosexual couples. You could promote birth control, sex-ed, etc.
And we can end hunger...and cure cancer...and the world will be full of cute and fuzzy bunnies all at the wave of a magic wand. In short, it isn't that simple.

it's just not fair to the children, AND it's morally reprehensible.
Because it is sooo fair to the kids to deny them a permanent home and shuttle them like luggage from foster home to foster home. Please...stop acting as though you give a damn about what is fair.

Christians who favor gay adoption -- I challenge you to go to church and explain to your fellow paritioners why you feel the way you do.
I promise you that there are a number of clergymen who would agree with me, if they were allowed to speak frankly and off the record.

[Air Langhi]

How about we make this rule up:

If a black man chooses to marry a white woman, then that couple can not adopt white kids. I mean the black man had the audacity to marry a white woman.

[TheMountainTop]

Truth be told i don't think all gay couples are trying to adopt an orphan.

Now if the population of the United States had a good percentage of gay couples then my view might be different.

I am just against gay couples raising a child. I am not saying that gay couples would not take care of the child. Its just that I dont think its ok for a kid to grow up thinking homosexuality is a valid choice.

When it comes to dealing with homosexuals on a day to day basis its all business and nothing hostile on my part. I am not a bigot though many of you may accuse me so because of my stance against homosexual couples adopting kids.

I bet there are other members on the board who think the same way but just may not have commented.

Although I will admit that I have no clue to as what an orphan or foster child experiences.

[DonnyMost]

Its just that I dont think its ok for a kid to grow up thinking homosexuality is a valid choice.

So what kind of choice to want kids thinking it is?

When it comes to dealing with homosexuals.

This is an awesome way to put it.

I know I have a hell of a time dealing with minorities, but I keep it strictly business, too!

[dumbartonbass]

I notice he ran away when Leviticus was brought up.

Is that typical with him?

If not, can he sell me his daughter so that she can work on my yard? Crabgrass is going nuts outside, and I just don't have the time.

Well, it depends; is her newborn a male or female? If you got two girls on your hands, just embrace the outdoor calamity.

[giddyup]

I am not a bigot though many of you may accuse me so because of my stance against homosexual couples adopting kids.

How is it not bigoted to limit someone's life choices based on a characteristic of their person?

[FranchiseBlade]

I'm against Gay Adoption!

No two men and no two women should be able to adopt kids!

Parenthood is something that is between two responsible adults of the opposite gender.

And yes we should let an orphan be an orphan when it comes to a gay couple trying to adopt them.
That's an opinion and not based on any study of what is best for the child right?

[TheMountainTop]

Like I said I do not hate gay people but I think being gay is something that I do not support. I dont think people are born gay but it is something that is a result of neglect on someones part.

I have worked with gay people and even hung out with gay people and on a personal level they were decent people. That being said, in the back of my mind, I always thought that these people had some sort of psychological problem that was caused by some sort of neglect.

I classify someone being a bigot as someone who goes around picking fights with gays and calling them obscene derogatory names. I dont do this and I respect their rights until it comes to adopting young kids.

Now why is it that this concerns me so much. Well honestly it doesnt concern me at the moment because I am still young and dont have any kids of my own but one day in the future I plan to have a family and when I do, I dont want my son or daughter thinking homosexuality is a valid direction to follow.

As you all can derive from my reasoning that my judgment is coming from my religious views.

I think homosexuality is caused from lack of self esteem from which may be caused by failed past relationships or lack there of.

It may be caused also by a myriad of circumstances.

[Franchise2001]

Like I said I do not hate gay people but I think being gay is something that I do not support. I dont think people are born gay but it is something that is a result of neglect on someones part.

I have worked with gay people and even hung out with gay people and on a personal level they were decent people. That being said, in the back of my mind, I always thought that these people had some sort of psychological problem that was caused by some sort of neglect.

I classify someone being a bigot as someone who goes around picking fights with gays and calling them obscene derogatory names. I dont do this and I respect their rights until it comes to adopting young kids.

Now why is it that this concerns me so much. Well honestly it doesnt concern me at the moment because I am still young and dont have any kids of my own but one day in the future I plan to have a family and when I do, I dont want my son or daughter thinking homosexuality is a valid direction to follow.

As you all can derive from my reasoning that my judgment is coming from my religious views.

I think homosexuality is caused from lack of self esteem from which may be caused by failed past relationships or lack there of.

It may be caused also by a myriad of circumstances.

1989 called and wants its thought process back.

[mc mark]

1989 called and wants its thought process back.


1989?

It may be caused also by a myriad of circumstances.

Like maybe, oh I don't know...physiology

[rhadamanthus]

Like I said I do not hate gay people but I think being gay is something that I do not support. I dont think people are born gay but it is something that is a result of neglect on someones part.

I have worked with gay people and even hung out with gay people and on a personal level they were decent people. That being said, in the back of my mind, I always thought that these people had some sort of psychological problem that was caused by some sort of neglect.

I classify someone being a bigot as someone who goes around picking fights with gays and calling them obscene derogatory names. I dont do this and I respect their rights until it comes to adopting young kids.

Now why is it that this concerns me so much. Well honestly it doesnt concern me at the moment because I am still young and dont have any kids of my own but one day in the future I plan to have a family and when I do, I dont want my son or daughter thinking homosexuality is a valid direction to follow.

As you all can derive from my reasoning that my judgment is coming from my religious views.

I think homosexuality is caused from lack of self esteem from which may be caused by failed past relationships or lack there of.

It may be caused also by a myriad of circumstances.

I don't think there is a "rolleyes" big enough for this silliness.

[Mr. Brightside]

Has anyone seen that recent 30 Days episode about gay adoption? Its really good and shows both sides of the debate. Its worth watching and seeing how gay parents actually are and treat their children instead of relying on some preconceived stereotypes about the gays.

[Phillyrocket]

Like I said I do not hate gay people but I think being gay is something that I do not support. I dont think people are born gay but it is something that is a result of neglect on someones part.

I have worked with gay people and even hung out with gay people and on a personal level they were decent people. That being said, in the back of my mind, I always thought that these people had some sort of psychological problem that was caused by some sort of neglect.

I classify someone being a bigot as someone who goes around picking fights with gays and calling them obscene derogatory names. I dont do this and I respect their rights until it comes to adopting young kids.

Now why is it that this concerns me so much. Well honestly it doesnt concern me at the moment because I am still young and dont have any kids of my own but one day in the future I plan to have a family and when I do, I dont want my son or daughter thinking homosexuality is a valid direction to follow.

As you all can derive from my reasoning that my judgment is coming from my religious views.

I think homosexuality is caused from lack of self esteem from which may be caused by failed past relationships or lack there of.

It may be caused also by a myriad of circumstances.

:eek: :rolleyes:

Tell me you are still an adolescent who has yet to be exposed to higher education? You really think someone becomes gay because of neglect? I have worked around many nabused and neglected adults and children. Now some become sexual predators because of former sexual abuse but it doesn't make a consistent transition from a boys get abused and neglected boy is now gay.

I have had many gay friends and have discussed this at length. If you want to consider it homosexuality a lifestyle choice then by all means do so. However then you must concede that your heterosexual lifestyle is also a choice. You could date a man if you so chose however you would not do so because you are not attracted to men. So it is for gays, they could date a woman but they are not attracted to them. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

[brantonli24]

To be honest, I think we should just let the orphans decide for themselves if they want gay parents or stay in an orphanage.

[leroy420]

What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in. The pro-gay parents faction has presented a totally false choice: "An endless cycle of foster care versus Gay Adoption". That is not the choice. Sending an unsuspecting child with no choice to grow up and learn from members of society who have willfully chosen to live a deviant lifestyle is repugnant. This is not the only alternative to foster care. You could improve foster care facilities and methods. You could promote adoption among two-parent, heterosexual couples. You could promote birth control, sex-ed, etc. There are so many better choices than gays adopting children.

Again, when you choose to live an openly gay lifestyle, you must understand that you forego things best left to heterosexuals. Marriage and raising kids is part of that equation. You can't have it both ways -- it's just not fair to the children, AND it's morally reprehensible.

Christians who favor gay adoption -- I challenge you to go to church and explain to your fellow paritioners why you feel the way you do. You can not justify this without sacrificing your beliefs, and there is no disputing that.


Your hatred knows no bounds. You make me sick.

I have very close friends who are gay and are raising 2 children in which they adopted. They are fantastic parents raising fantastic children. They do very well in school and are very well adjusted. They give money and their time to charities. They even play sports. There is no f***ing way you can tell me that these kids were better off not being adopted by this couple.

[pmac]

:eek: :rolleyes:

Tell me you are still an adolescent who has yet to be exposed to higher education? You really think someone becomes gay because of neglect? I have worked around many nabused and neglected adults and children. Now some become sexual predators because of former sexual abuse but it doesn't make a consistent transition from a boys get abused and neglected boy is now gay.

I have had many gay friends and have discussed this at length. If you want to consider it homosexuality a lifestyle choice then by all means do so. However then you must concede that your heterosexual lifestyle is also a choice. You could date a man if you so chose however you would not do so because you are not attracted to men. So it is for gays, they could date a woman but they are not attracted to them. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

I don't know if i can believe that about gay people. I've seen first hand people who say they used to be straight. I've seen people who bounce back and forth between sexuality. It makes it terribly hard to tell. But, it would be very ignorant to say that a homosexual couple raising children is worse than the system or no one. However, i don't see how anyone can contend against man/woman parent combination being ideal. There is a range of emotion, thought, and values that differs between genders.

[KingCheetah]

I would support a lesbian couple adopting a male child if and only if they had him wear Jovan Musk everyday.

[rhadamanthus]

I don't know if i can believe that about gay people. I've seen first hand people who say they used to be straight. I've seen people who bounce back and forth between sexuality. It makes it terribly hard to tell.

I don't understand why it matters.

[MadMax]

Jesus, there are some scary, ignorant twits in this thread.

Jesus wanted me to let you know he agrees..and thanks you for thinking of him.


;)

[pmac]

I don't understand why it matters.

I agree whole heartedly with that statement. Which is why i can't understand why there is such a debate on the matter. It might matter if i'm raising my children and i want them to be grow to be men and women regardless of who they choose to have sex with. I was just commenting on what the previous said. It actually has zero bearing on whether or not they should take care of orphans IMO.

[K LoLo]

Who cares? Its not as if McCain is going to have a say in this anyway. States decide, and all McCain can do is talk about it.

[BigBenito]

Who cares? Its not as if McCain is going to have a say in this anyway. States decide, and all McCain can do is talk about it.
Except he won't even do that.

[gwatson86]

What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in.

The children I feel sorriest for are any that have to grow up with you. Talk about really growing up with twisted beliefs.

[Groogrux]

I know it's not conclusive one way or another as to whether or not one is born gay, but as one of my professors in college stated, "with all the prejudice in the world against homosexuals, why would some kid in podunk Texas 'choose' to be gay"?

[bucket]

So, after three pages, let's see what the experts think!

http://www.psych.org/Departments/OCPA/Newsroom/2002NewsReleases/adoption_coparenting121802.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees and Assembly in November approved a position statement on Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same-Sex Couples. The statement was drafted and proposed by the APA’s Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and
Bisexual Issues and supported by APA’s Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

The position statement says, “The APA supports initiatives, which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children, and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities, which arise from such initiatives.”

Research over the past 30 years has consistently demonstrated that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children raised
by heterosexual parents. The research also indicates that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing
adults.

This is the first resolution approved by the APA surrounding the issues of gay co-parenting but is consistent with earlier APA positions, such as the 2000 position statement supporting the legal recognition of same sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities. The
APA supports legislation that strengthens family ties.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, and the American Association of Family Physicians have all adopted similar positions.

[Lil Pun]

I am just against gay couples raising a child. I am not saying that gay couples would not take care of the child. Its just that I dont think its ok for a kid to grow up thinking homosexuality is a valid choice.


What about those kids who are gay but grew up in a heterosexual household, which most gay people did grow up with?

[Groogrux]

So, after three pages, let's see what the experts think!

http://www.psych.org/Departments/OCPA/Newsroom/2002NewsReleases/adoption_coparenting121802.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees and Assembly in November approved a position statement on Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same-Sex Couples. The statement was drafted and proposed by the APA’s Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and
Bisexual Issues and supported by APA’s Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

The position statement says, “The APA supports initiatives, which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children, and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities, which arise from such initiatives.”

Research over the past 30 years has consistently demonstrated that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children raised
by heterosexual parents. The research also indicates that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing
adults.

This is the first resolution approved by the APA surrounding the issues of gay co-parenting but is consistent with earlier APA positions, such as the 2000 position statement supporting the legal recognition of same sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities. The
APA supports legislation that strengthens family ties.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, and the American Association of Family Physicians have all adopted similar positions.

Elitists.

[bucket]

Elitists.

Sadly, I couldn't find an equivalent statement on the teamsters' website.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

To be honest, I think we should just let the orphans decide for themselves if they want gay parents or stay in an orphanage.

I actually think this is a wise choice.

I am not so sure what the consequences are of a heterosexual child being adopted by a gay couple when neither is a birth parent. Has any studies been done? I am all for gay rights, but I am also for putting the kid first. And we need to make sure there aren't any kind of issues first.

I think it's wiser for a kid to have a choice. I bet they would choose gay parents over an orphanage anyway, but they should be able to decide.

[pgabriel]

I actually think this is a wise choice.

I am not so sure what the consequences are of a heterosexual child being adopted by a gay couple when neither is a birth parent. Has any studies been done? I am all for gay rights, but I am also for putting the kid first. And we need to make sure there aren't any kind of issues first.

I think it's wiser for a kid to have a choice. I bet they would choose gay parents over an orphanage anyway, but they should be able to decide.

be careful, I tried to say this but was lambasted for gay hating. but I was also blasted for saying i didn't like gay guys hitting on me after relaying I'm not gay to them. people tend to take gay rights to an extreme on this site.

but also, i was persuaded that the just having a stable environment is so much better than in and out of the foster system is a much better situation no matter who the parents are.

also, someone just posted a study a few posts up.

[bnb]

Regardless of your opinion on the issue...that was one sorry-ass attempt at dodging a question. A seasoned politician like McCain should do better then that! They may need to put in a mercy rule at the debates to keep them interesting.

[mc mark]

They may need to put in a mercy rule at the debates to keep them interesting.

tru dat!

What's he gonna say? "I'm not comfortable answering that question."

[basso]

Regardless of your opinion on the issue...that was one sorry-ass attempt at dodging a question. A seasoned politician like McCain should do better then that! They may need to put in a mercy rule at the debates to keep them interesting.

unfortunately Obama's position is no more coherent, nor defensible.

[dumbartonbass]

unfortunately Obama's position is no more coherent, nor defensible.

Sadly, your Obama fixation threatens to derail another thread.

[pgabriel]

unfortunately Obama's position is no more coherent, nor defensible.


you're so full of crap, just deal with the fact you support the anti gay party.

obama on gay rights (http://gaylife.about.com/od/politics/p/barackobama.htm)

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage. According to Obama's campaign fact sheet on LGBT issues, he supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed by a vote of 49-48.“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir,

[Major]

unfortunately Obama's position is no more coherent, nor defensible.

If you believe that, perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension?

http://www.proudparenting.com/node/1321

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.

[twhy77]

I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir, [/i]

Can you try to play both sides of an issue any hokier than this?


I believe in one thing, but I'm fully open to change my position when needed... :D

[pgabriel]

Can you try to play both sides of an issue any hokier than this?


I believe in one thing, but I'm fully open to change my position when needed... :D


he did vote against the amendment to ban same sex marriages.

[twhy77]

he did vote against the amendment to ban same sex marriages.

I just thought the sentence was funny. I agree to be open to in the future maybe being shown I'm wrong...

[pgabriel]

I just thought the sentence was funny. I agree to be open to in the future maybe being shown I'm wrong...


I understand, but I think he may be pandering to the black church on this issue as far as his beliefs are concerned, or he may just truly not want to let his personal feelings get in the way of someone's civil rights.

[twhy77]

I understand, but I think he may be pandering to the black church on this issue as far as his beliefs are concerned, or he may just truly not want to let his personal feelings get in the way of someone's civil rights.


Exactly. It's not exactly a clear declaration on the subject. It's just hard to be a politician and take stands for everything you believe in. There's just too much comprimising of beliefs that happen. It's why I'd never want to do it.

[durvasa]

obama on gay rights (http://gaylife.about.com/od/politics/p/barackobama.htm)

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage. According to Obama's campaign fact sheet on LGBT issues, he supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed by a vote of 49-48.“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir,

I frankly don't understand that position. If Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but supports "civil unions" which in every legal way means the same thing as marriage -- what exactly does it mean for him to say he opposes same-sex "marriage"? He just doesn't want the state to use that word in reference to gay people?

Isn't that a classic case of "separate but equal"? I'll go one step further. I oppose "marriage" for all couples, but I support "civil union" between straight or gay couples. If a particular couple wants to say they're "married" and they want to have a wedding, that's their business.

[pgabriel]

I frankly don't understand that position. If Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but supports "civil unions" which in every legal way means the same thing as marriage -- what exactly does it mean for him to say he opposes same-sex "marriage"? He just doesn't want the state to use that word in reference to gay people?

Isn't that a classic case of "separate but equal"? I'll go one step further. I oppose "marriage" for all couples, but I support "civil union" between straight or gay couples. If a particular couple wants to say they're "married" and they want to have a wedding, that's their business.

I maybe wrong, but "marriage? may be a specific to religion. again, obama may have been against "same sex marriage" but he didn't vote for a ban on it.

[twhy77]

I maybe wrong, but "marriage? may be a specific to religion. again, obama may have been against "same sex marriage" but he didn't vote for a ban on it.


It's one of the most intellectual dishonest statements he's made. I'm pro civil union, in favor of gays having rights, but not marriage, and I might be open to being shown I'm wrong in the future.

It's about as pro gay marriage as you can be without saying you are gay marriage....that's where the wishy washiness comes in. I'm sure once poll numbers change he'll be able to show how he is pro gay marriage. I'd be more interested in him actually giving reasons why he is against it now so that we can see why he is deciding to change his position once he becomes open to seeing how he was misguided...

[pgabriel]

It's one of the most intellectual dishonest statements he's made. I'm pro civil union, in favor of gays having rights, but not marriage, and I might be open to being shown I'm wrong in the future.



if its a religion issue, it makes a lot more sense to me.

[Apollo Creed]

Isn't that a classic case of "separate but equal"? I'll go one step further. I oppose "marriage" for all couples, but I support "civil union" between straight or gay couples. If a particular couple wants to say they're "married" and they want to have a wedding, that's their business.

This describes exactly how I feel. Why the hell should the government be sticking it's nose in religious ceremonies? Keep it between the man, the woman, and God. Keep Uncle Sam out of the church and one day some people might be able to look at religion without it being political.

[Batman Jones]

twhy:

I think you're right that Obama's as pro-gay marriage/gay rights as one can be without explicitly endorsing gay marriage. Maybe his reason for not doing so is that he is conflicted in his own personal beliefs (believing both in equal treatment under the law but also having been a Christian in a black church for his entire adult life) and maybe it's political expediency. It would not surprise me to learn that he was fudging this some in order that the election not once again revolve around divisive cultural issues when we have so many other important issues to consider. And it wouldn't disappoint me.

As an unequivocal supporter of gay rights I'm very comfortable with Obama as president. As a fairly vigorous opponent of equal rights for gays (I think I'm remembering your position right), you should be comfortable with McCain too.

If gay rights are important to voters in this cycle, in either direction, they shouldn't have any trouble deciding who to vote for.

[twhy77]

twhy:

Maybe his reason for not doing so is that he is conflicted in his own personal beliefs (believing both in equal treatment under the law but also having been a Christian in a black church for his entire adult life) and maybe it's political expediency. It would not surprise me to learn that he was fudging this some in order that the election not once again revolve around divisive cultural issues when we have so many other important issues to consider. And it wouldn't disappoint me.


Maybe. Or Maybe not. Heck there's no way to tell. Let's just cut the act that he's different than every other politician. He has to be mealy mouthed and rely on slight of hand to appease the right people to get elected. I just find his statements on the issue silly. If you are pro gay rights and gay marriage then say so damnit! If not, don't issue that statement because you know its an unpopular decision.

[pgabriel]

Maybe. Or Maybe not. Heck there's no way to tell. Let's just cut the act that he's different than every other politician. He has to be mealy mouthed and rely on slight of hand to appease the right people to get elected. I just find his statements on the issue silly. If you are pro gay rights and gay marriage then say so damnit! If not, don't issue that statement because you know its an unpopular decision.


or maybe he's a mature enough person to not let his religious beliefs impede on someone else.

why do you have to be pro gay to not oppose a ban on gay marriage. this is obviously just an issue about religion, because if he was really against the gay lifestyle he would probably be "mealy mouthed" on gay adoption. I'm sure people who are anti gay will make a bigger stink about kids getting adopted than two adults getting married.

[Major]

I frankly don't understand that position. If Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but supports "civil unions" which in every legal way means the same thing as marriage -- what exactly does it mean for him to say he opposes same-sex "marriage"? He just doesn't want the state to use that word in reference to gay people?

What you have to remember about Obama - and this isn't a good or bad thing - is that he's an incrementalist for the most part. You saw that with FISA, for example. He prefers middle ground solutions that progress an issue rather than making ideological stands, which may result in much bigger change or may result in no change at all.

Looked at from that perspective, this fits his mold. You make a lot more actual progress on this issue by fighting for civil unions than by fighting for gay marriage. Once you have civil unions, jumping to gay marriage is a much smaller leap. Certainly, it's not as complete or as immediate a change as some people may like, but it's progress in a lot of ways, so he's going to pick that route. This approach is what is going to piss off some progressives if he gets elected, and also makes the "he's far-left" a laughable argument. For moderates, it's a good thing; for liberals, it won't be, especially given that he will have a strongly Democratic congress where he could push through some of the more strongly left agenda - but I suspect he's not going to go that route.

[Apollo Creed]

I'm not too worried about TJs ignorance; People who think like him and all of his "values" will be washed away in a couple generations. What worries me is how incoherent McCain came off in that interview...forget his non-existent views, I'm not even sure if he knew where he was or what he was being asked. No wonder he is being kept from the media...

People seem to like the "idea" of John McCain but the more exposure he gets, the worse he looks. I'm not surprised he came back and took the nomination after being left for dead...once everyone stopped paying attention he looked pretty good again...

[twhy77]

or maybe he's a mature enough person to not let his religious beliefs impede on someone else.

why do you have to be pro gay to not oppose a ban on gay marriage. this is obviously just an issue about religion, because if he was really against the gay lifestyle he would probably be "mealy mouthed" on gay adoption. I'm sure people who are anti gay will make a bigger stink about kids getting adopted than two adults getting married.

If he's not imposing his beliefs on other people, why would he say he's against gay marriage? There's a logical disconnect there, and his reasons are absent.

I think there is more support for gay adoption than gay marriage. Some states like Massachutses threaten to take your funding away if you don't allow gay adoption from your orginization, like Catholic Charities being forced to find gay couples for adoption.

[bnb]

Obama's wrong on gay marriage. Simply wrong. (IMO!). Bush was OK with civil unions too....(although he deferred it to the states)...was he incremental?

Obama's still the better candidate.....but if you think gay marriage is OK, then please don't defend Obama's stance here. Supporting civil unions is not that new. I don't know McCains position -- he probably doesn't either -- but if it's similar to Bush's then expect a vehement opposition to gay marriage, with a quiet acceptance of civil unions. Obama would instead speak out strongly in favour of civil unions, with a quiet denial of gay marriage.

[pgabriel]

Obama's still the better candidate.....but if you think gay marriage is OK, then please don't defend Obama's stance here.


see, this is what i mean by some people taking gay rights to far. why does he have to like the idea, if he is not willing to stand in front of it or impede it?

[rhadamanthus]

If he's not imposing his beliefs on other people, why would he say he's against gay marriage? There's a logical disconnect there, and his reasons are absent.

If Obama was imposing his beliefs, he would have voted "yes" to the federal marriage amendment.

He is stating his beliefs. Although Obama does not say it, I'd wager the "logical disconnect" is a fallout of a belief in seperation of church and state.

I'd find it perfectly reasonable for someone to tell me "I'm against gay marriage but it's no business of the government". If marriage is spiritual, any church can decide who to marry - the state won't care because it's a church issue. If marriage is civil - than the state should not care who they marry because they should not discriminate.

My humble opinion.

[Pipe]

Obama's wishy washy statement may just be typical political posturing, but maybe not.

My feelings and opinions about gay rights have changed quite a bit since I was a young man (I am now 49 :eek: ). While I have mixed emotions about gay adoptions, I am not willing to draw any lines in the sand. It is presumptuous to assume that I might not change my mind some more in the future. An open mind is (usually) a good thing.

[twhy77]

If Obama was imposing his beliefs, he would have voted "yes" to the federal marriage amendment.

He is stating his beliefs. Although Obama does not say it, I'd wager the "logical disconnect" is a fallout of a belief in seperation of church and state.

I'd find it perfectly reasonable for someone to tell me "I'm against gay marriage but it's no business of the government". If marriage is spiritual, any church can decide who to marry - the state won't care because it's a church issue. If marriage is civil - than the state should not care who they marry because they should not discriminate.

My humble opinion.

That's a perfectly acceptable stance. But as you say, he doesn't say that. I'm wagering he is pro gay marraige, just doesn't want to say it, doesn't want to give reasoning that can't be overturned by new guidance or easily changed in a few years. If he gives reasoning, then he has to undo that reasoning. The only policitician I've seen do that on moral issues was Romney when he gave his explination for why he was now pro life.

[rhadamanthus]

That's a perfectly acceptable stance. But as you say, he doesn't say that. I'm wagering he is pro gay marraige, just doesn't want to say it, doesn't want to give reasoning that can't be overturned by new guidance or easily changed in a few years. If he gives reasoning, then he has to undo that reasoning. The only policitician I've seen do that on moral issues was Romney when he gave his explination for why he was now pro life.

I'm definitely in agreement with you that it's quite pathetic of Obama to not just "come out" (haha) with a stance.

I don't know when it became "un-american" or whatever to not pander to religious/bigotted weirdos.

[bnb]

see, this is what i mean by some people taking gay rights to far. why does he have to like the idea, if he is not willing to stand in front of it or impede it?

I'm not sure what you mean PG?

Obama doesn't have to be in favour of gay marriage. Lots of people aren't. I would expect that those of us who are would express disappointment in Obama's position -- especially those who've previously expressed outrage at the positions of other politicians who've held the same opinion.

I can be disappointed, or outraged or whatever at his (wide) stance on this issue and still think he's a tremendous candidate.

[radapharoah]

history will call you ignorant.
QFT but in the mean time many more will suffer because of Dumbasses like him.

[bnb]

I'm definitely in agreement with you that it's quite pathetic of Obama to not just "come out" (haha) with a stance.

.

From PG's quoting of Obama's website:

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage

I'd say he has come out with a stance. And you can be against something but still think the constitutional ammendment was hokey.