You're right, people do get turned down to adopt for all kinds of reasons. Should a racially mixed couple be denied the opportunity to adopt, because some people might tease the kid?
first of all, all the black analogies are patronizing at best. blacks and gays fight many different prejudices. i really wish you would lay off. secondly, i'm glad you're rooting for me.
I don't really want to argue with you, because I already know you to be rather thickheaded, but the above is (unintentionally, no doubt) some of the funniest "logic" I've ever seen. It is, shall we say, brilliant. I might be, but that does not mean that Sura isn't one. EDIT: you are really wasting your time, BJ.
Thanks. I thought it was good too. By the way, what percent of American society did blacks represent during the civil rights movement? Were they fully accepted then? You're right, pgabriel! That was a brilliant analogy! And in this case you are saying that gays should be turned down for the reason that kids will make fun of them. Too bad you weren't a white man in the 60s. You would have made a great advocate for segregation and a great opponent of interracial marriage, since your argument is identical to the ones used by those people then.
uh no, since you know so much about black history, why don't you go look up the legal reasons used to ban interracial marriage. i believe they are mostly christian. so again, lay off the black anaolaogies, they are patronizing at best, ill-informed at worst.
not really. It's analogous to our last argument. So much so, in fact, that I find this exchange between you and Batman just awesome, inasmuch as BJ is a much better writer than I am. Carry on, o fearless defender of the black analogy!
I never said I was talking about the legal reasons -- I'm not aware that the stigma you're worried about is the legal reason people argue against gay adoption either. I'm sorry you're offended, pgabriel. But I will never lay off the black analogies as they are at the heart of my thinking on this subject. Back in elementary school, when I first learned about slavery and the general persecution of blacks I was amazed and horrified at what crimes had been committed by our society. And I resolved at that early age I would look for similar discrimination in our contemporary society. I found it in attitudes toward gays though it took me a long time to recognize it, as it is taking you a long time as well. And I continue to find it and to find meaningful and blatant - sometimes even identical parallels - in those two struggles. Your concern for the stigma faced by kids of gay couples is one of those identical parallels. Your words are a direct match for my grandmother's. You are using the EXACT same argument. Asking me not to point that out is ludicrous.
they're the only ones that matter, with all due respect, your grandmother's opinion doesn't coutn so now you are arguing that slavery=not letting gay couples adopt. more brilliance, that's so offensive all i can do is laugh at your insanity in trying to continue the equating. what you don't understand for the umpteenth time is the concern isn't gays, its the kids.
Legal opinions are not the only opinions that count as they are a direct result of societal opinions. Like yours. You, like my grandmother, feel that a certain class of people shouldn't be allowed to raise children with the people they love because those children will endure teasing. You, like my grandmother, represent a very large group of people. And you, like my grandmother, are perpetuating stereotypes that are outdated and dangerous. I don't "equate" slavery with anything. But I imagine that when the various horrible manifestations of discrimination against blacks were occurring at their most horrible levels, there were plenty of people who found nothing wrong with that. And that was reflected in the law. That blew my freaking mind as a kid. And for more than a year after learning it I was mad at all white adults for not being more outraged. I thought, how could that have happened? How could people have thought that was okay? And then I thought, what are we doing now that we believe is fine but is actually repugnant? It's not a matter of direct matches. That's not what analogies are. (A thing you seem to have a remarkably difficult time understanding.) And, with that, you have officially worn me out. I'll be back if you have anything new.
What does your belief about it being the same stigma have to do with the effect teasing will have on the kid? Do you think the kid is going to make a distinction between being teased because his parents are fags, or because him mom is a n_gger lover.
this is getting silly. having gay parents has issues that go waaaaayyyy beyond teasing, you're trying to boil it down to this to make your argument. and that's fine, that's what you should do. but its beyond that.
race and sexuality are two totally separate issues. a better analogy is would you allow a swinging couple to adopt?
Interracial marriage and gay marriage are two very similar issues in certain ways. They both revolve around a struggle to be allowed to love the person you love, free from discrimination regardless of segments (or even a majority) of society believing that love is "unnatural." And, sorry in advance for the snark, but please don't presume to know what constitutes a good or better analogy. You have demonstrated fairly clearly that you don't fully understand the word.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/baycVMsqVNQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/baycVMsqVNQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
for the fifitieth gazzilion time, the issue isn't allowing people to marry. its allowing them to adopt.
Right, okay. Remind me too how it's about the kids who will be stigmatized by other kids (who by and large are not freaked out by gays) and not by totally reasonable people like you (who by and large are).
