So now your argument is that one is unavoidable. Okay. I've never tried to assert that two inherently different things were exactly the same. My entire point is that it is wrong to let even serious consideration of the stigma a child of gay parents will experience result in opposition to gay adoption because the stigma is wrong. I employed the example of bi-racial kids because they also experienced a wrong stigma and I believe in those cases too that that stigma must not win out. This is pretty played out at this point. But it was impossible for me not to respond to your original post about the stigma the child would face as it was my grandmother's (and many other people's) EXACT reason for opposing mixed marriages.
Personally, I don't see any problem with having her go to the birthday party. I really don't think there are going to be a bunch of drag queens molesting children there or anything like that, so I don't know what harm could possibly come to your daughter. It sounds like it's just going to be a normal kids birthday party. But she's your daughter and you have the right to raise her any way you see fit. I don't begrudge anyone's method of raising their children unless it's illegal or immoral. I respect that you even started this thread, because it's obvious that you just want what's best for your daughter.
you still don't get it. there is no civil right to have adopt kids. the issue is the kids. i understand that gay people want to adopt, but the main concern is the kids. and that's what you don't get. i don't care if gays have kids are not, i do care about adopted kids. they have enough going on in their lives.
seriously, he doesn't get it. the issue is the kid's welfare. period. in gay/interracial marriage, the issue happiness of the couple. see the difference.
You still don't get it. When choices are made on behalf of children due to what bigots might do, the bigots win. Period. And the only way that bigotry changes over time is that people refuse to accept it. And besides that, you are completely overstating the problem of the stigma by projecting your experience as a child on the children of today. They are far less bigoted or creeped out by homosexuality than kids were when we were young. And we're talking about a 2 year old. High school kids today are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. When today's elementary school kids get to high school those numbers will rise. When this 2 year old gets old enough to experience the stigma you predict he will face, the stigma will have faded further. WS&C's discomfort with homosexuality (and apparently yours too to whatever degree) is not consistent with kids today. They are far more enlightened as a group than our generation is. And they become more enlightened and accepting of difference all the time.
why should we put a kid in a home that may make their life miserable to overcome the bigotry against gays? so now we have to sacrifice kids for gay rights. that's exactly what i wanted you to say, because that's the point i'm making. people take gay rights too far.
I don't think I am capable of judging if a kid's welfare is negatively impacted simply based on the parent's sexuality. It might be, but I'd wager that's less to do with sexuality as it is parenting and regardless, it's something I'd have to gauge from more than simple "gayness".
The kid's welfare has a lot more to do with being raised in a loving family than what some other kid might say to him. By your standard, adults with gigantic noses should be concerned about procreating because they will likely produce offspring that will be teased for having a big nose. Same goes for dwarves. Or ugly people. I can't help but conclude that you single out the teasing the child of a gay adoption might face at the exclusion of all other teasing because you're uncomfortable with gay people.
Trader is a racist, bigoted, xenophobic homophobe. You think he gets it because, in this case, his bigotry is not far out of line with your own.
My grandmother would have told you the EXACT same thing about blacks and whites mixing and she would have (and did) say, "I'm not prejudiced, but people take rights for blacks too far." Asserting that bigotry against blacks is wrong while defending a black man's right to procreate with the person he loves is not sacrificing the kid for "black rights." You will continue to set gays apart from all other unfairly persecuted classes because, in the end, you don't have a big problem with them being persecuted.
yes, being raised by ugly parents is the same is being raised by parents that represent only ten percent of society that isn't fully accepted. brilliant analogy. again, people get turned down for adoption for all kinds of reasons. its not a right.
my point ----------------- your head not being able to adpot isn't persecution. the point i'm making is you're not taking a kid away from someone, that would be persecution.
I don't assert that gays have (or that anyone has) the right to adopt willy nilly. I assert that they have the right not to be discriminated against or judged by a different standard due to their gayness. I would assert that that is a "civil" right or a "natural" right, though it is not yet a legal right in most cases (just as civil and natural rights were once not enshrined in law for blacks... hmmm...). Attitudes are changing and I'm grateful for that. (I'll never forget my best friend in elementary school - a black kid - telling me the Green Bay Packers didn't have a chance because they started a black quarterback and he felt blacks weren't smart enough to be quarterbacks.) But they don't change overnight. You're a reasonable guy, pgabriel, and you'll get there eventually though I obviously won't be the one to change your mind. In any case, I'm rooting for you.
