Your the one who cited the stigma a kid will face as a reason to deny gay couples the opportunity to adopt. I was addressing your arguement. Now you're saying it goes waaaaaaayyy beyond that, but don't say how. I can't really address an arguement you don't make. But back to the real issue- kids well being. Right now there are way more kids in need of stable families than there are families willing to adopt. This means you have a large # of kids living in less than permanent situations with foster families and group homes. I GUARANTEE you that these kids would be better off being adopted by a gay couple, that were loving, stable parents, than living in the uncertainty of the foster care system.
Weird that you would make that distinction. Your habit of calling any argument you don't have an answer for a "non issue" is also weird. Okay. So you wouldn't have a problem with it if it was a black kid, since he would be stigmatized already (geez, pgab, that kid already has two strikes against him - why give him a third?). Would you have a problem with a black/white couple adopting a white kid in 1955?
You are the only person I've ever heard suggest that a kid would be doing gay parents a favor by being adopted by them. If you were truly concerned about the benefit of the kids you would favor finding them a loving home, regardless of your opinion of the parents' choice of life partners, well over your concern that they might get teased.
he doesn't have two strikes against him. he's black, are white kids gonna ridicule him because he has white parents? that's stupid. they're going to ridicule him because he's black, that's it. its a non issue. a black couple wouldn't be allowed to adopt a white kid, so that's a non issue, then or now. a mixed couple probably wouldn't either. i answered your question, now you have a problem with the answer, geez.
maybe, maybe no, but at least you're addressing the issue i have. instead this stupid ass argument about interracial marriage. thank you seriously
I meant black (strike one) and adopted (strike two). But how would black kids feel about him being adopted by whites?
I thought being adopted was a benefit to the child. I was unaware that gay people were using these kids as a weapon against hate. Trust the gays to screw up a wonderful thing like adoption. I recommend we nip this in the bud and forbid anyone who is persecuted from adopting - after all, the kid should only be in non-persecutable arenas, like foster care.
The argument was about the children of interracial marriage. But I will be careful in the future to remember that you have a very difficult time with the concept of analogy and only understand those ones that compare, say, one golden delicious apple picked by Mr. C.W. Jones from this tree in his back yard but not that one to another golden delicious apple picked by Mr. C.W. Jones from this tree in his back yard but not that one. Of course, those wouldn't be analogies, but I get now that you have your own definition of the word. So, in 1955, you might oppose a bi-racial couple adopting a white kid (though not a black one, since he's screwed already). How about in 1965? (Warning: this might take a while.)
you took that totally out of context. batman argues that adoption can help fight against gay prejudice. I say that isn't kids' responsibility.
pgab, are you a ninny, do people pick on you, do you stand there and take it? if you are scarred from verbal abuse in your childhood, i'm sorry about that. i hope you can come to terms with it one day.
oh my god, what don't you understand, a bi racial couple can't adopt a white kid. its a non issue. a white couple can adopt a black kid, i have no problem with it. i answered your question. move on to the next subject.
This is so simple, yet so true. It's ironic that most of the things we adults are so hung up on kids finding out about are things that most kids couldn't give a frog's fat ass about. They just want to run around and eat cake and ice cream.
I don't think batman is making that argument per say. I think being adopted is better than being in foster care hell. You disagree, if the couple in question is gay, because then the child may have to deal with bigotted r****ds. I think that's lunacy.
No I don't. I argue that gays, should they pass the screen that anyone else would, should be allowed to adopt because it's in the kids' interest to be placed in a loving home. And I argue that opposing it based on their gayness is bigotry.
Oh man, you're not just hamstrung by analogies (a simple concept, I'd thought) but also by hypotheticals. Let me try again: IF the question were to arise in 1965, would you be in favor of allowing a biracial couple to adopt a white kid or would you (maybe) oppose it like you maybe would have in 1955? What about 75? 85? 2005?
i'm thinking of the kids. but why do i have to have a "problem" because i think differently on the issue. if you feel that way i already no what your problem is, you're an ******* who can't accept a different opinion.
