Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 10, 2010
Homo It's All About What's Best for the Children, People, Please Think of the Children!
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM
When an adult or a couple adopts a child out of foster care in the state of Florida—which by definition means the couple is adopting a "special needs" child, a hard-to-place child, a child that wound up in the foster care due to abuse and neglect and, consequently, a child that is likely to have attachment issues and other disabilities—the state provides certain benefits for the child after placement. Most significantly health insurance, which may otherwise be very hard to obtain, along with college tuition credits and some other benefits. This helps make foster children easier to place and recognizes certain economic realities: by taking responsibility for a special-needs child, the adoptive parent isn't just doing something for a child—doing something profoundly loving for a child—but also doing a service to the state of Florida, i.e. alleviating the state of most of the expense of providing for the needs of a special-needs foster child.
So... Florida... adoption... regular readers of Slog probably know where this is headed. Wayne Smith, a gay man and a lawyer who lives in Key West and has been with his partner since 1988, was approved by the state to serve as a foster parent. Gay adoptions are illegal in Florida because the state believes that every child deserves a mother and a father... but since there aren't enough mothers and fathers out there who want to adopt... or serve as foster parents... the state allows gay men and lesbians to serve as foster parents but forbids them to adopt, thereby denying the foster children placed with gay couples the stability and security of a permanent home.
The state of Florida placed a five-year-old boy in Wayne Smith's home in 2001. The boy had "learning disabilities and other special needs," and Smith and has partner have been, according to social workers, exemplary parents. Smith sued to adopt the boy—now a teenager—and a judge approved the adoption and declared the state's ban on adoptions by gay people to be unconstitutional. The state allowed the adoption to be processed but then—citing technicalities—moved to deny Smith's son the benefits the state provides to all other children who have been adopted out of foster care. Smith had been declared the child's permanent guardian back 2006—something the state wanted because it helped the state meet federal guidelines for moving children from foster care to permanent placements—so the child wasn't actually in the foster care system when he was adopted, Florida insisted, and therefore Smith's son wasn't entitled to the same benefits as all other children adopted out of foster care. But Smith would have adopted his son if the state had allowed him to. His "permanent guardianship" was an adoption-in-everything-but-name that the state of Florida consented to because it allowed the state to reap the rewards—federal subsidies—for permanently placing the boy with Smith without having to actually allow Smith to adopt the boy.
Because, you see, allowing Smith to adopt the boy would be wrong... because every child deserves a mother and a father....even, presumably, a child that has been "permanently placed" with a gay couple. And after the adoption was mandated by a state judge, the state of Florida had to discriminate against this child—this special-needs, hard-to-place child, that the state placed with a gay man and his partner—to demonstrate its commitment to protecting children... from... um... from health insurance and college tuition?
With Smith gearing up to sue the state—a lawsuit he was likely to win—the state reversed course yesterday and will now provide Smith's son with the same benefits provided to children adopted by straight people and couples.
Florida's embattled ban on adoption by gay people suffered another setback Tuesday, when state child welfare administrators agreed to provide health insurance, college tuition and other benefits to the adopted son of a gay Key West man. For more than a year, the Department of Children & Families had refused to provide the adoption subsidy to the adoptive son of Wayne LaRue Smith, a Key West lawyer whose request to adopt a boy he was raising in foster care was approved by a Monroe County judge in the fall of 2008.On Tuesday, DCF lawyers did an about-face, agreeing in writing to provide the boy with subsidized college tuition, health insurance under the state's Medicaid program, and other benefits typically provided to other children who are adopted from state care. "It means, finally, after 10 years, he gets what every other child in the same circumstance gets just by asking," Smith said of his now-teenaged son.
You have to love that lead: Florida's embattled gay adoption ban suffered another setback—man, almost makes you feel sorry for Florida's ban on gay adoptions. How it's suffered, huh?
1
nice to see the gov't fuckwits finally give in, of course only when they knew they'd lose anyway. I had a fling in Paris with this guy's partner, way before they met... very nice guy (the partner) I hope now the kid can finish growing up in peace
2
It means, finally, after 10 years, he gets what every other child in the same circumstance gets just by asking.
EXACTLY. That's all they were asking for. The state should be required to reimburse them for all the legal fees they paid over the years.
EXACTLY. That's all they were asking for. The state should be required to reimburse them for all the legal fees they paid over the years.
4
No. It makes me angry. Abusers love to claim victim status and there is always a reason for abusive actions but never an excuse for it. I'm glad that "Florida's embattled gay adoption ban suffered another setback" and hope they suffer more setbacks, many more setbacks.
5
It gives me no comfort to know that those slimy fuckers at the State who spent all that time screwing over that poor child are going to fry in hell for all eternity.
6
I live in Miami and I read the Herald every morning--I must say that the headline of this one puzzled me for a good few minutes. Stoopid Florida.
7
God Bless Wayne LaRue Smith and his family, and all the others like him. They are truly on the frontlines of this battle, and when this war is won, it will be due to the accumulated weight of all these 'small' victories. Like chipping away at a wall, we/they will eventually prevail in this.
We will, one day eventually in this country, ALL OF US have the same equal rights. Every blessed one of us will be able to marry who we want and adopt who we want. It WILL happen.
We will, one day eventually in this country, ALL OF US have the same equal rights. Every blessed one of us will be able to marry who we want and adopt who we want. It WILL happen.
9
For once on this subject I agree partly with some of Dan's opinion. The state of Florida most definitely is in the wrong here, because they incited this situation.
"the state allows gay men and lesbians to serve as foster parents but forbids them to adopt, thereby denying the foster children placed with gay couples the stability and security of a permanent home."
The state is clearly not observing their own law here. They cannot expect to place children in the homes of gays without realizing that such does constitute adoption by default no matter what they choose to call it. And they cannot expect that a child living for ten years in a home will not develop any attachment to it no matter if it's not in his best interests. In the present climate of pr campaigns by gay groups the state cannot be so naive as to not foresee that some gays will use their laxed attitude when it comes to their own laws to challenge them in court. It's just plain stupid to think otherwise.
The other and worst move was denying this kid the financial aid he's entitled to. This whole mess was provoked by the state not him.
FL needs to get their act together and soon, the days of willy nilly dumping kids in any home and not following their own laws are over. Start making good use of those federal and state funds and educate the population about the need for more adoptions, advertise the rewards, spiritual and otherwise and just generally do a better job at bringing the plight of this kids to the attention of more people in the state. Other agencies do it. And you'll see how the lie about there not being enough straight couples willing to adopt is obliterated. Realize that now the first who will call you on your own missteps are homosexuals, for their own personal reasons (not really because they care about the kids), but they'll call you on it. And for once I say good on them for doing so.
10
Dan - You are really trying to kill LC this week, aren't you? It is only Wednesday; at this rate her head will implode by Friday at noon.
11
Realize that now the first who will call you on your own missteps are homosexuals, for their own personal reasons (not really because they care about the kids), but they'll call you on it.
Loveschild, what you're doing there is called "projection". You're less concerned about whether the kids are put into good, loving homes than you are about whether those homes are provided by same-sex couples. Provide some evidence that same-sex couples can't raise a child just as well and you might have a case. Here, however, your biggest problem seems to be that you can't really spin the story to justify your own prejudices. All you can do is admit to your prejudices.
13
Um, is that See You Next Tuesday LC trying to say that this child's needs would've been met by not placing him with a loving couple?
I had the privilege to teach a child raised by a same sex couple here in CO (Bio-kid I believe, one of the fathers had an friend carry it to term) and that child was more respectful and inquisitive than any of the kids in his class. I only found out he had 2 fathers on Field Day. Did explain how he could come up with a quip to shut up any other kid in his class tho. When a kid can give the DZS (Dorothy Zbornak Stare), it should clue you in...
I had the privilege to teach a child raised by a same sex couple here in CO (Bio-kid I believe, one of the fathers had an friend carry it to term) and that child was more respectful and inquisitive than any of the kids in his class. I only found out he had 2 fathers on Field Day. Did explain how he could come up with a quip to shut up any other kid in his class tho. When a kid can give the DZS (Dorothy Zbornak Stare), it should clue you in...
14
To #9,
Please tell us about your adopted children. I'd like to hear about how you're lovingly providing a home for children in need.
Please tell us about your adopted children. I'd like to hear about how you're lovingly providing a home for children in need.
15
More examples of the American insanity that makes the rest of the world shake its head in disbelief: a system bogged down by prejudice and bigotry dominated by people who are interested only in their own power.
16
See, once we destroy all heterosexuals' marriages, then we can use the foster-care system to enslave their children for sex. Yay!
17
Once again "The Homosexual Agenda" shows it's winning tactics. On page 45 it clearly states that children will be used as "Ideological Human Shields" to further the agenda. Gay couples that step up and adopt unwanted children (except they are wanted by Gay citizens) will serve to destroy the Heterosexual family by asking to be treated like all other children. These unwanted children raised by Homosexual activists will force laws to be applied equally to all citizens. It's so awful.
18
So nice to see some admit how they truly see these kids: "unwanted", no psychological damage came come from that, nooo.
19
Yes, Loveschild, and it's so good to see you admitting that you'd rather see these children deprived of loving homes than be placed with same-sex couples that have the childrens' best interests at heart.
20
To add to my previous comment, which causes more psychological damage: calling children "unwanted" when, for various reasons, their biological parents are unable to raise them, or depriving some of them of loving homes and families because of a misguided belief that same-sex couples can't possibly provide loving homes and families?
21
@11/20 It's called stating facts. Kid's physical and mental well being should be placed first than the desires of adults. Anyone of sound mind can raise another human life, that's not whats at question. What matters is the quality, type and outcome from the rearing of a child. And most children do better socially, emotionally and morally when raised by a mother and a father, you just cannot deny that to make room for your personal beliefs about homosexuality. Would you deny a child the chance to have a mother and a father just so that homosexuals would be able to adopt him ? I hope not, I sincerely hope you would care about the minor more.
22
21: that statement might be convincing if you actually knew the facts. Yet post after post you undermine your own credibility by demonstrating that you don't know them, and that even when people go to the trouble of explaining them to you, you either don't respond or don't understand. You're either so blinded by your own bigotry, or so into playing the troll, that you're incapable of being part of a rational conversation.
23
And most children do better socially, emotionally and morally when raised by a mother and a father, you just cannot deny that to make room for your personal beliefs about homosexuality. Would you deny a child the chance to have a mother and a father just so that homosexuals would be able to adopt him ? I hope not, I sincerely hope you would care about the minor more.
Loveschild, you're the one who doesn't care about the minors because you're putting your own beliefs about homosexuality above the well-being of children. You can't point to any evidence that children do better "when raised by a mother and a father". Other comments here, which you have apparently ignored, have cited cases of children who have been given perfectly good homes by same-sex couples.
I'll agree that I think children do better when raised in a home by two parents, but the gender of the parents is a non-issue. A major reason it might be a problem is because ignorant homophobes insist on making life difficult for same-sex couples.
24
And surely you realize by now, Loveschild, that nobody here takes you seriously? That's not because of your positions per se, but because of your demeanour, your ignorance, your bigotry, and your utter refusal to engage with the facts, except when you think they advance your position. In other words, if your actual aim is to demonstrate or to convince us how wrong everyone else here is, you're failing dismally.
25
To #9, Loveschild,
Please stop answering all the haters and reply to me. Tell me about your adopted children. I want to know about how you're opening your heart and home to someone in need.
Please stop answering all the haters and reply to me. Tell me about your adopted children. I want to know about how you're opening your heart and home to someone in need.
26
And you'll see how the lie about there not being enough straight couples willing to adopt is obliterated only after they start making good use of those federal and state funds and educate the population about the need for more adoptions. Because of course homosexuals have their own personal reasons (not really because they care about the kids).
You just blew your whole argument out of the water. There are not enough couples willing to adopt or foster, period.
You really are a cold, heartless, hateful bitch if you would rather see these children languish in foster care than be placed with any person or couple ready, willing and able to love and care for them.
Seriously, you need help.
You just blew your whole argument out of the water. There are not enough couples willing to adopt or foster, period.
You really are a cold, heartless, hateful bitch if you would rather see these children languish in foster care than be placed with any person or couple ready, willing and able to love and care for them.
Seriously, you need help.
27
My boyfriend is a marriage and family therapist, dealing almost exclusively with kids in foster care and group homes. It is heartbreaking what these kids go through, and how desperately they want a stable, secure home.
God bless Mr. Smith, and all the thousands of others like him who step in and change the present and future for these youngsters.
God bless Mr. Smith, and all the thousands of others like him who step in and change the present and future for these youngsters.
29
I fully believe that LC is a construct, put together by who-knows-who, in order to sharpen us all up. We refine our thinking and our arguments by continually jousting with this unblinking dummy of a devil's-advocate poster troll, and this makes us stronger IRL when we come up against this kind of bigotry. I do, really, fully believe that. (Maybe someone is collecting info for a book, even.)
But, in case I'm wrong....
LC, eat a bag of Dick's. :-)
But, in case I'm wrong....
LC, eat a bag of Dick's. :-)
30
#29, if LC *is* a construct put together by who-knows-who, the point is almost surely to make all of you waste hundreds if not thousands of words arguing with no one.
It's called trolling, and YHBT HAND.
It's called trolling, and YHBT HAND.
31
If Loveschild is here to challenge us, why does she give up and quit posting on a thread instead of coming up with new arguments whenever the old ones are proven wrong?
32
@21: Oh, you errant cuntwhorebitch, you just keep getting nuttier and nuttier, like a squirrel food drive.
So...straight couples are being turned away just so that "The Queers" can adopt? Excuse me, but as has already been pointed out about five hundred times, THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE ADOPTING. It's starting to sound like arguments against affirmative action: "Oh, qualified white students are getting turned away so that black students can get in." It's not like reputable adoption agencies are going to place children in unstable families, whether gay or straight, and the more children who get a set of loving parents, the better. Like Southern Gentleman said, you're letting your own (wacko) beliefs about homosexuals get in the way of children's welfare.
So...straight couples are being turned away just so that "The Queers" can adopt? Excuse me, but as has already been pointed out about five hundred times, THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE ADOPTING. It's starting to sound like arguments against affirmative action: "Oh, qualified white students are getting turned away so that black students can get in." It's not like reputable adoption agencies are going to place children in unstable families, whether gay or straight, and the more children who get a set of loving parents, the better. Like Southern Gentleman said, you're letting your own (wacko) beliefs about homosexuals get in the way of children's welfare.
34
Yea! I'm glad this story has a comparatively happy ending.
I'm also happy that I didn't get some other poster confused with my mother.
I'm also happy that I didn't get some other poster confused with my mother.
35
@23 Take a look at this government study to see what I mean:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abu…
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abu…
36
@23 Especially to: "5.3.1 Differences in the Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Structure and Living Arrangement".
37
@35, 36: This does not even have pretensions to making your point. The essence of the section you referenced was basically that children are less prone to being abused or neglected by their parents if they live with their married biological parents. I can only assume that you intend for us to see that abuse and neglect are more likely for children living with "other married parents" or "single parent with partner". So? The VAST majority of "other married parents" are heterosexual, since gays in most states are not yet allowed to marry. The same goes with "single parent with partner". Not only are gays a small enough fraction of the population for their statistics to be drowned out by those of the much larger demographic of straight people, but straights are more likely to be stuck with an unwanted child with someone they do not intend to marry, since gays are nearly immune to accidental pregnancies.
Following your logic (demographic A is "less bad" than demographics B and C, demographic D is disjoint from demographic A but not from B or C, therefore demographic D must be worse than demographic A), I might as well say:
Given that families without dogs are less likely to have their kids bitten by dogs (I don't know if this is actually true), all pit bulls and rottweilers must be a threat to the family.
Do you see the logical phallacy (I mean, fallacy) in what you are saying? I imagine you do, but since you are a bigoted cuntwhorebitch, you will continue to choose ignorance over having to reconsider your beliefs.
Following your logic (demographic A is "less bad" than demographics B and C, demographic D is disjoint from demographic A but not from B or C, therefore demographic D must be worse than demographic A), I might as well say:
Given that families without dogs are less likely to have their kids bitten by dogs (I don't know if this is actually true), all pit bulls and rottweilers must be a threat to the family.
Do you see the logical phallacy (I mean, fallacy) in what you are saying? I imagine you do, but since you are a bigoted cuntwhorebitch, you will continue to choose ignorance over having to reconsider your beliefs.
38
Link doesn't work.
Not that you have shown any aptitude for understanding anything but your own point of view. Last time you linked something you thought vindicated your point, the complete reading of the article disproved your argument, that is why cherry picking out of context is an epic fail.
But, hey there is always a first.
Not that you have shown any aptitude for understanding anything but your own point of view. Last time you linked something you thought vindicated your point, the complete reading of the article disproved your argument, that is why cherry picking out of context is an epic fail.
But, hey there is always a first.
40
@36 - this study has no mention of same sex couples, so I assume you are referring to this:
"Children living with one parent who had an unnmarried partner in the household had the highest incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment (57.2 per 1,000). Their rate is more than 2 times greater than the risk for children living in these other living arrangements."
So you put gay couples into that category because they aren't allowed to marry? Seems like a good argument for same-sex marriage to me. I'm just surprised that you'd bring it up.
By the way, this site lists over 700 kids in Florida waiting for adoption. Lots of straight couple in Florida, so I wonder why this is. Probably because the gays are tainting the institute of straight-couple adoption.
Very Christian of you, by the way, to rather they remain orphans than be adopted by gay couples. Hell awaits you, my dear.
"Children living with one parent who had an unnmarried partner in the household had the highest incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment (57.2 per 1,000). Their rate is more than 2 times greater than the risk for children living in these other living arrangements."
So you put gay couples into that category because they aren't allowed to marry? Seems like a good argument for same-sex marriage to me. I'm just surprised that you'd bring it up.
By the way, this site lists over 700 kids in Florida waiting for adoption. Lots of straight couple in Florida, so I wonder why this is. Probably because the gays are tainting the institute of straight-couple adoption.
Very Christian of you, by the way, to rather they remain orphans than be adopted by gay couples. Hell awaits you, my dear.
41
As jaw-droppingly offensive as I find Loveschild's comments throughout, in the interest of finding some common ground, I will say that I agree with her/his comment in #9 that FL's worst act of all was denying the child the financial assistance and credits. As is pretty much the point of Dan's post to begin with, too often those whose chief motivation is bigotry and fear wind up hurting most the very people or ideas they pretend to want to protect. I hope that more special-needs or hard-to-place foster kids will benefit from Mr. Smith and his family's brave fight.
42
@40 I can, that is, if you omit the biological part, as in "Married Biological Parents". Are you denying the gap between biological parenting (a mom and a dad) by a married couple and all other forms of parenting. You can clearly see that the farther the structural parenting is from the former the higher incidences of abuses, neglect and mistreatment are. What then would be the farthest from a family headed by a mom and a dad ?
43
Loveschild, you don't have a stats background, do you? It's difficult enough to draw firm conclusions about the specific, narrow thing being studied in any kind of social science research, and it's foolish to try to use that data set to extrapolate further, especially if you're going to use vague, unquantifiable categories like "farthest [sic] from biological family unit." Someone could very easily step in now and make the argument that a family unit with one biological parent and one adoptive parent of the same sex is "closer to" a biological-mom-and-dad unit than a hetero unit in which NEITHER parent is biologically related to the child--an argument that would be just as insupportable as yours with the data given, but would at least have the advantage of being more logical.
44
@37 If I remember correctly your background is of the Jewish faith and even tho Christianity has its roots in Judaism and our (Christians) Savior was born into the tribe of Judah and the first Christians were Jews, so we share more in common in our faiths than perhaps you'd like to acknowledge, I recognize that there might be some differences which might impede us seeing eye to eye, so I accept my limits. That's why I humbly want to direct you to a great support group by intelligent and highly professional Jewish brothers and sisters that might be able to offer to you an alternative to what you're currently thinking and doing now:
http://www.jonahweb.org
http://www.jonahweb.org
45
@42, Loveschild. You still haven't told us anything about your own adopted children. Are you childless? I thought your profile picture depicted you, your husband, and your lovingly adopted children. Was I wrong in assuming that you're a Christian woman who is speaking with personal experience about adopting a child out of the foster care system? Could you please post a response? I don't understand why you are responding to people who swear at you, but not to someone asking a genuine question.
46
@37 - I see you didn't waste any time considering my plea to your better feminist nature to stop insulting idiots like Loveschild using words designed to keep all women "in their place."
I also see you're not bothering to keep your promise about sticking to the acronym. It's a shame, because I would be otherwise inclined to like what you have to say.
I also see you're not bothering to keep your promise about sticking to the acronym. It's a shame, because I would be otherwise inclined to like what you have to say.
47
Hello Katherine @ 45,
Loveschild may have the unregistered comments turned off. If so than she can't read you. I'll copy it for you, then she can see it and maybe she will answer you.
k
Loveschild may have the unregistered comments turned off. If so than she can't read you. I'll copy it for you, then she can see it and maybe she will answer you.
k
48
Denying gay and lesbian adoption goes against nature. In all likelihood, the survival of the genes that cause homosexual orientation (indirectly, through prenatal development) survived through human evolution because the creation of childless parents ensured the survival of any of their orphaned genetic relatives. Gay adoption is natural, and what's more, it makes sense.
49
@44: See, this is the difference between Jews and Christians. We Jews have our religious wackos as well, but we at least have the decency to only proselytize to other Jews. If you accepted your limits, you'd have thought twice before preaching to me about MY religion, you cuntwhorebitch. Take your jonahweb and shove it up your ass; you may have to remove that huge stick in order to do that.
You claim that the covenant made with the coming of Jesus renders the Old Testament irrelevant to Christians. According to you, then, we have no holy texts in common. So no, we do NOT share "more in common in our faiths than perhaps [I'd] like to acknowledge".
You seem to have gotten it into your head that I am gay; correct me if that is not so. I am actually as straight as an arrow, in a two-year committed relationship with a wonderful woman my own age. (Just to annoy you, I shall mention that she's bisexual and therefore a horrible person in your eyes.) Not all gay-rights advocates are gay; we're just sensible, justice-loving people of whatever orientation. Now:
You say that jonahweb is run by "intelligent and highly professional Jewish brothers and sisters". If you look at their home page, you'll see that their logo says "jonah" stands for "Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality", but their mission statement (!) says it stands for "Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing". Yeah, you MUST be really professional and intelligent if you can't get your basic facts straight.
Now if this was a site dedicated to helping Jews deal with identity crises or to help the families of Jewish homosexuals come to terms with who they are, I'd accept it. But you wouldn't be caught dead posting something accepting and positive. Rather, this site pushes the tired old dogma that "homosexuality is a choice! you can change!", which has yet to be supported by any scientifically run study.
Another issue I have is that you refer to these people as "brothers and sisters". If you do not mean this with relation to me, please disregard what I am about to write. However, if you think that all Jews are brother and sister to me, think again! I am no more affiliated or feel an affinity with such scum who would teach people that WHO THEY ARE is an abomination than you are to a pangolin. Do not dare to presume that all Jews stick together in one nice neat social bloc.
More...
You claim that the covenant made with the coming of Jesus renders the Old Testament irrelevant to Christians. According to you, then, we have no holy texts in common. So no, we do NOT share "more in common in our faiths than perhaps [I'd] like to acknowledge".
You seem to have gotten it into your head that I am gay; correct me if that is not so. I am actually as straight as an arrow, in a two-year committed relationship with a wonderful woman my own age. (Just to annoy you, I shall mention that she's bisexual and therefore a horrible person in your eyes.) Not all gay-rights advocates are gay; we're just sensible, justice-loving people of whatever orientation. Now:
You say that jonahweb is run by "intelligent and highly professional Jewish brothers and sisters". If you look at their home page, you'll see that their logo says "jonah" stands for "Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality", but their mission statement (!) says it stands for "Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing". Yeah, you MUST be really professional and intelligent if you can't get your basic facts straight.
Now if this was a site dedicated to helping Jews deal with identity crises or to help the families of Jewish homosexuals come to terms with who they are, I'd accept it. But you wouldn't be caught dead posting something accepting and positive. Rather, this site pushes the tired old dogma that "homosexuality is a choice! you can change!", which has yet to be supported by any scientifically run study.
Another issue I have is that you refer to these people as "brothers and sisters". If you do not mean this with relation to me, please disregard what I am about to write. However, if you think that all Jews are brother and sister to me, think again! I am no more affiliated or feel an affinity with such scum who would teach people that WHO THEY ARE is an abomination than you are to a pangolin. Do not dare to presume that all Jews stick together in one nice neat social bloc.
50
Loveschild,
Katherine @ 14,@ 25, and @ 45,
Has the following question for you:
"@42, Loveschild. You still haven't told us anything about your own adopted children. Are you childless? I thought your profile picture depicted you, your husband, and your lovingly adopted children. Was I wrong in assuming that you're a Christian woman who is speaking with personal experience about adopting a child out of the foster care system? Could you please post a response? I don't understand why you are responding to people who swear at you, but not to someone asking a genuine question."
Posted by Katherine on February 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM
Katherine @ 14,@ 25, and @ 45,
Has the following question for you:
"@42, Loveschild. You still haven't told us anything about your own adopted children. Are you childless? I thought your profile picture depicted you, your husband, and your lovingly adopted children. Was I wrong in assuming that you're a Christian woman who is speaking with personal experience about adopting a child out of the foster care system? Could you please post a response? I don't understand why you are responding to people who swear at you, but not to someone asking a genuine question."
Posted by Katherine on February 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM
51
@46: Don't be thick. I said I'd stick to the acronym and only write it out in full when Loveschild says/does something really egregious. This mess qualifies; she's referencing statistics and claiming they say something hateful that they just don't.
52
@51 - Okay, sorry, I missed that. But hey,way to completely ignore all my salient points about misogynist hate speech and harp on that fact.
53
I'll repeat what I wrote before, venomlash:
If you consider yourself a feminist, you should know that those particular insulting words are given strength because they carry behind them the cultural weight of centuries of patriarchal institutional power and female sexual servitude and shame. That's why they're taboo, that's why they feel so naughty, and that's why it can feel so damn good saying things like that when we feel particularly incensed.
I've encountered a similar phenomenon in otherwise racially sensitive white people who, in particularly contentious moments involving people who happen to be persons of color, find themselves biting back the "n" word. Is it because they're secretly racists? Not as such. But racism, like sexism, appeals to our baser instincts, starts to toy with our urges and come into play when we feel angry, frustrated, insecure, and, in many cases, when we find ourselves despising someone for reasons that have nothing to do with that person's race or sex. We just want to get to them, somehow, so we find ourselves tempted to take the easy, surefire way to do that; offensive language.
venomlash, you seem like a reasonable person, so I'd urge you to think about this a little bit rather than dismiss it outright, please. I'm sure your issues with Loveschild have nothing to do with a fact that she's a woman, so please, insult her for what's actually wrong with her. When you use language designed to put women in their place, it effects all of us.
If you consider yourself a feminist, you should know that those particular insulting words are given strength because they carry behind them the cultural weight of centuries of patriarchal institutional power and female sexual servitude and shame. That's why they're taboo, that's why they feel so naughty, and that's why it can feel so damn good saying things like that when we feel particularly incensed.
I've encountered a similar phenomenon in otherwise racially sensitive white people who, in particularly contentious moments involving people who happen to be persons of color, find themselves biting back the "n" word. Is it because they're secretly racists? Not as such. But racism, like sexism, appeals to our baser instincts, starts to toy with our urges and come into play when we feel angry, frustrated, insecure, and, in many cases, when we find ourselves despising someone for reasons that have nothing to do with that person's race or sex. We just want to get to them, somehow, so we find ourselves tempted to take the easy, surefire way to do that; offensive language.
venomlash, you seem like a reasonable person, so I'd urge you to think about this a little bit rather than dismiss it outright, please. I'm sure your issues with Loveschild have nothing to do with a fact that she's a woman, so please, insult her for what's actually wrong with her. When you use language designed to put women in their place, it effects all of us.
55
Hey venomlash,
I'm sorry that comment @ 44 was below the belt. So here is a virtual hug.
I get your feelings, I really do. Please try to keep to cwb, please.
I'm sorry that comment @ 44 was below the belt. So here is a virtual hug.
I get your feelings, I really do. Please try to keep to cwb, please.
56
To those of you comparing the use of a few choice profanities which I occasionally (okay, quite often) bestow upon Loveschild to the use of ethnic slurs:
Ethnic or racial slurs attack someone for who they were born as, be it African, Jewish, Asian, Irish, Italian, Caucasian, or whatever. Those I have severe problems with.
The words I use against Loveschild reflect my opinion of how she behaves towards others on SLOG, not who she is; that is, I'm judging her for her attempts to browbeat others into accepting her version of Christianity, her hypocritical moral code, and her general patronizing/holier-than-thou unpleasantness.
I will make a better effort to keep to CWB in the future, and the fact that a lot of what Loveschild says is starting to be "same old, same old, nothing new in this rant" really makes it easier for me; it's hard to get too upset at a certain piece of idiocy if you've already seen it five times in the past week.
Peace,
venomlash
Ethnic or racial slurs attack someone for who they were born as, be it African, Jewish, Asian, Irish, Italian, Caucasian, or whatever. Those I have severe problems with.
The words I use against Loveschild reflect my opinion of how she behaves towards others on SLOG, not who she is; that is, I'm judging her for her attempts to browbeat others into accepting her version of Christianity, her hypocritical moral code, and her general patronizing/holier-than-thou unpleasantness.
I will make a better effort to keep to CWB in the future, and the fact that a lot of what Loveschild says is starting to be "same old, same old, nothing new in this rant" really makes it easier for me; it's hard to get too upset at a certain piece of idiocy if you've already seen it five times in the past week.
Peace,
venomlash
57
Y'all crack me up. You keep feeding the troll, and then complain about what a troll she is. Would you for Chrissakes just stop already? She'll go away the minute you guys quit feeding her.
58
56 - Um...none of that is a remotely good justification for using words designed to demean ALL WOMEN. I've heard the exact justification used for the kinds of hate speech you claim to detest...you know, things like, "I don't hate black people, but this guy's a total n*****."
Everyone who decides to dip into the bigotry pool does it because the person they're trying to belittle has pissed them off in some way. Guess what? Men who disagree with me (including many men who take Loveschild's side in these arguments) have called me a cunt, whore, bitch, slut, slag, etc. Hell, sometimes it's just as bad when they call me honey, chick, honey, baby, sweetie, or any other words designed to be patronizing and call attention to the fact that they're men, I'm a woman, and therefore, they can claim higher social power to lend strength to their argument. That's what you're doing here, too. The fact that I'm equally disgusted with Loveschild doesn't blind me to this fact.
You say you call her these things because that's somehow reflective of her behaviors (and BTW that nonsense about how it's not "who she is" is complete crap. How the fuck do you think you can say, "You're a (blank), so-and-so, then turn around and say, "Well, I'm not saying she IS a (blank)..." Yes, you are.) means...what, exactly? What, exactly, are the defining character traits of a cuntwhorebitch, hmm?
For most men who use these words, they will find, if they are honest with themselves, that the answer is, "Any woman I don't like." In your case, the woman in question is one you dislike for what I happen to agree are noble reasons, but in another context, another man might use the word against a woman who makes more money than him, who shows him up, who turns him down for sex, who takes a stand against him, who is smarter than him, etc.
Here, watch this:
Loveschild is a vile human being, a hypocrite, someone who clearly places "morality" above basic human compassion. She's stupid and suffers from a lack of self-examination, she's rude and can't assemble a coherent argument to save her life, she twists and misrepresents facts, and she plays the victim at every opportunity in an attempt to discredit the arguments of others by crying "racist!" or "anti-Christian!" even though she is, herself, monstrously intolerant.
Hey, look! I just managed to describe a bunch of the problems I have with this woman without ever ONCE resorting to misogyny to give my points power!
More...
Everyone who decides to dip into the bigotry pool does it because the person they're trying to belittle has pissed them off in some way. Guess what? Men who disagree with me (including many men who take Loveschild's side in these arguments) have called me a cunt, whore, bitch, slut, slag, etc. Hell, sometimes it's just as bad when they call me honey, chick, honey, baby, sweetie, or any other words designed to be patronizing and call attention to the fact that they're men, I'm a woman, and therefore, they can claim higher social power to lend strength to their argument. That's what you're doing here, too. The fact that I'm equally disgusted with Loveschild doesn't blind me to this fact.
You say you call her these things because that's somehow reflective of her behaviors (and BTW that nonsense about how it's not "who she is" is complete crap. How the fuck do you think you can say, "You're a (blank), so-and-so, then turn around and say, "Well, I'm not saying she IS a (blank)..." Yes, you are.) means...what, exactly? What, exactly, are the defining character traits of a cuntwhorebitch, hmm?
For most men who use these words, they will find, if they are honest with themselves, that the answer is, "Any woman I don't like." In your case, the woman in question is one you dislike for what I happen to agree are noble reasons, but in another context, another man might use the word against a woman who makes more money than him, who shows him up, who turns him down for sex, who takes a stand against him, who is smarter than him, etc.
Here, watch this:
Loveschild is a vile human being, a hypocrite, someone who clearly places "morality" above basic human compassion. She's stupid and suffers from a lack of self-examination, she's rude and can't assemble a coherent argument to save her life, she twists and misrepresents facts, and she plays the victim at every opportunity in an attempt to discredit the arguments of others by crying "racist!" or "anti-Christian!" even though she is, herself, monstrously intolerant.
Hey, look! I just managed to describe a bunch of the problems I have with this woman without ever ONCE resorting to misogyny to give my points power!
59
57 - I happen to find stupid, persistent trolls to be lots of fun, actually. Some people say that arguing with someone that stubbornly stupid is like trying to beat up a brick wall, but I find it to be more like trying to beat up a practice dummy; an excellent way to improve one's kung fu.
62
Wow-- and I thought Utah was a fucked up state.
How hard is it to have some compassion and see what the right thing to do here is?
what would fucking jesus do i wonder?
How hard is it to have some compassion and see what the right thing to do here is?
what would fucking jesus do i wonder?
63
@58: What you fail to realize is that, as I already said, ethnic slurs target people because of who they ARE. The offensive words I use target people because of what they DO. There are plenty of guys (male people) I know who I would very readily describe as being cunts, whores, or bitches.
That's the beauty of those words; they rely on behavior, so if someone's being whiny and unpleasant, you can refer to them as a bitch no matter who they are. (Admittedly, since these insults were originally targeted more towards women, it is in poor taste to use them against those of the female persuasion, and I tend to refrain from doing so.) The same as if someone, male or female, sleeps around more than is reasonable or healthy; they're a whore. And if someone's being just a general and intentional buzzkill, they're being a cunt, regardless of their gender or background.
And if they're all three? Well, then this person, whoever he or she may be, is a cuntwhorebitch. Write that down for future reference, people.
AGAIN: I mean no offense towards women as a whole; Loveschild is a special case.
That's the beauty of those words; they rely on behavior, so if someone's being whiny and unpleasant, you can refer to them as a bitch no matter who they are. (Admittedly, since these insults were originally targeted more towards women, it is in poor taste to use them against those of the female persuasion, and I tend to refrain from doing so.) The same as if someone, male or female, sleeps around more than is reasonable or healthy; they're a whore. And if someone's being just a general and intentional buzzkill, they're being a cunt, regardless of their gender or background.
And if they're all three? Well, then this person, whoever he or she may be, is a cuntwhorebitch. Write that down for future reference, people.
AGAIN: I mean no offense towards women as a whole; Loveschild is a special case.
65
Venom,
in your support may I say that I do understand where you coming from. LC is despicable human being, I ,for one, don't mind you using those words at all. But English is not my native language, I perceive things differently then the american girls, so i do understand Kim and Laurel as well.
I am convinced, though, that one or a few people that write under the moniker LC is/are male(s). So to those - you are nasty, despicable jerks, assholes and dickheads.
Unless its all a big act. Honestly, i love that "she" is here. I send more then a couple people -from my church no less-to read her posts. She is a poster child for "see where the road of hatered and intolerance lead?" old scrambled eggs anti-drug use ads come to mind. Here is your brain - here is your brain on hate.
in your support may I say that I do understand where you coming from. LC is despicable human being, I ,for one, don't mind you using those words at all. But English is not my native language, I perceive things differently then the american girls, so i do understand Kim and Laurel as well.
I am convinced, though, that one or a few people that write under the moniker LC is/are male(s). So to those - you are nasty, despicable jerks, assholes and dickheads.
Unless its all a big act. Honestly, i love that "she" is here. I send more then a couple people -from my church no less-to read her posts. She is a poster child for "see where the road of hatered and intolerance lead?" old scrambled eggs anti-drug use ads come to mind. Here is your brain - here is your brain on hate.
66
Owww, LC, your feet must be so sore from all that shooting into them that you do.
OK, found the exec summary for the report you tried to link (can't post the link here, google for nis4_report_exec_summ_pdf_jan2010.pdf. Or try www.nis4.org).
Family structure and living arrangement:
"Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."
The type of relationship between the parent and the cohabitating partner (i.e. hetero-/homosexual) is not mentioned at all. Your assumption is: since homosexuals can't marry, therefore their relationships at best can be categorized as the single parent/cohabitating partner type, therefore all children living with homosexual couples are exposed to the highest risks, as in the above quote. Logic fail.
By your logic, chapter 6 (Distribution of Child Abuse and Neglect by Perpetrator Characteristics) gives a strong argument against having children raised by their biological parents:
"The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents)."
See where that leads you? Time for you to wisen up.
OK, found the exec summary for the report you tried to link (can't post the link here, google for nis4_report_exec_summ_pdf_jan2010.pdf. Or try www.nis4.org).
Family structure and living arrangement:
"Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."
The type of relationship between the parent and the cohabitating partner (i.e. hetero-/homosexual) is not mentioned at all. Your assumption is: since homosexuals can't marry, therefore their relationships at best can be categorized as the single parent/cohabitating partner type, therefore all children living with homosexual couples are exposed to the highest risks, as in the above quote. Logic fail.
By your logic, chapter 6 (Distribution of Child Abuse and Neglect by Perpetrator Characteristics) gives a strong argument against having children raised by their biological parents:
"The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents)."
See where that leads you? Time for you to wisen up.
67
So just to recap, Loveschild's argument is based on a single study with results that can be interpreted to mean that children do better when raised by their biological parents.
From that, Loveschild, you're extrapolating that when the biological parents are unavailable that a sort of copy of the biological parents--male father, female mother--is the next best thing.
Loveschild, you're still missing the point. You have no evidence that same-sex couples or, for that matter, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals are any less fit to be parents than heterosexuals. Are you suggesting that a child would be worse off in a home with a loving, supportive, single gay foster parent than they would in a home with two abusive heterosexual biological parents?
You're still putting your beliefs ahead of the well-being of children. Instead of making your arguments based on what you'd like to be true, why not make them based on facts? Although if you base your argument on facts it's going to be very hard to cling to what you believe.
From that, Loveschild, you're extrapolating that when the biological parents are unavailable that a sort of copy of the biological parents--male father, female mother--is the next best thing.
Loveschild, you're still missing the point. You have no evidence that same-sex couples or, for that matter, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals are any less fit to be parents than heterosexuals. Are you suggesting that a child would be worse off in a home with a loving, supportive, single gay foster parent than they would in a home with two abusive heterosexual biological parents?
You're still putting your beliefs ahead of the well-being of children. Instead of making your arguments based on what you'd like to be true, why not make them based on facts? Although if you base your argument on facts it's going to be very hard to cling to what you believe.
68
@67
No. I'm pointing to a non biased study that backs up what I and most other citizens of this nation know, that children fare far better when raised in a home with biological married parents. That is to say a man and a women, not two men, not two women, because those pairs are not able to reproduce in the human species and as such are not reflective of mainstream society in general. In cases where the biological parents male and female are not present agencies need to go the extra mile and try as much as they possibly can to find stable and loving homes yes, but also after thoroughly investigating them, they must also take into consideration the type of family which will most like provide a healthier environment and provide normalcy in a child who lacks his or her biological parents and all blood connections. Therefor it's not just the home that needs to be taken into account but the social implications, the type of psychological disturbances that could be placed on a child thats already is starting life in a disadvantageous position. That can be greatly reduced when a child is carefully placed in a loving home that's socially reflective of society in general and which will not bring to the child new added social stresses when he's outside his home such as in school and when relating with others of her or his age for example. The only homes which can provide that stability both inside and outside of the home are the ones headed by a mom and dad. That's what the study says, and that's what I'm also saying. Children in need of homes need to be placed in homes where at least there's a possibility of those essential needs being met in the future by a single parent.
This time you cannot dismiss the study simply because you don't like the source and claim it comes from a biased source, because it doesn't. If you dismiss it is because you don't like what it says.
More...
Are you suggesting that a child would be worse off in a home with a loving, supportive, single gay foster parent than they would in a home with two abusive heterosexual biological parents?
No. I'm pointing to a non biased study that backs up what I and most other citizens of this nation know, that children fare far better when raised in a home with biological married parents. That is to say a man and a women, not two men, not two women, because those pairs are not able to reproduce in the human species and as such are not reflective of mainstream society in general. In cases where the biological parents male and female are not present agencies need to go the extra mile and try as much as they possibly can to find stable and loving homes yes, but also after thoroughly investigating them, they must also take into consideration the type of family which will most like provide a healthier environment and provide normalcy in a child who lacks his or her biological parents and all blood connections. Therefor it's not just the home that needs to be taken into account but the social implications, the type of psychological disturbances that could be placed on a child thats already is starting life in a disadvantageous position. That can be greatly reduced when a child is carefully placed in a loving home that's socially reflective of society in general and which will not bring to the child new added social stresses when he's outside his home such as in school and when relating with others of her or his age for example. The only homes which can provide that stability both inside and outside of the home are the ones headed by a mom and dad. That's what the study says, and that's what I'm also saying. Children in need of homes need to be placed in homes where at least there's a possibility of those essential needs being met in the future by a single parent.
This time you cannot dismiss the study simply because you don't like the source and claim it comes from a biased source, because it doesn't. If you dismiss it is because you don't like what it says.
69
@68,
plus to what Southern Gentleman said, your logic is , essentially, "Lets them eat cake"
Even if we were to agree with your idea, there is not enough hetero couples willing to adopt. Are you comfortable saying that kids should stay in foster care system instead of being adopted by a gay couple?
plus to what Southern Gentleman said, your logic is , essentially, "Lets them eat cake"
Even if we were to agree with your idea, there is not enough hetero couples willing to adopt. Are you comfortable saying that kids should stay in foster care system instead of being adopted by a gay couple?
70
LC wrote in @21, "What matters is the quality, type and outcome from the rearing of a child. And most children do better socially, emotionally and morally when raised by a mother and a father, you just cannot deny that to make room for your personal beliefs about homosexuality."
If you read the Prop 8 trial transcripts (and I read every single page of every single day), you'd know that the plaintiff's expert witnesses presented study after study showing you're wrong, and also explained and refuted the study you cited. Even the defense's own expert witnesses conceded the point.
If you read the Prop 8 trial transcripts (and I read every single page of every single day), you'd know that the plaintiff's expert witnesses presented study after study showing you're wrong, and also explained and refuted the study you cited. Even the defense's own expert witnesses conceded the point.
71
I'm a woman, and I use the words cunt, whore & bitch quite frequently. Cunt used to offend me to no end, but guess what happens when you appropriate a word that is meant to demean you? It loses its edge. Perhaps an Irish buddy who uses this as a term of endearment had something to do with it.
I should add that one of my favorite swears is jesus fucking cunt. Betcha that offends quite a number of people. So the fuck what?
I should add that one of my favorite swears is jesus fucking cunt. Betcha that offends quite a number of people. So the fuck what?
72
Sigh.
No it does not.
Chapter 6 (Distribution of Child Abuse and Neglect by Perpetrator Characteristics) gives a strong argument against having children raised by their biological parents:
"The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents)."
You can't cherry pick the part you want and then use it to extrapolate what you want it to say. You have to read the entire thing.
So, you are correct the study does not need to be dismissed, but your logic and the fallacy of your conclusions does require being dismissed. Your bias has betrayed you once again.
No it does not.
Chapter 6 (Distribution of Child Abuse and Neglect by Perpetrator Characteristics) gives a strong argument against having children raised by their biological parents:
"The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents)."
You can't cherry pick the part you want and then use it to extrapolate what you want it to say. You have to read the entire thing.
So, you are correct the study does not need to be dismissed, but your logic and the fallacy of your conclusions does require being dismissed. Your bias has betrayed you once again.
73
@68--the salient question is not whether the study itself is biased, but whether your reading of it is. From the conclusions ACTUALLY supported by the evidence there, you are drawing further conclusions of your own that are NOTsupported by the information therein. Once we're talking about children who are either being voluntarily put up for adoption, or being forcibly removed by the state because of unsafe conditions in their homes, the question of being raised by two married biological parents in a stable environment is no longer relevant. The ONLY valid argument you could make from this study in support of your position is that the state has an interest in pouring some of their social-services budget into rehabilitative services for married biological parents who are otherwise considered unfit for parenting, in the hope that said married biological parents could eventually be reunited with the children who have been removed from their homes.
74
@36: LC, did you even read the study you cited? First, it does not mention same sex couples anywhere in the study. Second, it was arguing that children were less likely to face abuse from their two biological parents and more likely in a household with one bio parent and a newer partner (like a step-father). Nothing to do with adoption, because when a child is in foster care, obviously both parents are already both out of the picture, for whatever reason.
So what exactly is your point citing a study that has nothing to do with adoption or foster care?
So what exactly is your point citing a study that has nothing to do with adoption or foster care?
75
Loveschild,
When are you going to share the good news? Tell us all about the children you are adopting out of the foster care system.
You are adopting aren't you? You wouldn't just be telling others to go do something you're not doing yourself, would you? You're speaking from personal experience, right?
Poor Katherine @ 14,@ 25, and @ 45 has asked you several times to share.
If you continue to ignore Katherine your leaving that silence open to interpretation. You're essentially saying that you only have your three biological children and have not (perhaps are not) planning on adopting any of these foster children. You're unable or unwilling to offer them a home, and you want them to languish in the system to some married heterosexual couple comes along. At 67 you say, "That is to say a man and a women, not two men, not two women, because those pairs are not able to reproduce in the human species and as such are not reflective of mainstream society in general. In cases where the biological parents male and female are not present agencies need to go the extra mile and try as much as they possibly can to find stable and loving homes yes, but also after thoroughly investigating them, they must also take into consideration the type of family which will most like provide a healthier environment and provide normalcy in a child who lacks his or her biological parents and all blood connections. Therefor it's not just the home that needs to be taken into account but the social implications, the type of psychological disturbances that could be placed on a child thats already is starting life in a disadvantageous position. That can be greatly reduced when a child is carefully placed in a loving home that's socially reflective of society in general and which will not bring to the child new added social stresses when he's outside his home such as in school and when relating with others of her or his age for example. The only homes which can provide that stability both inside and outside of the home are the ones headed by a mom and dad."
So you leave us with. Loveschild is unwilling to help, but feels free to argue that foster children should be denied a family, with an individual or individuals who want them, because they need a married heterosexual couple. In short, you damn them to a life within the system without hope of exiting it. In that case, good to know that your bias trumps the needs of a living and breathing child. That sucks and it is cruel!
More...
When are you going to share the good news? Tell us all about the children you are adopting out of the foster care system.
You are adopting aren't you? You wouldn't just be telling others to go do something you're not doing yourself, would you? You're speaking from personal experience, right?
Poor Katherine @ 14,@ 25, and @ 45 has asked you several times to share.
If you continue to ignore Katherine your leaving that silence open to interpretation. You're essentially saying that you only have your three biological children and have not (perhaps are not) planning on adopting any of these foster children. You're unable or unwilling to offer them a home, and you want them to languish in the system to some married heterosexual couple comes along. At 67 you say, "That is to say a man and a women, not two men, not two women, because those pairs are not able to reproduce in the human species and as such are not reflective of mainstream society in general. In cases where the biological parents male and female are not present agencies need to go the extra mile and try as much as they possibly can to find stable and loving homes yes, but also after thoroughly investigating them, they must also take into consideration the type of family which will most like provide a healthier environment and provide normalcy in a child who lacks his or her biological parents and all blood connections. Therefor it's not just the home that needs to be taken into account but the social implications, the type of psychological disturbances that could be placed on a child thats already is starting life in a disadvantageous position. That can be greatly reduced when a child is carefully placed in a loving home that's socially reflective of society in general and which will not bring to the child new added social stresses when he's outside his home such as in school and when relating with others of her or his age for example. The only homes which can provide that stability both inside and outside of the home are the ones headed by a mom and dad."
So you leave us with. Loveschild is unwilling to help, but feels free to argue that foster children should be denied a family, with an individual or individuals who want them, because they need a married heterosexual couple. In short, you damn them to a life within the system without hope of exiting it. In that case, good to know that your bias trumps the needs of a living and breathing child. That sucks and it is cruel!
76
@69
"there is not enough hetero couples willing to adopt."
That's a falsehood. There are many married male/female couples seeking to adopt that can provide a home with a mom and a dad to a child in need of one. Agencies need to invest more time and efforts in targeting such couples thru media outlets and all other social communication venues than taking the horrid crass and irresponsible decision that FL has done in this case via placing more emphasis on foster caretakers (indiscriminately) and not adoptive parents, it's wrong and they should be called out for it as much as possible.
"there is not enough hetero couples willing to adopt."
That's a falsehood. There are many married male/female couples seeking to adopt that can provide a home with a mom and a dad to a child in need of one. Agencies need to invest more time and efforts in targeting such couples thru media outlets and all other social communication venues than taking the horrid crass and irresponsible decision that FL has done in this case via placing more emphasis on foster caretakers (indiscriminately) and not adoptive parents, it's wrong and they should be called out for it as much as possible.
77
This time you cannot dismiss the study simply because you don't like the source and claim it comes from a biased source, because it doesn't. If you dismiss it is because you don't like what it says.
Loveschild, please stop assuming that, just because you dismiss anything you don't like that everyone else does the same. I pointed out that you were extrapolating information that is not actually included in the report to back up your own extremely biased claims.
While I'm glad you admit that children should be placed in loving homes this business of those homes having to be "socially reflective of society in general" is something you're just making up. You may notice that families come in all shapes and size. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't make it any less true.
Also, quit throwing the word "biased" around until you know what it means.
78
You got a link which verifies your point, Loveschild @ 76.
I want to see actual numbers showing the great numbers of "married male/female couples" seeking to adopt children from the foster care system.
So, don't post a link about "married male/female couples" who want to adopt. The rest of us know that they wish to adopt an infant, a baby, and not a special needs one either. They want a healthy newborn, some will accept a healthy toddler, but most want a newborn.
Don't you wonder why so many couples go the foreign adoption route? Could part of it be that the pool of healthy newborns is small? After All, they willing pay money to adopt a child abroad and yet there are foster children waiting for homes in their own state. Does that fact not register to you at all?
I want to see actual numbers showing the great numbers of "married male/female couples" seeking to adopt children from the foster care system.
So, don't post a link about "married male/female couples" who want to adopt. The rest of us know that they wish to adopt an infant, a baby, and not a special needs one either. They want a healthy newborn, some will accept a healthy toddler, but most want a newborn.
Don't you wonder why so many couples go the foreign adoption route? Could part of it be that the pool of healthy newborns is small? After All, they willing pay money to adopt a child abroad and yet there are foster children waiting for homes in their own state. Does that fact not register to you at all?
79
@45 Sorry Katherine, you're right about the swearing and all around general nastiness here. I hope that's not you, I have my doubts tho because I don't get why you need to know that information. But to answer your question, no, I'm not childless, my kids are not adopted. Currently given all that's happened recently in the world and all I've read here on Slog, my husband and I are seriously looking into welcoming a new child into our home and providing him/her with love, stability, security and brothers and sisters. It wasn't something possible before due financial reasons but now that we are keeping our heads above water and we've been roughly making inroads it's something assured to take place in our lives, God willing.
80
Kim @76--and don't forget that many, many of these couples want a healthy WHITE newborn--so even good health and newborn-ness is no guarantee of easy placement. Is Loveschild really suggesting that already-scare public resources be spent on a giant ad campaign trying to convince married hetero couples to adopt special-needs kids? If gay couples are aware that these children exist and are in need of homes, then why are these alleged scores of married hetero couples desperate for children ignorant of same?
81
@79--now you're just being disingenuous. She doesn't "need information" about your personal life, she wants to know if you walk the walk, so to speak.
82
@77 Can one man solely reproduce ? Can two men reproduce ?
Nature cannot be overridden by new fads, only one man and one woman can reproduce. That's why all of us where born and most were raised by a mother and a father. So when refencing to the parental units in a family it's not so much that they "come in all shapes and size" as you said but they arrived at such stuctures due to many factors whether is by fault or by accident, that whoever doesn't mean that children under the care of the state should be placed in homes of any "shapes and size" simply becuase they're out there and that the ideal should take a backseat.
Nature cannot be overridden by new fads, only one man and one woman can reproduce. That's why all of us where born and most were raised by a mother and a father. So when refencing to the parental units in a family it's not so much that they "come in all shapes and size" as you said but they arrived at such stuctures due to many factors whether is by fault or by accident, that whoever doesn't mean that children under the care of the state should be placed in homes of any "shapes and size" simply becuase they're out there and that the ideal should take a backseat.
83
* that however doesn't mean that children under the care of the state should be placed in homes of any "shapes and size" simply becuase they're out there and that the ideal should take a backseat.
84
if straights love the kids so much, then why do they throw them away? and why can't anybody who wants to take care of them take care of them? my lesbian friend does just that.... she takes care of the kids that the straights (mom and dad!) threw away... wtf is the problem with that? there's no black and white to this... love is love is love... if we're so preoccupied with the kid's well-being then this shouldn't be a problem,unless...
85
Nature cannot be overridden by new fads, only one man and one woman can reproduce.
Loveschild, the question of "nature" has been dealt with elsewhere. Homosexuality is not "unnatural". As far as it being a "new fad", I'm sure that would come as a great surprise to, say, Socrates.
As for the "ideal" taking "a backseat", are you honestly saying that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children because they don't fit your "ideal"? Are you saying foster children should remain "under the care of the state" until a family that matches what you believe is the ideal can be found?
I just want to make sure I understand correctly that you're saying leaving a foster child in the care of the state is better than allowing a same-sex couple to provide a loving, supportive home.
86
If i may add re: international adoptions.
I am Russian, and volunteered at the orphange when i still lived there. Most kids there are white, maybe tiniest precent is from asian descent,olive-skinned.
And still, only healthy ones get adopted by foreign national, or anybody for that matter. If parents were alcohoics/drug-users,or babies with defects of AIDS,etc. - those are adopted so rarely, it cant even be shown in a percentage, it just a miracle.
Also kids over age of 5 are virtually not adoptable.I only saw one case when a baby was adopted and they also took a 7 y o , because she happened to be baby's sister.
I am Russian, and volunteered at the orphange when i still lived there. Most kids there are white, maybe tiniest precent is from asian descent,olive-skinned.
And still, only healthy ones get adopted by foreign national, or anybody for that matter. If parents were alcohoics/drug-users,or babies with defects of AIDS,etc. - those are adopted so rarely, it cant even be shown in a percentage, it just a miracle.
Also kids over age of 5 are virtually not adoptable.I only saw one case when a baby was adopted and they also took a 7 y o , because she happened to be baby's sister.
87
The state of Florida, and for that matter all 50 states, as well as all adoption agencies are too busy caring for and trying to place the CHILDREN already in their care to go out and advertise for hetero couples that want to adopt.
Should these agencies really spend their time and resources to advertise adoption? Why don't the hetero couples come forward and make their desire to adopt known? If the couple doesn't take their own time and effort to prequalify and get on a waiting list, why should they even be considered as suitable parents? Shouldn't the agencies efforts be to actually provide for the children??????
Just another aspect of your argument that makes absolutely no sense at all. No sense. Nada.
Should these agencies really spend their time and resources to advertise adoption? Why don't the hetero couples come forward and make their desire to adopt known? If the couple doesn't take their own time and effort to prequalify and get on a waiting list, why should they even be considered as suitable parents? Shouldn't the agencies efforts be to actually provide for the children??????
Just another aspect of your argument that makes absolutely no sense at all. No sense. Nada.
88
"Homosexuality is not "unnatural". As far as it being a "new fad", I'm sure that would come as a great surprise to, say, Socrates."
Southern Gentleman, leave the issue about the nature of homsexuality aside for one moment. I've always answered you so please answer me this, can two men reproduce thru their union ? What I meant by new fad was their new interest in raising children. That's what's not natural.
Southern Gentleman, leave the issue about the nature of homsexuality aside for one moment. I've always answered you so please answer me this, can two men reproduce thru their union ? What I meant by new fad was their new interest in raising children. That's what's not natural.
89
Loveschild, you haven't always answered me. You consistently skip over certain questions, but then honesty hasn't exactly been a strong point for you either.
Two men can't reproduce and neither can two women. Does that make it "unnatural" that two men or two women can fall in love, want to share their lives, and want to raise children? Perhaps this is a "new fad" simply because society has evolved to become more accepting of same-sex couples, or perhaps it's a tendency that's always been around but we're just more aware of it. Since there have been several same-sex couples who've made a serious commitment to raising children I wouldn't call it a "fad".
Is it nature, though, that sets the "ideal"? If that's the case, why does nature allow single mothers to even exist?
By the way, a question you've consistently dodged is, is it really better for a child to remain in the state's care, or to be in an abusive household with a mother and father than to be placed in a loving home provided by a same-sex couple?
Two men can't reproduce and neither can two women. Does that make it "unnatural" that two men or two women can fall in love, want to share their lives, and want to raise children? Perhaps this is a "new fad" simply because society has evolved to become more accepting of same-sex couples, or perhaps it's a tendency that's always been around but we're just more aware of it. Since there have been several same-sex couples who've made a serious commitment to raising children I wouldn't call it a "fad".
Is it nature, though, that sets the "ideal"? If that's the case, why does nature allow single mothers to even exist?
By the way, a question you've consistently dodged is, is it really better for a child to remain in the state's care, or to be in an abusive household with a mother and father than to be placed in a loving home provided by a same-sex couple?
90
@89
The state needs to take actions on what's best for the minor, if prospective parents are unfit to adopt even if the coupled is comprised of a male and a female, then they should not be allowed to do so. Likewise the state cannot overlook the obvious dangers of promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc.. that are generally prevalent withing the homosexual lifestyle and all it embraces. That coupled with the absence of one opposite gender role model, father or mother figure, to offer a real balanced social adjustment in a child's life in order to prepare him or her for adulthood, does render those in same sex relationships at minimum, unfit for consideration when it comes to adopting.
What two adults wish to do with their lives is their business, I don't know if you could attribute love in such relationships but let's take you word for it. That's not the issue. Since you have at least recognized the fact that two persons of the same sex cannot procreate a new life thru their union then I don't get how you cannot simply accept that any attempt on their part at involving themselves in parenting is by default not natural.
I don't think so. I honestly belive this has more to do with current gay demands to seek a seal of approval by society in all of our nation's insituions. You see it with the military and you see it with marriage, their insterest for adoption is the same. Most are simply using these kids as shields to further advance their demands and gain sympathy with the public, since they know that by themselves they cannot achieve that. Do you think it's right to use an orphan, a child in need of a home just to further an agenda ?
Feel free to correct me Southern Gentleman, but I don't think women become mothers just by themselves. I certainly didn't. That's not to say that just because life happened and those hard working women that find themselves juggling between jobs and home responsibilities raising kids by themselves are less than those who still are with their husbands and the fathers of their kids. They most certainly aren't. But by no way can they be compared with adults who have made a conscious decision to forgo their bloodlines and possible progeny. Those that have made that decision should be free to do so but also need to know that there are certain essential societal pillars that cannot be redefined to accommodate them in the decision they've freely chosen.
More...
By the way, a question you've consistently dodged is, is it really better for a child to remain in the state's care, or to be in an abusive household with a mother and father than to be placed in a loving home provided by a same-sex couple?
The state needs to take actions on what's best for the minor, if prospective parents are unfit to adopt even if the coupled is comprised of a male and a female, then they should not be allowed to do so. Likewise the state cannot overlook the obvious dangers of promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc.. that are generally prevalent withing the homosexual lifestyle and all it embraces. That coupled with the absence of one opposite gender role model, father or mother figure, to offer a real balanced social adjustment in a child's life in order to prepare him or her for adulthood, does render those in same sex relationships at minimum, unfit for consideration when it comes to adopting.
What two adults wish to do with their lives is their business, I don't know if you could attribute love in such relationships but let's take you word for it. That's not the issue. Since you have at least recognized the fact that two persons of the same sex cannot procreate a new life thru their union then I don't get how you cannot simply accept that any attempt on their part at involving themselves in parenting is by default not natural.
"Perhaps this is a "new fad" simply because society has evolved to become more accepting of same-sex couples, or perhaps it's a tendency that's always been around but we're just more aware of it."
I don't think so. I honestly belive this has more to do with current gay demands to seek a seal of approval by society in all of our nation's insituions. You see it with the military and you see it with marriage, their insterest for adoption is the same. Most are simply using these kids as shields to further advance their demands and gain sympathy with the public, since they know that by themselves they cannot achieve that. Do you think it's right to use an orphan, a child in need of a home just to further an agenda ?
"Is it nature, though, that sets the "ideal"? If that's the case, why does nature allow single mothers to even exist?
Feel free to correct me Southern Gentleman, but I don't think women become mothers just by themselves. I certainly didn't. That's not to say that just because life happened and those hard working women that find themselves juggling between jobs and home responsibilities raising kids by themselves are less than those who still are with their husbands and the fathers of their kids. They most certainly aren't. But by no way can they be compared with adults who have made a conscious decision to forgo their bloodlines and possible progeny. Those that have made that decision should be free to do so but also need to know that there are certain essential societal pillars that cannot be redefined to accommodate them in the decision they've freely chosen.
91
Likewise the state cannot overlook the obvious dangers of promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc.. that are generally prevalent withing the homosexual lifestyle and all it embraces.
You're generalizing, Loveschild, and relying on stereotypes. Are you saying all same-sex couples live a lifestyle of "promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc."? There's a reason social workers review a home before allowing a person or a couple to foster a child or even adopt, or do you think anyone who asks just gets handed a child?
I don't think women become mothers just by themselves.
You're misreading and missing the point. I've admitted that it takes two parents to produce a child. However you seemed to be making the argument that the "ideal" family was defined by nature. I'd simply like to know why, if that's the case, nature allows women to become pregnant out of wedlock.
As for redefining "certain essential societal pillars", you'll find, for one thing, that heterosexuals have been redefining "marriage" on a regular basis for some time. Besides, homosexuality is not a choice. I could cite sources on that, but I'm sure you'd dismiss them as all biased because you don't like to accept facts that contradict your beliefs. However, if you really think homosexuality is a choice, then when, exactly, did you choose to be straight?
92
You show yourself to be the most pathetic and disingenuous person here, Loveschild. You dehumanize others to forward your agenda. You slander and use character assassination to belittle others. Your agenda has no fact or rational basis at all, just your personal bigotry and opinion. When asked a straight forward question you 1) try to ignore it and 2) dance around it trying to twist it to support your bias. And, in the end you don't answer the darn question, you blame others. You have no honor, no integrity, and no intellectual honesty. Whoever the heck you are your comments show you to be the lowest type of person, a liar, a hypocrite, and an abusive personality.
93
@63 - You're still talking about your intentions, as you define them, when using these words. You aren't listening to a single thing I'm saying about how social connotation MATTERS. You're being completely thickheaded on this issue because I think you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
Like I said...you have your definition of what a "cuntwhorebitch" is, the next guy has a different definition. Though YOU may use these words on men (I'll take your word on that, though I'm a bit skeptical that you'll use them as readily on men as on women), the fact of the matter is, these are words used on WOMEN, and the unifying factor from guy to guy is that the words describe a woman that has displeased a man in some way.
I don't care if you say you have "nothing against women." Your words do.
Like I said...you have your definition of what a "cuntwhorebitch" is, the next guy has a different definition. Though YOU may use these words on men (I'll take your word on that, though I'm a bit skeptical that you'll use them as readily on men as on women), the fact of the matter is, these are words used on WOMEN, and the unifying factor from guy to guy is that the words describe a woman that has displeased a man in some way.
I don't care if you say you have "nothing against women." Your words do.
94
@71 - "Cunt " has different connotations in British, Irish, Australian society. But if you're going to insist on this whole, "oh, words don't mean anything, you choose to be offended, blah blah blah," shit, just go read Dan's new post about the difference between how people perceive the rights of "gays and lesbians" vs. the rights of "homosexuals." Words matter.
95
@92: I'd argue that Alleged is more "pathetic and disingenuous", but hey, I'll leave that to the philosophers.
@93: 'Scuse? I use these words ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on men, since, as these are words that have been used against women, it is in pretty poor taste to call a woman those words. Loveschild I exempt from this because of her/their idiotic and offensive statements.
And in response to what you say in post #94, I must remind you that "gay", "lesbian", and "homosexual" are words for who people are, not for how people act. I've made the point clear before on multiple occasions; I'm not calling anyone "wench" or addressing people as "woman", I'm using derogatory language that refers to their habit of imposing their bigoted opinions on us.
If you insist that the words I use mean something else, stop reading my posts and get off my ass about it.
As long as we're talking about sexism:
@88: Loveschild, you sexist piece of shit. You describe gay men wanting to raise children as a "new fad". Are you one of those people who think that raising children is women's work?
Or are you just incapable of accepting that two fathers or mothers can raise children every bit as effectively as one of each. I bet you might not have so much of a problem with gay men raising children if they were closeted and trapped in a loveless marriage for the appearance of heterosexuality.
And no, two men cannot reproduce directly; they must adopt children if they want to raise a family. Two women can reproduce without getting any male action, however, thanks to modern technology: IVF and sperm donors. So suppose two lesbians both receive IVF from anonymous sperm donors and carry children to term. Where is the best place for their children: with the only biological parent they have and a loving, caring mother who just happens to be genetically unrelated to them? Or would you argue that their children be taken away from parents who have shown no sign of mistreating nor neglecting them, and place them into a foster home until someone deigns to adopt them?
Riddle me that, Loveschild, you sanctimonious CWB.
More...
@93: 'Scuse? I use these words ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on men, since, as these are words that have been used against women, it is in pretty poor taste to call a woman those words. Loveschild I exempt from this because of her/their idiotic and offensive statements.
And in response to what you say in post #94, I must remind you that "gay", "lesbian", and "homosexual" are words for who people are, not for how people act. I've made the point clear before on multiple occasions; I'm not calling anyone "wench" or addressing people as "woman", I'm using derogatory language that refers to their habit of imposing their bigoted opinions on us.
If you insist that the words I use mean something else, stop reading my posts and get off my ass about it.
As long as we're talking about sexism:
@88: Loveschild, you sexist piece of shit. You describe gay men wanting to raise children as a "new fad". Are you one of those people who think that raising children is women's work?
Or are you just incapable of accepting that two fathers or mothers can raise children every bit as effectively as one of each. I bet you might not have so much of a problem with gay men raising children if they were closeted and trapped in a loveless marriage for the appearance of heterosexuality.
And no, two men cannot reproduce directly; they must adopt children if they want to raise a family. Two women can reproduce without getting any male action, however, thanks to modern technology: IVF and sperm donors. So suppose two lesbians both receive IVF from anonymous sperm donors and carry children to term. Where is the best place for their children: with the only biological parent they have and a loving, caring mother who just happens to be genetically unrelated to them? Or would you argue that their children be taken away from parents who have shown no sign of mistreating nor neglecting them, and place them into a foster home until someone deigns to adopt them?
Riddle me that, Loveschild, you sanctimonious CWB.
96
Loveschild, someone adopting a child as a matter of courtship (which is the majority of step-parenting) is far different than a couple, gay or straight, choosing to adopt due to a desire to parent. Comparing the two is ridiculous. There's a reason why step-parent and adoptive parent are different terms treated very separately by researchers.
Idiot.
Idiot.
97
To Loveschild,
Since you don’t have any personal experience with the foster care system, I will tell you about one child. I’ll use a pseudonym for her to protect her privacy—how about “Michelle”? I met Michelle during the 2004-2005 school year, when she was in my husband’s second grade class. She is an African-American girl, 8 at the time. She was bright—above grade-level in reading and math. She had some behavior problems, but most of the time she was sweet and eager to please
Michelle’s mother had died in a car accident when Michelle was preschool aged. Her father had never been a part of her life. Her much-older sister has custody of her for a while, but she physically abused Michelle and lost custody, although she was allowed to visit her when supervised by a social worker.
Michelle went through three different foster homes during the 2004-2005 school year. With each move, she became more and more distraught.
Michelle wanted nothing more than a family. I would frequently volunteer in my husband’s classroom, and whenever I did, Michelle would stick right by my side. She would say things like, “If you were my mom, would you take me to the zoo?” and “If I was your daughter, would we make cookies together?” When Father’s Day came around, she made a card for my husband, since she had no other father figure. Near the end of the school year, she broke down sobbing, saying, “Why does everyone else have a family, but not me?”
My husband and I talked about adopting her, but we weren’t ready to have a family. We were only 24. I had a huge debt from graduate school, and I hadn’t even started my career. My husband’s dream was to go back to school and become a marriage counsellor. We weren’t ready to give up these dreams in order to raise a daughter.
I tried to stay in contact with her. I applied to be a “Big Sister” through her foster care agency, filling out applications, attending an interview, undergoing a background check. However, before I was approved, Michelle got transferred to a different foster care agency, and a FOURTH foster home within the year. Her new social worker wasn’t interested in me as a Big Sister. Maybe it was better that I didn’t stay in contact with her—my husband got accepted into graduate school a few months later, and we moved across the continent. If I had stayed in Michelle’s life, I would have been just one more adult who abandoned her.
Like you, Loveschild, I have very strong beliefs about what is right for children. My beliefs are different than your in many ways, I’m sure, but please believe me: I am strongly committed to the wellbeing of young people.
I wasn’t willing to be a parent to Michelle. You aren’t willing to be a parent to Michelle, Loveschild. And anyone who would be willing—whether they are married, divorced, single, gay, straight, bisexual, optimist, pessimist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, atheist, agnostic, even-tempered, passionate, healthy, sickly, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, vegetarian, meat-eating, smoking, non-smoking, Democratic, Republican, or Tea-Partying—would be better than you and I with all our words, words, words.
I doubt very much that I’ve changed your mind. Maybe all these rude people are right—you’re not a real person behind that screen-name, but just some people playing an online joke with a fake persona. But at least read this last sentence, even though you’ll just discount it: your fundamentalist aversion to gays adopting is a very small part of the reason that some children like Michelle don’t have a family, and this part of you—not all of you, I’m sure you have good points—this part of you is cruel beyond belief.
More...
Since you don’t have any personal experience with the foster care system, I will tell you about one child. I’ll use a pseudonym for her to protect her privacy—how about “Michelle”? I met Michelle during the 2004-2005 school year, when she was in my husband’s second grade class. She is an African-American girl, 8 at the time. She was bright—above grade-level in reading and math. She had some behavior problems, but most of the time she was sweet and eager to please
Michelle’s mother had died in a car accident when Michelle was preschool aged. Her father had never been a part of her life. Her much-older sister has custody of her for a while, but she physically abused Michelle and lost custody, although she was allowed to visit her when supervised by a social worker.
Michelle went through three different foster homes during the 2004-2005 school year. With each move, she became more and more distraught.
Michelle wanted nothing more than a family. I would frequently volunteer in my husband’s classroom, and whenever I did, Michelle would stick right by my side. She would say things like, “If you were my mom, would you take me to the zoo?” and “If I was your daughter, would we make cookies together?” When Father’s Day came around, she made a card for my husband, since she had no other father figure. Near the end of the school year, she broke down sobbing, saying, “Why does everyone else have a family, but not me?”
My husband and I talked about adopting her, but we weren’t ready to have a family. We were only 24. I had a huge debt from graduate school, and I hadn’t even started my career. My husband’s dream was to go back to school and become a marriage counsellor. We weren’t ready to give up these dreams in order to raise a daughter.
I tried to stay in contact with her. I applied to be a “Big Sister” through her foster care agency, filling out applications, attending an interview, undergoing a background check. However, before I was approved, Michelle got transferred to a different foster care agency, and a FOURTH foster home within the year. Her new social worker wasn’t interested in me as a Big Sister. Maybe it was better that I didn’t stay in contact with her—my husband got accepted into graduate school a few months later, and we moved across the continent. If I had stayed in Michelle’s life, I would have been just one more adult who abandoned her.
Like you, Loveschild, I have very strong beliefs about what is right for children. My beliefs are different than your in many ways, I’m sure, but please believe me: I am strongly committed to the wellbeing of young people.
I wasn’t willing to be a parent to Michelle. You aren’t willing to be a parent to Michelle, Loveschild. And anyone who would be willing—whether they are married, divorced, single, gay, straight, bisexual, optimist, pessimist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, atheist, agnostic, even-tempered, passionate, healthy, sickly, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, vegetarian, meat-eating, smoking, non-smoking, Democratic, Republican, or Tea-Partying—would be better than you and I with all our words, words, words.
I doubt very much that I’ve changed your mind. Maybe all these rude people are right—you’re not a real person behind that screen-name, but just some people playing an online joke with a fake persona. But at least read this last sentence, even though you’ll just discount it: your fundamentalist aversion to gays adopting is a very small part of the reason that some children like Michelle don’t have a family, and this part of you—not all of you, I’m sure you have good points—this part of you is cruel beyond belief.
99
Katherine, thank you for sharing your story. You've made the most important point I think can be made, and one I've tried to make, only with a lot of unnecessary verbage: someone who is willing to be a parent, who's willing to make that commitment and that effort, can be a decent parent.
Going by Loveschild's logic even an infertile heterosexual couple should never be allowed to adopt a child because "nature" prevents infertile individuals from reproducing.
Going by Loveschild's logic even an infertile heterosexual couple should never be allowed to adopt a child because "nature" prevents infertile individuals from reproducing.
100
100th!!
Whew! I read each and every post on this thread, and might I add, what a roller coaster ride.
Conclusions:
LC will NEVER, EVER change her/it bigoted narrow mindedness. She/It deserves our pity. No. Really. She. Does.
&
There are some wonderful people in this world (not you LC), and for that, I am content in knowing.
Whew! I read each and every post on this thread, and might I add, what a roller coaster ride.
Conclusions:
LC will NEVER, EVER change her/it bigoted narrow mindedness. She/It deserves our pity. No. Really. She. Does.
&
There are some wonderful people in this world (not you LC), and for that, I am content in knowing.
101
@Southern Gentleman,
Actually, LC's logic allows for infertile couples and those beyond childbearing age, because they set the example of her " natural" take. Outward appearance is important. Do not know if the couple in OR who have two children get a pass with LC's logic as the father was the one who was pregnant twice, a man with a uterus puts a wrinkle in her "natural" take.
Actually, LC's logic allows for infertile couples and those beyond childbearing age, because they set the example of her " natural" take. Outward appearance is important. Do not know if the couple in OR who have two children get a pass with LC's logic as the father was the one who was pregnant twice, a man with a uterus puts a wrinkle in her "natural" take.
102
@99
Infertile straight couples do not deviate when in union from that which allows new human life in this world.
If you're familiar with what the Bible says then you know that Sarah had given up hope of ever having offspring, she even laughed when told she would because she was way into old age yet she and Abraham had Isaac. Ever heard of John the Baptist ? His parents were also barren for many years till they finally were able to have him.
Infertile straight couples do not deviate when in union from that which allows new human life in this world.
If you're familiar with what the Bible says then you know that Sarah had given up hope of ever having offspring, she even laughed when told she would because she was way into old age yet she and Abraham had Isaac. Ever heard of John the Baptist ? His parents were also barren for many years till they finally were able to have him.
103
@101 Dear, the person you're referencing was born a woman, took hormones or whatever and outwardly resembles somewhat a man. But she retained her female reproductive parts and did not fully go thru with a complete gender reassignment. So it's basically a woman that has chosen to be artificially inseminated.
104
If you're familiar with what the Bible says...
Therein lies the problem. The Bible says a lot of things, many of which are simply untrue (starting with the Earth being created in six days). Could you clarify, though, whether you're using the Bible to inform your definition of marriage or whether you're using "nature"? The Bible, after all, has quite a few polygamists.
As for nature, homosexual behavior can be found in animals other than humans, so apparently there's nothing unnatural about it.
105
@Kim in Portland, thanks for pointing that out. You're absolutely correct that, in Loveschild's logic, "Outward appearance is important." Outward appearance apparently matters even more than the well-being of children to Loveschild because a same-sex couple does not conform to what Loveschild recognizes as "normal".
I'm trying to point out that Loveschild's idea of normalcy has little or no basis in facts. In spite of her vague references to what is "natural" she clearly doesn't know very much about biology or psychology.
I'm trying to point out that Loveschild's idea of normalcy has little or no basis in facts. In spite of her vague references to what is "natural" she clearly doesn't know very much about biology or psychology.
106
LC @102--so now you're arguing that even infertility itself should not be considered an absolute barrier to eventual childbearing, and therefore...what? Are you now saying that heterosexual married couples SHOULDN'T adopt, but should simply wait and continue trying to conceive? (Should we also plan to live well into our hundreds, like Abraham and Sarah?) What would happen to all the children in the foster care system who should only be adopted by heterosexual couples then, if all those couples are patiently waiting to become pregnant and refusing to adopt??
107
@106 What I'm saying is that to equate a heterosexual couple that might be experiencing issues of infertility with two people of the same sex in a relationship is intellectually disingenuous. Because the former do not deviate when having sex from what nature has dictated as the act that makes human life possible, a straight couple may remain barren but just as well they may recover and have offspring, especially now with all the advancements made in science, because they biologically complement each other. That's not the case in homosexual relationships, no matter how much they try, homosexual couples do not complement each other biologically speaking, they either have to seek someone of the opposite gender and buy that person's sperm, or egg/ plus womb (when they're male homosexuals), or make demands of the state so that they are favored as qualified for adopting a child.
108
Loveschild, you're holding on to a belief that sex is only about procreation even though sexual activity in both humans and other animals it's much more complicated than that. Sexual activity between males and females can result in offspring but it doesn't always, nor is it always meant to. Sexual activity can result in pair bonds that actually strengthen a community. Besides, if you knew anything about the biology of ecosystems you'd know that unchecked reproduction is unsustainable and a very bad thing for any environment. If nothing else homosexuality serves an environmental purpose, although some people who identify as homosexual will still have children.
You're being "intellectually disingenuous" by refusing intellect to enter into it. When your "nature" argument is refuted you fall back on a broad stereotype of homosexuals living a "lifestyle" of "promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia" etc. You fail to take into account that social workers review homes before allowing people to foster or adopt children, and that, while tragedies do occur, tragic things happen even in heterosexual households.
Of course, as we've seen, your pretzel logic will sometimes make connections between tragedies that occur in heterosexual families and the looming spectre of same-sex marriage even when the two things are completely unrelated.
You're being "intellectually disingenuous" by refusing intellect to enter into it. When your "nature" argument is refuted you fall back on a broad stereotype of homosexuals living a "lifestyle" of "promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia" etc. You fail to take into account that social workers review homes before allowing people to foster or adopt children, and that, while tragedies do occur, tragic things happen even in heterosexual households.
Of course, as we've seen, your pretzel logic will sometimes make connections between tragedies that occur in heterosexual families and the looming spectre of same-sex marriage even when the two things are completely unrelated.
109
@107: Nature dictates things? PHWOOOAAAR???
You know what? If we only used our body parts for sexual activities for which they had been designed, we'd never kiss each other, since the lips are designed for manipulating food items and making facial expressions and really nothing else.
It's funny what you said, though, because there's an awful lot of gayness out in the animal kingdom for it to be against nature.
Well, if we had always used our brains and bodies as they had been designed for, as nature would dictate, then we'd still be small, furry, tree/savanna-dwelling apes. Because you know what? We are the animals we are today because due to evolutionary pressures (changing climate, etc.) our ancestors began to adapt a quadrupedal frame to bipedal activity and began to put meat through a digestive system designed for vegetable roughage. These changes allowed us to develop dexterous hands (since our forelimbs were no longer needed for locomotion) and to sustain larger brains (since meat, especially cooked meat, is quite energy-rich). And sure, Nature did "punish" us for these, I suppose: we've got bad backs and temperamental appendices due to those two changes. But according to your logic, we never should have evolved sentience.
Well, if you're trying to remedy that error, you may be doing too good of a job devolving; the great apes have been shown to possess quite decent powers of thought and reasoning. DURRRR.
You know what? If we only used our body parts for sexual activities for which they had been designed, we'd never kiss each other, since the lips are designed for manipulating food items and making facial expressions and really nothing else.
It's funny what you said, though, because there's an awful lot of gayness out in the animal kingdom for it to be against nature.
Well, if we had always used our brains and bodies as they had been designed for, as nature would dictate, then we'd still be small, furry, tree/savanna-dwelling apes. Because you know what? We are the animals we are today because due to evolutionary pressures (changing climate, etc.) our ancestors began to adapt a quadrupedal frame to bipedal activity and began to put meat through a digestive system designed for vegetable roughage. These changes allowed us to develop dexterous hands (since our forelimbs were no longer needed for locomotion) and to sustain larger brains (since meat, especially cooked meat, is quite energy-rich). And sure, Nature did "punish" us for these, I suppose: we've got bad backs and temperamental appendices due to those two changes. But according to your logic, we never should have evolved sentience.
Well, if you're trying to remedy that error, you may be doing too good of a job devolving; the great apes have been shown to possess quite decent powers of thought and reasoning. DURRRR.
110
@108
"Sexual activity between males and females can result in offspring but it doesn't always"
You're somewhat right, sometimes it doesn't but those are more exceptions than the rule. And the primary function of sexual activity between males and females is procreation, pleasure and enjoyment is an important part that nature has allowed for the purpose of the propagation of the human species. I'm not saying pleasure is wrong, it isn't but it is part of not the primary reason biologically speaking for why we have sex.
"Sexual activity can result in pair bonds that actually strengthen a community."
I've read arguments here about the benefits that homosexuals would receive, but I'm not certain what benefits or 'strength' could society and the nation at large possibly get from sanctioning gay marriage. It's seems to me it would be the opposite. Have you seen the current social state of western european nations that have sanctioned (by way of the politicians decree not the people) gay marriage ? Do you really think that our nation could benefit socially and economically from having low birth rates like they do ?
"Sexual activity between males and females can result in offspring but it doesn't always"
You're somewhat right, sometimes it doesn't but those are more exceptions than the rule. And the primary function of sexual activity between males and females is procreation, pleasure and enjoyment is an important part that nature has allowed for the purpose of the propagation of the human species. I'm not saying pleasure is wrong, it isn't but it is part of not the primary reason biologically speaking for why we have sex.
"Sexual activity can result in pair bonds that actually strengthen a community."
I've read arguments here about the benefits that homosexuals would receive, but I'm not certain what benefits or 'strength' could society and the nation at large possibly get from sanctioning gay marriage. It's seems to me it would be the opposite. Have you seen the current social state of western european nations that have sanctioned (by way of the politicians decree not the people) gay marriage ? Do you really think that our nation could benefit socially and economically from having low birth rates like they do ?
111
103
Sigh.
Your understanding of what gender is, is completely uneducated. The science totally escapes you. He is a *he*.
Good to know that you're in his head, that he is your personal friend and you know everything about him and can answer for him.
You're arrogant, presumptive, and woefully uneducated, dear. And, it shows.
Sigh.
Your understanding of what gender is, is completely uneducated. The science totally escapes you. He is a *he*.
Good to know that you're in his head, that he is your personal friend and you know everything about him and can answer for him.
You're arrogant, presumptive, and woefully uneducated, dear. And, it shows.
112
Have you seen the current social state of western european nations that have sanctioned (by way of the politicians decree not the people) gay marriage ? Do you really think that our nation could benefit socially and economically from having low birth rates like they do ?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have seen those western European nations. Have you? Their primary problem with low birth rates is a fear of immigrants who are rapidly going from a minority to a majority, although whether they're "suffering" from that is a matter of dispute. The major economic strain, though, is coming from attempting to provide social services to a broad population, not same-sex marriage.
I'm not saying pleasure is wrong, it isn't but it is part of not the primary reason biologically speaking for why we have sex.
And who are you, exactly, to dictate exactly why "biologically speaking" we do anything? I've addressed the issue of sex as a matter of procreation, but since you can't refute it and since it doesn't fit with your views, you're choosing to ignore it. As usual you're not interested in honest debate. The facts don't fit your ideology, but that's a problem with your ideology, not the facts.
113
@107--so you feel that fitness for parenthood relates to the ability to produce children, even if the two people who happen to be married are physiologically unable to produce children with each other (vague suggestions of "recovery" aside)? Which is to say: simply HAVING ORGANS, even if those organs are not serving the purpose they were created to serve? In other words, nature is never wrong, because even if it is wrong, it's only kidding.
114
Low birth rates and gay marriage are not related, LC. If ,let's say,Belguim and Netherlands wpuld outlaw the same sex-marriage, their birth rates arent going to go up. You do know it, right?
Low birth rates and gay marriage are not related, LC. If ,let's say,Belguim and Netherlands wpuld outlaw the same sex-marriage, their birth rates arent going to go up. You do know it, right?
115
@112 How do you expect a nation to be able to provide social services to their population without younger citizens to shoulder on the brunt of the costs ? Don't you think that by correlation unions that do not contribute to the birth rate but are recognized by the state and are being granted all the same social benefits as those who do in fact contribute are not a negative in terms of the sub-replacement rate that they aggravate ? Stating the truth about the xenophobia currently rampant in europe does not take away from that reality. In fact, it simple states that in great part due to immigration western european states like France and the Netherlands and Spain have somewhat balanced out the lower birth rate in their citizenry.
116
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Sil…
Two penguins, male penguins, coming together, without political or social bias, to raise an orphaned egg, IN NATURE.
so.....how is it unnatural for homosexual couples to raise children?
The chinstrap penguins are cool with it, why not humans?
Two penguins, male penguins, coming together, without political or social bias, to raise an orphaned egg, IN NATURE.
so.....how is it unnatural for homosexual couples to raise children?
The chinstrap penguins are cool with it, why not humans?
117
ah sorry. i got the facts wrong.
But still.
animals pair in same sex couples in nature all the time.
thats my point.
its not unnatural if you see it happening in nature.
But still.
animals pair in same sex couples in nature all the time.
thats my point.
its not unnatural if you see it happening in nature.
118
How do you expect a nation to be able to provide social services to their population without younger citizens to shoulder on the brunt of the costs ?
Loveschild, do you not understand anything about ecology, even after I've explained it in simple terms? What you're describing sounds like a population pyramid scheme in which each successive generation has to be larger in order
to bear the "brunt of the costs" of providing social services. Unlimited population growth is simply unsustainable.
By the way, Japan also has a declining birth rate but has not legalized same-sex marriage. You can't blame everything on same-sex marriage or homosexuality no matter how much you would like to. Once again the facts don't fit your ideology.
Also you're ignoring the fact that, as I mentioned, people who identify as homosexual do sometimes have children.
Finally, is your problem really with "unions that do not contribute to the birth rate"? Are you seriously raising this again? By that same logic infertile heterosexuals should be barred from marrying as well. I'm sure you'll just bring up your "nature" argument again as an explanation as to why that's not the case, but your "nature" argument isn't based any more on facts than any other argument you've made.
119
quick aside - Who has two thumbs and is bored to death of Loveschild?
@venomlash (last seen @109) - for the record, I am a woman, and a feminist, and I believe that impact trumps intent and that words and the offense taken at their use mean something.
I also use the words cunt, whore and bitch at every possible opportunity and in every possible combination, and find it enormously entertaining when others do the same. So as far as I'm concerned, you go right on ahead with your possibly-misogynist swearing.
That said, what is truly offensive is your lack of creativity. Spelling the cusses out doesn't make your words more impactful when you use the same three over and over and over again. Between the troll-baiting and the uninspired swearing, you're starting to bore me almost as much as Loveschild. And I know that's not a boat you want to be in.
@venomlash (last seen @109) - for the record, I am a woman, and a feminist, and I believe that impact trumps intent and that words and the offense taken at their use mean something.
I also use the words cunt, whore and bitch at every possible opportunity and in every possible combination, and find it enormously entertaining when others do the same. So as far as I'm concerned, you go right on ahead with your possibly-misogynist swearing.
That said, what is truly offensive is your lack of creativity. Spelling the cusses out doesn't make your words more impactful when you use the same three over and over and over again. Between the troll-baiting and the uninspired swearing, you're starting to bore me almost as much as Loveschild. And I know that's not a boat you want to be in.
120
@118 Both extremes are bad. I'm not saying that same sex marriage is to blame for low birth rates, what I'm saying is that they do not contribute to turn around the situation and therefor do not result in a strengthening of the community as you implied @ 108.
"Also you're ignoring the fact that, as I mentioned, people who identify as homosexual do sometimes have children."
No. Read the last sentence @107, that's how some of those who self identify as homosexuals sometimes have children, if biologically, only one of them can be a parent, biologically speaking. Hardly something which any nation seeking to sustain and renew its population should consider fomenting. Adoption is different of course. You might not like it but as it stands reproduction cannot occur between two men nor between two women. Infertility, at least when it comes to humans, implies a greatly diminished or an occurrence of absence in fertility, meaning that before that there is an actual expectation of fertility to begin with. When it comes to homosexuality that expectation is non-existent whatsoever, so infertility is an inappropriate term to use when speaking about those in same sex relations because fertility in them has never been a reality in this world.
121
LC @115--the larger benefits to society of marital unions are not limited to producing offspring at a replacement rate, any more than the social benefits of churches are limited to keeping people off the streets for an hour on Sundays.
122
@121: Schwing!
@119: I do try to throw a few choice expletives in for variety. The reason I tend to put in the old standby as well is because I'm hoping to get it to stick. Go right ahead and judge me if you want to.
@120: Homosexuals aren't going to reproduce anyway, whether or not they get married. Basically, the birthrate situation is independent of gay marriage, so it makes no sense for you to use birthrate as an excuse to deny people their rights. But why not allow them to contribute to society by giving parentless children a loving, caring home? The magnitude of your blind dogmatism is thoroughly mind-boggling, and the value of what you post makes commenting on SLOG equivalent for you to voiding your bowels. Crawl back under your rock, you anencephalic twit.
@119: SEE??? Variety!
@119: I do try to throw a few choice expletives in for variety. The reason I tend to put in the old standby as well is because I'm hoping to get it to stick. Go right ahead and judge me if you want to.
@120: Homosexuals aren't going to reproduce anyway, whether or not they get married. Basically, the birthrate situation is independent of gay marriage, so it makes no sense for you to use birthrate as an excuse to deny people their rights. But why not allow them to contribute to society by giving parentless children a loving, caring home? The magnitude of your blind dogmatism is thoroughly mind-boggling, and the value of what you post makes commenting on SLOG equivalent for you to voiding your bowels. Crawl back under your rock, you anencephalic twit.
@119: SEE??? Variety!
123
@122 - excellent. keep it coming! But rest assured my judgment is perpetual and indiscriminate. :)
124
Hardly something which any nation seeking to sustain and renew its population should consider fomenting.
Loveschild, stop citing biology until you actually know something about biology. At least you're calling it "sustain and renew its population" and not increasing population, but it amounts to the same thing.
Also, don't use words like "fomenting" unless you know what they mean. Allowing same-sex marriage isn't going to "instigate or stir up" anything. It's simply going to mean that same-sex couples who are, in many cases, already sharing their lives will enjoy the same benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoy. Besides, we're talking about a pretty small amount of the total population, and David Blankenhorn, who is supposed to be defending Prop 8, has admitted, under oath, as an expert witness, that same-sex marriage would actually result in things like fewer STDs, economic benefits, and greater societal cohesion. Maybe that's part of the problem here: unlike Blankenhorn you're not under any obligation to be honest.
You've admitted that same-sex marriage isn't a cause of lower birth rates, saying, "I'm not saying that same sex marriage is to blame for low birth rates". So what exactly, since none of your arguments hold up, is your problem with same-sex marriage?
125
It's perversely encouraging that I can be surprised and horrified by the way that news story's lead was written. Back in the '80s I would be been merely horrified.
Back then, I wouldn't have imagined becoming a father. This year (probably this year), thanks to the State of Washington and the unfortunate unraveling of another family, my husband and I will become parents.
And we will have to do our homework whenever we have to travel to immoral backwaters like the State of Florida. Fortunately homework comes easily to our people.
Back then, I wouldn't have imagined becoming a father. This year (probably this year), thanks to the State of Washington and the unfortunate unraveling of another family, my husband and I will become parents.
And we will have to do our homework whenever we have to travel to immoral backwaters like the State of Florida. Fortunately homework comes easily to our people.
126
Hey LC, I know you posted a study that you claim proved your point a little earlier, but it didn't actually address same sex parent famileies. Here's some recent research from sociologists at NYU looking directly at same sex parent families:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ…
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ…
127
Here's a point I'm surprised I've never seen made about made regarding the gay adoption thing. I used to volunteer at a state home for children who were awaiting foster care and adoption. The place overwhelmingly staffed with gays and lesbians. For reasons I've never determined, gays and lesbians are large percentage of social workers. So, my point is that even if you don't let gay couples adopt, homeless children are going to be around gays.
128
When I was growing up my family dutifully taught us that homosexuality is antichristian,immoral, and just unAmerican.I was an apt student, and knew this had to be true Then in high school it became known that my cousin was gay. How could this happen? He was so nice and normal.As time went on, his conservative christian beauty pagent winning sister couldn't stand to say a nice thing about him.We were all happy to see him at family gatherings, but never knew quite what to say. It finally becamecommon knowledge that his sister was a raging alcololic Her two oldest were running the neighborhood doing what they wanted. The two youngest were knocking on doors at 10PM on school nights asking for food. They were filthy and wore rain boots all year long.(even to school) Everybody wrung their hands and wondered what would happen. Ron stepped forward and took responsibility.He has been raising the younger two (the older ones had become too used to running their own lives by then at 13 and 15) Ron never thought too much about kids, but you wouldn't even know these happy and confident kids from before. He and his longtime pardner work hard to provide a loving and healthy family to these kids. They are involved in their lives and keep them active socially. I asked my cousin if he thought that maybe he had always yearned to be a parent but just didn't realize it. He said absolutely, and it still just knocked him over. My family is so grateful (except his sister) They know that the hand of God was at work here.
129
There's been lots of work on gay parenting, most of it shows that gay parents have kids that do just as well as the kids of straight parents. Note that these studies actually look at gay parents, not simply unmarried parents who might or might not be gay. There are some differences, but a diverse set of people is a good thing, we shouldn't all be raised in lockstep. And, yes, this means that I think that people who think and believe differently than I get to follow their own stars. Doesn't mean they should dictate others' stars though.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.…
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793…
Now, my own bias may be showing here; but I think married couples are more stable than unmarried couples; kids do better in stable enviroments; and that therefore, for the good of the children, gay people should be allowed to marry.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.…
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793…
Now, my own bias may be showing here; but I think married couples are more stable than unmarried couples; kids do better in stable enviroments; and that therefore, for the good of the children, gay people should be allowed to marry.
131
@dani girl--what a really moving story. Good on your cousin, for doing such an amazing thing for those kids, in spite of their mother's cruelty to him. Are the two older kids doing OK?
132
Loveschild, your argument about declining birthrates and claim that allowing same sex couples to marry won't reverse that is not only irrelevent (why should we deny people civil rights because it doesn't solve some other completely unrelated problem?), it's also wrong. A lesbian couple, for example, might choose to have a child through artificial insemination if they are in the stability of a marriage, but may be more hesitant to do so without the legal support of marriage to protect their family. A gay male couple might do the same through adoption, surrogacy, or other means. Sure, that child may not have the DNA of both parents, but that happens all the time in heterosexual relationships, too, and you have not yet provided an explanation for why it's even relevant.
Now, will the married lesbian couples and gay couples by themselves be able to reverse the declining birth rate issue? Probably not. But why is that even relevant? Should that be the sole criteria for deciding whether or not they should be allowed to marry? And getting back to the original topic, how does that relate to adoption?
Now, will the married lesbian couples and gay couples by themselves be able to reverse the declining birth rate issue? Probably not. But why is that even relevant? Should that be the sole criteria for deciding whether or not they should be allowed to marry? And getting back to the original topic, how does that relate to adoption?
133
@Dani girl, I want to chime in and thank you for sharing your story. Aside from demonstrating that a foster parent who just happens to be gay can actually be better than a biological parent the fact that your cousin is involved highlights one reason I'm so passionate about all this.
I've got both friends and family members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (a pretty diverse group, I know, but it's true). I can't imagine being so callous that I could look any of them in the eye and say, "I don't think you deserve the same rights that I enjoy."
For me that's really what it comes down to.
I've got both friends and family members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (a pretty diverse group, I know, but it's true). I can't imagine being so callous that I could look any of them in the eye and say, "I don't think you deserve the same rights that I enjoy."
For me that's really what it comes down to.
135
Because, you see, allowing Smith to adopt the boy would be wrong... because every child deserves a mother and a father....even, presumably, a child that has been "permanently placed" with a gay couple. And after the adoption was mandated by a state judge, the state of Florida had to discriminate against this child—this special-needs, hard-to-place child, that the state placed with a gay man and his partner—to demonstrate its commitment to protecting children... from... um... from health insurance and college tuition?-quote from your dumbfuck article-
YOU GODDAMN SICK FUCK. WHAT YOU ARE FUCKIN DOING AND SUPPORTING IS NO BETTER, NO ITS FUCKIN WORS THAN THE KKK. DAMN YOU AND DAMN ALL OF THOSE SAD SICK LITTLE FUCKS THAT WOULD DENY A CHILD A HOME BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!
YOU GODDAMN SICK FUCK. WHAT YOU ARE FUCKIN DOING AND SUPPORTING IS NO BETTER, NO ITS FUCKIN WORS THAN THE KKK. DAMN YOU AND DAMN ALL OF THOSE SAD SICK LITTLE FUCKS THAT WOULD DENY A CHILD A HOME BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (135) RSS