Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Jolly Rodger, Oct 16, 2003.
Mod Hat - For the Love Of ....
Tell me you're kidding. That is what I reopened this topic for?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
sorry tiassa although for someone that thinks of themself as so smart rally should have been able to have seen there was a mistake there! but hey sorry about leaveing out thwe "not"
Well, Jolly, it would be a lot easier to conclude there is a typographical error if,
(1) such opinions as the statement remains weren't so commonplace around here,
(2) it isn't coupled with statements like,
Now, let's look at your post in terms of the erroneous statement:
• i agree that saying all homosexuals are not pedophiles, although, that is not the reason i started this thread
• although i think that if you become or chose or just are gay there is a few things you have to except, one of which is you agree not able to have a child
• why don't Americans get the same sort of welfare as American Indians and why don't Australians get the same benefits as aboriginals
• why don't men get punched in the gut 24 times a day for one day in a month to equal things up in that women get periods
So, the first is erroneous, as you've declared. However, consider that in its erroneous form, it's consistent with most of your post. That is, there is plenty of contextual similarity or consistency.
Secondly, your post in the erroneous form flies in the face of the topic's assertions of fact-on-record. This is a common occurrence among people arguing against homosexuals, and fits well with both the absurdity of your comparisons and your reiteration that people choose to be gay.
In the erroneous form, your post makes a curious division in its acceptance of the legalisms of marriage but the expectation that children should not be reared. It is, nonetheless, consistent in its irrationality and presuppositions.
In this case, the idea of a mistake seemed rather counterintuitive. I mean, even at the outset, sixteen months ago, you were pushing insupportable theses. Come on, what's one more? Especially one that is consistent with precedent?
Coming from a poster with different habits and attributes, yes, such a statement would suggest a typographical omission. But the statement in its erroneous form is very consistent with your posting habits, and also your positions in this topic.
Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.
The article you provide is suspect, Big D. It's not just because the study was made by a university that calls itself, "The nation's academic center for Christian thought and action." There is also the manner of rhetoric qualifying what the report says:
Such words by the study's author suggest that this is more about politics than reality. I await BigD's analysis of the study itself, which should already be available online.
Let us know, man.
except i made a mistake, i mean if i wanted to say I think All homos are pedophiles, i would come out and say it i don’t agree with that, i think it is a stupid statement in fact although, as i said if i thought it i would stand by my word. After all why wouldn't i, i really don’t care what anyone on this forum thinks of me! I think that is obvious from all of my posts you tosser. I have real friends, this forum is not my life like yourself i know that may be a hard concept to follow for you, although some of us have a life.
All my point is there are enough people out there to adopt children, and even if a strait couple lived in a shack and lived off canned food they are still more deserving of that child if they wanted to adopt it, because i would have to say the ideal environment for a child to live in would be one mother and one father.
What about birds and the bees you would have to explain that concept a lot earlier and tell them at a much earlier age that they are in fact adopted.
"In Australia the government is trying to pass a law making it legal for gay couples to adopt children. I think this is wrong. I think a child should be brought up in natural surroundings.
What are your thoughts?"
I am with you there. Why confuse a kid by dumping him/ her in an abnormal environment. What's more important, does the child have any say?
The only natural surroundings can still be found in hunter gatherer tribes, which are disappearing fast from this planet. I doubt they have the room to raise all our children.
Very simply ....
So you say. And that's fine, noted, understood.
Well, that's just the thing. That seemed to be what you were doing, as I noted above.
Perhaps down under. But in the United States we have about 110,000 kids a year waiting for homes. The number isn't going down the way we might hope. That number does not reflect children placed in the foster system, some of whom will be adopted into new families through that path.
Subjective moral comparison and non-sequitur. When heterosexual couples can take care of their own children, there might be a case to be had.
Earlier? When, then?
What i am trying to say is i would not apologise for something i thought, i would not turn around because you of all people told me i was wrong, is that fact right about america? Where did you source it from?
And you don't think a young kid one day is going to ask where did i come from, then not only the birds and the bees will have to be talked about, and then also they will have to explain that they are homosexuals.
110,000 is a number from 1999 that is used in general circulation. I'm still tracking back to figure out where I picked it up. It wasn't in the post I expected it to be in.
In the meantime, The Adoption Exchange, an online resource, puts the number at 126,000. Fostering Perspectives, an online magazine sponsored by the state of North Carolina, informs me that I am apparently incorrect about foster care. A November, 2001 article states,
The Rural Expansion of Adoptive Communities and Homes cites the U.S. government, claiming 110,000 children with special needs, although I think pretty much any kid needing a new family qualifies as having "special needs".
As to the United States government, echoing the information from North Carolina, the United States Department of Health and Human Services counts 523,000 children in foster care as of August, 2004, with 118,000 awaiting adoption.
What it appears these numbers do not count, in fact, are adoptions like mine, privately arranged prior to birth and without state intervention.
An ironic note is that a children's book called Heather Has Two Mommies is what started Oregon's gay fray of the 1990s. A whole decade squandered on religiously-derived bigotry because of a library book.
That part aside, I don't think adoption could have been explained to me any earlier. I learned that fact along with my name, it seems.
To the other, I'm not alone in my generation to know the "birds and the bees" discussion only as a cultural reference. My father tried to avoid the discussion. The mechanical explanation came from one or another encyclopedia. Yes, my friends and I chuckled about such things in our twenties, but after the fact of losing our virginity is a bit late for convening "the talk". Earlier? Yeah, my generation could have stood to go through it earlier. At least up on the King-Pierce line. I remember one of my friends, whose father was an educator, no less, was repulsed to learn that his penis was involved in reproduction, and even spent some time in denial.
Ironically, a friend who went to high school with him remembers him well as the school's most obvious homosexual.
No, I'm not making that up. The guy we would have guessed was gay apparently wasn't.
My parents just bought us a piture book called "where do babys come from" and told us it was on the shelf when we wanted to read it
I was given that book as well, although don't you think that book would have been a little confussing if you had two mums or two dads? I dont remember it explain homosexuality in that book
what if the parents are devorced and remarried?
"Mummy where do i come from?
well when i sleep with a man i get pregnant
so x is my daddy?
no babby y is
but why isnt x my daddy you sleep with him?"
And after all the topic is about ADOPTION isnt it?
so we have a case where NITHER of the parents are the biological parents
"mummy where do i come from?
well when x slept with y you were born"
So you don't think a kid would be confussed? My point was a few posts ago was that you can explain to a kid the birds and the bees (where did i come from) in any situation, adopted or biological, although you would have to explain homosexuality at a lot younger age and also that fact that they are adopted.
A child would not have to know at such a young age that they are adopted, they can be let down gently rather than.
I mean it would be alot for a kid to get all at once when they ask where do i come from don't you think.
Well when a man and a women have sexual intercourse a baby is produced
but you are both men,
yes johny we are gay, that is when a man does not like a woman and they decide they like the same sex, so we are a couple they call us homosexual.
then where did i come from,
well you real muum was a junkie so we are looking after you.
so your not my daddys.
no johny we are just looking after you.
Dont you think that would be a bit much for a kid all at once,
And dont tell me a kid would not ask those questions because any one that has been around a kid that age would know that they are not affraid of asking questions.
at what age WOULDNT it be a shock to learn that you are adopted?
if my parents told me tomorow at 22 that i was adopted i would be furious they hadnt told me earlier
i think there are better ways to deal with the situation than what you put, like the fact that it would be better if the child ALWAYS knew they were adopted but that you love them and the fact that you took them means you really wanted them.
as for the fact that they have 2 fathers i dont think that a child growing up that way would have any problem with that. After all thats what they have ALWAYS known and thats what would seem normal to them
I am just saying i THINK it would be a bit too much but if you know it WOULDN't for a fact can you please back it up?
Sorry i just THOUGHT it might be a bit early to find out about homosexuality, once again if you know for SURE it WOULDN'T be confusing for a youngen to find out about this stuff so early please give some reasoning instead of useing you CAPS KEY.
Anyway, why don't they just use homosexuals for foster homes, you know for the older kids, rather than babies, kids that have already have a grasp on the whole birds and the bees and understand what homosexuality is. That would be better, i am pretty sure in that number of kids waiting for home that tiassa was talking about before there would have to be kids over the age of 7 or 9 that have got a grasp on these subjects that are looking for a roof or caring parents.
Never in this hole thread have i said homosexuals would not be caring parents!
all i have said is that the kids might have a unbalanced childhood!
Learning about things too early and having to very femininen father figures or haveing to mothers it would just be unbalanced in my mind
Confusion about the self in such a manner comes from having those differences highlighted by others. Normal is normal to a child. For it to become any specific sense of normalcy, the child must be conditioned.
I don't see why. Really. I'm not trying to be obstinate, but the child must first come to understand sex.
Anecdotally, for all the crap people give PBS these days, I'm as certain as I can be that I watched a woman give birth once upon a time. I was all of four or five at the time. I knew already that I did not live with anybody who gave birth to me, so the revelation struck me with a resounding shrug: "Oh. So that's what it is."
Living in a world of those silly, stunted, reserved, familial kisses, I thought the notion of "two men living together like they're married" more comedic than anything else. Raiding secret magazine stashes like any American boy, I was aware of the heterosexual obsession with sodomy before it even occurred to me this was what those men were doing. Lesbianism was a curious concept; it's hard to explain how that one tore through my school. It was a scandalous word one day, and then it went away, with no further attention given. Madonna's "Like a Virgin" stirred more interest when we realized there was some significance attached to the word virgin.
The first time homosexuality became significant to me in any way was when someone told me a guy liked me. Coincident with my high-school psychology classes, I had written up his behavior to a number of Freudian issues I was learning about. Hell, I should have paid more attention. He was brilliant and rich.
Despite all that, the focus on what gay men actually do didn't come until I was out of high school and living in Oregon, and these Christians started throwing a fit about it.
And suddenly everyone had a reason to care.
It is better to know before there's a conditioned stake in the answer. The only variable is the skill of the parent in explaining the point.
I think it's a lot more to handle once the child perceives a comparative stake.
• As I noted, the only variable is the skill of the parent in the explanation.
• What makes the explanation you've characterized any different depending on the sexual orientation?
My female progenitor was a whore. I don't see how she matters. My Mother is my Mother, my father is my father, my family is my family; and I don't see how it's any different that my family includes a nonviable female reproductive unit in a parental role compared to two male units regarding the question of whether Joe and Bill are Teddy's daddies or not. A child's parents are a child's parents, and it's left to other people to choose to diminish that fact.
• • •
A few notes:
• Numbers are coming down. Erroneous is a prior statement that the numbers don't seem to be coming down. Coupled with the issue of whether the numbers included foster care, numbers related to the foster-care statistics suggest that the mysterious January, 1999 figure of 110,000 that I used, and for some reason, have lost my source for, is in fact low. The 118,000 from August, 2004, matches the number for September, 2003, as well, and is down from 131,000 in 1999.
• Who is adopting? Infoplease notes: "According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 1999, 33% of children adopted from foster care were adopted by a single parent, the overwhelming majority of which were single women (31%)."
• Taking care of our own? The same page also reports that the number of international adoptions bringing children to the United States is increasing. In 1992, according to HHS statistics, 6,472 children were adopted from abroad. In 1999, that number was up to 16,396.
"The only natural surroundings can still be found in hunter gatherer tribes, which are disappearing fast from this planet. I doubt they have the room to raise all our children."
I think there is much to be said about a Father and Mother bond and how a child will identify with that relationship. And I think you understand that.
Why should a child be forced to shoulder the burden of homosexual parents? Is it so the like-gender parents feel better, or is it for the health of the child?
Separate names with a comma.