6/30/2013 6:54 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 5:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
My point is: just because "A" is better than "B", that doesn't necessarily make "A" a good or desirable thing.
But if A is an improvement over B, then why not choose A over B?

Because B is happening anyway.
Because there may be far better options than A.
A gay couple is raising a child. As far as I can see there are only two options, the couple can be married or not.

What are the "far better options" that you see?
The gay couples should not have been given the child to begin with.  Why couldn't the child have been given to a worthy and desiring OS couple?
Who says they were "given" the child? It could easily be the biological child of one of the parents.

The parents are either allowed to marry or not. What other options do you see?
6/30/2013 7:40 PM (edited)
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 6:42:00 PM (view original):

And you still haven't addressed the fact that we still allow single parents to keep their children, and I firmly believe that a same-sex couple is a better parenting unit than a single parent.


Are you suggesting that children be taken away from single parents and given to SS couples?

If not, then please explain what the point of that comment is.
Of course not, you and mike are both exceptional at being deliberately obtuse.  The point is that there are already many, MANY children in worse situations than a child adopted by a same-sex couple, and nobody questions the legality of it.  So why does everyone want to challenge the legality of this one particular parental arrangement?  It's because they're personally uncomfortable with homosexuals.  Frankly, if the right people - IE, people perceived to be similarly concerned - question deeply enough, it generally comes out that people are afraid that children raised by homosexual couples will be more likely to be homosexual themselves.  And since they think homosexuals are basically inferior people, that is a problem.

Aside from this latent and ridiculous fear, what specific harms can you think of inherent to being raised by a same-sex couple?
Wow.  Talk about stereotyping.  If I have concerns about gay couples raising children, it must be because I'm afraid that they'll raise the kids to be gay.

Are you serious?

I've already explained my concerns about SS parents.  It was somewhere in the first 15-20 pages of this thread.  (EDIT: page 12) Go back and familiarize yourself with my argument before you start throwing out stereotypes.

And please answer this, since you conveniently ignored it in your post above:

This is the argument that the homophobes always ultimately fall back on, so I'm really surprised it took this long to come up.

How the hell is a comment about the problems with the adoption system and foster care system in this country "homophobic"?


6/30/2013 8:46 PM
It's not homophobic.  You are homophobic, and since you can't win the argument that allowing same-sex couples to adopt children provides a better option for those children than being in the foster system, you have to propose that we fix the foster system.  The problem is that it's not that easy to do...  You can make adoption easier by simply not allowing biological parents to make later claims on their children.  It's a ridiculous loophole, and should not exist.  But even so, including foreign children, there are not NEARLY enough adoptions in this country to empty the foster system.  Even if you include same-sex couples who want to adopt.  So you're really still not accounting, numerically, for the fact that children would be better off with same-sex parents than foster parents.
6/30/2013 8:50 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 6:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Well I agree with you on that, at least the part where they won't be GOOD at having things, although the implications on personal freedoms of saying they shouldn't be allowed to is actually a little scary to me.  Seems innocuous, but potentially isn't...
This is actually the crux of this discussion.   One side is "Let's do it and figure it out later" while the other side is "Let's figure it out and maybe do it later."

I prefer the way of the carpenter.  Measure twice, cut once. 
And if you're going to disregard statistics from other countries and not allow same-sex couples in this country to adopt, how, exactly, do you plan to "figure it out?"  God you're an idiot...

There are a wealth of statistics already that demonstrate, as I stated earlier, that children raised by same-sex couples are MORE likely to graduate from college and LESS likely to go to jail than national averages.  What else, exactly, do you want to know?
6/30/2013 8:52 PM
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 
6/30/2013 8:54 PM
It's been my observation from my own experiences, both thinking back to when I was a child and now as a parent, that men (fathers) and women (mothers) both bring something different and unique to the family and parenting experience.  That leads to a more rounded upbringing for children.  That's the traditional family unit (a mother, a father, one or more children).  I don't believe that homosexual couples (two fathers or two mothers), in general, can bring that same kind of upbringing to a child.

That's not to say that they can't be good parents in their own right.  But I believe that a child up for adoption, in the long run, would be better served in a heterosexual parent family than in a homosexual parent family, so that they can get a more well rounded upbringing.
Again, I don't disagree with any of this.  I already conceded that an opposite-sex partnership is preferable for child-rearing.  But the reality is that no matter how you try to spin it, it really isn't an option of same-sex parents vs. opposite-sex parents.  It's a question of same-sex parents vs. no parents.  Furthermore, you still haven't responded to why you don't have an issue with single-parents but do have a problem with same-sex parents.  Single parents also provide only one side of the gender spectrum, but they also provide only one breadwinner, only one person to talk to, only one person to help nurture the child.  I think it's pretty clear that if you're not worried about specific HARMS of being raised by same-sex parents, a same-sex couple is preferable to a single parent.
6/30/2013 8:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 
So people are significantly different in other countries?  Same-sex parents work differently there?

And again, answer the most important question - if you're going to offhandedly dismiss statistics from other countries and not allow same-sex parents to adopt in this country, how are you planning to "find out how it works?"

6/30/2013 8:55 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:46:00 PM (view original):
It's not homophobic.  You are homophobic, and since you can't win the argument that allowing same-sex couples to adopt children provides a better option for those children than being in the foster system, you have to propose that we fix the foster system.  The problem is that it's not that easy to do...  You can make adoption easier by simply not allowing biological parents to make later claims on their children.  It's a ridiculous loophole, and should not exist.  But even so, including foreign children, there are not NEARLY enough adoptions in this country to empty the foster system.  Even if you include same-sex couples who want to adopt.  So you're really still not accounting, numerically, for the fact that children would be better off with same-sex parents than foster parents.
It's not homophobic.  You are homophobic, and since you can't win the argument that allowing same-sex couples to adopt children provides a better option for those children than being in the foster system, you have to propose that we fix the foster system.

I thought you were supposed to be some sort of expert debater?  Because this is a completely retarded and illogical argument.

6/30/2013 8:59 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 
So people are significantly different in other countries?  Same-sex parents work differently there?

And again, answer the most important question - if you're going to offhandedly dismiss statistics from other countries and not allow same-sex parents to adopt in this country, how are you planning to "find out how it works?"

Do you not think other countries have different values?  Different views?  Different standards?

If you answer "no", I'll pay for your vasectomy.   I don't want you breeding in my country.

Stupidfuck.
6/30/2013 9:00 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):
It's been my observation from my own experiences, both thinking back to when I was a child and now as a parent, that men (fathers) and women (mothers) both bring something different and unique to the family and parenting experience.  That leads to a more rounded upbringing for children.  That's the traditional family unit (a mother, a father, one or more children).  I don't believe that homosexual couples (two fathers or two mothers), in general, can bring that same kind of upbringing to a child.

That's not to say that they can't be good parents in their own right.  But I believe that a child up for adoption, in the long run, would be better served in a heterosexual parent family than in a homosexual parent family, so that they can get a more well rounded upbringing.
Again, I don't disagree with any of this.  I already conceded that an opposite-sex partnership is preferable for child-rearing.  But the reality is that no matter how you try to spin it, it really isn't an option of same-sex parents vs. opposite-sex parents.  It's a question of same-sex parents vs. no parents.  Furthermore, you still haven't responded to why you don't have an issue with single-parents but do have a problem with same-sex parents.  Single parents also provide only one side of the gender spectrum, but they also provide only one breadwinner, only one person to talk to, only one person to help nurture the child.  I think it's pretty clear that if you're not worried about specific HARMS of being raised by same-sex parents, a same-sex couple is preferable to a single parent.
I don't have a problem with single parents (divorce, widow/widower) because what are you supposed to do?  Take the child away?

If you're talking about a single parent because of an unwed mother situation, that's slightly different.  That shows a level of irresponsibility, and I would question the qualifications of an irresponsible parent.
6/30/2013 9:48 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 6/30/2013 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Seriously. You don't give a **** about kids, so it's not that. Marriage, you did it because the wife wanted it, so it's not that. You are not particularly religious, so it's not that.

Just say you don't like gay people. What's wrong with admitting it? It won't be popular, bit at least you could stop the bullshit justification.
LOL.

I know gay people.   But, to me, they're just people.  However, I must admit, none are clamoring to get married or raise children.    So, in my limited experience, I'm wondering why it's such a big deal.   And why, to non-gays, it seems to be a bigger deal. 
Just say it. I don't like gay people. You'll feel better.
6/30/2013 10:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 6:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 5:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
My point is: just because "A" is better than "B", that doesn't necessarily make "A" a good or desirable thing.
But if A is an improvement over B, then why not choose A over B?

Because B is happening anyway.
Because there may be far better options than A.
A gay couple is raising a child. As far as I can see there are only two options, the couple can be married or not.

What are the "far better options" that you see?
The gay couples should not have been given the child to begin with.  Why couldn't the child have been given to a worthy and desiring OS couple?
Who says they were "given" the child? It could easily be the biological child of one of the parents.

The parents are either allowed to marry or not. What other options do you see?
Nothing?

Because there are no other options. Allowing gay couples to marry strengthens families.
6/30/2013 10:47 PM
Tec has already said he wouldn't consider that a family.
6/30/2013 11:02 PM
If you're talking about a single parent because of an unwed mother situation, that's slightly different.  That shows a level of irresponsibility, and I would question the qualifications of an irresponsible parent.
This is a total tangent, but this also shows a really outdated bias.  Plenty of people in committed relationships, college graduate people in the middle class with decent-paying jobs, are deciding to have children before they get married.  It's probably a product of the age of marriage moving back.  The average age at which a woman is married for the first time in this country today is older than the average age at which she has her first child.  Both are older than they were in prior decades or centuries, but the marriage age has moved more.  Roughly 40% of all children are born out of wedlock, and just over half of first children.  Many of those parents later marry.  I don't think it's inherently irresponsible to have a child out of wedlock but within a committed relationship, although I personally wouldn't do so.  I have religious qualms about it and, frankly, wouldn't want my child to know that they were conceived out of wedlock, even though the stigma associated with this is rapidly disappearing.  But it's not irresponsible in any way.  Just because it doesn't fit with some people's morals does not bear on the responsibility in terms of ability to raise and educate a child.
7/1/2013 5:35 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/30/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2013 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Other countries = not US

Stupidfuck. 
So people are significantly different in other countries?  Same-sex parents work differently there?

And again, answer the most important question - if you're going to offhandedly dismiss statistics from other countries and not allow same-sex parents to adopt in this country, how are you planning to "find out how it works?"

Do you not think other countries have different values?  Different views?  Different standards?

If you answer "no", I'll pay for your vasectomy.   I don't want you breeding in my country.

Stupidfuck.
Answer the damn question.  How are you going to determine if same sex parenting works, if you have to have evidence that it works before you legalize it in this country and you'll only accept evidence from this country.  You're totally missing the point.  100%.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.