Conquer Club

Army of GOD wrote:I don't know if prospective parents need to take a psychiatric test or whatnot to adopt (squishy mentioned the Kinsey scale or whatevski in the other thread, so I guess that's it?) but if a gay couple pass any test they should be allowed to adopt just as much as a straight couple.

Then again, the only argument against this is blind hatred, so it's essentially the same as arguing with a sandwich.

Symmetry wrote:Now obviously Mr Scotty has his ever evolving thread ranting against homosexuals elsewhere on the forum, but in its most recent form he's suggested that gay adoption be banned as if adoption is some sort of zero-sum game. That a kid adopted by gay parents is being taken away from straight adoptive parents.

As if there's a war on for abandoned children in the world, and homosexuals adopting somehow ruins everything.

So, anyway, having taught kids who lived in orphanages (in Japan), and worked with kids in permanent care (in the US), the question kind of bothered me.

There were no mother-father couples trying to take these (often troubled) kids on. Is the idea that a successful gay couple might adopt a child so much of a problem that people really think that a few of the kids shouldn't be allowed a chance at a home?

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Now obviously Mr Scotty has his ever evolving thread ranting against homosexuals elsewhere on the forum, but in its most recent form he's suggested that gay adoption be banned as if adoption is some sort of zero-sum game. That a kid adopted by gay parents is being taken away from straight adoptive parents.

As if there's a war on for abandoned children in the world, and homosexuals adopting somehow ruins everything.

So, anyway, having taught kids who lived in orphanages (in Japan), and worked with kids in permanent care (in the US), the question kind of bothered me.

There were no mother-father couples trying to take these (often troubled) kids on. Is the idea that a successful gay couple might adopt a child so much of a problem that people really think that a few of the kids shouldn't be allowed a chance at a home?

Lies

Kids would be better off staying in orphanages

Kids would be better off in a life-time of care homes

The Gays are stealing babies

Kittens are cute, but gay people can't look after them


Kittens are cute, and deserve a home

Phatscotty wrote:I have not voted, because your options are far too serious.

Kids would be better off staying in orphanages

Kids would be better off in a life-time of care homes

The Gays are stealing babies

Kittens are cute, but gay people can't look after them


Kittens are cute, and deserve a home

If you have to twist the issue this badly, maybe it's time to re-evaluate if it's you that is twisted, because this is even worse than trolling North Carolina does not allow gay people in their state....another huge lie.

Phatscotty wrote:The question is, why do you get off making thread titles and polls that are meant to increase animosity?

GreecePwns wrote:Phatscotty, if a kid has been in an orphanage for more than half his life, can we agree that there is no parent who will adopt the child? Why should a gay couple be excluded from adopting them?

You used to present reasoned arguments, but lately you've shown your true self: a social conservative with speaks of libertarianism when its convenient. Mitt Romney is just the candidate for you, really.

aad0906 wrote:Would love to see the law proposal that will "allow gay couples to adopt troubled children but not un-troubled children", that will surely create a lot of stir. Forgive me for not knowing but in the US are or are gay couples banned from adopting children? Or is that a state-by-state issue? Do some states allow and others prohibit? Just curious.

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

webster wrote:Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

webster wrote:Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll.

Dukasaur wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

webster wrote:Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Yeah, I suppose it could be intentionally humourous.

Army of GOD wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

webster wrote:Definition of HUMOR
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Yeah, I suppose it could be intentionally humourous.

Because jokes are usually unintentional?

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Perhaps it might be worth reading the arguments, rather than getting tied up in the poll, or the title.

I'm not particularly interested in adding credibility to gay people being allowed to adopt, nor am I interested in being called a moron. I just want to point out the reality of adoption.

There are more kids out there who could do with a stable family than straight couples who want to adopt. It's not a zero-sum game between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:A thread labelled "a more serious take" should have a more serious poll. A parody poll where option one is "I agree" and options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are moronic doesn't really add credibility to anything.

Perhaps it might be worth reading the arguments, rather than getting tied up in the poll, or the title.

I'm not particularly interested in adding credibility to gay people being allowed to adopt, nor am I interested in being called a moron. I just want to point out the reality of adoption.

There are more kids out there who could do with a stable family than straight couples who want to adopt. It's not a zero-sum game between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

and I agree with you on that. However, a poll that only allows for total agreement ("I see no problem") or for varying degrees of sillyness ("I think gay panty raids should focus on kittens" or whatever other ridiculous choices were offered) is inherently unfair.

What should one do in a case of partial agreement, if one's opinion is "I see plenty of problems with it, but I'm quite willing to accept those problems as the lesser of two evils, with children abandoned in underfunded orphanages being a much greater evil." ?? If that is my opinion, it would be dishonest to select Option 1, but ridiculous to select any other option.

Interestingly enough, that is my opinion, but having no legitimate option to choose, I had to select Option 5, which is not my true opinion, as a protest against the unfairness of the loaded question.

And before you go all spinny on me, I did not call you a moron; I called the options given moronic. I'm perfectly aware that you are one of the smarter people around here, but your sense of good sportsmanship in debates is not always evident.

aad0906 wrote:Would love to see the law proposal that will "allow gay couples to adopt troubled children but not un-troubled children", that will surely create a lot of stir. Forgive me for not knowing but in the US are or are gay couples banned from adopting children? Or is that a state-by-state issue? Do some states allow and others prohibit? Just curious.