by your reasoning, it is not enough that a couple believe that they would make good parents. couples should only adopt if they believe that they are the best parents in the universe. otherwise they aren’t wanting what is best for the child.
seriously? that’s obviously a non sequitur. (please verify the meaning of the term if you don’t understand this.)
I’ll admit that children probably are best off with a mother and a father, “nuclear family”, but if you took some time to seriously look into our government’s adoption system, you’d see that at any given time, there are somewhere around 600,000 children stuck in the it, under the care of government workers. While a homosexual couple may not be the best case, because of the lack of a role model for both genders, it is a family, and that beats orphan status any day.
i know what a non sequitur is, but i think your argument in fallacious in the exact same way that my example is obviously fallacious, so i’d be interested in why you think it is a non sequitur.
I disagree.
So, to be clear. You would prefer a child stay in an orphan state for up to its entire 18 years of childhood, rather than being adopted by an otherwise upstanding homosexual couple?I disagree.
There is not just a lack of good role models, there is the presence of poor role models.
we certainly shouldn’t stop there!
because that is obviously impossible.
of course not.
it isn’t.
No, I really don’t think that’s obvious.
non sequitur.
because they are homosexual!
The basic good of having a mother and a father is not a statistical tendency. It’s a fact about human nature. We all come into being as a union of sperm and egg, male and female, and if a child is deprived of relationships with the progenitors of that sperm and that egg, he or she still should have a right to be raised by a mother and a father. When a child is deprived of their biological parents, I think they have a right to have reasonable replacements of those figures. To further deny them a mother or a father just because a homo couple wants to be parents is wrong. It’s not about saying that homo couples are individually bad parent figures. The fact is that they are not good parent figures insofar as either a mommy or a daddy is missing from the picture. A homo person can of course be a great parent in many respects, just as single mothers can be. But it doesn’t follow that a child that has been deprived of his or her biological parents therefore does not deserve to have a mother and a father - it is still wrong to wilfully deprive a child of one or the other. (I of course leave open the possibility that there may be exceptional circumstances where this is justified.)
Wow… just… wow. That’s coming off as a bit prejudice, isn’t it?
Is it? Why?
So either you had an epiphany and realized your error, or your mind just shut down. Which is it?
Because instead of only having 1/2 of a nuclear family’s role models, they are left with short term relationships with social workers, poor living conditions, and an unstable childhood as they move orphanage to orphanage.
…So either you had an epiphany and realized your error, or your mind just shut down. Which is it?
Originally Posted by JChapel
False dichotomy.
Stop screwing with me like that. Show a little respect. Re-read the post itself, not your quotation of my post.
While there is a certain percentage of orphaned children that will get adopted by heterosexual parents do you find it right that the rest should be denied the opportunity of finding a stable family just because the family engages in behavior that goes against your beliefs?False dichotomy.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you’d edited your post. To answer your question, I think you are the one who is prejudiced. I think I’m being reasonable.
Well obviously the issue is not that there is behavior that goes against my beliefs, as such. You seem to be ignoring the argument I’ve offered and attempting to turn to irrelevant ad hominem remarks. Why is that, I wonder?
I just think you’re relying on stereotypes of people with SSA to form these generalizations you’re using for your arguments.
Now, you wanted me to take a closer look at your main argument? Here you go. In an ideal world, where all children are eventually adopted by heterosexual parents, I would have to agree with you, that a nuclear family would be best for adopted children. Unfortunately, this just isn’t the case, and there are many who spend their entire childhoods institutionalized. There certainly isn’t any shortage of children for heterosexual parents to adopt. If these kids can’t have a good, Christian, nuclear family, can’t they at least have parents that care (assuming that the parents are well-screened)?
Like what??
What standards?
I’ve already noted that I think we should try to apply the basic standard of child welfare consistently, not just as this applies to homosexuals, so what are you talking about? It sounds like it’s just your prejudices talking again.
)