To those who oppose gay adoption...

[John Dibble]

Ok, just a hypothetical situation here. Let's say there is a child up for adoption, and there are two families that want this child, let's say it's a little boy. You must choose which family that the child will be adopted to.

Family A is a gay couple. They both have lived together for 10 years, and have remained completely monogamous. One is an engineer, the other is a doctor. Neither drink or do drugs, or anything of the sort. They attend church on a regular basis.

Family B is essentially two people like opebo, except one is a female. (though, we know opebo doesn't want kids, but for the sake of argument we'll say these two people do) They both mooch off their rich parents and live in Thailand for half the year to visit prostitutes of the opposite sex. Neither work and neither attends church.

Now, just a side note, I won't consider choosing A an endorsement for gay adoption. I'm mainly interested in seeing who would choose what and why, so I'd like as many people as possible who answer to state their reasoning.

[Richard]

One of the gay guys can adopt the kid.  Two males will not be entered as "parents."

[John Dibble]

One of the gay guys can adopt the kid.  Two males will not be entered as "parents."

You are missing the entire point of the exercise.

[Jake]

The child would be better off with A obviously, opeboites would just molest him.  I agree with Richius that the "couple" shouldn't be allowed to adopt, only one of the guys.

[Horus]

Voted A by accident, but I support gay adoptions.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

what exactly is the opebo couple going to do with the kid while they're off screwing hookers in Thailand?

[Alcon]

In other words, if one of the two gay guys took the kid for a drive, they could be arrested for kidnapping if the other became mad at them?

Well, that's wonderfully illogical.

EDIT: I voted Option A before seeing the non-opposition option.

[Richard]

In other words, if one of the two gay guys took the kid for a drive, they could be arrested for kidnapping if the other became mad at them?

Well, that's wonderfully illogical.

EDIT: I voted Option A before seeing the non-opposition option.

Kidnapping means the kid must not be willing to go and the parent must not be willing to release the child.

[Richard]

One of the gay guys can adopt the kid.  Two males will not be entered as "parents."

You are missing the entire point of the exercise.

No I don't think I do.  There is no such thing as two male parents as you've put in your poll.  I'm not voting in any case.  ONE of the gay couple can adopt.  The other will be a friend of the family.

[Alcon]

In other words, if one of the two gay guys took the kid for a drive, they could be arrested for kidnapping if the other became mad at them?

Well, that's wonderfully illogical.

EDIT: I voted Option A before seeing the non-opposition option.

Kidnapping means the kid must not be willing to go and the parent must not be willing to release the child.

That is not true, at least in the United States. The kid can be willing. These laws exist to avoid child abuse.

[??????????]

I doubt the couple that goes galavanting around the globe would even be allowed to adopt in the first place.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I choose neither.  I wouldn't place a child in either situation.

[Akno21]

The child would be better off with A obviously, opeboites would just molest him.  I agree with Richius that the "couple" shouldn't be allowed to adopt, only one of the guys.

So a kid is better off with a single parent than a gay couple? That's ludicrous, a stable two parent home should be what we are looking for, not straightness.

[John Dibble]

One of the gay guys can adopt the kid.  Two males will not be entered as "parents."

You are missing the entire point of the exercise.

No I don't think I do.  There is no such thing as two male parents as you've put in your poll.  I'm not voting in any case.  ONE of the gay couple can adopt.  The other will be a friend of the family.

Yes, you are. Regardless of whether the law will say the other man is part of the family, he will be part of the child's family for all intensive purposes. All that will change are the legal aspects. The child will still be raised by both men, and both men will consider eachother the parents. The point of the exercise is what environment would you rather place the child in, not whether one or both of the men will have legal custody.

Also, one doesn't need to be legally related to be considered family anyways - I consider my godfather and my godmother to be part of my family, even though they don't have any legal claim to being my family.

I choose neither.  I wouldn't place a child in either situation.

Neither isn't a choice. You have to choose one or the other.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ok, just a hypothetical situation here. Let's say there is a child up for adoption, and there are two families that want this child, let's say it's a little boy. You must choose which family that the child will be adopted to.

Family A is a gay couple. They both have lived together for 10 years, and have remained completely monogamous. One is an engineer, the other is a doctor. Neither drink or do drugs, or anything of the sort. They attend church on a regular basis.

Family B is essentially two people like opebo, except one is a female. (though, we know opebo doesn't want kids, but for the sake of argument we'll say these two people do) They both mooch off their rich parents and live in Thailand for half the year to visit prostitutes of the opposite sex. Neither work and neither attends church.

Now, just a side note, I won't consider choosing A an endorsement for gay adoption. I'm mainly interested in seeing who would choose what and why, so I'd like as many people as possible who answer to state their reasoning.

John, up until this point, I have had a great deal of respect for your posts.

This an absurd, rigged setup.

Even the folks at Democracy Corps don't rig their questions this badly!

[John Dibble]

Ok, just a hypothetical situation here. Let's say there is a child up for adoption, and there are two families that want this child, let's say it's a little boy. You must choose which family that the child will be adopted to.

Family A is a gay couple. They both have lived together for 10 years, and have remained completely monogamous. One is an engineer, the other is a doctor. Neither drink or do drugs, or anything of the sort. They attend church on a regular basis.

Family B is essentially two people like opebo, except one is a female. (though, we know opebo doesn't want kids, but for the sake of argument we'll say these two people do) They both mooch off their rich parents and live in Thailand for half the year to visit prostitutes of the opposite sex. Neither work and neither attends church.

Now, just a side note, I won't consider choosing A an endorsement for gay adoption. I'm mainly interested in seeing who would choose what and why, so I'd like as many people as possible who answer to state their reasoning.

John, up until this point, I have had a great deal of respect for your posts.

This an absurd, rigged setup.

Even the folks at Democracy Corps don't rig their questions this badly!

Rig? I outright said I wouldn't consider choosing A as an endorsement of gay adoption. I don't see how this is a setup at all. This is a simple "if you were forced to choose, which would you consider the lesser of two evils" situation - nothing rigged about it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, you engaged in the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Second, you 'loaded' your examples in a preposterous way (I doubt whether even Opebo is as obnoxious as his posts).

Its just a push poll.

[John Dibble]

First, you engaged in the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Second, you 'loaded' your examples in a preposterous way (I doubt whether even Opebo is as obnoxious as his posts).

Its just a push poll.

During the election, if someone asked me if I would prefer Bush or Kerry, I would say Bush, and I would say I prefer him by a wide margin to Kerry - this didn't mean I would vote for Bush in reality, which in fact I did not. I merely answered Bush because in a situation where I had no choice beyond the two, I would choose what I viewed as the lesser of two evils. I don't bitch about the question simply because it excludes the Libertarian option, nowhere in the question was I given a middle ground, Bush or Kerry were the only two possible answers - I give my answer, and that in reality I would prefer neither of the two options. The same can easily be done here.

Here the examples are merely showing a specific instance two choices - a stable gay family that is moral(at least as moral as you would think a gay couple could be if you thought homosexuality was a sin) or a highly unstable heterosexual family with squat for morals. It's a choice between two 'evils', not an endorsement of either by any means - as I said I won't see choosing either as an endorsement of adopting a child to that kind of family, I merely wish to see what people would do in this tough situation(which I'm quite aware would not happen in the real world, and nowhere did I claim it would). Heck, I have no doubt there are people in this world(not necessarily on this board) that would choose Family B - and if there are any on this board, I would simply like to hear the reasoning behind such a choice.

[Richard]

The child would be better off with A obviously, opeboites would just molest him.  I agree with Richius that the "couple" shouldn't be allowed to adopt, only one of the guys.

So a kid is better off with a single parent than a gay couple? That's ludicrous, a stable two parent home should be what we are looking for, not straightness.

True, a stable two parent home would be better, but clearly, the opebo situation isn't stable.  There is no such thing as two daddies or two mommies, much like there is no such thing as three, four, or 50,000 mommies or daddies.  ONE mommy and ONE daddy.  They both contribute different things to a child's development.

[Richard]

Yes, you are. Regardless of whether the law will say the other man is part of the family, he will be part of the child's family for all intensive purposes. All that will change are the legal aspects. The child will still be raised by both men, and both men will consider eachother the parents. The point of the exercise is what environment would you rather place the child in, not whether one or both of the men will have legal custody.

No.  If I'm raised by my grandparents, they remain my grandparents, not my parents.  Two men cannot be two parents.  That is why your poll is flawed.

[Akno21]

The child would be better off with A obviously, opeboites would just molest him.  I agree with Richius that the "couple" shouldn't be allowed to adopt, only one of the guys.

So a kid is better off with a single parent than a gay couple? That's ludicrous, a stable two parent home should be what we are looking for, not straightness.

True, a stable two parent home would be better, but clearly, the opebo situation isn't stable.  There is no such thing as two daddies or two mommies, much like there is no such thing as three, four, or 50,000 mommies or daddies.  ONE mommy and ONE daddy.  They both contribute different things to a child's development.

It is possible to have an influence from the other sex if your parents are the same sex. It's too general to say that all men are the same and all women are the same. We don't know if one of the men has a femine personality, there are many different variables that go into this. The kid will still get an influence from both sexes, it will just live with one sex. Two daddies can raise a kid. You don't need to have a woman, you can make do.

[Richard]

The child would be better off with A obviously, opeboites would just molest him.  I agree with Richius that the "couple" shouldn't be allowed to adopt, only one of the guys.

So a kid is better off with a single parent than a gay couple? That's ludicrous, a stable two parent home should be what we are looking for, not straightness.

True, a stable two parent home would be better, but clearly, the opebo situation isn't stable.  There is no such thing as two daddies or two mommies, much like there is no such thing as three, four, or 50,000 mommies or daddies.  ONE mommy and ONE daddy.  They both contribute different things to a child's development.

It is possible to have an influence from the other sex if your parents are the same sex. It's too general to say that all men are the same and all women are the same. We don't know if one of the men has a femine personality, there are many different variables that go into this. The kid will still get an influence from both sexes, it will just live with one sex. Two daddies can raise a kid. You don't need to have a woman, you can make do.

Obviously, we disagree. 

If two men, or two women, were supposed to raise kids, they'd be able to have kids with each other.

[opebo]

I doubt the couple that goes galavanting around the globe would even be allowed to adopt in the first place.

Galavanting around the globe is good for a kid.  Expats kids here to get unbelievably spoiled by the good life, though.

[Akno21]

The child would be better off with A obviously, opeboites would just molest him.  I agree with Richius that the "couple" shouldn't be allowed to adopt, only one of the guys.

So a kid is better off with a single parent than a gay couple? That's ludicrous, a stable two parent home should be what we are looking for, not straightness.

True, a stable two parent home would be better, but clearly, the opebo situation isn't stable.  There is no such thing as two daddies or two mommies, much like there is no such thing as three, four, or 50,000 mommies or daddies.  ONE mommy and ONE daddy.  They both contribute different things to a child's development.

It is possible to have an influence from the other sex if your parents are the same sex. It's too general to say that all men are the same and all women are the same. We don't know if one of the men has a femine personality, there are many different variables that go into this. The kid will still get an influence from both sexes, it will just live with one sex. Two daddies can raise a kid. You don't need to have a woman, you can make do.

Obviously, we disagree. 

If two men, or two women, were supposed to raise kids, they'd be able to have kids with each other.

It doesn't matter what is supposed to happen by natural law. It matters what the situation of the country demands, and there are parents who are gay but suitable to be parents who want kids.

[John Dibble]

I doubt the couple that goes galavanting around the globe would even be allowed to adopt in the first place.

Galavanting around the globe is good for a kid.  Expats kids here to get unbelievably spoiled by the good life, though.

As we see from this shining example above.