Page 3 of 3

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:21 pm
by cxt

Oh, of COURSE, I'm acting in a vacum here, your certainly not doing anything to either provoke or prolong the discusson-----riiiiggghhhhttttt ;)

And AGAIN, your "missing the point" in terms of whom exactly gets to decide what emotions are "legatimate" to have.
You seem to want to decide that for OTHER people---yet you don't wish to allow others to decide for you.

Nope, its a simply matter of you feeling that its perfectly "OK" to assert how you think people feel/think based entirely upon their SKIN-COLOR.
LIke I said, substitute "gay" for "white people" in your little assertion and you would have come unglued--and with good reason.

Nope, your not listeing IJ--your animus is making you blind and deaf--what I joined to thread to say was that:

A-Gays should have the same rights to adopt as anybody else--if they are citizens they should have the same rights as any citizen.

B-That your employing essnetially the same appeals to emotion as the "anti" crowd.

Trying to help you see that the SAME tactics you decry in others--your employing yourself.
AGAIN, you probably have a very nuanced postion on that--but like I tried to tell you--so do the folks your against.

"Citations" you mean like the swiss cheese article you posted??? ;)
I don't post them because I don't need them--your stuff does not require the effort--its clearly unsupportable and logically inconsistant--all I need to do is show where the holes/failings are.

Not "attacking" you for being negative---just pointing out that you are--and heavily invested in being so.

When your not bashing the religious, the conservative, white folks, or pretty much anyone that differs even slightly with your opinions--heck IJ, I essenatially AGREE with you--and look how much time you spend bashing and smearing ME--what else do YOU do except bitch, moan and whine?

Like I keep trying to tell you IJ--I'm just reacting to your posts.
You don't like it?
Either post better or lay off.

I was man enough to just walk away on the last thread--I'm betting I'll have to do it again here.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:38 pm
by IJ
Meanwhile, the issue the thread is ostensibly about is still shaping the national political landscape: ... tion_x.htm

And here is a good summary of where things currently stand: ... eadopt.htm

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:27 pm
by cxt
Rediculous, drives to ban gay adoption--whats next drives to ban gravity?

10's of 1000's at a low end count of childen needing good homes--many suffereing in the foster care system--and people want ban folks that WANT to be parents and adopt them??

I give you idiocy combined with the will to act---and lacking in any degree of thought.

Its a slow motion car crash--only the victems are going to be OTHER people.

Sad and tragic.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:46 pm
by Hugh
If you want to see emotionalism, try this:

Scott And Jamie Lyrics by Fred Small

Call us America's sweethearts -- We found a place in Roxbury
Where we can meet the mortgage, go to church on Sunday
I teach communion class and David leads the choir
Ten years together thinking 'bout children.
Lots of children out there beat up beat down hoping
For a home and a harbor, a hand that doesn't hit
Where the form said father and mother we had to cross it out
Father and father that's David and me.
Twelve months of waiting, suddenly two little boys on our doorstep
Scared and crying, gave them a bath and tucked them in
Three-year-old Jamie, little brother Scott
Jamie had a bruise like a boot in the middle of his back.
Love is love no matter who no matter where
Love is love and a child knows when it's there
They can pry away the fingers that graced these walls with dirt
They can pull us apart they can lie oh they can hurt
But love leaves a trace and the heart holds a place for love's return.
McDonalds and K-Mart -- do you know how hard it is to find kid's shoes?
Scott's first hair cut, grinning and a little confused
Outside the aquarium baseball jackets red and blue
A picture is like time standing still.
Jamie was a scrapper, he punched his brother, decked the kid next door
He threw a plate at David then ducked and cowered waiting for the blow
After supper I held him close, "You're safe here this is your home."
And the rains came to the parched and broken earth.
The papers smelled the headlines -- gay parents, two little innocent boys
T.V. news on the front porch, politicians made a lot of noise
Liberal governor he gave the order
Social worker phoned, "Have them ready at three."
Picked Jamie up at day care, kids were running, shouting as they played
We didn't want to tell him, maybe the Governor could have explained
Jamie was screaming when we strapped him in the welfare car
David said "We love you" and they were gone.
You find out who your friends are, some came round some just let it go
Rallies on the common people singing people saying no
This is crazy -- but Scott and Jamie
Are still pinballs in a busted machine.
Kitchen's clean and quiet, we changed the furniture around
Still keep Scott's rabbit -- in the middle of the night sometimes I wake to the sound
Of a little one crying when there's nothing there at all
David holds me, says "Go back to sleep."
Love is love no matter who no matter where
Love is love and a child knows when it's there
They can pry away the fingers that graced these walls with dirt
They can pull us apart they can lie oh they can hurt
But love leaves a trace and the heart holds a place for love's return.
The heart holds a place for love's return

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:58 pm
by Hugh
Just a thought: here is the site for the lyrics to Fred Small's other songs as well as a source for his CDs.

Also try this one for clips of the music as well as a source for the CDs still in production. ... .html#more

One of his songs, "I Will Stand Fast" brings tears to my eyes every time that I listen to it. It brings back the experiences that my wife and I endured when we adopted a little girl out of the war zone in El Salvador. She was 3+ years old when we got her in late December of 1989 and we discovered what later came to be known as Reactive Attachment Disorder, the inabiity of a child to bond with its parent figures. The problem became apparent to all when Americans began to adopt children out of orphanages from the old Soviet Empire, but we were ahead of the curve. Our daughter was so traumatized that we spent about 16 years fighting with her. It was only after she finished high school and moved in with her boyfriend that we began to see any success for our efforts at therapy. She still picks the hardest possible course, but she is now bonding with the rest of the family, thank God.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:15 pm
by cxt

Its not just the waste of it all that gets me--and that alone is bad enough.

Its the STUPID waste of it all.

If people are so opposed to the idea of gays adopting children--then the "best" way to prevent it would be to step up and adopt them themselves.

But that of course would take effort and they would need to take responsility for 18 years of bills etc.

If people are not willing to step UP--then I would kindly ask that they step ASIDE and let somebody that IS ready willing and able to lend a hand--do so.

Its like asking "whom is going to sing tenor in the choir?--Clearly the people that can actually sing tenor.

In this case, people that actually want to adopt children should be able to do so.
If a person has the means, is a non criminal, stable, and a citizen--they they should be able to adopt.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:21 pm
by Hugh
Cxt, our posts crossed in the virtual mail. Please see my latest post.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:38 am
by AAAhmed46

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:25 pm
by IJ

New research from the Netherlands shows that children raised by lesbian couples are as well-adjusted as those raised in heterosexual families.


The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association all advocate equal treatment of families headed by lesbian and gay parents.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:00 pm
by cxt

I still don't get why they would NOT be.

I'll never understand the "logic" behind whom you sleep with having anything to do with whom you are as a person.

I have a good friend that I would not trust to water my plants if I was out of town---good guy, just demonstatably unreliable----yet he can have all the kids he wants.

Makes little sense to me.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:30 pm
by IJ
"I'll never understand the "logic" behind whom you sleep with having anything to do with whom you are as a person."

If you're a (supposed) Biblical literalist, and you think somone is committing a mortal sin, you don't want them to adopt. If you're wired so you equate any sex beyond what you pursue (or SAY you pursue) with other sex crimes like child rape and beastiality, then you don't want anyone with an "abnormal" sex life to raise kids. Makes reasonable sense to me if you look at things from their perspective. The major problem is a worldview which is designed not to get along with others. If your religion tells you you have to go out and actively forbid this and impose punishments and make the law compatible with your religion, then you can't very well just learn to tolerate differences of opinion, and of course for this reason any attack on your proposed law is an attack on your religion. That's why there's a long thread on the San Diego Tribune website with all sorts of people complaining about being forced to recognize marriages they don't approve. Who the heck thinks that in a free society every citizen is going to have veto power over every marriage, as if they were all invited to the ceremony and given a chance to speak up if they felt it wasn't a proper union?

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:31 pm
by cxt

NOBODY is an actual biblical "litterlist" IMO, they are ALL essentially picking and choseing what to follow and what to ignore--and they probably have a complex series of post-hoc rationalizations all worked out to explain why.

My personal fav is--if memory serves, is the direct instructions on what to do if you need to take a dump---there is a specific number of paces to walk outside the village--the use of a specifically wooden paddle to bury the waste etc.
I have yet to meet ANY "litteralist" that has been willing to take things that "litterally." ;)

Bible ALSO says "judge not lest yea be judged."
Again, how many people are willing to refrain from judgement and allow the Lord to judge for Himself?

There is also seemingly quite a bit of confusion between what is "sin" as in evil and what is "statutory" or rule breaking.

I always go back to the 10 Commandments----COMMANDMENTS, not suggestions, not stuff you have to look for and interperate--but litteral, direct commandments about what to do and what not to do.
If a person claims to be really following the good book then then its resonable to start a discussion as to how closely they follow those commandments and what is the proper punishment for failing to follow Gods direct "litteral" instructions.

Its does not require religion for one to demonize those that disagree---just look how the Left routinely treats pretty much anyone that dares disagree with THEM. ;)
I suppose that one could argue that strong politcial/social views counts in most respects AS a religion.

-Demonization of the "other"
-Proscribed actions and speech
-A "creed" that requires one to adhere to specific sets of thought----and avoid other non-sanction thoughts/actions
-Rituals of punishment and redemption
-'Holy" books and "prophets" that are viewed as essentially "infallable" in terms of how they are treated
-Ritual "stoneing" of those that disagree with the "message"
-A "casting out" of those of the "flock" that commit "heresy" and take divergent views
-Rank hypocrosy in the ranks of the "faithful."
-Things like actual truth and rigorous investigation of the facts and ones opinions subsumeded by the need to "spread the word."
Indeed, things like "truth" conisdered to be expendable when opposed to the "saving of the soul"--or its equivlent.
-Differing standards of behavior for those "not of the body" and those that are.
-Dealing from a postion of emotinalism rather than facts.
-A sense of self-rightousness when dealing with "non-belivers" as if one stands in a special place, is privy to special insight and there-for is special themselves.

Not sure that "free society" thing would stand up to much focus either.
Would a society be any more or less "free" if it allowed a small minority to dictate to the majority what they are allowed to think/feel/sanction?
Your not happy with the way that the supposed majority thinks adoption/marriage should be---why would they be any more pleased if you were setting the rules?

Would that make them more "free?"