Same Sex adoption

[Hugh]

For those who think that gays and lesbians are gaining too many rights, I ask them to take a look at the "Defense of Marriage" laws and state constitutional amendments around the country. The law in Virginia is so bad that one very conservative attorney over BladeForums described it as "one of the most piss-poor pieces of legal drafting" that she had ever seen. It is so full of indefinite and contradicting phrases and clauses that it will take amyriad of court decisions to determine what it means, but one bottom line is that it will be very tough for couple not legally married to enjoy the sorts of rights generally given to couples. Some of these are the right to visit your partner in the hospital, let alone make medical decisions for that partner. You can imagine what the law is expected to do as far as adoptions are concerned.

Now, I ask you a question. If one of the problems with same-sex relationships is their lack of constancy, of committment, why are we not encouraging those persons who do wish to deepen their committment to one another by means of a public ceremony and a state issued lisence? I am not talking about forcing churches to perform marriages for gays that would violate their religious tenets but about civil ceremonies. I will note, however, that there are some religious groups that will perform marriages. my Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends will do so for any gay or lesbian Quakers wishing to be married under care of Meeting, but only after they have been counseled and gone through the same processes that any other Quaker applicant for marriage under care of Meeting must undergo.

[IJ]

"If one of the problems with same-sex relationships is their lack of constancy, of committment, why are we not encouraging those persons who do wish to deepen their committment to one another by means of a public ceremony and a state issued lisence?"

I like answering rhetorical questions, so: because this isn't a logic based decision, it's based on a gut reaction. That gut reaction spawns any number of rationalizations and justifications, but they're frequently contradictory and silly. The key thing is that the party line gets supported, and that's why Repr. Foley, who did the expected thing by getting silent on gay issues and his private life, was supported by the right instead of vilified when it became clear he was soliciting underage pages. It's why Paster Ted was welcomed back into the flock after an embarassingly short, supposedly curative session of counseling, and why the same applied to a younger anti-gay activist recently outed. These people supported the animus, and that's more important than their private behavior, in fact, it's primary. How much sense does that make?

As for bad situations with partners, this is from PlanetOut.com News:

"The horrifying case of an Indiana gay couple separated after one partner's incapacitating illness makes clear the necessity of partners obtaining legal directives for each other to the extent the law allows.
Brett Conrad and Patrick Atkins, both 47, met in college and were together for 25 years. Atkins was CEO of his family's company, Atkins Elegant Desserts; Conrad, a waiter. They shared a house and bank accounts; both men's names were on their home's deed. In March 2005, traveling on business, Atkins suffered an aneurysm and then a stroke that rendered him unable to care for himself.

Atkins' deeply religious parents took over, refusing to recognize the men's relationship or even to let Conrad see him. Conrad has spent two years trying to win guardianship of his partner.

On June 27, an Indiana appellate court ruled that Conrad could have visitation rights. The Atkinses have petitioned the court to reconsider its ruling.

"Unmarried couples -- it doesn't matter whether straight or gay -- ought to have documents in place that address whom they want to make health care decisions, generally a durable power of attorney and an advance health care directive," Conrad's lawyer, Jeffrey Dible of Indianapolis, told Gay.com.

"If you don't have them, you are at the mercy of state law, which usually favors blood relatives."

Indiana courts have so far sided with the Atkins family, even while noting that "it is in Patrick's best interest to continue to have contact with Brett, his life partner of 25 years."

"Given the Atkinses' lack of support of their son's personal life through the years and given his mother's astonishing statement that she would rather that he never recover than see him return to his relationship with Brett, we are extraordinarily skeptical that the Atkinses are able to take care of Patrick's emotional needs," wrote Chief Judge John G. Baker in the appellate court's ruling.

At one point, the court noted, sympathetic hospital staffers were sneaking Conrad onto the premises to see his partner.

Jeanne Atkins, Patrick's mother, "testified that no amount of evidence could convince her that Brett and Patrick were happy together," the opinion read.

The case's growing publicity "just seems to inflame things," Dible told Gay.com

"I hope that you will share this story with your friends and encourage them to avoid purchasing Atkins products," wrote Karen Celestino-Horseman, a former Indianapolis city councilwoman, on Bilerico.com.

The Atkinses -- who run regular Christian prayer meetings at their dessert company -- have the right as guardians to dispose of his and Conrad's house, even though it is owned jointly. A lower court gave Conrad one third of the pair's checking account, but gave the parents most of the other assets, which were in Patrick's name.

Atkins, meanwhile, now lives at his parents' home. He is "able to walk, dress, bathe and feed himself with some help, to read accurately but understand only 25 percent of what he read, and to engage in simple conversations," according to the court. (Barbara Wilcox, The Advocate)"

[Hugh]

IJ, the viciousness of some of these laws needs to be seen to be believed. If the lawyers to whom I have spoken about it are correct, Virginia's Defense of Marriage Act trumps any such legal medical assignments because it says that any semblance of conjugal rights shall be denied to same sex couples no matter what method used to derive those conjugal rights. In other words, a medical power of attorney to your partner would be overruled as against the law.

[cxt]

IJ

There should be no reason---or at least very few reasons--and none IMO that are really legit-- why gays should not be able to adopt.

That being said, such "horror stories" as the one provided above are no better than the same "gut reaction" stuff that you so decry---its the same emotional "grab"--simply turned 180 degrees.
I quite aware that its much more nuanced than that---but I'm equally aware that is pretty much what people opposed to gay adoption will tell you as well--that their positon is "more nuanced" than that.

In any case, my bet is that we will be seeing MUCH more law coming into play even among stright couples and relationships---just like we have been seeing with coma patiants, custody issues etc.

My guess is that whole body of law concerning reproductive rights, divorice, custodial rights etc will have to be re-visted with significate changes coming.

[Hugh]

Cxt, you do not tell us where you live, so I cannot say whether you have any first-hand experience with a law such as Virginia's Defense of Marriage Act. But I will tell you that the lawyer's comment that I quoted was from a woman attorney, a very devout Roman Catholic, who used to post in the Political Arena at BladeForums,com. She was also a rather traditionally conservative lady when it came to matters of faith and personal morality. So, what I am saying is that her opinion was most definitely not colored by a bias in favor of homosexual rights.

[cxt]

Hugh

Ok, I have no reason to think otherwise, nor did I question it.

What I was getting at, was mainly that IMO the whole body of law involving custody issues, extended family, divorce, reproductive rights etc probably going to be going thu a pretty extensive overhaul.

Its getting pretty messed up in dealing with with coma patients, parents/grandparents rights being explored in regard to grandchildren, medical decsions, who "owns" human eggs and sperm and viable embrios, etc.

The current case-law simply is not equiped to handle the complexities of todays world.

So I think its safe to say that much of it is going to get overhauled--and soon.

At the very least--judgeing only by what you have posted, I'd say that the law in Virginia would, IMO seems to have serious unexamined and unintended consequnces.
Consequences well beyond what they "think" they are trying to accomplish by "defending" marriage.

[IJ]

"That being said, such "horror stories" as the one provided above are no better than the same "gut reaction" stuff that you so decry---its the same emotional "grab"--simply turned 180 degrees.
I quite aware that its much more nuanced than that---but I'm equally aware that is pretty much what people opposed to gay adoption will tell you as well--that their positon is "more nuanced" than that."

Huh? I've decried people making discriminatory laws based on a gut feeling of prejudice, but this is an example of what is happening under the law, or what could happen to others, and so it's completely relevant. I'm also relatively disinterested in whether discriminatory views of others WRT gay adoption are "nuanced" or not. The virginia law isn't nuanced and needs to go; the lack of uniform and effective CU or marriage laws isn't nuanced and needs to be fixed. Lots of white people have a complex uneasiness regarding certain black people in certain contexts, but they don't get to write laws based on that reaction, nuanced or not.

"So I think its safe to say that much of it is going to get overhauled--and soon."

It's only safe to say it SHOULD be overhauled. History shows that these social and legal changes always take time.

[cxt]

IJ

All I was doing was pointing out that your telling the same kind of emotional scary story that people tell when they want to show how "scary" gay rights and gay adoption might be.

Its using same scare tactics either dirtection--the same ploy from different directions.

What I said was that you probably will say that your statement/arguement is more nuauced than that---and all I was pointing out is that is EXACTLY what some yahoo that is telling scary anti-gay stories would say as well--that their positon is more nunanced than that.

If you can't see the telling of scary stories is the same time of emotional "gut" tactic used by the anti-gay crowd--I really don't know what to tell you.

Glad your ready willing and able to step up and speak for "lots of white people"
Your mind reading powers are strong today.

I pretty sure that it will happen soon--"soon" being a relative term of course there is just too much happening in this area in too many variations for it not to be re-worked---stright issues, gay issues, family issues, custodial issues, etc.

[IJ]

"If you can't see the telling of scary stories is the same time [sic] of emotional "gut" [sic] tactic used by the anti-gay crowd--I really don't know what to tell you."

These would both be anecdotal stories that appeal to emotions. What you're missing, however, is whether they're "honest" anecdotes, or not. For example:

If someone told the story of someone who molested a same sex child to scare people and make them vote against same sex marriage, that would be dishonest. The perp might well be a heterosexual pedophile, as many people who molest boys are--they like the feminine presexual appearance. Pedophilia and sexual orientation are different issues completely. This wouldn't shed light on whether gay people would even be more likely to molest kids than straight people, although even that would be largely irrelevant--there's no reason to think that same sex marriage would spur pedophilia or that banning it would help, and we don't restrict the rights of other groups who commit most sex crimes--like men.

MY anecdote, on the other hand, reports a rather predictable effect of a lack of same sex marriage laws. The effect is quite logically linked to the law. The anecdote serves to remind people of the real world consequences of voting for a law that might seem comforting just because someone is vaguely uneasy around gay people or because their religion tells them its wrong. That is an "honest" anecdote.

So,

"If you can't see the telling of [honestly illustrative anecdotes] is [different from the] emotional [appeals to "gut" reactions] used by the anti-gay crowd--I really don't know what to tell you."

"Glad your ready willing and able to step up and speak for "lots of white people"

No problem. I, on the other hand, am relieved to hear that despite their being 260 million Americans alone, you're able to exclude there being a "lot" of white people who feel awkward about black people in some settings

I based my rather unremarkable comment on a variety of sources, including stories told to me by black friends, direct observation (eg, patients uncomfortable with a black doctor on the team, some examples from nonfiction television and from behavior of people out in predominantly black crowds, the admission of a fair fraction of the white student body attending a class at UVa on racism that they'd be anxious about a black doctor operating on them), a case where security was called on the black, but not the white, med student resting in a hall at UVA (with ID badge in place), and the recent report that the conservative strategist caught offering a cop $20 in return for giving oral sex offered as an excuse that the cop was a stocky black man and the arrestee was frightened, and popular depictions, such as the characters of Bullock and Phillipe in "Crash"--while fiction, based on something, no doubt. Just what I've seen constitutes a "lot," and I doubt I'm alone.

Notice that I was purposefully vague and didn't give a percentage or a figure nor did I say this was a problem exclusive to whites or without explanation. Don't overread every line.

[cxt]

IJ

Nope, matters little weither if they are "true" or not--they are STILL emotional pleas and "scare" stories.

Pretty sure that the "other" side could tell equally scary stories about gays abuseing the legal system--I could tell you some myself.

But that is really not the point--the point is that its not a question of validity--or even nuanced validity--its a question of jerking the old emotional heart-strings until they play the tune somebody wants to hear.

Nope, YOUR the guy claming to "speak" for millions of folks you don't know, never met and you certainly can't read their minds--I'M the guy that says make such blanket statements are untenable.

Dude, seriously get a grip--if you can't see the differnce between YOU asserting you know what is in millions of peoples hearts/minds---hearts and minds and SKIN COLOR BTW, and ME asserting you CAN'T and BTW probably shouldn't be making mass judgements based upon the color of a persons skin---then your cracked as an old tea-cup.

Oh "stories"......hmmmm "stories" so if I heard bad "stories" about gay people---we should treat them as "evidence"----or should we perhaps refraine from making blanket judgements with only small sample sizes and subjective "stories" to go on?????

What do you think?

Oh, I get get now---your presenting an idiotic, clearly conflected messed upon dude as evidence.
See, this is ANOTHER example of you running your mouth without looking out for the spin.
Certainly hope that no gay man or women has ever done questionable things......wait a minute, isnt the guy in your example gay???
So why isn't he a example of how gay people act???

Like I said IJ--PLEASE stop helping.

You think your bashing conservatives--but what your really doing is presenting another scary gay "story" to people.

[IJ]

"Nope, matters little weither [sic] if they are "true" or not--they are STILL emotional pleas and "scare" stories."

Ok, it is your opinion that all arguments should be conducted without any appeal to emotion. Opinion noted. I think its a dumb opinion, but you're welcome to it. I have no further interest in your thoughts on this matter unless you can demonstrate some reason why your personal preference ought to alter this common practice. Of course, there are reasons why we HAVE this common practice in the first place*, perhaps the most obvious in this case being that of course an emotional response to the separation of life partners is appropriate and we ought to be scared of a legal system that promotes such events.

"Pretty sure that the "other" side could tell equally scary stories about gays abuseing the legal system--I could tell you some myself."

Go right ahead. I'm all ears.

"Nope, YOUR [sic] the guy claming to "speak" for millions of folks you don't know, never met and you certainly can't read their minds--I'M the guy that says make [sic] such blanket statements are untenable."

You know what? You're right. Subtle racial tensions in America are GONE. I submit. All gone. Totally nonexistant. If you want to discuss it more, put it in another thread.

"You think your [sic] bashing conservatives--but what your [sic] really doing is presenting another scary gay "story" to people."

I'm thrilled to know you can read my mind. Actually, I presented that story to show that appeals to fears about black people are still making national news, just like I said. But since subtle racism is completely nonexistant in America, I'll address your other assertion: that I was bashing conservatives. If you want my thoughts on the litany of conservatives who've been found to be indulging in what they profess to oppose, the posts are still on the other thread back at Bill's (WRT Haggard, this guy, a teen activist, Roy Cohn, Rep Foley, and many others--not all gay, there was the recent conservative caught up with the DC madam). Basically, I called the behavior "reaction formation," and its attributed to the conflict between internal urges and external pressure to conform to social rules. There's self hate and guilt and the person tries to become the opposite of the tension causing urge by opposing it publicly. I think its partly a commentary on ongoing homophobic social mores, and partly on the individuals who end up hurting their own in the way they manage their own internal struggle. My response is part sympathy and part disgust. As for "bashing conservatives," there are a lot of conservatives who aren't hypocrites that I respect and engage in polite enchange of ideas with. This story wouldn't "bash" them--it would bash no more than the hypocritical conservative.

As for this being a scary gay story, yeah, sure, they're out there. By my own criteria, it would be fair to tell the story of... oh, gay men who knowing get and spread HIV by having anonymous sex with a bunch of partners. That is a real subculture and a story illustrative of its problems is certainly fair game. Thats why *I,* as a doctor, and also a person who thinks that behavior is destructive, costly and cruel, is happy to share and discuss those stories to point those problems out. To me its not a scary "gay" story because straight men have done exactly the same. To me that would be a story about base irresponsibility. If people wanted to tell the story of that guy as an example of what's wrong about meeting people for sex at public places, that'd be fair game too. There's a reason to be upset about it. It could be an "honest" anecdote. Just because it illustrates more than one thing doesn't mean it didn't illustrate what I said it did.

*NB: the reason why these stories are used is because they work, and if you're using them properly (to promote civil rights; to prevent family tragedy; to, in medicine, ensure that someone retains an important clinical lesson by linking it to a memorable tale), then they can be great tools for good.

[cxt]

IJ

Does all the spinning of what other people say ever make you dizzy???

I never said that "all arguments need to be made without any appeals to emotion"----what I'm saying is that people need to be aware of emotional appeals and the power that they have.
A very different thing.

Your animus towards me seriously effects how you "read" what I write.

Nope, NEVER said they were "gone--that is more of your spin on what I actually said.
"racial tensions" are vastly reduced from they used to be---I'm sure that the still exsist---and one of the reason that they do is people just like YOU--folks willing to force millions of people to lug around racial attitudes that they may not even have.
But that does not stop YOU from claiming to be able to read their hearts and minds---based upon their SKIN COLOR of course.

Imagine all those people JUST LIKE YOU--that are so "sure" that they understand gay people based upon equally flimsy beliefs--just like YOU--that they "know" what are in peoples hearts and minds.

Nope, unlike you, I'm not reading anyones mind--just repeating what you have said.

So if you know plenty of "scary gay stories yourself" why ask me to repeat them?

Yeah, emotion works---it ALSO works AGAINST you--which is exactly one of the points I was making.

But you ascribe no validity to anyones elses emotions.

[IJ]

"what I'm saying is that people need to be aware of emotional appeals and the power that they have. "

I'm aware. Obviously. I guess that was an easy issue to settle, eh?

"But you ascribe no validity to anyones elses emotions."

Oops, I guess not. Oh well. Here goes:

No, I was quite clear. Crystal. The issue is whether the emotions generated are legitimately linked to the issue. If people are emotionally upset by an anecdote where two women kissed in public, that should NOT inform a debate on marriage rights; if people are emotionally upset by the spread of a deadly disease by irresponsible people, that emotion IS relevant to a debate on whether sex club ought to stay open during an HIV epidemic. This is all merely the issue of honest/peritnent vs dishonest/not pertinent anecdotes that was clearly outlined in my other post. I never said that other peoples emotions were invalid. (Just like I didn't say you claimed racism was gone--that was, you know, obviously a joke).

"Imagine all those people JUST LIKE YOU--that are so "sure" that they understand gay people based upon equally flimsy beliefs--just like YOU--that they "know" what are in peoples hearts and minds."

The problem with your logic is that it assumes my statement (about there being a "lot" of white people who have a vague or subtle uneasiness around others) is wrong. However, my statement was correct. I know what you're thinking--oh, I'm set in my beliefs and discount those of others--but my statement was deliberately bland and merely reflects a social fact about race relations that is acknowledged by most Americans. I didn't judge or mind read any individuals. For the details, go see the other thread which I set up to prevent a derailing of this one. If you choose another quixotic mission, feel free to challenge my statement there.

Do you have anything to actually say about same sex adoption?

[cxt]

IJ

I am talking as much about same sex adoption as YOU are.

Nope, AGAIN, your miscasting what I'm saying and what your doing.

As long AS YOUR the arbiter of what is valid in terms emotional and "legitmate" then your missing the point.
Its why I keep trying to point out the problem.

You now trying to establish that its "legitmately linked" ot a given issue.

A-Emotions are by defination NOT exactly linked to objective, coldly reasoned, dispassionate analysis--so demanding such a standard seems an impossibly high expectation.

B-Whom are you to judge the "legitmatacy" of a givens person feelings???

C-The point here IJ --as I keep trying to point out--is that without understanding how people approach things--what their logic AND feelings are about issues you don't really know the best way to proceed to change their minds/attitudes.

And as long as people judge what feelings are OK ie "legitmate" to have, instead of exploreing those feelings and helping people to see the other side of things--there are going to be problems.

I doubt it--your stament can't be judged as "correct" without the proofs of same--which you don't have and can't provide.

All you have done is establish that in YOUR mind its ok to force the perception of attitudes onto millions of people based upon their SKIN COLOR.

Besides--AGAIN, in conext with your above arguments concerning the "legitimacy" of feelings.
How do you know/establish that those supposed feelings are not equally "legatmate???"

Maybe those people FEEL that they have a valid reason to feel as they do--if they feel that way at all.

Its amazing to me how invested people and parties can be in the negative.

[IJ]

"I am talking as much about same sex adoption as YOU are."

True, you've succeeded in highjacking the thread again, so this is my last reply to you unless you post on the topic.

"Emotions are by defination NOT exactly linked to objective, coldly reasoned, dispassionate analysis--so demanding such a standard seems an impossibly high expectation."

You missed the point. I didn't say emotions were dispassionate analysis (duh), I said that if emotions are legitimately linked to a subject they weren't irrelevant.

"Whom are you to judge the "legitmatacy" of a givens person feelings???"

You missed the point. I didn't say anyone's emotions were invalid (though, I would argue that prejudice and racism are emotional reactions which we should aim to correct), I said that an anecdote was dishonest if it tried to stir up emotions to influence a debate the emotional response wasn't relevant to.

"All you have done is establish that in YOUR mind its ok to force the perception of attitudes onto millions of people based upon their SKIN COLOR."

In your twisted world of arguing just to argue, no one could ever say that a "lot" of white people were middle income or have two legs. Jeezy peezy, common things are common and that means a lot of white people aren't completely colorblind and are middle class and have two legs. It's not a racist accusation, its merely a statement of fact that a "lot" of white people fit into all those 3 categories, although many more would fit into the latter two. Like it, don't, whatever. It's just lunacy to charge me with racism just because I've observed white people behave in subtle and overtly racist ways.

"Its amazing to me how invested people and parties can be in the negative."

Who joined this thread just to say I should never relate a sad story that directly resulted from discriminatory laws--that my post was "invalid," if you will? Sniff. Who writes in only to attack and nitpick every modest statement I make, such as that racism isn't gone? Really, no one else feels the need to challenge such obvious statements. Who else writes in without any citations, precedents, or basically, thread-advancing thoughts of his own and only attacks people (for being negative!)?

Goodbye--I'll reply to you when you write something reply worthy. Meanwhile, a plea to anyone else to resume the thread as we were....