Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 21)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2014, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Annnnnd...

A quick note on the figures and statistics I used.

I've been suffering the same Google issue. Very hard to get information on the states, and obvious subjects for study have nothing.

Frex, you should be able to find the divorce rate amongst adoptive couples. No luck. I read claims they were higher, lower, and the same. No citations.

For the 4:1 ratio I had to extrapolate. I found a seemingly US orphanage which touted their 10:1 ratio as if it was a good thing. I found a study in the UK claiming 4:1 was the high-end.

For the budget, I picked the first link Google gave me which had results. They said their budget was $1-2MM per year, and they had a little more than 50 kids. I used the $2MM divided by 50. I always try to make the statistics I pick show my argument in the worst possible light, lest I be accused of cooking the books.

I can try to dig up actual links, but I think we'd both prefer I spend the time trying to find more authoritative ones.
No hard feelings. While it doesn't pay to be overtly cruel, this is the PWL after all and I have a reasonable expectation of snark. Which is why I might've been a little surprised at its impact on you. I'm not as artful as I should be at times and I apologize for that, sir.

I've actually been taken aback by how little information there is around orphanages.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2014, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With specific regard to the challenges that children from orphanages face, IMO the root has been identified as predominantly, attachment disruption. When one considers the amount of time children are spending in institutions under what is otherwise considered the most stable of environments, I'm not near as convinced as you appear to be with regard to anything more complex.
Should orphanages have 'petting zoo' style sessions so the kids can get enough hugs? I'm only half kidding.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2014, 04:16 PM
 
We've found if you treat an orphanage like it's a boarding school; uniforms, dorm-like rooms, defined work and study times, and establish a hierarchy based on maturity and merit, they're more likely to succeed, both scholastically and on a personal level. You can't be their mom or dad, they know that, but you can be a mentor and friend. They want structure and stability, it gives them something tangible to hold on to, and treating them like students, instead of orphans or inmates, provides that for them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2014, 04:22 PM
 
I can buy that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2014, 06:22 AM
 
Some boarding schools did have staff that filled more parental roles. I guess they probably aren't allowed any more.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2014, 11:08 AM
 
We aren't staff, but as sponsors we try to help fill in there, taking the kids out to movies, bowling, shopping, and various events (like football games). Also we act as intermediaries, listening to a lot of issues the kids have, either with the Home or each other. Cutting out hazing and bullying is my main concern, and that's one of the reasons the Home staff has a zero tolerance policy on it. It really is like a high-end boarding school with a great many more opportunities and amenities than they'd usually have with general foster care, and really the only thing we ask is that they act mostly-civil towards each other. Sure, there's going to be personal issues, personality clashes, and sometimes even fights, but as long as we can work on those things and see an avenue for integration, then that can all be smoothed out. Some children don't "fit" and their problems are simply too extreme for the Home to handle but that's fairly uncommon.

Anecdote. The headmistress was getting concerned that the kids were calling the Home "Hogwarts", but I told her that I thought that was great. Culturally that's seen as a mostly positive place, except for the occasional troll or dementor, and is an indicator that they look at it the same way too. So now we embrace it, even letting them go "Hog"-wild with decorations and events (they're all Gryffindors or Ravenclaws, no Slytherin allowed). Twilight was another big thing, though it's passed (thank God), as was Vampire Academy. Just about anything that helps them cope and work together is a good thing. We're working with them and planning to expand the campus 4x larger than it is now, allowing for a lot more children and more room for each of them, and we're taking their ideas into consideration, concerning the layout and decor, which has them very excited. I mean, it's their home and they have to live there, right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2014, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We've found if you treat an orphanage like it's a boarding school; uniforms, dorm-like rooms, defined work and study times, and establish a hierarchy based on maturity and merit, they're more likely to succeed, both scholastically and on a personal level. You can't be their mom or dad, they know that, but you can be a mentor and friend. They want structure and stability, it gives them something tangible to hold on to, and treating them like students, instead of orphans or inmates, provides that for them.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can buy that.
Yeah, this sounds quite plausible to me to. In the absence of a family structure, substituting this instead of chaos or neglect seems logical.

Edit: That said I probably would not have dealt with it well had I been within.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2014, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With regard to the level of attention a child gets, I suspect it ebbs and flows all the way from a 1:1 ratio in State care, not unlike a working family scenario. I think folks are becoming increasingly out of touch with what "family" is today in the US. It's like we're juxtaposing Annie with the Cleavers.
Unless your standard of 1:1 attention is being in the same room as the kid while they're watching TV, I doubt it. I don't see how they could achieve as mundane a childhood experience as going shopping with your parents.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I have never outright objected to gay couples adopting and have historically sided on the assumption that a gay couple would easily be a better environment than an orphanage.
Ok.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not only am I not as sure about this anymore, I'm not sure this should be an obvious conclusion regardless of situation; married heterosexuals, committed couples, etc...
...and you lost me. What changed your mind? I mean, if you're lowering the standard of heterosexual care, doesn't that immediately improve homosexual care by comparison?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2014, 04:38 PM
 
Also... the Hogwarts thing is pretty friggin adorable.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2014, 04:47 PM
 
@Dakar

I'm going to take a huge risk and answer for ebuddy.

His issue is we're all working on assumptions and empirical data.

We shouldn't have to do this. There's no barrier to these things being researched. They just aren't for some reason.

It's not the same thing, but you have communal living situations (like in a kibbutz) which are willingly participated in, and don't seem to destroy people. They do pretty much the opposite. My understanding is a kibbutz setup leads to a lower incidence of "problem children".

On the other hand, it seems to stunt the individualism which can prod certain people to soar well above their peers.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2014, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unless your standard of 1:1 attention is being in the same room as the kid while they're watching TV, I doubt it. I don't see how they could achieve as mundane a childhood experience as going shopping with your parents.
...and you lost me. What changed your mind? I mean, if you're lowering the standard of heterosexual care, doesn't that immediately improve homosexual care by comparison?
Not if they're maintaining a lower standard at the outset, but more on that in a sec.

My only point is that when you do have an opportunity to actually hand-pick an environment for a child, it should not be from foster care (what essentially used to be orphanages, now more akin to a more ideal family-life) into a daycare. (family-life now becoming more like an orphanage)

With specific regard to gay couples; we have information to suggest life with a gay couple may be even more challenging for a child. I've seen the refutation of the recent studies that suggest children of gay couples do not fare as well and they're essentially the "social stigma" cop-out arguments; a common argument with regard to higher rates of suicide among gays for example when in reality the suicide rates are highest in the most gay-tolerant regions on the globe. I don't think it's enough to act on assumptions if evidence suggests otherwise.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 12:25 PM
 
Wouldn't the tolerance level towards gays directly correlate with the number of people who are willing to publicly identify as gay, and therefore skew the results of what constitutes a "gay suicide"?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 12:35 PM
 
Would in the closet gays who commit suicide because they are gay also skew "gay suicide rates?"
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:09 PM
 
How do you classify it as a gay suicide if the person is closeted?

Or am I not understanding the question?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not if they're maintaining a lower standard at the outset, but more on that in a sec.
Hmmm? If we assume the straights are giving 9s (out of 10 on quality of care) to teh gays 5s, but since the straights aren't leave it to beaver and in reality it's 7s, don't the 5s look better? (Unneccessary addendum, Foster care is a 4; 2014 Numbers out of my ass for the sake of argument Quarterly).

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
My only point is that when you do have an opportunity to actually hand-pick an environment for a child, it should not be from foster care (what essentially used to be orphanages, now more akin to a more ideal family-life) into a daycare. (family-life now becoming more like an orphanage)
I think I see what you're getting at, but we're talking to pre-school kids, right? Regardless, you're saying that by moving them from foster care to day care the quality of their life is being reduced. While I don't agree, accepting your argument a face value I'd argue that their quality of life is being reduced for 1/3rd of their day. 1/3rd of their day will remain essentially the same (sleep), leaving the key third of the day – the evening with the parents. In my mind, this would be a massive upgrade compared to foster care.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With specific regard to gay couples; we have information to suggest life with a gay couple may be even more challenging for a child. I've seen the refutation of the recent studies that suggest children of gay couples do not fare as well and they're essentially the "social stigma" cop-out arguments; a common argument with regard to higher rates of suicide among gays for example when in reality the suicide rates are highest in the most gay-tolerant regions on the globe. I don't think it's enough to act on assumptions if evidence suggests otherwise.
What challenges do you see, outside the social stigma? And how do you solve it? (Hint: not by making gay parents rarer or a point of contention). I can't endorse precluding homosexuals from adopting because of the social stigma their kids will face anymore than I would prevent school integration in the 60s because of the racist stigma colored kids would face or interracial kids because of the stigma against that still exists. (Yes, not all stigmas are created equal)

---

Now, I think you posted some stats above about homosexual parents being less than dedicated in their adoptions. That's a legit concern. However, I'd like to see the stats compared to regular couples before I start becoming concerned.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:14 PM
 
I'll take any input from anybody on this post that is available, BTW.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:21 PM
 
What is the actual question. What the NT says about marriage?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What is the actual question. What the NT says about marriage?
I think my question is "Am I nuts or am I correct that there are no real inferences about marriage in the post I read. What is the flaw in my reasoning? What am I misinterpreting and how should it be correctly read?"

Edit: As a reminder the excerpts were supposed to enlighten us as to why unmarried people shouldn't adopt.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:29 PM
 
No. It has to do with illustrating the importance of having a mother AND a father.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No. It has to do with illustrating the importance of having a mother AND a father.
Not in the context of the original question that prompted that reply:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, actually, is there scripture that says no adoption/raising kids for unmarried/single peeps?
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
St. Matthew, Chapters 1 and 2, St. Luke, Chapter 2
Edit: Also, again, it doesn't say its important, it's merely a command, once from God, once from Caesar. Neither time specifically denotes its "for the kid."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:43 PM
 
Sorry, a married mother and father. Jesus was raised by Mary and Joseph. It says he was obedient to them. He wasn't "raised by Nazareth"
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:52 PM
 
Ironically, I'd say the Bible appears to put more weight on the marriage than the child.

What do you do with an unmarried pregnant woman? Send her away, of course!

The Biblical commentary on how that just might be giving the kid the shit end of the stick is conspicuously absent.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 01:56 PM
 
I feel the takeaway is "marriage is important because if you're a whore, God will forsake your baby".
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:01 PM
 
I wasn't sure how to interpret send her away other than in terms of she goes back to her family and they hide her shame and raise the kid as her brother or something (Like they did 100 years ago).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:03 PM
 
G*d did provide for Hagar and Ishmael.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Sorry, a married mother and father. Jesus was raised by Mary and Joseph. It says he was obedient to them. He wasn't "raised by Nazareth"
I still don't see what it has to do with adoption. He can only be obedient if they're married? Is that a built-in human instinct?

Wouldn't an orphan be in the position of being "raised by Nazareth"?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:11 PM
 
Joseph adopted Jesus as his own and raised him as such. He trained him in carpentry.

Instinct? As in natural?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
G*d did provide for Hagar and Ishmael.
Hagar was a slave.

Even OT God draws the line at punishing slaves for doing what their master tells them to do.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:18 PM
 
so much for 10%
Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population - The Washington Post

The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1 percent declined to answer, responded “I don’t know the answer” or said they were “something else.”
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Joseph adopted Jesus as his own and raised him as such.
Ah, I think I get it. Old world rules: You marry someone their pre-existing kids automatically become yours as well. Still, the wife seems like the lynchpin here – I don't see that situation really being applicable for orphans.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
so much for 10%
I didn't think it was that high, but does this have some kind of consequence I haven't fathomed yet? Because off the cuff, I get pessimistic feeling that the conclusion is going to be we should care less about their rights because there aren't enough of them.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:34 PM
 
I always assumed the 10% was using the looser definitions.

Self-identification is definitely one of the tighter definitions.


Example: if one has had a single homosexual experience, and decided it wasn't right, they're going to self-identify as straight.

If the question is "have you blown a dude", the answer would be different, assuming said person was interested in telling the truth on a survey about blowing guys in the first place.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:42 PM
 
Here... I'll come out of the closet right here on MacNN. I'm a little gay. I don't find the idea of gay sex particularly off-putting. I dig my penis, so I think penises are kinda cool. Go figure.

However, I'm not interested in having a relationship with a guy. I'm not interested in sex without a relationship, so that's a pretty serious barrier.

IOW, I'm past 40 and never even kissed a guy, and probably won't ever will, let alone anything else.

I identify as straight because at some point, that's the way the duck is walking.

Am I lying by self-identifying as straight?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I didn't think it was that high, but does this have some kind of consequence I haven't fathomed yet? Because off the cuff, I get pessimistic feeling that the conclusion is going to be we should care less about their rights because there aren't enough of them.
No, the Catechism (2358) says "every sign of unjust sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided" On the other hand, should 2% of the population be dictating to the other 98%?.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 02:56 PM
 
Depends on what they're dictating.

If we let the majority dictate our civil liberties (and I'm talking about things like freedom of speech, not marriage), you wouldn't have any left.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here... I'll come out of the closet right here on MacNN. I'm a little gay. I don't find the idea of gay sex particularly off-putting. I dig my penis, so I think penises are kinda cool. Go figure.

However, I'm not interested in having a relationship with a guy. I'm not interested in sex without a relationship, so that's a pretty serious barrier.

IOW, I'm past 40 and never even kissed a guy, and probably won't ever will, let alone anything else.

I identify as straight because at some point, that's the way the duck is walking.

Am I lying by self-identifying as straight?
Given the highlighted portions above I would question what you mean by "a little gay".

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here... I'll come out of the closet right here on MacNN. I'm a little gay. I don't find the idea of gay sex particularly off-putting. I dig my penis, so I think penises are kinda cool. Go figure.

However, I'm not interested in having a relationship with a guy. I'm not interested in sex without a relationship, so that's a pretty serious barrier.

IOW, I'm past 40 and never even kissed a guy, and probably won't ever will, let alone anything else.

I identify as straight because at some point, that's the way the duck is walking.

Am I lying by self-identifying as straight?
All of the above, only I have kissed a guy. It felt "wrong", for lack of a better word. I could tell immediately that it wasn't for me.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Given the highlighted portions above I would question what you mean by "a little gay".

OAW
I meant more gay than you.

Seriously though, I think you have to find the idea of gay sex to be off-putting to qualify as "fully straight".
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
All of the above, only I have kissed a guy. It felt "wrong", for lack of a better word. I could tell immediately that it wasn't for me.
Interestingly, I would imagine because of the relationship angle, I find the idea of making-out with a guy to be totally off-putting, while everything else seems like a good time.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I meant more gay than you.

Seriously though, I think you have to find the idea of gay sex to be off-putting to qualify as "fully straight".
Not necessarily. If that were the case then porn videos watched primarily by straight guys wouldn't include the obligatory girl-on-girl scene.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not necessarily. If that were the case then porn videos watched primarily by straight guys wouldn't include the obligatory girl-on-girl scene.
I've heard this joke in various forms over the years by comedians, and I while I understand the implication, I have trouble empathizing. It reeks of a straight man being insecure with the concept of having an erection while another dude is on screen, because homo!, i.e., the old rule about those who are so loud about being straight being the least so.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not necessarily. If that were the case then porn videos watched primarily by straight guys wouldn't include the obligatory girl-on-girl scene.

OAW
I think the fact we're debating how gay I am nicely illustrates how something seemingly intuitive as "what constitutes being gay" is actually all over the map.

I'd go so far as to say the results of any study on orientation are useless without being accompanied by how the researchers tackled this issue.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hmmm? If we assume the straights are giving 9s (out of 10 on quality of care) to teh gays 5s, but since the straights aren't leave it to beaver and in reality it's 7s, don't the 5s look better? (Unneccessary addendum, Foster care is a 4; 2014 Numbers out of my ass for the sake of argument Quarterly).
I agree that we're in the realm of the theoretical here, but I have no reason to believe that any such decline would occur at varying rates. i.e. If 9's become 7s, then 5s become 3s.

I think I see what you're getting at, but we're talking to pre-school kids, right? Regardless, you're saying that by moving them from foster care to day care the quality of their life is being reduced.
I'm saying it's more or less a wash and that you cannot assume as "obvious" or "common sense", that one is an upgrade over the other.

While I don't agree, accepting your argument a face value I'd argue that their quality of life is being reduced for 1/3rd of their day. 1/3rd of their day will remain essentially the same (sleep), leaving the key third of the day – the evening with the parents. In my mind, this would be a massive upgrade compared to foster care.
You're assuming that a child would sleep during the day at daycare while a parent works all day and that the children and parents spend time together throughout the night in spite of everything else that must be done including the 6+ hours they both will be sleeping. I submit to you that's not today's family. Today's family looks more like;
  • Families spend just eight hours a week together on average.
  • Weekend is best with two hours twenty mins devoted to the family each day.
  • During the week the amount of time shrinks to just 36 minutes on average each day.

Your breakdown of "1/3rd their day with parents" while optimistic, is sorely mistaken IMO. At best, they're spending less than 1/10th of their day with parents on the weekends and 1/3rd of that on weekdays.

What challenges do you see, outside the social stigma? And how do you solve it? (Hint: not by making gay parents rarer or a point of contention). I can't endorse precluding homosexuals from adopting because of the social stigma their kids will face anymore than I would prevent school integration in the 60s because of the racist stigma colored kids would face or interracial kids because of the stigma against that still exists. (Yes, not all stigmas are created equal)
I agree that it's difficult if not impossible to endorse any variance in standards that might hinder a gay couple from adopting, but either we're focused on social conscience or what's best for a kid. I cannot explain why gays show the statistics they do, but it's difficult for me to buy off on the "social stigma" assumption as not only does this apply to all in one form or another (agreeing that all stigmas are not equal), but it doesn't hold up with other factors being blamed on social stigma when compared to countries of much greater acceptance. With regard to adoption, my concern is not that of fairness or equality, but simply what is best for a kid.

Now, I think you posted some stats above about homosexual parents being less than dedicated in their adoptions. That's a legit concern. However, I'd like to see the stats compared to regular couples before I start becoming concerned.
Good point and in fact to be clear, the stats were not specific to gay, adoptive parents, but to gay parents in general. One could make the point that a couple interested in adopting a child may be a cut above the general population. I don't have these specifics on hand.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2014, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I've heard this joke in various forms over the years by comedians, and I while I understand the implication, I have trouble empathizing. It reeks of a straight man being insecure with the concept of having an erection while another dude is on screen, because homo!, i.e., the old rule about those who are so loud about being straight being the least so.
Or to add; girl-on-girl is all of one visual which is stimulating whereas guy-on-girl is going to include visuals that might not be.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Interestingly, I would imagine because of the relationship angle, I find the idea of making-out with a guy to be totally off-putting, while everything else seems like a good time.
It's a lot like the straight guys I performed the nuptials for. They have zero interest in each other sexually, but they're as emotionally connected as any other married couple I've ever met. As strange as their relationship is, it suits them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 02:40 AM
 
Well... the relationship I have with my best friend is pretty close, and it's sure as shit lasted longer than my relationships with the fairer sex.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Or to add; girl-on-girl is all of one visual which is stimulating whereas guy-on-girl is going to include visuals that might not be.
Every guy sees a penis everyday. Shower, bathroom, in the bedroom when pleasuring themselves. Again, some guys are so insecure that a penis on screen must be immediate grounds to go flaccid or else you must be a homo or something. I don't know about you guys but in a guy/girl scene there's plenty going on that isn't a penis to keep me occupied.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree that we're in the realm of the theoretical here, but I have no reason to believe that any such decline would occur at varying rates. i.e. If 9's become 7s, then 5s become 3s.
I think you missed my point. You basically state that people have an unrealistically positive view of today's "families" (traditional implied). Unless you posit that they have a similarly optimistic and positive about gay parents (HA!), the latter construct doesn't get worse just because the former's reality is realized.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm saying it's more or less a wash and that you cannot assume as "obvious" or "common sense", that one is an upgrade over the other.
You're not really presenting an opinion why though.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're assuming that a child would sleep during the day at daycare while a parent works all day
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
that the children and parents spend time together throughout the night in spite of everything else that must be done including the 6+ hours they both will be sleeping.
Or this. Of course they sleep at home.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I submit to you that's not today's family. Today's family looks more like;
  • Families spend just eight hours a week together on average.
  • Weekend is best with two hours twenty mins devoted to the family each day.
  • During the week the amount of time shrinks to just 36 minutes on average each day.
Again, you're not demonstrating how this is worse than foster care.

And since we're apparently using a day-care aged child, the amount of time and attention required will naturally be higher than those averages.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your breakdown of "1/3rd their day with parents" while optimistic, is sorely mistaken IMO. At best, they're spending less than 1/10th of their day with parents on the weekends and 1/3rd of that on weekdays.
But how is this worse than having no parents?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree that it's difficult if not impossible to endorse any variance in standards that might hinder a gay couple from adopting, but either we're focused on social conscience or what's best for a kid.
English, please.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I cannot explain why gays show the statistics they do, but it's difficult for me to buy off on the "social stigma" assumption as not only does this apply to all in one form or another (agreeing that all stigmas are not equal), but it doesn't hold up with other factors being blamed on social stigma when compared to countries of much greater acceptance.
This isn't clear either but what I'm getting is somehow gay stigma is the worst.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Every guy sees a penis everyday. Shower, bathroom, in the bedroom when pleasuring themselves. Again, some guys are so insecure that a penis on screen must be immediate grounds to go flaccid or else you must be a homo or something. I don't know about you guys but in a guy/girl scene there's plenty going on that isn't a penis to keep me occupied.
I think it's just fun for some people to indict others for insecurity because they may not think exactly alike. I find the smell of my own farts somewhat pleasant from time to time, but certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to appreciate it. Seeing someone else's penis erect, slimy, and spewing semen is not stimulating to me and it's really not more complicated than that.

Given the fact that men visit porn 72% vs women @ 28%, your reasoning might suggest most women are just insecure.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think you missed my point. You basically state that people have an unrealistically positive view of today's "families" (traditional implied). Unless you posit that they have a similarly optimistic and positive about gay parents (HA!), the latter construct doesn't get worse just because the former's reality is realized.
The decline of the family is not on accident and there's nothing to suggest it would be exclusive to heterosexual couples. Increasing importance/need for career and/or money, more distractions, etc... these are all the challenges that we all face.

You're not really presenting an opinion why though.
I've offered what the primary challenge is for children raised in orphanages as I understand it. I've explained how children in "ideal" family settings are increasingly subject to these same challenges, and provided statistics on what the traditional family looks like today to bolster my opinions. You may not accept what I've offered, but it's not accurate to say I've not really presented an opinion. To be honest, I'd say I've offered far more for my opinion than you've offered for yours.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

Or this. Of course they sleep at home.
No problem... we'll strike all this as not important and whittle it down to your point; "evenings at home with parents". Did you mean approximately 36 minutes of their evening or were you really assuming it was much more time than that in a traditional family setting?

Again, you're not demonstrating how this is worse than foster care.

And since we're apparently using a day-care aged child, the amount of time and attention required will naturally be higher than those averages.
Foster parents and/or child-care providers are specifically employed to care for children. That's their primary role. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question if one who is employed specifically to spend time with children will spend more time with children than one who is trying to balance child-rearing with a career role that likely consumes much more of their time and has nothing to do with spending time with children.

But how is this worse than having no parents?
I don't think there's any magical merit to "parents".

English, please.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, no amount of clarification is going to help. It takes two willing parties to communicate here.

This isn't clear either but what I'm getting is somehow gay stigma is the worst.
You might be getting that, but you're not getting it from me. I believe the "social stigma" excuse is over-played.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2