[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Corporations are not people and should therefore not have religious status.

Then GM can't be sued for faulty ignition switches.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It shouldn't confound you that people want equal access when one side has better access. That was the point.

The discrimination is in not realizing there are more than two sides.

[The Final Dakar]

On the plus side, when I was in high school, I seem to recall gay adoption being one of the hot topics du jour. While objections haven't been completely obliterated (Santorum, natch), I can't recall any real opposition even as far back as the contentious year of 2004. Long intro aside, another study finds homo parents aren't a liability.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows - The Washington Post

Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.

Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population.

The University of Melbourne study also pointed out a problem facing same-sex families: stigma.

According to the study, about two-thirds of children with same-sex parents experienced some form of stigma because of their parents’ sexual orientation. Despite these kids’ higher marks in physical health and social well-being, the stigma associated with their family structure was linked to lower scores on a number of scales. Crouch said stigmas ranged from subtle issues such as sending letters home from school addressed to a “Mr.” and “Mrs.” to more harmful problems such as bullying at school. The greater the stigma a same-sex family faces, the greater the impact on a child’s social and emotional well-being, Crouch said.

[Chongo]

Meanwhile in the US
Study: Adults Raised By Same-Sex Parents Worse Off « CBS DC

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Meanwhile in the US
Study: Adults Raised By Same-Sex Parents Worse Off « CBS DC

This latest study contradicts several previous ones stating that there was no difference in a child raised by same-sex parents than biological parents.

i.e., outlier.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then GM can't be sued for faulty ignition switches.

It should only be possible to sue them if someone from GM was negligent in the design, production and/or installation that led directly to those faults. Beyond that, accidents happen. Everything has a failure rate and you shouldn't get to sue just because you lost that lottery.

Also, your point is ridiculous.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Meanwhile in the US
Study: Adults Raised By Same-Sex Parents Worse Off « CBS DC

Why am I not surprised that this study comes from Texas?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It should only be possible to sue them if someone from GM was negligent in the design, production and/or installation that led directly to those faults. Beyond that, accidents happen. Everything has a failure rate and you shouldn't get to sue just because you lost that lottery.

Also, your point is ridiculous.

so, corporations are persons only when it is expedient.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

i.e., outlier.

I would fathom that there's some difference in who they sampled or how they sampled or perhaps phrasing that could affect the results. Which is not to say Chongo's citation is without merit.

i.e. the above statement should seem familiar to you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Why am I not surprised that this study comes from Texas?

The study was drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample, peer-reviewed, and published.

Is this faith-based, anti-science!® or would it immediately have merit had it come from California?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I would fathom that there's some difference in who they sampled or how they sampled or perhaps phrasing that could affect the results. Which is not to say Chongo's citation is without merit.

i.e. the above statement should seem familiar to you.

It's with merit if its followed by more results agreeing with it. We'll see.

[subego]

I find it curious this was the first published test of the author's new behavior index.

I'd think the first use should have been proving its worth as an index.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, let's say gay parents are inferior to straight ones (Assuming gender roles are important, this is not a difficult task). What do those who don't condone the homosexual lifestyle want? I posted noting that gay adoption is a non-issue nowadays. Does anyone here actually oppose adoption by homosexual parents?

I imagine Chongo, but he doesn't count

[Chongo]

I know we don't count.
It is an issue for adoption agencies ran by Catholic Charities Community Services. They have shut down adoption agencies in several dioceses because they will not place children with single or unmarried couples.

[subego]

Anyone see the irony in thinking an orphanage is better than an unmarried couple?

[Chongo]

Orphanages have been replaced by state run group homes.

[subego]

While good to know, ultimately not relevant to my point.

I can see God not wanting to fudge certain rules, but when it comes to the welfare of children, I see him thinking "close enough".

When the time for judgement comes, these people who think they were upholding the word of The Lord by keeping children out of a loving home simply because the parents-to-be were unwed? They might be in for a bit of a surprise.

Of the warm, seven-layer variety.

Hint: not a burrito.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

While good to know, ultimately not relevant to my point.

I can see God not wanting to fudge certain rules, but when it comes to the welfare of children, I see him thinking "close enough".

When the time for judgement comes, these people who think they were upholding the word of The Lord by keeping children out of a loving home simply because the parents-to-be were unwed? They might be in for a bit of a surprise.

The problem being you're elevating your imperfect human logic above scripture.

Well, actually, is there scripture that says no adoption/raising kids for unmarried/single peeps?

[Chongo]

Yes, it's the same passage the word "trinity" appears.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Anyone see the irony in thinking an orphanage is better than an unmarried couple?

The biggest challenge I'm aware of with regard to children in orphanages is "attachment disruption" during their more formative years. Do you have something to substantiate the idea that orphanages are worse than umarried couples?

[subego]

You mean "unmarried couples trying to adopt". The specific subset is important here.

Beyond that, it's common sense. Which one has the most resources available per child?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes, it's the same passage the word "trinity" appears.

Weird, you usually jump at the chance to quote a bible passage.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You mean "unmarried couples trying to adopt". The specific subset is important here.

Beyond that, it's common sense. Which one has the most resources available per child?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'resources' but ignoring the monetary factor, the children are bound to get more individual attention, right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You mean "unmarried couples trying to adopt". The specific subset is important here.

Beyond that, it's common sense. Which one has the most resources available per child?

Resources including "time" because I would think that would be the most important factor. Do you have anything to substantiate the idea that a single person wanting to adopt has more resources available for a child than an orphanage? You say it's common sense in which case it should be fairly easy to establish.

[subego]

When did we change from "unmarried couple" to "single person"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'resources' but ignoring the monetary factor, the children are bound to get more individual attention, right?

Seems obvious to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

When did we change from "unmarried couple" to "single person"?

Apologies on that. I honestly don't know that it's a given that an unmarried couple has or will give as much time for a child as an orphanage. Do we have any information on the guardian-to-child ratio or anything to go by here? Given the failure rate of marriage (let alone unmarried couples), I don't believe it's unthinkable that at some point, chances are good there would be a single parent or slightly less complex environment for the child, in or out of an orphanage.

Seriously, is it supposed to be obvious because of Annie?

[unicast reversepath]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The problem being you're elevating your imperfect human logic above scripture.

Well, actually, is there scripture that says no adoption/raising kids for unmarried/single peeps?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes, it's the same passage the word "trinity" appears.

The literal word trinity was never mentioned in the Bible, but THE trinity was.

Would you care to quote the actual passage you are referring to?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You say it's common sense in which case it should be fairly easy to establish.

Caretaker to child ratio?

[The Final Dakar]

Utah to appeal gay marriage ruling to high court
Do they bite?

[The Final Dakar]

Adams judge tosses Colorado gay marriage ban but stays ruling - The Denver Post

An Adams County District Court judge on Wednesday declared Colorado's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional, but he immediately stayed his ruling.

Judge C. Scott Crabtree pulled no punches in his 49-page ruling, saying the state's voter-approved ban "bears no rational relationship to any conceivable government interest."

"The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Crabtree said in his ruling.

"The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans."

Crabtree also said: "If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The problem being you're elevating your imperfect human logic above scripture.

Well, actually, is there scripture that says no adoption/raising kids for unmarried/single peeps?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes, it's the same passage the word "trinity" appears.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Weird, you usually jump at the chance to quote a bible passage.

Originally Posted by unicast reversepath 

The literal word trinity was never mentioned in the Bible, but THE trinity was.

Would you care to quote the actual passage you are referring to?

St. Matthew, Chapters 1 and 2, St. Luke, Chapter 2

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by unicast reversepath 

Would you care to quote the actual passage you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

St. Matthew, Chapters 1 and 2, St. Luke, Chapter 2

Looks like a no then.

[The Final Dakar]

So this is a little weird...
Judge rejects state attempt to stop Boulder clerk from issuing same-sex marriage licenses - The Denver Post

A judge on Thursday said he would allow Boulder's clerk to continue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, rejecting a request from Attorney General John Suthers to issue an injunction.

Boulder District Court Judge Andrew Hartman said in an order issued Thursday that the AG's office did not meet its burden in proving that Hall's decision to issue the licenses creates any kind of harm for the couples or the state.

Hartman said "there is little argument that Clerk Hall is engaging in a form of civil disobedience," but he said he was not ruling on the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban.

He said he had been asked to consider whether Hall was exceeding her authority or violating her duties by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hartman said the state had failed to meet its burden in seeking a temporary restraining order.

"There is no tangible harm to the people of Colorado caused by Clerk Hall's disobedience of state law and orders by the State," Hartman said.

"The State makes assertions that Clerk Hall's disobedience irreparably harms the people by causing loss of faith in the rule of law," Hartman said. "However, the State has made nothing but assertions. An alternate public response is that the people of Colorado laud Clerk Hall for her pluck and/or condemn the Attorney General for his tenaciousness."

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Apologies on that. I honestly don't know that it's a given that an unmarried couple has or will give as much time for a child as an orphanage. Do we have any information on the guardian-to-child ratio or anything to go by here? Given the failure rate of marriage (let alone unmarried couples), I don't believe it's unthinkable that at some point, chances are good there would be a single parent or slightly less complex environment for the child, in or out of an orphanage.

Seriously, is it supposed to be obvious because of Annie?

That last "rephrasing" of my argument is pretty snarky and aggressive coming from someone who felt the need to apologize for breezing past two sentences of a four sentence post. On top of that, much of what you say here was directly addressed by the other two sentences.

So, I'm getting almost complete lack of understanding, and snark. Why should I continue here?


To be clear, drop one of those, and I'm happy to continue. It's both as a combo I can't do anything with.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Looks like a no then.

St Joseph had big shoes to fill.
St. Matthew

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ[k] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”

(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son;[l] and he called his name Jesus.

The Visit of the Wise Men
2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:

6 ‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will govern my people Israel.’”

7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared; 8 and he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” 9 When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; 11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

The Escape to Egypt
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.”

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, 20 “Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” 21 And he rose and took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archela′us reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

St Luke

2 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirin′i-us was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 7 And she gave birth to her first-born[a] son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Jesus Is Presented in the Temple
22 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” 25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And inspired by the Spirit[c] he came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, 28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,

29 “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word;
30 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation
31 which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to thy people Israel.”

33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him; 34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother,

“Behold, this child is set for the fall[d] and rising of many in Israel,
and for a sign that is spoken against
35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

The Return to Nazareth
39 And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. 40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

The Boy Jesus in the Temple
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; 43 and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, 44 but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; 47 and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” 49 And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”[e] 50 And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them. 51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature,[f] and in favor with God and man.

[subego]

Are you being paid by the word or something?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

St Joseph had big shoes to fill.
St. Matthew

St Luke

Well, I admit I'm slightly better at reading the bible than I am Shakespeare, but to me only on passage mentioned marriage:

2 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirin′i-us was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 7 And she gave birth to her first-born[a] son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Second, I note that the decree didn't come from god, but from Caesar, and last I checked, god was concerned about those things to be rendered unto Caesar.

--

I mean, there is the part where God said for Joeseph to take Mary as a wife, but I don't see that as indicating anything other than god wanting Joseph to marry Mary.

I don't see what The Visit of the Wise Men or The Return to Nazareth have anything to do with marriage or adoption, for that matter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

That last "rephrasing" of my argument is pretty snarky and aggressive coming from someone who felt the need to apologize for breezing past two sentences of a four sentence post. On top of that, much of what you say here was directly addressed by the other two sentences.

So, I'm getting almost complete lack of understanding, and snark. Why should I continue here?

Coming from someone who has little compunction for employing snark, maybe you shouldn't continue if you're having a sudden bout with sensitivity here. Otherwise, all you've done is ask me the very same question I've asked you while answering nothing; which one has the most resources available per child?

To be clear, drop one of those, and I'm happy to continue. It's both as a combo I can't do anything with.

I apologized because I indeed headed down the "single person" track in error. However, I also took the opportunity to cite the failure rate of marriage itself let alone unmarried couples to suggest there's a very real possibility the child would face the very same complexity outside an orphanage, as inside; attachment disruption. You and Dakar seem to be basing an awful lot on assumptions and I'm asking you if there's anything more. Is an unmarried couple a more stable an environment than an orphanage and why?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'resources' but ignoring the monetary factor, the children are bound to get more individual attention, right?

Considering that some 70% of mothers are employed and 42.5% of children aged 0 - 5 with working mothers spend at least 35 hours per week in a daycare, I can at least say there's very little in your assumption about individual attention that strikes me as "obvious" or "common sense".

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Coming from someone who has little compunction for employing snark, maybe you shouldn't continue if you're having a sudden bout with sensitivity here. Otherwise, all you've done is ask me the very same question I've asked you while answering nothing; which one has the most resources available per child?

We've hit performance art level at this point.

I say I'm happy (direct quote) with you being snarky as long as it's accompanied with basic effort at comprehension.

I don't think you could have better demonstrated your lack of effort than describing the above stance as "sensitivity".

Quick Google says a four child to one caregiver ratio is "excellent". I grabbed the budget for a random US children's home. Two million dollars spread over 50 kids. That's $40K per kid.

A couple seeking adoption who could offer no more than that budget and caregiver ratio would be laughed out of the agency.

I didn't need to Google this by the way. If orphanages had more resources than couples who wanted to adopt, they would keep the kids.

Railroader runs an orphanage. What he's got going is by all appearances the opposite of Annie. That said, he has to run a goddamn food drive to feed them. Food in boxes and cans which will last the whole year until the next food drive. Just what growing kids need. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you are somehow unaware of the limited resources he, and all others like him operate under.

Though I'll admit, for anyone with a basic understanding of economics and scarcity, not being able to piece it together strains the old credulity muscles.

As for your question about the divorce rate, I've already said, the divorce rate of the entire population isn't a relevant statistic for analysis of the group "married couples seeking to adopt. Likewise with the entire population of unmarried couples. You ignore my shit, I'm going to ignore your shit.

It may feel better to chalk that up to "sensitivity", but if it walks like a quid pro quo...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

We've hit performance art level at this point.

I say I'm happy (direct quote) with you being snarky as long as it's accompanied with basic effort at comprehension.

I don't think you could have better demonstrated your lack of effort than describing the above stance as "sensitivity".

We'll chalk this up to what is a classic disconnect between you and I. The only comment I made that I thought could even be remotely interpreted as "snark" is the Annie statement. That you'd propose to cease discussion over it struck me as overkill, in fact, not only a little sensitive, but very sensitive. I had asked no less than twice for something to substantiate the view, I'm not even saying I completely disagree with it, but I was looking for something more than; "it's common sense" and "it's obvious". In fact, I've said before that this is one issue I've had to review, but that I'd much rather see a child in a loving home, gay or straight, than in a State institution. But I had been working from assumptions, just as I see from you and Dakar. I'm now looking for something more.

Quick Google says a four child to one caregiver ratio is "excellent".

Perhaps I'm having a bout with inadequate Google-fu, but this is the third time I'm trying to find information on this and cannot. Can you provide a link? It seems there's more information on Romanian and Russian orphanages than on the small statement I could find of the "few orphanages in the US". And then the data trails off into all kinds of child care from early education programs to simple daycare -- which again, cares for a huge portion of American youth to age 5 even in family home settings.

I grabbed the budget for a random US children's home. Two million dollars spread over 50 kids. That's $40K per kid.

So... when we're talking about "resources", we're definitely not talking mere dollars, but why else is this significant? At the surface, it sounds like an awful lot of money.

A couple seeking adoption who could offer no more than that budget and caregiver ratio would be laughed out of the agency.

A parent who could not dedicate more than $40k per child would be laughed out of an adoption agency? I'd also need a link for this. Honestly, I'd feel lucky to have not been reported to CPS. *As an aside, when looking up the number of children and amount of their time spent in daycare, the number jumps drastically as income increases.

I didn't need to Google this by the way. If orphanages had more resources than couples who wanted to adopt, they would keep the kids.

As you've indicated, it's apparently very expensive which would be enough of a reason to want to minimize institutionalization. Are there no laws governing the quality of care in a State-run institution? We don't want children to be a "ward of the state", but I'm still not seeing anything that would suggest the environment in an orphanage is better or worse than the environment of an unmarried couple -- such that it would be "common sense" or "obvious".

Railroader runs an orphanage. What he's got going is by all appearances the opposite of Annie. That said, he has to run a goddamn food drive to feed them. Food in boxes and cans which will last the whole year until the next food drive. Just what growing kids need. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you are somehow unaware of the limited resources he, and all others like him operate under.

How does this jive with $40k/child? Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here. We're talking about US orphanages right?

Though I'll admit, for anyone with a basic understanding of economics and scarcity, not being able to piece it together strains the old credulity muscles.

Perhaps I need a little help with this, no reason to be insulting here.

As for your question about the divorce rate, I've already said, the divorce rate of the entire population isn't a relevant statistic for analysis of the group "married couples seeking to adopt. Likewise with the entire population of unmarried couples. You ignore my shit, I'm going to ignore your shit.

When did we move on to "married couples"? I used them as the optimum and cited their challenges, let alone those in unmarried households.

It may feel better to chalk that up to "sensitivity", but if it walks like a quid pro quo...

Again, I have no clue what you're talking about here.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Considering that some 70% of mothers are employed and 42.5% of children aged 0 - 5 with working mothers spend at least 35 hours per week in a daycare, I can at least say there's very little in your assumption about individual attention that strikes me as "obvious" or "common sense".

Dickish commentary aside, I don't see how you fathom children of working mothers are getting less attention when state home caretakers are likely outnumbered by vast ratios (generously I imagine there's no way its better than 4:1). The difference being is that after daycare those kids get to go home and share a mother with, what, one or two kids at worst, vs. being in a group home where they have no mother.

[The Final Dakar]

It occurs to me, since we're all in my "Jesus, we're arguing this?" zone, does that mean you have objections to gay couples adopting, ebuddy?

[subego]

@ebuddy

My post was far more cranky than it should have been, and you accepted it in stride. So let me extend my apologies and thanks.

Re: Sensitivity
I'm being 100% honest in saying it was the combo of snark and not feeling I was even close to understood which made me want to bail from the situation. Likewise, I didn't want to bail because I was offended or anything.

The issue from my perspective is your perception of my argument was far enough from my actual argument, there's was going to be a lot of work and perhaps several walls of text to get us on the same page. If the snark was already out at that point, we were never going to get anywhere with it. It was honestly a ploy not to waste time, and nothing beyond that.

You are also correct it was the "Annie" comment which I interpreted as snark. That when given the choice of interpreting my argument as praise of unmarried couples seeking to adopt, or pretty horrible castigation against orphanages, you chose the latter. It was more evidence of the distance between what I was saying and how it was coming out on the other end. Multiply that by me wanting to get snarky in return, we weren't going to get anywhere.

FWIW, it was fun snark. I was going to have you go inside my brain to understand my argument, and then get covered in slime. Funny, but not going to help the miscommunication issues much. It could if I could avoid being snarky with that kind of setup, but I know myself a little too well.

I'll get to the actual discussion bit in my next post. I wanted to get this out of the way.

To be clear though, if you feel you have a handle on a future argument, snark away.

[subego]

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.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dickish commentary aside, I don't see how you fathom children of working mothers are getting less attention when state home caretakers are likely outnumbered by vast ratios (generously I imagine there's no way its better than 4:1). The difference being is that after daycare those kids get to go home and share a mother with, what, one or two kids at worst, vs. being in a group home where they have no mother.

Now what on earth did I say that could fairly be called "dickish commentary"? egads

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.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

On the plus side, when I was in high school, I seem to recall gay adoption being one of the hot topics du jour. While objections haven't been completely obliterated (Santorum, natch), I can't recall any real opposition even as far back as the contentious year of 2004. Long intro aside, another study finds homo parents aren't a liability.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows - The Washington Post

This "study" is looking more suspicious as the details emerge.
Faring well? Convenient findings about same-sex parenting

[Chongo]

In other Aussie news, Carnac gets it right again.

A Sydney judge has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality, saying the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”.
District Court Judge Garry Neilson said just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, “a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner”.
He also said the “only reason” that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships “but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.


Read more: Judge compares incest and paedophilia to past attitudes towards homosexuality, claiming they might not be taboo anymore

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It occurs to me, since we're all in my "Jesus, we're arguing this?" zone, does that mean you have objections to gay couples adopting, ebuddy?

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. 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... Again, it's like we have a tendency to compare Annie with the Cleavers when in most developed countries I suspect both environments have changed quite a lot.

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. With specific regard to gay couples, we are not without information. We know that 14% of children under gay parents spent time in foster care and out of 175 subjects, 57% of children who reported having a lesbian parent, spent more than four months with lesbian parents, but only 23% spent more than three years. The numbers are far worse for gay male couples. This aligns with much of what we know of the number of relationships enjoyed by gays vs straights. Both of these factors combined lead me to believe we're merely perpetuating the root cause of the problem; attachment disruption. I have to decide if it's more bearable to be considered homophobic for opposing it outright or for advocating a more stringent requirement of time spent together to qualify a gay couple. When in reality I'm just trying to decide if we're doing the right thing by a kid.

We have information. And I believe it has gotten the short shrift in favor of activism.