Powered by TypePad

« Traditional Fall Classic Open Thread | Main | Now Its Obama Versus The NY Times »

October 28, 2010



In the case of the bias against interracial adoption (one which black social workers still fight for BTW even though the alternative is the far worse long term foster care),the impediment was social barriers which seem to be falling. In the case of bias against homosexual adoption one might argue that while social barriers are falling, the psychosexual impact on the child might still be there. That is, regardless that the neighbors couldn't care less, the child might miss something without living in a house with a male and female model.

Still, all thing being equal--an assuming social workers weren't so often stupid and lazy--the deciding criteria should really be the maturity, stability, intelligence and situation in life of the applicants for adoption, shouldn't it?


the deciding criteria should really be the maturity, stability, intelligence and situation in life of the applicants for adoption, shouldn't it?

In theory, yes. My question was worded to imply "other things being equal." But the same issue arises with regard to assessing those qualities, especially "stability." We've got a lot of data on stability of hetero marriage. Most adoption agencies won't consider couples who have been married less than some number of years because of the high failure rate in the first year of marriage. (A lot of that 40% divorce rate you read about is from marriages ending within the first year or two.) What do we know about the stability of homosexual marriage?



I grew up with a narcissistic mother who was so mentally abusive to me, at age 7 I vowed I would never have children because I would never do to them what she did to me. The one good thing my mother did is make me strong, simply ti survive which is a very good thing. But it was hell.

I work with a lesbian who is the best parent I've ever seen in my life. It is so instinctive for her, and her kids are exhibits A and B. I'm constantly in awe.

So for me, that's a big enough sample.


I really believe that eventually same sex marriage will be a reality.I look at the case of Rosie O'Donnell and her partner who got married in San Fran when Newsome was flaunting the law up there. Now they have about 4 or 5 kids between them but are separated. O'Donnell's mother died when she was about 10 or 11 and her dad was struggling to raise the family by himself. I agree with Jane, some people are naturally good parents and hopefully if you have a gay marriage, both or at least one person will step up in that role.Having worked with "at risk" kids from single parent homes that also presents a difficult challenge.

Janet the tea-vangelist!

Marriage is between one man & one woman. Any other combination or variation is not marriage. The agenda is to redefine marriage which will open the door to all kinds of depravity. So why not redefine a bunch of other stuff too. I want to be defined as a minor if I ever commit a felony. I am not...but I want to be. I want to be defined as a minority when I apply to university. I want a disability card for the next time I park my car. I am not a minor, a minority (well maybe!), or disabled, but it is not fair that they get special privileges & standing.


((That would have made a compelling argument against mixed race marriages 50 or 100 years ago.))

I wonder if the black community is "homophobic" because of the way gays compare of race to sexual orienation. I think it is an extremely insulting trivialization to compare gays not being free to marry to what was the heinous institution of human slavery.


didn't proofread my post to Bill Gates

((of the way gays compare of race to sexual orienation))

... the way gays compare race to sexual orientation


((I really believe that eventually same sex marriage will be a reality.))

I believe that is true. I also know that one of the oldest cities that smiled on lax morality was the of city of Corinth. Not much left standing of Corinth today. Everyone should read Tammy Bruce's "The Death of Right and Wrong" ...

Janet the tea-vangelist!

to compare gays not being free to marry

Every individual is free to marry. The issue is redefining marriage.


Seems to me that if immediately prior to a National Election Karl Rove needs to find a target he can spout off about as detrimental to the overall Conservative effort, instead of hitting on Sarah Palin, who this very evening is in town trying to rescue Joe Miller's candidacy with a big rally, Rove could at least target Lisa Mulecowskee, who if she wins, is going to be a de-facto Democrat and a 'go to' vote for Obama.

Lisa is:

-A Co-Sponser of a Cap and Trade Bill
-Against the Arizona Immigration Law
-Against Building a Border Fence
-Pro Abortion in all cases
-Pro Earmarks
-Pro Eric Holder
-anti John Bolton
-pro National Health Care (as long as it's tweaked properly)
-on record as saying she doesn't think the US citizenry cares how much money we spend, only that we spend it responsibly
-Made multiple statements during the debates that you lower 48 guys deal with the National Debt but keep the Pork coming up here since you had 150 years worth of Pork and you still owe us since we've only been a State for 50 years
-voted for a State Income Tax when in the State Legislator, yet is now running attack ads agains Joe Miller saying that if you vote for him we'll have to do a horrible thing in Alaska and institute a State Income Tax.
-said just last week in an interview that if elected as a Write-In that this will free her from having to vote with the Republican's because of Party pressure, and she'll be completely free to vote her true conscience in all matters, and at this very instant is
-running ads touting her history of having crossed Party Lines to vote with the Dem's over 300 times as a big reason to vote for her
-etc, etc, etc

So if anybody has a line to that creep Karl Rove, please tell him to get off his ass and start dissing Lisa right now this very second, when sensible honest criticism of this witch has the possibility of doing some real honest to God good for this country.

I'm with Captain Hate on this one. Kiss my ass Karl Rove.

Believe it or not I would rather have McAdam's in there than Lisa. I'm speaking in immediate anger right now, but my reasoning this second is that he is at least honest about where the hell he stands (he's a Socialist), whereas Lisa is a snake in the grass, that will be absolutely detrimental to the Conservatives. She will make them water their positions down continually in order to get her "so called support" always with the threat of her running off to Begich and Obama. She is a cancer in the party. At least with McAdam's there are no illusions.


Oh gawd, you guys are being so mean to my up and coming dinner date!


Who"s your date Jane?

Wish it was me:)


((to compare gays not being free to marry

Every individual is free to marry. The issue is redefining marriage

Thanks for catching that Janet. I realized after I posted that I'd misspoke. There is no right at all that gays do not enjoy along with every other citizen. For anyone to compare their desire to marry individuals of the same sex to the state of forced servitude, where the human beings enjoy no rights whatsoever but the whim of a master, is evil imo, and if I were black I would be incensed by the comparison. (I am incensed about it anyway.)

Janet the tea-vangelist!

Print daddy's post off & hand it to him Jane!

and your whole last paragraph is absolutely right daddy!!! AMEN & DITTOS!!!!


IMO blaming Bush or Rove for what's happened to the country since 2006 is bogus. I disagree with Rove's old school take on some candidates but there are some regulars here with much the same views.

I think the old school rules are about to get tossed this election, at least I sure hope so.


Daddy ((She will make them water their positions down continually in order to get her "so called support" always with the threat of her running off to Begich and Obama))

which is exactly why Rove isn't being vocal about her ... he likes Republicans to operate like Leasa

Janet the tea-vangelist!

Chubby, no other issue has been harder for me to write about than the homosexual agenda. I find it very hard to express being opposed to the agenda but caring about the individual.
I've phrased ideas wrong &/or sloppy...but I love JOM for the back & forth of ideas without others getting too mad!



Karl and I will be sipping tea - or vodka in two short weeks.

You can be my date any time you want.


Janet, whatever one calls it--marriage, union roommates--we find ourselves in a situation where there are thousands of children who parents are unable to raise them. The choices are slim. There are a few orphanages, fewer of those every year. There are foster homes, Some are very good, most are awful and poorly monitored, Children in this system are regularly shifted from one caretaker to another with no one to bond with and no support after they reach 18 when we both know they still need parents.We have some willing adoptive heterosexual parents but there are not enough to take in all these children many of whom are no longer babies and many who have demanding special needs.

Now, here's the actual choice; Same sex parents or no parents except fosters.


Janet .. I can totally relate to what you are saying. I am more used to posting on an opinion forum that is equally inhabited by righties and lefties and what mostly goes on there is unproductive confrontation. So it is nice to find a place where people at least agree on the basics but also disagree enough on issues to keep it interesting, but civil.


"here's the actual choice; Same sex parents or no parents except fosters"

IIRC some religion based adoption services have shut down rather than comply with accepting gay applicants..


"Later, Obama seemed to suggest that legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. "The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going," he added."

Yeah, Barry, let's talk about trendlines:

In 1861, the "trendlines" were going the way of the South winning its independence.

In 1940, the "trendlines" indicated the Germans had already won WW II.

In 2006, the "trendlines" told us we were already defeated by Al Qaeda in Iraq.

In 2007, the "trendlines" said there was no way an underachieving, community organizing, international-man-of-mystery, freshman Senator could beat Hillary Clinton for the Donk nomination, much less win the Presidency. Yet here we are.

Barry, be careful with those "trendlines"--they'll get you into trouble every time.

el polacko

hey..keeping gay folks maginalized and demonized has been working out just swell for millenia so why change anything? sure, they have experienced great love, fought and led in times of war, nurtured and raised children, created cherished art and music, but heck, they've managed to do all of this and more despite the great societal odds and besides, i've got some gay friends who tell me that they aren't really interested in being treated equally under the law so why should we "roll the dice" now ?? who knows, maybe someday in the far, far distant future things will change and gay citizens will be treated with dignity and respect but i knew this real creep once and he was gay so, at least during my lifetime, the case closed for me.


one can be treated with "dignity and respect" without being indulged.

The comments to this entry are closed.