North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm not against gay parenting but for people to say they don't have additional challenges just goes beyond logic.

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

Dont think for a moment i forgot about you either!!!

Sike, im just kiding. Point noted. You win. But unfortunitly winning in the Debating With The Enemy section of thewarpath is like getting a box of Chicken McBites from McDonalds. Losing means you get 2 boxes of Chicken McBites.....

I wasnt answearing you because you hadnt answeared my question from before, and i happen to be very petty about that kind of stuff.

So:

Let me ask you something personally. In your opinion would a male teen raised by 2 dads in one of the most uneducated, ignorant and bigoted parts of NC, say Greenville*, be subject to more or less adversity than an otherwise similar kid with no gay parents? Same situation but in SoCal?

And you left out parts from the rest of my post, which if anyone would like to see you can click on THIS RIGHT HERE!.


And partly because it sums up the way i feel, but more so just because i like quoting myself (and of course citing FoxNewsTotallyAwesome):

This is very dificult topic/issue:

Study finds host of challenges for kids of gay parents | Fox News


But I think the author summed it up perfectly and basically states exactly how i feel.

I have a step brother and sister that are adopted and i feel like if the state becomes involved at any point (foster care) it has to take ownership in the well being of the child. Allowing a gay person or couple to adopt a kid in NYC is different than letting a gay male couple adopt a kid in NC_Skin's town of Greenville, no matter how unfortunate that may be. So i guess im trying to say discretion should be used.

If its a private adoption or international adoption i think the issue is a lot trickier. It becomes a civil rights issue vs a child welfare issue.

In a perfect world i dont think we should ever conform to bigots or haters, but my vision of a perfect world doesnt have any bigots or haters to conform to. In a imperfect world i think we have to use discretion when the well being of a child is involved (espicially after the state had already become involved). Children shouldnt be used to combat bigotry.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

But unfortunitly winning in the Debating With The Enemy section of thewarpath is like getting a box of Chicken McBites from McDonalds. Losing means you get 2 boxes of Chicken McBites.....

Not really about winning anything, but informing people of things they might not understand or know. Ignorance is a lock, knowledge is the key.

Let me ask you something personally. In your opinion would a male teen raised by 2 dads in one of the most uneducated, ignorant and bigoted parts of NC, say Greenville*, be subject to more or less adversity than an otherwise similar kid with no gay parents? Same situation but in SoCal?

The reason this wasn't answered because the answer really doesn't matter. My guess is that they would be subjected to more adversity, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of it. The fact is, bigotry and hate is wrong, regardless if people's religion says so. Should blacks move out of the south because more racism tends to exist there? When we start conforming to the people who are in the wrong, is when our country will go to hell in a hand basket. Want to see how F'd up religion will destroy your country, look at Iran and many of the Middle Eastern countries with radical Islam.

You have to make a stand at some point against your oppressors. It happened with women's rights. It happened with rights for African Americans...and the fight will continue for equal rights among all human beings regardless of their race, religion, or sexual preference.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

In a perfect world i dont think we should ever conform to bigots or haters, but my vision of a perfect world doesnt have any bigots or haters to conform to. In a imperfect world i think we have to use discretion when the well being of a child is involved (espicially after the state had already become involved). Children shouldnt be used to combat bigotry.

Absolutely not. Your logic of backing down because bigotry exists doesn't make sense and all it does is negatively enforce the bigots actions that his bigotry makes a impact so he will continue on. Should black people not have children since racism exists? That's about the logic you are trying to use (or so it appears). Your assertion that children shouldn't be used to combat bigotry is off base, and assumes/implies that gay couples will run out and adopt just to fight for their rights.

Church that barred black wedding affirms commitment to equal treatment – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not really about winning anything, but informing people of things they might not understand or know. Ignorance is a lock, knowledge is the key.

Okay fair enough. And dont get me wrong. McDonald's line up of new sauces are awesome, im not knocking those at all. I just think their McBites suck.

The reason this wasn't answered because the answer really doesn't matter. My guess is that they would be subjected to more adversity, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of it. The fact is, bigotry and hate is wrong, regardless if people's religion says so. Should blacks move out of the south because more racism tends to exist there? When we start conforming to the people who are in the wrong, is when our country will go to hell in a hand basket. Want to see how F'd up religion will destroy your country, look at Iran and many of the Middle Eastern countries with radical Islam.

Im not saying anything about people being forced to move from one place to another or not be protected at all costs when attacked. And I HATE Iran. But only because Fox told me too.

You have to make a stand at some point against your oppressors. It happened with women's rights. It happened with rights for African Americans...and the fight will continue for equal rights among all human beings regardless of their race, religion, or sexual preference.

Could not agree more.

Absolutely not. Your logic of backing down because bigotry exists doesn't make sense and all it does is negatively enforce the bigots actions that his bigotry makes a impact so he will continue on. Should black people not have children since racism exists? That's about the logic you are trying to use (or so it appears). Your assertion that children shouldn't be used to combat bigotry is off base, and assumes/implies that gay couples will run out and adopt just to fight for their rights.

Youre not hearing (reading?) what im saying (typing?).

Me:

If the state has taken custody of a kid, via foster care or some other means, it has the responsibility to protect the welfare the child above everything else before remitting control, even if it means compromising the liberty of others. The kids liberty comes first and above all other involved parties.

Examples:

A couple wants to adopt a little kid via public adoption.

Reasons to exercise caution:

1) The person/couple is gay and lives in Greenville NC

2) The person/couple has a pool or train tracks in their back yard

3) The person/couple lives in a particularly dangerous area and refuses to move

4) The person/couple lives with a felon

5) The person/couple practices a religion that excludes certain types of medial treatment

6) The person/couple wants to use the child as a spokes model to fight bigotry

Reasons not to to use additional caution:

1) The immediate and foreseeable living conditions of the person/couple present no obvious "adversity" or harm to the child

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Im not saying anything about people being forced to move from one place to another or not be protected at all costs when attacked. And I HATE Iran. But only because Fox told me too.

Not sure why the hate for Iran. Did you know that Iran was once a country on the rise in terms of civilization, much like we were back in the 60's and 70s?

Iran in 1960s and 1970s « News About Iran

Our CIA and foreign policy put a stop to all that. That is something Fox News isn't going to tell you.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Youre not hearing (reading?) what im saying (typing?).

Me:

If the state has taken custody of a kid, via foster care or some other means, it has the responsibility to protect the welfare the child above everything else before remitting control, even if it means compromising the liberty of others. The kids liberty comes first and above all other involved parties.

Examples:

A couple wants to adopt a little kid via public adoption.

Reasons to exercise caution:

1) The person/couple is gay and lives in Greenville NC

2) The person/couple has a pool or train tracks in their back yard

3) The person/couple lives in a particularly dangerous area and refuses to move

4) The person/couple lives with a felon

5) The person/couple practices a religion that excludes certain types of medial treatment

6) The person/couple wants to use the child as a spokes model to fight bigotry

Reasons not to to use additional caution:

1) The immediate and foreseeable living conditions of the person/couple present no obvious "adversity" or harm to the child

Three out of your six are legitimate concerns I suppose, but the other three are equivalent to playing the straw man card. Nobody is going to get a kid to fight bigotry, they have protests and other legal actions for that. No need to get a kid who's going to create a ton of expense to champion the cause. Number one is so far off base and out of touch with the reality of things. Again, racism is still alive and deep rooted in the south so would they let any family adopt a black kid in Greenville, NC because of the potential hostility and racism shown? They aren't going to base adoption of something such as that. You are basically suggesting what I mentioned prior.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

You made my point. I never said if it was right or wrong I just said they have additional chalanges.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You made my point. I never said if it was right or wrong I just said they have additional chalanges.

Well, a handicap person has additional challenges. Females have additional challenges. Minorities have additional challenges. Not sure what point you are trying to make that kids growing up a homosexual home have additional challenges. That's kind of a obvious statement captain. Are you implying that because they have additional challenges that it is a legit reason for gay couples to not be parents?