President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.
Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.
Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.
Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple
Mr. McCain: Yes.
You know, beyond the typical open republican bigotry, I have to wonder where the fuck his handlers are on this. He also just slammed everyone from a single parent home at the same time.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
Good ol' core family values. What with Bush basically taking the kiddy gloves off when it comes to making everyone hate his guts, I think McCain is trying to sink to his level.
Well reality is that one parent of each gender is best. Reality also is that almost ANYTHING AT ALL is better then the kid growing up bounced through foster homes or in a orphanage, and then once they turn 18 they just have no one. If McCain had any damn brain he'd speak out against people adapting children overseas when America is full of kids in need, but no, that’d be too logical and helpful.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
You know, beyond the typical open republican bigotry, I have to wonder where the fuck his handlers are on this. He also just slammed everyone from a single parent home at the same time.
Yes he did actually...I think it's quite insulting to say: "we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family".
Who's "we"? So it's proven that without both parents, the success of a family is automatically jeopardized? Lessened? Trivialized? How arrogant.
One could argue that you could never improve on the IDEAL heterosexual family unit provided it is also accompanied by loving, responsible parents who raise their kids in an exemplary manner.
But to say straight out that it's absolutely necessary or so important that he would reject alternative adoption circumstances outside heterosexual pairings, (who are also NOT the actual parents either..), is nothing but bigotry. He probably doesn't even see how his argument is a red herring.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
LOL, whut? This strengthens his position as the Republican empty suit, if anything. The only people this would actually offend weren't going to vote for him anyway. Try to remember what country we're talking about, here.
Darth Raptor wrote:LOL, whut? This strengthens his position as the Republican empty suit, if anything. The only people this would actually offend weren't going to vote for him anyway. Try to remember what country we're talking about, here.
The Log Cabin Republicans might not vote for him
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Ender wrote:You know, beyond the typical open republican bigotry, I have to wonder where the fuck his handlers are on this. He also just slammed everyone from a single parent home at the same time.
Hasn't that been the standard Republican position for a long time, though?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
JOHN MCCAIN: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.
We've proven even more conclusively that parents should ideally be middle-class, well-educated, drug-free, and non-smokers. When can we expect Mr. McCain to speak out against adoption by people falling outside that category?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Sea Skimmer wrote:Well reality is that one parent of each gender is best. Reality also is that almost ANYTHING AT ALL is better then the kid growing up bounced through foster homes or in a orphanage, and then once they turn 18 they just have no one. If McCain had any damn brain he'd speak out against people adapting children overseas when America is full of kids in need, but no, that’d be too logical and helpful.
Actually, everything I've read says that at least one parent of each gender is best - correct me if I'm missing something obvious, but is there any data on families where children are effectively raised by more than two adults, whether it be an extended family living together, or something like a "Full House"-type situation?
I'm starting to feel guilty for voting for McCain in the primary. The only virtue that he hasn't given up yet is his stance on nuclear power, everything else he's given up in order to appeal to his conservative base.
CaptainZoidberg wrote:I'm starting to feel guilty for voting for McCain in the primary. The only virtue that he hasn't given up yet is his stance on nuclear power, everything else he's given up in order to appeal to his conservative base.
Well, that's because conservatives are selfish little bitches who refuse to vote unless it's for someone they completely like.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
CaptainZoidberg wrote:I'm starting to feel guilty for voting for McCain in the primary. The only virtue that he hasn't given up yet is his stance on nuclear power, everything else he's given up in order to appeal to his conservative base.
Well, that's because conservatives are selfish little bitches who refuse to vote unless it's for someone they completely like.
That's a bipartisan affliction.
Just look at some of the left's reaction to Obama's FISA vote, or hell, some of Hillary's more nutty backers choosing McCain over Obama.
Unlike the Clintonistas, the hard right does have valid reasons to dislike McCain considering that he made it a point to kick them in the junk on their pet issues in order to burnish his 'maverick' credentials.
IMHO this refusal to support McCain is something that needs to cherished and encouraged, not criticized.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
I don't think it's an ideal situation for a child to grow up without one parent of each gender.
I also don't think that gay couples should be barred from adoption, however.
Preferably, there would be a list of possible adoptive families, ranked according to a number of criteria. Advantage would go to families with two parents of opposite gender, but this could be forfeit by other factors. I fully endorse the position that wards of the state are better off in adoptive families, assuming they aren't left without oversight to ensure quality-of-life in their new environment.
This "ideal situation" argument is such tripe, though. Adoption agencies do not make any effort to ensure ideal parenting situations; they just try to avoid unacceptable parenting situations. That's why you can be a chain-smoker and still adopt kids.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Sea Skimmer wrote:Well reality is that one parent of each gender is best. Reality also is that almost ANYTHING AT ALL is better then the kid growing up bounced through foster homes or in a orphanage, and then once they turn 18 they just have no one. If McCain had any damn brain he'd speak out against people adapting children overseas when America is full of kids in need, but no, that’d be too logical and helpful.
Actually, everything I've read says that at least one parent of each gender is best - correct me if I'm missing something obvious, but is there any data on families where children are effectively raised by more than two adults, whether it be an extended family living together, or something like a "Full House"-type situation?
As far as I am aware (and I read the peer reviewed lit frequently) there is not even any research to support the idea that a gay couple is in any way inferior to a straight couple, all other factors held equal. If anything, they do better, because gay people, should they, frankly, survive to adopt children, raise more driven and more accepting children. The daughters of lesbian parents for example are more likely to reach high socio-economic positions, and high social status positions such as Doctors, Lawyers etc.
The differences are small, but they are in our favor.
As far as proper "maleness" is concerned (or vice versa) those are largely heritable (as far as macro-level processes like information processing) and what is left (the specifics) are arbitrary social constructions that can be compensated for if need be (and are) by friends parents, uncles, aunts etc. Of course, that begs the question that we want to. A lot of acceptable male behavior in western cultures is self-destructive.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Axis Kast wrote:I don't think it's an ideal situation for a child to grow up without one parent of each gender.
This makes me think of John Stewart saying "I can just remember as a little boy, getting on the school bus, my mom's ovaries waving goodbye... my papa's testicles teaching me how to read".
I think it's fair to say that the hypothetically ideal family has two good gender role models, since (despite many claims to the contrary) there are many real differences between the genders. Not to mention the fact that the child's first model of interpersonal relations is from its own parents.
However, an uncle could also serve as a male gender role model. And the mere presence of a male does not mean he will actually be a good male gender role model. He could just as easily be a bad gender role model, thus causing the precise opposite effect of the beneficial one that he is supposed to have.
Most of the research on the superiority of "traditional families" is done by comparing them to single parents who are mostly either divorced or the result of deadbeat dads: a method which is highly uncontrolled because so many other variables are changing at the same time.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.
Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.
Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.
This is classic PoliticianSpeak. Notice how he never actually addresses the point of the question.
It drives me crazy that interviewers and TV watchers never seem to have a problem with this kind of weasely behaviour.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
As far as I am aware (and I read the peer reviewed lit frequently) there is not even any research to support the idea that a gay couple is in any way inferior to a straight couple, all other factors held equal. If anything, they do better, because gay people, should they, frankly, survive to adopt children, raise more driven and more accepting children. The daughters of lesbian parents for example are more likely to reach high socio-economic positions, and high social status positions such as Doctors, Lawyers etc.
Do you think that that might be caused by the lower tolerance levels in lower income communities. For example, there might be a Lesbian couple in California that's wealthy, and a group of potential Lesbians in Alabama, but the potential Lesbians in Alabama can never balance out the statistics because of social intolerance.
A lot of acceptable male behavior in western cultures is self-destructive.
Yeah but a lot of it is important for our society.
A lot of acceptable male behavior in western cultures is self-destructive.
Yeah but a lot of it is important for our society.
Like what? Drinking binges are something that's considered acceptable male behavior but self destructive. I'd hardly consider them important for a society.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
A lot of acceptable male behavior in western cultures is self-destructive.
Yeah but a lot of it is important for our society.
Like what? Drinking binges are something that's considered acceptable male behavior but self destructive. I'd hardly consider them important for a society.
There's also violence for the sake of one's pride or "honour". Can't forget that quintessentially male behaviour, which is oh so constructive
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Sea Skimmer wrote: If McCain had any damn brain he'd speak out against people adapting children overseas when America is full of kids in need, but no, that’d be too logical and helpful.
I'm pretty sure at least one of McCain's children was adopted from Bangladesh actually.
John McCain, who had adopted two children with his wife Carol, had a daughter with her, and then, after Carol got her looks destroyed by an accident, was kicked to the curb? He even nabbed his marriage liscense before the divorce was finished.
John McCain, who barely spends any time with his current family?
Oh well. It's John McCain. Tomorrow he'll have adopted a brand new sta-.. Hang on, campaign e-mail(Why GOPer send me e-mail?)
"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.
McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative," - Jill Hazelbaker, Director of Communications
Didn't even have to wait for tomorrow.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
This "ideal situation" argument is such tripe, though. Adoption agencies do not make any effort to ensure ideal parenting situations; they just try to avoid unacceptable parenting situations. That's why you can be a chain-smoker and still adopt kids.
The rules and regulations governing adoption should be redrawn at the national level. But that’s certainly wishful thinking.
I think Mike spelled out the reasons I see greater value in a (all other factors being equal) two-parent, two-gender home over other situations. There are plenty of children who need good homes, though, and I see no reason to deny homosexual couples. Certainly not anymore than single parents of any gender.
