Comments on: Protecting America from the Dangers of Gay Adoption

By: Alaska Adoption

Alaska Adoption — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:55:03 +0000

nice post

By: roro80

roro80 — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:31:55 +0000

DLS –
I think what I was trying to say is that a lot of the barriers to acceptance into the GOP “club” — like poverty, race, a history of oppression passed down through families — don't really exsist within the gay community in the same way as they often exsist within other minority groups. Gay people are born into affluent families, born to white families, born to educated parents, at the same relative rate as straight people. Except that they are the sexual minority, there is nothing keeping gay people from having the same inclinations toward conservatism as anyone else, including some of the negative stereotypes of conservatives (racists, anti-immigrant, stodgey). Because they are discriminated against because of who they love, there is a connection to other oppressed minorities, like people of color, and there is also a higher chance of being beat up/kicked out/cut-off, etc, and so the gay community is statistically more likely to better understand issues of poverty, violence, etc. All that points to being more on the liberal side of things. However, if being gay weren't considered anything wrong at all, if their relationships and families were recognized and celebrated like anyone else's, there's really nothing else to keep them from being less conservative than straight people. As opposed to, say, the black community, where family histories include slavery, where there are overwhelming cultural and institutional issues that mean they often attend poor schools, encounter more violence, tend to be less wealthy, and have children at a younger age.

I have no idea what you mean by “shock troops of gentrification”. Can you clarify?

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:25:21 +0000

R-80: GBLT people are a minority that have been excluded or mistreated, and the GOP has the older-white-male, affluent "closed club" reputation still (hyped by the Left, but nevertheless with a kernel of truth) which goes back to the 1930s, and then with the Left's civil rights victories and the radicalism of liberalism, which extends to personal behavior, naturally the GBLT crowd is liberal and Democratic. I wouldn't expect that to change. (No, consideration of anything other than anarchy or a toddler's view of "I can do whatever I want," and commonplace reaction to the concept of No and of disapproval and judgment, does not constitute Puritanism. Issue clarified and corrected.)

I believe it's extremist as well as wrong to oppose gay adoption. That's independent of the cruel irony (that is separate, and makes the opposition worse) that many children are unwanted by their parents, or are neglected or abused. Being wanted and cared for and raised well is a good, not a bad thing; surely most don't still believe the myth that gays are inherently pedophiles. (They're people like everyone else; they view pedophilia and pedophiles the same way we straights do.)

R-80: You left out one other example about the GBLT community, a piece of a stereotype grounded in fact: "shock troops of gentrification." Too bad many a troubled community didn't realize that and openly court a solution.

By: CalifGirlInMaine

CalifGirlInMaine — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:53:16 +0000

“… their best bet lies in including the bedroom and the altar as places the government needs to get out of.”
Hear, hear! In my opinion, there is far too much governmental intrusion in our lives, and these two areas are definitely not the province of the government. The Puritanical heritage of this country still runs strong in those who want to control what happens in the bedroom and who can marry/unite or not. The historical Puritans' efforts to control individual behavior led to some disastrous consequences; perhaps some of our modern-day “Puritans” need to look back at history, but I'm afraid some would still not learn the lesson.

By: roro80

roro80 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:05:47 +0000

“is there something specifically antithetical to conservatism about attracting the support of gay voters?”

This is a very interesting question — I'm a bleeding heart liberal in a very liberal area, so I wouldn't pretend to have any specific personal knowledge on the question, but I'd love an answer to it. It does seem to me, though, that it would depend a lot on what type of conservative we're talking about. The gay population is just as well-educated and wealthy as the straight population, and they come from every class and family situation, so it seems that there could be a lot of fiscally-conservative gay people out there. I don't know what luck there is with the social conservatives — I've really never met people with more hate for the LGBT community than this group. The gay community also tends to be more social-service-oriented than the overall straight community, and far more sex positive; these will be big stumbling blocks to inclusion in the GOP. I think if the GOP really wants the votes of the LGBT community, their best bet lies in including the bedroom and the altar as places the government needs to get out of. Right now, that seems fully antithetical to the current reality of the conservative movement.

By: Edsel_F

Edsel_F — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:26:56 +0000

I'm glad to see someone stepping up to this issue. The zealots in my home state (Arkansas) got an initiative passed a couple of years ago banning all civil unions. Now this year they got an amendment to the constitution preventing any unmarried cohabitating couples from being foster parents, although Child services already had a rule allowing unmarried hetero couples, and gays to be foster parents.

By: The Skepticians » Blog Archive » Two Daddies?

The Skepticians » Blog Archive » Two Daddies? — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:10:32 +0000

[...] Welcome, The Moderate Voice readers! addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fskepticians.com%2F%3Fp%3D381′; addthis_title = ‘Two+Daddies%3F’; [...]

By: CalifGirlInMaine

CalifGirlInMaine — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:57:06 +0000

I'm not sure how I feel about marriage of gay couples, though I see no reason why they should not be allowed to have civil unions. I definitely agree with you that a home with parent or parents who want you, whether a male/female couple, both of one gender, or single parent, is preferable to the state, or even private-run foster care. For those who think that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual, how do you explain the homosexual children of heterosexuals?

My 2 daughters are both young adults now, but when they were in grade school we attended a church which included a lesbian couple (the congregation was not particularly open-minded or “inclusive” in general, though individuals were). I would have trusted those 2 women to care for my daughters before I would have trusted some of the heterosexual couples. I knew another lesbian couple at the time, and I would have trusted them equally. Not to say I would have trusted any homosexual person to care for my daughters — they have their “bad eggs” the same as the heterosexual population.