Quake3World

Law wrote:

Transient wrote:http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM

and

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

and

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/ ... _final.doc

Murrrrrrrrr.

None of those reports are done on the treatment of the children by their peers, nor over a ten year period.

Murrrrrrrrrrr indeed.

You blind fearmonger.

Foo wrote:Or moot.

Or I should be meutered for that

Lawl

h4w h4w h4w

Dark Metal wrote:h4w h4w h4w

wassup homeslice?

Jus chillin. Had some smoke, had some wine, relaxin.

Law wrote:10 pages of this thread would display otherwise.

Wow. And you are going to law school?

Law wrote:

Foo wrote:And you deduce the length of the thread defines the validity of your argument how?

I don't associate it with the validity of my argument, just pointing out that if noone cared what I believed this thread wouldn't have reached 10 pages.

You've obviously not been around long enough.

I agree with Law!

[xeno]Julios wrote:Law, you MIGHT have a case to argue for banning adoption if research showed that such kids suffered tremendously.

What you're doing right now is reversing the burden of proof.

Yep, all I have is my opinion.

Transient wrote:

Law wrote:

Transient wrote:http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM

and

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
and

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/ ... _final.doc

Murrrrrrrrr.

None of those reports are done on the treatment of the children by their peers, nor over a ten year period.

Murrrrrrrrrrr indeed.

You blind fearmonger.

You're easily frustrated.

tnf wrote:

Law wrote:10 pages of this thread would display otherwise.

Wow. And you are going to law school?

Sure am.

Law wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:Law, you MIGHT have a case to argue for banning adoption if research showed that such kids suffered tremendously.

What you're doing right now is reversing the burden of proof.

Yep, all I have is my opinion.

but you apparently lack the epistemic responsibility/awareness to act rationally upon it.

You admit that this is just an opinion, which is not based on solid evidence. Yet instead of using this opinion responsibly, you propose acting upon it as if it were based on solid evidence.

Drastic policies, such as the one you are advocating for, should not be carried out unless they are backed by drastic evidence. I don't think you disagree here.

But you're making an exception since this is your own opinion. You have to learn to transcend your own opinions in a responsible manner.

Law wrote:

tnf wrote:

Law wrote:10 pages of this thread would display otherwise.

Wow. And you are going to law school?

Sure am.

Actually, and don't take this wrong because I'm not directing it at you specifically - law school isn't one of the major intellectually demanding graduate decisions you could make. Lots of work though.

yeah right man

I'm not saying law school isn't hard or hard work, I'm just saying compared to medical school or a PhD program in pretty much any science, its going to be much less challenging. A friend of mine did both - got his PhD in molecular biology then headed to law school to get his JD. Now does patent law work for a biotech. He described the challenge of the two programs as night and day in terms of challenge.

And to bring this back on topic, I do agree to some extent with Law's first post in the thread. I've seen the ridicule that students face for any number of home-related issues, and it is naive to think that a child from a home with homosexual parents won't face such treatment. And they will face this treatment at an age when they aren't really able to rise above the harassment. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily end up as a fucked up adult, but it is nothing short of amazing how merciless kids can be towards their peers. All the love in the world at home doesn't undo the damage of that kind of teasing. I can't say wholeheartedly that I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, though, because there are so many kids that need homes, and it just seems ridiculous to be turning away gay couples that could provide a supportive and stable home life - even after considering the potential complications the child may face later. I think, all other things equal, growing up in a supportive home with a mom and a dad is going to be a better environment for a kid than a home with two dads or two moms...but all 3 are better than foster care or none at all.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:Law, you MIGHT have a case to argue for banning adoption if research showed that such kids suffered tremendously.

What you're doing right now is reversing the burden of proof.

Yep, all I have is my opinion.

but you apparently lack the epistemic responsibility/awareness to act rationally upon it.

You admit that this is just an opinion, which is not based on solid evidence. Yet instead of using this opinion responsibly, you propose acting upon it as if it were based on solid evidence.

Drastic policies, such as the one you are advocating for, should not be carried out unless they are backed by drastic evidence. I don't think you disagree here.

But you're making an exception since this is your own opinion. You have to learn to transcend your own opinions in a responsible manner.

Whether I'm acting responsibly with awareness and rationality upon my opinion is entirely subjective.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:Law, you MIGHT have a case to argue for banning adoption if research showed that such kids suffered tremendously.
What you're doing right now is reversing the burden of proof.

Yep, all I have is my opinion.

but you apparently lack the epistemic responsibility/awareness to act rationally upon it.
You admit that this is just an opinion, which is not based on solid evidence. Yet instead of using this opinion responsibly, you propose acting upon it as if it were based on solid evidence.
Drastic policies, such as the one you are advocating for, should not be carried out unless they are backed by drastic evidence. I don't think you disagree here.
But you're making an exception since this is your own opinion. You have to learn to transcend your own opinions in a responsible manner.

says Jules who advocates for recognition of social constructs that would enable adults to have legal sex with minors :icon27:
Perhaps you mean for Law to accept opinions which are politically correct according to your interpretation?

tnf wrote:I'm not saying law school isn't hard or hard work, I'm just saying compared to medical school or a PhD program in pretty much any science, its going to be much less challenging. A friend of mine did both - got his PhD in molecular biology then headed to law school to get his JD. Now does patent law work for a biotech. He described the challenge of the two programs as night and day in terms of challenge.

What exactly is your point? Law school isn't intellectually challenging because their are degrees which are harder to complete (because your friend told you)? I'm not studying law because I wish to say "I studied at the highest intellectual level", I'm studying law because I love the whole concept of jurisprudence and wish to practice as a lawyer.

tnf wrote:And to bring this back on topic, I do agree to some extent with Law's first post in the thread. I've seen the ridicule that students face for any number of home-related issues, and it is naive to think that a child from a home with homosexual parents won't face such treatment. And they will face this treatment at an age when they aren't really able to rise above the harassment. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily end up as a fucked up adult, but it is nothing short of amazing how merciless kids can be towards their peers. All the love in the world at home doesn't undo the damage of that kind of teasing. I can't say wholeheartedly that I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, though, because there are so many kids that need homes, and it just seems ridiculous to be turning away gay couples that could provide a supportive and stable home life - even after considering the potential complications the child may face later. I think, all other things equal, growing up in a supportive home with a mom and a dad is going to be a better environment for a kid than a home with two dads or two moms...but all 3 are better than foster care or none at all.

Thank you for the dose of reality.

tnf wrote:And to bring this back on topic, I do agree to some extent with Law's first post in the thread. I've seen the ridicule that students face for any number of home-related issues, and it is naive to think that a child from a home with homosexual parents won't face such treatment. And they will face this treatment at an age when they aren't really able to rise above the harassment. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily end up as a fucked up adult, but it is nothing short of amazing how merciless kids can be towards their peers. All the love in the world at home doesn't undo the damage of that kind of teasing. I can't say wholeheartedly that I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, though, because there are so many kids that need homes, and it just seems ridiculous to be turning away gay couples that could provide a supportive and stable home life - even after considering the potential complications the child may face later. I think, all other things equal, growing up in a supportive home with a mom and a dad is going to be a better environment for a kid than a home with two dads or two moms...but all 3 are better than foster care or none at all.

its taken ten pages,
but we have a winner.

well said Sir :icon14:

@s@m

Law wrote:

tnf wrote:I'm not saying law school isn't hard or hard work, I'm just saying compared to medical school or a PhD program in pretty much any science, its going to be much less challenging. A friend of mine did both - got his PhD in molecular biology then headed to law school to get his JD. Now does patent law work for a biotech. He described the challenge of the two programs as night and day in terms of challenge.

What exactly is your point? Law school isn't intellectually challenging because their are degrees which are harder to complete (because your friend told you)? I'm not studying law because I wish to say "I studied at the highest intellectual level", I'm studying law because I love the whole concept of jurisprudence and wish to practice as a lawyer.

You are right. I got off topic there, and part of the reason was, ironically, I was just thinking about another friend who is a criminal defense attorney right now. He was able to finish law school after barely, barely graduating with a 2.5 gpa in high school and college (and that was with effort). But to be fair, his graduating from law school says nothing about the overall intellectual capabilities of those pursuing law degrees for various reasons and the aforementioned 'challenge' really means nothing.

So yea, my bad at making a point that really had no place in the discussion.

Actually criminal law is the area I want to get into, not sure if I would rather do defense or prosecution though. 85% of criminal trials end in the prosecution winning in Australia, so if you're in defense you'd have to have thick skin. Although I would view a judgement based upon the defenses ability to bring awareness of the defendants life circumstances leading up to the crime in question as a form of moral victory.

How is your friend enjoying it?

He likes it, but I don't know how. He's an uber-conservative Christian, yet defends drunks and punks on a daily basis, weaseling plea bargains for them to avoid truly paying the price for the actions. I couldn't sleep at night, even though I know that the defense is a vital part of the system.

He's from a family of defense attorneys, though.