In God We Must

[Jacob]

Yi gets into trouble by saying "should be".

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

However that's clearly not always possible.  People die.  People get divorced.  People have a midlife crisis and discover their homosexuality.

While a traditional family might be the ideal, government foster care is just about the worst situation imaginable.  Taking children from, say, a single parent and putting them into care would be a disaster.  The single parent might be ideal, but few things in life are, and a single parent can certainly raise a successful and well-adjusted child - as can a same sex couple.  The foster care system on the other hand has consistently shown it has trouble raising successful well-adjusted children.

So absolutely not - kids shouldn't be taken away from parents just because they are not ideal.

However when it comes to adoption it's a different story.  I have no problem with traditional couples being given preference.  However, since I think the system does a terrible job, I certainly wouldn't prohibit non-traditional families from adopting.

I don't think the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father. The best environment for raising children is in a traditional extended family with two pairs of engaged grandparents within easy reach, as well as uncles and aunts who are willing to pitch in as necessary. Clearly we should limit adoption to couples who themselves have healthy active parents willing to take on part of the responsibility.

[Jacob]

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive.

It is, yes.

[Jacob]

It certainly is a premise that can not be "proven".  It's such a political sensitive topic on both sides of the "culture war" that I think it would be difficult to conclusively establish one way or another.

I certainly agree with CC that the best environment is a loving, caring environment, and that gender / sexuality issues are not the first and last consideration.  Indeed I thuoght I said just that.

So "non-traditional" families are inferior but we shouldn't discriminate too much against them, just a little bit? They shouldn't be prevented from adopting, just be put in the back of the queue?

[Barrister]

Yi gets into trouble by saying "should be".

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

However that's clearly not always possible.  People die.  People get divorced.  People have a midlife crisis and discover their homosexuality.

While a traditional family might be the ideal, government foster care is just about the worst situation imaginable.  Taking children from, say, a single parent and putting them into care would be a disaster.  The single parent might be ideal, but few things in life are, and a single parent can certainly raise a successful and well-adjusted child - as can a same sex couple.  The foster care system on the other hand has consistently shown it has trouble raising successful well-adjusted children.

So absolutely not - kids shouldn't be taken away from parents just because they are not ideal.

However when it comes to adoption it's a different story.  I have no problem with traditional couples being given preference.  However, since I think the system does a terrible job, I certainly wouldn't prohibit non-traditional families from adopting.

I don't think the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father. The best environment for raising children is in a traditional extended family with two pairs of engaged grandparents within easy reach, as well as uncles and aunts who are willing to pitch in as necessary. Clearly we should limit adoption to couples who themselves have healthy active parents willing to take on part of the responsibility.

Fair point about extended families.

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

[garbon]

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.

[Camerus]

At the risk of generalizations (and that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it?  "The religious" vs. "atheists"), my sense is that most prominent atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and you are a moron for your belief system'.  Conversely, leading respectable Christian figures (e.g. the Pope) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and I hope for the sake of your soul and peace of mind, you change your mind.'

Not really but nice strawman.

Atheists that you mention approach the other side from the perspective of "you are wrong and I hope for the sake of the psychological and physical wellbeing of you and those around you, you change your mind."

An irrational religion mindset can lead to innumerable damage to people - from suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists to inter-religion conflicts to Jehovah witnesses refusing to have blood transfussion.

Not at all.  As illustrated here, you can pick and choose and generalize to find good in the side you support and bad in the side that you don't, when the groups are this vague and diverse.  Indeed, this whole us vs. them discussion is largely based on broad generalizations of diverse groups - i.e. why "atheists" are perceived as being more irksome than "religious types".   So the particular generalizations or 'strawmen' one chooses to make in such a discussion largely depend on one's personal preferences on the topic and/or random life experiences.

Based on my personal beliefs and life experiences - which no doubt contain a significant dose of irrationality and self-justification (as do yours and anyone else's) - I find today's atheists as the more irksome, and can point to the supremely annoying condescending aspect of modern atheism as proof.  You choose to point to, as one example, an issue near and dear to your heart - suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists - to help illustrate your cause.  I'm sure we could each point at example and counter example until the Second Coming.

In any event, at the end of the day, I think it's fair to say both modern atheists and modern Christians both kind of shitty PR in the marketplace of ideas (unfairly so in one case, if you are partisan).  I suspect it's because shrill assholes on both sides are more likely to get heard, and drown out the dull but more reasonable voices. Beyond that, in the current pluralistic environment in which we live, which group you think is a bigger martyr for their cause is more a matter of idiosyncratic/ideological preference than anything else.

[Jacob]

Fair point about extended families.

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

Right, we should just discriminate a little bit against people with inferior families. As long as there're enough kids to go around, what's the harm in that? There's clearly an important objective in officially classify peoples' families as good or not.

Of course, if there isn't enough babies to go around then you are, in fact, limiting adoption to particular groups in spite of claiming not to.

[Razgovory]

So let me see if I understand your reasoning Raz...

Gups says he thinks you mischaracterize Dawkins and that even if your characterization is correct, it does not reflect what most Atheists, such as Gups, think.

You respond to that with saying that Dawkins claims to lead the "New Atheist" movement, that that is representative of Atheists and that Gups is naive about what some Atheists have done.

And what you meant by "what some Atheists have done" was "death camps" (I'm assuming that's what your picture is supposed to refer to).

So if I understand what you're trying to say correctly, it is that Gups is naive about Atheists because he doesn't realize that Dawkins supports Nazi death camps? That seems a bit outlandish.

Actually, that's not a death camp.  That's Mexico during the Christeros war.  You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done.   I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.

Also I didn't say Dawkin's leads the New Atheist movement, I said he was a leader in it.  Dawkins of course has no political power, but if he really believes that religious education may be worse then child abuse and calling a child a "Christian child" or "Muslim child" qualifies as child abuse then I shudder to think what he would do if he had political power.

[Barrister]

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.

Is being called "not ideal" denigrating?

[Barrister]

And I knew that post would stir the pot.   

[garbon]

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.

Is being called "not ideal" denigrating?

Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating.

[Barrister]

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.

Is being called "not ideal" denigrating?

Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating.

No offense was intended.  If you choose to take offense there is unfortunately little I can do.

[garbon]

But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group.

Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.

Is being called "not ideal" denigrating?

Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating.

No offense was intended.  If you choose to take offense there is unfortunately little I can do.

Actually there is but don't let that bother your bigoted little head.

[Admiral Yi]

Right, we should just discriminate a little bit against people with inferior families. As long as there're enough kids to go around, what's the harm in that? There's clearly an important objective in officially classify peoples' families as good or not.

Of course, if there isn't enough babies to go around then you are, in fact, limiting adoption to particular groups in spite of claiming not to.

Of course we should discriminate against inferior families.  We're supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the adoptive child.  Anything that has a negative impact on that should be looked at.

It's a totally fair question to ask whether a gay couple (or single) has a negative impact compared with a straight couple, but you seem to be positing the adoptive child as some sort of public resource that everyone has an equal right to.

[Malthus]

The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal . I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that,  or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.

I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.

I would agree with you if political decisions were not being informed by the religious beliefs of the majority.  However, we do not and cannot live in such a world.  Therefore, I think it is important for people, particularly young people, to hear the other side as it were.

I agree, with the caveat that the "other side" is not well served by those who write exaggerated polemics about the evils of religion.