In God We Must

[Jacob]

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.

Yeah, I asked what "some atheists have done" because that's what you replied to Gups when he claimed you were mischaracterizing Dawkins, and when Gups said he - and mosts atheists - are not like you characterize Dawkins and do not have any issues with religious people except when they impose their religion on the body politic.

And to that your answer is some minor Mexican civil war from almost a century ago? It's still not really making any sense.

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.

But what does that have to do with the Cristeros war? Or the Spanish Civil War where apparently some nuns were shot? Or any of the other bits of exciting political history of the last century?

Gups made the point that right now people are killing themselves and others in the name of religion while no one is doing so in the name of atheism. If your best counter is something that happened almost a century ago in an entirely different context then that's not much of a counter at all.

[Barrister]

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.

I was just going to post something like that.  There's no right to adopt.

If you want to say that being a same-sex family is not a negative factor that's completely fair point of view.  But it's simply wrong to look at it in terms of rights of the parents.

[Malthus]

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.

I agree, though I'd point out that any actual evidence that gay couples are inferior at raising children (as a generality) is somewhat lacking. Single parents, yes, and in adoption they should (rightfully) lose 'marks' as it were for their single-ness, since a decent amount of evidence exists that the kids of single parents have a tougher time - or at least, so I understand. 

[Jacob]

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

Well, you could try not actually being offensive you cheeky pot-stirrer you

[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.

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

Hardly.  As Jacob implied, my family is not "ideal" - our extended family is widely scattered and not as involved in our little guy's life as I'd like.  I didn't feel insulted when he brought it up.

[garbon]

Hardly.  As Jacob implied, my family is not "ideal" - our extended family is widely scattered and not as involved in our little guy's life as I'd like.  I didn't feel insulted when he brought it up.

Not sure if you're honestly suggesting those are the same...

[Neil]

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.

You're not even a faggot.

[Neil]

Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating.

Then you should improve yourself.

[garbon]

Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating.

Then you should improve yourself.

Okay Mr. Haggard.

[Jacob]

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.

No, I don't think so.

I think it's totally fair to do a complete assessment of any given candidate(s) to adopt a child: Do they have a stable life? Are they economically stable? Do they understand the nature of the commitment and are they ready and capable of taking it on? Do they have a support network to draw on? What is the quality of that support network? Do they have any experience that indicates they would be good parents? Is there anything in their history - medical, psychological, criminal, family - that raises red flags about their potential as parents?

That shit is all completely fair, because we want what's best for the child. Look at the particulars and make a decision, no problem. But immediately deciding that people in large abstract categories are de facto less suitable has little to do with caring for the welfare of the child and a lot to do with scoring political points, IMO.

[PDH]

It seems the best would be to have a whole mess of mothers and fathers then, maybe kids raised by 10-20 people.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Yes, I accept that.  I would much rather have the athiest point of view be championed by someone a bit less prone to hyperbole.

[Admiral Yi]

No, I don't think so.

I think it's totally fair to do a complete assessment of any given candidate(s) to adopt a child: Do they have a stable life? Are they economically stable? Do they understand the nature of the commitment and are they ready and capable of taking it on? Do they have a support network to draw on? What is the quality of that support network? Do they have any experience that indicates they would be good parents? Is there anything in their history - medical, psychological, criminal, family - that raises red flags about their potential as parents?

That shit is all completely fair, because we want what's best for the child. Look at the particulars and make a decision, no problem. But immediately deciding that people in large abstract categories are de facto less suitable has little to do with caring for the welfare of the child and a lot to do with scoring political points, IMO.

Not sure I grasp the distinction between red flags raised about their potential as parents and deciding that large abstract categories are de facto less suitable. 

[Jacob]

I agree, though I'd point out that any actual evidence that gay couples are inferior at raising children (as a generality) is somewhat lacking. Single parents, yes, and in adoption they should (rightfully) lose 'marks' as it were for their single-ness, since a decent amount of evidence exists that the kids of single parents have a tougher time - or at least, so I understand.

I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:

- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.

I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.

*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

That's a pretty bad anti-atheist argument.  It isn't too hard to think up of relgious campaigns that take death tolls well over "thousands"