Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

But seriously I would point out that all else being equal it seems that societies position is that children are best off when raised by both biologically related parents (of course often things aren't equal) so until the uber-moral majority is willing to end its hypocrisy and provide a home for every kid in foster care they should really shut up about gay people adopting kids into a loving family.

Source?

[Llamalandia]

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

That sounds like a pretty normal lunch for me. Sure, I get some weird looks from my co-workers, but hey, haters gonna hate.

Don't worry those coworkers are probably just closet PETA members who object to anyone eating anything but hydroponically grown brussel sprouts.

[Avenio]

But seriously I would point out that all else being equal it seems that societies position is that children are best off when raised by both biologically related parents

Joffrey Baratheon disagrees.

[YellowApple]

Can I ask though am I the only one on here who finds incest of any kind just basically and instinctually morally repugnant, I mean I generally describe myself as pretty libertarian but seriously incest is just not okay with me.

Why do you find it morally repugnant?

Or, more to the point, do you find it sufficiently repugnant to warrant restricting the rights of those who *don't* find it morally repugnant?

[YellowApple]

That sounds like a pretty normal lunch for me. Sure, I get some weird looks from my co-workers, but hey, haters gonna hate.

Don't worry those coworkers are probably just closet PETA members who object to anyone eating anything but hydroponically grown brussel sprouts.

Actually, considering where I live, that's the case for many of them.

Damn Tahoe folks, gettin' all up in my meat-eating, carbon-footprint-increasing grill.

[Llamalandia]

But seriously I would point out that all else being equal it seems that societies position is that children are best off when raised by both biologically related parents (of course often things aren't equal) so until the uber-moral majority is willing to end its hypocrisy and provide a home for every kid in foster care they should really shut up about gay people adopting kids into a loving family.

Source?

Generally, just about any law in any state in the US dealing with placement and custody of children (though I admit with recent issues in terms of surrogate mothers wanting to keep kids it's gotten a little murkier), they always go first biologically related parents, then if for some reason one parent is unfit sole custody resides with the other. So for example couple has kids gets divorced shares joint custody biological dad remarries another woman, he dies kids go to bio mom for full custody generally (again unless she later is shown to be unfit then the step mom might get custody back)

[Llamalandia]

Can I ask though am I the only one on here who finds incest of any kind just basically and instinctually morally repugnant, I mean I generally describe myself as pretty libertarian but seriously incest is just not okay with me.

Why do you find it morally repugnant?

Or, more to the point, do you find it sufficiently repugnant to warrant restricting the rights of those who *don't* find it morally repugnant?

To the first part I don't know exactly I just do, to the second part yes I do find it sufficiently repugnant. Truth be told I think it's more a matter of the hypothetical offspring off such unions, I'm not a fan of prior restraint but brother and sister should be kept from 'getting it on' sorry if that sounds incredibly closed minded

[Individuality-ness]

Source?

Generally, just about any law in any state in the US dealing with placement and custody of children [...]

I apologize, but that is not a source to back up your claim. We are requesting peer-reviewed studies. Not court precedent.

[Llamalandia]

But seriously I would point out that all else being equal it seems that societies position is that children are best off when raised by both biologically related parents

Joffrey Baratheon disagrees.

Ah come on if you're gonna make a Game of Thrones joke at least provide a little more context for those of us mere mortals (with only basic cable)

[Llamalandia]

Generally, just about any law in any state in the US dealing with placement and custody of children [...]

I apologize, but that is not a source to back up your claim. We are requesting peer-reviewed studies. Not court precedent.

Actually if you read what I originally said, I believe i stated that it was "societies position" so I belief my mention of state law (and as you point out court precedent as well) is perfectly acceptable to support that assertion. after the USA is a republican democracy in which our elected reps make laws supporting the will of the people. Now had I said for example, something like,"9 out of ten child dev experts agree that..." then I would be obligated and happy to provide you with peer reviewed studies (assuming they exist though I doubt 9 out of ten really agree on anything hehe)

[YellowApple]

I apologize, but that is not a source to back up your claim. We are requesting peer-reviewed studies. Not court precedent.

Actually if you read what I originally said, I believe i stated that it was "societies position" so I belief my mention of state law (and as you point out court precedent as well) is perfectly acceptable to support that assertion. after the USA is a republican democracy in which our elected reps make laws supporting the will of the people. Now had I said for example, something like,"9 out of ten child dev experts agree that..." then I would be obligated and happy to provide you with peer reviewed studies (assuming they exist though I doubt 9 out of ten really agree on anything hehe)

And American society tends to listen to Justin Bieber and Nikki Minaj. I therefore am not convinced that American society is a strong reference point for basing moral judgments upon.

[Llamalandia]

Actually if you read what I originally said, I believe i stated that it was "societies position" so I belief my mention of state law (and as you point out court precedent as well) is perfectly acceptable to support that assertion. after the USA is a republican democracy in which our elected reps make laws supporting the will of the people. Now had I said for example, something like,"9 out of ten child dev experts agree that..." then I would be obligated and happy to provide you with peer reviewed studies (assuming they exist though I doubt 9 out of ten really agree on anything hehe)

And American society tends to listen to Justin Bieber and Nikki Minaj. I therefore am not convinced that American society is a strong reference point for basing moral judgments upon.

Yes, but they are also smart enough to never elect either of them to political office, I doubt many americans would seriously adopt policies on adoption based on what the biebs thought Of course if you're just joking about Americans somehow being stupid in general point taken I guess

[YellowApple]

And American society tends to listen to Justin Bieber and Nikki Minaj. I therefore am not convinced that American society is a strong reference point for basing moral judgments upon.

Yes, but they are also smart enough to never elect either of them to political office, I doubt many americans would seriously adopt policies on adoption based on what the biebs thought Of course if you're just joking about Americans somehow being stupid in general point taken I guess

Remember that Americans tend to know more about pop culture icons than they know about the legislators who represent them in Congress^{[citation needed]}.

While a citation is needed for my claim, I'm rather confident that - if one were to randomly sample folks throughout, for example, California - there will be more individuals who can identify Justin Bieber than individuals who can identify Diane Feinstein (replace "California" with a U.S. state of choice and "Diane Feinstein" with either of said state's senators to replicate outside of California).

But now we've strayed quite a bit from the actual topic

[Individuality-ness]

I apologize, but that is not a source to back up your claim. We are requesting peer-reviewed studies. Not court precedent.

Actually if you read what I originally said, I believe i stated that it was "societies position" so I belief my mention of state law (and as you point out court precedent as well) is perfectly acceptable to support that assertion. [...]

Quote it please. Also, society is not the basis for whether something ought to be legal or not, that argumentum ad populum.

Also, can you stop putting smilies at the end of your posts if you're not partaking in small side chat as Generalites are wont to do? It gets really annoying when we're having a debate.

[Person012345]

i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

Says who?

jeebus

[Person012345]

Can I ask though am I the only one on here who finds incest of any kind just basically and instinctually morally repugnant, I mean I generally describe myself as pretty libertarian but seriously incest is just not okay with me.

What do you mean morally? I can imagine you finding it disgusting (I mean, I find it inexplicably hot so it's fair to assume it goes the other way too) but "instinctively immoral" doesn't mean shit.

[Llamalandia]

Actually if you read what I originally said, I believe i stated that it was "societies position" so I belief my mention of state law (and as you point out court precedent as well) is perfectly acceptable to support that assertion. [...]

Quote it please. Also, society is not the basis for whether something ought to be legal or not, that argumentum ad populum.

Also, can you stop putting smilies at the end of your posts if you're not partaking in small side chat as Generalites are wont to do? It gets really annoying when we're having a debate.

Actually I disagree in general our laws are a reflection of the will of the people for the most part (or in the case of the constitution a supermajority) but you're now arguing philosophy when bring an "ought" into the discussion and this really does broaden the scope of debate to a degree that would make rational discourse difficult though if you want to go there I'll oblige you. As for quoting specific laws unless you are actually saying I'm wrong in my assertion that the law generally favors the rights of biological parents over non-biological parents then I'm not going to waste the time looking it up. Now if you do genuinely disagree that is the case I will consider looking up and citing relevant laws for you but give me sometime to dig through the inter webs (i get lost easily in the maze of pipes) as for the smileys I just like smilies if you have a problem with that well...

[Llamalandia]

Can I ask though am I the only one on here who finds incest of any kind just basically and instinctually morally repugnant, I mean I generally describe myself as pretty libertarian but seriously incest is just not okay with me.

What do you mean morally? I can imagine you finding it disgusting (I mean, I find it inexplicably hot so it's fair to assume it goes the other way too) but "instinctively immoral" doesn't mean shit.

What i mean to say by instinctively immoral is that even without being taught that it is wrong I would never the less find it to be wrong and something to avoid in life. Also, do you seriously find it hot in reality, and in your own personal life, I mean have you actually engaged in it or are you merely fetishizing it which I believe is a little different, after all many people have fetishes they never act out on nor would act out on because they are morally reprehensible (i.e. rape).

[Individuality-ness]

Quote it please. Also, society is not the basis for whether something ought to be legal or not, that argumentum ad populum.

Also, can you stop putting smilies at the end of your posts if you're not partaking in small side chat as Generalites are wont to do? It gets really annoying when we're having a debate.

Actually I disagree in general our laws are a reflection of the will of the people

Will of the people or will of a few lawmakers?

for the most part (or in the case of the constitution a supermajority) but you're now arguing philosophy

This isn't philosophy, this is "trying to correct your logical fallacies".

As for quoting specific laws unless you are actually saying I'm wrong in my assertion that the law generally favors the rights of biological parents over non-biological parents then I'm not going to waste the time looking it up.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that it happens, I'm disagreeing with your reasoning WHY. It's as if the entire courtroom exists in a vacuum and that there are no extraneous factors involved in the decision on where a child is placed.

[Llamalandia]

Actually if you read what I originally said, I believe i stated that it was "societies position" so I belief my mention of state law (and as you point out court precedent as well) is perfectly acceptable to support that assertion. [...]

Quote it please. Also, society is not the basis for whether something ought to be legal or not, that argumentum ad populum.

Also, can you stop putting smilies at the end of your posts if you're not partaking in small side chat as Generalites are wont to do? It gets really annoying when we're having a debate.

I think our misunderstanding may arise from the fact that I said "all else being equal." Allow me to clarify, if it was shown that the best interests of a child were equally served by either a foster parent or by a biological parent a court will always 'break the tie" by awarding the custody to the biological parent. Now obviously things are rarely so equal (biological parents previous termination of rights or for example history of neglect) I'm merely making a somewhat narrow argument that when it comes down to a "coin flip" bio parents win every time.

[Llamalandia]

Actually I disagree in general our laws are a reflection of the will of the people

Will of the people or will of a few lawmakers?

for the most part (or in the case of the constitution a supermajority) but you're now arguing philosophy

This isn't philosophy, this is "trying to correct your logical fallacies".

As for quoting specific laws unless you are actually saying I'm wrong in my assertion that the law generally favors the rights of biological parents over non-biological parents then I'm not going to waste the time looking it up.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that it happens, I'm disagreeing with your reasoning WHY. It's as if the entire courtroom exists in a vacuum and that there are no extraneous factors involved in the decision on where a child is placed.

YEs that's what I originally said.

Also you seem to view american democracy with a great deal of cynicism I believe in general law makers act in the interest and according to the will of the people (for better or for worse).

[Llamalandia]

Yes, but they are also smart enough to never elect either of them to political office, I doubt many americans would seriously adopt policies on adoption based on what the biebs thought Of course if you're just joking about Americans somehow being stupid in general point taken I guess

Remember that Americans tend to know more about pop culture icons than they know about the legislators who represent them in Congress^{[citation needed]}.

While a citation is needed for my claim, I'm rather confident that - if one were to randomly sample folks throughout, for example, California - there will be more individuals who can identify Justin Bieber than individuals who can identify Diane Feinstein (replace "California" with a U.S. state of choice and "Diane Feinstein" with either of said state's senators to replicate outside of California).

But now we've strayed quite a bit from the actual topic

Off topic but I really hate Feinstein and right now I bet most everyone in America can identify her as "oh yeah the Assault Weapons Ban lady" but right quite off topic. I think generally the American electorate isn;t as bad as everyone makes it out to sound I mean we've done pretty ok for the last couple hundred years or so.

[Individuality-ness]

Quote it please. Also, society is not the basis for whether something ought to be legal or not, that argumentum ad populum.

Also, can you stop putting smilies at the end of your posts if you're not partaking in small side chat as Generalites are wont to do? It gets really annoying when we're having a debate.

I think our misunderstanding may arise from the fact that I said "all else being equal." Allow me to clarify, if it was shown that the best interests of a child were equally served by either a foster parent or by a biological parent a court will always 'break the tie" by awarding the custody to the biological parent. Now obviously things are rarely so equal (biological parents previous termination of rights or for example history of neglect) I'm merely making a somewhat narrow argument that when it comes down to a "coin flip" bio parents win every time.

And the reason they often award custody for the biological parent is why? Often because they believe that biological ties are more stable and that it would be less disruptive for the child.

Which isn't really the case. But I digress. You will still need to show evidence that biological parents are de facto better caregivers than adoptive/foster parents, rather than saying "because court precedent!", preferably by a peer-reviewed study.

Also you seem to view american democracy with a great deal of cynicism I believe in general law makers act in the interest and according to the will of the people (for better or for worse).

You have not been following the current gun control debate, have you?

[Llamalandia]

I think our misunderstanding may arise from the fact that I said "all else being equal." Allow me to clarify, if it was shown that the best interests of a child were equally served by either a foster parent or by a biological parent a court will always 'break the tie" by awarding the custody to the biological parent. Now obviously things are rarely so equal (biological parents previous termination of rights or for example history of neglect) I'm merely making a somewhat narrow argument that when it comes down to a "coin flip" bio parents win every time.

And the reason they often award custody for the biological parent is why? Often because they believe that biological ties are more stable and that it would be less disruptive for the child.

Which isn't really the case. But I digress. You will still need to show evidence that biological parents are de facto better caregivers than adoptive/foster parents, rather than saying "because court precedent!", preferably by a peer-reviewed study.

Also you seem to view american democracy with a great deal of cynicism I believe in general law makers act in the interest and according to the will of the people (for better or for worse).

You have not been following the current gun control debate, have you?

Ok well guess what like most people I'm pretty darn lazy so indulge me while I shift the burden unfairly back to you, how would you decide cases in which, a biological parent is as equally qualified as a non-biological parent? In fact, by what right do any biological parents get to raise their children, after all wouldn't it be best to take every infant away from its parents at birth and then have the govt determine who out of any number of millions of prospective parents is best suited to raise said child, that is if you're arguing for a best interest model of child custody? My point is this is in fact best decided by the political processes and peoples will and not by so-called experts. Now obviously our system is flexible enough as it currently is to remove children from bad situations (at least usually before they turn fatal) and place them in foster care but absent some compelling reason to do so, guess what we don't remove kids from bio parents, it sounds like based on you line of reasoning that perhaps we should but you know why we don't because society as a collective through the political process has decided that it isn't really the best thing to do, that even if some kids might be slightly better off with non-bio parents we feel it is more important that be raised by parents who are genetically related to them.

[YellowApple]

And the reason they often award custody for the biological parent is why? Often because they believe that biological ties are more stable and that it would be less disruptive for the child.

Which isn't really the case. But I digress. You will still need to show evidence that biological parents are de facto better caregivers than adoptive/foster parents, rather than saying "because court precedent!", preferably by a peer-reviewed study.


You have not been following the current gun control debate, have you?

Ok well guess what like most people I'm pretty darn lazy so indulge me while I shift the burden unfairly back to you, how would you decide cases in which, a biological parent is as equally qualified as a non-biological parent? In fact, by what right do any biological parents get to raise their children, after all wouldn't it be best to take every infant away from its parents at birth and then have the govt determine who out of any number of millions of prospective parents is best suited to raise said child, that is if you're arguing for a best interest model of child custody? My point is this is in fact best decided by the political processes and peoples will and not by so-called experts. Now obviously our system is flexible enough as it currently is to remove children from bad situations (at least usually before they turn fatal) and place them in foster care but absent some compelling reason to do so, guess what we don't remove kids from bio parents, it sounds like based on you line of reasoning that perhaps we should but you know why we don't because society as a collective through the political process has decided that it isn't really the best thing to do, that even if some kids might be slightly better off with non-bio parents we feel it is more important that be raised by parents who are genetically related to them.

Well, a child feeling attachment to a parent is not necessarily biological, but rather very much psychological (see also: Ainsworth's attachment theory); thus, whether or not a bio-parent is or is not more suitable as a caregiver than a non-bio-parent is very much dependent on the individual child and his/her attachment to the caregivers in question. For example, preferring a caregiver who only saw her child once in 12 years but is the biological parent (and is otherwise fit for parenthood) versus a caregiver who was present throughout the child's life but is not the biological parent would, in fact, likely cause trauma to the child, who now will experience significant difficulty regarding this biological parent as his/her mother instead of the non-biological caregiver he had grown up considering to be his mother. While that is a very extreme case, it underlines why preferring biological parents with no questions asked is not always in a child's best interests.