Arizona same-sex married couples are seeking adoptions

I couldn't find the statistic you were referring to. Could you cite it?

Because I don't believe in prohibiting something unless it is categorically harmful to other people. I prefer most other things to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

 

73% of victims under the age of 12 are female. That means that 27% of those victims under the age of 12 are male. Page 4.

Maybe you don't believe it, but that's not how our laws are structured.

And I'd just like to test if you believe it or not. Do you believe drunk drivers should be punished?

 

Of course they don't, and that is why it behooves us to examine them comprehensively as opposed to focusing narrowly on particular metrics.

Males are only half the population, yet they constitute approximately 96% of sexual offenders. According to your logic, males should not be allowed to be parents, and the safest couple for children to be around is a lesbian couple, since the odds of them both being a sexual offender is almost zero.

 

Doesn't that mean heterosexual men also pose a threat highly disproportionate to their percentage of the population (50%)?

But how do you know they are all being molested by homosexuals? For example, some child molesters abuse boys and girls, so how do you factor that into your analysis?

Only if they present an imminent threat to other motorists and pedestrians.

 

This is absolutely outrageous!!!

HOMES! FOR KIDS!?!?! WITH PEOPLE WHO ABSOLUTELY HAVE THEM ON PURPOSE??!?!

What is this world coming to when a guy can't even have as many kids as possible sitting in orphanages all over the country to make him feel safe and secure as he smokes the days last cigarette.

Next those gay couples will be asking for the right to feed those children.

A line MUST BE DRAWN!!!!!

 

Okay and on what metrics do you think you can check to see if they're going to molest a child?

Ahhh but that's actually not true. If you take homosexual males out of the equation... they only represent 2% of the total males so that puts the total males at 48% of the total population. But men only represent 90% of the total child molestation. If you take out the 27% of male on male child molestation that leaves ~63%. If you also remove the # of female victims who were assaulted by a bisexual offender in a crime with multiple victims (but still qualifies as a male who has sex with males) your number would move much closer to the 50% mark. So while it's true they are over-represented, they're certainly nowhere NEAR the level of over-representation that we see with males who have sex with males.

Given that information we then have to look at the relationship. For a child to be produced there must be a father. In MOST cases that father wants to take of their child themselves (within the confines of their couple). So, is the slight over-representation by heterosexual males as a whole reason enough to take children away from their biological fathers? I would argue no.

However, given that if lesbians are going to be allowed to adopt then gay men would also demand the same right.... we have to weigh the risks of putting a child with TWO males who also happen to be homosexual (which increases their risk a ridiculous amount) against allowing a lesbian couple to adopt a child they have no biological ties to.

I don't believe the reward to the lesbian couple justifies the risk to the children.

- - - Updated - - -

The analysis is determined by males who have sex with males... that would be homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender males... whatever.

But an imminent threat does not mean they're harming anyone. Everyone driving on the road is an imminent threat... they're driving a 2 ton bullet down the road.

Should the drunk driver be punished before they actually cause any harm... simply based upon the POTENTIAL of harming someone else?

 

I

Apparently you didn't even read the post you authored that I quoted.

And here's a news flash for you, four other federal appeals courts agreed with same sex marriage. Thirty two states have legal gay marriage. The Supreme Court allowed lower court orders ruling gay marriage bans unconstitutional to stand.

This ruling against gay marriage gives us the perfect opportunity to get a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage.

 

If they were going to rule in favor of gay marriage they would have done so. They didn't do so because they're waiting to take a case which has the merits that they want to rule on. Which is going to be this one because the argument made was that the STATE has the right to define marriage and they even pointed to the DOMA decision as their reasoning upon which to do so.

You're going to lose in the supreme court. But don't worry, there will still be... what? 9 or 11 States which you can still get married in.

BTW I'd like to point out to everyone that the decision by the 6th Circuit didn't take into consideration how many homosexual marriages would be annulled... as that is irrelevant.

 

A history of child molestation and/or possession of child pornography. Other than that, I'm not sure what sort of diagnostic criteria could be applied.

Your math seems a bit fuzzy to me.

According to the DOJ, in 2012, 62,939 cases of child sexual abuse were reported, and approximately 30% of sexual assaults are reported, meaning that a rough estimate for the total amount of child sexual assaults in 2012 would be 209,796 assaults.

Now, according to the BJS study you linked to, 82% of child victims are female, which would equate to 172,032 female victims and 37,763 male victims out of 209,796 total victims.

Furthermore, the BJS study reports that 94% of sexual offenders against children are male, which would equate to 197,208 male offenders and 12,587 female offenders out of 209,796 total victims.

Even if we assign all the male victims to the male perpetrators, that still leaves 159,444 incidences of male-on-female child sexual abuse, which is 76% of the 209,796 total incidences of child sexual abuse, and that is the lowest possible rate of male-on-female child sexual abuse possible given the data we have available.

No matter how you slice it, the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse against children is male-on-female, and the lowest possible incidence is of this 76%, yet heterosexual males constitute only 48% of the population. Clearly, then, heterosexual males also pose a threat disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

Um, but why would you conflate homosexuals with bisexuals?

That's true. At a certain point, you simply have rely on the discretion and good judgment of the enforcement officers and the courts. I think that is better than arbitrary rules based on generalizations.

That would depend on a jury. It's not perfect, but it's the best system I can conceive of.

 

Keep trying the sixth circuit courts ruling was in no way based on the constitution. They simply threw out the same tired arguments that have been shot down in court after court.

In case you forgot history the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional. They let lower court rulings making bans on gay marriage unconstitutional stand. If the SCOTUS was going to rule the bans constitutional they would have already done so with the lower appellate court rulings the bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Keep trying.

And LOL 9 or 11 states? Try 32.

 

A little snag with your wild theories TheImmortal:

You are comparing the 2-3% of gay/bisexual people who openly identify as non-heterosexual to a figure of 27%, which is approximately the percentage of boys who are subject to sexual abuse.

Even when you exclude adult female perpetrators (which does occur, yes), you are left with a faulty comparison. The problem is, there are a lot more people who identify as non-heterosexual than people think... "Veiled" reports reveal the figure to be a lot higher than 2-3%, see for yourself:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-11-12/how-people-lie-about-gay-sex-and-homophobia

This study revealed that 17% of men do not consider themselves to be entirely straight, whether or not they have actually acted upon it. Similar studies that question sexual behaviour have also revealed that 10%-15% percent of men have had a same-sex sexual experience at some point in their lives.

It's well documented that paedophiles are far less likely to find gender important, since the fixation is children... There are a good number of them who molest both girls AND boys, whilst claiming to only be attracted to female adults....

In short, you are doing a Sec and deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to further your agenda and undermine the fantastic job same-sex parents do to clean up the mess heteros who take their bits for granted end up leaving behind.

 

Still misrepresenting the DOMA decision I see.

Your logic makes no sense. 4 votes are needed to hear a case - so when you factor out Kennedy either the liberal or conservative bloc could have voted to hear the case. It's a high-profile issue that isn't going to go away, so it transcends the "let's wait untill a circuit split occurs to hear it" argument. It would make a lot of sense for the liberal bloc to sit back and let the circuit courts do much of the work, so that their ultimate ruling in favour of expanding rights to more people isn't as "sweeping". If the MT, KS and SC bans fall as expected, that effectively only leaves 14 states to rule on. Much better/less painful from Kennedy's point of view, who will come down on the side of individual rights, as he suggested in Windsor.

For a conservative bloc which thinks it has the 5 votes to uphold the bans, refusing to hear the case - thereby allowing the lower rulings to stand and thousands of people to marry/adopt - would make no sense. They would have simply got it over with and opted against causing legal chaos/playing with people's lives.

The 4 justices who were in the minority in Windsor are acutely aware of Kennedy's leanings. He is strongly pro-states rights when it comes to Congressional law, but has often favoured individual rights over state governments/voters. I think the anti-gay minority have resigned themselves to the fact that Kennedy is inevitably poised to strike down SSM bans if a case is put in front of him, and are thinking in terms of the majority - that it's better if the ultimate SCOTUS ruling affects as few states as possible.

 

as pointed out before the 15 year old study you posted doesn't say what you think it says.

 

Uh huh; I trust you're equally condemnatory of the scum heterosexuals who molested and abused their children and are the reason many children live out their formative years in institutions. Why don't you post a nice list of their abuses?

 

Really? And you don't think the same stringent rules regarding adoption by same-sex couples are applied in these cases?

 

That is just mean and cruel of you not to see past your own prejudices and preconceived ideas about how homosexual parents would be. You would rather these children stay in state or church run orphanages where they have no real family.

My God, kids need PARENTS! Not employees trying to fulfill portions of parental duty. And when you combine that with the fact that the right in this country constantly pushes for an end to abortion and promoting adoption as a viable alternative with the reality that population is only going to increase every year(meaning more kids are in orphanages waiting for adoptions), what you're saying is not only mean and cruel, but just plain ignorant and dangerous.

The same standards opposite sex couples are judged by for an adoption should be the same standards a same-sex couple be judged by. And please, try to see far enough past your own subjective prejudices to see that your opinion of gay people and your subjective judgments about who they are doesn't actually equal them being bad parents and shouldn't exclude them from adopting children who desperately need them.

 

With the number of orphaned children, the number of abortions, etc. You'd think the rabid right would embrace the removal of these children from the government teat, and applaud their placing with loving families.

This is just another example of how polarized and ridiculous this country has become.

 

It is terrible, isn't it? Children having folks love them, care for them, raise them. I wish this social experiment of parents adopting kids would just go away! I mean, surely they are better off not having parents, right? Or only having one parent, right?

 

I tend to agree with you, but if I may, I would like to expand on it.

i think the various posts in this thread demonstrate how out of touch those on the right are when it comes to homosexuals. Clearly, form the gays screwing kids accusations to the patently ridiculous social experimentation accusation, I think what we see is a deep, underlying bigotry, bigotry spawned in ignorance.

Why folks must take it to the most absolutely sordid and disgusting extremes in their prejudices is a bit beyond me. I would venture to say that gay parents, much like straight parents, love their children and want to see them turn into successful, happy, productive individuals.

 

It's a lost cause and frankly, no one here knows anything about these folks trying to adopt. My issue with modern conservative politiking is this farce of "small government."

The posts here, generally made by folks who claim to be conservative, show nothing but a massive love of nanny government. From their support, we can casually dismiss them as faux conservatives who are out of touch with not only the REAL party platform, but out of touch with reality in general.

Individual liberty is not something you can trounce on just because of sexual preference. Sorry, the constitution disagrees, social awareness abounds, and the population at large doesn't care who you pork. It's a social issue, not a political one, and the state should not be in the business of telling anyone who they can and cannot sleep with, marry, or build a family with.

Saying otherwise makes you a liar if you claim to want smaller government.

 

These kids are already with these gay couples, with or without adoption.

 

For someone who argues the finer points of law so much, you know darn well that adoption for a non-biological parent makes sure they have parental rights if the biological parent dies. Parental rights and custody obtained solely through marriage can be contested by the family of one or both of the biological parents.

 

Not if two years have passed since the birth of the child, in most states. Not even a biological parent can contest the presumption of paternity.

 

Wouldn't that also mean that 73% of all molestation is done by straight men and women, makes me wonder who is more like to molest a child.

 

Given your line of thinking, no man should be able to to ever adopt children.