Putin orders ban on adoptions by foreign same-sex couples

I have no idea about expatriation rates between countries but if it's your opinion than fine, fair enough. It didn't seem like it when I read it. My apologies. But I would remind you that the "wealth" is mostly consolidated in very few hands, and doesn't reflect on the average American.

 

Dilapidated infrastructure, significant poverty, very low pay in the public sector which typically runs the orphanages, very little political intrested in the welfare of orphaned and abandoned children except as it pertains to nationalist sentiments.

 

The thread is drifting. Can we get back to homosexual midgets ?

 

The point is, what you consider wealth, and what the average Russian considers wealth, may not be the same thing. "Poverty" means something completely different in the US than it does in most other nations.

Poor people are actually obese in this country. "Poverty" does not mean the same thing everywhere. Poor people in American live extremely well relative to poor people in most other nations. And what we consider middle class is wealthy in a lot of other nations.

That is why the CIA Factbook had that disclaimer.

The US is currently #3 on that list. In the "very high" section at the top.

Russia is listed at #55, in the section below that. Below Bahrain, Uraguay, United Arab Emirates, Poland, Croatia, and Kuwait.

Apparently I am not the only one holding this opinion.

 

Anybody's reports are going to be biased then.. At least a particular countries. But Russia is not "3rd world".. Even if you don't think they have it as well, they still have running water, electricity, health care, food, government, roads.. I mean in what definition could they be called "3rd world"?

 

I'd like to point out that we rank above every single "socialist paradise" nation in Europe, except for Norway. Australia edges us out by .001. Not bad for a greedy capitalist nation with such a huge gap between rich and poor, eh?

 

The other day, I wanted to speak about 3000 gun murders in the US.

Instead, I got pages of concern over Chinese driving skills, and depressed Japanese people.

 

I never said the USA was some kind of hell hole. I said the poverty is growing and it's true. Or let me say homelessness if that makes it more palatable.

In my opinion, the main country it's most worth our while to be condemning for being a (*)(*)(*)(*) hole to live in it's North Korea. The human rights vacuum of the world.. They are the only worthwhile country to actually attack in my opinion.

Whether Americans have it better than Russians or Europeans doesn't really matter, because even if they aren't as posh, that doesn't mean they are a bad place to raise children, or "3rd world".

 

Well, if you have some better sources, feel free to post them here.

I am guessing that if this chart was showing statistics in favor of Russia, it would suddenly be a lot less biased.

Even I do not really consider them 3rd world. But there is a massive and obvious wealth gap between us. That is why it was so absurd to me that you even asked for evidence. It is like asking for evidence that the sun is hot.

Any list you dig up is going to show a similar result, even if it does not list the US in the top 5. Russia will always be lower.

Sure they do. But a child is obviously going to have their needs better served in the US than Russia. Putin's decision is petty and entirely political.

 

LOL! Poverty BY US STANDARDS is growing. That is my entire point. What we think of as "poverty" is not poverty in other nations. Americans are rich and spoiled.

In other nations, people in poverty are starving to death...they are not riding their fat asses to McDonalds on a Rascal paid for by the government. Or going home to their government subsidized apartment to watch cable. Their children refuse to go to school because they don't WANT to, not because education is being denied to them.

Liberals have managed to take all the meaning out of the word "poverty" in this country. Being denied luxury items does not mean you are living in poverty.

I am not arguing against welfare btw...I support welfare. I am saying this only to emphasize a point: "Poverty" is not the same all over the world. So saying that "poverty in the US is rising" means nothing.

It does within the context of my mockery. Putin is proving that Beggars can be choosers, heh heh.

 

It's based on what others said... I think it was you.. I more or less took a seat on that one... I'm more interested in how your opinion can relate to the topic, like first of all, why does wealth, or material possession, have to do with ability to raise a child decently? Kids don't need fancy electronic Apple I-(*)(*)(*)(*) to be happy or properly raised. After the basic needs of food, shelter, health care, love and education being met, I see no necessity for further wealth as a requirement for a decent up-bringing. I'm not interested in the poverty rate anymore as I admitted, but I am interested in how you form this metric about child upbringing using a country's wealth or standard of living.

 

Because Americans have been raised to measure all by money.

 

The argument was which nation would be better equipped to see to a child's needs on average. That list was specifically designed around those criteria.

So what? How does that change what I just said?

The fact that they do not "need" something does not mean they would not be better off with it.

It makes logical sense that you are more likely to be able to satisfy a child's needs if you have more resources.

- - - Updated - - -

Poorer is obviously better. I agree. The fewer resources you have, the better off the child is.

 

http://hdr.undp.org/en/contacts/about/advisory/

That is a list of the people contributing to that report.

At first glance you may have noticed only one of them is an American. And many are from poor nations.

 

Anyway, there is no way I would choose to have two so called 'dads' or 'mums'.

This just turns my stomach.

***

Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become parents to a son born to a surrogate mother in California.

Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born on Christmas Day, the UK musician and Canadian filmmaker told the Usmagazine.com website.

"Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents," said the couple.

They provided no details about the surrogacy arrangement.

"We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment," the couple told the website in a statement.

They said the boy weighed 7lb15oz (3.6kg).


Surrogacy and gay parents

The UK has strict regulations in place for anyone considering surrogacy, so sometimes couples consider going overseas to countries where it is easier to complete the process.

Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow, became Britain's first gay surrogate parents in 1999

In April 2010, changes to the law meant that for the first time in British history, two men could be named as parents on a child's birth certificate

In the UK, the child's birth mother is always considered the legal parent unless this is changed by a parental order made by a court
The US state of California is recognised as somewhere where surrogacy agreements - including those made by gay and lesbian couples - are generally accepted under law

Other gay celebrities who have used a surrogate to have children this year include actor Neil Patrick Harris and his partner David Burtka

A representative for the couple said they intended to protect and respect the privacy of the surrogate mother, and would not be discussing any details relating to the surrogacy arrangements.

Close friend of the couple, actress and model Elizabeth Hurley, offered her best wishes.

"Massive congratulations to David and Elton on having their beautiful son. Can't wait for my first cuddle," she wrote on the micro-blogging site Twitter.

Whilst presenter Piers Morgan, who recently interviewed Sir Elton during his Life Stories series, joked on his Twitter page: "Feel such a fool - Sir Elton never even hinted he was pregnant during our interview."

Sex And The City star Sarah Jessica Parker and her actor husband Matthew Broderick had twin girls by a surrogate mother in June last year and in 2008, pop star Ricky Martin also used a surrogate to have twin boys.

Sir Elton and former advertising executive Mr Furnish met in 1993 and were joined in a civil ceremony in 2005.

Last year the couple tried to adopt a 14-month-old HIV positive boy from Ukraine named Lev.

However, Ukrainian officials said Sir Elton, 63, was too old and his civil partnership with Mr Furnish, 48, would not be recognised as a marriage by Kiev.

In December, Mr Furnish told the BBC that they were working to ensure Lev and his brother "have the best health care, education and family options available to them".

Sir Elton released his 30th studio album in October this year.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12084650

 

actually with such a hard line decision, you are putting your beliefs above what is best for the child it sounds like to me

which do you choose, two bad heterosexual parents or two good homosexual parents? if you can't make the right choice in that scenario, then your not putting the needs of the child first

 

But beliefs based on facts.

Big difference.

 

you sniped my post and did not answer the question... if those were the facts, which would you choose?

 

Look.

I covered the false dichotomy method you are using in my OP.

 

in the scenario I described... which would you choose?

my post you responded to was in reply to this... saying that not being able to pick the best parents, means one can not have the best interest of the child in mind

"A child brought up by same-sex parents would have an unfair and unnecessary burden placed upon it. I would always put the mental well-being of the child before the emotional needs of same-sex couples. So should they."

can you pick the best parents in the scenario I outlined?

"which do you choose, two bad heterosexual parents or two good homosexual parents? if you can't make the right choice in that scenario, then your not putting the needs of the child first "

.

 

Your question is patently loaded.

And not worthy of an answer therefore.

 

You are missing the point which is ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL it's unquestionably better for a child's well-being and psychological development that it is nurtured by a man and a woman.

 

It's a very narrow minded approach, and not putting the needs of the child first though. To keep children in an orphanage on the chance a heterosexual couple will come along is not viable. You wanna know why those kids are in an orphanage to being with? Irresponsible Heterosexuals...

 

and as I said, when it's obviously not equal as in the example I gave, some still would not choose in the best interest of the children

 

You appear to be inventing an escape clause for homosexual surrogate parentage. Two bad heterosexual parents wouldn't get the gig.