Welcome to the APBWeb.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32
  1. #21
    irishmick's Avatar
    irishmick is offline Do not mistake my kindness for weakness.
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    08-12-08
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,226
    Rep Power
    1538983
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Nor, evidently, can statistics keep up with the many questions you have... perhaps you should research some yourself.
    I'm pretty much just playing devil's advocate. I like asking questions and poking holes in things...that's why I like police work.

    I do research some of this stuff...I promise.
    --"D.B.A.D." --Me

    --Life's tough...it's tougher if you're stupid.

    --"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -Elbert Hubbard

  2. #22
    Retdetsgt's Avatar
    Retdetsgt is offline How did I get here!
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,944
    Rep Power
    7757749
    Having worked child abuse, I can tell you almost all the kids going into foster homes are badly screwed up. They are the drug or alcohol babies and/or have been abused either sexually, physically or both. In fact, I would imagine nearly all were affected by their mom's drug and alcohol use. Add the abuse and you have some really messed up little kids.

    Trying to compare them with the normal population of children is like comparing feral dogs to purebreds raised in homes. Nothing is the same except they have similar DNA.

    There are some great foster families out there, God bless 'em. But there are some in it for the money. A screwed up kid provides a lot of family income. So you can get some real disasters when you make the wrong combinations.

    I've had a lot of kids make phony allegations against foster parents because that's what they learned to do when they wanted something to change. Some accusations were true, but a lot weren't and the kids recanted. I wouldn't trust any stats when it comes to those children.
    When I used to be somebody (I'm center top)

    "A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about". -Thomas Sowell-

  3. #23
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    If the GLBT community refers to its own lifestyles as 'alternative', then they are themselves agreeing that they are deviating from 'an established course or norm', by pursuing an alternative:
    That is an awfully big if...........

    I wouldn't refer to being gay as a lifestyle in the first place, let alone alternative.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  4. #24
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    Quote Originally Posted by irishmick View Post
    The bill (from what I read above) specifically targets "un-wed couples" and does not target single adults wishing to adopt.
    Good job catching that. I didn't even notice the first time reading that. I guess if that's really the case (and not just bad writing of the original article), then that changes things a little. Though it still mostly boils down to the same rough issues. The bill would still keep gays from being able to raise children in a two parent family. However, it seems it has a loophole. The gay couple, since they cannot legally get married, can just say they are roommates. It would be like a reverse "Chuck and Larry" act in order to adopt a kid. Then if the adoption agency views the gay man as single, then it wouldn't be forbidden under the bill. I wonder how the bill actually reads now.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  5. #25
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Believe what you wish. You are statistically wrong. Children are more likely to be abused in the care of parents (including adoptive parents) than in States' custody. The difference is 79.9% to .05%, (0.9% cumulatively, including foster homes).
    Though the absence of "abuse" does not equate with the absence of an f-ed up life, the kind of life where the child grows up with psychological issues that have nothing to do with abuse. Just not having a parent with you at all is a mental trauma to a child. The feeling of being unwanted can really mess with a kid's head. That's not to say that kids in state custody until they are 18 can't come out of the experience as strong people. Sometimes the hardship makes for a stronger end result. The same kinds of argument apply to the issue of only having one parent, which can be tough on a child, or having one or two gay parents, which can be tough to deal with as well. I think the more we talk about this whole deal, the more we are splitting hairs. Using stats to decide who gets to adopt is like saying, "we can't figure out or make a halfway intelligent guess as to who will turn out to be a positive factor for the child, so we will take ourselves out if it and say only married couples can adopt." (Also, read that as not CB saying that, but an adoption agency) No answer to this issue will work the vast majority of the time. Limit it to only straight married couples, and you will still get a number of messed up kids out of it. Limit to anything else, and the same can or can't happen. Use whatever evaluation to decide individually who is best fit, and there will still be bad scenarios. But you have to decide one way to handle it. I say trying harder to evaluate who is fit is my best answer to figuring out who should be able to adopt. And then after adoption, not have that be the end of it. Have more evaluations (like maybe yearly till the kid reaches 18?) to make sure things continue to go well for the new adoptive family. Then again, the more an agency has to do, the more money it will cost. So many places won't go for that extra spending to make sure the kids are well off. The easiest answer is to limit as much as possible who can adopt. Then less initial evaluations need to be made, less money spent. And I would agree that a loving two parent household is the best for a child, so limiting just puts all the eggs into that basket. I just hate to see other potential parents that can provide so much love to a child be denied either because of their situation or because of what they are.

    Sorry if this rambling seems a little garbled. I'm getting ready for bed soon and am kind of writing from a "stream of consciousness" mode, just typing as things pop into my head with little self editing.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  6. #26
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    As far as gathering stats to apply to these issues goes............

    There are SO MANY factors that have bearing on how a child that is available for adoption will end up that running any study examining a few of those factors is always going to fall short of a true understanding just because of the very nature of how many things factor in. It's very hard to completely isolate specific factors to extrapolate a solid stance. Maybe someone will come up with a study that addresses an expansive matrix of factoring issues to try to gain a more accurate perspective. None of the issues surrounding child development exist in a vacuum.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  7. #27
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611629
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz View Post
    That is an awfully big if...........

    I wouldn't refer to being gay as a lifestyle in the first place, let alone alternative.
    My apology, I'm using widely-accepted GLBT terminology (as I understand it to be).

    Though the absence of "abuse" does not equate with the absence of an f-ed up life, the kind of life where the child grows up with psychological issues that have nothing to do with abuse. Just not having a parent with you at all is a mental trauma to a child. The feeling of being unwanted can really mess with a kid's head. That's not to say that kids in state custody until they are 18 can't come out of the experience as strong people. Sometimes the hardship makes for a stronger end result. The same kinds of argument apply to the issue of only having one parent, which can be tough on a child, or having one or two gay parents, which can be tough to deal with as well. I think the more we talk about this whole deal, the more we are splitting hairs. Using stats to decide who gets to adopt is like saying, "we can't figure out or make a halfway intelligent guess as to who will turn out to be a positive factor for the child, so we will take ourselves out if it and say only married couples can adopt." (Also, read that as not CB saying that, but an adoption agency) No answer to this issue will work the vast majority of the time. Limit it to only straight married couples, and you will still get a number of messed up kids out of it. Limit to anything else, and the same can or can't happen. Use whatever evaluation to decide individually who is best fit, and there will still be bad scenarios. But you have to decide one way to handle it. I say trying harder to evaluate who is fit is my best answer to figuring out who should be able to adopt.
    Thus, with the variables being as they are, we are faced with a limiting to the 'best case scenario', which this bill certainly represents.

    The easiest answer is to limit as much as possible who can adopt.
    ... and some would certainly say, 'the safest for the child', especially given what we do know.

    And I would agree that a loving two parent household is the best for a child, so limiting just puts all the eggs into that basket.
    ... or perhaps more accurately said, given all we know now regarding the environment most suitable for child-rearing, with the goals certainly being the raising of well-adjusted, well-grounded, stable, and productive young adults, it is in the child's best interests for those overseeing adoptions to place children in the statistically most suitable environment that we know, which is a traditional, two-parent household anchored by married couples.

    I just hate to see other potential parents that can provide so much love to a child be denied either because of their situation or because of what they are.
    I hate to witness anyone experiencing what they believe to be patent injustice, however, I hate to jail kids (and the adults they almost inerrantly become), and I despise seeing them neglected and abused much worse. I take pleasure jailing their assailants, abusers, and neglectors. So many errant behaviors we strive to correct are learned from the environment a child is reared in, I'm hopeful that we will soon unambiguously know what indeed is best, and I'm thankful that so much attention seems to be focused on the problems we face. Thus far, the overwhelming majority of the data at hand shows that this bill is at least intended to turn us to the better.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  8. #28
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz
    That is an awfully big if...........

    I wouldn't refer to being gay as a lifestyle in the first place, let alone alternative.
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    My apology, I'm using widely-accepted GLBT terminology (as I understand it to be).
    This is starting to go off topic, but I am curious about your source? (Not asking as if saying that that it's B.S., but asking as in trying to understand where you are coming from here.)

    I don't know any gay people that use those terms, except in the context of describing straight people's views. I know gays that will call each other "fags," which I don't like. That's one thing that is acceptable to about as many as it is not acceptable to. But "alternative lifestyle" just isn't something I hear said by gay people. I'm more used to hearing them lament when a news article describes orientation as a lifestyle (which has a connotation of choice-a whole other debate by itself).

    I'm am sure that there are some that use those terms. I just don't see it. I'm sure that it happens/is used by some, but I doubt you could convince me that it's a widely accepted term amongst the gay community. About the only way that would happen would be if you convinced me that my contacts (friends, people I talk to online, etc.) are an isolated and insulated group of people. Anything is possible I guess.

    Side note: Is it a bad sign when I quote myself in a post?
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  9. #29
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611629
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz View Post
    This is starting to go off topic, but I am curious about your source? (Not asking as if saying that that it's B.S., but asking as in trying to understand where you are coming from here.)

    I don't know any gay people that use those terms, except in the context of describing straight people's views. I know gays that will call each other "fags," which I don't like. That's one thing that is acceptable to about as many as it is not acceptable to. But "alternative lifestyle" just isn't something I hear said by gay people. I'm more used to hearing them lament when a news article describes orientation as a lifestyle (which has a connotation of choice-a whole other debate by itself).

    I'm am sure that there are some that use those terms. I just don't see it. I'm sure that it happens/is used by some, but I doubt you could convince me that it's a widely accepted term amongst the gay community. About the only way that would happen would be if you convinced me that my contacts (friends, people I talk to online, etc.) are an isolated and insulated group of people. Anything is possible I guess.

    Side note: Is it a bad sign when I quote myself in a post?
    Ah, HA! You are absolutely correct, sir. And you now have my deepest apology. Not being one so disposed, I have incorrectly referred to the term "alternative lifestyle", thinking that this was indeed a proper, and politically correct manner to refer to GLBT, LGBT, A-E-I-O-U (and sometimes Y) matters.

    I have since researched the topic, and now realize that I have erred, and being one who is without vain motive, I will openly admit my mistake without hesitation. What's more, being as I would like to do my part in keeping others here at O/R from making the same or similar error, I will provide a reference supporting your platform that such references are improper and should be "avoid(ed)" at all costs:

    According to the "Stylebook Supplement on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Terminology" from the "National Lesbian & Gay Journalist Association", released in 2005, (and also available in Spanish):


    lifestyle:

    An inaccurate term sometimes used to describe the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Sexual orientation may be part of a broader lifestyle but is not one in itself, just as there is no “straight” lifestyle. Avoid.

    Even perhaps more important, users posting here at O/R should use care, (and perhaps also "avoid") using the term "homosexual" as well, except as instructed by the same reference:

    homosexual: As a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. As an adjective, of or relating to sexual and affectional attraction to a member of the same sex. Use only if “heterosexual” would be used in parallel constructions, such as in medical contexts. For other usages, see gay and lesbian.


    It is now apparent to me that in my post, I failed to "avoid" the reference to "alternative", (by referring to the Websters Dictionary, and not "Stylebook Supplement on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Terminology" from the "National Lesbian & Gay Journalist Association", released in 2005, and also available in Spanish).





    Had I only just checked that resource to begin with, perhaps I would have "avoided" the use of that term in my post, and not so egregiously and erroneously compromised an otherwise well-intended debate! I've really got to get into this GLBT/LGBT terminology stuff if I wish to continue posting on message boards...





    I stand corrected, (with my tongue planted firmly in cheek).





    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  10. #30
    Five-0's Avatar
    Five-0 is offline Super Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    05-15-06
    Posts
    10,982
    Rep Power
    8357019



    Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat

    "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

    The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com

  11. #31
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    5-0, I just had to save someone else from falling victim to your next poster graphic. Talk about taking one for the team. Though I'm wondering where you found my picture at? I'm much, much more built now........

    But seriously....... CB, I wasn't trying to post that so that I could be right and you be wrong. You appear to be one of the more intelligent guys around here (even though we disagree about stuff a bit), and it seems many people on this site take stock in what you say. I just didn't want people to hear from you that that was widely accepted, and think that because you said it, that it was. And anyway, I'm always glad to educate a little bit.

    Though I will have to check out that site you posted the link to, just to see what all it says.

    Your tongue in cheek response was quite clear, even without the added hint, and said a lot.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  12. #32
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611629
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz View Post
    But seriously....... CB, I wasn't trying to post that so that I could be right and you be wrong. You appear to be one of the more intelligent guys around here (even though we disagree about stuff a bit), and it seems many people on this site take stock in what you say. I just didn't want people to hear from you that that was widely accepted, and think that because you said it, that it was. And anyway, I'm always glad to educate a little bit.

    Though I will have to check out that site you posted the link to, just to see what all it says.

    Your tongue in cheek response was quite clear, even without the added hint, and said a lot.
    ... all in good fun.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •