At 11:37 PM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Can you even listen to yourself here?
>"we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational thought would
>reasonably expect"
>This very clearly shows that this is not the child's expectations, but your
>expectations for that child. That's the thing about children (young
>children anyway), they don't have expectations outside of their limited
>experience with life.
Which is why in legal proceedings we don't always just simply ask a child
what they want. Rather, it can be the practice to reasonably deduce what
is the child's best interest on behalf of the child.
>Ok, so you say it's ok for a same sex couple to adopt a child when it is the
>best option available to that child. If that is so, then why do you
>continue to insist that same sex couples have no reproductive or child
>raising potential?
I have not said that homosexual couples have no child-raising potential.
Indeed, I have specificly cited examples in which homosexual couples
*should* adopt.
Are homosexual couples better than raising couples than wolves? Yes, of
course. (The same is true for absentee or abusive heterosexual parents
too. Heck, the wolves might be better than abusive parents. :-)
>The two views are mutually exclusive.
Again, I have said that they certainly have potential.... I just don't
think that we should *incentivize* that potential..... or at least we
should not until it is demonstrated that we have such a shortage of
absolutely wonderful heterosexual couples willing to adopt that we need to
expand our pool of wonderful potential adopters by incentivizing such unions.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
