Because, feelings.... rite?

No one has a monopoly on compassion, and we just wish all the bigoted jerks could understand that!

I gotta go listen to some pouty music, something with slow, undercooked piano parts.

Did you ever hear that story about that one fat girl at the school who it turns out it was beautiful on the inside?

Hearybreaky!

Similar story happened to an aunt of mine. One day someone knocks on her door and leaves a baby! in a basket in her doorstep. I guess someone watched too many movies. The kid is clearly from a poor indigenous family.

They raised the child as their own but sadly he passed away when a drunk driver ran over him.

P.S. someone please leave a male fawn pug at my door.

Well, I'm glad everything worked out and now Kevin is no longer saddled with the name Ace and that he has two loving, if surprised, parents. But the judge who just git a hunch and arbitrarily rushed the baby's placement, just in time for Christmas, makes me alittle ill. Rebecca who writes the fosterhood blog is on the other side of a "hunch" right now---she's an approved foster parent who went through all the background checks, home inspections, etc and even has a years-long track record as a good foster parent. But, still, someone has a hunch and has a thrown up a roadblock keeping a baby (this one surrendered at birth by the biomom, who chose Rebecca to be the adoptive mom) out of her home. I'm glad thid judge's hunch worked out well this time, but I can't help but wonder how often these hunches are wrong.

But you guys.... Gay love! Loving Gays!

Gay stuff!

People!

Feelings!

LOVE STORIES! COME TRUE!

Also, schmaltz & pomposity.

All the best babies come out of subways!

There was a kid in a manger once, it was famous as Hell, people loved that story.

Kid had a mother. And more than one father claiming credit.

Anyway, I think you're onto something with this.

This is fantastic!

I hope everything goes smoothly for the parents. I also hope that kid never has any reason to know exactly how lucky he really is.

Click through and read the whole thing.

I did.....what exactly are you referring to?

> It's great that this kid isn't in foster care.

It's great! The little fuck never deserved a mother anyway!

Because feelings! Because poignance! Because now you have a feel-good story!

It's your lucky day!

Crid, you really are an insufferable prick.

Do the world a favour and go jump off a bridge.

Just saw this- I didn't know in 29 states a bysiness can refuse to serve gay couples.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83126964/

> you really are an insufferable prick.

You're Canadian.

These are remarkable people who did a wonderful thing under remarkable circumstances. A unique situation that certainly is worthy of praise. I am very happy this all worked out exactly as it has.

I still don't believe the entire system should change because of it - not unless this story was no longer a true novelty.

Still. Really awesome, good hearted people.

All the best to them and their family.

> So, your thinking is,

Here is comes... This is the part where you MUST put words in my mouth, or extrapolate in some transparent & loathsome teenage way. ANYTHING but compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

This is not about children for you. This is about YOU, and affirming yourself as a super-touchy-feely emotion bot of compassion, risklessly.

Risklessly to yourself, I mean.

Did you hear that Clint Eastwood has filed a brief with SCOTUS?

That cracks my shit up. A guy with seven children by five women wants to tell America how family is supposed to work.

You will, of course, adore him for this.

Crid, you forgot mention slavery. You once argued that single parenthood was slavery. So two gay male parents must be double slavery!

And the only words I've attributed to you were your own.

*forgot to mention*

It's great! The little fuck never deserved a mother anyway!

Because feelings! Because poignance! Because now you have a feel-good story!

Because someone did something nice? Ok, the story is saccharine sweet. But the mother is not fucking available. Instead of changing the subject to Clint Eastwood, tell us what you think should have been done. Track down the mother? Foster home? Orphanage awaiting adoption? Come on, oh great and powerful Crid, please pass the judgement of Solomon on this child.

Alternatively you could stop being such an fucking idiot.

> And the only words I've attributed to you
> were your own.

If it were true, you'd offer a cite, a direct quotation with a link: Google is just sitting there, waiting to assist you.

But you silly little Canadian weasels are having too much fun being butthurt.

You kids are kooky!

> I adore Clint for that little snarl the corner of his
> mouth makes when he says, "Make my day."

I adore that twinkle in his eye when he tells the children of wife #2 that he won't be seeing them for Christmas because this year's turn goes to the children of wife #4. Hollywood magic with built-in sarcasm!

"Crid, you really are an insufferable prick."

Crid is not insufferable, at least in my opinion.

How come people rarely tell us that Louis Farakan hates gays?

Normally when it comes to the "sweet" stuff being overblown I agree with Crid.

But honestly this time I do not.

A man found an abandoned child, did everything he could to see to a complete stranger's health and safety, he had no reason to do this, except that a baby that had no one, needed someone.

Adoption usually takes a very long time, because determining the character of the parents to be is no easy task.

But the circumstance here thrust this couple immediately into a test of character which, regardless of what one thinks of their lifestyle, they passed with flying colors.

The judge didn't just have a "hunch", they showed themselves immediately to be kind and compassionate people, he went with the evidence that was already before him.

I have to give the judge mucho kudos.

And by the way Crid,

When miss Alkon says, "your thinking is" she doesn't have to put words in your mouth.

There were only TWO options for the kid, "The system" or "the couple that found him"

If you are critical of the latter, the only option remaining is the former. Simple process of elimination means that if you remove one, you support the other.

"Simple process of elimination means that if you remove one, you support the other."

Do you mean we can't have it both ways? Haven't we been told that before?

> There were only TWO options for the kid

That's ludicrous, violently ludicrous. You're crazy wrong, but I gotta work. Come back later this weekend so I can whip you like a barnyard animal. It'll be great.

I assumed you'd remember the single parent = slavery debate Crid. But ok, fine.

Cites:
"Where else were you going with all this? Consider Monica:

> loving single-parent families are the
> best we can offer.

Slavery. You little baby fucks should be grateful for these scraps..."

"Except the children you willfully condemn to fatherlessness. They're the best slaves of all time"

Link:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/28/salmanson.html

So there you go, Google is my friend. Unfortunately it reminded me of what a complete and utter fuckwit you are. I look forward to your explanation of why Robert's two options comment is wrong in the total absence of parents. Still waiting for your solution.

What if she was a single mother who abandoned her child? Reunite them and we're back to slavery!

It's very simple - what the fuck do you think should have been done?

"Simple process of elimination means that if you remove one, you support the other."

Not true. You don't have to "support" or approve of either one, even if you don't have an alternative.

The foster care system sucks, but without the meticulous, though far from perfect, screening of foster parents it would be 10 times worse.

The judge had two choices: hand Kevin over to the couple that found him, or allow the social workers to place him in an approved foster home until the adoptive parents could be screened.

In hindsight I'm glad the judge did what she did. But at the time it was a risky move. I'm glad things worked out well for Kevin.

Simple process of elimination means that if you remove one, you support the other.

Robert, don't bother trying to be rational with Crid. He can easily oppose both options while pretending there are others. He'll never tell you what they are of course. See my link (which he asked for).

In the meantime, you're "violently ludicrous". Which means you're going to get accused of something. You're probably racist, enslaving people, or guilty of being too sympathetic. We'll have to wait and see what the verdict is.

The foster care system sucks, but without the meticulous, though far from perfect, screening of foster parents it would be 10 times worse.

I only vaguely remember my time as a ward of the state of New York, but I can say with certainty that the screening for foster parents sucks donkey scrotum. A lot of foster parents are deeply broken. That the judge awarded custody to people who had already displayed a willingness to put the child's best interests at heart seems great to me.

That the kid got abandoned by his parents in a subway means he started out screwed. Not the kid's fault his mother and father are worthless. It's not the state's fault, either, or the fault of the guy who found him. All you can do at that point is mitigate damage.

Yes Crid, I am Canadian, we've been through this before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzYG0ZkrXg

However, that has nothing to do with anything. Now you go play with the bigoted lunatics and let the rational people talk.

While I don't agree with adoption as a rule, there are some wonderful adoptive parents out there.

As I've mentioned before, I am an adoptee. As I may not have mentioned, there were two sets of parents competing for me, both in the same family. Due to the adoption laws being the way they were in the 1970's, my gay uncle and his partner were not allowed to adopt me, on the grounds that they were(GASP!!!)gay. I was therefore placed with a selfish, loathsome human being and her husband who did way more damage then a gay couple ever could.

Denying parenthood based on sexual orientation is like denying parenthood based on the color of the sweater you're wearing. It makes no sense. And if more gay couples adopted, the orphanages would be empty.

This story is a total tearjerker.

Nicole gets it.

Why not just be happy and thankful this story has a happy ending for all involved? Why question it?

(And don't say we don't know the final outcome yet- everyone takes their chances.)

>> I was therefore placed with a selfish, loathsome human being...

Sorry you got dealt a bad hand, and you just made my 2nd point. Are you still in contact with the gay couple that competed for you?

Did you ever hear that story about that one fat girl at the school who it turns out it was beautiful on the inside?

Did they open her up to find out, or are we assuming something not in actual evidence?

There's a reason beauty's only skin deep - 'cause what's underneath if pretty gross.

Eric;

Saw the video; I think unfortunately there are more people in the world like the waitress in the video pretends to be, and even way more people like Crid. And unfortunately, I don't think there are as many people like the patrons in the video as popular culture would have us believe.

I no longer speak to the evil witch that got custody of me, but I am very close to my uncle. Unfortunately, even though we're supposed to be the most polite nation in the world, there are quite a few sub-moronic shit heads out there I've had to restrain myself from popping in the mouth when I and my husband take our children out with the couple who are, for all intents and purposes, their grandparents.

You might not "like" either option, but one must be chosen. And you choose what is hopefully a bit better than being just "the lesser of two evils". Besides, at this point you'd just be splitting hairs, the scales must tip one way or the other, and eliminating the one, you are thereby choosing the remainder.

THOUGH...

I suppose the third option would be to find the birth mother and force her to take it back. (hoping she doesn't abandon it again)

But given that she abandoned the baby, that is probably worse than foster care. True she didn't throw the little tyke in the trash, so she's not pure unadulterated evil...but a long way from being a "fit mother".

So...you have THREE OPTIONS:

1. The system
2. The birth mother and/or father that abandoned it (IF YOU CAN FIND HER) who knows who the father might be, he might be worse than she, she might not know who he is, its all hypothetical, because tracking either party down would be almost impossible without a hospital record involved.
3. The men that found the kid and took care of it for no other reason than the baby needed someone.

I'd say they showed themselves to be excellent human beings right at the outset.

I'm sure crid will rack his brain to come up with something, and though it would be a thousand times worse than even the worst of the above 3 options, he'll defend it tooth and nail.

And...not to defend the mother...but she might not be as worthless as we suppose. She did abandon the baby, but not in the woods, at a crowded subway, and she covered the child to keep it warm and comfortable, ensuring that it would be quickly found. We may never know what horrible circumstances lead to her decision, but we at least know that she did not set out to have her baby die. She wanted it to live, and to be found, else why do so there, wrapped up in something warm where it would be quickly found?

We might not know much of the circumstances, but what little we do have points to someone not devoid of human worth.

I look forward to [crid's] explanation of why Robert's two options comment is wrong in the total absence of parents. Still waiting for your solution.

I've been looking forward to that for nearly half a decade.

He has no solution, he hates gay people, and children, and more than likely himself

All the best babies come out of subways! -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 1, 2013 5:41 AM

Crid,

I just overheard some people talking about you today. They were saying you weren't fit to sleep with the pigs.

I stood up for you. I said you were fit to sleep with the pigs. In fact I think you should sleep with the pigs every night.

Crid, I mean it TOTALLY jerked tears out of me. I was sobbing.

It's a happy story.

There are happier stories. The happy story of a baby being born into a nice upper middle class intact family is happier. It isn't much of a story, though. It lacks the drama and conflict. So it will never make it in the papers, and will never make me sob hysterically.

This story did. Because the baby over came odds. Because the dads were awakened to the joys of fatherhood. Because it has an unexpected twist, and a happy ending.

Why can't you just enjoy the happy story?

Why can't you just enjoy the happy story?
Why can't marxists realize Obi is intentionally destroying the economy and health care?

There were only TWO options for the kid, "The system" or "the couple that found him"

There were more than two options - not least of all, another couple adopting the baby.

You know, a couple that filled out the application, passed all the background checks, and patiently waited for a child, but were despairing as time passed and no child had become available for them. Kinda like my in-laws.

Heartwarming story, though.

God, I LOVE being right about this!

You can be right about it too! If you want!

More soon!

More soon!

So you've said hundreds of times spanning hundreds of weeks.

Shit or get off the pot.

And Conan there aren't enough straight adoptive couples to go around

Your feelings of impatience are adorable! And if I were you, I'd be desperate for a jolt of clarity and virtue as well.

But that's not how the world works, little feller. You can get as constipated and impatient and blue-in-the face as you want, because the others on the planet weren't put here to deliver life's lessons on demand... Especially when you've proven blind to the syllabus over so many years. In this specific case, the 'other' doesn't care if you choke to death on faux-buttered popcorn as you stare into your 12" LCD, fisting the F5 reload key with masturbatory desperation.

You'll just have to wait, looklepoodletits.

On demand?
No crid, you are the one who's been saying "more soon" on this subject for nigh on five fucking years.

On demand would have been back before 2008

You got nothing but blind hate and bitterness and your self congratulatory, masterbatory, tedious, torturous, tautology seems harder and harder to come by.

Total tearjerker and although I can't believe the judge was all, hunch, you gotta think with her experience with crappy people, she saw some good people that were better than foster care. After all, they showed up in court after the fact and were intereseted in the welfare of the child, not a dividend or paycheck.

I would do the same.

I was so annoyed when I ended up teary eyed. Damn it!!!

Brought tears to my eyes. Beautiful.

> You got nothing

So Buttercup, do not read blog comments which are a burden to you. No one will care.

Ever'buddy else, see you in the mornin'!

The only way to corral a post like this is to answer every relevant comment. And no, I didn't follow the link or even read the entire blog post before forming an opinion (or starting this response). That's the point: One doesn't need to.


> They raised the child as their own
> but sadly he passed away when a drunk
> driver ran over him.

Sincere condolences.

> P.S. someone please leave a male
> fawn pug at my door.

Pugs are my favorite dogs. Their spirits delight. They bounce around like they're energetic athletes but actually they're clumsy and unashamed, because the first rule of Pugdom is 'Have fun!' I've heard that their breeding has left them susceptible to breathing ailments, which is sad.

(People with absolute control will do weird things to subordinate beings to forge the love they want receive and to trammel the subject of the love they want to give, and that seems relevant to this post… Turns out, pug noses aren't that cute, are they?)


> It's great that this kid isn't
> in foster care.

Great indeed, but essentially irrelevant. Assuming good health, there was never a doubt that it could & would find a loving home, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Y'see, Amy, you are not to be trusted with this topic, as your distortions begin early.


> Click through and read the whole thing.

Life is tragically short… There's just never enough time. Nobody here's an out-&-out liar, right? I bet the truth is clearly reflected in these reactions… Let's take 'em at face value and see what it gets us.


> I am very happy this all worked out
> exactly as it has.

If you say so.

> I still don't believe the entire system
> should change because of it - not unless
> this story was no longer a true novelty.

Strongly agree: Adoption is not our best venue for playful serendipity.


> So, your thinking is, they should
> have left him in foster care so some
> lady would be in charge of him?

As noted earlier, your reliance on supposition is watery gruel in comparison to the feast of comments I've offered over the years, hundreds of points to which you would not and did not respond. Aaaaaannnndddd... That's what this is about for you. Not kids, not adoptions, but about imagining yourself as courageously overpowering some Disney cartoon figure of an argument.


LTW stands right behind you:

> So two gay male parents must
> be double slavery!

"Must be"! See? It's fun to tell people what their arguments "must be" rather than consider the ones on the page. So I decided to be certain you'd done the reading:

> So there you go, Google is my friend.

Very good! I'm pleased you found that quote, because I fucking well meant it, both generously and precisely: "Except the children you willfully condemn to fatherlessness. They're the best slaves of all time[.]" The comparison of our demented brutalization of our children to slavery is hard to resist.

> Because someone did something nice? Ok,

This is more Disney cartoon stuff. …As if the rhetorical enemy of your little Canadian nightmares was going to say "Yes! Because someone did something nice!" (Who could resist tormenting such a creature? What kind of monster wouldn't play along?) However old a person you are, and presumably you're old enough to drive a car up there in Canada, you can't resist a chance to wave a tissue of pre-teen sarcasm: "Because someone did something nice?"

> But the mother is not fucking available.

Your language is inappropriately —and tellingly — passive: The mother is a fuckup. It's important to note also that the father is a fuckup. And it would be best to mention that the two of them must have been —for some fleeting moment— part of a social circle that let them do bad things without intervention, and that social circle was fucked up.

The problem with all these fuckers (with more to come in any child's life, we can be certain) is not that they weren't "available." A mother and/or father who parks a baby in a subway isn't 'unavailable'.

> Instead of changing the subject
> to Clint Eastwood…

Nope, it was precisely on point, which is why Amy bit into it.

Furthermore, understand that the way this works in blogdom is that topic police have no authority. People will say whatever they want, and if you don't want to read it, don't. If you want to read something else, or if you want something else to be said, you should say it yourself... Or go watch the Disney channel.

> …tell us what you think should
> have been done.

See? Asking politely was always in your heart.

There's a loving and sober straight couple for every healthy baby you can find. Americans scour the planet for infants and toddlers they can bring back to Poughkeepsie & Tuscon & Portland & Fort Wayne. I remember when Ceacescu bit in the big one at the end of the Cold War, and a 60-minutes-type TV show soon filmed some of the horrors in a Romanian orphanage, showing malformed children in the care of frosty, uncaring tenders. The next morning, churches from across the United States were clamoring for the chance to give those kids homes, including offers of corrective surgery.

The problems with adoption in modern times are about corrupted and intrusive policies: Favoring single women over adoptive couples who smoke a pack of cigarettes every week, or primitive ideas about putting black babies with white families or putting Asians with Hispanics.

In the following comments, we'll all come to understand some of the forces by which these procedures are corrupted… It'll be a wonderful learning time for us all. Don't you think?


> Crid is not insufferable, at least
> in my opinion.

You're wrong, but thanks for the backup.

> they showed themselves immediately to
> be kind and compassionate people

Don't be reductive : I want more from adoptive homes than that they be kind and compassionate. I want them to be financially and emotionally stable, integrated into the community and a network of friendships, well-connected to extended family, lawful and literate, and on and on. All these things are about what's best for a child. This list may not be shortened for expedience.

> There were only TWO options for the kid,
> "The system" or "the couple that found him"

Flatly wrong, and CAPITALIZATION does nothing to sustain your point. There was a universe of possibilities for this kid's life, both before he was ditched in the subway and after he was found there.

(Actually, I'm kinda grateful for the caps, because they call attention to a scam in progress; With the bogus quotation marks that follow, it's like midnight fireworks in the desert valley. Specifically—)

It's preposterous for you to cluck about "the system" as if it was something foreign to you, as if you were speaking from outside of it as a defenseless serf, crushed by its impermeable granite. I mean, for fuck's sake, are you a grown man? Are you a taxpayer? "The system" is yours, Babe. Those things are done in your name, no less than was this placement. From my neutral seat over here, I see you as being as accountable for its (implicit) errors as anyone… Perhaps more so, if your meek and presumptuous submission encourages it.


> The foster care system sucks, but without
> the meticulous, though far from perfect,
> screening of foster parents it would
> be 10 times worse.

Sincere thanks for a moderate voice.


> We'll have to wait and see what
> the verdict is.

Naw. While I enjoy being right, there's not much delight in others being wrong. You could pull your shit together anytime you wanted and I'd be totes cool with it.

> As I've mentioned before, I am an adoptee.

I don't keep notes.

> I was therefore placed with a selfish,
> loathsome human being and her husband
> who did way more damage then a gay
> couple ever could.

Than they ever would have, perhaps, but "could have" is extreme. In any case, the plural of anecdote is not data.

> Denying parenthood based on sexual
> orientation is like denying parenthood
> based on the color of the sweater
> you're wearing. It makes no sense.

Tell it to biology, which makes sense whether you like it or not. No two of the same sex have ever brought a child to this planet... It's not a policy problem.


>This story is a total tearjerker.

There's more to its totality than that.


> Why not just be happy and thankful
> this story has a happy ending for
> all involved? Why question it?

Because—

> (And don't say we don't know the final
> outcome yet- everyone takes their chances.)

That's just not how it works, Eric. Civilization has learned that it can't stop watching the outcome just because a pleasant moment has arrived. Leaving him to grow up in the subway would be 'taking our chances.'


> So...you have THREE OPTIONS:

But Dood!… A few hours earlier, you said it was only two options. Well, see the response above: Our cosmos is shimmering with unexplored possibilities. Civilization has rightly pared the ones for the adoption of children to a very few.


> They were saying you weren't fit to
> sleep with the pigs.

Are you worth insulting? Answer carefully.


> a baby being born into a nice upper middle
> class intact family is happier.

While I don't care about wealth so much, I see where you're going (and approve)…

> It isn't much of a story, though. It lacks
> the drama and conflict. So it will never
> make it in the papers, and will never
> make me sob hysterically.

Good Girl! I'm completely cool with that, and sincerely grateful for your explication of your response. Described thus, it's entirely honorable: I like happy and loving outcomes too.

> Because it has an unexpected twist,
> and a happy ending.

For now, I'm content not to know the twist.

> Why can't you just enjoy the happy story?

Because it 's been decided that this child will not grow up with the intimate, nurturing love of a woman. I think that's tragic. And it wasn't fate or biology or dumb luck or a single bad decision which robbed him of that indescribably powerful blessing. Culture did this to him, and he's a human being, not a Christmas present. Particular people decided he should do without.

And I'd think it was tragic if it were decided that he wouldn't have the intimate and nurturing love of a father, too. I think this tragedy plays out whatever the erotic enthusiasms of the parents, or the eventual erotic focus of the child.

What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.




So, like, how upset should we get about this one kid? Well, not that upset, because apparently adoptive home is two stand-up guys. But don't be glib about it, OK? Gays are no more interested in picking up the older, harder-to-place kids in foster homes than anyone else is... (Though if they were, I'd have a great deal of enthusiasm for gay marriage.) Which is why Amy closed her post with a line I find profoundly distasteful: "We were getting a baby for Christmas."

They don't come from Santa.

If this is nothing but a "happy story," then someone's being conned. If this is nothing but a "happy story," then I think your interest in it is pornographic: You're enjoying the feelings of other people from safe distance and time away. That's not a sin, but you need to consider it with humility, as I think Nicole does. Otherwise it'll be difficult to trust your judgment about what you see… Just as we don't let teenage boys tell us how to treat women just because they like jugs on Miss November.

Heterosexual incompetence has already brought horrors of poverty and loneliness to a huge swath of our society. Don't let a blind love of sweet fables extend it further.




Props to Feebie, Ken R, Dave, Coney & Nic for clearing the mist from their eyes to take a longer view.

Great indeed, but essentially irrelevant. Assuming good health, there was never a doubt that it could & would find a loving home, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Y'see, Amy, you are not to be trusted with this topic, as your distortions begin early.

So crid, ever hear of orphanages?

your reliance on supposition is watery gruel in comparison to the feast of comments I've offered over the years

Comment where you drone on forever and never manage to say anything of substance or give a clear and defined response as to what else should be done to fine homes for children who desperately need them

"Must be"! See? It's fun to tell people what their arguments "must be" rather than consider the ones on the page.

Fair point, but then you never state what you are for, you take great pains to only state what you are against - and you dont even have the decency to admit you dont know what the solution should be

There's a loving and sober straight couple for every healthy baby you can find.

No there isnt, those couple with the money prefer to spend hundreds of thousands on IVF.

Flatly wrong, and CAPITALIZATION does nothing to sustain your point.

They why would you use it to sustain yours?

Tell it to biology, which makes sense whether you like it or not. No two of the same sex have ever brought a child to this planet... It's not a policy problem.

You make to sound as though the mere act of fucking magically conveys parenting skills, of that were true why are so may babies abandoned by their parents?

Civilization has rightly pared the ones for the adoption of children to a very few.

People said that about the criminalzation of interracial fucking, and as an argument for slavery, genocide, and rape. Since when is 'thats the way my dad and his dad did it and thats good enough for me' become a good enough reason to deny children a family?

What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.

And when has ANYONE ever disagreed with that sentiment? We're having a conversation about what to do when the best, second best, third best, and fourth best options are no longer avalible. Have you forgotten?

Gays are no more interested in picking up the older, harder-to-place kids in foster homes than anyone else is...

They were actually, until it became cheaper and eaiser to use IVF and surrogacy and bypass bigot like you entierly

And again, all those words and not one glimmer of an idea of what to do with all the unwanted children who are wanted by homos

Should have included Jenny on the Props list.

I think it's criminal, and shameful that it has become easier for parents to adopt from Russia and China (etc) than it is for parents to adopt in the US. Adoption laws here are ridiculous, while in other countries- perhaps too lax.

So in this particular, specific, anecdotal case - I think that staring at a newborn (for ANY period of time, especially during such a crucial attachment period - because mother nature cares not about courts or timelines) facing foster care with more likely than not subpar foster parents, and being subjected to the all too common frequent changing of foster homes over the course of their lives...or two stable people who perhaps don't provide the most optimal scenario BUT certainly have proven themselves to be decent humans should get the benefit of the doubt here.

I don't think it's unreasonable with the circumstances and the fact we are dealing with a newborn. Best cAse scenarios sometimes don't exist - but what is best at the moment, I believe is what occurred.

Again, this is a one and a million scenario and should be viewed as such.

I'd like to see more Mommies and daddies be able to adopt these little ones without all the needless red tape involved. THAT is the bigger issue here.

And here I thought that maybe Crid had gone too far. How was he ever going to get out of this one. He clearly put his back to the wall with no escape. Yet again the insufferable prick ups the ante with an intelligible argument, along with chuckles (laughs are always needed at my age), and resets the table.

Ever hear the story about how, if you stretch your mind a little too far it never goes back to the same place. That's why I enjoy Amy's little place here. Most everyone, must exclude Orion here, at one time or another makes me a little smarter, not dumber (God, I hope that's true).

That is why I think Crid is a sufferable prick (but then I was raised Catholic and saw my ability to endure suffering as a means of self-esteem).

Well, it's fun being right.

There are people who love happy endings so much they'll do anything, and permit any risky misbehavior, in order to see one. Indubitable probability and demonstrable horror are not factors for them: The fact that thousands of others will suffer terribly doesn't matter, because 'Oh, isn't that sweet? This one time, it worked out OK....'

And after all, '"The System"....'

Are you worth insulting? Answer carefully. -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 3, 2013 12:55 AM

Go for it every time you want. You are judging yourself the perfect arbiter on all social and political issues. The problem with that assumption is that you are not a god or even close to perfect. When you have established godhood and all your special powers, please strike down all the evildoers as you judge them. Until then, please find a way to fornicate with yourself.

> You are judging yourself the perfect arbiter
> on all social and political issues.

Yep. I'm right about stuff, and you're wrong.

It's weird how so many tepid Americans demand a rhetorical ambiance of transparently bogus modesty; As if with each new topic, we're all expected to duck our chins and crinkle one eye and exhale a little and agree that the truth isn't with your beliefs or with my beliefs, but must be somewhere down the middle.

I think that's a cowardly and confused kinda dialectic. I think I'm right and you're wrong, and I think that way about everyone I've ever met... Otherwise, I'd have adopted those beliefs as my own. Already. See how that works? Why be so afraid of disagreement? Why get outta bed in the morning if you're so ashamed of your experience of the world?

My husband's best bud was adopted (and liberal AND in favor of gay marriage). Says he doesn't think gays should be allowed to adopt. It's acedotal. But I've always been curious if his being adopted played a part in this...Seemingly inconsistent viewpoint on related issues.

He doesn't have issues with his adopted parents, who he had nothing but good things to say about.... Follow up questions seemed inappropriate to me at the time so I left it alone. Was an interesting position for him to take considering his liberal views.

If it were my child anything but foster care would be my absolute preference but why, why is it so hard to adopt put an abandon child in a reasonable amount of time with all the surplus of Mommies and daddies waiting years and years for a little bundle of joy?

I mean, abandoned children are nothing new (unfortunately), right? Wasn't Moses left in a basket and sent down river for someone else to care for?

A very bright and thoughtful woman in my life explained this to me a few years ago. Until a generation or so ago there were plenty of women who had a lot of time on their hands after their own children had grown up and moved away... Those were the kinds of families who would adopt, especially for older kids.

Those women are now working for a living, and in many cases they're the chief breadwinners.

The deployment of half our human genius in the workplace has been an unmatched and unprecedented blessing for the United States. But sociological change always has unpredictable costs.

I'd have to agree with you there Crid.

I wish I had more of a choice in not working now having a new family. Feminism has not been kind to the males of my generation. I cant think of one man I dated within my own generation (or one just below or just above) that has made more than me. And I will fully admit, and bad as it sounds - I am extremely resentful about it at times (but I still do appreciate the unique opportunity I was given to contribute and grow in the workplace). When a woman chooses to quit and settle down to raise a family - those options are not as easy as they use to be.

Awwww Feebie!

Don't feed the wildlife, he already thinks he's people!

O.o

Yep. I'm right about stuff, and you're wrong. -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 3, 2013 7:00 PM

I want you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution or a state level Constitution I'm wrong; because that is the legal DNA of the United States.

The arguments you talk about have no real legal force until a SCOTUS or similar court has ruled on it.

I'm not right about anything until the SCOTUS says so?

"Or a similar court"?

Drinker?

Where in the US constitution does it specifically discuss, mention or define marriage or adoption?

What am I missing here?