Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It isn't my "ridiculous Usage Note" -- it was taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, 2006. Why is my citing a dictionary "ridiculous" when your doing the same (for the same word) is not?

Your application of your note to my examples is bizarre. It matters not.

I tend to agree with you about the other stuff. Then again--to generalise wildly--it's seldom the flaming queens who apply for adoption, as opposed to the more sober (discreet) gay banker type.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your application of your note to my examples is bizarre. It matters not.

I tend to agree with you about the other stuff. Then again--to generalise wildly--it's seldom the flaming queens who apply for adoption, as opposed to the more sober (discreet) gay banker type.

So we have something to agree on. That's good. 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It isn't my "ridiculous Usage Note" -- it was taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, 2006. Why is my citing a dictionary "ridiculous" when your doing the same (for the same word) is not?

(Not sure what the search for "celibate gay" was supposed to reveal. I found some stuff about "celibate gay priests" and some other stuff about gay, ex-gay a ...[text shortened]... s an environmental evaluation about job security, safety on the job, lifestyle etc.

Regarding the complimentarity of sexes condition, would it be sufficient to alleviate your concerns if there were a large and tight-knit extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.), from which the child could experience "gender in action" or whatever?

Originally posted by bbarr
Regarding the complimentarity of sexes condition, would it be sufficient to alleviate your concerns if there were a large and tight-knit extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.), from which the child could experience "gender in action" or whatever?

Maybe just a little.

I have no experience of Israeli kibbutzes (is that the right word?) or Soviet-style "kids' communes" or extended Hawaiian families, but I do have a fair bit of experience with large Indian joint families that all stay under the same roof. And I do know that, even with aunts, uncles, grandparents etc. all under the same roof, one's own parents have a unique and extremely significant role to play. No matter how closely knit the family is, a father or a mother is going to be very different to a child than an uncle or an aunt, respectively.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And I do know that, even with aunts, uncles, grandparents etc. all under the same roof, one's own parents have a unique and extremely significant role to play.

(But not for orphans.)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe just a little.

I have no experience of Israeli kibbutzes (is that the right word?) or Soviet-style "kids' communes" or extended Hawaiian families, but I do have a fair bit of experience with large Indian joint families that all stay under the same roof. And I do know that, even with aunts, uncles, grandparents etc. all under the same roof, on ...[text shortened]... or a mother is going to be very different to a child than an uncle or an aunt, respectively.

Do you think non-Catholics should be allowed to adopt?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think non-Catholics should be allowed to adopt?

Why do you think I'd have a problem with non-Catholics adopting?

You must have me confused with someone else.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
(But not for orphans.)

I think he is suggesting that adoptive parents would play that role.

My question is whether single parents should give up their children to adoptive couples if this 'couple parent' thing is so important.
Where I live a significant proportion of the children (maybe 50% ) live with only one parent and rarely see the other.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My question is whether single parents should give up their children to adoptive couples if this 'couple parent' thing is so important.

When separating a child from his/her parent(s), there is an emotional and psychological cost to be borne. With orphans, the cost has already been borne.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why do you think I'd have a problem with non-Catholics adopting?

You must have me confused with someone else.

So, you think it's worse for a child to be raised by lesbians than it is for a child to be raised outside of Christ's Church? Would Jesus agree?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, you think it's worse for a child to be raised by lesbians than it is for a child to be raised outside of Christ's Church?

On a like-like basis, yes.

Would Jesus agree?

Yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
On a like-like basis, yes.

[b]Would Jesus agree?

Yes.[/b]

Hilarious.

Remember when you said this: "Christians know that nothing is more important for a person's welfare than the eternal fate of one's soul"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Hilarious.

Remember when you said this: "Christians know that nothing is more important for a person's welfare than the eternal fate of one's soul"

Ambiguous. (since we appear to be playing some form of Scrabble here)

How is the quoted statement inconsistent with my position above?