Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 46

• 0%

  david_nwpa2 months, 2 weeks ago

  Some people will not relinquish deeply held beliefs no matter how wrong they are. Kati has two diametrically opposed beliefs, but is unyielding in accepting that the Patricks and families like them are worthy of existence. I pity people who are so engrossed in their religion that they lose sight of humanity.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 0%

    Locky122 months, 2 weeks ago

    Foster care is bad.

    Gay parents are not natural.

    I understand Kati not wanting children to have a "lesser of two evils".

    Children learn about the world around them more naturally when mom is a woman and dad is a man.

    It's just biological and frankly, has little do to with religion.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      UnusualSuspect2 months, 2 weeks ago

      And, of course, since God is the creator of all things, all things He creates are perfect and natural. At least that's my basic understanding of Christianity. I'm sure it applies to most other religions.

      So, to believe being born gay is unnatural should call into question one's real belief in God's handywork, should it not?

      I do think children can learn a lot from a female "Mom", as women bring a different viewpoint to life, but that's not to say that children in a family headed by two men can't and don't learn anything of value and substance.

      And of course it has nothing to do with religion, but unfortunately it's the religions of the world who want to stamp out what they consider unnatural and imperfect, in spite of what God thinks...

      "Children learn about the world around them more naturally when mom is a woman and dad is a man." - locky

      Hmmm...are you saying children don't learn as naturally from men as they do from women?

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        Locky122 months, 2 weeks ago

        I'm not getting into theology here, but suffice it to say if God wanted gay people to be parents, they'd be able to impregnate each other.

        Only women can be called mom.

        Only men can be called dad.

        And how they complement each other is the first thing a child learns about relationships outside of himself.

        As noble as it is for a gay couple to adopt children who might otherwise have a harsher life in foster care, the child is getting a lesson in abnormality.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          UnusualSuspect2 months, 2 weeks ago

          How nice it must be to know what God wants...

          If a gay couple is able to adopt children, it might even be God's will, huh...

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Locky122 months, 2 weeks ago

            It is nice to know what God wants and if you had a conscience, you'd know too.

            Reply
          • 0%

            david_nwpa2 months, 2 weeks ago

            Locky, those who judge usually live in glass houses, or something like that. Be sanctimonious somewhere else.

            Reply
• 0%

  nothingpetty2 months, 2 weeks ago

  Like most fundamental Christians, Kati didn't play fair. She refused to look at the evidence and make a judgement on that evidence.

  She's exactly the kind of person (depending on the side of the issue) that lawyers don't want on juries.

  But who expects neanderthal theology to play fair?

  Reply
• 0%

  Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

  I'm going to watch this episode. I've seen a couple of other episodes and its a good show. Above, you are both completely right. I remember arguing with a fundamentalist for awhile about same sex marriage and things like that... eventually I actually got them to be a supporter, but this was an exceptionally open minded Christian woman who works with lots of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Not to mention a "true" conservative in the sense of what is and isn't government's place.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    UnusualSuspect2 months, 2 weeks ago

    Md...

    I haven't seen this year's episodes, but all the other ones I've seen are very good. Putting a person or two into a completely different environment than what they're used to is very interesting, and the results, as seen on this show, can be quite enlightening.

    I highly recommend it...

    Reply

• JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

  I love how this is presented... Why weren't the gay couple expected to be open-minded and think about their opinions? It is obvious that only Kati was every expected to change her thought. The line about "I thought if they just met me they'd understand" shows the ignorance of many people in that position. There is ignorance and bigotry enough to go around. Try challenging your own beliefs before expecting others to simply throw away what they believe and choose your side.

  Reading every comment here also shows an utter lack to even attempt to view things from her side or to challenge your own beliefs. Sad...

  Edit: Even the title of the Propeller link "For one anti-gay women 30 days is not long enough" implies that it just takes time. "Give the poor little girl some more time and she'll come around". The inability to rationally deal with this issue will, sadly, prevent a successful resolution.

  Reply

  26 Replies

  • 0%

    Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

    Can you present a good argument against same sex adoption? I'm always willing to listen to them and debate them. I have a very open mind. If Kati just wishes to keep her social mores within her own life, fine, but she crosses a line if she supports her own social mores being enforced on all. Same sex adoption and marriage hurt no one. Studies show this on the adoption and I have a very hard time seeing a marriage hurting anyone.

    Reply

    23 Replies

    • 0%

      KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

      I have no real opinion on the issue, tbh. I have a problem with people being hypocrytical on the issue and saying "I think gay adoption is fine so everyone should or they are wrong. How dare they say I am wrong!?!?". Do you see the blatant hypocracy?

      Some people think homosexuality is wrong and they have a right to that opinion. If those who think that homosexuality is not wrong have a right to create laws allowing it's practice and, in this case, for them to adopt, this forces their mores onto others who disagree. So, trying to use "don't force your values on others" does not work since that is what is being done in reverse.

      The presentation is biased and simply tries to demean others with different values than the author. Same is true for most of the posts here. If the other side keeps similar strong beliefs and inability to see from the other's perspective nothing will ever change. Just more fighting. It makes me tired.

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

        I'd agree with you except a quote from the article, a direct quote taken from one of the men, insinuates she is actively working against same sex adoption. I've been rather clear on this site to state that I believe churches should not be forced into marrying people, that hate speech should not be made illegal like most western democracies have done and other things. This quote, in which it actively states that she is an advocate against it (as opposed to simply being against it passively, within her own life) is on the bottom of the second page if you wish to find it. I agree the article IS slanted. It does NOT have her represented at all except in a "he said, she said" kind of way and that is not fair. By the same token I stand by my own belief that you cannot enforce your mores on others... which the article gives the impression, to me, she is trying to do. I don't tolerate such things as that goes against my own libertarian beliefs.

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%

          KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

          I applaud you and agree with the things you say should not be required/outlawed. On the other hand, you are enforcing your libertarian beliefs on others by law on this issue. She has every right to work for laws outlawing gay adoption since that is her value system and the other guys have every right to work for laws allowing it since that is their own value system. However, neither aspect can become law without forcing mores onto people on the other side. Every law is a value judgment and enforcing morals onto the population.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 0%

            Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

            Actually, I don't believe she doesn't have the right to lobby the government to work against it. However, I don't recognize the government as having the authority to declare that same sex marriage is illegal. I believe that we have these rights because we are human, not because government says so. Essentially I believe she has the right to say, think, believe and even lobby for whatever she wants. I don't recognize herself or the government to have the authority to do anything about it. The government, in my opinion, only gains the authority to do something about it when they can prove the home is abusive physically, sexually or neglect is taking place. The same goes for marriage. The government will gain the authority to limit same sex marriage when they can prove it as a threat of some kind in the same rather physical sense.

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

              And thus enforce your mores on others :-D I'm not trying to say this is negative. I am simply trying to point out, what most people never realize, that we all constantly try to force our mores on others.

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

                Yes, we do. I won't argue that because everything comes back to values. The question is what is the place of government? Just how much power do people want to give to the government to regulate there personal lives?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

                  Which is exactly the question. Where to draw the line and how do you get 300 million people to agree to where the line should be. I don't think the article or the responses I've read on this thread have in any way helped with that. But then it wasn't supposed to probably. It was to preach to the choir and demonize the other side. Oh well, what are you gonna do :D

                  Reply
              • 0%

                hamy2 months, 2 weeks ago

                I am not trying to make her have a lesbian affair? When did I say that?

                All I said was that I deserve the same rights that are afforded other tax paying citizens.

                And if you are going to make it so that I can't adopt children, then why should I pay taxes for your kids schools and lunches?

                Same rights or none for anyone.

                Reply
      • 0%

        hamy2 months, 2 weeks ago

        What you are missing is the fact that regardless of whether she thinks it's wrong or right, legally it is an issue.

        Legal issues are not the same as religious beliefs. And that is the rub. She can believe what she wants and I have no fault with that. I don't need or want the approval of anyone. Religious or not. I have a fault with her and others using their religious beliefs to push legislation that limits my rights.

        Children need parents. I was adopted by straight parents who actively tried to make me straight to no avail. So the idea that gay parents will make gay kids is totally unfounded.

        That isn't being hypocritical. That is the truth.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          lvrofwolves2 months, 1 week ago

          They think you can turn someone gay because in their small minds they believe being gay is a choice. I wonder if she thought her 2 parents 'a man and a woman' taught her to be heterosexual. Silly.

          Reply
    • 0%

      KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

      "Same sex adoption and marriage hurt no one."

      Just curious, what does this mean?

      Reply

      12 Replies

      • 0%

        Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

        Rather often I hear arguments against adoption by same sex couples about how it "hurts the children" or they are against it "for the children". Studies tend to show that kids raised by same sex couples are as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples. I was basically stating that arguments against same sex marriage or adoption of kids by same sex couples is simply a cultural issue and one which a person does not have the right to enforce on another until it can be shown that the actions are harmful.

        Reply

        11 Replies

        • 0%

          KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

          My real question is what is the criteria? If you think that homosexuality is wrong, then if these children are more likely to affirm homosexuality then you would see that as harm. If you feel the opposite, then you would not see it as harm. The problem with the statement you make, in my opinion, is that it presupposes (in most conversations or studies that I have seen) that homosexuality is OK. It starts from a position that negates the view of one party and then says "Golly gee willie Bubba, things are hunky-dory [as long as we neglect to consider the other side]."

          Try the religious perspective (you may not agree, but hypotheticlly). Sinning leads to eternal damnation. Homosexuality is sinning. Therefore teaching that homosexuality is fine is not acceptable. If you don't agree with the religon, then you come to a different conclusion from the same data.

          There are other arguments against homosexuality that I'm not going into, but I'm not going there :D

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • 0%

            Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

            The criteria is if you can prove homosexuality to leading to a physical threat of some sort that is beyond what a heterosexual adoption would have. The government is a secular body and therefore has no authority to enforce a religious perspective on anyone, including the idea that homosexuality is a sin and will damn you to hell. I recognize the authority of government to regulate whom you marry, adopt or pretty much do anything when your actions can be directly linked to the harm of others in a physical sense or a sense that eliminates someones ability to function in society. Homosexuals can clearly function in society as can those raised by homosexuals.

            Reply

            8 Replies

            • 0%

              KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

              So, emotional threat is not harm? Knowingly leading to the likelihood of discrimination and possible physical violence is not harm?

              Why is "physical threat" or harm the line? It is simple to say, but what is the rationality?

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

                The essential reason for that being the line is that everyone has the right to live a life without threat of physical violence. I'll admit that is a value I would enforce on others. I'm not a complete libertarian, which would mean an anarchist if you trace the history of the term. I'm just "very" libertarian when it comes to social issues.

                Reply

                5 Replies

                • 0%

                  KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

                  Why does everyone have the right to live a life without threat of physical violence? Especially if this can only be caused through the threat of physical violence?

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

                    Because I object to anything that is infringing upon a person's ability to live there life unmolested. That is my core value. It is what I believe government is there for. It is there to allow all of its citizens to live there life unmolested by others. A same sex couple is not infringing on anyone's rights. However, a person attacking another is directly infringing upon that person's rights to live a life unmolested.

                    In addition we have the right too live a life unmolested because what else is government for?

                    Reply

                    3 Replies

                    • 0%

                      KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

                      Again, I'm just asking so that you look at your belief. I can not come up with a convincing argument based on anything other than my mores that explains why people should be able to live a life unmolested (and isn't forcing you to give 20-50% of your money to a group you don't necessarily agree using the explicit threat of armed men capturing you and throwing you in prison "molesting" you?).

                      And this brings me back to the usual refrain "You can't force your values[mores] on others". It is what is always done. It typically means, "Don't force your mores on me, I just want to force mine onto you". I've never found a good way to logically defend that position, either the intended ("everyone should be free to do what they want) or the unintended meaning.

                      What is government for? Ask 100 people, you'll get 100 different answers.

                      Reply

                      2 Replies

                      • 0%

                        Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago

                        "and isn't forcing you to give 20-50% of your money to a group you don't necessarily agree using the explicit threat of armed men capturing you and throwing you in prison "molesting" you?"

                        Yeah... I don't know where you got that from. I don't agree with that at all, no matter who its done too.

                        I always consider every viewpoint I come across. If I didn't I wouldn't have bothered to respond to your initial post.

                        By and large, with few rare exceptions, I truly don't believe in enforcing my values on people. I have my view on what government is for and I don't try to make people believe that. I may debate them on this but I won't threaten them or find some way to legally sanction them for disagreeing with me. The few exceptions I agree with go directly too what I believe government is there for.

                        Reply

                        1 Reply

                        • 0%

                          KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

                          "In addition we have the right too live a life unmolested because what else is government for?" The 20-50% is taxes. Government only functions through the threat or use of force. Rarely if ever is anything voluntary with relation to the government.

                          The purpose of government is to try to help us all get along to such a degree that we don't just kill each other :D And such that the rich and strong don't entirely take over entirely.

                          And I appreciate you taking the time to chat.

                          Reply
              • 0%

                hamy2 months, 2 weeks ago

                The physical threat comes from intolerance. Don't you see, children are taught to hate. They don't do it inherently. If the parents of that child who killed his classmate in cold blood had taught that child tolerance instead of hatred, both children would still be living happy lives.

                Now, one is dead and the other will be in prison for life (hopefully) and I would call that harm.

                So what you are trying to say is harm, actually would help all children. Tolerance is never a bad thing.

                Reply
          • 0%

            hamy2 months, 2 weeks ago

            Because homosexuality does not harm children. It is a scientific fact.

            What you are trying to say is that telling children that homosexuality is OK is harming that child. How in your mind can tolerance be considered harm?

            Reply
  • 0%

    nothingpetty2 months, 2 weeks ago

    KISA452a- The gay couple are faced with religious/social arguments and experiences every day. No new viewpoint or argument that they hadn't already experienced was offered, that they hadn't already considered.

    The woman, on the other had was presented with evidence that the couple were good parents, etc. and even admitted same, but trumped the evidence her own experience with "the Bible says it's wrong, so therefore, so relevant experience is dismissed.

    Subjective Dogma, which has no substantiation except itself vs. Objective verification is her starting and ending point. This is the same kind of blind reasoning that was used against Galileo and is still being used against the theory of evolution and the scientific, verifiable data on the age of the world. The Bible suggest 6000 years as the age of the world, so contrary evidence is wrong.

    "Give the poor little girl some more time and she'll come around". Well, the Church did, eventually, on Galileo.

    Reply
  • 0%

    tmac5032 months, 2 weeks ago

    bigot

    Reply
• 0%

  david_nwpa2 months, 2 weeks ago

  Kisa, you are not joking, so I will take your rebuff seriously. First, the story title for Propeller comes directly from the website. No editing was involved there. As for challenging their own beliefs, they are a gay couple with 4 children. Why would they suddenly want to give up their family and their home for a religious belief that they do not recognize? The bigotry here is not on the side of the gay couple as they did invite Kati and the tv cameras into their home.

  As for the rest of us seeing things from her side, we are not bound by religious zealotry when we use rational thought. The Patricks are a perfectly loving couple who have opened their home to 4 foster children. Why would you want to put those children back in foster care? Kati wants to do that.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    KISA452a2 months, 2 weeks ago

    I had to be careful since I can't tell where titles come from. I guess the comment is really directed there.

    Beliefs come from somewhere, culture, religion, parents, made up... Whatever. To think that "you" have it right and the "other guy has it wrong" is silly. Especially when you are also saying the other guy is silly for not choosing your view. Do you see the blatant hypocracy of that view? You obviously start from the view "the gay guys are right, the lady is wrong" and don't seem to see any problem with that. You also say a "perfectly lovely couple" which is a value judgment and you wish to force your value on Kati. She sees things differently and you don't show any ability to understand her. Why would you expect her to even try to understand you (assuming your position is pro-gay-adoption)?

    You don't have to agree with her, but try thinking from her perspective as you wish she would do. You might find it enlightening.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      hamy2 months, 2 weeks ago

      But why would looking at her unfounded fear and loathing be good for me? There is no proof. There is nothing that says that her opinion should stop gay people from raising children. So what benefit would it serve if I looked at her perspective?

      Reply
• 0%

  david_nwpa2 months, 2 weeks ago

  The couple is perfectly lovely. What in your judgment is wrong with them? My position is indeed pro-gay adoption. We have far too many children in foster care who need loving families to protect and support them. Kati came into this situation convinced that gay adoptions should not happen. She left the show ready to lobby government to block gay adoptions. From the article it is unclear what the Patricks learned from this experience, except that Kati cannot be their friend since she has grown ever more adamant to stop creating the kinds of families which the Patricks represent. In essence, she is attacking their very being. They have every right to be defensive about that.

  Reply
• 0%

  mackiemesser2 months, 2 weeks ago

  After living with the family for 30 days and agreeing that the men are good parents, she still opposes all gay adoptions. If she sees that this adoptive family works and is happy, she offers no reasons to oppose all gay adoptions other than it goes against her religious beliefs. So her religious beliefs are infallible even against the reality that she witnessed. While I'll admit to having some reservations about gay adoptions, I would never oppose them outright simply because my church says it's wrong. If there is some body of work out there that shows the eventual outcome of children grown into adults who came from gay adoptions, I would like to read it and form a better opinion on this subject. But had I been that woman in that situation, I would not go away and lobby against gay adoptions after seeing reality that refuted my beliefs. I would at least think about it more objectively rather than oppose it simply because my religion says to.

  Reply
• 0%

  Rayman2 months, 2 weeks ago

  She needs to spend an additional 30-days with an African-American family too. I believe she is probably a bigot. I bet she is voting for McCain!!!

  These Christian extremists love to pass judgments on others but they're the ones who have secret and disturbed skeletons in their closets. I would love to see her spend one hour with Angelina Jolie in the steam room :)

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    david_nwpa2 months, 2 weeks ago

    I just watched the episode, and I do not think for either side it would be a wise idea to reunite these folks. The Patricks are good and caring men, who are raising their children as best as they can. They have the support of their community and the love of one another. Kati's views did not change throughout the episode, but I could tell that Dennis and Tom did change. They came to a less naive view of the world. Some people will not shake their core beliefs, and it is a very personal battle for all involved. Ultimately, the point she seemed to miss is that her religious views should not trump the religious views of others. Why should her definition of family have priority?

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      lvrofwolves2 months, 2 weeks ago

      I watched the episode as well, and found it odd that she kept on with the you all are against me, attacking me,being aggressive. Everyone except her seemed to be calm and rational, yet she was the one slamming doors, crying, throwing chairs etc....

      I wouldn't want to deny her rights to have her own beliefs, but they are for oneself, she has no right to impose her beliefs, especially religious ones on others. Her 'let's see who wins' comment, it's the straights against the gays attitude doesn't help any child, and I thought that was the main issue of the show, are the children being cared for and loved? YES! why couldn't she see that was the win right there, regardless of a persons sexual orientation.

      shame on her.

      Reply