US Supreme Court supports gay marriage...a great day for America, a bad day for faith-based bigotry (Page 3)

Zanjan: Please provide a link. I assure you that it's not from the Canadian Government.

You're inventing new myths, apparently.

davesdatahut: Here you go, all the non-myths you can possibly debunk.
http://www.adoption.ca/faqs

Zanjan: Told you - it's not a government sanctioned site. I also question how old that page is. Some of the information is inaccurate and you will see that if you go to a government authorized website.

The Canadian Government has nothing to do with international adoption - those are private companies. They have is a business license and serve only as a mediator. The adoption agency doesn't have the final word - all Canadian adoptions must go through the court system and each case heard before a judge.

Look at this quote:
" Every race, ethnic group and socioeconomic category is represented"

Nope. There are no kids from wealthy, distinguished or religious families in agency care. Regardless of the agency used for adoption, First Nations children must be repatriated to their tribal reserves and adopted by Native kin - that's a special agreement with the Federal government. They can say no to you if you are gay or white or black etc.

The part about Gay adoptions is misleading and definitely false insofar as public agencies are concerned.

You see, with public adoptions, the child has a profile and is always seen first; events are arranged where the prospective parents can interact with the child and choose their favorite. There is much consultation whether or not the child is a suitable match for the parents.

On the other hand, private adoptions are very uncommon. The birth mother can circumvent a number of formalities and conventions, including foster care - but only for a newborn if the designated person is not a blood relative. Before birth, the mother will go through a private agency to arrange for her child to be adopted by a particular person she names to be the parent.

I personally know of a few grandparents who've adopted their own grandchild this way.

If the designated parent in a private (not public) adoption is gay, it doesn't matter as long as the mother is aware of that since there must be full disclosure. This is checked at the time. There is no rule permitting gays to adopt, as you presume - it goes by the mothers specific consent to the person she names. The prospective parent still has to meet the other requirements and be approved before the babe is born so they can pick up the babe directly at the hospital.

The designated adoptive parents have no idea what they're getting or whether the child will be healthy or have birth defects. Unlike public adoptions, they can't send the child back if it doesn't work out.

davesdatahut: Ok, so all that meandering stuff notwithstanding, is it still your view that single people, unmarried people and gay people cannot adopt a child in Canada? Does that remain your view?

Zanjan: It's not a view - I've told you the facts as they stand right now. Facts you didn't have. What they'll be in 5 years, I have no idea.

davesdatahut: I have found another source to dispense with your rambling bullshit.
This is from the Canadian Bar Association:
http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/163.aspx
The relevant passage says:
Can a gay or lesbian couple adopt?
In 1996, BC’s Adoption Act was changed to allow any two eligible adults, including two adults of the same sex, to jointly apply to adopt a child, whether they are married or unmarried. So any two people who meet the Act’s eligibility requirements can adopt a child.

Your grasp of reality is stunning. Orkanen is right You are a liar of notable proportions.

davesdatahut: Here is more:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Canada

Is this enough to shut your yap about stuff you know nothing about, as you display all the signs of a cruel ignoramus? Or do you need more?

Zanjan: The Canadian Bar Association doesn't determine child adoption laws and rules. The Provincial government does, and it can adjust rules in their own jurisdiction and under its own terms. The source didn't indicate what those terms were.

Many gays already have children of their own from previous relationships; when they have a civil marriage in a new relationship, it's possible for them, **through a private agency**, to adopt their partner's child IF the child's other birth parent permits it. Obviously a child always has two birth parents. If this happens, its not likely the second birth parent was made known.

It's possible there is a condition of the partner being the birth mother, who may designate the adoptive parent. In this case, the province would have adjusted the rule of blood relationship which applies to privately adopted children after birth.

You have the mistaken notion that because a jurisdiction does something a certain way, that its the right thing to do or that it always does it in every case, and according to your perspective of it.

What sort of couples who are unmarried adopt children? I find this a sneaky and manipulative use of children.

davesdatahut: Zanjan, cut the shit already. The question is not whether it is right. The question is whether it is legal and adoption by gays is legal in Canada.
As if the bar association would post up the wrong information about the law!!
You stop at nothing to display your ignorance, arrogance and cruel views on gays. Your views stand as poster children for the damage that religion can do to humanity.

Zanjan: If you continue with your rudeness, I wont respond to your posts anymore - that's entirely uncalled for and uncivilized.

wayne elliott: Just a moment Zanjan - how can gays have children from previous relationships? Did you not lecture me that gays who married heterosexuals to conform to the ignorance of people like you, then spend nights in the shadows of gay bars seeking the truth of themselves - are not gay, but are in fact bisexual? Is there any end to your contradictions?

Zanjan: I didn't lecture you, Wayne - that would require you to be a student.

Seems you haven't been following people in society but a lot of women seek men out only for the purpose of getting pregnant - they want to have their own child by blood, and some of them know they wouldn't be accepted as an adoptive parent even if they could afford it. Not all of them go to sperm banks. This is a much cleaner, hassle-free way of doing it than the scenario below:

It's well known that there are quite a few instances where couples were divorced because one partner later decided they were gay. The divorced partner then took up a relationship with a member of the same sex. These things are often hidden from the courts during child custody disputes so the newly gay person, most often the mother, has custody of the child. Arrangements can be made for permanent custody - far more expensive than the above tactic.

If a person is capable of having a sexual relationship with both genders, they're classified as bisexual, whether they admit it or not.

I'll say the same thing to you, Wayne, as I did to Dave - please stop with the direct insults.

wayne elliott: Oh, come now! You should be well used to them Zanjan - after all, you endlessly invite them.

davesdatahut: Ditto on that. You're posts, Zanjan, are replete with ill-informed, often incomprehensible ramblings that either cherry-pick or wholly ignore facts, laws and reality. They smack of a desire to constantly put down gays and the equal rights they deserve. When presented, time and again, with what and how the world is - as opposed to how you want it to be - you shuck, jive, obfuscate or try to move the discussion down some meandering alley that seeks to distract the reader from your biases or simple ignorance. The intent is obvious and the responses you get are the responses you reap.

davesdatahut: The legality of same-sex marriages took another major step forward today as the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up challenges to the issue in five states. Effectively. it is now legal in about 30 states, so the issue, for all practical purposes, is settled.
The court didn't actually take the cases and use them to officially declare these bans unconstitutional. Therefore, bans in some states could remain on the books for a while - as long as the faith-based reactionaries hold some sway. But the action today sent the clear message that the court is headed in the direction of declaring civil marriage to be a constitutional right for gays.
In the future, the court will either let stand court rulings overturning gay marriage bans or will take a case to officially declare the constitutional rights.
Today's action deserves nothing but praise, unless you are an opponent of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.