Printable View
Have you adopted a child? How's your child? I was just having a conversation with a buddy of mine and he's basically saying that gay people shouldn't adopt kids because the kids might turn gay or become 'abnormal.'
I don't know, some straight parents raise gay kids. You know what I mean?
Your help would be appreciated. I don't have gay friends with kids so I don't know anything about this.
I've heard lots of claims, but you can do the reading for yourself, assuming you have a semi-useful library nearby:
Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (1978), Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L., (1989) A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers, F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the Family (pp. 123-135), New York: Harrington Park Press; Miller, B. (1979), Gay fathers and their children, The Family Coordinator, 28, 544-52; Paul, J.P. (1986).
Hmmmm... Backroomish. Poor guy will be attacked by the anti-gay crowd though. Best of luck.
Well I've got lots of gay friends. I've known some for thirty years. Most are great people. Pretty much the same % of idiots to nice guys as straight people.
As far as I've ever seen, people do not "go gay"; you're born that way. On the other hand, anyone raised in a "specific" environment will obviously be affected to some degree by that environment. I do not doubt that it might lead the person to some... curiosity and perhaps, depending on the individual, experimentation. But flat out "turning gay"? I don't buy it.
Personally, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt a child until all other avenues of adoption for the child have been exhausted. The child's interests come first.
To the Backroom and awayyyyyyyy...
My god mother and her "partner" have a child and he is perfectly straight but completely ****** in the head cause they raised him horribly.
I have an acquaintance whose mother is a lesbian and he says she had a partner until quite recently, and he seems a bit, ah, homosexual and estranged.
However, I think that having such parents is not enough to turn someone gay, perhaps give them certain opinions and tastes and manners and such, but not actually to make them want sodomy. I believe it is the environment around the child until the end of puberty which affects whether or not the child will end up gay.
instead of stating my oblivious hatred for gay people, I think I'll just stay out of this thread
Im not really sure about this. I mean there are tons of hardworking honest gay people out there most of whom would make excellent parents. On the other hand it has to mess with the kids head somewhat. Although Ive known some pretty messed up kids with straghit parents so I say yes
Y'know, i don't get why people hate gays, my god! They're different! Let's all hate them, i know some gay guys, they are perfectly alright, and 99% of them dont come on to guys they know arent gay, so whats the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanemerkel1
But Kudos on staying out of the thread and not starting a flame war against gays :2thumbsup:
Failed on all counts then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanemerkel1
I am not entirely happy with the thought of a gay couple adopting a child. I worry for the child, though I cannot state quite why.
youre either born gay or straight, end of
but i spose as long as you are a kind person it doesnt really matter...
Not as far as I know. As Beirut said, the kid's interests should come first, but there's no real reason why a gay couple should be worse at raising a child. In general, I'd think it'd mean they'd grow up more open-minded to the possibility than actually becoming gay themselves, which is a good thing in so many ways.
I agree - my uncle was one of the greatest people I knew growing up and he was homosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I don't buy the your born homosexual arguement because most of the same reason's you don't buy the "turn gay" arguement. I have seen to many practicing bi-sexuals and those who chose to pracapate in homosexual behavior to buy the genetic arguement for homosexuality.Quote:
As far as I've ever seen, people do not "go gay"; you're born that way. On the other hand, anyone raised in a "specific" environment will obviously be affected to some degree by that environment. I do not doubt that it might lead the person to some... curiosity and perhaps, depending on the individual, experimentation. But flat out "turning gay"? I don't buy it.
Agreed - a homosexual couple who are willing to devote their attention to a child is better then the state foster or orphanage systems that most un-abopted children end up at. But it should be after all tradtional coubles have been rejected or exhasuated in the adoption process. (in all fairness I think the adoption process for traditional couples needs to be tightened also, to insure the child is going into a safe environment.)Quote:
Personally, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt a child until all other avenues of adoption for the child have been exhausted. The child's interests come first.
I'm glad to hear that you are not totally opposed to gay couples adopting Red. But I disagree that straight couples should be given preference. Gay or straight couples should be held to the same standards when determining whether or not they are allowed to adopt. Mainly: can they provide a safe, loving, and financially secure environment for a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I've to say that this is one of the better misspellings I've seen for a while :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanemerkel1
As for the issue, I cannot say that I'm not 100% for the idea for gay couples adopting, but I'll say that good parents matters much more than the parents sexual orientation.
My mother knew my brother was gay when he was three. That's a bit young for a lifestyle choice but old enough for a parent to see certain character traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I have no doubt that many people experiment and some are influenced by their environment, but I've know way too many gay men to ever think that it was a lifestyle choice. These guys were gay from Day 1.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The interests of the child must come first. If we are going to experiment with social ideas/programs/revolutions giving full rights to gay couples, fine. But let's not use children in the experiment.
The benefits to a child of having a mother and a father are too obvious and numerous to state. There are waiting lines to adopt children, so there should be no need to involve them in "social experiment". If gay couples want kids, they can create them with other partners and have shared custody. Never should a child be handed over to two gay men or women when a mother and father are waiting in the wings.
Having a mother and father is normal. Having two fathers or two mothers is not. The child has the right to have a mother and a father. The gay couple's rights to adopt a child do not overide the rights of the child to a mother and father.
I agree with Beirut, only let a gay couple adopt a kid if there aren't any suitable straight couples. Maybe in 20-30 years we'll have more insights on how gay couples manage to raise kids and we can reconsider.
im sure there as many (in %) bad gay parents as their are straight ones, but it must be more difficult to grow up, especially with the amount of anti-gay behavior you get in schools etc.
Parents screw their children up most of the time anyway, so I don't have a big problem with a gay couple raising a kid on principle. However, being pragmatic, it's going to be a little weird for the kid to have two daddies or two mommies, and it will be one more obstacle they'll need to overcome (on a lesser scale than being orphans or given away at birth I'd imagine though).
So, tough criteria should be used for selecting parents, and homosexuality shouldn't matter much.
My wife just "knew" her oldest son was gay from about age 4. Turns out that he isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Ancendentol (SP) evidence is just that.
Again you have just supported my arguement about why I don't believe its a "born" into condition. Your first statement supports my postion on that. This is why I will not support homosexuals as a protected class. If they wish to practice that lifestyle - no harm no foul as far as I am concerned. As far as getting laws passed for their benefit in society they must go through the same legislative process that every other individual must go through. When a scientist can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition that an individual is born into - then I will advocate them being a distint and therefor a class that must have protection against discrimination under the law.Quote:
I have no doubt that many people experiment and some are influenced by their environment, but I've know way too many gay men to ever think that it was a lifestyle choice. These guys were gay from Day 1.
Back on topic
Agreed.Quote:
The interests of the child must come first. If we are going to experiment with social ideas/programs/revolutions giving full rights to gay couples, fine. But let's not use children in the experiment.
The benefits to a child of having a mother and a father are too obvious and numerous to state. There are waiting lines to adopt children, so there should be no need to involve them in "social experiment". If gay couples want kids, they can create them with other partners and have shared custody. Never should a child be handed over to two gay men or women when a mother and father are waiting in the wings.
Having a mother and father is normal. Having two fathers or two mothers is not. The child has the right to have a mother and a father. The gay couple's rights to adopt a child do not overide the rights of the child to a mother and father.
I have absolutely no problem allowing homosexual couples to adopt a child if a suitable tradtional couple can not be found. (Suitable in my eyes means the same for both the traditional family and the same-sex family. Both types of couples must meet the same criteria for adoption, the difference is that given a choice between the two, the child goes to the traditional couple.)
(Prepare yourself, I'm about to be slightly sarcastic, but I know you're a big boy and can handle it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I realize that treating people as equals and offering them a level social playing field regardless of their sexual orientation is a pretty wacky "social experiment," but don't you think that maybe its time has come?
Okay, sarcasm off.
Your argument (no to be mistaken with you) offends me for a few of reasons.
1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?
2) There is no basis whatsoever to make a claim that same-sex couples are any more likely to be unfit parents than hetero couples, and there is no evidence to suggest that having opposite-sex parents is any more or less beneficial to a child than having same-sex parents. On the other hand, I can come up with a considerable amount of data that would support the idea that children raised by black parents are more likely to become criminals than children raised by white parents. Should we also give preference in adopting based on skin color? And your statement about what is "normal" is just silly. In the thirties, it was more or less "normal" for a husband to blacken his wife's eye for her if she didn't mind her manners. Luckily, several wacky "social experiments" since then have changed that custom. (Okay, I know I said sarcasm was off, but I couldn't resist that one.)
There is already considerable evidence that a good portion of heterosexual couples make a complete balls-up of raising their children. Should we outlaw all heterosexual couple adoption for thirty years or so until we can do an in-depth study to determine what kind of people are more likely to be good parents vs. bad parents so thet we may more properly screen applicants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
This is my favorite argument of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
"We shouldn't let gay couples adopt because if we do, the rest of us will continue our narrow-minded, cruel ways and discriminate not only against the gay couple themselves, but against the child they adopt as well. Hey, don't blame me, blame society."
EDIT: Incorrect use of "you're" vs. "your." I can't believe it. One of my biggest grammatical pet peeves and I did it myself. See what you do to me Beirut?
I'm going to break another PC taboo, be a sexist and state that I view lesbians and gay male couples as completely different on this particular issue. I have far fewer issues with a lesbian couple adopting a baby then I do with 2 gay males.
And it would greatly help your position if you explain why. I can grasp some possible reasons for myself but to make an assumption of what you think isn't going to be very prudent of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
For now, though, Goofball hits every point. :bow:
What are you trying to do to me Don? Give me an aneurism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I can only deal with so many meritless statements at once.
:juggle2:
:dizzy2:
I say they should be allowed to adopt.
I think they can do the job just as good as straight couples.
Indeed, and that won't change anytime soon either unless they see that there is nothing wrong with it.Quote:
especially with the amount of anti-gay behavior you get in schools etc.
That's why it is time to show them that it isn't.
With time it will change just like allowing black people to go to class with white people.
A Strawman arguement my dear Goofball, the care and raising of children does not equate to an individuals ability to perform their job. I but into this conservation because I happen to agree with Beriut about adoption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Your throwing a red herring into the arguement Goofball. Address the issue of same-sex couples and traditional couples to bring forth your premise. Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.Quote:
2) There is no basis whatsoever to make a claim that same-sex couples are any more likely to be unfit parents than hetero couples, and there is no evidence to suggest that having opposite-sex parents is any more or less beneficial to a child than having same-sex parents. On the other hand, I can come up with a considerable amount of data that would support the idea that children raised by black parents are more likely to become criminals than children raised by white parents. Should we also give preference in adopting based on skin color? And your statement about what is "normal" is just silly. In the thirties, it was more or less "normal" for a husband to blacken his wife's eye for her if she didn't mind her manners. Luckily, several wacky "social experiments" since then have changed that custom. (Okay, I know I said sarcasm was off, but I couldn't resist that one.)
Is that a counter to the arguement that a traditional family is the preferred family unit for child rearing for a healthy society?Quote:
There is already considerable evidence that a good portion of heterosexual couples make a complete balls-up of raising their children. Should we outlaw all heterosexual couple adoption for thirty years or so until we can do an in-depth study to determine what kind of people are more likely to be good parents vs. bad parents so thet we may more properly screen applicants?
I don't believe that is the stance Beriut nor myself have taken on the issue. Edit: I see that was directed at someone else. Sorry for the mis-reading of the statement.Quote:
"We shouldn't let gay couples adopt because if we do, the rest of us will continue our narrow-minded, cruel ways and discriminate not only against the gay couple themselves, but against the child they adopt as well. Hey, don't blame me, blame society."
Maybe I should take my foot out of my mouth. What statistics I was looking for turned out to be the opposite of the conventional wisdom I had adopted.
Apparently, gay men in Scandanavia and the Netherlands divorce at roughly the same rate as heterosexual couples. I thought it was higher among gay male couples.
I also thought lesbians were more stable in committed relationships then heterosexual couples. Turns out, they get divorced more frequently.
Okay then, I'm for allowing gay male couples to adopt, but until lesbians figure out how to provide some domestic permanence for their children, I think they should be last in the priority queue for adoption.
While I agree with you that it isn't a born into or genetic condition, there is another possibility besides it being a lifestyle choice that you have to look at. I personally believe it's something that develops from outside influences when the person is quite young. Many aspects of your personality are not finally determined until the age of seven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If we accept as a principle that being gay is good, because it's a personal election (or for other several causes that people differ), then why should it be an issue that the sons raised with gay parents will make them gay. I see no reason, even if they had that effect that people usually attach at them (usually by ignorance) it wouldn't be an issue wouldn't it?
Now here, in a nutshell, is exactly what people are afraid of. Soulforged is arguing that even if gay parents will make their children gay, it's a good thing and we should encourage it.
I don't know Goofball, you sure you want him on your side? :laugh4:
He has a point, if there were more gay people there would be less discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
There are several ongoing studies into just this issue. One such study sites that a possible hormone imbalance in the mother during the fetus development stage effects the sexual aspects of the child. However the study has not been complete last time I attempted a search on the internet. Someone with a peer review access might be able to shed more light onto this particlur study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Again there are too many factors that influence an individual's behavior for me to reach the conclusion that its a condition one is born into - ie genetic.
The problem with homosexuals is....
They Tend to contract.
Hiv and hepititis and stuff.
Hepititis is HIGLY contageous. And as such i dont beleve that Its a good idea to subject a child to The possibilatys of Its parents (although adopted) dying at an early age.
Now Im not saying all homosexual couples WILL get HIV and Hepititis And other Std'S or Sti'S
but They Are much more likley to,
hetrosexual couples, Have a Really hard time adopting children.
They often fail to be allowed to adopt a child Due to some Misdeminer they had long forgoten about.
Or they Dont have enough Income (although many familys Live on less)
The idea of Adoption is to place the child In a "SAFE" loving enviroment,
Unfortunatly With STD's And Homophobic crimes against homosexuals.
the Child Would Undoubtedly be made to suffer for Its Adopted parents choice.
Think about it.
Can You Imagine Going through school When Your parents are Both male or female?
Bulling already accounts for Enough Child deaths,
Children Are vicious lil things,
And if they knew 1 childs parents were homosexual. In That child's mind he would be better off dead Than haft to be subjected to the torment the other children and his peers sunject him to,
We know tis is Not How its Suposed to work.
Unfortunatly It is how it works.
Apart from illness and the possibilaty of an early death. I dont see this as being the Adopted parents Problem.
Its More of society's problem, And Its the child who would suffer the most.
Homosexual couples Should really Try to think about what the child would go through.
It is unfortunate.
but that is my oppinion on the matter.
You're not butting in at all. Everyone is welcome to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).
I did. I'm not being sarcastic, but I suggest you re-read what I said. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?
I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Maybe it's time for some new traditions.
I know you meant that tongue-in-cheek, but I think if you read his post again you'll find that SF is arguing not necessarily that being gay is good, but that personal choice is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
At any rate, I don't believe that being gay is good or bad. Just like I don't think being left-handed is good or bad. I also don't believe that gay parents would be more likely to raise an adopted child to be gay. But even if it were proven that they were, I wouldn't care.
Just to add a little levity to the thread, does anybody else find that the thread title sounds like a personal ad in a swinger magazine?
:laugh4:
The question is:
Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?
Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?
If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.
The bottom line is that if you support a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts, then this is acceptable. The result is that our children will be raised with certain challenges in gender identification. This will only complicate the already difficult process of growing up. Hormonal changes and accompanying emotional experiences in combination with social gender confusion may result in psychological damage.
Being in favor of the natural order of things, I believe that the furthering of the homosexual cause is a danger to society.
Cats and dogs living together, that kind of thing.
*yawns*Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Tired, old conservative talking points that hold no basis in fact, but make anti-gay people happy because they can compare homosexuality to buggering the family dog.
Come back when you have something new.
Probably not. And even if you did, they'd probably want a ridiculous price.
Wait a minute....that's not what you mean. ~;p
Ahem.
What you seem to be forgetting is the crux of Beirut's argument: that the children should not be used as guinea pigs. The effects of being raised by parents who do not have a normal sexual orientation, and not having a mother and father, are, anecdotes aside, largely unknown. To throw children, who have no power or choice into the matter, into a situation where we don't know what the effect on them will be, is cruelhearted.Quote:
And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).
The basis of marriage was raising a family, and that is why it was between a man and a woman. Arguing that since some misguided nations now allow homosexual 'marriages' we should now act as though 'married' homosexuals are the same in every way to real married people ignores the basis for marriage.
It isn't. Just because a person chooses to do something does not mean they are doing a good thing.Quote:
If we accept as a principle that being gay is good, because it's a personal election (or for other several causes that people differ),
Thus, your argument is moot.
Crazed Rabbit
Mostly OT:
Can anyone show some stats for the number of kids up for adoption vs maybe the number of people on waiting lists for adoption? In the US, for example?
I was under the impression that there wasn't much of a problem with people who want to adopt children, but that the problem lay in people wanting to be foster parents.
Establishment of criteria by the government for adoption is within its scope of responsiblities. Adoption outside of the arrangement between individuals is a regulated affair - and it should be. The concept of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is indeed a social experiment. For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The work place examble is within that same scope. Its not related to the discussion in that the legal rights of the same-sex couple are not being violated by the state.
The red herring was bringing race into the discussion. The highlighted portion does indeed address the issue and was answered and then discarded by yourself with the following comment.Quote:
I did. I'm not being sarcastic, but I suggest you re-read what I said. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold.
You defeat your arguement with your attempt at sarcasm here. If you want to discuss then discuss - but such comments do not bode well for a honest discussion.Quote:
Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?
And no the studies I am refering to are easily found on the web and some are studies done by agencies such as the Federal Government in the United States, among others. Links can be found with a simple google search. Since I am at work - I feel no obligation to do research to back up my statement. Given the nature of my family's health - I have read such articles done by professionals in the child studies and family studies.
Because the arguement is a red herring. I have no problem with allowing same sex couples adopting children if a suitable traditional couple can not be found for that child. Race is not revelant to my opinion. I see people for who they are not what color of their skin.Quote:
At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?
Should I respond to such a obvious attempt of emotional appeal and burdern of proof logical fallacies in this arguement? Only with this, if your going to demand proof of statement - then you must also provide proof that your statement is more then just your opinion also.Quote:
I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.
Maybe it's time for some new traditions.
No I understand it quite clearly. What you don't understand is that I don't view allowing equal rights to gays to be a social experiment, but something that any just society will eventually do. Therefor, the children are not really guinea pigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It was brought up before, but I'll do it again. Should we have not allowed desegregation of schools because we didn't want to treat children as guinea pigs? After all, that was a great "social experiment," wasn't it? I mean, we had no way of knowing that black children and white children going to school together would not cause the complete breakdown of society. In fact, there were many at the time who "proved" it would do just that.
Guess what?
They were wrong.
Says you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
"Misguided" nations? "Real" married people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Puh-leaze...
I wasn't aware that Canada (among others) was such a socially backwards country. And I also wasn't aware that homosexuals were not "real" people after they chose to spend their lives together monogamously.
And arguing that because your misguided nation (for the most part) still discriminates against homosexuals ignores the fact that it's still unfair discrimination.
Oh, I can deal with your sarcasm you west coaster you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Full rights for homosexuals is a social experiment. I know because I know lots of them and see the daily challenges they continue to face. It's nice to say we're all equal, but in reality we're not. Discrimination exists on many levels, and it takes experimenting and risk to overcome those obstacles.
The difference in this case, adoption being the issue, is that the road to full rights for homosexuals should not involve children who have no say in the matter. A child being adopted into a family has very, very few rights, but one right he/she should have is the natural right to a mother & father. It's the least we can do. We owe nothing to the adults - everything to the child.
If homosexuals want full rights - great! Let them fight on every level for them. But don't involve the most innocent and least capable of defending themselves. Besides, what kind of a message does it send to a growing child that either the mother or father is unimportant and unnecessary? The balance of life calls for a mother and a father. It's simply the way we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Denigrating my argument with such classless comments such as "*yawn*", and "come back when you have something new", do not further the discussion.
If you want to debate, then debate the points. Broad and sweeping statements such as yours are just as ludicrous as screaming "liberal", and are simplistic tactics employed by those who are unable to articulate themselves to counter a valid argument.
I'll happily remove references to beastality if it delegitamizes my argument. The fact remains. Total acceptance of homosexuality would result in a complete psychological shift in our culture in the way that I spelled out.
Where in nature do animals discuss marital issues in the backrooms of gaming forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Nowhere. Still I guess we're in the clear as we do precisely that.
The notion that 'healthy' or 'proper' human behaviour somehow requires a natural analogy (and usually one of a mythical kind) is known as the 'naturalist fallacy'.
And by the way: not only is long-term bonding a normal pehomenon among at least 450 major species (especially primates) from snails to bottlenose dolphins, but same-sex parenting is a regular feature among for instance flamingo's. Male flamingo couples take over nests and raise the young.
Weebeast, for what it's worth, I am sorry your topic turned out this way. But that is what happens when you take a young thread out if a good, clean home like the frontroom and place it in a brutal, alcohol-infested, severely disfunctional foster home like the backroom. Places like this will screw up a perfectly nice thread real fast.
Oh, and about the whole gay adoption- I really don't give a ****. Go ahead, let the gays **** up their perfectly good lives with children- see if they are happy eighteen years later. I can't believe these people... they find a loophole in the system, they don't have to have children, or get married- and now they want to throw a monkey wrench into all of that?! I would kill to be incapable of producing children! (And keep my balls.)
Vasectomy.
Besides Zorba, maybe by now smoking pot has made infertile anyway ~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
I cant beleve your 1st staement was Followed By That?
This is a disfunctional post in its self,
The masking Happens to lower the whole tone of your post.
Although readiing on seems to imply that was the affect you were aiming for.
Strange way to start a disfuntional post.
And we've now reached the point where you and I always fall apart on this issue Red. I don't care what's legal, I care what's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Oh, and by the way, one old argument deserves another:
Show me where in nature humans can fly or breath underwater. You can't. But we do. And you don't seem to have a problem with either of those things.
Not, it was not a red herring. It was being argued that a certain type of couple (gay) would perhaps be more likely to be unfit parents, and that should be used against them in adoption proceedings. I pointed out that a certain type of couple (black) are statistically provable to be more likely to be unfit parents, but we don't hold that against them. If you can't see the logical connection in that argument, then I don't really know how to further explain it to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But just because you don't understand an argument or can't refute it, doesn't mean it's a red herring.
Sorry Red, but that wasn't sarcasm. You stated an opinion (in this case: "Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.") but presented it as fact. I was simply asking what your sources were for that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Then please understand that I feel no obligation to assign any credibility to your statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So would "second class citizens" be an accurate way to describe your view towards gays?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But not regardless of their sexual orientation, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Probably not. You'll just state more of your opinions as fact then refuse to back them up, then accuse me of being sarcastic/facetious and get angry at me. Maybe you should just go home, have a nice meal with your family, and have a good sleep tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
~:grouphug:
Homosexuals will never be full intergrated into American culture no matter how equal they are compared with straghit people. You never here people say "dude straghit" or you "vaginia sucking s**thead" This whole "gay" thing is overblown anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
nm...
The Stolen Generation in Australia happened when Aboroginal children were removed from their parents... this happened uptil 1972...Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Wrong thread, you vagina sucking hetero ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
In this instance what is legal and what is right for the child is one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
We have artificle aids to help us overcome those issues. Same sex couples adopting children do not fall within that scope - that is way the arguement is a red herring. Just like I mentioned to start off.Quote:
Oh, and by the way, one old argument deserves another:
Show me where in nature humans can fly or breath underwater. You can't. But we do. And you don't seem to have a problem with either of those things.
Race has no issue in this discussion - one can not control what color there skin color is.Quote:
Not, it was not a red herring. It was being argued that a certain type of couple (gay) would perhaps be more likely to be unfit parents, and that should be used against them in adoption proceedings. I pointed out that a certain type of couple (black) are statistically provable to be more likely to be unfit parents, but we don't hold that against them. If you can't see the logical connection in that argument, then I don't really know how to further explain it to you.
The issue has not been that they are more likely to be unfit parents, notice that I have never stated that they would be unfit, I have argued that for the child the traditional family unit is the better arrangement for the well being and healthy development of the child. Also notice that I stated that they adoption agencies and the government need to tighten up the standards for traditional adoption in my opinion.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=26
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=41
The arguement is futher a red herring because if you look at the statistics of black families that function with the traditional couple - ie married mother and father - your attempt here developes farther into a red herring. The statistically potential is greater in the one parent households.
So yes Goofball you have used both a strawman and a red herring to counter my arguement.
For the record I am against men who neglect their responsiblities to their off spring.
Race is a red herring, has shown above.Quote:
But just because you don't understand an argument or can't refute it, doesn't mean it's a red herring.
If you were simply asking what my source was - you would of stated it as you just did.Quote:
Sorry Red, but that wasn't sarcasm. You stated an opinion (in this case: "Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.") but presented it as fact. I was simply asking what your sources were for that statement.
Right back at you. You have not provided the proof to back your claims either.Quote:
Then please understand that I feel no obligation to assign any credibility to your statements.
Incorrect - they have the same responsiblies and obligations as citizens as I do, to include the same fundmental rights. If they wish to change the society in which I live in - they must follow the same steps that I must do to cause change in the society.Quote:
So would "second class citizens" be an accurate way to describe your view towards gays?
Sexual orientation is a behavior. Behaviors can be regulated by the society if it so desires. Again provide the study that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition? If you can provide such a study - then I will rethink my postion on both same-sex adoption and same sex marriage. Provide a convincing arguement that supports your claim and I can be swayed to change my opinion. Throwing facetious and sarcastic comments does not bode well for such an exchange.Quote:
But not regardless of their sexual orientation, apparently.
Oh I have been having fun pointing out the errors in your arguement. Its been rather enjoyable for me. Notice that I have not spouted one angry word concerning this subject. Can you state the same?Quote:
Probably not. You'll just state more of your opinions as fact then refuse to back them up, then accuse me of being sarcastic/facetious and get angry at me. Maybe you should just go home, have a nice meal with your family, and have a good sleep tonight.
~:grouphug:
:no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
If your going to quote - place the quote in context.
The statement reads
Quote:
Originally Posted by myself
For everyone debating weather being gay is influnced by a gene or the environment, this should help:
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Quote:
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
I think rainbows are a particular gay form of weather.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
While hurricanes come across as a bit more red neck and responsible for flash flooding of areas. That lack of control and hostility shows that their environment is causing a great deal of tension and they do not have the skill set to gently deal with things like say the pacific winds in general do.
Being born on sunday Is what makes you Gay...
"and the child who was born on the sabath day, Was bonny and chearfull Happy And GAY"
So there ya go.
~:confused: :gah:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yes :balloon2:Quote:
Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?
Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?
No problem.Quote:
If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.
We can only hope :2thumbsup: actually all that needs to happen is that those who don't adhere to traditional sexual concepts are free to do so. The rest of you can be as prudish as you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Don't really know...nor care. If a gay couple want to adopt a kid more power to em'...considering our world is already too full of disease ridden, starving children without parents, the last thing we need is a few million more of them. If a gay couple wants a kid, stand aside, or be destroyed. :2thumbsup:
It may not encourage them to be gay, but the humiliation that the kids in school put them through, might sometimes make them go a little crazy.
If you refer to 'nature' as a criterion, you are already out of order. That is what the naturalist fallacy is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
And keep your hands off my flamingo's, you brute. I saw that. :stare:
The context was that I established the arguement as a fallacy - be it the wrong one - but the ackownlegment of a fallacy was included in the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Flamingo's are only good for one thing - to look at. :2thumbsup:Quote:
And keep your hands off my flamingo's, you brute. I saw that. :stare:
Wait... you weren't taking me seriously, were you?! :inquisitive: You may as well be listening to Groucho Marx on marital advice! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
For future reference, never, ever take me seriously, or believe anything I say.
After an extended stay at the org, you start to learn this.:laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Making a mental note.....
Any way.
No 1 has remarked on My statement...
I will re iterate the point i was making.
the idea of Adoption is to place the child In a "Safe" loving normal enviroment.
Now imagine Yourself as a child of say 11years.
And your in school, And your parents hapen to be a same sex couple.
With bullying acounting for the majoraty if not All child suicides.
And the fact kids are right lil Vicious things.
How is placing children in a situation where they will be punished for their parents choices "safe".
Also
As homosecuals tend to get infected With STd's And Sti's Such as Hiv And hepititis. Homosexual life expectancy cannot really be that Great,
Also some strains of Hepititis are HIGLY contagous.
Drinking from a cup a person with hepititis has previously used, Can be enough to transmit the disease.
Again
how is that a "safe" enviroment?
Are you sure bullying always happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
And it happens anyway without the homosexual "issue."
May be we want to reteach the parents that gays aren't evil, so their kids won't go evil on adopted children of gays, instead of barring homosexual couples with unfair discrimination?
I thought we've seen a few example of mindless gay-hating on the .orgs lately.
Links and facts to backup your claim, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
I'm pretty sure you have to prove you don't have any contagious diseases before you can adopt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Not at all, I never said that the "thing" they choose is good or bad, I say that the free personal election is a good thing. Now if you're arguing that being gay makes someone a bad person then try to support it or at least tell me when the morality falls in such a subject. Alternatively if you are saying that it's indiferent then you should agree with me in that, if you accept the personal election to be a good thing (and accept it as you would accept a law), then we shouldn't desagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If you're of those incorrectible positivists, then you've even less range of choice in the matter, because it's not a choice and they're genetically determined to be homosexual, wich I disagree, but as you see both arguements fall before the truth, that it's not a bad thing, and wheter it's an election or not it should be accepted by society as another expression of the nature of mankin.
What do you want me to Link to?
a page showing homosexual rates of Std's as oposed to hetrosexuals?
or a link ther says hepititis is Higly contagous?
Also Bulling always happens.
But think about it... Whos gonna be the 1 getting bullied If thers 1 kid in your school who has same sex parents?
--------------
As for proving you dont have std's before adoption..
the fact of the matter is homosexuals (males expeshilay)
Do contract STD's more often than There hetrosexual conterparts,
Even worse...
Some homosexuals Consider having HIV as a status symbol of there homosexuality.
(PLACE LINK HERE)
Now again.
im not saying this is true for all homo sexuals, And i feel as though I need to make that clear.
But I am saying that homosexuals Are more likley to have or contract std's
Whic obviously could be detrimental to the child.
the question here Shouldnt be should you let Gay couples adopt a child.
(that would be for there benafit !not the idea of adoption)
it should be.
Is there likley to be a biger detrimentall affect on the child if it is placed with a same sex couple than if he/she was placed with a hetrosexual couple.
and on avarage, I would say Yes.
but not becous of who they chose to love.
its simply becous homosexuals Are more likley To be Singled out for attac, more likley to die of std's. and less likley to suply a stable and noram enviroment for the child.
the benafits are suposed to be for the child,
Not some ironic trophy for a same sex couple.
Ok where it says Place link here...
i forgot to place the link...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20030912b.html
------------------------
homosexuals likley to catch HIV
5-10% of homosexuals contract HiV... So thats not As bad as i thought.
And infact The Bigest Spread of HIv is from Hetrosexual couples.
However....
Due to there ebing MANY more hetrosexuals than there are homosexuals.
It is very dificult to prove which are most likely to contract STD's
So I will be forced to abandon that Line of comment.
Hepititis contagous link...
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hepa...contagious.htm
Quote:
Personal contact with an infected person. HBV, HCV, and HDV sometimes spread when household members unknowingly come in contact with virus-infected blood or body fluids--most probably through cuts and scrapes or by sharing personal items such as razors and toothbrushes. While it is possible to become infected by contact with saliva, blood and semen remain the major sources of infection.
Other Relivant link as to why Less "safe enviroment"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
Wow. It's three-page long.
I like that idea. Most of kids who get adopted are supposed to be orphans anyway. I rather have gay parents than none at all. To whom do I ask money from? You know what I mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Seriously, who hasn't been bullied? You're telling me straights kids are exempt from bullying? What about the kids who get bullied because of their sexual preferences or many other things? It's a part of growing up. The parents should teach them how to overcome that bullying. Of course it'd also be nice if other parents could teach their kids not to bully and judge others. Then again, we can't always have everything.Quote:
Now imagine Yourself as a child of say 11years.
And your in school, And your parents hapen to be a same sex couple.
With bullying acounting for the majoraty if not All child suicides.
And the fact kids are right lil Vicious things.
How is placing children in a situation where they will be punished for their parents choices "safe".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weebeast
Parents Can teach kids all they Like,
Kids are kids, Its not the parents no matter what you may have heard.
family of 5, consisting of 2 parents & 3 children.
2 of them grow up fine and respectable.
one of them Always in fights, expelled from 3 schools. Abuses drugs. Dosent listen, fights with his father. bullied others, always getting arrested for breaking the law.
Now if it was the Parents fault all 3 would be the same.
thats not how it works.
peer pressure Is the major contributing factor for anti social behavior.
----------
As for heterosexuals being bullied,
of course they get bullied.
but think about it.
a school full of relatively normal kids.
few fat 1's
few skinny 1's
a few from broken homes.
and one who has same sex parents.
Who do you think will be Bullied the most?
Hell Chances are. the fat kids, skinny kids, kids from broken homes, AND the relitivly normal kids Would ALL bully the one with same sex parents
Im willing to state IMHO,
that, this poor kid "with same sex parents" would be called A homosexual. And "aids boy" and All sort of other hideous things from the other children as that is how Life is.
You cant blame the parents.
Making Fun of some 1 is called Making Fun. Cos To them Its FUN.
Insulting others can make your peers laugh.
Peer pressure is A terrible thing.
But never the less.
im sure you can see what i mean.
What happens to a kid who has no siblings then?Quote:
Parents Can teach kids all they Like,
Kids are kids, Its not the parents no matter what you may have heard.
family of 5, consisting of 2 parents & 3 children.
2 of them grow up fine and respectable.
one of them Always in fights, expelled from 3 schools. Abuses drugs. Dosent listen, fights with his father. bullied others, always getting arrested for breaking the law.
Now if it was the Parents fault all 3 would be the same.
thats not how it works.
The one who doesn't do anything about it will be bullied the most.Quote:
As for heterosexuals being bullied,
of course they get bullied.
but think about it.
a school full of relatively normal kids.
few fat 1's
few skinny 1's
a few from broken homes.
and one who has same sex parents.
Who do you think will be Bullied the most?
To me dressing up in Templar tunic and killing random 'infidels' is fun but I don't do that, do I? Having fun to the point where somebody else is hurt is not acceptable.Quote:
You cant blame the parents.
Making Fun of some 1 is called Making Fun. Cos To them Its FUN.
A few things i was thinking of...
-
2005 in Oklahoma there were more divorces than marriages, and divorces do far more damage to a child than gay parents both physically and pyscologically and even more so if the parents are poor. What happens to adopted kids whose parents divorce? What would happen to gay kids when the parents divorce?
All this talk about "traditional families" is moot because marriage is moot, it's a joke, it's done for tax breaks as much as its done to rear children, its not a sacred institution. It's not it's not it's not. Homosexuality may never be accepted by the mainstream, but convincing me that marriage will ever be sacred to the mainstream will never happen with all the shacking up, all the $39 divorces and all the hot chics who marry bald fat guys for "security."
How would we tell when straight couples had been exhausted so the homo could step in and adopt? Would there be a time line? Would it be based on the kids age, like 13-and-no-parents-yet so you can have gay ones? Could someone opposed to gays adopting just never exhaust the "possibilities", just take more applicants and never stop screening people who they know will fail anyway, but hey -- being an orphan is better than having gay parents, right?
What about inheritence? What about estates of the deceased? If a state doesnt allow gay marriage but does allow singles to adopt how would a single adoptee be any worse than gay one?
Personally, I'm glad i didnt have gay parents because I dont like Barbara Striesand, but I'm also a child of working-class divorcees. But if there seems to be too many orphans and not enough parents I don't see how this could be bad since letting gays adopt would not only make one less orphan but also keep them from having a surrogate mom get artificially pregnant for them, thus adding another head into the population.
Also, Should gay men be allowed to have abortions?
Also, this thread is gay.
The fat one without a doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Bullies generally don't go after the parents, they go after the kid.
So if the same sex kid is "normal" then they won't pick on him.
Fat kids are weak hence get picked on.
YEAH BUT WHAT IF THE KID WITH GAY PARENTS IS ALSO THE FAT ONE? THEN HE WOULD BE PICKED ON BY THE OTHER FATTIES TOO!
One thing to consider is an age restriction for the adopted kid. I know I joked about it earlier, but a kid in late to mid teens is not going to have his/her home life under as much scrutiny as a bunch of 7 year olds whose life revolves around mommy and daddy, erm daddy and daddy. But I don't think there would be manuy gay couples who went for it because part of the joy of childrearing is raising the kid from a young age, and not many people want to adopt teenagers, its like you'd get all the worst and none of the fun
Well What if they adopt a 2 year old homophobe?
they wouldnt know untill he was old enough to tell em He thought they were scumm...
Guess I better state..
"I Do not think Homosexuals are scumm. before you start attacking me, It was just a question"