Yes, this was my point on is it ok to have childern be adopted by gay parents. Gay parents are just as loving but is the world not ignorant enough to see that???.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay couples and adoption!!!!! How much do the kids get to say in that??
- Thread starter sargentlard
- Start date
Yes, this was my point on is it ok to have childern be adopted by gay parents. Gay parents are just as loving but is the world not ignorant enough to see that???.
R
Redoubtable
Guest
Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
I think that the biological parents have every right to say what happens to their child. It is their child.
However, once they surrender their parental authority over to the new parents, their say should end permanently.
Originally posted by mouse
In my value system, you have no right denying people with other sexual preferences the possibility of raising children.
No, he isn't. Nature is. A homosexual relationship cannot conceivably produce progeny. Therefore, they really NEVER HAD a right to raise children.
Originally posted by Mystech
A couple with a sterile man or barren woman, or both are just as physicaly incapable of producing a child as a homosexual couple, what's the difference?
I'm afraid that the difference is tremendous. The sterile man or barren woman, if not for their respective disability, would have been able to bear children if engaged in a heterosexual relationship. Their arrangement is perfect, the only flaw is a anatomic disadvantage, which is totally physical and can be observed by modern medicine.
Homosexuality, however, cannot be observed in physical traits. It can only be displayed through behaviorial traits.
This implies that it is not an anatomic or genetic defect, but a psychological one. Seeing this, given homosexual, who is not barren or sterile, could produce children, if he were engaged in the "perfect arrangement," but HE OR SHE CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redoubtable:
To be fair, psychological 'defects' could be argued to be physically based.
But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.
Now from a utilitarian standpoint, it's probably best to allow homosexuals to adopt, but this does not mean that homosexuals have a 'right' to adopt.
This implies that it is not an anatomic or genetic defect, but a psychological one. Seeing this, given homosexual, who is not barren or sterile, could produce children, if he were engaged in the "perfect arrangement," but HE OR SHE CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO.
To be fair, psychological 'defects' could be argued to be physically based.
But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.
Now from a utilitarian standpoint, it's probably best to allow homosexuals to adopt, but this does not mean that homosexuals have a 'right' to adopt.
Originally posted by Redoubtable
I'm afraid that the difference is tremendous. The sterile man or barren woman, if not for their respective disability, would have been able to bear children if engaged in a heterosexual relationship. Their arrangement is perfect, the only flaw is a anatomic disadvantage, which is totally physical and can be observed by modern medicine.
Would you contest, then, that the reason homosexuals don't have a right to adopt a child is due to some spiritual or moral reason?
Originally posted by Xev
But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.
Ahh, yes, but at what point does anyone have a right to stop them? Better even still, at what point does it become rational to deny it?
Redoubtable,
Xev,
I see the restriction of nature as irrelevant. Much of our efforts is directed to overcome nature's boundaries, it seems to be what we humans have specialized in.No, he isn't. Nature is. A homosexual relationship cannot conceivably produce progeny. Therefore, they really NEVER HAD a right to raise children.
I think it has been stated before that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. You are or you are not. Despite the fact that one may not be sterile, it triggers a similar result due to a similar cause - obstacles in procreation, due to circumstances beyond your own control.Homosexuality, however, cannot be observed in physical traits. It can only be displayed through behaviorial traits.
This implies that it is not an anatomic or genetic defect, but a psychological one. Seeing this, given homosexual, who is not barren or sterile, could produce children, if he were engaged in the "perfect arrangement," but HE OR SHE CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO.
Xev,
Granted, but homosexuals do have a right to be treated without discrimination. If heterosexual couples can apply for adoption, would it not be against the constitution to deny homosexual couples the same possibility?But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.
Is the general consenus is to ban abortion and give the children to gays?
Not if the home can be considered unsuitable.Granted, but homosexuals do have a right to be treated without discrimination. If heterosexual couples can apply for adoption, would it not be against the constitution to deny homosexual couples the same possibility?
There have been no genetic proof of this. However it appears that sexual persuasion is developed so early that it beyond their control.I think it has been stated before that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. You are or you are not. Despite the fact that one may not be sterile, it triggers a similar result due to a similar cause - obstacles in procreation, due to circumstances beyond your own control.
Okinrus,
This is indeed another criterium. When applying for adoption, you would have to meet some requirements. The question is whether heterosexuality can be one of those requirements without violating the right of homosexuals to be treated equally.Not if the home can be considered unsuitable.
Yes, some requirements should be met as e.g. financial stability when adopting a child. This is discrimination as well, by definition. However, the reasoning behind this is of a different kind and not prohibited by (e.g. dutch, i wouldn't know about u.s.) law. A child will cost you money, therefore you should be able to secure funds for it. A child does not necessarily need two parents of different sexes, though.Anyways the insurance agency is allowed to "discriminate" on income, education, and age.
NeoBeetnik38
Registered Senior Member
A homosexual relationship cannot conceivably produce progeny. Therefore, they really NEVER HAD a right to raise children.
May I borrow your logic for a second?
A child was born without a leg. Therefore, he has no right to walk.
A child is born deaf. Therefore, he has no right to communicate with anyone.
Blah Blah Blah Blah
So it would seem that the ability to conceive is the only thing in detirmining what makes a good parent?
Abusive parents have every right to raise children because they can concieve, and yet an infertil couple can't be because nature clearly doesn't want them two.
Aren't I a Smart 1?
"Don't you see, they'd altered what rabbits do naturally because they thought they could do better? And if they altered their ways, so can we if we like."
-Blackburry, Watership Down by Richard Adams, 144.
Surprisingly there are a lot of pro-homosexual arguments that one can draw from Watership Down, desipite it's being a kids book about rabbits going on an adventure. . . it's English, what do you expect?
-Blackburry, Watership Down by Richard Adams, 144.
Surprisingly there are a lot of pro-homosexual arguments that one can draw from Watership Down, desipite it's being a kids book about rabbits going on an adventure. . . it's English, what do you expect?
Munchmausen
Registered Senior Member
discrimination
Driving, like adoption, is a privilege, not a right. We allow people to drive based on demonstration of relevant responsibility and abilities. Such is the same for adoption. The question about homosexuals adopting needs to be discussed in those terms. Is there a trait inherent to homosexuality which would inhibit sufficient ability and responsibility to raise a child? Is there something about being homosexual which immediately makes you incapable of raising healthy children?
Note that I didn't ask whether it would be more difficult under such circumstances, but whether it was possible to do so. So far, I have seen no evidence on this thread that homosexuals are inherently incapable, therefore there is no reason to conclude that it is a valid criteria.
Driving, like adoption, is a privilege, not a right. We allow people to drive based on demonstration of relevant responsibility and abilities. Such is the same for adoption. The question about homosexuals adopting needs to be discussed in those terms. Is there a trait inherent to homosexuality which would inhibit sufficient ability and responsibility to raise a child? Is there something about being homosexual which immediately makes you incapable of raising healthy children?
Note that I didn't ask whether it would be more difficult under such circumstances, but whether it was possible to do so. So far, I have seen no evidence on this thread that homosexuals are inherently incapable, therefore there is no reason to conclude that it is a valid criteria.
Re: discrimination
Very well put. The question is: what is the qualitative difference that makes homosexuals less able to be good parents than heterosexuals? It's a missing factor in the argument, and I for one can't find it.
Originally posted by Munchmausen
Note that I didn't ask whether it would be more difficult under such circumstances, but whether it was possible to do so. So far, I have seen no evidence on this thread that homosexuals are inherently incapable, therefore there is no reason to conclude that it is a valid criteria.
Very well put. The question is: what is the qualitative difference that makes homosexuals less able to be good parents than heterosexuals? It's a missing factor in the argument, and I for one can't find it.
NeoBeetnik38
Registered Senior Member
Besides, the best way to learn If there are any serious problems is to wait for them to happen. The knowledge and understanding we'd gain from such mistakes would be worth it.
Male and female role model
I think a child needs a male and a female role model. If it is a same sex marriage there is only one. They don't see what the other sex/gender should behave like and such. I think the child would be confused socially. Then again he can't be much worst then the rest of humanity.
Maybe you could let it only happen at a small amount now and study if they turn out diffrently. Then again there won't be any non-bias studies probably.
I think a child needs a male and a female role model. If it is a same sex marriage there is only one. They don't see what the other sex/gender should behave like and such. I think the child would be confused socially. Then again he can't be much worst then the rest of humanity.
Maybe you could let it only happen at a small amount now and study if they turn out diffrently. Then again there won't be any non-bias studies probably.
Munchmausen
Registered Senior Member
exposure
If the only role models the children are exposed to are their parents, they're being overly sheltered. They're apparently not allowed to interact with extended family, family friends, teachers, or community leaders.
If the only role models the children are exposed to are their parents, they're being overly sheltered. They're apparently not allowed to interact with extended family, family friends, teachers, or community leaders.
Re: Male and female role model
Bleh, gender roles are arbitrary social constructs, anyway, and who’s to say that a homosexual couple won't have one member displaying traditionally male gender traits (not physical sexual traits, I mean behavioral traits), and the other displaying traditionally female traits, or perhaps some sort of mix on both parts.
Anyway, either way I don't see that that's really such a huge problem, or really even problematic at all.
Originally posted by Thaug
I think a child needs a male and a female role model.
Bleh, gender roles are arbitrary social constructs, anyway, and who’s to say that a homosexual couple won't have one member displaying traditionally male gender traits (not physical sexual traits, I mean behavioral traits), and the other displaying traditionally female traits, or perhaps some sort of mix on both parts.
Anyway, either way I don't see that that's really such a huge problem, or really even problematic at all.
Originally posted by Thaug
Well if thats the way society is you can complain all you want but it won't change just for you. Gender roles do exist and you sorta have to learn them.
No one NEEDs to learn gender roles. They're easily observed in pop culture, and awareness of them is really the extent to which one NEEDS to be prepared for them. Dose anyone need to have them ingraned into their own persona and be trapped by their limitations? I don't think so, they're really not that usefull.
Originally posted by Thaug
Also I thought gay people didn't have a male role and a female role it was just 2 gay guys.
Do all straight people have cookie cutter relationships? of course not, their relationships are as different as the people involved in them. Homosexual relationships are the same way. In some cases one will be more submissive, or fit the traditional female gender role, and the other the male role, and others this won't be true. We can hardly paint such a generalization as to say ALL relationships involving any minority group will involve certain factors, or display certain traits.