should gay couples be allowed to adopt and have kids?

EmptyForceOfChi said:
do you think it would mess with the childs head baron? i personaly think it is very possible that the child would turn out a bit messed up compared to "normal kids"
Click to expand...

Well, think of it this way ....how would you have liked growing up with two mommies or two daddies, and all the other kids had one mommy and one daddy? What would all your friends say ...assuming you had any?

EmptyForceOfChi said:
whats wrong with gay marraige?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman ...of legal age, and not related directly by blood. Other forms of relationships are variously called "living together", "roommates", "friends", "fuck buddies", etc ....but none of them are called "marriages" because they AIN'T marriages. Would you call a Ford car a Chevy? Why not? Hmm, 'cause it AIN'T one!

Baron Max
 
EmptyForceofChi:

You "think". That is key here. The existing data do not support that outlook. Children of gay parents do no worse than their heterosexually-parented counterparts, and in some circumstances surpass them.
 
BaronMax said:

Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman ...of legal age, and not related directly by blood.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why conservatives in so many states are scrambling to put new definitions on the books to match yours.

Maybe they should have thought of defining marriage before. But they didn't.
 
the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
Click to expand...
From http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...marriage&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
In fact on the three links I picked from Google (marriage definition) none of them get into what sex the partners are until the sceond or third paragraph. And then they say only that it's
most commonly between a man and a woman
Click to expand...
How about:
Definition: The definition of marriage depends on not only the historial period, but also on the geographical location and the cultural traditions of the individuals involved in the marriage relationship.

A general definition of marriage is that it is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

Being married also gives legitmacy to sexual relations within the marriage. Forms of marriage include:

* monogamy
* polygamy
* polygyny
* polyandry
* same-sex
* pragmatic (arranged)
* romantic
* forced
Click to expand...
from http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/g/marriage.htm
 
tiassa said:
EmptyForceofChi:

You "think". That is key here. The existing data do not support that outlook. Children of gay parents do no worse than their heterosexually-parented counterparts, and in some circumstances surpass them.
Click to expand...

yes i think, whats wrong with that? surpass in what? since when did this become about academics. they might do well in class but what about socialy and mentaly?

there is no evidence to support it either way like you said, so it could harm them alot we dont know yet.


peace.
 
Nothing's wrong with it. But the existing data does suggest other than the opinion you've expressed. I'll try to dig some up later this week (I'm running out of time before I depart back to Seattle, so I'm not up for doing the digging right now). But, for instance, some data suggests that children of gay parents relate better to their teachers and other adults of influence in their lives. The problem with the homophobes' counterpoint is that they're not offering any data, just making points about the scale and nature of each study. They're not building any real data of their own, just trying to tear down what seems to be a legitimate scientific inquiry. So, yes, the existing data could be so totally wrong that gay parents are destroying children, but that is neither evident in any data nor in my personal experience.

When we get down to the harm done by bigotry in the schools, the problem there is that in blaming this damage on the gay parents, we're only emboldening and legitimizing bigotry in our society.
 
but to be honest if everybody was gay there would be no human race, its natural to breed, and gay people cant breed, im not insulting any person or bashing anybody im bieng totaly honest.

if we all one day turned gay, how long would the human race last? the human body is evolved and designed to have sex with the opposite gender.

peace.
 
All good. But nature won't let the whole species go gay. The penguins haven't yet, and there are gay penguins.
 
The fact is many gay couples ALREADY have children. Lesbians can go to a sperm clinic, and men often have children from a previous hetero marriage. Of course they should not be prevented from enjoying the rights that hetero couples do.

As far as teasing in school, this is the result of backwards attitudes towards homosexuality which are fading fast in society.

My mom likes men, does that mean I will? No. I kiss my dad and grandfather, and brothers, does that make me gay? No. Does allowing gays the rights of straight people encourage homosexuality, as if society could engineer the number of homosexuals? No.
 
Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. The kids end up totally screwed up. They should not be allowed to marry either. Marriage is between a man and woman. Not two people of the same sex. That's disgusting.

Homosexuality is a choice. A bad choice.
 
For the benefit of the kid involved absolutely not. I really doubt there is a fair chance for a kid to grow and mature with homosexual parents.

If homosexuals want to have a pet, why don't they get a dog, a cat or whatever? For the very basic reason that children do not come from homosexual relationships. On these grounds, what right do homosexuals have for parenting?
 
Sandy, how do you know the kids end up screwed up? Having sex is always a choice but being gay is not.

Argyroneta,
What right does anyone have to be a parent? There's no special requirements. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that should have bought a pet instead of having a child, but who are we to judge? Why are gays considered somehow less responsible?
 
It's proberly yust as traumatising for the kid as something like a divorce or so. Unless one of the dad's insist on being called diddy/mommy and wheres makeup and a dresses/Leather in the house.
And offcourse if the kids enters the parents bed room.
So in the end gay people are proberly yust as qualified to take care of kids as hetero sexuals so somewhere between don't now 60-80 % of them (considring all the mental stuff most of them went through in their youth)
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
i think that homosexual couples who "have" or adopt childre have a severe effect on the childs mind, if a boy was to be raised by 2 guys, i think he definately would be influenced by homosexuality and might turn him gay aswell,

if 2 women raise a girl she is most likely going to have a same skewed effect. also the children are going to have a very hard time socialising at school, due to other children picking on them, and i think it could have a very negative effect on the childs mind,


because bieng homosexual goes against the natural cycle of reproduction, if all men were gay then the human race would not continue. and a child that is raised by a gay couple i think pesonaly is more likely to suffer from various types of confusion,


what do other people think about gay couples that raise kids? will the kids be confused and have an altered view? will they suffer very badly at school from bullying and pay the price?



peace.
Click to expand...

I think you need a better reason to prohibit gay adoption than "I think it might have severe effects on a child's mind." *I* think that being born into a poor family might have severe effects on a child's mind too, or a rich family, or a family of strict catholics. Should they all be forbidden to adopt children?

Obviously you meant "severe and adverse" effects, but then, how can you prove "the child might become gay" is "adverse"? You can't, as that is a subjective matter. From a subjective standpoint, I might assert that I think being a scientologist, or a Mormon, or just plain 'believing in God without proof' is a severe and adverse effect on a child's mind. I don't think you'd agree I should therefore be able to discriminate on the basis of religion.'

The problem is only worse if you broaden it up from "adoption" to "having kids" as you seem to. What are you going to do, have forced sterilizations? Have child protective services swoop in and forcibly remove the natural children of gay parents?

It seems to me that the state should remain neutral on adoptions unless they find some condition that is more universally acknowledged to be harmful to the children than mere homosexuality.
 
Because despite all the liberal arguments that homosexuality is ok, it's not. Most Americans do not want homosexual marriage or any kind of special homo rights. They still think it's an abomination.

Kids have enough problems growing up. They don't need 2 Moms or 2 Dads in the same home.
 
It's about having loving and caring parents. You talk about priorities? It doesn't matter what sexual orientation they are, it's about who they are.

Children of heterosexual parents can grow up to be extremely screwed up and their are lots walking around right now and are from dysfunctional homes and are dysfunctional themselves. Idiot.
 
peta9 said:
It's about having loving and caring parents.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And since homos can't be parents, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. See? Simple, ain't it?

peta9 said:
Children of heterosexual parents can grow up to be extremely screwed up and their are lots walking around right now and are from dysfunctional homes and are dysfunctional themselves.
Click to expand...

And that proves ....what?

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top