Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

[Flores]

Originally posted by Raithere
Can you quantify this though? You're making a blanket assertion here when, as Ghassan stated, we're dealing with relative values. Even accepting (which I personally do not) that homosexuality is morally wrong aren't there worse situations in which to place a child?

Why the glass half empty Raithere. Let's think of better places to place the children instead of forcing me to accept your one way street solution.

Originally posted by Raithere
What you mean to say is that is would disorient them from your system of morals. Theirs are still in development. And although they will surely be heavily influenced by the morals that you teach them they will not duplicate them exactly.

Yes they will be disoriented and biased. They will not learn about the challenges and the realities of the sexes and their interaction. They'll get a one sided picture. They will never see their dad respecting and teaming with a female and thus they will not learn this important lesson. They'll be ignorant in many retrospects and will be used as a cheer leading campaign to serve the gay agenda.

Originally posted by Raithere
And how much more therapy would it take to straighten them out if they had to prostitute themselves on the streets when they were 10? What if they die from exposure?

~Raithere

Again you flash me with the doom scenario and then immediately offer the sucky alternative as a solution. As I said before, why would use the kids as laboratory rats in an environment that we are not sure how it will perform, and while many straight couples who are seeking children are denied the opportunity to adopt....the problem lies in allocation and better programming, not in introducing gay adoption.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Reproductive succes is what its all about.

Would you then give the same judgment to people who choose not to reproduce? What about the over-population in China and India? Or does your morality insist that we should all reproduce like rabbits regardless of the consequences?

Perhaps you could elaborate on your concern ?

One, I do not find that the 9/10 ratio you've provided rings true in my community. It also neglects that fathers have a large positive impact upon the development of a child (fatherless children are statistically more likely to drop out of school and to become criminals). Additionally, considering the state of public education in this country I do not trust the government to do a better job than most fathers.

~Raithere

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Originally posted by Flores
For example, you are presenting us witih vivid gloom and doom episode of the kids. There is no doubt that orphans and neglected children suffer, but then you flash the gay solution as if it's the only solution to the problem. This is not correct. We must view the gay solution in comparison to other solutions and not in comparison to the magnitude of the kids problems....that's false advertising.

But this was not my intent at all , I do not consider it as a solution but as a better alternative , if such situation may accur . It is not a competition between solutions as I have presented it , I can think of many ways to solve it even if I would consider the gay issue so problematic .

What you havent answered to is the relativity within the parenting perspective , since so many other aspects/qualities/attributes of parents that are as problematic at very least as a gayness problem . Are you not overjudging gayness within the matrix of problems that parenting can have ?

Again, we are clouding the problem and using existing problems of our society to create new ones. I'm not saying that kids should stay on the street, but the option presented sucks, why don't we come up with better alternatives for our children for god sake.

But the problem is that this isnt happening , certainly not sufficient enough to disprove the fact that the problem that replaces is many times less .

My question to you is if you can explain me the exact new problems that accur , in compare to average hetero-sexual parenting , as I indicated previously .

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Originally posted by Raithere
Would you then give the same judgment to people who choose not to reproduce?

Yes , they die out . End of story for them .

What about the over-population in China and India? Or does your morality insist that we should all reproduce like rabbits regardless of the consequences?

I might have a very different outlook on overpopulation problems in general to begin with , you see I do not acknowledge them for as long there is globally enough to go around for everybody . I do not believe you should reproduce like rabbits regardless of the consequences , it is just that I do not believe the consequences to be fairly presented . Those who have little would cope with having slightly less , those who have far toomuch will be on the first row complaining .

One, I do not find that the 9/10 ratio you've provided rings true in my community.

Perhaps this has to do with your community , perhaps this has to do with that what you define as problematic/failing . I think that assistance in intellectual development is the main issue on where it fails , and perhaps on this issue our defintions may differ . For instance , raising a child to get good grades and go to college to find a good job I consider practical , but not intelligent behaviour to be promoted in itself in any way .

It also neglects that fathers have a large positive impact upon the development of a child

I am sure they do (my observation is not absolute ofcourse) but can you specify the positive impacts , such as ?

fatherless children are statistically more likely to drop out of school and to become criminals

Clearly this is a bad compare , as current sociological/psychological (on both kid and mom) state is not the situation in which the concept 'fatherless' would be implemented . Also I want to mention that perhaps my assertion implied that the dad has to go , but what I am talking about is that his role has to change completely , and that educational aspects need to be handed over to a more suithable (assuming) community . There are certain things such as security/safety , trust etc that fathers do just fine with , it is the intellectual development that I am concerned about .

Additionally, considering the state of public education in this country I do not trust the government to do a better job than most fathers.

Ofcourse there needs to be assumption that the communal system is superior , indeed reality shows us very , very different .

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Personally, I'm with Plato and Pollux all the way. Parenting is barbaric; I think the government or community should raise children.

It seems obvious that you don't have children.

I believe Ghassan corrected your assertion in a pretty reasonable way, though I think it's a messy messy road to attempt to determine criteria for fathers parenting and means by which to assess them. I don't think 9/10 fathers are the brutes he asserts and worse, how would we even determine this in the first place? One man's brute is another man's hero. *sigh* I'm not saying that there is not the potential to eventually make such a determination, but I don't think it is remotely wise to attempt such dilineation at this juncture.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
But this was not my intent at all , I do not consider it as a solution but as a better alternative , if such situation may accur . It is not a competition between solutions as I have presented it , I can think of many ways to solve it even if I would consider the gay issue so problematic .

You keep mentioning the gay parenting scenario as an alternative, but I yell at my consultant engineers who bring me one solution....I always ask for six alternatives as a rule of thumb.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
My question to you is if you can explain me the exact new problems that accur , in compare to average hetero-sexual parenting , as I indicated previously .

For starters, no sexual diversity presented to the kid.

When I picked my husband to marry, I really valued the fact that he was acquaint and compassion toward women and men alike. My husband understood that women are not being silly when they suffer from headaches and hot flashes. He respected his mom and understood her troubles and challenges. My husband understood that men are not useless as may be taught in a Lesbian relationship. He understood the role of a man or a father under a healthy light. A gay marriage is not a good fair unbiased representation of our society that is composed of both men and women. If I could sew gays for sexual discrimination, I would.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Flores
Why the glass half empty Raithere. Let's think of better places to place the children instead of forcing me to accept your one way street solution.

Because I don't see anyone else volunteering. There are more adoptable children than there are people willing and capable of adopting. There are children dying on the streets. I cannot conceive of a how being raised by caring gay parents can be worse than the pain and suffering they can experience on the streets or even an abusive heterosexual household.

Yes they will be disoriented and biased. They will not learn about the challenges and the realities of the sexes and their interaction. They'll get a one sided picture.

As opposed to heterosexual parents who always give a healthy and realistic demonstration of the interaction of the sexes? Please Flores, sexual orientation is not the determining factor as to a parent's ability to teach their children.

They will never see their dad respecting and teaming with a female and thus they will not learn this important lesson.

Nor will they without any parents at all. Does it really matter that they see dad respecting and teaming with mom or should respect and cooperation be a part of all relationships? The example may differ but the lesson is the same.

They'll be ignorant in many retrospects and will be used as a cheer leading campaign to serve the gay agenda.

What gay agenda? You mean the agenda that people should be treated as equals?

Again you flash me with the doom scenario and then immediately offer the sucky alternative as a solution.

The doom and gloom scenario is simply reality. And I've yet to see a legitimate concern regarding children being raised by homosexuals. Certainly nothing that would even begin to convince me that life on the streets is preferable.

As I said before, why would use the kids as laboratory rats in an environment that we are not sure how it will perform

There are plenty of children being raised by gay parents already and it 'performs' just fine. In fact, I went to high-school with 3 families who had gay parents. All 6 of the children that I knew personally were straight. Actually, I would say that the gay parents took more concern over the unbiased sexual education of their children than most of the heterosexual families that I know who mostly ignore the topic or are extremely biased. The gay parents, you see, were quite sensitive to the issues and concerns of sexual identity while most heterosexuals take sexual identity as given.

and while many straight couples who are seeking children are denied the opportunity to adopt....the problem lies in allocation and better programming, not in introducing gay adoption.

You are speaking, almost strictly, of white children in the U.S. for which there are more adoptive parents than children. This is not true for most other 'races' and nations and is certainly not true worldwide; the UN estimates that there are 150 million street children world wide. (http://pangaea.org/street_children/kids.htm)

~Raithere

 

[Flores]

Now, let us really zoom in on this.

Originally posted by Raithere
You are speaking, almost strictly, of white children in the U.S. for which there are more adoptive parents than children. This is not true for most other 'races' and nations and is certainly not true worldwide; the UN estimates that there are 150 million street children world wide. (http://pangaea.org/street_children/kids.htm)

~Raithere

I'm glad you brought the numbers to this debate. So for 150 million street children, how many gay couples are out there who are interested in adopting non white immigant children. Are we blowing things out of proportion when we claim that gays have a solution to our children.

My question is, what is the real motive for this push....Is it to merely help the children or to provide the gay couples with the American dream including the marriage, house, and adopted pets.

 

[lixluke]

Originally posted by Jolly Rodger
I think this is wrong. I think a child should be brought up in natural surroundings.

Who gives a crap. With the exception of gender differences, a child being raised by two parents of the same sex is no different than a child with both sexes.
Your so called "natural" surroundings is a pretty loaded statement.
The child might face ridicule for having homos for parents, but that is no different from a child facing ridicule for having parents of a different culture.

Originally posted by Raithere
aren't there worse situations in which to place a child?

Yes. What about a child being raised in a nut house that teaches women to cover up their entire bodies?

 

[Raithere]

Re: Now, let us really zoom in on this.

Originally posted by Flores
Are we blowing things out of proportion when we claim that gays have a solution to our children.

I don't think anyone is saying that it's the solution. But it's one more child with a home and caregivers who love them. That's gotta be worth something.

My question is, what is the real motive for this push....Is it to merely help the children or to provide the gay couples with the American dream including the marriage, house, and adopted pets.

Adopted Pets? Are you truly insinuating that homosexuals perceive children as pets?

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Re: Now, let us really zoom in on this.

Originally posted by Flores
My question is, what is the real motive for this push....

There are children who are living on the streets and there are people who are willing to adopt those children and give them a home and family.

There is another group of people who would prevent those children from having homes because they disagree with an unrelated moral value of the potential parents; one that has no demonstrable effect upon the child.

~Raithere

 

[SpyMoose]

Not that I want to be judgmental, but anyone who thinks a child should die in the street, or grow up in an orphanage rather than live in a home with a gay couple who wants to raise children aught to be shot and flayed for the national good.

In my home my parents sex life has never been a topic that they particularly discussed with me, and I assume it’s the same in most homes, and would be the same in gay families homes. So the only real case against it is that perhaps the child would not get a variety of exposure to adults of various genders, which I think unlikely because gay families may still have friends of various genders, and adults of various genders can be found in places like school, where the child will spend much of his time. Of course there is also that other ineffable drawback “Gays are bad” which is so because people say it a lot, who knows how much “bad” we want children exposed to after all. Maybe they are better off as ten year old crack whores than in a supportive family unit where two people care for them, but both are of *gasp* the same gender.

 

[Raha]

Originally posted by Flores
I'm afraid so Raithere. A too good and comfortable fake environment will confuse the kids and spoil them....Their left and right side of the brain would explode due to the contradictions that they will be experiencing. This will burn out the fighter spirit in our children so fast and disorient the coordinate system of their morals. If my kids intuition led them to disagree with the style of their parents life, and it will, because that is the natural correct thought process for any human, they would need plenty of pretty good therapy or Raithere's meditation sessions to recover, understand. and staighten the contradictions in their life..

.

Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis "good" and "evil": --power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the "evil" man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the "good" man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being.

My judgment is my judgment": no one else is easily entitled to it - that is what such a philosopher of the future may perhaps say of himself. One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. "Good" is no longer good when one's neighbor mouths it. And how should there be a "common good"! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare.

Friedrich Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil

 

[sargentlard]

Re: Re: Re: Should gay couples be allowed to adopted children?

Originally posted by Flores
I would personally choose the street, at least I have a chance to escape the filth by getting an education and a job.

I hear now a days college students working as prostitue and stripping to pay for tuition. They say that's much better, easier, and brings more money than washing dishes for $5.00 an hour...Perhaps those same students would agree that living with a gay couple is better than the streets.

How conveniently you judge. So gays and strippers are on the same playing field for you huh? You easily shunned the welfare of the child over personal pride....excellent.

Let's see: grow up on the streets by begging, whoring, stripping, drug dealing or live with a sensible gay couple and good surroundings.

I'm afraid so Raithere. A too good and comfortable fake environment will confuse the kids and spoil them....Their left and right side of the brain would explode due to the contradictions that they will be experiencing. This will burn out the fighter spirit in our children so fast and disorient the coordinate system of their morals. If my kids intuition led them to disagree with the style of their parents life, and it will, because that is the natural correct thought process for any human, they would need plenty of pretty good therapy or Raithere's meditation sessions to recover, understand. and staighten the contradictions in their life..

A bad argument to justify an even worst state of thought.

Yes. What about a child being raised in a nut house that teaches women to cover up their entire bodies?

Coolskill if you're going to bash Islam do it with some sensibility please.

A gay marriage is not a good fair unbiased representation of our society that is composed of both men and women. If I could sew gays for sexual discrimination, I would.

So for you all gay guys are hetro hating, anarchists and hedonistic fuckers who'll raise their child to be a disciple of Rupal????

They'll be ignorant in many retrospects and will be used as a cheer leading campaign to serve the gay agenda.

Ignorant childern?.....seriously do you live in the modern world. How many boys today refer to women as "bitches" and "shorty's".....obviously they didn't set the world on fire through their morals by being raised in a "normal" home.

Flores this amazes me that you'd say such. This coming from such a sensible woman scares me.

 

[lixluke]

Originally posted by sargentlard
Coolskill if you're going to bash Islam do it with some sensibility please.

I am not bashing anything.
I am merely pointing out that there are children in worse situations to worry about than something so insignificant as being raised by homos.

Not even all muslims dress like that?
If I'm bashing anybody, it's the idiots that follow those rules.

 

[Mystech]

Re: Now, let us really zoom in on this.

Originally posted by Flores

My question is, what is the real motive for this push....Is it to merely help the children or to provide the gay couples with the American dream including the marriage, house, and adopted pets.

Why that's just absurd. Surely there isn't any good reason to let homosexuals have equal rights in any nation! What a rediculous idea!

I see no reason that homosexuals should not have the right to adopt. They won't have the same positive image of men and women together, you say? There are far more role models for kids to look to than just parrents, and often much better ones as well. What about in a case with heterosexual parrents in which the children will not be shown healthy homosexual relationships, such as in your own family flores? Why if this were allowed to run rampant we would have children who grow up into homophobic little monsters and they'd start pushing for all sorts of legislation to deny them their human rights and equal protection under the law! Oh wait a minuiet, that IS how the world works already. Crap.

 

[Flores]

Re: Re: Now, let us really zoom in on this.

Originally posted by Raithere
There are children who are living on the streets and there are people who are willing to adopt those children and give them a home and family.

I heard Bin Laden is adopting children as well. He'll give them food, shelter, and military education. They'll be loved......
Let's give our children to Bin Laden just becuase he is willing to adopt them

 

[Flores]

Re: Re: Now, let us really zoom in on this.

Originally posted by Mystech
What about in a case with heterosexual parrents in which the children will not be shown healthy homosexual relationships, such as in your own family flores?

You could count on it buddy? We don't teach filth and screw up kids morals in the Flores family in the name of freedom......We don't abuse freedom in the Flores family, we know where to draw the line, the line that you're jumping rope with from side to side until the contradictions in your head will eventually send you to the phsycic ward.....You are free though to teach your kids whatever garbage you wish......Of course I'm assuming that you're a responsible adult with a job, a family, and kids.....Are you Mystech?, Are you a head of household, or are you spending your days pressing the pimples on your face.

 

[Flores]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should gay couples be allowed to adopted children?

Originally posted by sargentlard
How conveniently you judge. So gays and strippers are on the same playing field for you huh? You easily shunned the welfare of the child over personal pride....excellent.

Let's see: grow up on the streets by begging, whoring, stripping, drug dealing or live with a sensible gay couple and good surroundings.

Look at the mirror Sarge, You accuse me of judging and you have just judged millions of children on the street by calling them beggers, whore, stripper, drug dealers....., while so many kids on the street make it and make it good.....You convineatly called every gay couple sensible and good....excellent as you say to me.

If you are trying so hard to be fair, be a good ref....Becauase so far, I don't understand many of your calls.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Not that I want to be judgmental, but anyone who thinks a child should die in the street,

I read the entire thread and never saw anyone who promoted that kids die on the street. Do I assume that you're the author of this proposal? Because last I checked, I was quetioning the alternatives for the childrens to gay parenting and not whether kids should be left on the street or not? which is not even a question.

I'm questioning whether a child should be placed with a gay couple given that there is a straight couple who are willing to adopt them? Get it....and don't tell me that we are talking about kids that noone is adopting, because last I checked, there are thousands if not millions of straight couples all over the world who are on waiting lists or being denied adoption because they're not between optimum age of 25-35 years.