Should Homosexuals Be allowed to adopt children? (Let's give this one more try)

[ReighnStorm]

I believe it has now become obvious that ReighnStorm is either not reading the posts of others, or does not understand the question she is asking. Would you attempt to re-phrase your question in a number of ways, ReighnStorm? As it stands it appears you are being remarkably dissrespectful at the way people are heaping evedence and answers at your feet, and you act as if you see nothing.

What I don't understand is why you don't understand. What I am saying is: what are the benefits of children being raised by homosexuals? If you must compare it to something, then compare it to a heterosexual couple. Which is mainly who adoption agencies choose to place most children. Is that simple enough for you HUH ?????

 

[ReighnStorm]

What is a benefit, compared against nothing(which is how you establish what a benefit is), of having straight parents?

An advantage? Acceptance. Not worrying about people's sex, sexual orientations, and from this, skin color, etc. etc. Not judging people by who they sleep with but by their character.

A benefit does not have to necessarily be compared to a negative just to make the benefit stand out. I only want to know the benefit (specifically) I'm sorry you guys can't understand me. For some reason I thought you guys could think about this for yourself. I specifically asked that you state the benefits. You can compare all you want but the reply was suppose to be the benefit only

 

[ReighnStorm]

In what Universe, ReighnStorm, is "good" constant?

To wit: If heterosexuals lived up to their obligations, the most part of this discussion could be avoided. It ain't gays producing the 110,000+ kids in the United States each year without a home.

That's partly my point! If heterosexuals can barely raise a proper child (and sexual orientation plays a major part of growing up) then how is it better for homosexuals to do it. You can't even figure out what your are yet! -reighnstorm-

So ... live up to your end, and you won't have to worry about anyone else's.

What are you talking about......incoherent speaches.....[/ - reighnstorm-



Stop going out of your way to compel us to believe you're stupid, and perhaps some of that frustration will abate. Were you dignified, respectful, or even simply decent, that would be one thing.

You have the option to believe what you want and so do I. No one has to be what you want them to be. You don't run anything here except your fruity mouth- reighnstorm- that would be 3 things

But if you are unable to grasp the point, and are unwilling to even try, perhaps you should reconsider whether this is a discussion you're prepared to take part in. In general terms, this community resents ageisms inasmuch as we don't appreciate condesenscion based on age, but in your case the only real question is whether you're nine years old or a severely stunted fourteen.

[Like I said before T. Your a biased homosexual. No reason for you to even argue with me anymore.[/-reighnstorm-

Since you have such a unique idea of what constitutes a benefit, perhaps you'd best outline your criteria, so we can cease frustrating you with the irrelevant upshots of having a stable family.

You could never frustrate me. I was talking to John when I said stop yelling at me.(it was a joke for him) At least his giving me a true argument instead of being biased.-reighnstorm-

In the meantime, other homophobes and traditionalists may wish to consider disclaiming you, since you're the personification of everything reasonably vilified in the traditionalist voice.

Look, I can't help that people don't like you. Give it a rest why don't you. Your the one insecure :bugeye: -reighnstorm-

If you brought a rational aspect to the discussion, you would find yourself better met. If you brought an iota of respect to the discussion, you would find yourself better met. However, as it is, you're widely regarded as an idiot, and as either a posting member or a moderator, there's not much I can do to change that image. It's up to you.

When I brought it you did not reply just kept going on and on about a rule. I admitted I was wrong I'm womanly like that. Something you can probably only hope to be.-reighnstorm-

So let's start with an easy question: What constitutes a benefit for the purposes of your inquiry?

Again. What are the benefits of homosexuals adopting children?
BENEFIT ONLY!!!!!!! If you must compare then do it against heterosexual adoption. DANG..... :bugeye:

 

[ReighnStorm]

If you can't draw the conclusions, a two-parent homosexual household is better than a one parent anything household. A one-person homosexual household is better than a no parent household. And, to make a really long leap, using lots of logic, so bear with me. A two parent homosexual household is phenomenally better than a no parent household.

I couldn't have made Tiassa's amazingly clear statement any clearer AT ALL.

I would have had to ask you that what is the benefit of a no parent housedhold compared to a homosexual household for this to be the correct answer. That is not what I asked. If you ask me to even compare that then what about a single parent household compared to a gay single parent household??? What's the benefit?

 

[Tiassa]

What part of that am I supposed to take seriously, Max?

See? Don't have to be a "rational case" for any of it (or for any thing, for that matter). "What I say IS rational, dammit!" ...or haven't you heard that before?

Couldn't be this, since you're aware this discussion treads on issues of public policy, for which a rational basis is not only necessary but also useful.

As I'm sure that you're aware, humans do that all the time, have been doing it all down through history. Are you attempting to claim otherwise here?

Couldn't possibly be this part. Although I suppose you could be claiming that it's the best way to do things, but since you haven't done so directly, I won't put those words in your mouth.

The idiocies of history are not necessarily justified by their mere existence.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

I would have had to ask you that what is the benefit of a no parent housedhold compared to a homosexual household for this to be the correct answer. That is not what I asked. If you ask me to even compare that then what about a single parent household compared to a gay single parent household??? What's the benefit?

What's the basis for doubt? You haven't established that yet.

That's partly my point! If heterosexuals can barely raise a proper child (and sexual orientation plays a major part of growing up) then how is it better for homosexuals to do it. You can't even figure out what your are yet!

Two words for you, and I don't think they're particularly foreign to heterosexual minds: family planning.

What are you talking about......incoherent speaches.....

No, that's just you.

You have the option to believe what you want and so do I. No one has to be what you want them to be.

As I've noted to Baron Max, this discussion treads on issues of public policy. Specifically, you have the right to believe whatever dumb crap you want, but since you're addressing public policy (e.g. adoption policy), it would behoove you to understand that if you expect your belief to be regarded with any value, you'd best consider how to support it. Simply reciting your hateful bigotry contributes nothing to this or any discussion.

You don't run anything here except your fruity mouth

And you're free to believe that, despite facts to the contrary. However, when it comes down to policy and reality, realize please that I can prove you wrong quite quickly.

Like I said before T. Your a biased homosexual. No reason for you to even argue with me anymore

That's ... an argument. Sure.

You could never frustrate me.

You seem rather frustrated that people aren't meeting your unstated standard of a benefit:

• Once again, and let's be clear... What are the BENEFITS etc

• I asked you what are the benefits of a child being reared in a homosexual household. Not about how many parents are in the home. Come on now! Your just avoiding the answer because you know that there aren't any!

• Give me a Benefit only: not compare it to something else twice as horrible. Just the benefit and possibly downfall of........you know the rest because I keep repeating myself.

• Is that simple enough for you HUH ?????

• For some reason I thought you guys could think about this for yourself.

• Again. What are the benefits of homosexuals adopting children?
BENEFIT ONLY!!!!!!! If you must compare then do it against heterosexual adoption. DANG.....

Now that we've cleared that up, how is it that you can't even personalize your spite correctly?

Look, I can't help that people don't like you. Give it a rest why don't you. Your the one insecure

Just needed to make sure you got that one in?

When I brought it you did not reply just kept going on and on about a rule.

Let's just get something straight here:

The plagiarizing of material authored and endorsed by doctors who exploit their medical credentials to elevate personal belief as a priority over scientific data is ________.

(A) rational
(B) respectful
(C) decent
(D) all of the above
(E) none of the above​

​

Again. What are the benefits of homosexuals adopting children?
BENEFIT ONLY!!!!!!! If you must compare then do it against heterosexual adoption. DANG.....

You have yet to establish what your definition of a benefit is.

I mean, let's look at the example in that quote:

• "If you must compare then do it against heterosexual adoption."​

Actually, we can compare it against the heterosexual household that was unsuitable for raising a child in the first place. Let's go with relevant alternatives here.

Like I said: there's 110,000+ kids a year in the foster care system who need homes. There is no comparison to be had to heterosexual adoption, since those heterosexual adoptions aren't available. If heterosexuals do their part and properly raise the children they have, they can eliminate the most part of this discussion, anyway.

Seriously, for those 110,000+ kids, here's the question:

• A stable family that happens to have same-sex parents
• Remaining in the government system​

As for comparing a child adopted into a heterosexual household versus a homosexual household, decades of research have shown no substantial difference, and researchers even play down the occasional statistical advantages shown by children of same-sex parents. (See Pallarito, previously cited in topic, for an example.)

So the choice becomes:

• A stable family
• Remaining in the government system​

So, would you actually stand behind the assertion that a group of people you choose must first meet superhuman criteria before you will treat them as human beings? Because that assertion is inherent in the nearest thing anyone can figure to what you're asking for in terms of benefit.

If you clarify what you mean by benefit, that confusion can be cleared up, since you're obviously not asking for a benefit defined entirely by unattainable abstraction.

I mean, I suppose you could be, but why would you?

 

[duendy]

WHAT ARE THE BENEFOTS OF A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE ADOPTING A CHILD?

is that what yer asking Reignstorm?

let me try. have you been in care? can you imagine what it may be like? do you think that a child would prefer a more intimate relationship with to people that loved him, and he got away from the alienating machinery of state-care

You are trying to understand this from your jaded view of life girlfriend. a child is much more flexible. more open-minded. i have known kids whose mamas were on the game. they were cool about it. they would have fought tooth and nial for that rather than some souless care home

the main deal is LOVE. whats your problem if A gay couple love that kid? whats your problem? what are you worried about. please let us know

 

[duendy]

I gets you now. it is yur worry about how other children--their peers--will treat them at S C H O O L....right?
aaaah 'school'. shcool is always 'invisible' isn't it. you dont NOTICE the evil of school, with its oppressive indoctrination, treating many children ("millions") as being 'mentally ill' is they dont, wont, cant fit in, where the oppressors new 'priests' 'diagnose' the stigma 'ADHD'--which is complet psuedoscientific bullcrap, where many children are bullied, and more and more seem to be taking their lives in despair, and then the school authorities all the way up to government deny and lie that they have anything to do with children being bullied, and not takin action, and being responsible for suicides...etc etc. THAt is achool. but you dont choose to look at that, you sooner scapegoat Gay parents or wannabe parents cause kids will get a rough time in school.
Again. can you not see the main problem is not that. not a loving couple Gay or straight loving a child, but the very institution, SCHOOL. which indoctrinates this prejudice. not only overtly and covertly, but having 'marginilized' children having to attend virtually open-prisons where kids from parents who ARE fear full of diversity instill same prejudice in their children, who carry on this vile behaviour...?

 

[Tiassa]

I have proof, I live with it. I know the consequence of it. I also have children of my own. 2 boys and 1 girl. I know what they go through at school day to day dealing with their peers. I know kids call each other gay as a if it were a racial thing. And it's not right!!

So what's the count now:

• Obstructions to manhood (#801484)
• Hold gays responsible for homophobic bigotry (#803377)​

The challenges you've put before yourself, at the very least, Reighnstorm, are:

(1) Establish your definition of manhood and the basis thereof
(2) Establish how the effects of bigotry become the moral responsibility of its object​

Should be easy, right? After all, you have the proof.

Right?

Update: Post #803369, originally quoted above, has been withdrawn by the user and re-posted as #803377.

 

[ReighnStorm]

T. Your post is way toooo long for you not to have given me a benefit yet... But I did fall asleep halfway thru.

Let's try this shall we
Benefit of a heterosexual couple raising a child
a. nuture from a mother (gender specific)
b. nuture from a father (gender specific)
c. gender education ( experience by watching natural parent behavior)
d. better income bracket
e. emotional growth (considered in this type of household)
g. not socially outcast (by peers)
h. Higher self-esteem (considered in this type of household)
i. better family values (considered in this type of household)
j. if female child then learned behavior by natural selection of female mother
if male child then learned behavior by natural selection of male father
k. better accepted by society to as what is considered normal

Now homosexuals continue with this and give me
examples also....

 

[ReighnStorm]

I gets you now. it is yur worry about how other children--their peers--will treat them at S C H O O L....right?
aaaah 'school'. shcool is always 'invisible' isn't it. you dont NOTICE the evil of school, with its oppressive indoctrination, treating many children ("millions") as being 'mentally ill' is they dont, wont, cant fit in, where the oppressors new 'priests' 'diagnose' the stigma 'ADHD'--which is complet psuedoscientific bullcrap, where many children are bullied, and more and more seem to be taking their lives in despair, and then the school authorities all the way up to government deny and lie that they have anything to do with children being bullied, and not takin action, and being responsible for suicides...etc etc. THAt is achool. but you dont choose to look at that, you sooner scapegoat Gay parents or wannabe parents cause kids will get a rough time in school.
Again. can you not see the main problem is not that. not a loving couple Gay or straight loving a child, but the very institution, SCHOOL. which indoctrinates this prejudice. not only overtly and covertly, but having 'marginilized' children having to attend virtually open-prisons where kids from parents who ARE fear full of diversity instill same prejudice in their children, who carry on this vile behaviour...?

You may read AAP reports of that nature. But I know children who were in that situation who were and still are dysfunctional because of their homosexual parent/parents. I have proof, I live with it. I know the consequence of it. I also have children of my own. 2 boys and 1 girl. I know what they go through at school day to day dealing with their peers. I know kids call each other gay as a if it were a racial thing. And it's not right!! No matter what you say, no matter what you read unless you are clear in your own head. Nothing anyone says will make you any
less biased.

 

[J.B]

Would it be O.K if a homosexual parent wanted there child to be homosexual?

 

[duendy]

hmmmm, well, if that is your response after what i've said---To turn into a kind of answering-machine witha silly smilie face. Then intelligent debate is outta the question is suppose.

 

[ReighnStorm]

haha....RS methinks you protest TOO much. ie., actions speak as loud as your projecting words
let me explain

ohhhhh, how you reveal yourself when you bring in how much of a man you are. i could die laughin i really could

do you get it yet?....how long i wonder will it take

continuuing. WHEN you proclaim your 'manliness' it is showing me and other ones with any savvy that all this shouting at Queers, at this forum and possibly others, is the eternal play-out of whats really goin on with YOU. with your own unsurity about your sexuality........would end that with LOL, but i am too sensitive for you now

but cant pretend to always be, depends how hard ya push me dude
you see, you and yours aren't harmless. on one level i CANm feel sorry for ya. but i have had friends battered by idiots such as yourself who hold homophobic views. just cause ye aint out bashin dont mean your prejudice doesn't add to the nasty stew

I may have said this on another site but....... a REal MaN does not what to SLeeep with another male. A real man is not going to even argue with a woman about his manliness, just to name a couple......

 

[ReighnStorm]

So what's the count now:

• Obstructions to manhood (#801484)
• Hold gays responsible for homophobic bigotry (#803369)​

The challenges you've put before yourself, at the very least, Reighnstorm, are:

(1) Establish your definition of manhood and the basis thereof
(2) Establish how the effects of bigotry become the moral responsibility of its object​

Should be easy, right? After all, you have the proof.

Right?

Update: Observing the user's withdrawal of post #803369, quoted above, I am willing to set aside challenge point 2 above until we encounter someone willing to stand behind the argument that gives it rise.

I am not trying to make you agree with me. I am simply stating that I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children at any age. That's all, in the end my reasons are my own, not to be proving to you or anyone else. this is just simply what I believe maybe because I am a woman. A complete 100% all natural woman. I only have a few ideas of what it is like to be gay (friends) and I'm glad I'm not. It's very confusing. A man who's a woman at heart. A woman who's a man at heart. Don't you feel just a little confused?? If anything I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, you have my sympothies.
Oh yeah T. your biased to this discussion. If the thread was about Women raising their sons, anything negative that comes out I would be biased about it too.... If you were thinking about adopting a child and wanted our honest opinion then that may count for more than what you're doing now. I gave you facts and you disregarded them. You only want to argue with me. Let me ask you this then. What is your opinion about Gays adopting little boys ??

 

[ReighnStorm]

hmmmm, well, if that is your response after what i've said---To turn into a kind of answering-machine witha silly smilie face. Then intelligent debate is outta the question is suppose.

I'm sorry I didn't even read your post. I copied a message I had already applied before your post came up I was replying to someone when I saw yours, thought it would be better suited to you from another reply you made on another page.
Ok. what were you saying ????

 

[ReighnStorm]

Would it be O.K if a homosexual parent wanted there child to be homosexual?

God forbid, but I guess so, that is what I always assumed would happen most of the time anyway.

 

[Imperfectionist]

Randi Rhodes of Air America radio gives an excellent example. Her sister was gay, and had a child, but the sister died of cancer, and Randi adopted the child to raise as her own. If it was the other way around, her sister would not be allowed to adopt Randi's child, and it would go to some unknown foster home, where they have been known to lose kids completely.

Plenty of people are raised in hetero homes that are totally disfunctinal, they don't have a monopoly on good homes.

 

[JohnGalt]

Sorry for being late, I haven't read much either, so sorry again.

Baron, you keep complaining about kids being made fun of. Kids get made fun of because of a weird last name, being too tall, weird first names, being smart. You can get made fun of for anything(imagine the word anything underlined and in italics). Those, the most superficial, will most likely be recognized first, and pursued to the greatest lengths.

You said something about a PTA meeting in one of the posts. why on Earth would the child be in the PTA meeting, or any other child to make fun of it?

 

[Baron Max]

Baron, you keep complaining about kids being made fun of. Kids get made fun of because of a weird last name, being too tall, weird first names, being smart. ...

So you want to add one more? Geez, just think ...the kid could have a weird last name, be too tall, weird first name, too smart AND be the kid of a couple of butt-fuckin' cocksucker, too!! Wow ...the rest of the kids could have a damned field day with just that one kid! ...LOL! And you're happy with that? ...LOL!

why on Earth would the child be in the PTA meeting, or any other child to make fun of it?

Well, I don't know how it is today, but when I was young, many kids were at the PTA meetings with their parents. Why ...has something changed? Kids not allowed to attend PTA meetings? Why not?

Baron Max