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

Yes, I am aware of the fact that there's another thread on this topic, over a year old, which is still right at the top of this forum. However I feel that it's immense size is naturally making it rather inaccessible to those who haven't been following it for that whole year.

Furthermore all we are seeing in that thread, currently, are sporadic spurts of the exact same arguments which have been addressed over and over again deep within the inaccessible bowels of the beast.

For these reasons I propose we start over with a blank slate and a few clear ground rules.

What I would like to see here is not another endless rehash of the same points again and again and again without any heed being given to responses which have already addressed those concerns (unless they are offered as an explanation for why the assessment of the concerns raised are unsatisfactory).

In other words I expect to see a proper debate of point and counter point, with posters listening to each other’s cases, and responding to them as such, as opposed to having a bunch of goof balls talking to themselves as though to re-affirm the rhetoric they already believe while ignoring any discussion of the particular issues which that rhetoric brings forward.

It's entirely alright if we begin with some of the basic arguments which have been put forth time and time again in the original thread, but this time let's actually move forward from there and attempt to maintain a coherent nonregresive dialogue.

If these terms seem acceptable to any of you, then let by all means let the debate begin.

A note to Tiassa: I’ve seen that you’re rather frustrated with the way things have been going in several threads as well, and I do hope that this is an appropriate way to attempt to organize the discourse in a more coherent, and hopefully productive manner. However if you think this thread’s aim is too redundant or just a silly idea in general, I certainly won’t take it personally if you feel it should be moved or deleted. I just figured it was worth a shot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyone is welcome to choose a different starting point:

Assertion: New laws enacted by voters to restrict the definition of marriage to "one man and one woman" are inappropriate, as they violate the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution, and seek to discriminate against gender. There is no viable legal justification for these laws. Current rejection of Equal Protection complaints by the federal judiciary relies on a "rape culture" in which a person is given the opportunity to obtain rights equal to their neighbor by submitting to unwanted sexual intercourse. In the end, opposition to gay marriage is just another occasion for the waning supremacy of the Judeo-Christian social template to lament the prospect of being treated equally to its counterparts in American society. This reality is demonstrated by the lack of any substantial case against the recognition of same-sex marital unions.​

The sad thing is that I know there's something missing that is equally provocative and useful. Hmm ... let's see ....

• Sanctity of family (subjective)
• Danger to children (insubstantial)
• Tradition (unconstitutional)
• Usurping democracy (false pretense)
• No reproductive value (insubstantial)
• Lack of necessity (insubstantial)​

Um ... what have I left out? I won't pretend that's a complete list.

But, yeah. Anyone is welcome to choose a different starting point.

(What? Who doesn't know that I feel very assured of my perspective in this? All roads will eventually tread through this territory.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Discussion continued from this place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes they should.

 

Homosexuals represent somewhere between 1 percent and 3 percent of the population. Yet they commit up to one-third of all sex crimes against children. Knowing this, why would any responsible agency want to put more children in harm's way?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29000

 

That's obviously biased right-wing Christian propaganda. They don't want to let people have abortions, but what do they propose we do with all the children that are either unwanted, or that the mother cannot afford to raise? How many children get abused or just plain lost in foster care? Each adoption case is handled individually, so each family would get evaluated for suitability, same with straight couples. Homosexuality is not pedophelia. The very fact that two adult homosexuals are together is a pretty good indication that they aren't attracted to children sexually. Pedophiles would want to marry the opposite sex anyway, so they could have their own children to abuse.

 

Ya sure,

And those were priests that raped little boys, not homosexuals right?

 

Should adopted children be allowed to be homosexuals?

 

Should freed, convicted felons, who've legally paid their debt to society, be permitted to adopt children? If not, why not? Their debt has been paid, they're free persons of society, right?

Should single men be permitted to adopt little girls? Why not?

Baron Max

 

It was perverted Catholic morality that made them pedophiles, instead of good, normal, homosexual men with healthy relationships.

 

WorldNetDaily is about as reliable of a source as a Chick Tract. Pedophiles are pedophiles. They have no more in common with normal gays than they do with normal straights.

 

Sure, there you go Jesus made them do it.

 

If a guy really cared about another guy you would think he could show him a better way then screwing his cornhole.

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall and listen as one "daddy" explains to a child how he puts his penis in the other "daddy's" ass.

I'm sure thats great learning for a child.

 

If I needed to procreate every time I did it... I would never do it. And, newsflash- homos aren't the only ones doing anal.

 

Look, save the way you try to twist the facts and the truth about this issue for the kids you want to put into these situations.

 

Now, I have just hopped on, and stopped at Tiasa's post(brilliant). First thing, foster clinics/adoption clinics do not just hand out the children there to anyone who comes along(adoption clinics anyways). If someone, whether gay or straight, had a sex offense, they would not be allowed. Why would growing up with two dads/two mothers effect someone? If you take in nature v nurture, there may be a slightly(although not proven) chance of the child being gay also. There might also be conflicts with two mothers adopting a boy(two fathers adopting a girl), as they would know more about there own sex than the opposite.

Also, I've seen such things as popular opinion(especially in the ten commandments cases) on whether these things should be allowed, or even things requiring actual politicians. NO! Do not allow this! The purpose of our country, although democratic, is not to uphold any majority sentiment! It is to uphold rights. There is no rights to gay marriage-but there ARE rights to your happiness(Not strictly your happiness, but I'm sure the people of this forum would know what is reasonable). There isn't rights for gays to adopt children, but, would you rather have that child shoved off to A)someone worse or B)have nowhere to be shoved off to? This involves the child's happiness. Any rational(even though full rational capabilities are not quite developed in children)child wouldn't care.

 

Think about it this way, a lesbian couple, not allowed to marry, nevertheless raises a child together (the child might be from a previous marriage). Then the birth mother dies. The other mother, the only other parent the child has ever known, is not allowed to adopted the child, and the kid has to go into a foster home to be raised by some stranger.

 

Ahh, but possible scenarios are not the way to prove or disprove something. One can always come up with just the opposite view with another scenario.

Umm, with yours, why would a one of the lesbian couple be part of a previous marriage? Sure, possible, but wouldn't you think that the lesbian would not marry? Unless, she had adopted a child in a previous, once legal lesbian marriage.

 

A lesbian may have a child from a previous marriage, or a previous boyfriend. Believe me, it happens. My next door neighbors were lesbians, and one of them left her old boyfriend at the altar. Many people try their best to fufill society's expectations before they realize it doesn't work for them.