Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

Is there another scientific study saying the oppisite to this one, if not i think it should be considered as evedence into why children should not be adopted into gay relationships. Because at the end of the day there is a study done that has proven this fact....... Not saying i agree with it, just it really should be considered

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clarify?

Jolly Rodger

That's ... uh ... specific. Um, perhaps I could ask you to clarify?

Which study?
Which evidence?​

The problem is the number of studies in discussion, one presented by Big D and at least a couple presented by Guthrie. Big D's offering, by Baldwin, is shown to be unscientific, and that's the only one that, on its surface, would obviously constitute an argument against gay adoption. The other studies seem to provide no argument against, although if you're picking up some detail in them, by all means let us know what we've missed. There are other studies and statistics on record in this topic, but they're generally too far back in the discussion for your post to be intuitively referring to them.

So ... little help here? Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

gay is bad says so in the bible!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, Richard. The Bible also says that the righteous thing to do when faced with homosexuality is to offer your daughters for gang rape.

In other words, I'm hard-pressed to see your point.

Should we ban remarried heterosexual couples from adopting children? After all, they're adulterers. Says so in the Bible. See McKinley's, "When Christ Was Gay", which states the issue well enough.

 

I didn't know that the bible said all that although I think there would be no problem with a remarried hetro couple adopting a child rather than a homo couple, at the end of the day, there would still be a mother and a father figure.

Further more, In Australia there is a gay couple which one of the ladies had two daughters from her earlier marriage, to combat the confusion of her children she wrote a book about homo couples both male and female.

While the Australian school board was thinking about putting on the syllabus for primary school kids a fair few good points were made.

It should be the parent’s choice when they want to teach their children about homosexuality, and most of people agreed with that in Australia so the book will not be one that is read at school Australia wide.
But when you take this point that People want to teach their children about homosexuality them selves then these kids adopted into a homo couple are going to be complete outcast because the majority of people wont want there children playing with the kid that is going to teach their kid about homosexuality.

 

Agreed. Obviously, there are peripheral concerns about whether they teach their children opinion as fact (which raises the potential for falsely informing the child).

And in doing so choose to teach homophobia.

Something about opinion as fact?

My parents didn't have to teach me that "blue collar is bad". Despite their blue-collar existence charading as a white collar, it seems more than coincidental how many kids of blue-collar families were people I wasn't supposed to associate with.

Took me years to get over my disdain of blue-collar society. Certain shreds of it still exist: I hate working on cars.

 

Tiassa, it is not homophobia, that what I was trying to explain, I don’t think I did the best job though.
If you didn't think your child was ready to learn about homosexuality, why would you let your kid play with a kid that knew all about it and lived in a homosexual family?
Don’t you understand?
If Mary and Frank said to themselves we will teach little jimmy about homosexuality next year, and them all of a sudden because they have been letting their kid play with the kid from a homo family, little Jimmy comes home one afternoon a says what’s a lesbian, I ask troy why two ladies always pick him up from school and he told me he has two mummies and I ask why he doesn't have a daddy and he said because his mums were lesbians, what a lesbian. You are forced to teach your child what homosexuality is before you thought it was time.

 

I think it is, but I'll share some of the blame on communication. I went with expedience instead of content.

Obviously, I don't understand your concern. To take your example:

I don't see the problem.

Rather, I think the problem lies with the parents.

I learned that women like their crotches licked before I learned that women could do that to one another. I learned that men liked to stick their penises in women's asses before I learned that men could do that to one another. I learned that men like having their penises in the mouth of a woman before it ever occurred to me that men could do that together. By the time "gay" changed to "homosexual" in my life, it didn't strike me as odd. Even though the idea of two people of the same gender living "like they're married" struck me as odd, it's not like my parents ever really lectured me on the ins and outs of recreational sex.

Like I've said before, it wasn't until homophobes made an issue of it that I cared at all.

Once upon a time, my older cousin moved into a place with three other guys. The only thing that struck me as odd was I wondered what my cousin would look like with an apron and feather duster. My parents, in explaining gay people, left it without the graphic details, so the answer to the question, "Is he gay?" was not, "No, they're not having butt-sex," but rather, "No, they're just roommates. Like Laverne and Shirley."

Which became its own joke, since Laverne and Shirley were also nicknames the family used for my mom and her sister.

"What's a lesbian?"

Lesbians are women who like to _____. (What does the child do with his peers? I was holding hands with a girl at five. I think I even got a kiss, but no tongue.)

"What's a lesbian?"

Lesbians are women who like each other.

Lesbians are women who like to hold hands.

Lesbians are women who are in love with each other.

Who says sex has to come into it?

If you hear your kid use the word, "Bang," in that manner, do you explain, "Banging is what I do to make your mother praise God!" Or how about, "Banging is a rude person's word for when mommies and daddies are close to one another."

• • •​

An old joke. From a porn magazine, no less. (I'm sure other versions exist elsewhere.)

One day as Billy was going to bed, his mother bent over to kiss him goodnight, and her ample bosom came free of her shirt. As she tucked her breasts away and left, Billy asked his dad, "What were those?"

Billy's dad was nervous about the answer, so he said, "Those are Mommy's balloons, so that when she dies we can blow them up and she will float up to heaven."

A couple of weeks later, Billy's dad was working on the car when the boy rushed into the garage in tears. "Daddy! Daddy! Mommy's dying! Mommy's dying!"

As he started moving to aid his wife, the dad said, "What happened?"

"I don't know," cried Billy. "Uncle Frank is inside, blowing up mommy's balloons, and she keeps shouting, 'Oh God, I'm coming!'"​

• • •​

I see the potential for the problems you worry about, but that's not the fault of the homosexuals or the children. That's the fault of the parents who would end up teaching that there's something about that kid they don't want around Johnny. When Johnny gets old enough to understand sex between two people of the same gender?

And what if the child's cousin was gay? No more Christmas with the extended family?

Focus on people and love. Not sex. That way, when sex and love come together (heh-heh) in the child's mind ... oh, I see. When sex and love come together in the child's mind, Johnny should still avoid the kid down the street because he has two moms or dads.

• • •​

So Johnny comes home from school on Valentine's day. He's obviously smitten. Melissa this and Melissa that. He gave her a valentine. They held hands. Her hair smells like bubblegum.

You ask him about the girl. He's in love with her.

Johnny's what, eight?

You going to teach him how to f@ck her just right to make her scream her uncle's name?

Or will you teach him how to show his affection decently and properly, so that she might feel similarly?

The point being that I don't see why the question of two mommies or two daddies must necessarily be answered with a discussion of sex.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You know when something such as raising a child in a gay coupled household is bad when you have to compare it to such horrific conceptions to the ones that are given in these posts and replys.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

personally, i have nothing against gays. its a chemical imbalance or hormones, something that happens at birth, not at post-puberty.
If a kid is dying of disease on the street, it's better to put him/her in a home with people that can care for him/her with money, food, and etc. who cares if they're gay, that's not important, what is important is "do they have enough money to support the kid"

 

I have no problem with gays either, some of my good friends are gays. I don't know why anybody would not want a gay couple to have a child. Go Australian government!

 

Jolly Rodger:

For starters the STATES regulate the syllabus, there is no Australian school board. Besides that, i dont know how it is where you went to school but sex ed was MANDITORY, no parent interferance, no choice. Which is how it SHOULD be

 

in the us its not mandatory.
it should be, tho...
damn american government...

 

I agree that sex ed should be manditory, and trust me i went to a much better school than you could ever imagine. Although I dont see what homosexuality has to do with sex ed, unless you want to promote it?
Are you gay?

 

the best school is a school where the Sex Ed class is a hands-on clas.
ehehehhhhhahahahaaaahahhahehehah!!!

 

Yes, that's just as morally correct as putting children in a gay couples care.

 

Oh, hell, I'll bite: And what does that even mean?

• • •​

This brings to mind a recent conversation in which an acquaintance expressed certain fears about a situation he was viewing. Unsure as to the basis of his fear, I asked why it had to be that way--that is, Who says that outcome is the only possibility?

Strangely, I didn't get an answer. At first I was disappointed, and even a bit confused. And then it struck me that I was watching a familiar process in which the point is fear itself: Solutions are undesirable because they bring an end to fear.

This seemed an absurd proposition. Much as many a gay man, thanks to his bigoted neighbors, has had cause to inquire, "What person would wake up one day and choose to be gay, with all it brings?" so, too, did I find myself wondering, "What person invites fear, and why?"

Had this been a friend, I would have skipped all of that and simply latched onto the obvious conclusion. For instance, my partner is one who is willing to deal in fear: it makes her feel somehow special, as if there is privilege in being victimized. In her case, it's plain enough to see that this is simple envy and equivocation. Once upon a time, as we left a friend's apartment, she asked me, "How come we never get along like that?" The answers, of course, were simple: seven years of association versus a bit over one; a state of love and trust versus a state of constant suspicion; desire for one another's benefit and not a trophy-relationship.

Quite simply, we haven't that kind of association because she won't permit it; such a condition requires that people trust one another, something well beyond her grasp.

But having that kind of trusting association, in which two people understand each other so greatly, wasn't really on her list. In the end, that would require effort on her part.

No, she was complaining because in recognizing that close association, she was jealous, and felt victimized. The point was to have something to fear.

It's all about sympathy: a grown-up version of, "I wish I was sick so everybody would come and see me and bring me cards and flowers", or wishing for a cast on your arm for all your friends to sign.

Certain of her fears should simply be ignored. They don't exist to be assuaged, but rather to be noticed and given sympathy. She does not wish to overcome her fear, as that would dampen the aura of specialness she creates by constantly being afraid.

And besides, a state of constant victimization justifies in her mind her poor regard for people. Always on the defensive, she feels people owe her compassion even while she's spitting in their faces.

No matter how many times I ask her what the problem is, though, she won't answer straight. One of her favorite things is to blame her actions on other peoples' reactions. For instance, if she slapped you, and you hit her back, and everybody piled in and broke up the fight, we'd never find out why she slapped you in the first place. If we asked her enough that she felt compelled to answer, she would point out that you hit her, and that would be left to stand as her justification.

The whole time I've known her--nine years--she's been like this, and getting worse as time goes by. We've been having the same fight the whole time, and the sad thing is that all this time later, I still don't know what the hell the problem was to begin with. I mean, it can't possibly be that she didn't want to admit that it's better to watch the program and not the commercials.

And there's nothing I can do about it. Every once in a while, I get an idea and give it a try, but she's more interested in being a victim than overcoming the adversity of victimization. It is not lost on me that she watches soap operas, specifically All My Children and Days Of Our Lives. Those familiar with American soap operas will recognize easily such a victim-complex. (Susan Lucci? Alison Sweeney?)

The gay fray is riddled with this sort of paranoia. Such self-victimization as the traditionalists have put forth is actually expected to pass for rational debate, and that's where the problem arises.

Your latest unsubstantiated moral declaration compares the child-rearing in a gay household to sexual abuse of children. Given the address devoted to that very issue in this very topic, I'm curious why you persist with insupportable theses and declarations. What is it you fear? What is this nebulous darkness that everybody in the world is so apparently failing to address? Your behavior has much in common with American homophobes, who are equally unable to put forth a rational justification for their poisonous moral declarations. It really does seem like they are choosing to be afraid for the sake of being afraid. None of their arguments rise to meet a rational standard, and yet if we don't bend over backwards to accommodate them, we're somehow being unfair and elitist.

It really is strange watching people insist on living in such a state of self-imposed fear, and I really have no idea why people do it on such a broad level. After all, it is a human trait, but the desperation that extends it so far into public consideration refuses compassion and only demands its own perpetuation. It's a noodle-scratcher.

I've asked my partner why she puts herself through it. That answer, of course, was insufficient, as it was no answer at all. I figure the fellow I was having a discussion with will either identify the issue or not. And now, here you are, so I'll ask:

Why do you put yourself through it? And why the hell should everyone else suffer just to do so?

 

I COULD ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION:
Are you on drugs?
Or just like rambling on about nothing?

 

I can only work with what you give me, Jolly.

As such, yeah, drugs would be a fine idea.

In the meantime, no, it's not much of an argument when all you're doing is repeatedly offering unsubstantiated moral condemnation. See, part of the problem is that you're undermining my ability to force people to be polite and respectful in general.

Keep insulting people like that without a reason, and I either have to shut you up or let them bite back. And as another poster recently pointed out, there is an observable statistical suggestion of bias in how I wear my green hat. There's not much I can do about it, though, when one side gives me nothing to work with. It's kind of like the judicial activism argument, only simpler: the outcome may look a certain way, but there's not much to do to avoid it. Just like the conservatives and their bigotries--"We can't be superior, therefore we're not being treated equally"--so goes this trend of unsubstantiated moral condemnation.

If you think I'm rambling on about nothing, I could put the question a little more directly, and a bit less politely: What's the effing problem, boy? Why the hell can't you bring anything more to the table than irrelevance and hatred?

At least in the longer form, I'm doing you the courtesy of trying to explain the problem.

I could just put on my green hat and write a stupid declaration that moral assertions found to be without factual merit will be deleted and penalized accordingly for wasting space.

But I'd rather let people do their own thinking and learning and communicating. So do us a favor and make use of that opportunity from time to time.

But this topic is over a year old. We've been through these empty moral assertions time and again, and they've been shown to be at odds with fact. If you're going to recycle them, at least bring something new to the table in support of that resurrection.

That's all. I don't think I'm being too demanding. I just think it would be nice if your libelous moral condemnations had some basis in reality.

 

you homophobes have really got to shut up and realize: it doesn't matter if they're gay or not.