Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

Nature has no "want".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nature does not allow homosexuals to bare children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-04-21-fatherless-mice_x.htm

I guess it's limited to mice at this point, but someday...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Besides, homosexuals have kids all the time. They might have them from a previous marriage. You see, just because someone eventually realizes they prefer their own sex, that doesn't prevent them from having children the normal way.

 

("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")

I wasn't aware that this pertained only to homosexuals. Thank you for correcting me.

Or ... is there actually a point to that?

You're a little late to the party on that one. Although I don't think anyone's wearing the same dress.

On Edit:

I keep hearing this, but nobody has yet explained the significance of the point.

Perhaps you could fill us in? Please?

 

Nature doesn't allow MEN to bare children.

 

Yes, but the state/government/society has little or no say in that regard, they DO in the instance of adoption. Big, big difference, wouldn't you say?

I was just curious ....are there any other people that the state won't allow to adopt children? ...like convicted felons? ...convicted sex offenders? ...single men? ...single women? ...couples under 18 yrs of age? ...families on welfare? ...couples who practice wife-swapping? ...and other such instances? It might be interesting to make some comparisons of who can and can't adopt, don't you think?

Baron Max

 

Michael Jackson "bared" some children, and now he's in trouble.

As previously stated, nature has no desires, wants, or preferences.

 

In case you missed it Baron, the point of this thread is, all else being equal the state has no reason to not allow a stable, financially successful couple (who happen to be gay) to adopt children.

As all other arguments have been proven false many times, it comes down to the argument that some interpret the bible to condemn homosexuality. This is of no concern of the state, because we do not live in a theocracy. There is no evidence that children adopted by gay couples are more like to be gay than children adopted by straight couples. And even if they were, who cares? I'm not a Christian, so I have no reason to be concerned about how many gays there are. Hell, the more gay men there are, the more single straight women there are. I'm in favor of anything that improves my odds of getting a girlfriend.

 

Oh? Well welcome to the forum then, and good for you! It's always great to see people taking an interest and wanting to voice their opinions and explore those of others! We're glad to have you aboard.

Oh, great, so you're only here to lie and troll? I retract my greeting, and would like to make a token effort to shoo you away, I wouldn't want to waste too much time and effort on it, I'm sure that's just what you're after anyhow.

Addressing your actual points: You're going to have to grow up and release your old rhetoric regarding homosexuals. It's not the 1970s any more, so we can't say that a homosexual male can be distinguished from the "normal" people by his over-sensitive woman like nipples. Most of the nation has grown out of this sort of silliness by now. As for the idea of homosexuality arising from a fear of commitment, I do hope you realize that if one merely takes a look at the fact that there is a national debate for legal recognition of same-sex marriages (relationships which already exist) that the idea of homosexuals fearing commitment is only as valid a blanket statement for heterosexuals as well - Certainly some people fear commitment, but most of us would like something stable to settle down into eventually. Traditionalists should really be sitting at home and preying to God that the myth of the promiscuous homosexual were true, if it was then there wouldn't be these national issues in the first place.

Well first off, I'm going to have to assume you mean "Gay-o-Meter" which makes slightly more sense, except that it sounds like an instrument for measuring faggotry, rather than some sort of homosexuality inducing device. . . but I suppose I understand what you're trying to say. You might want to talk to some Jewish comics about a Goy-o-meter, though, I'm sure they could come up with some very silly routine about that.

Second, I find the scenario which you describe to be rather unlikely, at least within the United States, there are very few places in which job discrimination based on sexual orientation is forbidden by law, and to be honest, I've never known an employer to tip-toe around firing someone when they show up to work intoxicated, you didn't exactly leave much room for claims that you were fired on basis of your sexuality, did you? Come now, pride girl, I'd almost say the whole story is a fabrication. . .but then again some of your wording is a bit odd, perhaps you're not American? I'm admittedly not as up on the specific climates and affairs of treatment of homosexuals in other developed nations.

Could I ask you to elaborate on exactly how this works? As I said I'm not exactly up on the specifics of laws in other developed nations aside from the US and Canada, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single law which grants any rights to homosexuals which are not afforded to heterosexuals. By contrast I can list several which specifically deny homosexual rights, such as state constitutional amendments banning same sex-marriage, or even any legal rights associated with it (which number into the hundreds), the policy of the US armed forces of dishonorably discharging any uniformed person who is found to be a homosexual, and Florida's ban on adoption of children by same-sex couples, and various state and city measures pertaining to employment (usual in schools).

You really should be more careful with your words, Pride Girl. I'm afraid I've been at this game for quite some time, and I can smell the tell-tail rhetoric of traditionalists and homophobes from quite a distance, and you've just evoked one of the favorite demons of the disaffected suburban white culture when it comes to minority rights. How very peculiar.

I'm quite sorry, Proud Girl, I might have been content to allow you to continue before I made any specific accusations, but you really haven't exercised much control, have you? As I said I've played this game quite a bit, and even used this same tactic as you (take a look at just about any post of mine in gun control threads, for instance). What you're doing here is making a very bad, and ham-handed attempt at seeming to be on one side, while making entirely absurd claims and exaggerations to try and show some sort of ironic absurdity about the position which you are supposedly taking up. Your problem here, is that you're using the same silly rhetoric and characterizations that I'm sure we've all heard in this thread and countless others about a million times, you're not supposed to do that if you want to be at least mildly believable. In otherworlds, cut the crap, because we know you're full of it.

The who, now? I keep trying to get my membership card for the international homosexual conspiracy, but for some reason they haven't received my dues.

Aww, I'm sorry but I can't help but give a bit of a giggle at this comment. It's rather cute, sort of like the words of an innocent, what a shame, though, that it's filled with fear and hatred. Why do you feel the need to anthropomorphise nature? It has it's own will now, does it? Seeing how as you seem to be able to interpret it, does it also believe that barren women or sterile men are unfit to be parents? By contrast, does having the physical capacity to spawn young mean nature believes that they should be parents? I guess there's a lot of negligent child-abusers living in trailer parks that our mere human authorities are dead wrong about for quite some time, then, aren’t there? Taking it a step further, does nature only intend people to raise the children which they conceived?

I've got to say that not giving birth to a child is a rather lousy criteria for figuring out whether or not someone is suited to raise a child, especialy in this world where fertile heterosexuals seem to be having more than they're reasonably able to handle.

I'm sure you'd love to believe it, but I seriously doubt if Proud Girl is actually a homosexual. And if you were so very eager to point out a single individual to represent all homosexuals, and to judge that entire group by the characteristics and manners of one, then why not me? I've been here the whole time you know! I feel a little offended that you'd overlook me!

 

Provocateurs, eh? Is there a spray I can get that will take care of that?

To the other, I would like to get a Gayometer, or a Gaydar, or whatever. I'm convinced that William Atherton is gay. But I've never heard that he is or isn't.

 

Isn't the intrigue positively astounding? Next I'll reveal Wesmorris' secret allegiance to the KGB, and how it all ties in with Spurious monkey's secret offshore bank accounts.

 

Discussion continued here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Depends on the local jurisdiction. In Michigan, for instance, unmarried couples are barred from adopting.

I find this curious, since part of the rationale argued against gays being allowed to adopt children is that the children do poorly, or are somehow unduly burdened. We've visited this point before. The reality is that children of gay parents do as well or better than their peers on average. But in that figure is also the fact that children with a mother and father are considered the most stable. However, statistics indicate that in 1999, 33% of the children adopted from foster care were adopted into single-parent families, mostly single women.

There's an intuitive conflict there. Who are the children of gay parents doing better than? Maybe it's the children of single parents. I mean, what, why do the children of gay parents have to be the best at everything? Why the hell are single parents being allowed to adopt children if unmarried couples can't? Because regardless of sexual orientation, a home with two parents is established to bring a better statistical expectation. So ... what gives?

As to the original question, yeah, it's a matter of picking through local jurisdictions. Foster care, for instance, is a state and county affair, so adoption policies will be found somewhere in that part of the hierarchy.

 

Mod Hat - Closure

This topic is officially closed, since it has recycled itself several times through its life.

A new version of the topic is available here.