Should gays be allowed to adopted kids?

I don't think anyone here thinks that Christians are morons, most of us just don't like extremist (whatever kind of extremist that are)
And for that arguementr with Mother or Father figureI mean there are a lot of single parents that raise their children alone, I really don't see the problem with letting Homosexuels adopt children, I think everyone should have the same right as long as there is no harm done to society or any other human, and I think some poor kid without parents would be better off with a lovving gay couple as parents.

Indeed, no one said all Christians are morons, just the extremists.

Extremists in any religion are generally one of the crucial elements behind most conflicts. All territory is already divided up so there needs to be another central reasoning such as We need to ensure peace and prosperity in another nature by imposing and maintaing the Christian perspective..

Still that is a side step from the actual question to which I would suggest it depends on a number of questions such as the environment the child will find themselves brought up in. It is not to say that Gay men will be bad parents however in certain towns whether the child is gay or straight it will be irrelevent as they will still have a certain stigma attached to them and it will have had nothing o do with them.

In certain cities and towns this would not be the case as slowly the world is becoming more tolerant and more accepting however there still seems to be the forever impoosible to kill festering sore of bigotry.

I think The question of whether Gay couples should be able to adopt should not just look at whether they alone will make good parents but also the socio-political impact of their parentage upon their life given their environs.

In 10 years time when the world turns again and aceptance is further realised then perhaps it will be an easier answer however now I think there is a great deal to be looked at..

The bigger argument in here should be when are we going to accept the homosexual lifestyle?

It is not going anywhere... there is no point in trying to fight it.

Hi,

wy not ???
I think it is ok ... Every child should be become a familie. And If they are gay or lesbien... That is ok. Children thinking not like older people about it. they are thinking easier about this. And that should we are too... 😉

(sorry my bad english)
yuna

😍 😖anta:

Originally posted by The Omega
So “New Scientist” is utter maggot crap?
Tell me…
What makes you more knowledgeable than the people who conducted this study?
Come on, show me the copies of your masters degrees and ph.d’s.

well I have a degree in architecture

well I have a degree in architecture

Originally posted by ***S***
The bigger argument in here should be when are we going to accept the homosexual lifestyle?

It is not going anywhere... there is no point in trying to fight it.

And to kind of close of my original thought...

Why should a persons bedroom life have such an impact on who they are? I have quite a bit of gay friends, and they are by no means a major threat to humanity.

What is the harm if they adopt children? Aside from the fact that their children are going to have a target on their backs through school, but that happens to everyone in school.

But God won't like humanity anymore
jk
I am pro gay equality

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Being gay has nothing to do with love. I don't think it's both.. that doesn't make sense. So you're genetically gay and you choose to be gay? No.. doesn't add up.

What I meant that, like falling in love, you can't just chose whom you fall in love with, or are attracted to, and since homosexuality can't be proven genetically, it's open ended, with both being a possibility.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's been proven that children who grow up with two loving homosexual parents will turn out no different then those who grow up in a heterosexual environment. It depends on the dedication and love of the parents, gender is irrelevent.

Gender is relevant to orientation, though, and subsequent sexual deviation. How many of these apparent supple homosexual adoptees do they actually follow up on? I'm not saying they grow up any differently or not, but researches aren't going to document adverse effects. That's not how they work.

Originally posted by Darth Surgent
This is what is known as P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E. Not all gay people are the same.

You cannot infringe on the rights of the innocent due to the acts of the minority. And don't sat that the majority of gay people are "bad," because you don't know what the majority of them are like. Don't even pretend to know about them, as your view comes from someone who has most likely avoided contact with homosexuals purposely.

This "unhealthy lifestyle" that you speak of doesn't exist.

Listen up, buttercup. Not only did I have a gay roommate, who lived with me free of charge for SEVERAL months, I was a VIP member of Minneapolis' most exclusive gay night club, "The Gay 90's". Look it up sometime if you're ever in town. Go ahead and say what you really mean. Call me a homophobe, make your empty headed assumptions, whatever. That's what you REALLY meant.

Besides, show me where I personally ever said ANYTHING about homosexuals being the same? I know/knew PLENTY of both teenage and adult homosexual males and females, well enough to know there is an apparent difference in their lifestyles, by way of maturity.

Again, twisting my words, not once did I say homosexuality was a "unhealthy lifestyle", I said the "unhealthy EXPOSURE" to a lifestyle that a child doesn't CHOOSE to be a part of is detrimental their upbringing.

Keep in mind that stereotypes are usually rooted in truth, and deviant sexual orientation does indeed exist, in both straight and gay people.

Just because I don't think homosexuals should be able to adopt doesn't mean I put a bounty on all the heads, or damn them to hell every night. It's a personal conviction, just like I don't think they should marry.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pro gay equality

You have to be careful as to whom you extend favors of equality to. If they allow homosexuals to legally marry, then why not people and animals? Why not people and inanimate objects?

You can laugh all you want, but those are prime examples of how "equality" isn't necessarily fundamentaly safe. Homosexuals can adopt as it is anyway, so I don't see the point in debating it?

...unhealthy EXPOSURE" to a lifestyle that a child doesn't CHOOSE to be a part of is detrimental their upbringing.

No child, really, has much of a say as to how there family lives, for at least some time, like having a parent smoke, or their family being a part of the mafia.

But the thing one imagines if, that if a parent cares about their child, they will make a sustained effort to prevent them from being harmed by something they shouldn't. What is unhealthy exposure? And is it likely that they would force it down the throat of their child? And as you said "deviant sexual orientation does indeed exist, in both straight and gay people. "

So why should it be gay people alone who don't get to adopt kids?

And as to allowing gays to marry opening the doors to people who might want to marry their dog, or a tree or a TV unit, I really think that is quite a stretch, as really, there is a big difference between letting two adult men or women who want to be together choosing to get married, the some guy and a tree. I really can't follow any time line that would lead from Gay Marriage>Tree Marriage>End of the World.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
You have to be careful as to whom you extend favors of equality to. If they allow homosexuals to legally marry, then why not people and animals? Why not people and inanimate objects?

They are human beings. It's common sense. The law can distinguish between marrying two women and marrying a man to a toaster.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

But the thing one imagines if, that if a parent cares about their child, they will make a sustained effort to prevent them from being harmed by something they shouldn't. What is unhealthy exposure? And is it likely that they would force it down the throat of their child? And as you said "deviant sexual orientation does indeed exist, in both straight and gay people. "

Unhealthy exposure is subjective. If the parents care, I would hope they'd reserve their open affection, and keep it private, unless they feel as if THAT is the way it's "supposed to be". Men kissing men, etc. It all depends on what nature a parent wants to raise their kids, and we're not the ones to decide what's "right and wrong". You'd have faith in parenting that they would want to raise a kid as open-minded as possible, but not alienate them from heterosexual practices, so that they aren't lost and confused when they go through Sex Ed in school. The likes of which will more than likely promote heterosexual behavior. Right?

Parents may not force it, on the other hand, who's to say they'll be balanced in their approach? It's a personal judgment call.

Again, I never said it should be only gay people who don't deserve the opportunity to adopt. They can legally do so as it is, as I said before, so no need to try and "change" it. There are plenty of unfit biological parents whos children would be better off adopted.

Nullifying the sanctity of marriage by way of "equality", which you can't just extend to one party and not the other, indeed does endanger society in more ways thatn you could imagine. Equal rights aren't limited to marriage. It's a gateway for many other social deviances, like legal prostitution.

Originally posted by Darth Surgent
They are human beings. It's common sense. The law can distinguish between marrying two women and marrying a man to a toaster.

If common sense were so common, what made activists think they could get the Constitution amended, much less make it "official" through states that didn't even have the power to make amendments to their laws to begin with,having them all nullified.

Common sense is anything but, especially in marital arena. Explain polygamy if it is.

"Equality" would pretty much result in the amendment of 1,000's of laws, for the sake of equal rights for every activist group imaginable.
It is more of a Pandora's Box than anything else.

"and we're not the ones to decide what's "right and wrong"."

Thats the whole point. And the sanctity of marriage? Marriage is an important way of expressing something a good number of couples want in there life, but the concept of marriage has changed alot. Once there were laws against people from different "races" marrying, as it would endanger the purity etc. People probably said at that time "but if we let a black and white marry, whats to stop them marrying a tree?"

But it did change, and for the good of the world. Once upon a time it was possible for marriage to cover arranged, or forced marriages. Not anymore. At the time people objected as it weakened tradition, and really it allowed people to marry outside of their "station". Marriage has changed, and continues, as it is a way or expression, no oppression.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Marriage has changed, and continues, as it is a way or expression, no oppression.

I haven't gotten married, and after 7 years of being with the same girl, I know I should, but I'm still a fan of marriage and what it stands for morally.

I'm all for "civil unions", as they are different. Marriage, sadly, means less now than it ever did before. Especially since people pick their spouses on television shows after a handful of contrived dates and extravagant non-realistic instances.

I just want to see what sacred little bit of marriage is left, be upheld.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
You have to be careful as to whom you extend favors of equality to. If they allow homosexuals to legally marry, then why not people and animals? Why not people and inanimate objects?

You can laugh all you want, but those are prime examples of how "equality" isn't necessarily fundamentaly safe. Homosexuals can adopt as it is anyway, so I don't see the point in debating it?

Sorry C-Dic, but this argument is flawed to the point of being invalid and has been shot down numerous times during the course of this thread, and the "gay marriage" thread.

Allowing two consenting adults to marry one another is in no way similar or even comparable to a man marrying a dog or a toaster. Bestial marriage is impossible because it is dangerous to the human species. Animals have all sorts of diseases that they are resistant too that humans are not. Thus if someone has sex with an animal they are putting themselves in great jeapordy, not to mention any other human they have sex with after the fact. Also, an animal can't consent to marriage seeing as they don't actually have a grasp as to what the meaning of marriage is. Marriage requires two consenting beings, if nothing else, animals can't consent, thus they can't get married.

Now, as far as a man marrying a toaster, this is simply silly and impossible because again, a toaster can't consent to marriage, plus I think everyone (aside from a few wackos) will agree that marriage should be between two living beings, seeing as a toaster is not alive and thus not capable of love, it can't be married.

So, allowing gay marriage would change very little about the constitution of marriage, this is evident with the numerous countries around the world that allow it and have no problems with the institution of marriage. Extending equal rights to gays is in no way dangerous in any logical mindset.

Also, who's to say that allowing homosexuals to get married will hurt the sanctity of marriage in any way? I've yet to hear any practical reasoning behind this argument, and is just one of the many flawed arguments people throw around in an attempt to withold rights from people who deserve them.

But thats the question, what is marriage ideally intended to be? Nothing more the a set of religious and legal rules? Or as a way of people expressing love? Which should it be? Something that allows people to marry off TV as they are a normal straight couple, yet might very well exclude two men or women who love each other a great deal? Or should it be an avenue, an expression of love on all levels, regardless of race, creed or sexuality?

Originally posted by BackFire
Sorry C-Dic, but this argument is flawed to the point of being invalid and has been shot down numerous times during the course of this thread, and the "gay marriage" thread.

Well, I wasn't even comparing the two, really. It's just that if you make gay marriage legal, there's naturally going to be opposition, support, and ANOTHER group that will want some kind of equal rights appeasement. There's always going to be a "minority".

Also, who's to say that allowing homosexuals to get married will hurt the sanctity of marriage in any way? I've yet to hear any practical reasoning behind this argument, and is just one of the many flawed arguments people throw around in an attempt to withold rights from people who deserve them.

Nobody. It would morally handicap the sanctity of marriage because it defies the very definition of the state of the practice. To be blunt, homosexual marriage isn't what was ever intended. It would be a "socially evolved" appeasement, but not one that everyone should be forced to honor after it being one way for so long.

Marriage is a civil right, not constitutional, right? Homosexual adoption on the other hand is as open as can be, given the right applicators come along. They have the right to adopt already, asi I said numerous times. MY support or lack thereof not withstanding won't change it. I'm aware there are plenty of qualified couples that are/have adopted/ing. I just hope they raise them in as unbiased an environment as possible, for the consideration of the child, with their orientation not making an impact.