Homosexual adoption - Abomination or not?

[nnmartin]

Aw you sweet thing, like everyone of your posts wasn't evidence enough. I thought opinion was enough for you.


It's ok though, I'm a secret librettolibrariansombrerofascist.
No one will ever know! But sleep well and tell all your stuffed animals that you showed us!

No need for evidence I agree.

Good , the playing field is level then.



I will give my teddy bear your regards.

 

[nnmartin]

One of the problems with pulling up statistical evidence about anything related to homosexuality and morality is that there is so much bias against conservative viewpoints that articles supporting their assertions are rarely published regardless of the physicians prestige. Those that are published are usually bashed into oblivion and the author is more or less lynched, figuratively speaking of course.

Well said - I agree.

Hard to have a debate over anything these days that is even remotely related to sensitive issues - the PC brigade are onto you like a pack of starving Rottwielers!

There seem to be many liberals here.

 

[Me Myself]

Not much point of having a discussion if it is merely a collection of links, sources, cut and paste jobs, long winded academic findings trawled off the internet etc.. All these things are merely other peoples' opinions anyway.

How about just using your own ideas - no need to hide behind the text book.

That is for high school kids.[/COLOR]

And for college kids too, if they learned anything from high school.

Btw, it is not that we are merely to quote sources and nothing more, if you examine Gjala´s source (which you seem afraid of? is there a phobia with this name?) the introduction of LOGIC and ARGUMENTS is vital to a mature discussion. Sourcesmerely provide evidence to support theories in which the arguments are based on, but without logic a source has no direction.

Look at a source kinda like nails to make a construction. To say that for you to build something you just have to throw nails and let the construction be done by itself would be delirium, but to say that nails are the support of a construction that was made over hard work and a knowledgeable worker would be precise.

The same way, sources are to your arguments what nails are to this worker´s creation.

 

[nnmartin]

MeMyself: That all may be true but it is for another thread.

anyway back to the topic:


I propose that two gay men cannot adopt a child but a lesbian couple can due to their inbuilt maternal instinct.

any views on this?

 

[Me Myself]

MeMyself: That all may be true but it is for another thread.

Reasonable and comprehensive discussion is recommended for every thread actually

I propose that two gay man cannot adopt a child but a lesbian couple can due to their inbuilt maternal instinct.

any views on this?

Yes, I´ve seen many women with 0 maternal instict and many male gays with a lot of maternal instincts.

 

[Father Heathen]

Liberal fascists

 

[Valjean]

I propose that two gay man cannot adopt a child but a lesbian couple can due to their inbuilt maternal instinct.

any views on this?

Is this proposal based on politics or research? On emotion or reason?

The research on the subject supports the fact that children of gay couples turn out just fine, are no more likely to be gay themselves that the general population and, in fact, generally turn out much better off than the children of single parents, for example.

You have a computer, nmartin. You can google the opinions of the various psychiatric associations. They find no harmful outcomes.

This is not a matter of opinion any more than plate tectonics or electromagnetism is. The only reasonable opinion on the subject is that which agrees with the bulk of evidence.

 

[McBell]

One of the problems with pulling up statistical evidence about anything related to homosexuality and morality is that there is so much bias against conservative viewpoints that articles supporting their assertions are rarely published regardless of the physicians prestige. Those that are published are usually bashed into oblivion and the author is more or less lynched, figuratively speaking of course.

This is nothing but a well worded pile of Expelled style bull ****.

 

[Viker]

Liberofascism for a start.

Never heard of that. I did a check and it does not seem to exist as far as my research can conclude. I don't think imaginary monsters can threaten real persons but I'll check on that as well to confirm.

 

[nnmartin]

If gay couples are allowed to adopt children then where does that leave the role of marriage?

Marriage is meant to be one of the cornerstones of society, the family unit and all associated with it. This applies whether you are relgious or not.


Viker: Liberofascism is the term used to describe the indoctrination of the masses to abide by liberal values. Anything is tolerated if it is deemed politically correct. To oppose any such liberal nonsense labels you a fascist , redneck, troll , nazi etc.. quite ridiculous really.

 

[nnmartin]

Is this proposal based on politics or research? On emotion or reason?

It is based on reason mainly , and as I said in the OP I am not a homophobe.

Now another point I would like to add is that in probably 99% of cases there is no need for a gay couple to even adopt in the first place - if they want a child it is perfectly possible for one of the partners to go out and produce one naturally like everyone else.

That would make a lot more sense than complaining about homophobia.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that a loving home, with a parent or parents who are able to provide safety as well as financially for a child, is far better than a life in foster care or an orphanage, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parent(s).

 

[Kathryn]

It is based on reason mainly , and as I said in the OP I am not a homophobe.

Now another point I would like to add is that in probably 99% of cases there is no need for a gay couple to even adopt in the first place - if they want a child it is perfectly possible for one of the partners to go out and produce one naturally like everyone else.

That would make a lot more sense than complaining about homophobia.

So you'd rather children languish in foster care rather than be placed in a home with gay parents? That makes more sense to you?

 

[Kathryn]

I would not call having 3 moms and 3 dads common sense.

it's unnatural modern day political correctness gone wrong.

My stepson has four parents and all of us are heterosexual. He's an honor student and doing great.

Kids need loving, responsible parents who look after their welfare and who support them with affection and respect. Sexual orientation doesn't affect any of those qualities.

 

[nnmartin]

So you'd rather children languish in foster care rather than be placed in a home with gay parents? That makes more sense to you?

Neither situation is ideal but comparing two wrongs is hardly a solution.


Now, why doesn't one of the gay couple go out and produce a child of their own?

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither situation is ideal but comparing two wrongs is hardly a solution.
Now, why doesn't one of the gay couple go out and produce a child of their own?

Whether the can't, won't or plan to (but haven't yet) is irrelevant.
Let'm have the same choices as hetero couples when they're up to the task.

 

[Kathryn]

Neither situation is ideal but comparing two wrongs is hardly a solution.


Now, why doesn't one of the gay couple go out and produce a child of their own?

Maybe for the same reasons that hetero couples can't or won't - health reasons, altruism, age, the expense or hassle, etc. Why should they be held to a different standard than hetero couples? Many hetero couples are physically able to have children but choose to adopt.

 

[nnmartin]

Whether the can't, won't or plan to (but haven't yet) is irrelevant.
Let'm have the same choices as hetero couples when they're up to the task.

Can't , won't or plan to is highly relevant.

If they are capable of having a child and want one then they are only stopping themselves by not doing so.

If I felt like not working that is up to me but I couldn't expect to get welfare/benefits for too long. It is really the same thing with a homosexual refusing to procreate because they don't want to.

Perhaps adoption could be allowed for gay couples that are naturally unable to conceive though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can't , won't or plan to is highly relevant.
If they are capable of having a child and want one then they are only stopping themselves by not doing so.

Hetero couples are subject to the same decisions & circumstances, yet this is generally not considered relevant to their decision to adopt.

If I felt like not working that is up to me but I couldn't expect to get welfare/benefits for too long. It is really the same thing with a homosexual refusing to procreate because they don't want to.

Hetero & homo couples are little different in this regard.

Perhaps adoption could be allowed for gay couples that are naturally unable to conceive.

Do you propose this same restriction for hetero coouples?

 

[nnmartin]

Maybe for the same reasons that hetero couples can't or won't - health reasons, altruism, age, the expense or hassle, etc. Why should they be held to a different standard than hetero couples? Many hetero couples are physically able to have children but choose to adopt.

Do you propose this same restriction for hetero couples?

A heterosexual couple who could conceive but wanted to adopt would be dealt with case by case - but if both partners health were fine then why would they want to adopt anyway? - that would need to be considered.

How does the expense or hassle of conceiving come into the equation?


To start off as the base form of the argument I would say that a young gay couple that were healthy should be told that they cannot adopt as they do not need to.

As for any exceptional circumstances then please ask and I will see how it fits into the plan.