Orphanage or gay parents

[connermt]

1)Because there are groups against gay couples adopting for no other reason than because they are gay.


Why not?
2) The question would not even be asked if there were no groups preventing gays from adopting.


3) tell that to the groups preventing gays from adopting.

1) Of course - there are stupid people in the world
2) See #1 above
3) See #1 above as well

 

[McBell]

1) Of course - there are stupid people in the world
2) See #1 above
3) See #1 above as well

unfortunately these people you label stupid are actively preventing same sex couples from adopting.
So I fail to see how merely labeling them as stupid does anything to help the situation.

 

[connermt]

unfortunately these people you label stupid are actively preventing same sex couples from adopting.
So I fail to see how merely labeling them as stupid does anything to help the situation.

That's likely because it won't do anything to remedy the situation. Nor did I say it would. Grass roots campaigns would be a good place to start. But ultimately, time will win out. How much time? I'm not sure.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whats better for a child to grow in?

In an orphanage, or in a gay parents family aproved by a competent social worker for meeting the economical, emotional and psychological requirements to have the child ?

Gay parents all the way.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

of course, if a young boy were to be brought up by two very gay male parents then he would be more likely to turn out this way himself.

that is not a good or fair thing for the child.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[work in progress]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I posted something on the subject of gay adoption previously that busted both of the primary objections from the religious right....they will sexually abuse children or try to recruit them as future homosexuals. But, just like abortion, birth control, terrorism, evolution, climate change, neoliberal economics etc., there are causes that conservatives believe in strongly and pay no attention to any evidence that threatens their convictions. So, why be surprised that the same objections to the subjects like gay marriage or gay parenting are going to keep coming up regardless if there is any merit for such concerns?

 

[connermt]

...try to recruit them as future homosexuals.

I know people say that, but how can anyone that can add 2+2 without a calculator can believe that is beyond me.

 

[nnmartin]

when a man can produce a child with another man then perhaps gay marriage will be possible and the need for adoption passed over.

is it really likely for this to happen though?

 

[McBell]

when a man can produce a child with another man then perhaps gay marriage will be possible and the need for adoption passed over.

is it really likely for this to happen though?

Sad that you think marriage is solely for procreation.

Feel sorry for the missus..

 

[nnmartin]

not solely, but it is the foundation of the tradition for sure.

this regards to secular and religious marriage and is the reason why the partnership needs to consist of man and woman.

The liklihood of natural procreation under normal circumstances is the cornerstone of marriage.

it has been for centuries so why change it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

not solely, but it is the foundation of the tradition for sure.

this regards to secular and religious marriage and is the reason why the partnership needs to consist of man and woman.

Raising children in a heterosexual or homosexual household has virtually nothing to do with ones religious convictions as far as state guidelines are concerned. Another reason why religion traditions of others should not play a factor is due to the fact that not everyone has the same religion or morals.

The liklihood of natural procreation under normal circumstances is the cornerstone of marriage.

Procreation in of itself has nothing to do with marriage. It's obvious children can come about with out the supposed sanctity of marriage.

it has been for centuries so why change it?

Once again, it hasn't.....Homosexuality has been around, in our species and others, before marriage.

 

[connermt]

not solely, but it is the foundation of the tradition for sure.

this regards to secular and religious marriage and is the reason why the partnership needs to consist of man and woman.

The liklihood of natural procreation under normal circumstances is the cornerstone of marriage.

it has been for centuries so why change it?

People sacrificed animals and other people to their gods for centuries.
People hunted for their own food for centuries.
Men had many wives (by tradition and by force) for centuries.
If we keep marriage (legal marraige) the way it's been for centuries, we might as well revert these back to the way they've been for centuries, too, no?
No.
Humanity evolves over time as culture changes.
Our society is seeing that a person's sexuality has about as much to do with marriage and raising children as the color of corn has to do with the song of the humpback whale.

Children can be raised successfully outside of marriage and can be raised horribly within marriage, so why use that old, trite and obviously flawed way of thinking in any debate?

Insecure people can't understand how people different than themselves can function within society.

 

[nnmartin]

that is complete nonsense.

sexuality has everything to do with marriage and raising children.

your off topic analogies (ie:animal sacrifice) add nothing to this debate.

Why did God create Man and Woman do you think?

 

[McBell]

Why did God create Man and Woman do you think?

Depends upon which version of God you subscribe to.

 

[McBell]

not solely, but it is the foundation of the tradition for sure.

Really?
How do you figure that procreation has anything to do with the foundation of traditional marriage?

Seems to me that the foundation for tradition marriage is property rights.

this regards to secular and religious marriage and is the reason why the partnership needs to consist of man and woman.

Yeah, because without marriage women cannot get pregnant...

The liklihood of natural procreation under normal circumstances is the cornerstone of marriage.

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation, natural or other wise.

it has been for centuries so why change it?

really?
Prove it.

Oh wait, I forgot, you are not one to support your baseless claims.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

that is complete nonsense.

What you said? Yes, I agree. You have posted complete nonsense.

sexuality has everything to do with marriage and raising children.

No, no it doesn't. The only place this is true is in the bubble of religion that they hide in to protect themselves from reality.

your off topic analogies (ie:animal sacrifice) add nothing to this debate.

Actually, it does. It's an apt metaphor for the exact same 'logic' that you used. If something should be done because it's traditional, then why not other traditional things?

Why did God create Man and Woman do you think?

Since I don't believe in god, I have no reason to answer this, nor do I have a reason to actually care about nonsense.

Fact is, nothing you've said is any evidence of why a homosexual couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt, especially when a homosexual couple is much more likely to give a child a loving home environment, as opposed to orphanages that are factually and historically know to generally abuse children.

 

[Father Heathen]

of course, if a young boy were to be brought up by two very gay male parents then he would be more likely to turn out this way himself.

that is not a good or fair thing for the child.

What, are they injecting him with hormonal chemicals and retroviruses?

 

[connermt]

that is complete nonsense.

sexuality has everything to do with marriage and raising children.

your off topic analogies (ie:animal sacrifice) add nothing to this debate.

Why did God create Man and Woman do you think?

It's a point of "it's always been that way why change it". Seems ignorant and close minded to think that way, doesn't it?
It's a shame you see sexuality as having to do with reproduction. You limit yourself.
It's even worse that you seem to be saying what a person likes can damage a child. Obviously you know little of raising children correctly.
And I don't believe in the christian god so your point is complete nonsense.
See how that works?

 

[McBell]

It's a point of "it's always been that way why change it".

What makes this part of his argument so comical is the fact that it hasn't always been "this" way.

 

[McBell]

What you said? Yes, I agree. You have posted complete nonsense.

you gotta admit that is was nice of him to warn everyone about the contents of his post...