Homosexual's Adopting?

Infants don't have any sense of reasoning. In a toddlers mind two dads = more fun stuff with daddy. So of course they might pick them not knowing the reality of what they are and the consequences that may follow.

 

Are you saying having gay parents is worse than having no parents?

If so, I must whole-heartedly disagree.

 

This is proof you don't read what I write, you just read and hear what you want to.

I'm saying that there are plenty of loving, STRAIGHT couples who should get to adopt children before gays do.

 

130,000 children is a lot of waiting children. Where are the heterosexual couples to adopt them? I'm sure those kids would rather grow up with some sort of parents than no parents at all.

And stop trying to personally attack me, I'm not here to flame, and I hope you aren't as well.

 

There is a fine line between personally attacking you and pointing out something you are doing.

If you get offended by me saying that you don't listen to what I say, you need to get out more.

 

Fuck religions altogether then xD

So giving a person homosexual parents would be a burden upon the child? So if your dad turned out to be gay, then it would be a burden upon you? Fuck love

Its actually proven that its easier to talk to someone that you dont know, and dont care about than a loved one.




-- My Own View

Whether Homosexuals should adopt or not is a difficult subject.

So once a child gets adopted into a homosexual couple, the child is messed up for life? They will learn to be more tolerant to other races, religions, etc.

So the only way that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt is if the kid is living on the street, eating garbage and is about to die from several diseases/infections?

 

Once again, that comment has nothing to do with the topic.

Yes it would be a burden, not only that, I explained why in my post. And, god forbid, if my father did turn out to be gay, it would be a burden upon me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't love him, but nonetheless, I would be very burdened (for all the reasons states in my earlier post).

Where is this proof? I for one would not open up to anyone unless I felt very close to them. Whenever you talk about your personal affairs you always leave yourself vulnerable. By talking to someone one trusts, one will feel more at ease. Nonetheless, where is this proof? I've never heard of it.

They might be more tolerant, but that is not certain. And yes, they will be "messed" up in all the different ways I stated earlier.

That's a bit extreme. I don't see why children should be "living on the street, eating garbage and is about to die from several diseases/infections." However, I do believe that heterosexual couples should be given priority over homosexual couples. Unless all children are adopted by heterosexual couples, the only reason homosexuals should have the right to adopt is to give a home for these unlucky children.

-- Side Note

Shakaka, I'm done arguing with you on this thread as well. You seem more interested in flaming than actually discussing the topic. I see you don't like it when people refute your flawed/inaccurate claims. Go bother someone else.

 

everything has something to do with this topic.

So let me ask you this, your parents know every single thing about you, no matter how good, or bad? I would find that hard to believe, that you told someone like a friend, or something. You might share a bond with them, but that started by a smaller opening and the opening up got bigger and better.

Er, the child is already unlucky since he has been put into the current environment that he/she is in. And with most of the people these days, its cheaper to adopt from another country, than in the U.S.

 

That's exactly what I was gonna say. If a kid (under 13 or however age he/she may start maturing) gets adopted by a gay couple, he/she wont know whats going on, they'll be confused, and most definitely, because of the environment they are in now, they will be gay, just before they can see why not to be gay or the real reasons of why be gay. So, no for me.

 

so homosexuality is a contagious disease?

 

On a side note, if the biological mother would of had an abortion, then none of this would of happened

 

When I said,

It was in response to this post.

I do agree that it's much better to have homosexual parents as opposed to having no parents at all. As I said in my first post

Also...

This depends on your definition of "bad" or "wrong." I truly believe being gay is unnatural.

If more members of our society turn towards a homosexual lifestyle, our very existence could be at risk.
This is the main reason why I, personally, disapprove of homosexuality. I elaborate on this point in my earlier posts.

 

How is it nonsense? I never said it would be a problem, but if a child see's his dad/mom doing something, of course he's gonna learn, and probably become gay himself. I just think he should be given a fair environment and then chose. You become gay from your environment, and I don't see any other possibility that will affect you more than having gay parents.

I don't know how it is in UK, but in US people get a lot of shit for even doing something gay (and are not gay). Now being gay, and having gay parents, a child would be driven to madness. I'm not just saying that, there is almost no tolerance in schools.

 

By that post, you are saying that homosexuality is contagious, and should be terminated at the source. Correct me if im wrong, please.

And at this point in time, we have more to worry about than a child being raised in a homosexual environment.

 

agree that a child may be given the impression that homosexuality is a "natural" way of life, but that doesn't mean he/she will "probably become gay himself." Furthermore, ideally we would want to give these children a "fair environment" but clearly that's not realistic. With 130,000 kids each year (in the USA alone) left unadopted, they already live in unfair environment. As a result, I'm sure they would rather to choose to have homosexual parents (who would offer them love, care, and protection) than having no parents at all.

That's a bit extreme. Although I agree that a child in elementary school may be teased on, this is certainly not the case in middle schools/high schools, at least from what I've seen personally in California. I highly doubt the child would be "driven to madness." As far as I've seen at the schools in my neighborhood, homosexuals receive more positive attention than heterosexuals. It's almost as if homosexuality has become a fad.

Although there would be some sort of negativity generated towards the children of homosexual parents. I think it's a bit sensationalist to assert it would cause one to be "driven to madness."

EDIT:

Where did I imply it is contagious? In fact, where did I even refer to it as something that is capable of being "contagious." One does not "catch gay" from another person. Don't bring something up that's totally unrelated to what I said/the topic at hand, that's known as Red Herring, it's a fallacy. Nonetheless, if more of our society continues becoming homosexual, we are at risk for the reasons stated in my earlier posts. Furthermore, the question in this thread is whether or not homosexuals should be given the right to adopt, NOT whether we should worry about it during this point in time.

 

I don't see why homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt though. You're making it seem as if growing up in a homosexual household is a bad thing and could result in the child being gay themselves? Last time I checked, most homosexuals come from a heterosexual family, so please explain to me why we should allow heterosexuals to adopt?? Your opinion is based on a prejudice and stereotypical argument that gays are unnatural. As far as I'm concerned, there are many animals on the earth who perform homosexual acts (and as far as I know they don't have the intelligence level that we humans have), and yet they aren't considered unnatural animals because of those tendencies... I think that it is unfair to discriminate against a homosexual couple who goes through hell (no pun intended) just to adopt in the first place than parents who had 6 children under the age of 20 and can't afford food for the next meal. I don't know about you but I would much rather be with the homosexual parents who can obviously support me.

 

Although I think its very ignorant to say they shouldn't be able to adopt on the fact that the child may or may not be harassed by school kids.

I still do agree with them that no they should not be able to because every child should have a mom and a dad, not 2 of the same. Not only that but I think it sets a bad example for the child because I believe you are not born gay.

 

No, those kids aren't given a fair environment in money wise, but they get to know their actual sex orientation, rather than what their parents do.

Are you like.. talking about the gay dreamland? Do you know how many people in Utah commit suicide because they get so much crap, and they aren't even the gay ones. Homosexuality is not a fad in the real world. People get a lot of crap, and I know it. There are probably like 20 gay kids in our school, who always end up crying at least 1 time at the end of the week from people teasing them. I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say it's becoming a fad..

 

Here is why

They offer traditional values, love, food, care, etc. Those children need a home, heterosexual couples can give it to them. Furthermore, heterosexual parents will free the child from all the confusions/difficulties listed above.

Prejudice? My argument is multi-faceted, and I fail to see any stereotypical comments in my posts. Furthermore, as I've said COUNTLESS times now

Therefore yes, according to the laws of nature, being gay is unnatural.

Performing homosexual activities/having homosexual tendencies is not the same thing as actually being homosexual. Those animals could preform those homosexual activities, yet still be heterosexual. This can be applied to humans as well. On the battlefield, males bond with other males and sometimes develop deep a brotherly love for each other. Although one could contend this a homosexual tendency, the men themselves may be heterosexual. No animal is naturally homosexual. According to the laws of nature, this would be unfavorable trait to have. Why? Because homosexuals cannot reproduce, the species would die out.

Geez I hate repeating myself. Nevertheless, I must do it again.

 

You are saying that if more people turn towards it. Its not a fucking style, or a clothing line that you just put on when your bored. Its something that you either decide, or might soon be proven, that you have a genetic mutation.