Homosexual's Adopting?

[shakaka]

Erm... what? I don't see how this relates to the subject at hand.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, if the children have the choice between having gay parents or no parents, I see no reason why to refuse those children that choice. This way, the children have some sort of parental love/care in their life.

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.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

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.

 

[shakaka]

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.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

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.

"Between FY 2002 and FY 2006, the estimated number of waiting children was approximately 130,000 on the last day of each year."

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.

 

[shakaka]

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.

 

[TJ]

That is a totally subjective statement, it has no place in this argument. Furthermore, "Christian household(s)" is not the only alternative to a homosexual environment. There are many Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Bhuddist, Zoroastrian, Athetist, etc heterosexual households.

Fuck religions altogether then xD

Adding fuel to the fire is just as bad as lighting it in the first place. Children have enough problems as it is, why should we burden them with more?

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

And if they do not have someone they look up to? Children have a very difficult time building strong bonds with other people. They are very connected to their parents because they spend their early years with them. Even in our later years it's hard to find people who we can trust as much as our parents.

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.

On one hand, homosexual couples can create confusion, harassment, and misguidance for the child. The child may get a wrong idea of heterosexual/homosexual relationships. Furthermore, the child may be harassed by outside sources, thus leading to very traumatic consequences. Lastly, the child may believe that being homosexual is "natural." Something which, in my opinion, is VERY alarming. Why? If our population contains to breed this insanity, we will die out. Two men cannot make a child, nor can two women, nature did not make it so. Without a doubt, a child adopted into a homosexual family will be somewhat "messed" up.

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.

Homosexuals may offer a loving environment for those otherwise, deprived children. Because there are more children up for adoption than heterosexuals looking to adopt, perhaps homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. The children wouldn't be in the best environment in a homosexual household, (for the reasons stated above) however, it would be better than living in some orphanage or horrible foster care.

When it comes down to giving the children gay parents, or no parents at all, I definitely believe homosexuals should have the right to adopt. This is the sole reason why I would be/am in favor of Homosexuals adopting.

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?

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Fuck religions altogether then xD

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

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[TJ]

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

everything has something to do with this topic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jesse]

No. Although I think gays marrying is OK, them having kids is crossing the line.

Kids should be brought up with a father figure, and a mother figure. And no, just because one dresses and acts like a woman doesn't count. Kids being picked on by others would be the least of my worries. The emotional differences and scaring that would happen would be unfair to the child.

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.

 

[TJ]

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?

 

[TJ]

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

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Don't be so very parochial.

You must establish which is the worse scenario:

Leading a life in a sheltered orphanage with no parents or true personal guardians, or enjoying what may potentially be a very happy life with two loving guardians, with a slight bit of hassle throughout school.

I think I know which scenario I'd opt for!

When I said,

Adding fuel to the fire is just as bad as lighting it in the first place. Children have enough problems as it is, why should we burden them with more?

It was in response to this post.

Okay, if you are talking about the child being made fun of, any child will be made fun of. Dont have something that they will make fun of? They will find something, and pick it to the bone. It doesn't matter if they pick on the homosexual parents, its the reasoning that they would find something else to pick on them about.

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

Homosexuals may offer a loving environment for those otherwise, deprived children. Because there are more children up for adoption than heterosexuals looking to adopt, perhaps homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. The children wouldn't be in the best environment in a homosexual household, (for the reasons stated above) however, it would be better than living in some orphanage or horrible foster care.

Also...

Even if the child did become homosexual, what would be the problem? Are you asserting homosexuality is bad and or wrong? If so, why?

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

Two men cannot make a child, nor can two women, nature did not make it so.

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.

 

[Jesse]

Absolute nonsense.

Although upbringing controversially may have some impact on your orientation, there is no proof that it WILL - without doubt - cause you to become homosexual.

I could argue that many children of heterosexual parents can be homosexual, so many children of homosexuals could quite as easily be heterosexual.

Even if the child did become homosexual, what would be the problem? Are you asserting homosexuality is bad and or wrong? If so, why?

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.

 

[TJ]

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.

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.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[R33l2r3al]

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.

 

[Fallen Soul]

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.

 

[Jesse]

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.

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.

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.

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..

 

[Supa_Ramga]

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.

I don't see why homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt though.

Here is why

On one hand, homosexual couples can create confusion, harassment, and misguidance for the child. The child may get a wrong idea of heterosexual/homosexual relationships. Furthermore, the child may be harassed by outside sources, thus leading to very traumatic consequences. Lastly, the child may believe that being homosexual is "natural." Something which, in my opinion, is VERY alarming. Why? If our population contains to breed this insanity, we will die out. Two men cannot make a child, nor can two women, nature did not make it so. Without a doubt, a child adopted into a homosexual family will be somewhat "messed" up.

explain to me why we should allow heterosexuals to adopt??

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.

Your opinion is based on a prejudice and stereotypical argument that gays are unnatural.

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

Two men cannot make a child, nor can two women, nature did not make it so.

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

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.

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.

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

Homosexuals may offer a loving environment for those otherwise, deprived children. Because there are more children up for adoption than heterosexuals looking to adopt, perhaps homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. The children wouldn't be in the best environment in a homosexual household, (for the reasons stated above) however, it would be better than living in some orphanage or horrible foster care.

 

[TJ]

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.

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.