Homosexuals Adopting

LittleNipper · #21 28th October 2009, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by glittereve

Hello to everyone!

I'm writing a paper on homosexuals adopting. It's a paper more about the discourse on it and not my personal opinion so I would like to hear your views on this subject.

Thank you very much for all that post their views

Every child deserves the best and the best is both a Father and Mother. A child in an orphanage is there because he or she has already lost his or her real parents for wharever reason.

I do not feel that it is rewarding to subject such a child to further complications that need not be. Adoption should be allowed ONLY for a married couple, and that couple should represent as natural and as wholesome of an environment as possible.

There should be a balance of both a male and female role models. That can only be provided where there is a husband and a wife. A child that may already feel as being disadvantaged, should not be subjected to the fashionable whims of society. The needs of the child must be placed as the most important, above those who may either be seeking a "pet" or attempting to prove something to society or themselves...

brightmorningstar · #22 28th October 2009, 11:28 AM

To jayem,

But the quality of the parents' relationship is critically important. If they show love, devotion, and respect towards each other, the children will absorb that. But if the parents' relationship is cold, distant, argumentative, disrespectful, or worse, abusive, then a child will have to overcome a terrible lesson in how adults behave.

Absolutely, but that is at a tangent to the issue of the thread.

I'd say a loving, committed same sex couple would provide a much better environment for well-adjusted children than an undevoted, unloving man and woman.

I would say a loving committed man and woman couple would provide a much better environment for well adjusted children than an undevoted, unloving same sex couple.

But without mixing and matching opposites, I would say that a loving, committed man and woman couple would provide a much better environment for well-adjusted children than a loving, committed same sex couple, as the former is natural and the latter dysfunctional.

Psudopod · #23 28th October 2009, 11:35 AM

But without mixing and matching opposites, I would say that a loving, committed man and woman couple would provide a much better environment for well-adjusted children than a loving, committed same sex couple, as the former is natural and the latter dysfunctional.

Have you got any evidence to back up the idea that a male/female could would provide a better environment?

brightmorningstar · #24 28th October 2009, 11:39 AM

To Psudopod,
But without mixing and matching opposites, I would say that a loving, committed man and woman couple would provide a much better environment for well-adjusted children than a loving, committed same sex couple, as the former is natural and the latter dysfunctional.

Have you got any evidence to back up the idea that a male/female could would provide a better environment?

If same sex couple were better why would there be two sexes for reproduction?

Psudopod · #25 28th October 2009, 11:44 AM

Have you got any evidence to back up the idea that a male/female could would provide a better environment?
If same sex couple were better why would there be two sexes for reproduction?

But we’re not talking about reproduction are we? We’re talking about adoption. The child is already born. I’m asking if you have any evidence that a same sex couple would do worse at raising a child, compared to an opposite sex one.

Polycarp1 · #26 28th October 2009, 11:44 AM

I have been told repeatedly on this forum that it is absolutely essential that there be two adopting parents, and that one have a penis and the other a vagina, and that this is necessary to be proper role models. A sense of parental love for the child, a sense on the child's part of filial love for the prospective parents, adequate financial resources, the ability to discipline within appropriate limits, the ability to teach life skills, the ability to mentor the child as he/she matures -- none of these are ever mentioned. My conclusion is that it must be that the heterosexual-couple adoptive parents are supposed to engage in sexual intercourse in front of their children, in order to better demonstrate how to do so to them. I can't see any other logical reason why those physiological requirements are held in so high regard.

I hope it's obvious that I don't agree with this position.

JGG · #27 28th October 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar

If same sex couple were better why would there be two sexes for reproduction?

That's not what was said: Why are heterosexual couples better? I watched a heterosexual couple dance on their son's grave. Do you think that's "better?"

brightmorningstar · #28 28th October 2009, 11:52 AM

To Psudopod,

But we’re not talking about reproduction are we?

Yes of course we are, Its a requirement, otherwise where do you think the children come from in adoption?

[quote] We’re talking about adoption. The child is already born. I’m asking if you have any evidence that a same sex couple would do worse at raising a child, compared to an opposite sex one. [/quote And my answer is as it takes both sexes to reproduce the children nature has provided two sexes so a same sex couple is at odds with what nature has provided. My question to you is why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?

brightmorningstar · #29 28th October 2009, 11:56 AM

To JGG

That's not what was said: Why are heterosexual couples better? I watched a heterosexual couple dance on their son's grave. Do you think that's "better?"

Heterosexual wasn’t mentioned why are you telling me what wasn’t said when you are telling what wasn’t said.
I would point out to you that a same sex couple cant dance on their own son’s grave because a same sex couple cant produce a son, so I don’t see how your point applies.

JGG · #30 28th October 2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar

To JGG
Heterosexual wasn’t mentioned why are you telling me what wasn’t said when you are telling what wasn’t said.

What was asked was evidence that same sex couples were worse, not that they were better. I could go quote it, but it's just up there.

I would point out to you that a same sex couple cant dance on their own son’s grave because a same sex couple cant produce a son, so I don’t see how your point applies.

Good form. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could actually do worse. But as dancing on your son's grave is considered good parenting in the Christian community I can't claim to be surprised. Par for the course nowadays.