Homosexuals Adopting

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

No, we’re talking about children who are already in existence.

because of man/woman couples so its crucial that’s why I pointed it out.

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.

Yes its outside reality if there are two sexes which reproduce. The only reason you pose the question is because you don’t recognise the reality.

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.

But does raising the child require two parents, one of each sex?

Yes of course why do you think two sexes exist in the first place? Just because it doesn’t fit your particular worldview doesn’t mean its not reality.

Given that historically, a child may have be raised by a group of related females (mother, grandmother, older sisters, aunts etc) or completely unrelated adults (wet nurse, nanny, tutors, governess etc); and in modern societies studies have shown that children raised by same sex parents suffer no detriment mentally, physically, educationally etc when compared with peers raised by opposite sex parents, why do you think it is necessary to restrict the number of potential adoptive parents.

This is largely true, but there are also tales of animals raising children, but nature or God has given us male and female so between same sex and male and female, male and female is what society should have.
Also you have mixed the information, those related are also more appropriate to raise the children than same sex coupled by their sexual dysfunction.
And there are all kinds of studies around with all kinds of agendas which don’t reflect reality.

Think about it, with a male/female couple, if it is a girl then the girl at least has a female parent, if it’s a boy the boy at least has a male parent. I mean, if the sex of the parents and children isn’t important than where is the basis of your argument, just have what exists in reality, both male and female.

I’m not proposing it like it’s a new thing. Same sex couples exist, many raise children, some of whom are adopted. Why should this stop?

So as I didn’t ask you that I’ll ask again. My question to you is why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?

 

[Polycarp1]

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

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?

So your position would be, if one parent abandons, separates from, or divorces the other, or is killed, the children should be taken away from the now single parent and given to a couple? If not, distinguish between what the single remaining parent can provide the child and what a same-sex couple can.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

But this benifit has not been shown.

The benefit of same sex has not been shown and its detriment cant yet be shown as adoption by same sex couples as sexual partnerships like marriage is too new.

Just because something is normal does not make it right.

It does when the alternative doesnt exist. Same sex couples cant reproduce chidren. i

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

So your position would be, if one parent abandons, separates from, or divorces the other, or is killed, the children should be taken away from the now single parent and given to a couple?

No.

If not, distinguish between what the single remaining parent can provide the child and what a same-sex couple can.

Sorry but if you addressed my point you will see a same sex couple lacks both sexes so leave the child with the single parent. If the children lose both parents give the chidren to a singel parent or a male female couple, dont give them to a same sex couple, thats dysfunctional.
Why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes? If you dont see a significant enough difference in the sexes why are there two sexes?

 

[keith99]

Well, I do not believe single women, single men, or homosexual couples should be in the foster care system. The ideal would be for a child to go to a foster care home and that child and those foster parents (a married husband & wife) coming to an agreement that they should remain as a family.

The reality is that most get adopted unless there are serious medical complications with the child that would require extreme measures, or the child is emotionally dangerous. My guess is that even most homosexual "couples" wouldn't want their decor ruined...

Yea, most. Which only means over half. Someone already posted here that about 25% only get out of the foster care system by turning 18.

Though I can see why you don't want same sex couples adapting. Your line about decor makes it clear you think in terms of a steriotype that is almost a parody.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?

"The whole question of children" is a meaningless statement.

Two sexes are required to produce a child. That has nothing to do with raising a child.

Why is this SO hard to understand for some people?

 

[LittleNipper]

Yea, most. Which only means over half. Someone already posted here that about 25% only get out of the foster care system by turning 18.

Though I can see why you don't want same sex couples adapting. Your line about decor makes it clear you think in terms of a steriotype that is almost a parody.

Is the parody that far off the mark? Do they, in general, not see themselves as "artistic." Do not TV shows in an effort to embrace "homosexuality" not portray flamboyant qualities as desirable attributes?

Foster parents are not the worse thing in the world. Many have helped to raise countless children to wonderful adulthood...

 

[sidhe]

Is the parody that far off the mark? Do they, in general, not see themselves as "artistic." Do not TV shows in an effort to embrace "homosexuality" not portray flamboyant qualities as desirable attributes?

TV shows also depict that there are those among us with superpowers, that a high school girl in Cali is a prophesied vampire killer, that med students live lives of high drama and intensity/high comedy and romance, and that community college Spanish teachers of Asian heritage are angry, bitter little men.

In other words - pointing to fiction to support your point is fail.

 

[levi501]

To Psudopod,
The benefit of same sex has not been shown and its detriment cant yet be shown as adoption by same sex couples as sexual partnerships like marriage is too new. It does when the alternative doesnt exist. Same sex couples cant reproduce chidren. i

The burden of proof to show why same-sex relationships are less ideal for raising children than opposite-sex lies with you. Appeal to tradition has been proven over and over throughout history as false. Because they can't reproduce is a non sequitur. Try again because you have nothing. What's sad is you can't grasp why what you're saying is irrational, inconsistent and false.

 

[levi501]

"The whole question of children" is a meaningless statement.

Two sexes are required to produce a child. That has nothing to do with raising a child.

Why is this SO hard to understand for some people?

Because they can't separate the emotion from their arguments due to engrained beliefs they've held their entire life. They lack the capacity to change as they've become to heavily invested in their beliefs and irrationally defend them.
This is why time and the passing of generations is best for change.

 

[Polycarp1]

To Polycarp1,
No.
Sorry but if you addressed my point you will see a same sex couple lacks both sexes so leave the child with the single parent. If the children lose both parents give the chidren to a singel parent or a male female couple, dont give them to a same sex couple, thats dysfunctional.
Why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes? If you dont see a significant enough difference in the sexes why are there two sexes?

When studies have shown that two parents are better than one, and a same-sex couple makes as effective parents as an opposite-sex one, what I'd consider dysfunctional is to claim that what is required for reproduction has some bearing on what is needed for effective parenting.

I've seen single parents, of both sexes, make effective parents, I've seen a couple of maiden aunts who loved their orphaned nephews make effective parents. But having two parents so one is not "on duty 24-7" and has some backup and assistance in parenting seems to be better than a single parent, on average.

In addition, it is a 20th century concept that what the individual may or may not do depends on its benefit to 'society' -- so don't be presenting it as 'traditional'.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

People, please. It is not gay adoption. It is not homosexual adoption. It is adoption by a same-sex couple.

Unless of course we're talking about adopting gays.

 

[cantata]

Unless of course we're talking about adopting gays.

Aw, that sounds like fun!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Aw, that sounds like fun!

I'll adopt you if you promise to support me in my old age...

 

[cantata]

I'll adopt you if you promise to support me in my old age...

But I’m not gay.

 

[keith99]

Is the parody that far off the mark? Do they, in general, not see themselves as "artistic." Do not TV shows in an effort to embrace "homosexuality" not portray flamboyant qualities as desirable attributes?

Foster parents are not the worse thing in the world. Many have helped to raise countless children to wonderful adulthood...

In my world it is miles off the mark. 90% of the gay men I know are Leathermen. They are not fluff, their values when it comes to fair dealing with others is very traditional do the right thing, with a touch of tough love. If I needed backup in a potentially violent situation they are one of the best groups I could think of. In short aside from their choice of sex partners they are as far from what you think of as gay as you can get.

In general gays see themselfs as individuals. I also see them as individuals, each different.

 

[Archer93]

To Psudopod,

because of man/woman couples so its crucial that’s why I pointed it out.

Yes its outside reality if there are two sexes which reproduce. The only reason you pose the question is because you don’t recognise the reality.

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.


Yes of course why do you think two sexes exist in the first place? Just because it doesn’t fit your particular worldview doesn’t mean its not reality.

This is largely true, but there are also tales of animals raising children, but nature or God has given us male and female so between same sex and male and female, male and female is what society should have.
Also you have mixed the information, those related are also more appropriate to raise the children than same sex coupled by their sexual dysfunction.
And there are all kinds of studies around with all kinds of agendas which don’t reflect reality.

Think about it, with a male/female couple, if it is a girl then the girl at least has a female parent, if it’s a boy the boy at least has a male parent. I mean, if the sex of the parents and children isn’t important than where is the basis of your argument, just have what exists in reality, both male and female.

So as I didn’t ask you that I’ll ask again. My question to you is why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?

A child ends up needing adoption because at some point there's been a breakdown in the male-female relationship.
Sperm meets egg and that's how you end up with a baby. True. But there's a lot more to being a parent than provinging one half of the DNA.

I think that we're never going to agree on this because of differing standpoints on why there is sexual reproduction.
You appear to belive that sexual reproduction exists because your God created one man and one woman about 6,000 years ago.
Biologists will tell you that sexual reproduction exists because somewhen a lot longer ago very early life developed in such a way, and survived because sexual reproduction results in increased variation in the population.
Increased variation in the population results in greater variety and the development of new attributes, which results in evolution.

Two diametrically opposing viewpoints.

Your continued description of same-sex couples as 'sexual dysfunction' is pointless, however, unless you hold that the only reason for sexual contact is to reproduce.
If you were at least to maintain that only people who are capable of reproduction should have sex, that would be consistant. Do you believe that?

Children need role models of both sexes. But there's no reason to hold that the role models need to be biological donors, otherwise that would rule out opposite-sex adoptive parents. And given the history of children being raised by nannies and governesses as mentioned above, plus the role that godparents are expected to play in a child's life and the extended family structure that was standard until the Industrial Revolution, the idea that not-parents are irrelevant is a very new one.

Stability, love and support are important for children.
What their parents do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not important.

 

[Archer93]

Is the parody that far off the mark? Do they, in general, not see themselves as "artistic." Do not TV shows in an effort to embrace "homosexuality" not portray flamboyant qualities as desirable attributes?

Foster parents are not the worse thing in the world. Many have helped to raise countless children to wonderful adulthood...

If you think that shows such as 'Queer eye for the straight guy' are cutting edge reportage, I have a bridge in just your colour.
The media is all about the visual.

Taking care of one's appearence and looking nice is not only for gay men. Nor is being flamboyant and camp.

Fostering is a wonderful thing to do and it's much better for children than state run homes. Happily, many couples are prepared to step up and provide that. Same-sex and opposite-sex.

 

[Archer93]

If you think that shows such as 'Queer eye for the straight guy' are cutting edge reportage, I have a bridge in just your colour.
The media is all about the visual.

Taking care of one's appearence and looking nice is not only for gay men. Nor is being flamboyant and camp.
And, as Keith99 points out, 'flamboyant' is not the sine qua non of being gay.
I always get on very well with bears. Maybe because, in the UK, the groups 'bears' and 'real ale drinkers' have a sizable intersection.

Fostering is a wonderful thing to do and it's much better for children than state run homes. Happily, many couples are prepared to step up and provide that. Same-sex and opposite-sex.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,
Why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes? If you dont see a significant enough difference in the sexes why are there two sexes?

When studies have shown that two parents are better than one, and a same-sex couple makes as effective parents as an opposite-sex one, what I'd consider dysfunctional is to claim that what is required for reproduction has some bearing on what is needed for effective parenting.

Sorry but we have seen plenty of studies that are false and subject to an agenda and any that suggest same sex couples make effective parents are obviously ignoring the obvious in propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?
And we all know what the Bible says, it condemns same sex relationships.