Homosexuals Adopting

[JGG]

"You are confusing sexual reproduction with parenting. It takes a sperm and an egg to reproduce, it takes love, stability and support to provide parenting. Some couples can provide both, some only the former, some only the latter. Both opposite and same sex couples can belong to the last group."

In response to this statement...

The relationship itself your have an affect on the children when they see that the norm is male/female. Especially, when starting school and other activities. They will notice that most family structures are male/female.

At this point, they will probably start to question their own sexual preference, I'm sure.

So, in short, their parent's decisions on having same sex relationships will ultimately cause them to second guess their own identity.

Second guess their identity? What is the "identity" of these hypothetical people? The norm is also two parents. Having only one parent, and in all honesty being raised by three women didn't cause me to second guess my own identity, it shaped my identity. I wasn't born with it, I created an identity out of the circumstances I was raised in. Everyone does.

 

[cantata]

The relationship itself your have an affect on the children when they see that the norm is male/female. Especially, when starting school and other activities. They will notice that most family structures are male/female.

At this point, they will probably start to question their own sexual preference, I'm sure.

So, in short, their parent's decisions on having same sex relationships will ultimately cause them to second guess their own identity.

The norm is that the couple are of the same race, too.

Very few families are normal in every way. And children are remarkably resilient.

 

[Maren]

"You are confusing sexual reproduction with parenting. It takes a sperm and an egg to reproduce, it takes love, stability and support to provide parenting. Some couples can provide both, some only the former, some only the latter. Both opposite and same sex couples can belong to the last group."

In response to this statement...

The relationship itself your have an affect on the children when they see that the norm is male/female. Especially, when starting school and other activities. They will notice that most family structures are male/female.

At this point, they will probably start to question their own sexual preference, I'm sure.

So, in short, their parent's decisions on having same sex relationships will ultimately cause them to second guess their own identity.

This sounds like the same argument used against interracial couples -- that most kids would have parents that are the same as them. It was postulated that since the children would be outside the norm they would start to question who they really were -- causing them to act out and be outsiders in (what was then) a largely segregated society.

Why should we accept that this would be true of same-sex families when it wasn't true of interracial families? And (were what you claim be true) does it mean if a child identifies as gay that it should immediately be taken from it's heterosexual parents and given to a same sex couple so the child won't have identity issues?

 

[trunks2k]

So, in short, their parent's decisions on having same sex relationships will ultimately cause them to second guess their own identity.

Not really. Children of same sex parents do show a greater willingness to experiment with their sexuality. That is, however, different from being "confused" and I do not see it as bad thing. If anything I see it as a good thing and makes them less likely to be confused since they're willing to try it out and find out quickly that it is (not) for them. It makes them more accepting of their, and other's, sexuality.

In the long run, studies have consistently shown that children of same sex couples identify as straight, gay and bisexual at the same rates as those of opposite sex couples.

There are no studies that I am aware of that show children of same sex couples are any different than children of opposite sex couples other than said children being more willing to experiment with their sexuality and are more likely to enter jobs that don't traditionally apply to their gender (i.e. girls are more likely to enter fields such as engineering).

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Archer93,

Andre Smith refered to the story of God taking a rib out of Adam and using that to make Eve. That's the literal Genesis story. Well, one of them, anyway.

That’s what the text literally says yes.

I'm not guessing what you believe, although you have stated that God made two sexes and that's why same sex parents are 'dysfunction', although I do not believe that word means in this context what you think it means...

But you haven’t suggested what other possible context there could be. That there are two sexes required to produce a child which makes them the child’s parents is fact whether I state it or not. Anyone else is not in the same standing as the parents, hence in the past the term step parents or adoptive parents. The idea of people who raise a child being the same as biological parents is of course incorrect. Indeed the child will always have a special attachment to its biological parents even if the biological parents are absent or let the child down.

You are confusing sexual reproduction with parenting. It takes a sperm and an egg to reproduce, it takes love, stability and support to provide parenting.

Which can best be done by a male/female couple and isnt suitably done by a one sex couple, which lacks a sex.

Sodom and Gommorah were marked down for destruction for pride, avarice and lack of charity long before the incident with the angels.

Ok according to Ezekiel, and Matthew 10-11 but other sins were sexual, including the same sex act as in the actual account, Ezekiel, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1.
If the sin wasn’t same sex then it wasn’t pride avarice and lack of charity either.
You mention the incident with the angels ignoring the act that was called wicked was the men wanting to know carnally the men.

I can recall no other case where God was actively angry about same-sex sex.

Why not, as there are a few.

Some pagan rites included orgies, which would include same-sex sex. Not all rites did, and not all pagans attended all rites.

Where does it say some pagan rites included orgies? It says in Leviticus God said don’t do these things because they are what the pagans do, and it says in Romans 1 that these things are done by those whom have turned away from God and been given over to do what they shouldn’t.

I don't see anything about how having a comitted same sex sexual relationship automatically makes one pagan.

It doesn’t say that either, it says these things are what pagans do. 1 Peter 4;3, 1 Cor 5, Lev 18 etc.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Which can best be done by a male/female couple and isnt suitably done by a one sex couple, which lacks a sex.

Please site your sources for this claim.

 

[JGG]

To Archer93, Which can best be done by a male/female couple and isnt suitably done by a one sex couple, which lacks a sex. [/SIZE][/FONT]

So? How do we expect a one-sex raised child to be different (or to use your word "unsuitably" raised) compared to a two-sex couple? Why is a one-sex home unsuitable? What influence is such a home missing in that missing sex?

 

[Archer93]

"You are confusing sexual reproduction with parenting. It takes a sperm and an egg to reproduce, it takes love, stability and support to provide parenting. Some couples can provide both, some only the former, some only the latter. Both opposite and same sex couples can belong to the last group."

In response to this statement...

The relationship itself your have an affect on the children when they see that the norm is male/female. Especially, when starting school and other activities. They will notice that most family structures are male/female.

At this point, they will probably start to question their own sexual preference, I'm sure.

So, in short, their parent's decisions on having same sex relationships will ultimately cause them to second guess their own identity.

The 'norm' is a consensus opinion, socialogically and anthropologically speaking.

Of course children of same-sex couples will notice that most other families consist of opposite sex parents, and the 'Where do babies come from?' question clears up the matter of how they are conceived.
They will also notice that not all parents are married to each other, that sometimes a parent dies, that some parents are not of matching skin colours, and all the other variations that can and do occur.
So what?

Sexual preferences don't always kick in at school starting age. Some people may be sure that they like girls or boys at that age, for others it takes until pubety and adolescence to start thinking along those terms.
Children brought up in a same-sex household are less likely to be scared of the idea of being gay or bisexual, but that's about it.
A boy brought up by two women isn't exactly going to start thinking he's a lesbian, is he?
He might wonder about if he's gay, and then come to the conclusion that no, actually he isn't. Except maybe for Johnny Depp, if he really had to....

An open, accepting, supportive environment is not going to make someone second guess their identity, whatever the sex or sexes of their parents.
Being told that 'you must not be gay' will, though, as the cultural pressure will go against their own nature.

 

[Belk]

To Archer93,
That’s what the text literally says yes.

But you haven’t suggested what other possible context there could be. That there are two sexes required to produce a child which makes them the child’s parents is fact whether I state it or not. Anyone else is not in the same standing as the parents, hence in the past the term step parents or adoptive parents. The idea of people who raise a child being the same as biological parents is of course incorrect. Indeed the child will always have a special attachment to its biological parents even if the biological parents are absent or let the child down.
Which can best be done by a male/female couple and isnt suitably done by a one sex couple, which lacks a sex.

Ok according to Ezekiel, and Matthew 10-11 but other sins were sexual, including the same sex act as in the actual account, Ezekiel, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1.
If the sin wasn’t same sex then it wasn’t pride avarice and lack of charity either.
You mention the incident with the angels ignoring the act that was called wicked was the men wanting to know carnally the men.
Why not, as there are a few.
Where does it say some pagan rites included orgies? It says in Leviticus God said don’t do these things because they are what the pagans do, and it says in Romans 1 that these things are done by those whom have turned away from God and been given over to do what they shouldn’t.
It doesn’t say that either, it says these things are what pagans do. 1 Peter 4;3, 1 Cor 5, Lev 18 etc.

So let me see if I have your argument correct. You are stating that because Sexual reproduction requires two opposite sex people the optimum environment to raise the child is with an opposite sex couple, is that correct? And if it is then is it your further argument that we should only strive for the optimum and anything less should not be considered as a possible solution?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ToddnotTodd,

Please site your sources for this claim.

Are you disputing one sex couple, lacks a sex as opposed to two?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JGG,

So? How do we expect a one-sex raised child to be different (or to use your word "unsuitably" raised) compared to a two-sex couple? Why is a one-sex home unsuitable? What influence is such a home missing in that missing sex?

No, you tell me how a one sex couple can compare with a two sex couple seeing as the two sex couple have produced the child.
To help you, consider why a mother is better placed to discuss the issues of her daughter in her daughter’s life and why under normal circumstances the girl will approach the mother.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Belk,

So let me see if I have your argument correct. You are stating that because Sexual reproduction requires two opposite sex people the optimum environment to raise the child is with an opposite sex couple, is that correct?

Yes.

And if it is then is it your further argument that we should only strive for the optimum and anything less should not be considered as a possible solution?

Not if one wants the best for the child, but there is no reason for a same sex couple which is inherently dysfunctional.

Now let m get this correct, in what way can a one sex couple actually be any better than two people of the same sex like two aunts looking after the child. Bear in mind two aunts are related by birth.

 

[Psudopod]

So? How do we expect a one-sex raised child to be different (or to use your word "unsuitably" raised) compared to a two-sex couple? Why is a one-sex home unsuitable? What influence is such a home missing in that missing sex?
No, you tell me how a one sex couple can compare with a two sex couple seeing as the two sex couple have produced the child.

You still don’t seem to get it! We’re talking about children in adoption centres, we’re not talking about taking children away from their current parents and giving them to same sex couples.

To help you, consider why a mother is better placed to discuss the issues of her daughter in her daughter’s life and why under normal circumstances the girl will approach the mother

Why is the mother the only one who can do this? What happens if the mother has died? Should the father be forced to remarry quickly in case his little girl asks some awkward questions?

 

[Belk]

To Belk,
Yes.

So what exactly about the having an opposite sex couple makes it the optimum?

Not if one wants the best for the child, but there is no reason for a same sex couple which is inherently dysfunctional.

How is it inherently dysfunctional?

Now let m get this correct, in what way can a one sex couple actually be any better than two people of the same sex like two aunts looking after the child.

I don't know that it is better. I don't know that it is worse. I have never made the argument in either direction.

Bear in mind two aunts are related by birth.

Uh, yes, blood relations are related by birth. What bearing does this have on your question?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

You still don’t seem to get it! We’re talking about children in adoption centres, we’re not talking about taking children away from their current parents and giving them to same sex couples.

So you don’t get it because I am also talking about children for adoption so the question again was … tell me how a one sex couple can compare with a two sex couple seeing as the two sex couple have produced the child.

Why is the mother the only one who can do this?

I didn’t say she was the only one but in practice of course she probably is, I don’t see daughters approaching their fathers in any normal family. Are you now telling me men are just as well placed to deal with women’s matters as women.

on’t know I didn’t say that you tell me, though in reality you will find that as a female she is best placed to do so, I think people who propose same sex relations seem a bit naïve and md What happens if the mother has died? Should the father be forced to remarry quickly in case his little girl asks some awkward questions?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To belk,

So what exactly about the having an opposite sex couple makes it the optimum?

Because its reality to have male and female. Sorry you tell me how a one sex couple can fit the bill, the norm is male and female conceive children and raise them, most people in the world recognise that and do it, so the onus is on you to somehow show how a one sex couple can possibly equal a natural two sex couple.
[]quote] How is it inherently dysfunctional? [/quote] how is it functional when there are two sexes. You don’t seem to realise there are two sexes for producing and raising children, you seem to think one sex is ok, one sex is dysfunctional because it cant function like two sexes which exist.

Uh, yes, blood relations are related by birth. What bearing does this have on your question?

Well it recognises another fact.

 

[OllieFranz]

To BrightMorningStar

OK we get that you don't believe that same-sex couples are as good for children as cross-sex couples. You have you reasons, which you believe are sufficient, even though we don't find them so. No one is arguing that.

But that does not answer the question of what to do with children who are in need of families.

Pretend you are in charge of your state's health and welfare department's decisions. Your orphanages are overcrowded and poorly financed. There is no way that you can get the governor or the legislature to extend more money. Foster parents (good ones, at least) have to spend more and more of their own money since you can't give them enough to cover the children's expenses, so fewer and fewer good foster families are available. More and more children are falling through the cracks.

You do not have the luxury of looking for what is the best situation for the children, you look for what is the best of what is available, even if it is not ideal. You have a child with a severe medical condition. You can only afford to authorize basic medical coverage, and so, if the child remains in the system, at best he will merely be stabilized, though more likely he will die. You seek out adoptive parents for that child, but the only viable candidates are a same-sex couple.

What do you do with that child, and why?

 

[Belk]

Double post

 

[Polycarp1]

To ToddnotTodd,
Are you disputing one sex couple, lacks a sex as opposed to two?

Your posts are made by only a male, and therefore lack the female viewpoint.

So are mine.

By which, I mean to say, the fact that it takes a sperm and and egg, contributed by parents of opposite sexes, to start a child growing, has nothing to do with who can successfully raise that child, who can teach that child, who can provide health care to that child, who can discipline that child when authority and guidance are needed, who can provide affection to that child when he feels hurt and alone and needs caring.

And in point of fact, there is a shortage of opposite-sex couples willing to adopt older children who need homes. There are, according to a figure I was provided by a good friend, 750,000 homeless children in America today.

As Little Nipper notes, some foster parents are fine people. And others are not.

It's not a case of what your ideal parening situation would be -- an independently wealthy couple with a burning desire to nurture a homeless child -- but of what resources we have to deal with a very real problem.

And pontificating, without every once furnishing evidence to substantiate your ukases, that one sex is not two sexes, and that somehow proves that while single parents are OK, same sex couples are not, is not contributing to the solving of that problem.

I don't think any same-sex couple has the right to adopt. Nor any opposite-sex couple. What is best for the child, among the possible assignments that can be made, is what I want to see happen. And in practical terms, that means sometimes a gay couple who loves the child is going to be the best set of parents for it -- as opposed to sending it to a foster home that is overburdened and seemingly uncaring, sticking it with a distant relative who doesn't want it, or, God forgid, leaving it on the street to fend for itself.

If you have no solution to the problem, at least have the Christian charity not to put stumbling blocks in the way of those who are willing to help.

 

[Belk]

Posted in correct time sequence