Who should be allowed to adopt?

[david_x]

Why do you prefer to condemn innocent children to being raised in orphanages and in indifferent foster care than to allow them to be adopted by loving families?

How very steriotipic of you. You almost make it sound like anyone that goes into foster care will get taken advantage of. I happen to know so very good people that do everything for foster kids. I'm sure the vast majority are good homes.

 

[flicka]

People should be concerned with whether or not the prospective parents will provide a good and loving home, not on their sexuality. People of all sexual orientations can be horrible parents and weeding them out is where the effort should go.

 

[Ohioprof]

How very steriotipic of you. You almost make it sound like anyone that goes into foster care will get taken advantage of. I happen to know so very good people that do everything for foster kids. I'm sure the vast majority are good homes.

I think that most foster families do try to provide good homes to children. The problem with foster homes is that they are temporary; they are not a forever family. Some do become forever families. But children raised in the foster care systems of the various states who never get adopted tend to do poorly, and they struggle terribly because they never had a forever family.

I am an adoptive parent, and I have a soft place in my heart for children in need of families. I suspect you do also.

 

[Ohioprof]

Nearly all states allow gay single people to adopt children. Fewer states allow gay couples to adopt. In some states, gay spouses can do a second-parent adoption after the adoption by the other spouse. State laws and even county and local policies vary greatly when it comes to second-parent adoptions by gay spouses.

I find it weird that many states allow single gay people to adopt but not gay couples. The idea that a lloving, stable couple should not be permitted to adopt seems absurd to me.

 

[Trying2BaFaithfulServant]

Voted for all... There are waaay more children in need of homes than there are people looking to adopt... So why exclude anyone who is financially, mentally, and emotionally able to care for and love a child? You'd just keep kids in the state and foster care systems unnecessarily... and that can be traumatic to kids. Let them have a family... there's no such thing as a "traditional" family anyway.

 

[Nazaroo]

I voted "other" because I coudn't see how any of the choices were very good.

Then I was allowed to read the OP.

If all else is 'equal' then I would change my vote to 'single parent'.

Because a single parent is at least a parent, and the rest would have no experience or training, hence would be the worst choices.

Now I'm happy. Single moms are heroes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear naotmaa,

So you define parents just as those who gave birth to the children? Adoptive parents are not parents? I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say.

No I have already said I distinguish between those parents can produce children, and those who are parents who cant. Can you not see the difference?

I don't care if a child's parents are of the same sex or the opposite sex.

Well I do as there is an all important fundamentally obvious difference.
And yes I also believe the child is raised in a loving caring home, which will basically happen if it is raised in a true Christian home, so that’s not the issue, the issue is not the caring loving raising of children which we both agree is necessary, but who should do it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear OllieFranz,

So answer my question. Are adoptive parents real parents or not?

No they aren’t real parents they are adoptive parents. Such parents that aren’t biological have been called step parents, its only in my opinion the gay and lesbian lobby that has got offended by the idea that non-biological parents aren’t fully parents.

Why do you prefer to condemn innocent children to being raised in orphanages and in indifferent foster care than to allow them to be adopted by loving families

I don’t. I prefer children to be raised in loving families with a man and a woman. I don’t prefer to condemn innocent children to being raised with parents in dysfunctional unions.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear BigBadWlf,

Are you really trying to claim that adoptive parents are somehow not parents?

Or are you trying to claim that it is just adoptive parents from specific minorities are not parent

Are you seriously trying to claim that a couple who cant produce a child are somehow as much parents as a couple who do??

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Ohioprof,

What studies show this?

I have already cited in our discussions. In addition visit NARTH

I can trade research with you all day, but I would chose the research that I believe is common sense not nonsense and the research in line with God’s word which is why whilst I acknowledge you have evidence, I chose my evidence.

Indeed take the gay and lesbian parenting link. Under the headline children of gay and lesbian parents it has….
Despite the tremendous diversity evident within lesbian and gay communities, research on differences among lesbian and gay families with children is sparse.
There seems to be a lot of pushing an agenda without much evidence.

Some men and women have had children in the context of a heterosexual relationship that split up after one or both parents assumed lesbian or gay identities.
So alternatively some men and women had had children in the context of a homosexual relationship? I don’t think that biologically possible. This research is nonsense in my view. Note how it also switches referring to men and women when it comes to conception but back to gay and lesbian when it wants to refer to parents.

 

[Brieuse]

Dear BigBadWlf,
Are you seriously trying to claim that a couple who cant produce a child are somehow as much parents as a couple who do??

Why does it matter so much?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear brieuse,
Well it matters so much that if there were not any couples that could produce children then there wouldnt be any need to adopt any children. Having said that it should be fairly obvious that the couple who can produce children are the couple designed to raise the children.

 

[Brieuse]

Dear brieuse,
Well it matters so much that if there were not any couples that could produce children then there wouldnt be any need to adopt any children. Having said that it should be fairly obvious that the couple who can produce children are the couple designed to raise the children.

Well, there are plenty of couples producing children. So many in fact that it shouldn't matter if some couples can't produce children.

I'm not sure if I understand your second sentence correctly.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Brieuse,

Well, there are plenty of couples producing children.

Yes but they are always a man and a woman, if you mean a gay couple is a man and a woman the fine if you mean same-sex couples then they dont produce chidren.

I'm not sure if I understand your second sentence correctly.

I am not sure I understand your question.

 

[Brieuse]

Dear Brieuse,
Yes but they are always a man and a woman, if you mean a gay couple is a man and a woman the fine if you mean same-sex couples then they dont produce chidren.
I am not sure I understand your question.

So what if they don't produce children. As I said, it makes little difference in the whole scheme of things.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,

I have already cited in our discussions. In addition visit NARTH

I can trade research with you all day, but I would chose the research that I believe is common sense not nonsense and the research in line with God’s word which is why whilst I acknowledge you have evidence, I chose my evidence.

Indeed take the gay and lesbian parenting link. Under the headline children of gay and lesbian parents it has….
Despite the tremendous diversity evident within lesbian and gay communities, research on differences among lesbian and gay families with children is sparse.
There seems to be a lot of pushing an agenda without much evidence.

Some men and women have had children in the context of a heterosexual relationship that split up after one or both parents assumed lesbian or gay identities.
So alternatively some men and women had had children in the context of a homosexual relationship? I don’t think that biologically possible. This research is nonsense in my view. Note how it also switches referring to men and women when it comes to conception but back to gay and lesbian when it wants to refer to parents.

I presented real evidence to you, from real studies. And remember, nearly all states allow gay people to adopt as single parents. The exception to this is Florida. Many states also allow gay spouses to do second-parent adoptions.

So in truth, gay people can already adopt children in all states except one. We don't need to push an "agenda" to be able to adopt. We just adopt.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear brieuse,
Well it matters so much that if there were not any couples that could produce children then there wouldnt be any need to adopt any children. Having said that it should be fairly obvious that the couple who can produce children are the couple designed to raise the children.

This makes no sense. You want to impose a test on adoptive parents of whether they can produce children biologically? Many heterosexual couples cannot produce children biologically. Does this mean they should be excluded from adopting? If you imposed that rule, then there would be almost no adoptive parents.

Of course adoptive parents are real parents. I am an adoptive parent. I am legally the parent to my daughter. During the formal adoption proceeding, a judge asked me if I accept the responsibility of being my child's parent, with all of the obligations and rights of a biological parent. I said yes.

Most people, according to surveys, recognize adoptive parents as fully parents, no less than biological parents. And we are fully parents.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Brieuse,

So what if they don't produce children. As I said, it makes little difference in the whole scheme of things.

It makes all the difference, if the couples who cant produce any children dont there aren't any children and therfore no adoption.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Brieuse,
It makes all the difference, if the couples who cant produce any children dont there aren't any children and therfore no adoption. [/COLOR]

Huh? This sentence appears to be tangled up, and I cannot figure out what you are trying to say here.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Ohioprof,

I presented real evidence to you, from real studies.

So did I present to real evidence, but as I have demonstrated the studies you provided seem to me to be very poor so much so they seem to be confused about what they are referring to. Its like the authors want to prove something they haven’t really thought about properly and so are looking for particular evidence, oblivious to what they should be looking for.

This makes no sense. You want to impose a test on adoptive parents of whether they can produce children biologically?

Yes it makes sense. Why do you think a man and a woman can produce children and two people of the same sex cant. Its is because a man and a woman are designed to produce and raise children.

Most people, according to surveys, recognize adoptive parents as fully parents, no less than biological parents. And we are fully parents.

when you say adoptive parents you mean a man and a woman?