Who should be allowed to adopt?

[david_x]

My last sentence was that "they were most likely to adopt". Its kinda self evident. How is that taking it to far? annd how is that discrimination?

You don't have any proof though. Your being discriminetory in fact. Unless you have some sights to back that up.

 

[naotmaa]

Dear naotmaa, The homosexual agenda pushes sexual orientation over Christian or even other religious views when some who have same-sex attraction, ie homosexuals also hold the view that same-sex sex is error.

I could agree with you if we were trying to prevent christians from having their views and saying what they wish but we're not. You're still allowed to have your views.

because it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child so the sexual desires of the man and woman is irrelevant.

But the sexual desires are still there. So if a woman was not able to have kids, should she not have sex with her husband? In any case I still know that my arguments are not based on sexual desires. Two people who are just fooling around (giving in to their sexual desires) are obviously not going to want to have kids. However, two people that love each other and want to spend their lives together, may want to raise children together as well.

Its true a gay man and a lesbian woman wont want to have sex with each other, in which case there wont naturally be any children between them.

They can still adopt, which I think is a very honorable thing to do in my opinion.

Because I believe in Jesus Christ as the way the truth and the life.

 

[naotmaa]

You don't have any proof though. Your being discriminetory in fact. Unless you have some sights to back that up.

I think you're misusing the word "discrimination", first of all...

I'm not sure how I can prove to you that gay couples are most likely to adopt children than straight couples.
It's somewhat self evident. They are not able to produce children together. So if two gays or lesbians settle down with each other and decide that they want to have children, most of them are most likely to choose the adoption route.

I think you might be confusing my statment?

This doesn't mean that more gay people adopt than straight people( if that is where the confusion is coming from)... it means that if you randomly went to lets say 10 houses where a married/commited gay or lesbian couple lived you would be more likely to find people who were thinking about or have already adopt children than if you randomly went to houses where straight married couples lived.

What kind of evidence were you looking for?

 

[david_x]

It's somewhat self evident.

by self evident you mean assumption?

What kind of evidence were you looking for?

Facts, statistics

 

[naotmaa]

by self evident you mean assumption?

No, I don't actually. I mean self evident. I've already explained to you why they are most likely to adopt. If someone is married, wants to have kids, can't have kids, they are more likely to adopt than someone who can. Can you explain to me what your issue is with that statment?

Facts, statistics

I don't think it's possible for me to find statistics on my statment. Unless you want me to find statistics on how many children have been adopted by gay/lesbians parents? I can do that, but it will have nothing to do with my statment.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
They are Christian so they will not want to disobey the state law and have already started closing down.

Yes it is, the agencies referred gay couples to other agencies, they didn’t place them because it isn’t God’s purposes, the state now demands these agencies use gay couples. So the state is forcing ‘gay adoption’ over ‘Christian adoption’ whereas before it allowed both to operate.

Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them.

No not all , see the NARTH site.

I think so, didn’t I point out to you some of the weaknesses of the studies from the first one I looked at. Did you have a look at the NARTH site?

"Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them?" This argument is bizarre. If a state imposed this rule, there would be very few adoptions. Most of the couples that adopt do so because they cannot conceive. If you restricted adoption only to couples that can conceive, you'd relegate large numbers of children to foster homes for their entire childhood. That would be tragic for those children.

The state standards for adoption do not require that couples be able to conceive. That would make no sense. A couples must be in a stable relationship, financially secure, and able to care for the child. If the adopter is single, she or he must be financially secure and able to care for the child. There has never been a requirement that a couple be fertile in order to adopt a child.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
They are Christian so they will not want to disobey the state law and have already started closing down.

Yes it is, the agencies referred gay couples to other agencies, they didn’t place them because it isn’t God’s purposes, the state now demands these agencies use gay couples. So the state is forcing ‘gay adoption’ over ‘Christian adoption’ whereas before it allowed both to operate.

Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them.

No not all , see the NARTH site.

I think so, didn’t I point out to you some of the weaknesses of the studies from the first one I looked at. Did you have a look at the NARTH site?

NARTH is not recognized as a reputable professional organization by the leading psychological or medical organizations. They do not provide evidence from peer-reviewed studies.

NARTH is not to be trusted, because they push a religious agenda. They are not objective, nor do they try to be. You need to look to real studies done by reputable sociologists and psychologists. NARTH is not recognized as reputable or trustworthy by professional organizations.

 

[david_x]

No, I don't actually. I mean self evident. I've already explained to you why they are most likely to adopt. If someone is married, wants to have kids, can't have kids, they are more likely to adopt than someone who can. Can you explain to me what your issue is with that statment?

Without evidence you are making an assumption.

 

[naotmaa]

Without evidence you are making an assumption.

It's self evident. meaning the evidence is right there. I think you must be confused about my statment. What exactly is your issue with it besides the lack of "evidence'?

 

[david_x]

It's self evident. meaning the evidence is right there. I think you must be confused about my statment. What exactly is your issue with it besides the lack of "evidence'?

Not your assumptions. I want evidence. Polls, and the like.

 

[naotmaa]

Not your assumptions. I want evidence. Polls, and the like.

Noo. you obviously don't know what I'm talking about then. Let's go over this:
I said something like gays are more likely to adopt.
Let's take this one step further: Anyone who is unable to have children is more likely to adopt.
This is just common sense.
Gays and lesbians cannot have children on their own(without counting artificial insemination). So therefore, they would be more likely to adopt than straight couples.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying because then you'd realize why evidence is not needed.

Now why don't you answer my question: What is your issue with my statment besides the lack of "evidence"?

 

[david_x]

Noo. you obviously don't know what I'm talking about then. Let's go over this:
I said something like gays are more likely to adopt.
Let's take this one step further: Anyone who is unable to have children is more likely to adopt.
This is just common sense.
Gays and lesbians cannot have children on their own(without counting artificial insemination). So therefore, they would be more likely to adopt than straight couples.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying because then you'd realize why evidence is not needed.

Now why don't you answer my question: What is your issue with my statment besides the lack of "evidence"?

If you don't have evidence, i would be content with you just saying that.

 

[naotmaa]

If you don't have evidence, i would be content with you just saying that.

I don't need evidence for that statment, thats the point, David.

 

[david_x]

I don't need evidence for that statment, thats the point, David.

Okay fine. Don't give evidence.

 

[naotmaa]

Okay fine. Don't give evidence.

There's no evidence to give.

 

[Trashionista]

I chose the first 5 options.

I think a 6th needs to be added - Those who can actually raise a sound child. And well.

That covers all people who should be parents. There are heterosexual people who would make terrible parents, and there are homosexual couples who would be wonderful parents.

It can't be boiled down to orientation or marriage status.

 

[david_x]

There's no evidence to give.

That was my point.

 

[naotmaa]

That was my point.

Then I don't seem to understand your point at all. Care to please explain what issue you had with the statment?

 

[david_x]

Then I don't seem to understand your point at all. Care to please explain what issue you had with the statment?

My point? That you had no evidence.

 

[naotmaa]

My point? That you had no evidence.

No David. Listen, let's take this one step at a time:
1.) A couple who are unable have a child on their own are more likely to adopt. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?