It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Gays be allowed to adopt?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 06:15 PM
It may be beneficial for a child to have a male AND a female role-model. There's no reason that both of these HAVE to be parents.
There are children all over the world who need a family right now. Maybe your religious beliefs tell you homosexuality is wrong - fine. Don't ever have gay sex. Your religious beliefs should not be forced upon a same-sex couple or the child they are trying to adopt. I feel that children should only be brought into a stable relationship, though, whether traditional or same-sex.

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 06:20 PM

I realize babysitting and adoption are different. But if someone's such a scary, sexual deviant that he's unqualified to adopt a child, he sure as heck can't babysit. My point is, you can trust some gay people and you can't trust some priests. And I have to say, because of my experience and knowledge of Christian religions, organized religious responses to this topic make my stomach churn.

And how convenient to say God created the hetereosexual order of things, but had nothing to do with homosexuality. Mind you, I'm not religious and I am not convinced of the existence of any God, but I'm just trying to follow your logic. I'm operating on what I know to be true, which is that people don't choose to be gay. They are created that way, whether by the divine intervention of an omnipotent power, or by the random results of nature's wonders, they are who they are. Perhaps God created them to test YOU and your understanding of what love and compassion are supposed to be?

Where is my daddy? Why don't I have a mom? Those are questions many kids have to ask for one reason or another. Barring homosexual parents isn't going to stop divorce, death, abadonment or life in prison.

People with lustful ways created homosexuals? Are these creators actually hetereosexuals with Petrie dishes and test tubes? Please explain.

The ten commandments don't order anyone to marry. They don't address sexuality (except for adultery or lusting after another's wife.)

Then again, you still didn't give me anything tangible to work with here. You're giving me theology. I want facts. Why can't I get any? And why can't anyone answer some of my other questions or address my other points?

1. Why is it okay for a gay couple to be foster parents but not adopt?

2. What basis would there be to tear a child from a loving foster parents' home just BECAUSE the loving couple happen to be of the same sex? (Challenge: answer this one without biblical interpretations or mere validation of societal prejudices.)

3. Are infertile, straight couples "abnormal"? If so, didn't God make them that way? And doesn't that mean they should also be prohibited from adopting children?

4. How can we call homosexuality a lustful lifestyle, when we acknowledge exactly what it is that brings heterosexuals together and makes babies!?

[Edited on 15-12-2002 by St. Theresa]

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 06:45 PM
let me answer.

"" why is homosexuality lustfull ""

first of all men and women unite and have babies out of attraction to other creatures, and it is not
lust if you are married and united for eternity.

thats why god created marriage, and humans with two different bodies.

homosexuality on the other hand is an act with the same kind of human for ((no)) cause other than to be lustfull.

this can happen with man and women, and thats why god tells us to get married and had instituted marriage.

homosexuality is lust because its an act between the same type of people for the purpose of???

sex out of marriage is lust as well.

Also men and women "can" adopt because the child will grow up in a family that goes with nature and will have parents of different sex.

But what about single moms/dads?

of course, but, the child will still have a mom/dad who teaches them whats good and not good and will not have
an overly gay influence like two parents of the same sex.

this could kill a kid, as a kid knows nothing about our sins and is innocent.

they will see other normal families and say..

Why do i have two daddies?

why do i have two mommies?

they will answer??

the kid will be mentally influenced for ever, and since i cannot provide facts you wont believe me, but
im telling you this is true.

But (st. theresa)

why the name?

do you know who this women was?

what she said?

please dont impersinate a doctor of morality by going agianst your same user name
and what she said.


posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Truth
please dont impersinate a doctor of morality by going agianst your same user name
and what she said.


I've had this nickname for six years and it's based on a song, not a saint. I am not trying to "impersinate" [sic] anyone but myself. Besides, I could say your nickname is deceptive, as well.

I don't know why you think that lust is no longer lust after two people engage in some civil or religious ceremony. When a husband and wife are sexually excited by one another, it's still lust. It's just that they happen to be married. Lust isn't a bad thing. It's just much better when in the context of a loving relationship.

And if your argument is true, then allowing gay people to marry will turn their sexual acts from lust to love, right? So let's fix society according to God's plan. Let gay people marry. You just explained all the reasons why we should.

P.S. If lust leaves your relationship after marriage, honey, I don't ever wanna get re-married!

[Edited on 15-12-2002 by St. Theresa]

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by St. Theresa
I see a lot of opinions based on tradition or biblical interpretations

Oiy I really have no opinions about Gays adopting, Bird Cage summed it up kinda well I suppose...the adopted son turned out normal, and in the end no one cared he had two dads...right? Or am I wrong about the end?

Anyways, I wanted to point this quote out.

Traditions st. theresa are what seperates this issue.

I am steeped in tradition, I want to see things the way they were back in the 40s, and 1800s, 1700s, all the way down to married women out of the work place.

Wanna know why? I like hearing the "good ol' days" those times seemed dignified, purposeful, and unoffensive.

I honestly, do not find other peoples beliefs offensive, only when they OFFEND me by their beliefs. Such as gays marching in SF and such. Why do they need to throw their differences in your face like a stinking sweaty towel?

I find the old days to have been way better, I'd like to see more traditions in this nation. As we teard down offense after offense and descrimination that descrimination this. We are losing tradition, heritage, and consequently, the very soul of our nation.

The way I see it, is 50 years from now, Every 15 year old will be bisexual, have had sex with at least 5 different partners, and do drugs. I see in 100 years, Communist China ruling the world, and if you want gays to exist at all, you don't want that future.

If you disagree with my foresight, than just look into the past, at ROME!


I urge you all to view what happend to it, and learn from it. Christianity's morals are a direct result of Rome's failure as a society, how did it fail you ask?

Sex everywhere, apathy, endulgance, greed. All the things that we for 2000 years have known, were implimented to see that ROME never happens again.

America was made to be a land of freedom, not of decadence. In the old days the failure of Rome was taught to all, even down to learning latin, so that no one would ever go against the Traditions, that "civilized" our world. I say our world, because our civilization is "civilized" the way we wanted it, which is why we conquered the world, because our way of being civilized IS superior.

I bet St. Theresa, you'll get a kicker out of that. But it is true. There is no room for invilids, and the tribal bush man #ing and eating and doing nothing else, is a failure of a way of society. That is exactly what we are returning to.

When thinking of adoption, we must ask, what will the adverse effects be, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years later?

The society we molded, was flawless, it was moral in implication, and until about 1950, people in America were almost perfect humans. In society that people they were just as ever flawed, and decadent, behind doors they were whores, and druggies like all of us.

The key word is IN SOCIETY!

Nothing in this world has changed for 10,000 years, what has Changed?

For the second time in history, people want to take the crap behind doors, the whores, the drugs, and put them front and center, they want to make this OUR SOCIETY!

Well, when this fully happens, our society will collapse, as Rome did, and our children will become slaves to a horror worse than 5th century catholicism. It will beocome the slave to a religion, an order that all people seek, that will conquer the world, and enslave it with the remanents of America's great technology. Just as Catholicism conquered the world with the remanents of Rome's roads. And rome's past conquests.

There is no good future, in destroying our Traditions. Certain things need to be tolerated, but somethings must not be made our society.

Is adoption by Gays one of those things? I do not know, but I know that Drugs is, and sex at young ages and multiple partners is.

Those last things, will lead our nation to ruin. As we have teenage mothers and bastard childs all on drugs. WHAT CIVILIZATION ARE WE THEN?

Who will conquer us, when our civilization becomes no stronger than the tribal african, the muslim? I'd hate to see that world. The chinese? Who?

I hope you all have a good idea for a successor, because the way things are going, our end is close.

(I am not proof reading this, so consider it a ramble, but think about what I said, and ask questions about what you don't understand in it, and I'll try and clarify

no signature

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 08:17 AM
I still think you're young, inexperienced and I still think you simplify.

Traditions aren't favorable simply because they're traditions. They need to have some usefulness or validity in themselves, in the context of modern times.

They also vary from culture to culture and family to family.

It was traditional on my mother's side of the famiily to insult blacks and consider them second-class citizens. I'm not continuing that particular tradition.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 03:54 PM
In the beginning God created man and in his wisdom bestowed him with the greatest gift.Freewill.
Now it's believed by some that God was wrong and infact Watson and Crick knew better.
You wish to topple the ancient marble statue in the likeness of Morality and in its place erect a shiney new steel structure in the image of the Double Helix.
In this modern vision of a Brave New World you can visit your local friendly geneticist,give a little blood,and given enough time he will forgive you your sins as surely as any priest will.
In this new world a murderer is born a murderer,a paedophile is born a paedophile,a alcholic is born an alcholic,and there's no need to imprison a rapist when three weeks intensive gene therapy will have him back on the streets in no time.
In this world your favourite pet can be born over and over,your child can ,really, look just like his Father,And you are protected by a cloned army,so no mother will lose her son again ,but ,I wonder, who will a soldier cry out to with his dying breath?
Welcome to the world where no-one need take responsibility for their actions for everything is preordained

But while you're sunning yourself in the bright day of this world.Beware the night which is as dark as the day is bright.
For this is also the world of Eugenics,the bastard child of Darwinian theory.
The world of tattooed numbers on arms and of burn't bodies,of steralising the undesirable and of MasterRace.
This is the world of genetic stereotyping.Where every Jew is rich,Every Arab cheats,Every Indian likes his curry and every German is a Nazi.

To deny Freewill is to condemn mankind to a future as Automatons.

Nature and Nuture,Freewill and Genetic makeup, In combination maketh man.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 04:57 PM
Truth homosexuality may be wrong, but the Lord says to ''love thy neighboor.'' Just because these people mad a wrong choice does not mean we should frown upon them.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 05:54 PM
I like the comparison between homosexuality and murder. And homosexuality and rape! Nice propaganda tactic.

Remember, we used to try to change left-handed people, too, because left-handnesses was "wrong" and "abnormal."

[Edited on 16-12-2002 by St. Theresa]

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 06:02 PM
You have a good point there. In the middle ages being lef-handed war ''evil'', you were thought to be like Satan. In about another 100 years gays will too be accepted. It is wrong to be a bigot like some of you are acting like.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 06:58 PM
I am not comparing homosexuality with murder in any other sense than that geneticists are trying to claim that neither are the result of freewill.

Jedi and Tess,Your responses are poor.You appear unable to put together a coherent answer.Your answer"What about lefthandedness"adds nothing to the debate.You hope that by moving the goalposts of this conversation once again you will not have to address the issues I've raised.At least B-T can argue a case without grasping aimlessly for a mediocre response just for the sake of having the last word.

By your responses neither of you have actually grasped what I was trying to say.I guess I'll have to wait for another poster who can understand the issues.I'm not going to just repeat myself just because you lack the intellect to understand.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 07:15 PM

Originally posted by John bull 1
I am not comparing homosexuality with murder in any other sense than that geneticists are trying to claim that neither are the result of freewill.

The absence of free will could be applied to a lot of things: drug addiction, overeating, laziness, oversleeping, etc. This doesn't answer the question of right and wrong, or rather, socially acceptable and socially unacceptable.

Regardless of whether scientists manage to prove that certain genes or brain chemistry have anything to do with murder or rape, murder and rape will not become acceptable. Homosexuality, then, is not an apple you can compare to those oranges. It isn't harming anyone, except for people whose more narrow beliefs cannot be accepting of it.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 07:51 PM

Here you go JB. Read this, and I hgope you change your mind. Here are my reasons.

1.) Not allowing gays to adopt is discrimination.

2.) We all deserve the chance to have the same.

3.) A gay couple that will love the child has no reason not to adopt him/her.

I am fighting a losing battle against bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice. Societity is to blame for the hate towards gays. Our societiy is teaching young children the wrong things.

[Edited on 12-16-2002 by JediMaster]

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 09:14 PM
FM, you *want* to live in a society like the 1700's or 1800s??????


It's possible. No, I'm not kidding. Become Islamic, live in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

You'll find a country full of uneducated women, lower classes reduced to servants or near-slave class, ownership of slaves, and the rich riding a big gravy train. You'll see uneducated and undereducated servants and poor, and low tech.

I know this is some people's idea of heaven -- and the importance of an intelligent and literate and educated wife is a negative (I suppose they prefer the kind of woman who isn't educated enough to recognize danger signs in childhood diseases). Frankly, it sounds like a nightmare... the few, the rich, the educated, awash in a large pool of the uneducted and poverty-stricken.

I'm not sure how any person with a conscience can condone that. Of course, I don't see what's wrong with gays adopting, either. Animal studies show that the young don't seem much affected by it...particularly if society doesn't.

Remember the days when a mixed-race baby was a horror and a disgrace? Nowadays, nobody thinks twice about it. When these things are common, kids quit being teased about it.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 04:38 AM
the 'adopted kids of gay parents will be teased at school' arguement is a non-starter.

* kids are ~always~ teased at school, for one reason or another.

* the alternative is to leave the kids in a care home. personally i'd take a little teasing from ignorant kids in exchange for loving parents.

* the teasing situation will never change until such time as gay adoption becomes accept, which will happen a lot quicker if more gay couples adopt kids.

- qo.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:29 AM
As I see it the crux of the argument is this.
If Homosexuality is only genetic then I see no reason why Homosexuals should be able to adopt but the idea that the majority of ancient Greek male had a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality I find ludicrous.It is generally excepted that the explanation for homosexuality in ancient Greece was that it had become socially exceptable to the point where every Greek male once he had reached the age of around fourteen was given to an older male, a mentor if you like, when that boy became a man he, in turn ,took a boy to be his lover.
This and further historical evidence indicates that homosexuality is, at least in part,learn't.
The purpose of a parent or parent figure is to be a role model.It can not be overestimated the influence that a parent has over the behaviour of a child.
Being a liberal,and the members who have read my previous post can not deny I am a liberal,Means allowing individual members of society to make their own descisions on Politics,Sexuality,Drugs,Euthenasia and any other lifestyle choices.With one,only one, proviso.That that lifestyle choice does not in anyway effect another.There are some who claim to be liberal but a in fact are fascists because they wish to impose their views and lifestyles on others in the name of equality.

I stick by my opinion that gays should not be able to adopt purely because it by every definition imposes a lifestyle on an innocent.To support it is not being liberal it is being fascist.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 01:46 PM
So all of us who think that everyone deserves the same chance, and supprots gay is a facisist like Hitler?!? That makes no sense JB. Supporting gays is facisist? So what you are saying being a bigot is o.k.?

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 02:18 PM
Uhhhh, Hitler didn't support gays. He killed them. How do you get supporting gays mean you like Hitler?

One question man, what the hell have you been smoking???????

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 02:28 PM
James I know Hitler hated gays. I am talking about what JB said.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 02:42 PM
JB, if adoption "imposed a lifestyle on the innocent,"
.................... then ....................
howcome some adopted kids of STRAIGHT couples turn out homosexual? And howcome some preachers' children turn out to be homosexual?

By your logic, every child should be the same orientation as what they see and what's imposed on them. In that case, NO preacher's child should ever be homosexual.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in