It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 03:19 PM
link   
No,I am not saying that there are any budding Hitlers on the forum.I am simply saying that those that impose their own lifestyles on others are actually closer to being fascist than liberal.Or do you disagree Jedi that no-one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.I would have thought you would have agreed considering some wish to impose their religeous beliefs on you.

Byrd,I am not a child psychologist.I can not answer all of the issues.All I can say is that if anyone is 100% sure that a child could not be emotionally harmed by being adopted by a gay couple then I can not say that you are being irresponsible as far as the quality of the life of the child is concerned.But I am not 100% sure and I feel where a child is concerned if anyone has even 1% of doubt then they should not be so quick to allow this the results of which would not be understood fully for up to 20 years and by that timeit would be too late to change the law back as laws are easily repealed and hard to reinstate.

I would say byrd that I have allowed somewhere above for the possibility that homosexuality could be part genetic and part learn't.Also there is some evidence that children brought up in strict enviroments can rebel against their parents.These are only two explanations about your preacher query.




posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 03:51 PM
link   
JB, it's fine if you post your beliefs even if I don't agree.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I have some concerns about children, too, especially children who find out they're different, and that difference is socially unacceptable. And a lot of these kids are brought up in "traditional" heterosexual homes and their coming out is often received by anger and rejection from their own parents.

The bottom line is these kids haven't done anything wrong. And they have the potential to find a mate with whom they stay for life, just like anyone else. The ONLY people they end up hurting are bigots, and that's not their fault.

In short, allowing gays to adopt will provide more good homes for kids who need them and, at the same time, help destroy the unjust stigma placed on kids who realize that they are gay.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Ok JB we facist for imposing our views of individuality and personal freedom? Then what do you think you are doing saying if you different you can't have same rights? Just because they homosexual doesn't mean they will do anything different than what a heterosexual would do. Does being gay mean you lack a parent gene or a caring gene?

Heck, how many homosexuals do you hear about drowning five kids? Beating kids to death? Never. But heterosexuals? About once a day, if not more. May not always see it on the news, but it happens everyday.

Heck, look at inner cities, need I say more? Heck, in Milwakee(sp?) when those thirteen kids(not a one over 15, one at 10)none of the parents knew where or if they went to school, one said it was kids will be kids, and duess what? They heterosexual. Look at how much better the straight parents raised there kids. I mean, if they parents were gay which for some reason means they can't be as good of parents, the kids may have tortured the man before they beat him.

Being gay doesn't effect your parenting skills, if anything it will help you make the kid more tolerant to others. So far no legal reasons, just religous. And of course religon can't do anything with laws. If they did it would be unconstitutional, for religon and state seperate. So far still waiting for a legal reason.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Fine.I'm wrong you are all right.Happy?



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 06:59 PM
link   
JB, at last our arguement has endend, I'm happy.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Thread drift on a good subject kept to a minimum...applause to all.
J-B, I never thought you a bigot, I just disagree with you assumption that the sexuality of the gay couple would be a handicap to the child. I'll say again, unconditional love is the defining factor in a childs developement.
On the genetic or socialized impetus to being gay: The Greek custom of apprenticeship carrying a sexual obligation is not a strong argument for the learnt camp...it was simply a social more, like some tribes cut the first joint off of their pinkie finger, so to was the sexual property clause. Same for the Afganis, but in a different mindset. While Greek culture held women in high esteem, their culture holds them as nothing more than chattel, if not lower. I think the homosexuality in that case is almost a case of not wanting to soil themselves with the lowly women; my guess.
I do think that it is a genetic predisposition more prone to social triggers.
But to bring it back to my original point, like the best player at East Sheboigan University is not going to be selected higher in the draft than the best player from UCLA or Notre Dame, gay couples are likely to be left with the children that mainstream couples overlook and are long in the system. In that regard, they are doing society a tremendous service by providing a nurturing environment to a child otherwise destined to live their lives in the foster care system.
Of course, the above doesn't apply to yee of the seven figure bank accounts, but the masses.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by St. Theresa
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.

I do simplify tradition, because this is one of those things where you can have VOLUMES of stuff written about culture and how it effects civilization.

We live in a world of conscious awakening. But we are setting ourselves BACK by deviding our world on "old traditions" but new tollerances.

The Greeks were as bisexual as you could get, it is reputed that sometimes they'd have young boys practice on eachother to learn how to "treat" women...reputed. But it is known that they cared little of the homosexual acts by their athletes during the ancient olympics. Greeks were completely tollerant of this.

But they were not applying traditions to homosexuality, never in greece, has any man married a man! Nor has two of the same sex adopted a child to raise it! This is a preposterous wish by homosexuals, to further anounce their gayness. Marriage should be reserved to families, love is love you do not need to be married to prove it.

Since marriage should be reserved for families, so should adoption. An adopted child should have natural born brothers//sisters, if possible, other wise they are just a big group of entirely unrelated people, with two foster dads/moms. Instead of one just being an accepted member of a real family.

I like what JB tried to point out. Homosexuality is not normal, if it was normal than humans would all be gay! Normalcy is family, it is not homosexuals, single parenthood or abortions! While these things should be tollerated, I believe they should be tollerated such that they do not harm the core of our humanity, families.

For instance, abortions should be illegal unless the child is born of rape, or will kill the mom, perhaps if both the man and woman concent. Single parenthood, is sometimes better than keeping two together who fight, or are not moral together and so on, again, descretion must be used.

The same is with homosexuals attempting to get a family. I really do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt and to get married, in attempts to be called a family. I don't think this should be so public. But surely there is a compromise, that does not further belittle the importance, of marriage and family. Which so much now-a-days does.

I see no value in homosexuals living together, it has no benifit. They can not have a family. What is the benefit other than their own personal reasons, to marry? To have kids? None, so what ever decision can be determined to give them their wish to be tollerated, should not out-weigh the fact that no matter what America says, humanity says they are not equal. They will never be a family with out the aid of an unloving family, or genetic engineering.

Because of that, I don't think they should be allowed to have any benifits of such, they should be allowed to look after eachother, and share their resources, but not to lay claim to being a family. They can live together, anyone can, but what is the purpose of wanting a child? If they are not willing to make life, than why should they raise it? I don't really feel it is a question of who is more decent, or who can better raise the child, but rather a question of how will the child being raised in by a gay couple, be affected by not having natural parents, by not having his parents be normal, and by not seeing how a man and woman relate to eachother, other than on television.

It makes no sense to me, that homosexuals ask for so much, when nature will not even give it to them. I think nature is the supreme judge in all matters, and until nature gives gays a uterus in their a$s they should not be allowed children as a family, perhaps as a foster parent, never as a dad-dad/mom-mom sort of thing. But again, I probably can not see a compromise, due to my traditional viewing.

In conclusion, who is man to give what nature can not?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Very nice closing point,F-M.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Good points FM, but just because they gay doesn't mean they lack some parent gene or caring gene. It just means they, as an individual, made a choice, didn't follow blindly like a sheep in a herd.

Well, it being unnatural, it happens in nature. There are gay animals, not that you see many, but there are. And what are humans? Animals, great apes. Yes, we the sentinet(sp?) species, but still animals, so obviously it natural. Why do humans think they are better? Why do most see themselves as not animals, as something special? We animals, mammals, great apes, so why we special? Cause we have religon was a funny one. Cause a bunch of people believe in something above them, can't prove them since they invisible, but they there. Because we have technology? So do chimps and other species.

Anyways, nice points FM, but still no legal reasons why they shouldn't be allowed. I want three good legal reasons why gays/lesbians shouldn't be allowed. It not like they lacking a parent gene, not like since they gay they gonna take the kid to gay orgies and other things. Just means they gay/lesbians. Some say won't teach the kid same thing that a hetero couple would. Like what? What wouldn't they teach? That one has to be straight to have rights? That if you different you can't have kids, vote, have a voice, be considered human?(I know the whole not allowed to vote and being subhumans as blacks before 1970's, but still, they were different, and they were treated like $h*t) So, legal reasons why they wouldn't make good parents.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well, it being unnatural, it happens in nature. There are gay animals, not that you see many, but there are. And what are humans?

What also occurs naturally in nature? Retards, invilids, life threatening genetic illnesses. In nature, all those things are deadly to animals, but gayness isn't, but also in nature, animals shun and even kill homosexual animals.

If you want us to be normal, than we should do completely what the animals do?

Here's my beef, I don't care what you do that is abnormal, if you keep it to yourself and consenting party members.

But when you drag a kid into what you do, he isn't consenting to it, he is unnaturally forced into it. Who knows what horrible out comes are possible because of this, because so few children have had to been forced to be in a gay situation such as that. But for all we know, there may be a higher percentage of psycho killers or homosexuality caused by it.

Homosexuality should be a choice, since it is not socially feasable. Therefore kids should not be forced to be with homosexual parents, because it is not natural, what if the kid grows up, and wishes he had normal parents, what rights did we violate of the Child's?

You can not violate the right's of a child by having him in a normal man/woman family, but you definately violate his rights by having him in a homosexual family, if he percieves his rights as being violated.

Point to me a child who says he wishes his biological parents were two dads, and I'll retract that statement, somewhat.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I can give only one valid legal reason, and it is supreme in our nation.

No one should enter a situation by force, that they do not feel is best for them. In the case of nature, you can not escape biologic parentage, we all have a mom and dad. But since when does the kid have any less right to growing up in a biologically normal family, than an adult?

Homosexual parents violate the rights of any kid who grows up and in the end wishes that he had grown up with a mom and dad, whether they were not his biologic parents or not. Of course not all children will care if their parents were homo or hetero if they grew up in the homo case, but any child that does care, had his rights violated by those that chose to put the child into an unatural situation.

Note: This is something that must be acheived by a compromise, not by legality. If we were to make adoption by homos legal, than we violate the rights of the child, if we were to make it illegal we violate the rights of the homos...This is something that nature should determine easily enough, but humans like to punch nature in the face.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 17-12-2002 by FreeMason]



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Oh.My.God. You have all the answers, don't you. I take it that, coincidentally, of course, all your shoulds and shouldn'ts fit nicely with your own lifestyle. Am I right?


Originally posted by FreeMason
Since marriage should be reserved for families, so should adoption. An adopted child should have natural born brothers//sisters, if possible, other wise they are just a big group of entirely unrelated people, with two foster dads/moms. Instead of one just being an accepted member of a real family.

Since families consist of any people who live together in love and mutual caring, anyone capable of living in such a way is a family. Since people can love and care regardless of their sexuality, anyone can be a family and anyone should be able to adopt.


I like what JB tried to point out. Homosexuality is not normal, if it was normal than humans would all be gay! Normalcy is family, it is not homosexuals, single parenthood or abortions! While these things should be tollerated, I believe they should be tollerated such that they do not harm the core of our humanity, families.

La la la. JB tried to point out that homosexuality is abnormal, but, IMO, failed. He did point out that it was a) different than heterosexuality and b) not conducive to reproduction. *shrugs* That proves nothing to me.

As I mentioned before, there are heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce. It is not "normal" to be sterile. It's not "normal" to be an albino. It's not "normal" to have only four toes on one's left foot. As far as I know, none of those things are societal scourges nor, as with homosexuality, do they harm anyone except those with some sort of incurable tolerance for the "abnormal."


For instance, abortions should be illegal unless the child is born of rape, or will kill the mom, perhaps if both the man and woman concent. Single parenthood, is sometimes better than keeping two together who fight, or are not moral together and so on, again, descretion must be used.

For instance...ARGHHHH! Please don't get into an abortion debate with me right now. I'm sure you can guess I differ on that, too. I bring to that table my own experience as a woman, a former troubled teen and a mother. Don't go there.


The same is with homosexuals attempting to get a family. I really do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt and to get married, in attempts to be called a family. I don't think this should be so public. But surely there is a compromise, that does not further belittle the importance, of marriage and family. Which so much now-a-days does.

Marriage is so important, Freemason, that half of them end in divorce. And it happens, despite the fact that Freemason has a clear set of guidelines for what people should and should not do or be. And it's beside the point, anyway.


I see no value in homosexuals living together, it has no benifit. They can not have a family. What is the benefit other than their own personal reasons, to marry? To have kids? None, so what ever decision can be determined to give them their wish to be tollerated, should not out-weigh the fact that no matter what America says, humanity says they are not equal. They will never be a family with out the aid of an unloving family, or genetic engineering.


Ok, well I say that people who don't plan on having children should not marry. What's the point? Love? Companionship? Pooh! Infertile people shouldn't marry, either. I mean, what's the point?


Because of that, I don't think they should be allowed to have any benifits of such, they should be allowed to look after eachother, and share their resources, but not to lay claim to being a family....blah blah blah.

Because I said so. Because I have issues with this. Because, if they wanted to be "normal," they'd CHOOSE to be straight...right?

Freemason, you never directly answer questions I ask and you skip over extremely important points that I make, preferring to, instead, go off on tangents about fertility and abortion and marriage and...well, I still think you're a little wet behind the ears and you MIGHT gain perspective with some age and experience.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by St. Theresa
Ok, well I say that people who don't plan on having children should not marry. What's the point? Love? Companionship? Pooh! Infertile people shouldn't marry, either. I mean, what's the point?

That's an awesome idea, treat homosexual married couples as if they were a couple that did not want children. Since you can obviously be married and love eachother, without the need for kids.

Also St. Theresa I don't avoid your points, I expand the argument because there is more invovled, than the rights of homosexuals, there is more involved than what goes on in the homosexual couple's homes.

Whenever you are changing around nature, there is a lot more involved than just if they can love or not.

Dolphins have plenty of homosexual males, but those males don't get together, and adopt children. In fact they usually band together in their own groups, and avoid social contact with other dolphins.

When is humanity any different? Should we just ban sex altogether, since it is offensive to the rights of Humanity as a whole. And have kids only born through test-tubes, and then adopted out equally among all couples of any sex?

That St. Theresa, is the only way this world can be fair. Nature, is not fair, it is a machine, and we are the cogs.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Whenever you are changing around nature, there is a lot more involved than just if they can love or not.

Ah, but don't you see? YOU'RE trying to change around nature! At the very least, you're resisting it. Unless you still think that homosexuality is a choice, then you know what's more than obvious, which is that it isn't. It is a product of nature just as eye color, height, right-handedness and brain chemistry.

Homosexuality is different from heterosexuality, sure. It's a minority of the population, true. Homosexuals can't produce children naturally, yes sir. But that proves nothing to me, except diversity.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Nature doesn't allow room for dysfunction. We must in the end just step back and see what implications such actions will have on our society, and if we want to accept them.

I just don't want a kid to grow up, and think his childhood was ruined because he didn't have both a mom and dad. Dad to play catch, mom to help him learn the finer things in life.

Two dads, what then? Odd odd odd...perhaps we should do controlled studies?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 04:35 AM
link   
hmmm ... it early in the morning, but i feel like a crusade. JB, i have been very impressed with your posts since i became aware of you as a poster here on ATS. however, that has been shattered by what i see as short-sightedness on this issue. i hope that through discussion i can convince you to at least consider changing your views.

"If Homosexuality is only genetic then I see no reason why Homosexuals should be able to adopt ..."

basically, i think you are worried about the spread of homosexuality. why? as i see it homosexuality poses no threat to the human race, nor any impediment to freedom or any other aspect of a civilised life.

"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."

ok, so you are worried that a child raised by homosexual parents will turn out to be homosexual.
i) there is by no means a guarantee that they will become homosexual.
ii) whilst i agree that parents do have a strong degree of influence (indeed, many parents nowadays do not exercise ~enough~ influence, and should do more) a child who grows up still has free will, and can choose for themselves.
iii) so what if it does turn out to be homosexual? is that such a bad thing? if the child ~is~ homosexual they are so because they ~like~ it. do you enjoy sex? any homosexual child is going to enjoy their sex just as much. they lose nothing.

"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 ... With one,only one, proviso.That that lifestyle choice does not in anyway effect another."

ah, but you see, YOUR choice (if you had the power) would be to deny homosexuals the right, even the joy, of adopting a child. do you agree that your choice there affects those people? furthermore, your choice affects the children that will be forced to remain in foster homes whilst there are perfectly capable, willing and loving homosexual foster-parents out there. does your choice not affect them also?

"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."

hmmm ... perhaps your should reconsider your view as i've pointed out above. i think your stance on this imposes your view of the heterosexual lifestyle on foster-kids.

"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."

once again, your stance imposes the heterosexual lifestyle on the innocent. indeed, any and all fostering imposes a lifestyle - the lifestyle of the parents - upon the foster child. in this, they are the same as all children. to say that one lifestyle is better than another - based on sexual orientation of the parents - is ludicrous at best, and outright prejudiced at worst.

"All I can say is that if anyone is 100% sure that a child could not be emotionally harmed by being adopted by a gay couple then I can not say that you are being irresponsible as far as the quality of the life of the child is concerned.But I am not 100% sure ...."

a very good sentiment, to be sure. thought for the child should be paramount. but i say that i am 100% sure that the sexual orientation of the parents does not effect their ability to raise a healthy child.
let me ask you, ~why~ are you not 100% sure? what is ~exactly~ is your worry?

"FM: In conclusion, who is man to give what nature can not?
JB: Very nice closing point,F-M."

hmm ... in my opinion that is a terrible point to close your arguement on FM. man ~always~ does what nature cannot, from clothing to automobiles to nuclear weapons. we as humans exceed nature in so many ways, your claim that this is somehow 'unnatural' is to illustrate the very essence of hummankind.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Incorrect, Man does only what Nature allows, your way of thought will be the death of us all. It has already created the Nuclear bomb, never gas, and super germs.

Good going mr. I'm better than nature.

Oh and take note, I'm well aware that denying Homosexuals the ability to adopt is against their rights, but as I pointed out, allowing them to adopt is against the child's rights, and societies. This is a no win situation.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 17-12-2002 by FreeMason]



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Hi Quiet One,It would be very easy just to agree with the majority here for the sake of peace and quiet.This is just one sub-issue in which I feel that I disagree with you and others.I am not a religeous homophobe and I almost certainly have differing views on abortion to F-M.

When I said "Nice closing point"I was refering to what I felt was a nicely rounded phrase.That is all.

Quote Q-O:

basically, i think you are worried about the spread of homosexuality. why? as i see it homosexuality poses no threat to the human race, nor any impediment to freedom or any other aspect of a civilised life.

You are correct
homosexuality poses no threat to the human race, nor any impediment to freedom or any other aspect of a civilised life.

However By the time a gay person has reached 30 he/she would have been through a great deal.Some of this would have been due to the intollerence of society,some due to self guilt and a troubled mind.
Suicide attempts higher in gay comunity,Suicide higher in gay comunity,Self harm higher in gay comunity.

When a gay couple wish to adopt.What aged child would they want to adopt.Not a 10 year old who already has societies intollerences but an infant.Incidently,In the UK at least there is no shortages of homes for infants.It is the older children who really need homes.

There has been one contribution from a poster who has actually been adopted or fostered.And what's happened.The one person who has insights that we all lack has been ignored because his views disagree with this Liberal crusade.It doesn't really surprise me that it was ignored because he in effect was speaking for the voiceless children where as everyone else are speaking for the couple that wish to adopt.

Just a quick aside to B-T your assertion that homosexuality in ancient greece was not,in some way,true homosexuality is false.There are many contemporary accounts of love and life long relationships of the time.Read Plato'sThe Dinner Party.Men were for pleasure women merely for breeding.But why bother breeding today when you can adopt.If you want me to go into more detail about this I will.

And to think,all I had to do is agree and I'd find redemption.Group Hug Anyone.





posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Originally posted by John bull 1:

"Hi Quiet One,It would be very easy just to agree with the majority here for the sake of peace and quiet.This is just one sub-issue in which I feel that I disagree with you and others.I am not a religeous homophobe and I almost certainly have differing views on abortion to F-M."

that would indeed be the 'easy way out' but it would also kill the thread if st theresa and i, (and others we our views) bowed to the "majority". i put that in quotes because there's no evidence (like a poll or something) to show that is indeed the majority viewpoint. i think this an interesting arguement, and one of the better-maintained threads, so lets keep it going ....

"When I said "Nice closing point"I was refering to what I felt was a nicely rounded phrase.That is all."

ah, fair enough. in that regard it was indeed a very good post, i apologise for misunderstanding.

"When a gay couple wish to adopt.What aged child would they want to adopt.Not a 10 year old who already has societies intollerences but an infant.Incidently,In the UK at least there is no shortages of homes for infants.It is the older children who really need homes."

i tihnk you generalise. if you can show a study to prove that homosexuals only want to adopt infants i'll accept it, until then i say that it is pure conjecture.

"There has been one contribution from a poster who has actually been adopted or fostered....The one person who has insights that we all lack has been ignored because his views disagree with this Liberal crusade.... he in effect was speaking for the voiceless children where as everyone else are speaking for the couple that wish to adopt."

would you care to point out the post again?

"Men were for pleasure women merely for breeding.But why bother breeding today when you can adopt.If you want me to go into more detail about this I will."

i think this is a splendid arguement for allowing gay people to adopt, in effect it sums up their arguement. gay people, some of them, may want to raise kids. if they can't adopt they might have to have sex with a woman just to have a child, which is degrading both to the man and woman, in my opinion. allow them to adopt and you allow them achieve what they desire.

- qo.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join