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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:10 AM
link   
i must confess, FM, to not fully reading your posts before. i was concentrating on JBs. however...

Originally posted by FreeMason:

"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."

i do not see anything in nature that prevents gay people from adopting children. ~having~ children is another matter, but adoption can be done by anyone.

"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."

the rights of the child? what rights? you seem to say that the child has a right to live in a 'normal' household. is this what you mean?
by that criteria there would be very few foster parents at all.
"you're stinking rich and drive a lotus to work, do you? sorry, not normal...."
"you ~don't~ like harry potter? sorry, no foster child for you..."


seriously, lets consider the rights of the child. i don't have british law to hand, but to my knowledge they do not have the right to any home at all. there's no guarantee of fosterage. what they are given the right to is parent(s) that will take good care of them. that is all. can you argue that they have some other rights?

- qo.




posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:10 AM
link   
just as an afterthough.

why are these topics always put in such a way as to suggest those who are for gay marriage or adoption are the people who need to justify it.

frankly I'd rather see a topic stating

"why shouldn't gays be aloud to adopt"

if anyone can give me an answer to that which doesn't rely on theology or out moded ideals concerning parenting then we might have an interesting discussion.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:18 AM
link   
i know what you are saying lupe (i get slapped by bron every so often for it) but really it just a question of language. better to start a general thread on "language without prejudice".

- qo.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I don't know if it is just semantics.

consider the difficulty of making a case ~for~ gay adoption compared to making one against it.

if one is coming from the stand point that it is perfectly fine and theres simply no logical reason why they shouldn't then the job of constructing an argument on why exactly its perfectly reasonable and fine becomes as tricky as constructing an argument about why it would be perfectly reasonable for a hetro-sexual couple to adopt.

The simple answer: it just is

whilst being acurate and correct seems flimsy and adds credence and indeed justification to the existence of the negative view point.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 08:40 AM
link   
hate to say it, but i think you're muddying the thread. the topic "Should Gays be allowed to adopt?" is fairly neutral, and we're getting good arguement from both sides. lets leave it at that.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Mad Scientist made the post I was refering to on page one.

When I was speaking of the majority.I was refering to the majority of posters on this thread not in society.

The one piece of my last thread that was mean't to be in answer to your original question was:

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.

Coincidently,it was the only piece you did not quote and reply to.

The piece about the age of children that gays would wish to adopt was conjecture.In that you are right.As gays are unable to adopt it would be impossible to find statistics to prove it.But I feel it is intellegent conjecture.

We are debating on whether Gays should adopt but we all Know that the vast majority of gay adopters would be male.As lesbians could and,unless they were unfortunate enough to be sterile,would have their own children.This is another piece of conjecture.

In answer to Lupe:I didn't start this thread I believe it was Jedi.So the title was his choice of words.

You can read all of my posts on this thread and you will find that my position hasn't changed.Everyone has the right to live their own lives the way they want to unless it effects another adversely.I have stated to you that if you are 100% confident that the child will not be effected adversely then persuade me.Because if I put my hand on my heart I can not say that .despite my genuine desire to believe it to be true in the name of equality.I simply can not.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by John bull 1:

"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.

Coincidently,it was the only piece you did not quote and reply to."

fair enough, will do so now. i don't see the relevance. ~all~ people by the time they are 30 have gone through a lot. doesn't make gay people any better or worse at parenting.

suicide and self harm probably are higher (i don't have statistics) but again that does not mean that any individual gay person is going to be unable to raise a child properly. you naturally try to determine if they have suicidal tendancies, but you check heterosexuals for the same.

"Everyone has the right to live their own lives the way they want to unless it effects another adversely.I have stated to you that if you are 100% confident that the child will not be effected adversely then persuade me.Because if I put my hand on my heart I can not say that .despite my genuine desire to believe it to be true in the name of equality.I simply can not."

the big question is WHY? what is that 1% or more that means your are not? what do you mean by 'adversely effect'? if we can isolate that the issue can be addressed.

another point; lets consider, as conjecture, the possibility that allowing gay people to adopt children ~may~ 'adversely effect' those children. ... no actually, scrap that, i can't do it. i cannot conceive at this point of ~anything~ that is inheritant in a gay person that could adversely effect a child in their care. obviously ~certain~ gay people could do so, just as many heterosexual people, but i cannot think of anything that justifies a blanket ban.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 12:27 PM
link   
thanks JB, for reminding me of this post. i will now take issue with it.

Originally posted by mad scientist:

"Speaking as an adopted child, the idea of gay adoption is abhorent. I was lucky in that, I have 2 loving parents in a well off family. I can't imagine the ridicule and shame I would have suffered with gay parents."

now this is not an arguement for stopping gay people from adopting children. for a start - and no offence is meant throughout any of this MS - the experience/attitude/opinion of one person should not guide law. second, you cannot not say that had you grown up with gay foster parents that you would have fealt any shame at all, since you did not do so.

"Having a perspective from both sexes during childhood is essential. I found that there were things I could tlak to my dad about and different things that Ii could talk to my mom about."

i entirely disagree. you're imposing gender-roles and such like. sure, i can talk to my mum about some things and my dad about others. there are many things i wouldn't talk about with either. but those differences are to do with their personalities and our relationship, not their gender.

allow me to play devil's advocate: if a mother and father, due to their genders, are so critically important in the raising of a child, should the children who suffer the death of one parent be taken away from their surviving parent because of the lack of both sexes?

"Whilst I don't believe in god, I do believe that if a gay couple can't have children naturally ( that includes IVF for lesbians ), then they shouldn't have them at all."

what about infertile couples? should they not be allowed IVF or to adopt? i've tried to tackle the whole 'natural' arguement already. to me it just doesn't hold water. we are not talking about giving birth, simply about raising a child. nurture, not nature, if you like.

- qo.


[Edited on 17-12-2002 by quiet one]



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 01:28 PM
link   
And if through nuture a child is more likely to become gay themselves and suffer the same mental torment that his "parents" suffered.That is justified.

Also,you overlook the most important part,in my opinion,of what M-S was trying to say.You have no idea what social torment an adopted child has anyway without compounding further social stigma on him/her.Children can be the most heartless peer group in society.It's no good saying childrens attitudes must change or society is intolerent.That is how it is.And to allow gays to adopt now would be throwing that first generation in experimental adoption to the wolves.
I agree society must become more tolerent but not at the expense of children with no voice.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 01:34 PM
link   
In fact I'll put to you a question.Do homosexuals have more rights than children?and if you believe both have rights then ultimately isn't it right to ensure the rights of children even if it means some kind of sacrifice to the rights of adults.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 02:00 PM
link   
FM"shouldn't force their views on the child"

So, they gays shouldn't force their lifestyle on a child? Fine, heteros shouldn't either. Why should a kid be forced to look at being straight all his life? Being straight leads to sex, which leads to kids, kids the straight people don't want. Who will take them? The ones who can't have kids when they have sex. So FM, what worse? Forcing a kid to look at straight life or gay life? At least if gay won't be haing kids they don't want.

As for abortion, it ain't born, can't die. Eziekiel ZXakawaka Neromian the seven hundred and fourty fourth never died for he was never born. Yes, it has a heart beat, whoop de do, Hitler had a heart beat, so having a heart beat doesn't mean you should live. It human, so what? We animals, great ape family, nothing special, besides we are the only animal that declares war on each other.

And FM, I have never seen wild animals kill a gay wild animal, where the hell you get that from?



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 02:40 PM
link   
JB is echoing many of my thoughts. And its not common for us to agree on something, lol! Think about the children, their wants, their needs, and their rights.

As I have said before - I think having a mother/father offers children the best balance. A mother/mother combo could take a son fishing and camping and that sort of stuff, BUT what about paternal/maternal instinct? I think that's an important factor here and I highly believe in such instincts. Having two children myself I know there are certain attributes that I have and can offer to my children that my wife cannot, and vice-versa.
A colleague of mine who is a great guy and loving father was married and had 3 kids when his wife left him for a women. The kids, none too old, did not want to live with their mom and her partner - they live with their father. Granted, thats only one example but I my concern is for the children. What if they want a mother and father?

Now, I am not saying gay couples cant offer a great life to their children and there are plenty of straight couples that make their childrens lives miserable and too many single mothers out there that didnt choose to be single mothers BUT I still think a child is best suited with a loving mother and father.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Nature did not intend for homosexuals to raise children as parents, and we are not ones to change that fact.

Why should straight people be able to adopt? Because if they wanted to they could produce offspring of their own.

Why should impetent people be allowed to adopt? Because if their plumbing was working properly they could produce offspring of their own.

Why should gays not be allowed to adopt? Because even when their plumbing is working properly they can not ever have in any way, offspring of their own. Because of this nature, the almighty regulator of our existance, denies Homosexuals the very ability to ever have kids.

It does not deny them the ability to baby-sit, or look after kids, or communally raise them as is done in smaller tribal communities. But when it comes to offspring of their own they never have, can not, and never will be able to have children.

Before you ask me to tell you why gays should not be allowed to adopt, you tell me who we are to go against nature in the extreme.

Some things in this world we are allowed to push, and some things we should never have pushed, what dire effects will the free and accepted adoption by homosexuals have on our society? None of us know, but before you can prove to me that a society where half the kids in the class have 2 dads or 2 moms, can function with strength, and passion, and wisdom, I'll not yeild. There are things taught by a father, that can not be taught by a mother, and vice versa. The father has always been the overseer of what men his daughters would be with, that is nature, and women have always felt the need to prove themselves to the mother of their spouce, that is nature. What is a guy going to do to a girl, who has two nagging moms for parents? Or two men, without the protective knowledge imbued in them by their fathers, watching over her?

These things are overlooked by you. As I've said before, morally it is only fair to allow gays to adopt, but morally it is only fair to allow people to shoot heroin, not everything fair, is wise.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
And if through nuture a child is more likely to become gay themselves and suffer the same mental torment that his "parents" suffered.That is justified.

Also,you overlook the most important part,in my opinion,of what M-S was trying to say.You have no idea what social torment an adopted child has anyway without compounding further social stigma on him/her.Children can be the most heartless peer group in society.It's no good saying childrens attitudes must change or society is intolerent.That is how it is.And to allow gays to adopt now would be throwing that first generation in experimental adoption to the wolves.
I agree society must become more tolerent but not at the expense of children with no voice.

I'd like to take some liberties with this:

And if through NATURE a child is be gay themselves and suffer the same mental torment that his GAY PREDECESSORS suffered. That is UNjustified.

Also,you overlook the most important part,in my opinion,of what M-S was trying to say.You have no idea what social torment a GAY child has anyway without compounding further social stigma on him/her.Children can be the most heartless peer group in society.It's no good saying WE MUST ADAPT CHILDREN TO SOCIETAL SCOURGES OF BIGOTRY.That is how it is.And NOT to allow gays to adopt now would be TO CONTINUE THE UNJUSTIFIED DISCRIMINATION AND HATRED, and to throw the self-esteem of young gay people to the wolves.
I agree society must become more tolerent so as not to come between homeless children and the many good people out there willing to care for them.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Back to the old genetic predisposition argument.I thought we'd left that behind and agreed that homosexuality was the product of both nature and nurture?



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 07:13 PM
link   
It's not about genetics, it is about what is possible. To put it simply...why should anything that can not naturally bare children if everything were fine, HAVE children at all?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Back to the old genetic predisposition argument.I thought we'd left that behind and agreed that homosexuality was the product of both nature and nurture?

I totally don't agree. Too many gay kids coming out of straight-as-an-arrow families to support nurture. I would acknowledge exceptions to that rule (e.g. lesbians by choice because of fear of men), but generally speaking, no. Few people choose a lifestyle that puts them at the center of such torment and rejection. A lot of homosexuals actually try to have heterosexual relationships because it's what they are supposed to do. It's what they've been nurtured to do. Some actually stick with it for life. Some don't. They can't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex anymore than they can choose which hand they prefer to write with.

Nature OR nurture still doesn't answer the question of why it's socially unacceptable and why we have to fight to maintain that. To say that kids would suffer with homosexual parents because society will reject them is to feed the senseless bigotry. It continues a cycle and, as I mentioned before, there are still kids hurt in the process: gay kids, their friends and their families.

And I'm still not buying the idea that you must be fertile and capable of reproduction to be a genuine, responsible, loving family. We've already asked if sterile people should bother marrying since they can't have kids. Certainly, our society looks to the infertile for potential adoptive parents.

The arguments suggesting being gay is a choice, and a non-preferred state of being, have not come from logic, except with the weak hypothesis that infertile/non-reproducing is objectionable.

I have not seen anything here which deviates from a long-standing socially-acceptable prejudice; a myth.

*gets dizzy from going 'round the circle again*



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Is it really so hard St. Theresa for fags to love women? Or lesbians to love a guy?

You said that some would force themselves into a hetero relationship because it is normal, this is true....but ask yourself, is it really so hard to do that?

Love should not be restricted to sex. St. Theresa I thought maybe you'd be able to help me meet you half way, but in fact, you've pushed me further away.

If these homosexuals are really so honorable in their wishes, then why don't they find someone they love of the opposite sex? Since when did we condone sex for the fun of it?

This actually infuriates me because more than ever now, I can see clear as day, that Homosexuals are just sex maniacs.

Sex should in the end revolve around love or a relationship, not just be done left and right. Hence men and women get married, they think at the time that they love eachother.

So why is it that Gays can't love members of the opposite sex? We all love people of the same sex, but we don't express it through sexual actions.

But here are these homosexuals, they are driven to have sex with the same gender because of genetics? Well why don't they just not express their sexual feelings, and find someone of the opposite sex to love if they want a family?

Surely they can...surely they can find someone to love as normally, as they can abnormally. If in fact they can really love each other of the same sex at all.

And I do know plenty of homosexuals, and my conclusion is that they can not love at all, at least, not the way heteros do. I've yet to seen one homosexual who's love revolved around emotions, instead it is more about not fitting into society, than love.

That is just the ones I know though, I'm sure much older ones grow out of such childish attitudes, but I asked them once if they could understand why people are heterosexual, if they could understand the feelings, which is stronger than the sex. They could not. They couldn't see past the "ickiness" of hetero sex.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Well, so far FM is bsing. Well if they could have kids they should be allowed to adopt. Wow, well, I guess those few million kids who could be adopted but since gays can't because they evil and will make the kid gay no matter what will never know what it like to have a stable family. No, they taken place to place to make sure they don't get attached to fostor parents, can't make freinds, then kicked out at eighteen. Never knowing what it would be like staying in the same house for more than a few months, freinds, parents that would love them.

FM, no legal reasons yet. Just in nature it doesn't happen, even though it does. Also, chimps and other smart animals can adopt kids, say a chimp with two kids dies, the group will put the kids with other chimps, so it would be possible for gay chimps to get a kid.(unlikely, but still could)

And nature vs nurture. Being black, white, red, blue, have green with purple polka dot hair, black eyes with pink lines, being straight, gay, bi, being able to count to six on one hand, all nature. Being cruel to those more weak, being a bimbo,(While seems to be nature since being blonde is nature, but I think it still nurture) being a snob, behavoir, personality, nurture.

Look, some of my freinds are gay/les/bi, and their parents straight, so obviously it isn't nurture. If it was, no gay/les/bi would exist.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Now that I've expressed my "emotions" and blown some steam at homosexuals and their wish to be the same.

I shall again refere to new ideas, that you St. Theresa so avidly avoid.

Idea one, is an orange an apple?

Idea two, is a homosexual a heterosexual?

Idea three, since an orange is NOT an apple, then a Homosexual is NOT a Heterosexual.

I think the Homosexual's claims to normal wishes is comparing apples to oranges.

No homosexual deserves adoption any more than an Apple deserves to be called an orange.

The logic is startling, if you've bothered to read the fact that I stated earlier. "If you can have a kid if everything was functioning properly, then you can adopt. If not, then you can not adopt."

I do not see what is prejudice about this, since there is nothing prejudice of calling an Orange an Orange and an Apple an Apple.

The prejudice in fact, is giving Homosexuals children, that is worse than calling an Apple an Orange, that's calling it a Kiwi!

Homosexuals were not meant to have kids, or they'd be able to shoot cum up their butts and pop out a child! Do you see men in the MATERNITY wards pooping out children? I don't. So why give them a child?

In my honest opinion, the homosexual's claim to having children is a sexist remark, to themselves and their lack of ability to have children, and to heterosexual's right to have children.

They don't want Equality, equality is to be who you are, without being hated. This can be done by homosexuals being who they are without having stones thrown at them and so forth. Even down to the point of marriage really, if they see any benifit of that.

But they want to be more than what they are...they want to be parents.

Which is odd, because considering that homosexuality is a genetic trait, then they should not have any parenting genetics in them, so why do they want children?

In conclusion, I say we should find the biological clock that tells mothers they should have a child, and seek it in homosexuals. Every heterosexual shares even slightly, the will to be a parent. If it is a genetic fact that homosexuals have a genetic trait to be a parent, than I suppose giving them adopted babies is only just.

But if they do not have a genetic trait that urges them to have children, then their asking for adopted babies is no more than greed. And asking to be more than what they are.

Sincerely,
no signature




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join