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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 11:44 AM
link   
But, don't forget sx is also tyo concive children. Hell, yes it is mostly for fun, that is why pron is so popular, and most of the time sex is taken up by ''playing''...




posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 07:37 AM
link   
What does that have to do with gay adoptions?

Does any pro-gay here think that the adoptions'd corrupt the minors? Or is that just crap?



posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 06:45 PM
link   
The adoption would ot corrupt the young child, he/she makes the choice.



posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Not that I'm having second thoughts on my siding, it's just... I mean, if the kid is like a year old when they adopt him/her, then they'll grow up and the homosexual ways'll be all they know. The parents could teach the kid(s) no to be gay, though... that'd be a bit dificult, on second hand... Ergh, I've comfused myself now...



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Well, though the parent can influence the child, he/she will decide. A child with heterosexual paretns can turn out gay.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 03:27 AM
link   
"Does any pro-gay here think that the adoptions'd corrupt the minors? Or is that just crap? "

how does the action of adoption corrupt minors?



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Well, though the parent can influence the child, he/she will decide. A child with heterosexual paretns can turn out gay.


Good point... I guess... This comes back to the point of "If everyone did exactly as their parents did, there would be no gays."



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 08:53 AM
link   
But, sometimes the child takes after the parent in evry way. But then again the child could end up hating his parents, and turn out another way.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 02:25 PM
link   
There are two distinctly different issues here:

1) The nature of homosexuality
2) The needs of children to have a family

In 1991, a prominent geneticist came out (name escapes me, but he was again recently in the news) in his preliminary research to indicate that homosexuality was almost certainly genetic in nature. A disorder.

Many studies of homosexuals indicate that many wish they weren't gay for all kinds of reasons. I'm not sure any homosexual grows up wanting to be gay. Many commit suicide.

I'm confident that any condition in which the propagation of that particular species, through natural means, is rendered impossible will be classified properly as a form of disease. It will be in the same category as other genetic diseases such as Muscular Dystrophy, MS, certain cancers, infertility, et. al, .

There are others that indeed choose a homosexual lifestyle for reasons other than they were genetically disposed to it. I believe this to be a deviancy. I think that it is a moral relativism that indeed contributed to the downfall of Rome. I think that the more a society rationalizes what is not natural, or not in the general interests of a community, that the society begins to fail like a small crack in metal that propagates through a structure under pressure, strain, or stress.

To determine whether a homosexual is suited to be a parent, I think that they're attitude about why they are gay is important. If you were to ask somebody with a genetic disorder if they thought they were normal, they'd generally agree, that other than the obvious, they were normal.

I think that homosexuals are like this. I think you'll find entire classes of genetic behavioural disorders substantiated, and in some cases, therapies developed to cure them.

So how does this relate to whether homosexuals can make suitable parents?

I think their attitude about being gay is pretty important as to how this is going to color how they'd bring up a child. There is nothing bigoted about recognizing that there are differences in people that make them suitable for some things and unsuitable for others. Comparing homosexuality to being Black is as ridiculous as comparing someone with red hair to someone with Down's Syndrome. Being Black is not debilitating in any way. Being gay means you can't have children through natural child birth. All of this is just fact.

2) The needs of children to have a family

I am a parent of an adopted child.

We live in a nation that has adoption farms, where kids are literally put in pens, and parents walk through to see them all, as if they were in kennels.

You show me homosexual parents who will say, "Look, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't be gay, but we want children, we will give them love and a stable home, and we will welcome their prom dates home for pictures no matter what sex they happen to be," and I say let them be parents.

For the record, I am evangelical Christian, and a down the line Republican.

I'd no sooner grant a gay couple an adoption than I would a hetero couple with a liberal view of marriage and family (for example, the Osbournes freak show.)

There is a crying need for stable homes for foster and adoptive kids. To disqualify stable heterosexual families from adopting, as long as they can recognize the obvious (We are gay, we wouldn't choose to be this way, but we are and we are going to love ourselves and you in the process), then I say let them adopt.

If you want to crank religion into this, especially Christian faith into this, then consider that nobody with any sin on their soul is getting into heaven. Christ came down and paid the full price of salvation for our sins. All of them.

Stealing a pack of gum and murder are equivalent in the one sense that they will keep you out of heaven if you are not saved. Homosexuality is an abomination. All sin is. No one is worthy of heaven outside of the salvation of Christ, which is free for anyone to accept. No secret test, no secret handshakes, and no collection plates.

Homosexuals have the same claim to as normal a life as they are capable of living. The fact that they are in a same-sex marriage is a handicap to having a family with children, but is not a debilitation. Same goes for salvation, by the way. Sin is now an impediment, not a permanent barrier.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
But, sometimes the child takes after the parent in evry way. But then again the child could end up hating his parents, and turn out another way.


Ergh.... JM, how many people do you know that wants to be just like their parents? I'm not saying that no one does, or its a bad thing, but c'mon.... Everyone'd be just the same!



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Well, if you look at it religous way, then we all screwed. Go over the bible with a fine toothed comb. We all sinners just because we were born. Eating meat on certain days hell worthy. Looking at someone at certain times in certain places hell worthy. Thinking outside of the group is hell worthy. You are to follow the shepard and be a sheep, if not you are disobeying the master and going to hell.

Sorry, using religons like christianity that want you to follow blindly isn't good. If a religon doesn't want you asking questions or being an individual, it isn't good. What do you think all those cults are? This is this, you ask/say different, you are wrong. I am son of Mwabwa Oolohu, the real god, and if you all drink my kool-aid(water if brian) you will go to hevean.

But still, if they aren't morons, druggies, or something that could harm the kid, let them adopt. Obviously who your sex partner doesn't matter. Kids beaten and killed everyday by heterosexual parents. Religon means nothing either. A jew can raise a kid just as well as an atheist or christian can. In fact, a atheist doesn't have to be worried about being "blessed" by the father/priest/bishop/whatever holy man. Since someone somewhere said not only catholic preists rape little kids. But if the kid atheist, no need to worry, now is there?

So, being hetero doesn't make you a good parent. Being christian doesn't either. I think it has a little bit to do with how you are. I don't know if any anti gays thought of this, but if a hetero parent a psycho, he will be a bad parent. If the parent normal, won't be. If a gay is psycho, won't be a good parent. If not, will be. It depends on the person. You won't see Charles Manson adopting a kid, for he psychotic. He hetero, but still psycho. Won't see Bush adopt cause as we see with his kids, Bush ain't only a screw up in brain department, but in the father department to.(fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, uh, um, er, duh? Sub, subli, sublimimimininimiminimininal?) Won't see Micheal Jackson adopting either. We all know why, well, should.

Doesn't matter if you straight, it matters if you good enough. If you can love and care for a child. Not if the kid has two dads or two moms or one mom and dad.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 04:23 PM
link   
James, you completely missed the point(s):

Religion isn't the issue in whether a homosexual is fit to be a parent.

Homosexuality is a disorder that prevents those affected from being able to engage in reproduction. It's either that or a lifestyle choice which essentially leads to the same disability.

Being 'good at it' would sort of depend on whether you go out of your way to take on a disability, and then argue for those limitations as a prospective parent.

If the attitude of the homosexual prospective parent is that they will eagerly and actively represent that homosexuality is neither natural or desirable, then you have yourself a good adoption candidate.

Nobody can make a case that homosexuality is in any way natural - that the human body's primary mode of reproduction accommodates homosexuals. Given this, it is not a desirable state for children, for whom you'd like to have as many of life's possible options available.

I'm not even going to debate whether it is an acceptible, moral, desirable lifestyle from a qualitative perspective.

Biologically, genetic homosexuality is a disability. It's only in recent years that medical science has made it possible for gay couples to have pregnancies. For gay males in relationships, the only options are adoption and surrogacy.

A completely gay male population would die out, left to itself without adoption or surrogacy. If you added lesbians to the mix (pure lesbians), you'd get pregnancies through some crude, turkey baster sort of work arounds. Bisexuals become a sort of 'handmaiden' class in that scenario, in which they would form the 'reproductive' class - members of that society that would be able and willing to have children naturally.

Strident homosexuals, that view heterosexuals as some sort of deviant class at worst, or political enemy at best, are simply inappropriate to raise children who are likely to be heterosexual. (only 2 to 3% of the population is thought to be gay)

In environmental science, in environments that have reached their environmental limit (the point at which the environment cannot sustain an increase in a given species), homosexuality has been displayed in the behaviour of squirrels and other species.

Sorry, you can't characterize homosexuality as normal. Homosexuals aren't the equal to heterosexuals in that they can't procreate. Given this, you have to look at their fitness as parents through the lens of whether the homosexuality is either conscious decision (Anne Heche) or genetic disability (Ellen Degeneres). Ellen seems like she'd make a good parent. Anne Heche is a whack job.

Michael Jackson, whack job hetero (I think). Michael Eisner, responsible hetero. The disqualification as a parent lies in mental state, not in how they choose to do the nasty.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOptomist
James, you completely missed the point(s):

Religion isn't the issue in whether a homosexual is fit to be a parent.

Homosexuality is a disorder that prevents those affected from being able to engage in reproduction. It's either that or a lifestyle choice which essentially leads to the same disability.

Being 'good at it' would sort of depend on whether you go out of your way to take on a disability, and then argue for those limitations as a prospective parent.

If the attitude of the homosexual prospective parent is that they will eagerly and actively represent that homosexuality is neither natural or desirable, then you have yourself a good adoption candidate.

Nobody can make a case that homosexuality is in any way natural - that the human body's primary mode of reproduction accommodates homosexuals. Given this, it is not a desirable state for children, for whom you'd like to have as many of life's possible options available.

I'm not even going to debate whether it is an acceptible, moral, desirable lifestyle from a qualitative perspective.

Biologically, genetic homosexuality is a disability. It's only in recent years that medical science has made it possible for gay couples to have pregnancies. For gay males in relationships, the only options are adoption and surrogacy.

A completely gay male population would die out, left to itself without adoption or surrogacy. If you added lesbians to the mix (pure lesbians), you'd get pregnancies through some crude, turkey baster sort of work arounds. Bisexuals become a sort of 'handmaiden' class in that scenario, in which they would form the 'reproductive' class - members of that society that would be able and willing to have children naturally.

Strident homosexuals, that view heterosexuals as some sort of deviant class at worst, or political enemy at best, are simply inappropriate to raise children who are likely to be heterosexual. (only 2 to 3% of the population is thought to be gay)

In environmental science, in environments that have reached their environmental limit (the point at which the environment cannot sustain an increase in a given species), homosexuality has been displayed in the behaviour of squirrels and other species.

Sorry, you can't characterize homosexuality as normal. Homosexuals aren't the equal to heterosexuals in that they can't procreate. Given this, you have to look at their fitness as parents through the lens of whether the homosexuality is either conscious decision (Anne Heche) or genetic disability (Ellen Degeneres). Ellen seems like she'd make a good parent. Anne Heche is a whack job.

Michael Jackson, whack job hetero (I think). Michael Eisner, responsible hetero. The disqualification as a parent lies in mental state, not in how they choose to do the nasty.


SO's definately got a point here: It don't matter what race, religion, sexuality, gender, or pretty much any other physical trait you have, as long as you take care of the kid(s) the right way. What I've been trying to say all along. Sort of.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join