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.

 

Arkansas Pass Gay Adoption Ban

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I hate to say this, but I do not support gays raising children for a few reasons that some may or may not agree with. Mainly, because if homosexuals were supposed to raise children, nature would have provided them a way to procreate. To me, the simple fact that homosexuals, without the aid of science or adoption, by all means would never be able to raise children says a lot.

Also, in the event that they want to adopt a female. How are two gay men supposed to teach the little girl about a young womans sexuality, changes, and differences without ever experiencing it themselves. I do not see two gay men teaching a ten year old girl about her period, how to properly use a tampon or pad, and other similar topics.

How are these children supposed to learn gender roles from a young age if being raised by two men? This would lead to a lot of confusion I would think when the child starts going to school. Children already have a hard enough time as it is trying to fit in, and this would only add to their problems. They would automatically be considered different, and children at that young of an age would not understand the situation.

Although, I am going to counter my own stance here real quick, and I will agree with what most of you have said that so many children are left orphans and could use a loving family, gay or straight, but morally to ME its wrong. I just think in a lot of situations, even as a orphan, being adopted by two gay men could possibly do more harm then good. We have not seen enough of these situations to determine if there is any lasting psychological effects, social effects, and so on. Only time will tell..

Everyone has different opinions, and I support everyone elses views, just as I would hope they support my right to an opinion. Sadly though, I myself do not think it is right for the reasons stated above.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
It is my opinion that the heterosexual individuals in our society are getting sick and tired of the gay rights agenda constantly being touted and being shoved in our faces. What other method do they have to tell the gay activist crowd to sit down and shut up down other than voting No on these bills?

If gay marriage can't pass the popular vote in California (twice) then that is really saying something. I see people in this thread acting as passionately as if it's abolishing slavery or allowing women to vote. The rest of America does not see it as that big of an issue and from the voting results they are getting sick of this continually being brought up as if it's some major travesty in our country.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


So by your logic the south should have allowed slavery to continue, as that was the consensus among the people, even though it is a position based on ignorance.

Gay people just want to be normal people. They want the freedoms straight people have. Why is that so hard to understand?

Put yourself in their shoes. Just try it.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


This is exactly what I'm talking about! Thank you. Gay people act is if they are in slavery which I find a ridiculous and absurd analogy and offensive to African Americans. Are you going to compare it to the holocaust next? It seems like the general population is sick of hearing about it, hence all the bills getting voted down.

It may or may not having anything to do with people not liking GBLTs, but rather getting sick of the constant gay rights activist stuff. It's like if you have someone at work who's constantly inviting you to church and preaching to you, you get sick of hearing it. It's like listening to my liberal friends constantly complain about Rush Limbaugh, or my conservative friends blaming everything on the Clintons. Whether I agree with them or not enough is enough and you just get tired of the whole thing.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


"sit down and shut up"...

...seriously?!?!

when was that last time using that tactic actually worked for you? do you know of ANYONE that would respond positively to that sentiment?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


That entire post is extremely ironic.

The cause of all this is because some people want to interfere with and control others.

Couples want to adopt.

Children want to be adopted.

A third party voluntarily gets involved and stops the connection.

If your tired of it, just leave them alone.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Jezus]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadline527
I hate to say this, but I do not support gays raising children for a few reasons that some may or may not agree with. Mainly, because if homosexuals were supposed to raise children, nature would have provided them a way to procreate. To me, the simple fact that homosexuals, without the aid of science or adoption, by all means would never be able to raise children says a lot.


A valid point but it is pulling at strings. Though they may have not been sexually imbued with the prospects of reproduction, but that shouldn't take away their ability to raise children. The way I would raise my child shouldn't be much different than a homosexual raising one.


Also, in the event that they want to adopt a female. How are two gay men supposed to teach the little girl about a young woman's sexuality, changes, and differences without ever experiencing it themselves. I do not see two gay men teaching a ten year old girl about her period, how to properly use a tampon or pad, and other similar topics.


Doesn't that also apply to a single heterosexual father with a daughter or a single heterosexual mother with a son?


How are these children supposed to learn gender roles from a young age if being raised by two men? This would lead to a lot of confusion I would think when the child starts going to school. Children already have a hard enough time as it is trying to fit in, and this would only add to their problems. They would automatically be considered different, and children at that young of an age would not understand the situation.


Yes very true. Children would be relentless about bulling or ridiculing this child. I think it would be hard to teach these kids about issue of thier parents being gay. Yet that isn't the issue at hand, they may be ridiculed at school but hopefully would be coming home to loving parents. I think the latter is much better then jumping foster homes or being stuck in an orphanage.


Although, I am going to counter my own stance here real quick, and I will agree with what most of you have said that so many children are left orphans and could use a loving family, gay or straight, but morally to ME its wrong. I just think in a lot of situations, even as a orphan, being adopted by two gay men could possibly do more harm then good. We have not seen enough of these situations to determine if there is any lasting psychological effects, social effects, and so on. Only time will tell..


Yes, we haven't seen enough situations to see concrete results and no official study has been done. Here's an article I found :

Children with Homosexual Parents


Everyone has different opinions, and I support everyone elses views, just as I would hope they support my right to an opinion. Sadly though, I myself do not think it is right for the reasons stated above.

Thank you and I respect yours also.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

I hate to say this, but I do not support gays raising children for a few reasons that some may or may not agree with. Mainly, because if homosexuals were supposed to raise children, nature would have provided them a way to procreate. To me, the simple fact that homosexuals, without the aid of science or adoption, by all means would never be able to raise children says a lot.


Homosexuals are not sterile; they reproduce just like straight people. Nature didn't "give them" a way to reproduce because it didn't have to, they already have the ability. I don't seen how this makes any sense, gay people are not sterile, and they have the same drive to nurture as straights do, and they raise children just like straights do, and research has shown us that those children are at no disadvantage(www.apa.org...). Where in science or mental studies do you get this notion that only couples that can reproduce together are equip to be parents? By that logic sterile couples are not equip to be parents.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Normal is subjective. We all have our own definitions of normal.

Homosexuality is not abnormal; it occurs throughout nature in all kinds of animals....naturally. So, it occurs in humans naturally, too.

That isn't even the issue, though. The issue is denying rights to people who want children on the basis of their marital status (this initiative, specifically). The issue is denying rights to children who are unwanted by legislating who and what constitutes "proper" parents.

The issue is denying rights, when our country was founded with the basic principle of everyone being created equal.

It isn't fair and it isn't right. That's the bottom line....


Normal is not subjective, it is majority. The majority of people in the US have regular relationships the opposite sex as nature intended. Why would you want to open the door for a child to be exposed to something most of society deems unacceptable. Before you go on about how most of society does accept it, think about how it was just banned yet again, and how it is still not legal. If majority of peopel accepted it, it would be legal.

I do not have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with taking a kid and putting that child into an environment that is totally outside of what is acceptable.

I am also satisfied with the bans on gay marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman, the end. Go make up a new bond for your unusual sexual orientation and lets keep marriage sacred.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


So it wasn't right in California to overthrow the will of the people twice prior to proposition 8.

I had to point this out. Three judges knew more than the entire population of the state.

I don't agree with the outcome in California, I just had to point out your hypocrisy.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Oh please.....

So, it is ok to deny people rights or take people's rights away just because the majority doesn't like it?

That's one hell of a narrow world view....



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 



Normal is not subjective, it is majority.


Normal is the typical or average mentality. It is not “right” or “wrong”. Therefore it can be subjective.


Why would you want to open the door for a child to be exposed to something most of society deems unacceptable.


Why not open the door when research shows being raised by gay parents has no adverse affect on a child? Your argument about society could have been used a few decades ago against interracial marriage or a few more decades back against slavery, or even a few more decades back when it came to marriage and progressing age of consent laws. As we progress as a society, especially as we progress form a mental health and mental research stand point, many of the things a society deems acceptable or unacceptable change rapidly when it comes to issues like sexuality. If we thought like you, ignoring the research and subscribing to ignorance and accepting the way something is whether it is wrong or right we would never progress. America doesn’t think that way. The exit polls from this year’s election show this, where things like Prop 8 only had narrow victories when thirty years ago such a win would have been a landslide, and even in 2000 when it passed by more votes. If we are to take into account the evident trend of increasing support, especially by young people, eventually gay marriage will prevail, and it will be supported by the majority.

Then will you find it acceptable? Because by your normal majority standards it will be.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Homosexuals have the ability to reproduce? Explain please...

If they reproduce with a female, then obviously that is not homosexual. Maybe its just me, but I have never seen two homosexual males able to carry a child from conception until birth. Have you?

And while I do 100% agree with you're point about sterile people, which I cannot even argue with, I still feel that two homosexual males raising a child goes against what nature intended..



[edit on 7-11-2008 by deadline527]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 


Normal is subjective; we all have our own definition of normal.

I am a straight, unmarried woman in a committed, long term relationship with a man. We have been together for a long time, but if we wanted to adopt in Arkansas, we couldn't now....that is what this initiative on the Arkansas ballot did.

It denied the right to adopt to unmarried couples who cohabitate (live together).

I could adopt on my own with no problem. He could adopt on his own with no problem. A single gay person can adopt with no problem.

But, unmarried couples cannot adopt. Gay or straight.

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many have no problem with the removal and/or denial of rights to other human beings.....especially when said rights will not touch you or your life in any significant way.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadline527
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Homosexuals have the ability to reproduce? Explain please...

If they reproduce with a female, then obviously that is not homosexual. Maybe its just me, but I have never seen two homosexual males able to carry a child from contriception until birth. Have you?


Yes homosexuals reproduce and have the ability to, and it is in no way hindered by their orientation. Just because they can not make babies together does not equal that they are unable to reproduce. You stated nature did not give homosexuals the ability to reproduce (but it did, just not with each other). That was your odd wording, not mine. There are also straight couples who can not reproduce together because they are sterile or there may be couples born with other intersex defects that can not reproduce, this however should not be taken into account when deciding if they can parent, as it should not be with homosexuals as well.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I haven't read all responses to this thread, but...

Can somebody summarize the arguments that were presented in FAVOR of this bill? I can already guess the arguments against passage..



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I am ok with unmarried people not getting to adopt. Think about how much trouble a single parent has. We have to think of the children's well being, not your selfish desires to have a child. People want a child so badly they are willing to overlook that.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 


Fine.

If you outlaw it for unmarried couples, then also outlaw it for single people. Single people, gay or straight, can still adopt in Arkansas.

This bill was put forth to ban gay adoption....but instead of saying that, they say it is to ban adoption by unmarried couples.

This has nothing to do with the welfare of a child. This has everything to do with legislating someone's specific morality and denying equal rights under the law.



[edit on 11/7/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


As long as I have a vote, it will always go against gay marriage and gay adoption. There is not enough research done to sway the populace to think that it is ok for a gay couple to adopt a child and put him into a weird sexually oriented household. I am sorry that you cannot see how this goes against nature itself. I realize sometimes even in animals there is homosexuality. Sometimes in society there are thefts. That does not make it right or acceptable.

I know your thinking I am so ignorant and close minded. That is only because I do not agree with you that you think that way. On the contrary, I have weighed the evidence, given deep thought, and come to the conclusion that it is not acceptable as the majority have, and have voted on the issue.

It is not a civil rights issue, gay people have the same rights as straight people do, and also have to follow the same laws, and we should not have to change laws because a very small minority disagrees with them.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I am ok with unmarried people not getting to adopt. Think about how much trouble a single parent has. We have to think of the children's well being, not your selfish desires to have a child. People want a child so badly they are willing to overlook that.


Another reasons I would think is that by only allowing married people to adopt, you are putting the child into a relationship that is less likely to fall apart due to petty differences. Think of how many unmarried relationships fall apart, and if they just happened to adopt a child while unwed and then seperated, I could see that causing a lot of problems. By requiring marriage, while I do feel for the single parents who would love to adopt, it does make sense to only bring children into a relationship that has the best chances of lasting. Although, I am aware that the divorce rate is quite absurd these days, but in my opinion it was a good decision.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join