Ban on gay adoptions: GOP ploy for elections 2006

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: SilentZero
I'm a Dem and im also against gay adoptions

Why?

 

[preCRT]

Most, probably 99.999999999%, of the children adopted by gays had hetrosexual birth parents. Those children need homes because those birth parents didn't want them, or were unfit parents and had their parental rights terminated by the courts. Maybe hetrosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. :roll:

Sad that some think it better for these poor kids to remain forever in foster care or return to unfit birth parents than to become the adopted and wanted children with loving caring parents. Yet another example that some conservatives care nothing about children after they are born.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No stupid pandering Jesus laws.

What is that supposed to mean? Can you tell me where in the Bible it says that homosexuals cannot adopt children?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

OK Smart Guy, what battles were the "right battles" that they SHOULD have fought?

Uhh, Iraq for one. And, I think that's enough.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

OK Smart Guy, what battles were the "right battles" that they SHOULD have fought?

That battle to turn America into a religious theocracy run by corporations?

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about when I say, Democrats don't know what battles to fight. You come off as anti-Christian, even if that's not what you mean. Not a good idea to do this in a country in which the VAST majority of it's constituents claim to be Christian.

 

[Polish3d]

I think a properly screened gay couple is a better bet than institutional raising of the child.

I do think they should wait behind straight parents though.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I think a properly screened gay couple is a better bet than institutional raising of the child.

I do think they should wait behind straight parents though.

Why? There is no proof that a gay parent is any worse then a straight parent (see OP).

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

OK Smart Guy, what battles were the "right battles" that they SHOULD have fought?

That battle to turn America into a religious theocracy run by corporations?

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about when I say, Democrats don't know what battles to fight. You come off as anti-Christian, even if that's not what you mean. Not a good idea to do this in a country in which the VAST majority of it's constituents claim to be Christian.

I'm anti-fundie, not anti-Christian. Keep your religion within your family, friends, and church and out of our laws and we'll get along fine as far as religion goes.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

OK Smart Guy, what battles were the "right battles" that they SHOULD have fought?

That battle to turn America into a religious theocracy run by corporations?

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about when I say, Democrats don't know what battles to fight. You come off as anti-Christian, even if that's not what you mean. Not a good idea to do this in a country in which the VAST majority of it's constituents claim to be Christian.

I'm anti-fundie, not anti-Christian. Keep your religion within your family, friends, and church and out of our laws and we'll get along fine as far as religion goes.

I understand. But you come off as anti-Christian, and so do the Democrats with the way they fight the battles against the current regime. And that is exactly what Bush wants, and that's exactly why he keeps winning, and not just elections.

 

[Strk]

As long as they pass the same screaning straight couples do, I don't care. I don't really see the issue with it, but then again, I don't see why people are so afraid of homosexuals.

 

[Cooler]

If gay couple wants to adupt a kid let them if they are in stable relationship with a good income. There are too many parentless kids in usa today for us to be picky as long as they go to a loving stable home.

 

[PsychoUnit]

You know there are alot of Gays coming out of the closet and getting married, especially 2005/2006. This is just a temporary fad, such as the Yo-yos that had its time so many times. The fitness era in the late 80s, the cocaine era in the 80s, the graffitti fad in the 90s, so on and so on and so on.

It'll come and go.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
its a private institution's perrogative not to relinquish custody of their children to certain individuals. if you remember, a protestant children's home refused consideration of catholic families, favoring protestant ones.

you need to be aware of the wishes of the biological parents in these cases. if my wife and i both died, we would prefer our children to be raised in the baptist children's home than with a same-sex couple.

Thank goodness my wife and I didn't die while our kids were growing up, we never thought about how they could have ended up in some baptist's hands.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: johnnobts
its a private institution's perrogative not to relinquish custody of their children to certain individuals. if you remember, a protestant children's home refused consideration of catholic families, favoring protestant ones.

you need to be aware of the wishes of the biological parents in these cases. if my wife and i both died, we would prefer our children to be raised in the baptist children's home than with a same-sex couple.

Thank goodness my wife and I didn't die while our kids were growing up, we never thought about how they could have ended up in some baptist's hands.

:laugh:

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: Frackal
I think a properly screened gay couple is a better bet than institutional raising of the child.

I do think they should wait behind straight parents though.

Why? There is no proof that a gay parent is any worse then a straight parent (see OP).

Perhaps not, it's an issue that would need to be studied. I think that females/moms can offer one kind of affection and lessons and dads can offer others.

 

[theeedude]

Is it the case that 100% of orphans get adopted, and there is no need for gay people to adopt? I really don't know. I was under the impression that there are a lot of kids who nobody wants to adopt, and I don't see a problem with a gay couple adopting them.

 

[extra]

O man..not this again

Is there any scientific evidence ... any? Please, point me to some if there is.. oh what's that? All the evidence shows that the kids raised by homosexual couples turn out fine? WHAT? The research shows they are less likely to be homosexual themselves? (or within margin of error)... oh no!!! This cannot be!!! LoL...

Government policy should not discriminate in regards to sexual orientation. If a homosexual couple wants to adopt a child.. well.. okay.. why not? The kid is getting a home. Maybe the kid would be better off having no parents at all. Definately. For sure.

//I'm Christian

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: johnnobts
its a private institution's perrogative not to relinquish custody of their children to certain individuals. if you remember, a protestant children's home refused consideration of catholic families, favoring protestant ones.

you need to be aware of the wishes of the biological parents in these cases. if my wife and i both died, we would prefer our children to be raised in the baptist children's home than with a same-sex couple.

Thank goodness my wife and I didn't die while our kids were growing up, we never thought about how they could have ended up in some baptist's hands.

:laugh:

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Do you think gay relationships are easy? They are rough to keep together. If you can tough it out through a gay relationship without a child, you have my respect.
What do you think keeps the majority of heterosexual marriages and relationships going? Children.
I don't want to hear any arguement about what is and is not natural. There are alot of unnatural things that humans do. We are, after all, beyond "nature" now.
If anyone can come up with a real and decent reason not to allow homosexuals to adopt, that does not conflict with other human views and practices, then say so. But I personally cannot think of one reason.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds about right. Don't run on a real issue.

The whole gay adoption "problem" could be solved like this:

If the birth mother doesn't want her child adopted by a gay couple, she'll indicate that when she gives up her child.

That's it. No state involvement. No stupid pandering Jesus laws.

What's next - white women saying they don't want thier white babies adopted by people of color?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Would Jesus adopt a gay child?

 

[stinkz]

Though I may be on one side of this issue due to a stance on government intervention, I find it troubling that so many people, without such reasons, are quick to jump on the bandwagon to allow sexual perverts the right to rear children.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: stinkz
Though I may be on one side of this issue due to a stance on government intervention, I find it troubling that so many people, without such reasons, are quick to jump on the bandwagon to allow sexual perverts the right to rear children.

Compelling argument, really. :laugh;

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: stinkz
Though I may be on one side of this issue due to a stance on government intervention, I find it troubling that so many people, without such reasons, are quick to jump on the bandwagon to allow sexual perverts the right to rear children.

Right, because all the hetero's are perversion free. :disgust:

 

[theeedude]

I don't think homosexuality is a perversion. It's a natural behaviour that happens in humans and other species as well.
Denying children the opportunity to have loving parents to score some cheap political points on the other hand is a perversion.