Come, witness freedom of speech first hand! America is the BEST COUNTRY EVER! Should homosexual couples raise children?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
Red,

Good question. Then again, why do people commit crimes? Nobody has ever found a "criminal gene" either, but 1 in 10000 of us murder, 2 in about 100 use a weapon to steal, and 1 in 20 have committed a criminal act of violence on another person. Perhaps these people have a birth defect, too? ;)

<<I see a lot of denial. That's OK. It's hard to give up irrational hate and fear.>>

Thats funny, sure looks like you are using projection. Maybe you ought to give up this irrational hate and fear of the idea that homosexuality is possibly a choice.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< Red,

Good question. Then again, why do people commit crimes? Nobody has ever found a "criminal gene" either, but 1 in 10000 of us murder, 2 in about 100 use a weapon to steal, and 1 in 20 have committed a criminal act of violence on another person. Perhaps these people have a birth defect, too?
>>

You must be confusing me with someone else as I never said that Homosexuality was some kind of defect. If anything it probably is a combination of ones genetic makeup and their enviroment and that's an uneducated guess at best.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< Red,

Good question. Then again, why do people commit crimes? Nobody has ever found a "criminal gene" either, but 1 in 10000 of us murder, 2 in about 100 use a weapon to steal, and 1 in 20 have committed a criminal act of violence on another person. Perhaps these people have a birth defect, too? ;)

<<I see a lot of denial. That's OK. It's hard to give up irrational hate and fear.>>

Thats funny, sure looks like you are using projection. Maybe you ought to give up this irrational hate and fear of the idea that homosexuality is possibly a choice.
>>



I've considered that possibility, in fact, I used to believe it... but it does not fit all the variables that apply to this, Therefore I had to reject it after looking at it objectively. The main questions being why does homosexuality occur in every culture and every region of the world, no matter how isolated they had been? Why does it cross every cultural border, no matter how frowned upon it is? And why does the rate at which it occurs seem to remain constant across these boundries? Even criminal behavior varies widely among cultures and regions. Finally, why does exclusive homosexuality among many animals occur at roughly the same rate, or even occur at all for that matter?

"Choice" simply does not answer these questions logically.

Look, I could give a rat's ass if people accept homosexuality or not. I'm not gay, so I don't really freakin' care. What is bothering me is the quick and ready way people seek to limit what others may and may not do, simply because what that person does offends them, yet does not harm them or society in any way.

I've come to the conclusion that it's the same thing that causes high school cliches to form, and hate people who aren't like themselves. "You like heavy metal and I like pop... heavy metal disgusts me and therefore anyone who likes it must be shunned. You suck!" "You like the same sex, and I think that's gross. You must be shunned." When this behavior is carried over into adulthood, people gain real power and the shunning comes through biased law and damaging discrimination.

It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to in their attempts to marginalize these folks, yet when it comes down to brass tacks, they can't show any harm caused by them. They talk about abstract things such as "the decay of morality," yet cannot point out how two monogamous homosexuals living in a committed relationship damage our social morality in any way. They simply reject ONE of your religion based moral codes, not all of them. And since they do not cause any harm, you cannot legally deny them anything based on that alone in a country founded on the "total separation of the church from the state."
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Maybe you ought to give up this irrational hate and fear of the idea that homosexuality is possibly a choice.

disagreeing with something does not mean you have an irrational fear and/or hate of it.

how is disagreeing with this, irrational? you haven't shown us any evidence that believing homosexuality is a choice is rational.

btw, just to add my two cents into the debate...

homosexuality is neither a sole product of genetics, nor is it a sole product of how you were raised (note, nowhere do i allow for choice. if you're that iffy that you can choose your sexuality, you're probably going to be bi). it's a spectrum. you have some people that are naturally gay. you have some people that are naturally straight. then, in the middle, you have people that were not 100% either way, and were influenced by how they were raised. but just because you're influenced by how you were raised, doesn't mean that you're choosing to be gay. just my two cents.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com


<< You people are mixing things up. There are two seperate issue:

1) Foster Care
2) Qualification for Adoption

You are trying to say that the state of the former justifies changes to the latter. We are saying that they are two completely different subjects.

Is foster care pretty bad? Yep. The solution is to fix the foster care program, not use the current state of the program to push other idiologies through. It reminds me of people who think that the way to get rid of illegal drug abuse is to make the drugs legal... then you get rid of the criminal content.... of course that doesn't address the wrecked lives because of drug abuse, but the criminal statistics go away. The same is true of what you are trying to say. We don't need to lower our standards on adoption, we need to raise our standards on foster care. What we DO need to do with adoption is to make it faster, easier and less costly for people who qualify and want to adopt. I know a lot of people who qualify and wish to adopt but simply can't afford the 15-25 thousand bucks it takes to get it done.

Joe
>>




Raise our standards on Foster care ? That's almost laughable, in part due to the sheer vo;ume of children entering the system and also in part to the fact that Americans pay big lip service around their devotion to children but when it comes time to shelling out the big bucks needed to deal with their issues,we don't want to.Foster parents actually earn very little,in fact many of them go into the hole fiscally, they are also given precious little in the way of services and support to help them cope with kids who arrive on their doorstep with a myraid of issues related to abuse and neglect. Raising the standards is fine but you are going to also have to pay out a whole lot of money to attract the type of people you claim to want.

 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com


<< i almost wish i could send some of these smug hardcore conservatives back to a childhood of foster homes so they could experience the joy of not having gay parents, of having no parents at all:disgust: >>




A friend of my daughter's lived with us for a year (actually over the yrs I've had several kids here for periods ranging from a few days to a few months) this girl was 16 and had been in something like 19 different foster homes since the age of 6.
The stories she shared with us, backed up by her therapist were enough to make my hair curl ! I'm quite sure that had a qualifed,loving couple been found to adopt this kid she wouldn't have given a rat's arse if they happened to be gay.
 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76


<< You people are mixing things up. There are two seperate issue:

1) Foster Care
2) Qualification for Adoption

You are trying to say that the state of the former justifies changes to the latter. We are saying that they are two completely different subjects.

Is foster care pretty bad? Yep. The solution is to fix the foster care program, not use the current state of the program to push other idiologies through. It reminds me of people who think that the way to get rid of illegal drug abuse is to make the drugs legal... then you get rid of the criminal content.... of course that doesn't address the wrecked lives because of drug abuse, but the criminal statistics go away. The same is true of what you are trying to say. We don't need to lower our standards on adoption, we need to raise our standards on foster care. What we DO need to do with adoption is to make it faster, easier and less costly for people who qualify and want to adopt. I know a lot of people who qualify and wish to adopt but simply can't afford the 15-25 thousand bucks it takes to get it done.

Joe
>>

What utopia are you living in? OK yeah let's raise the standards on foster care! You say that like you could just snap your fingers, rustle a few papers and it would be done. Where are you going to find all of these perfect people with which to raise standards? And while you're doing that, what of all the children living out their vital childhood years without loving parents? How are they being helped?

Then you have the misfortune of bringing up the drug war to back up your points. You could not have picked a worse example to support your case. The drug war has been a miserable failure and waste of Gov. $$. There has been no appreciable decrease in drug use since DARE etc. started their brainwashing... and now our prisons are full of drug addicts.

Unfortunately, you're unwilling to look at practical solutions merely because they're not ideal. But idealism gets you no where in this world... sorry to say. And I speak from experience. Of course it would be wonderful if we could just instantly make all foster homes wonderful loving environments. Hell, while we're at it, why don't we raise the standards of sexual intercourse such that only married, Christian parents with a 5 bedroom house in suburbia can conceive kids? That would solve everything, right?

Let's face facts here... we're not going to get people to stop using drugs (the fact that they're illegal only adds to the allure). We're not going to be able to find a hidden trove of excellent foster parents hidden away in a cave somewhere. We're not going to be able to stop all of the unwanted children that are born each and every day (many because their mothers were told abortion will send them to hell).

Bottom line: You can't make an inherently imperfect society function perfectly. Is it better to claim moral victory by denying homosexuals the ability to adopt while the children are shoved from foster home to foster home? Or how about this... you can work on improving the foster care system, while in the meantime we can actually do something about it by allowing screened, stable homosexual couples to adopt and love children. As a Christian, you know the value Jesus placed on love. Is it any wonder that kids growing up in foster homes without love tend to turn out so badly?

Think of the children man, and kindly step down from your high horse. We're talking about real life here.

l2c
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0


<< homosexuality is nothing more than a clamour for attention possibly and to purposely disrupt normality. >>

This sounds awfully like a "poo-poo" of someone else's lifestyle when it's not something that floats your boat. A clamour for attention?
If you think the only thing to being homosexual is dressing up in drag and marching in a Gay Pride parade, you're grossly uninformed. I know many, many homosexuals (hell, I'm an actor) who've never done the "drag" thing ;)


<< "You like heavy metal and I like pop... heavy metal disgusts me and therefore anyone who likes it must be shunned. You suck!" "You like the same sex, and I think that's gross. You must be shunned." >>


 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
actually heterosexuality is nothing more than a clamour for attention possibly and to purposely disrupt normality.
 

NateSLC

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
943
0
0
Saltboy,


<< For me Eakers, it's not a conservative/liberal thing. It boils down to my religious beliefs. I'm a Latter-day Saint, and if you knew anything about that religion, you'd know that it places a VERY HIGH value on straight, normal family relationships. It's hard to explain without confusing people, but it's something that I very strongly agree with. Call me brainwashed, but I consider it the truth. >>




<< That doesn't mean, however, that I can belittle or show no love towards homosexuals. Personally, I have no legitimate explanation as to why homosexuals are homosexual. I really don't know. Again, going back to the religious belief issue, I believe something's wrong with them, but how did they get to be that way...? I can't answer that. >>



I was born and raised as a Mormon, of course LDS is now the PC way to refer to the religion. I am gay and no longer LDS for the reasons you stated. I have experienced much of this double standard that most LDS people have regarding homosexuality. I see the majority taking the attitude of "I don't have any issues with them, it's just a personal belief" and then I see that Utah is one out of 3 states that has banned gay adoption. Hmmm.. Well it seems it's not so personal after all. The bottom line is that I would have more respect for you if you would hold to your convictions instead of explaining how you are on the fence.

Such is the life of a gay person in Utah. No direct animosity, but you had better watch your a$$ for the indirect crap.
 

no0b

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,804
1
0
I dont understand why does Rosie have 3 adopted kids while there are 1000's of married couples seeking abopted children. I believe that homosexuals can raise children better than foster homes. However I believe that a home with a male-female relationship is best for the children.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
<<Is it any wonder that kids growing up in foster homes without love tend to turn out so badly?>>

Foster kids without love in their life are growing up badly? I'm not following this logic here. All of the foster care I've seen has been stable people (more or less) giving a child temporary living arrangements. Some foster parents used tough love, some had liberal rules. The kids tended to turn out no different from either one, being that the kid has his/her own personality. Troubled kids got into trouble regardless of the foster care. Some kids needed tactile reinforcement, some need praise, some need constant monitoring, and some loathe any attention whatsoever. Love or no love, the child is capable of self-actualization.

<<I was born and raised as a Mormon, of course LDS is now the PC way to refer to the religion. I am gay and no longer LDS for the reasons you stated. I have experienced much of this double standard that most LDS people have regarding homosexuality. I see the majority taking the attitude of "I don't have any issues with them, it's just a personal belief" and then I see that Utah is one out of 3 states that has banned gay adoption. Hmmm.. Well it seems it's not so personal after all. The bottom line is that I would have more respect for you if you would hold to your convictions instead of explaining how you are on the fence.>>

It is hard for people to be hot or cold. I'll tell you right now that if you applied for adoption or to be a foster parent in Utah, I would support them rejecting the application for as long as you openly assert your homosexuality. If you (1) renounced your homosexuality, (2) lived alone, and (3) were measured to be fit as a parental figure then I would support them accepting your application. If you are a practicing homosexual then your lifestyle is something that makes you an unacceptable candidate.

I'd say the same thing if you were living as chemically dependent, a convicted felon, a philanderer, an adulterer, a sadomasochist, a cross-dresser, or any other unhealthy lifestyle.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
I'd say the same thing if you were living as chemically dependent, a convicted felon, a philanderer, an adulterer, a sadomasochist, a cross-dresser, or any other unhealthy lifestyle.

homosexuality by itself is not unhealthy, at least not any more unhealthy than heterosexuality. i challenge you to show even ONE unhealthy aspect of homosexuality. i have suspicion you confuse other types of behavior with homosexuality.
 

NateSLC

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
943
0
0


<< It is hard for people to be hot or cold. I'll tell you right now that if you applied for adoption or to be a foster parent in Utah, I would support them rejecting the application for as long as you openly assert your homosexuality. If you (1) renounced your homosexuality, (2) lived alone, and (3) were measured to be fit as a parental figure then I would support them accepting your application. If you are a practicing homosexual then your lifestyle is something that makes you an unacceptable candidate. >>


Unacceptable? I agree that chemically dependent, convicted felon, philanderer, adulterer, and sadomasochist all are unacceptable behaviors for a parent. However, there's a difference. Homosexuality has been proven to NOT affect children in any adverse way. You probably cannot say the same for these other traits. If you can't see the difference then I can't help you and will not expend any energy trying.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< It is hard for people to be hot or cold. I'll tell you right now that if you applied for adoption or to be a foster parent in Utah, I would support them rejecting the application for as long as you openly assert your homosexuality. If you (1) renounced your homosexuality, (2) lived alone, and (3) were measured to be fit as a parental figure then I would support them accepting your application. If you are a practicing homosexual then your lifestyle is something that makes you an unacceptable candidate.

I'd say the same thing if you were living as chemically dependent, a convicted felon, a philanderer, an adulterer, a sadomasochist, a cross-dresser, or any other unhealthy lifestyle.
>>



Please explain why two monogamous homosexuals are a danger to the child using valid, verifiable evidence.

oops, you can't. You're simply displaying a prejudice. What amazes me is that even after you've been proven to have no basis for this opinion, you keep it. I guess objectivity isn't your strong point, is it?
 

BlueApple

Banned
Jul 5, 2001
2,884
0
0


<< I dont understand why does Rosie have 3 adopted kids while there are 1000's of married couples seeking abopted children. I believe that homosexuals can raise children better than foster homes. However I believe that a home with a male-female relationship is best for the children. >>


There are still HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children out there to be adopted and in foster homes in the US ALONE. Mostly it is the parents want to go to some far off land, usually CIS, to help another country out while our problems at home have more then enough problems with them.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0


<< chemically dependent, a convicted felon, a philanderer, an adulterer, a sadomasochist, a cross-dresser, or any other unhealthy lifestyle >>



you've just eliminated about 70% of the population :)

Even the president of our country couldnt keep his you-know-what in his pants
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< I dont understand why does Rosie have 3 adopted kids while there are 1000's of married couples seeking abopted children. I believe that homosexuals can raise children better than foster homes. However I believe that a home with a male-female relationship is best for the children. >>


There are still HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children out there to be adopted and in foster homes in the US ALONE. Mostly it is the parents want to go to some far off land, usually CIS, to help another country out while our problems at home have more then enough problems with them.
>>



Yes, but healthy white infants are hard to find. And yet Rosie, a single mother, has four while married couples have a hard time getting one.

Reason: Rosie bought hers.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0


<<

<< chemically dependent, a convicted felon, a philanderer, an adulterer, a sadomasochist, a cross-dresser, or any other unhealthy lifestyle >>



you've just eliminated about 70% of the population :)

Even the president of our country couldnt keep his you-know-what in his pants
>>



which brings up an interesting question, if the president wanted to adopt, should he be allowed? i wonder if they'd be too busy to be there for the child.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I like how the rightwing religious fanatics come in here and tells the rest of us what our rights and privileges are. It's really quite hillarious.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I don't believe homosexuality is genetic. Why? Because I just don't, there is no evidence to prove either one completely

Dude what are you . . . an idiot?! I applaud you for stating your opinion and emphasizing that your ignorance is all you have to support it. I mean that in a good way. You say evolution doesn't provide a rationale for homosexuality . . . and your point? Teleology is an excellent example of human intellect clamoring for attention by claiming an understanding of why things are the way they are. Most of the gays I know ask for no more or less attention than anyone else. And the ones that do clamour for attention are usually doing it for the same reason heteros do it . . . to attract someone you like or just making an arse of themselves.

What would help you believe the genetic component of homosexuality is the most significant single determinant?

The biological sciences are not a collection of dichotomous norms vs everything else.

Most organisms have some segment of the population that does not breed but contributes positively to the collective in a different fashion.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< I like how the rightwing religious fanatics come in here and tells the rest of us what our rights and privileges are. It's really quite hillarious. >>



The left wingers do it just as much, if not more.
 

LadyJessica

Senior member
Apr 20, 2000
444
0
0


<< If you (1) renounced your homosexuality >>



Renounce homosexuality? That's like asking a person with clinical depression to just cheer up or asking a schizophrenic to get a grip on reality.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0


<<

<< If you (1) renounced your homosexuality >>



Renounce homosexuality? That's like asking a person with clinical depression to just cheer up or asking a schizophrenic to get a grip on reality.
>>



well, some people believe you can do that... :disgust:

to madrat:
would you renounce your sexuality? if not, then don't expect others to do it either.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
<<Renounce homosexuality? That's like asking a person with clinical depression to just cheer up or asking a schizophrenic to get a grip on reality.>>

I did not say he had to change physically, but rather put aside his feelings to have sexual contact with men. Clinical depression is a physical problem with real measurable symptoms, while homosexuality is not. Its not to say that mental illnesses, such as schitzophrenia, would be automatic disqualifications of the adoption process. It is clearly that these are not comparable circumstances.

<<well, some people believe you can do that...
to madrat: would you renounce your sexuality? if not, then don't expect others to do it either.>>

Homosexuality as a lifestyle is taboo in society.

If he is openly a proponent of homosexuality then he would have to renounce his activism. If at any time he was an activist for homosexual agendas then he would be in direct contradiction to his renouncement, thereby forfieture of parental rights.

If a parent is openly aspounding rights to smoke crack cocaine then expect to lose your parental rights. If you were a certified alcoholic that still drank then expect to lose your parental rights. If you rob a person at gunpoint then expect to lose your parental rights. How more clear do I need to be?