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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76


<< 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. >>

??????????????? Your rationale here is lacking... what are your specific reasons that a homosexual would have to give up sexual contact with men in order to adopt? Identify a similar list of reasons for lesbians if they are any different.



<< Homosexuality as a lifestyle is taboo in society. >>

??????????? You know what else used to be taboo? Women voting, black people sitting next to white people, women wearing pants... need I go on?



<< 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. >>

So now he can be gay, just not an activist? What the hell does that have to do with adopting children? Again, please delinieate specific reasons as to why a gay man who wants equal rights for gay people is not fit for adoption, but a gay man who accepts his inferiority passively is fit.



<< 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? >>

What does aspounding mean? Nevertheless, you've missed the point that has been made MANY MANY times. How does a monogomous homosexual couple physically endanger a child like your other examples? Where do you get off comparing gays to alcoholics and criminals? Who are they harming??? GET SPECIFIC. and PROVE IT.

All we've seen, MadRat, is your biased opinion. Let's see the facts to back up that opinion. If you don't have facts, you've gotta ask yourself why you cling to those opinions then.

l2c
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
<<? Your rationale here is lacking... what are your specific reasons that a homosexual would have to give up sexual contact with men in order to adopt? Identify a similar list of reasons for lesbians if they are any different.>>

Lesbians cohabitating would be taboo, too. So would roommates who were unmarried, regardless if they were heterosexual or homosexual. Somehow this point is getting lost in the translation.

<<? You know what else used to be taboo? Women voting, black people sitting next to white people, women wearing pants... need I go on?>>

Again, comparing race and gender to homosexuality is off topic. Several people have pointed this out. Are you trying to insenuate the idea that people who prevent homosexuals from adopting are somehow racist and women beaters?

<<How does a monogomous homosexual couple physically endanger a child like your other examples? Where do you get off comparing gays to alcoholics and criminals? Who are they harming??? GET SPECIFIC. and PROVE IT.>>

That last part of your statement in bold is melodramatic. I don't like your tone of voice, young man. Nor do I care for you comparing alcoholics and criminals to homosexuals, or stating that I did. The answer has been stated over and over, yet you continue to overlook it.

<<All we've seen, MadRat, is your biased opinion. Let's see the facts to back up that opinion. If you don't have facts, you've gotta ask yourself why you cling to those opinions then.>>

Coffee. Kettle. Black.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
I support anything that will give children a stable environment with a caretaker who will show them love and teach them compassion.

I am thinking of the children SaltBoy. I must question whether Florida is.
 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76


<< Lesbians cohabitating would be taboo, too. So would roommates who were unmarried, regardless if they were heterosexual or homosexual. Somehow this point is getting lost in the translation. >>

You only halfway addressed one of my two questions. OK, so we know now that you treat lesbians and gay men identically. Now is the the time for you do deal with that pesky first question I asked you... I'll go ahead and quote it again so that you don't forget to answer it.

what are your specific reasons that a homosexual would have to give up sexual contact with men in order to adopt?



<< Again, comparing race and gender to homosexuality is off topic. Several people have pointed this out. Are you trying to insenuate the idea that people who prevent homosexuals from adopting are somehow racist and women beaters? >>

Actually, it's highly on-topic. So far, the ONLY rationale you have provided against gay adoption is that homosexuality is taboo. The fact that it used to be taboo for whites and blacks to sit together is proof positive that just because something is taboo doesn't mean it should be. And please show me where I insinuated that people who are against homosexuals are racist and woman beaters? The fact is that I didn't insinuate anything. All I was doing was showing you how weak your "taboo" argument is because taboos change over time. Those things I mentioned were VERY taboo at the time, but don't seem to be much of an issue anymore... and gee, I think most people would say we're better off for it.



<< That last part of your statement in bold is melodramatic. I don't like your tone of voice, young man. Nor do I care for you comparing alcoholics and criminals to homosexuals, or stating that I did. The answer has been stated over and over, yet you continue to overlook it. >>

I looked over my post again and didn't see anything in boldface. I used caps for a few words because they're important and I wanted you to notice them, because they've been directed at you before and you seem to miss them every time. And even in caps you missed them again? I asked you:

How does a monogomous homosexual couple physically endanger a child like your other examples?

You are the one that brought alcoholics and thieves into this discussion. I asked you to relate how they compare with homosexuals when considering which of them is fit for adoption. If you're to be upset about that comparison, look at yourself--you brought it up.



<< Coffee. Kettle. Black. >>

That's cute, MadRat... but sadly it's not accurate. If you re-read my post you'll see that it consists mainly of me asking you to justify your rationale with anything other than your opinion. If you're not able to do that, then at least provide justification for your opinion other than "it's taboo", because "taboo" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. You would be laughed out of a courtroom if you tried to use "taboo" as your rationale against homosexuals adopting.

l2c
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Homosexuality as a lifestyle is taboo in society.

so? it's not my fault people are stupid... btw what society are you living in? in the society i live in, only a select population of ignorant people view it as taboo.
 

gar598

Golden Member
Mar 25, 2001
1,915
1
0
the whole adoption process needs revision... I believe if adoption was given as a GREATER option it would be the choice of more, instead it as looked upon as difficult, complicated process which is unavailable to many people.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
You want a direct answer to why homosexuality cannot be legitmatized. The argument that if it doesn't hurt anyone then it should be okay is totally nonsensical. Where do we draw the line on this slippery slope? Should we next make bestiality legal? What about sex with minors? Why not allow mastuerbation in public? Why not allow full nudity in public? Heck, why not necrophilia? Nobody gets hurt, at least nobody directly gets hurt. The answer to your question is simple: Because we need parameters for everyone in order to maintain order in society.

The core of the homosexual lifestyle is unrestrained sex. Limiting sex to marriage is essential to establishing sexual boundaries for a respectable societal norm. Allowing sex outside this parameter pushes the norm of society into a muddy area that has no rights or wrong... essentially its chaos.

If an unmarried man/woman can not refrain from sex than he is not fit to be a parent.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0


<< The core of the homosexual lifestyle is unrestrained sex. Limiting sex to marriage is essential to establishing sexual boundaries for a respectable societal norm. Allowing sex outside this parameter pushes the norm of society into a muddy area that has no rights or wrong... >>



I don't know what rock you live under, but the society we live in today is as sexually indiscriminate as it has ever been in history. Everywhere you go sex is being pushed in your face. You seem to be under some fallacy that homosexuals are the only ones that have unrestained sex? Just like the ones who think AIDS is gay disease and punishment for being gay? If god was handing out diseases for our sexual misbehaviour, we'd all be at the free clinic all the time.
 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76


<< You want a direct answer to why homosexuality cannot be legitmatized. The argument that if it doesn't hurt anyone then it should be okay is totally nonsensical. Where do we draw the line on this slippery slope? Should we next make bestiality legal? What about sex with minors? Why not allow mastuerbation in public? Why not allow full nudity in public? Heck, why not necrophilia? Nobody gets hurt, at least nobody directly gets hurt. >>

Here we go... the beastiality thing. OK... here's the critical difference between homosexuality and all of your examples. Beastiality is not consensual.... even if an animal did consent, there is no way of communicating consent. According to the law, a minor (or more accurately, a person below the legal age of consent) is not allowed to consent to sexual relations even if he/she indicates consent. Therefore, sex with minors is not consensual. Masturbation in public??? That's really reaching my friend... even heterosexual, missionary position sex between Baptists is not allowed in public. Sex is a private thing that should take place in a private place. That goes the same for gay, straight, and masturbation. Full nudity in public, again, has nothing to do with this argument. However, because you brought it up, full nudity is allowed in certain public areas and is certainly not inherently illegal. Necrophilia is not consensual. A Dead/non-living person is unable to consent. So there goes your examples. Two men or two women who are of age to consent and fully do so engage in fully consensual sex. Nobody is harmed.



<< The answer to your question is simple: Because we need parameters for everyone in order to maintain order in society. >>

Of course we need parameters. We call them laws. However, laws are not absolute, and they can and do change with the times. It used to be the law that women could not vote. In hindsight, we realized how irrational that law was.



<< The core of the homosexual lifestyle is unrestrained sex. >>

Unrestrained sex?? Can you define what exactly that means? Does it mean oral sex? Anal sex? I've never heard the term unrestrained sex before... and I don't see how it has any bearing on the ability of a monogomous couple to provide a loving home to children.



<< Limiting sex to marriage is essential to establishing sexual boundaries for a respectable societal norm. Allowing sex outside this parameter pushes the norm of society into a muddy area that has no rights or wrong... essentially its chaos. >>

Chaos?? Uh, sex outside of marriage has existed since the dawn of time. You may see eradication of extramarital sex as the solution to all of society's ills, but I'm afraid the chances of that happening are next to zero. If two unmarried 15-year-olds have the ability to have a child, why shouldn't a stable monogomous gay couple have that same ability via adoption?



<< If an unmarried man/woman can not refrain from sex than he is not fit to be a parent. >>

Hmmmm... that sounds an awful lot like your opinion. So by this logic you are saying that parents who divorce must remain celibate or they are not fit parents?

l2c
 

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81


<< i challenge you to show even ONE unhealthy aspect of homosexuality. i have suspicion you confuse other types of behavior with homosexuality. >>



You HAVE to be kidding me!

Read this for starters.

Joe
 

tops2

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
711
0
0
dude, straight people do most of those too

homosexuality is an identity
its not they there's something physically or mentally wrong with them
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0


<< The core of the homosexual lifestyle is unrestrained sex >>

You've gotta be kidding me. You believe this?
 

[Amused One:] "Sorry, but I do not agree with the conservative opinions of homosexuals or their ability to parent children."

[Texmaster:] "Agreed. I haven't seen the evidence to that fact either."

[Silverpig] "Okay, I'm not saying anything bad about gays in particular here, nor am I voicing my opinion on this matter, but I'd like to point out a flaw in your logic... Namely: 'Abscense of proof is not proof of abscence.'"

Hey! You beat me to it. Such argument is totally erred in that it appeals to ignorance. So because I have not seen evidence of some wild life animal, say one of those extinct or almost extinct creatures, it means it does not or did not exist?

The logical inference to draw from lack of evidence is, it is inconclusive. We cannot conclude at the moment whether it is beneficial to kids or not.

I know the typical argument that comes about the following, but I'll proceed to state my question anyway: Why is society obliged to let homosexual and lesbians adopt kids? Is it only physical harm or negligence that disqualifies any kind of parents from getting the title of good parents?

Secondly, those making claims that homosexuality is genetic are plain wrong on scientific evidence. We cannot make such assertion at the moment, as once again it is inconclusive. Studies rather suggest that it is due to both biological, social and psychological factors. And yes, this was admitted by a homosexual scientist himself. At the moment, it is simply inconclusive.

But as stated by Netopia, by virtue of something being genetic, we are not automatically obliged as a society to embrace it without pausing to see its ramifications. It is only after such deliberation that society should embrace or reject something of such significance.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
since you brought up that qoute again:p

but I'd like to point out a flaw in your logic... Namely: 'Abscense of proof is not proof of abscence.'"

:p on the other hand, by this standard nothing stands up. no one should be a parent at all. :D
 

Kanalua

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
4,860
2
81
I think the gay couple that Rosie talked about that took on 5 AIDS/HIV kids must be commended for taking the kids...

But, I have to say, unless gay couples want those kind of kids...they should NOT be allowed to adopt!
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0


<<

<< i challenge you to show even ONE unhealthy aspect of homosexuality. i have suspicion you confuse other types of behavior with homosexuality. >>



You HAVE to be kidding me!

Read this for starters.
>>




anal and oral sex are not limited to homos. nor do they mean they will be bad parents (well, anal is iffy i guess, but what else ya gonna do if you're gay :p)

fecal sex, urine sex and sadmasochism are not homosexual behaviors. some homosexuals may engage in them, but it is not part of what makes them homosexual. many straight people engage in that behavior as well.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
But as stated by Netopia, by virtue of something being genetic, we are not automatically obliged as a society to embrace it without pausing to see its ramifications. It is only after such deliberation that society should embrace or reject something of such significance.

in regards to the topic at hand, the american academy of pediatrics has "approved" gay adoptions. furthermore, a study done by two USC sociologists on 21 other studies about the issue of gay parenting led them to conclude that children of gay people are as emotionally healthy as those of straight people.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< Limiting sex to marriage is essential to establishing sexual boundaries for a respectable societal norm. >>


Limiting sex to those you are married to is essential to establishing respectable societal norms. I find it rather odd that you would place so much emphasis on a persons sex life when determining their morality. Frankly, I would be worried if I had a hang up about others having sex like you seem to have.




<< If an unmarried man/woman can not refrain from sex than he is not fit to be a parent. >>

There you go again, worrying about others having sex. Maybe you should spend less time worrying about others sex lifes, it might make you seem a little less strange.
 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76


<< Why is society obliged to let homosexual and lesbians adopt kids? Is it only physical harm or negligence that disqualifies any kind of parents from getting the title of good parents? >>

The point is... what are the good reasons that we should not? Seriously, think of the children!!! I can't emphasize this point enough. Children receiving love from stable parents is the most important thing here. Principle doesn't count for much in the real world. The trouble is we have too many unwanted children. So what are the solutions?

1. Abortion (conservatives hate that one)
2. Abstinence (great if you can make it work. good luck trying)
3. Loving foster parents for every unwanted and unadopted child (few and far between... most couples only want to care for their own genetic children)
4. Adoption by anyone and everyone who is deemed to be able to provide a supportive and loving home.

The sad thing is that even allowing stable, monogomous gay couples to adopt, there will still be a surplus of unwanted children. Let's try hard not to objectify them... these are real human lives we're talking about here. The track record for kids who grow up in foster care is pitiful. Something needs to be done about it, and unless you're able to find a stable, loving heterosexual couple for every single unwanted child then I think bias against homosexuals should be set aside for the good of the children. The Pediatric association has endorsed homosexual adoption, after a lot of study. How far in your search of ultimate proof are you wanting to go? And meanwhile these kids are being passed from foster parent to foster parent.

The world we're living in is far from a perfect place. Somewhere along the line you've got to be realistic and start doing what's best for our future generation. Ask any doctor if love is the most important thing a child needs (beyond sustenance) and I predict you'll get agreement all across the board.

So if you're still against gay adoption, then I ask you to provide a better, realistic solution to this problem.

l2c
 

Amused

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


<< [Amused One:] "Sorry, but I do not agree with the conservative opinions of homosexuals or their ability to parent children."

[Texmaster:] "Agreed. I haven't seen the evidence to that fact either."

[Silverpig] "Okay, I'm not saying anything bad about gays in particular here, nor am I voicing my opinion on this matter, but I'd like to point out a flaw in your logic... Namely: 'Abscense of proof is not proof of abscence.'"

Hey! You beat me to it. Such argument is totally erred in that it appeals to ignorance. So because I have not seen evidence of some wild life animal, say one of those extinct or almost extinct creatures, it means it does not or did not exist?

The logical inference to draw from lack of evidence is, it is inconclusive. We cannot conclude at the moment whether it is beneficial to kids or not.

I know the typical argument that comes about the following, but I'll proceed to state my question anyway: Why is society obliged to let homosexual and lesbians adopt kids? Is it only physical harm or negligence that disqualifies any kind of parents from getting the title of good parents?

Secondly, those making claims that homosexuality is genetic are plain wrong on scientific evidence. We cannot make such assertion at the moment, as once again it is inconclusive. Studies rather suggest that it is due to both biological, social and psychological factors. And yes, this was admitted by a homosexual scientist himself. At the moment, it is simply inconclusive.

But as stated by Netopia, by virtue of something being genetic, we are not automatically obliged as a society to embrace it without pausing to see its ramifications. It is only after such deliberation that society should embrace or reject something of such significance.
>>



OMFG.

Fine, so, are you still molesting little children?

Wait, you deny ever doing that?

PROVE IT! Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you have never molested a child.

Wait, you can't do that??? Off to jail you go...

From now on, Luvly, I will use this standard on you. I will follow you all over the boards accusing you of child molestation until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in all your years of living, you have never molested a child.

Hey, don't blame me. It's YOUR standard.

You do not prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those claiming a positive, i.e., "homosexuals adopting children is harmful," or more specifically, "homosexuals, on average, cause more harm when raising children than heterosexuals." So far, NO proof has been offered up to support this assertion.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it IS evidence that there is no logical reason to make any conclusion either way. And if, in all the time we've been here on earth, we cannot come up with even ONE valid and verifiable reason to deny two monogamous homosexuals the opportunity to raise children, you can be pretty damn sure there is an ABSENCE of reason.

As I said before, it amazes me just how far a person will go to demonize an entire group of people, and try to justify their irrational, unfounded beliefs.
 

Amused

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


<< You want a direct answer to why homosexuality cannot be legitmatized. The argument that if it doesn't hurt anyone then it should be okay is totally nonsensical. Where do we draw the line on this slippery slope? Should we next make bestiality legal? What about sex with minors? Why not allow mastuerbation in public? Why not allow full nudity in public? Heck, why not necrophilia? Nobody gets hurt, at least nobody directly gets hurt. The answer to your question is simple: Because we need parameters for everyone in order to maintain order in society.

The core of the homosexual lifestyle is unrestrained sex. Limiting sex to marriage is essential to establishing sexual boundaries for a respectable societal norm. Allowing sex outside this parameter pushes the norm of society into a muddy area that has no rights or wrong... essentially its chaos.

If an unmarried man/woman can not refrain from sex than he is not fit to be a parent.
>>



All asinine, of course, as all your "slippery slope" examples cause harm to people.

1. Bestality: Animal abuse. An animal cannot be expected to consent to sex.

This violates the animal.

2. Child molestation: A child cannot legally, morally, or psychologically consent to sex.

This violates the right of the child.

3. Masturbation in public. Not only is it unsanitary, it is harmful to children who view it.

This violates the rights of everyone.

4. Necrophilia: A corpse cannot consent to sex.

This violates the rights of the dead to protect their body after death.

5. Nudity in public. Actually, the only reason to stop this is for sanitary reasons.

This is unsanitary, and as such violates everyone's rights.

Now, let's compare these to homosexuality: Not harmful to anyone if monogamy is practiced, just as in heterosexuality. As I've said before, you STILL have yet to prove how monogamous homosexual couples harm anyone, much less society. That you need to go to such illogical extremes to demonize them only shows you HAVE no rational reason.

And if you want to talk about a slippery slope, YOURS is far more dangerous than mine. For if we can deny people rights and opportunities simply based on such irrational and unfounded fears, who is next?
 

Amused

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


<<

<< i challenge you to show even ONE unhealthy aspect of homosexuality. i have suspicion you confuse other types of behavior with homosexuality. >>



You HAVE to be kidding me!

Read this for starters.

Joe
>>



You have GOT to be f'cking kidding. You take, as proof, claims made by a religiously based organization that STARTS with the premise that homosexuality is evil, and sets out to prove it?

And since when has anal and oral sex been limited to homosexuals? If that's so, my wife and I practiced homosexual sex for a decade.
rolleye.gif


It STILL amazes me the lengths people will go to to justify their irrational and unfounded beliefs.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
There you go again, Amused, contesting (the legitimate information you asked for) by rattling off your opinions again. The link Netopia provided has the sources of all of their information. They don't just use ONE source for each statement, but several. But because this site is not up to your standard its wrong...

Get a life.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Nah, the "link" doesn't deal with anything that's specific to homosexuals, it talks about general promiscuity and/or "wild" behavior. The words "crock o shiznit" came to mind after I'd read through everything.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< There you go again, Amused, contesting (the legitimate information you asked for) by rattling off your opinions again. >>

MR, I think Amusedone is questioning the legitimacy of those sources.

BTW,I like this Statisitc. The Average lifespan of those who are divorced is under 60 years of age. Right!!!!

Look MadRat, I find Homosexuality as bizarre as you do, and I admit to having a prejiduce against Homsexuals. I just try not to let it blind me from the truth that they, like you and I , are human and can be upstanding Citizens.