• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gay adoption

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
And the same parents who will talk about the kid having an "unnatural" family in front of their own kids (who might carry it to school) are against the cartoon movie for kids that tries to teach that different does not equal bad.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: Emultra
I am not wrong. The only legitimate purpose of the state is to protect the individual rights.
Click to expand...

Except the state is the only one who can take responsibility for thousands of children with no parents or other guardians. They are therefore also responsible for seeing these children off to prospective guardians.

The state, therefore, decides whether you are fit to adopt a child. You can argue as to whether or not the state should exclude gay parents, but you can't argue that the state has no business in the matter.

Edit: Exclusion.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree that the state must regulate the transfer of guardianship between parents. Screen them for issus, etc. Why? Because the children are not property and need to be protected because they have rights. While I think that being homosexual is not a good trait to have simply because it's not evolutionarily sound, I think that there are benefits to having two gay parents. In my experiance, the homosexual community is more open minded, more tolerant of others and tends to be more sophisticated. Such traits are valuable in a country that seems to be growing less tolerant and are more survivable. I believe that we should be more concerned with kids being adopted into families which don't promote equal rights, after all this is "the land of the free with liberty and justice for all". I think that close minded people have a harder time understanding the modern world. In parts of america, there are still populations that don't believe in evolution because they believe that the earth was created 6K years ago and a guy in this forum who believes there is a liberal media conspiracy. Seriously.
 
I think i can summeraize the gernal think here well

Mother - father > Mother - mother >= father - father >=single parent >= foster care


Originally posted by: KirbsAw
A few years ago they did an episode of 20/20 about kids being raised by gay parents. All the kids turned out normal and none of them were gay. I think the one boy raised by lesbian parents was actually really good with women.
Click to expand...

being raised by lesbains would be cool 😎 I can see how that would work out well.
 
Originally posted by: Kalmah
Allowing gays to adopt children would turn it into a diesease. Those children would pick up the traits from there 'parents'.. possibly turning the kids gay.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume your hypothesis is true (it's actually BS, but let's play along):

So? The kids are "converted" and become gay. What's the problem?

Lots of gays lead happy, meaningful lives. About the only difficulty gays have is that a certain segment of the non-gay community wants them to be marginalized. So if you think that being gay is a bad thing, that's because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy on YOUR part.

If you are really concerned about the well-being of PEOPLE, maybe you should worry more about how we can prevent parents from raising their children to be bigots and haters. And perhaps you should ask your own parents why they did such a lousy job.

 
Children grow up and learn from their parents. A lot of the parent's behaviour is mimicked by the child: the child of course being modeled on what the parents define. Hence, kids brought up around people with people who consider suicide-bombing as a great way to go often feel exactly the same and will go on to be like that themselves (please don't feel I'm comparing homosexuals to suicide bombers). Of course you can't 'catch gay' or whatever, but the environment in which is child is raised heavily affects the kid when they turn into an adult. There is no clear-cut evidence to suggest that homosexuality is completely genentic and not at all socially induced.

Also, a child goes for many years not knowing about "the miracle of life" and other life facts such as this. Most learn between the ages of 10->13 I would guess. When a child sees that it's parents are not like other parents, the child will of course ask about this and without doubt the parents will have to explain not only the basics "when a man loves a woman they have a special hug" etc, but will have to go on to more advanced stuff like "when a man loves a man". The child will ask this question at a much younger age then a child with regular parents would ask about things of a sexual nature. My point here is that the child's innocence will be destroyed earlier when raised by a homosexual couple.

Further, children are cruel. You can't teach a 12 year old about being PC and all that. The children will very likely be bullied heavily.

Finally, I feel both a father and a mother figure is important for a child's social development. Siblings are useful too.
 
Rebuttals:

As you said, there is no evidence that children raised by homosexuals will have an increased chance of becoming homosexuals. It is very possible that homosexuality is determined before birth. But even if that is the case, it doesn't have to be so because of genetics.

I don't think a childs "innocence" is threatened by the things you mentioned. How about love?

Children can be cruel. The question you will have to ask yourself is: should 12-year old children get to be a deciding factor in the battle of individual rights for homosexual people, and should they be allowed to abuse other children because they "feel" like it more when those children are being raised by gay parents?

Or should abusive children be expelled from the schools so that peaceful children can live their life with less torment?

Finally: you said you "feel" that a father plus a mother figure is the best environment. While that may be so, the fact that you "feel" it is doesn't make it so. The only objective instrument you have in this case is your faculty of reason and logic, not feelings or emotions.

Feelings and emotions foster ideas that deprive humans of their rights; reason and logic lead to ideas that embrace rights and protect them.
 
Originally posted by: loic2003

Also, a child goes for many years not knowing about "the miracle of life" and other life facts such as this. Most learn between the ages of 10->13 I would guess. When a child sees that it's parents are not like other parents, the child will of course ask about this and without doubt the parents will have to explain not only the basics "when a man loves a woman they have a special hug" etc, but will have to go on to more advanced stuff like "when a man loves a man".
Click to expand...

Kids notice gay relatives or parents are 'different' long before age ten. And you don't need to respond to their questions by giving then a detailed lecture on homosexual sex. Most of the time they are happy with a simple explanation e.g., "the two people love each other and decide to live with each other".

Most gay people raising children are raising their own biological children (either from previous heterosexual relationships, or the children were conceived using sperm/ egg donation). For the gay people raising adopted children, they would need to explain about the adoption to their kids at the appropriate age -- but that is something all parents who adopt have to do.

Originally posted by: loic2003
The child will ask this question at a much younger age then a child with regular parents would ask about things of a sexual nature.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Originally posted by: loic2003
My point here is that the child's innocence will be destroyed earlier when raised by a homosexual couple.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that providing a child with age-appropriate, accurate information = destroying a child's innocence.
 
I don't know about you other gay guys, but if I ever have a child, boy or girl, I am going to attempt to make them homosexual. I have been to the secret gay agenda meetings, and I have seen all the documentation. But alas, I am too busy converting others to homosexuality to really have time to deal with turning my own child against the lord. It's becoming a hassle these days.
 
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Being in school, and having lesbian or gay parents is asking people to make fun of you, beat you up, because you come raised differently. I think that when gays raise a kid, it is missing an element (either a patriarch or a matriarch). Yes one of the members of the gay couple may be more amnnish or womannish than the other, but that is no substitute for a real man or woman.

Wrong in the extreme. They can't have them naturally, so they shouldn't be allowed to at all.
Click to expand...

So people should be barred from adopting if they have aspects of their person that may lead to the child being teased?

So people with big noses should be right out. Also big ears. Anyone with ginger hair = no chance of adoption. People with hard to spell and /or 'foreign' surnames. Vegetarians. Computer geeks / Car fanatics / etc etc..

Face it - kids can be cruel, and they'll find a way to tease no matter what background a kid has.

As for your second point - they can't have them naturally -well, the majority of adopting couples do so because they have fertility issues (ie can't have children naturally). Are you saying they should be banned from adopting too?

All this seems stupid to me. I'd hate to be the one to have to judge whether a couple should be allowed to adopt, but if they are good people, then gay or straight wouldn't come into it.

 
fostor homes and orphanages...not empty are they?
studies show children don't get gayed by gay parents
so i guess the children will just have to suffer because of some peoples bigotry.
 
This may sound odd coming from a conservative, but I think gay couples (if in a civil union of some sort for some stability factor in the home) should be considerd for adoption. But I also think the background checks on mental history etc. should be of a very high standard. I know some really good folk who happen to be gay, but by the same token, I know a whole lot more who are just plain all out deviant and mentaly off. Sure you can argue its because of how they were treated growing up gay, or the other bunch who were molested as kids and blame their gayness on that and other abuses. Then there are those who are just plain sexually deviant and swing both ways all the time just for sexual kicks. Maybe its my own bias, but if a gay couple wants to adopt, they had better have a history of gold. (that gos for straight folk too.)
 
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Being in school, and having lesbian or gay parents is asking people to make fun of you, beat you up, because you come raised differently.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I was teased because I had a big nose. Using your reasoning, the state should prevent big-nosed people from marrying each other and/or having kids, since the likelihood of their having big-nosed kids (who are likely to be made fun of) is much greater than for the general population.

 
Originally posted by: MCWAR
This may sound odd coming from a conservative, but I think gay couples (if in a civil union of some sort for some stability factor in the home) should be considerd for adoption. But I also think the background checks on mental history etc. should be of a very high standard. I know some really good folk who happen to be gay, but by the same token, I know a whole lot more who are just plain all out deviant and mentaly off. Sure you can argue its because of how they were treated growing up gay, or the other bunch who were molested as kids and blame their gayness on that and other abuses. Then there are those who are just plain sexually deviant and swing both ways all the time just for sexual kicks. Maybe its my own bias, but if a gay couple wants to adopt, they had better have a history of gold. (that gos for straight folk too.)
Click to expand...

What would you consider a history of gold?
 
You Americans should see that you need to go back to the roots of your constitution. You're about the only large country in the world that has a good foundation.


The words "should x be banned?" ought not to even be in your dictionary, unless "x" stands for "the initiation of force", thereby answered with a resounding and neverending Yes.

It's time for you to once again be what you were - a relatively free society - before you end up like Europe.
 
quote:
___________________________________________________________________
posted by: Zysoclaplem
What would you consider a history of gold?
___________________________________________________________________



A number of things, such as when a background check is done, if by interviewing family or friends or whatever means, a subject is known to invite 3rd parties( or more) into he bedroom, they don't have a history of gold. If there is footage of them acting like deviant freaks at the annual gay pride march, (wich most of the people attending those things do) they don't have a history of gold. If they are known to attend events like Southern decadence down here in New Orleans, wich is a total s&m freakshow of gay delights, they do not have a history of gold. If that sounds bias too bad. If it is offensive, go home and cry to your daddy and your mommy-daddy.( JUST KIDDING)
 
Originally posted by: MCWAR
I know some really good folk who happen to be gay,
Click to expand...

Who are these people, and how do you know them?

Originally posted by: MCWAR
but by the same token, I know a whole lot more who are just plain all out deviant and mentaly off.
Click to expand...

And who are these "deviant, mentally off" gay people, and how do you know them? How many is "a whole lot more"? Ten people? Define "plain all out deviant and mentally off" -- what are some examples of deviant, mentally off behavior?

Originally posted by: MCWAR
Sure you can argue its because of how they were treated growing up gay, or the other bunch who were molested as kids and blame their gayness on that and other abuses.
Click to expand...

I've never met someone in the lesbian and gay community who "blames" their sexual orientation on childhood sexual abuse.

Originally posted by: MCWAR
Then there are those who are just plain sexually deviant
Click to expand...

What do you mean by sexually deviant?

Originally posted by: MCWAR
and swing both ways all the time just for sexual kicks.
Click to expand...

Some people are bisexual.

Originally posted by: MCWAR
Maybe its my own bias, but if a gay couple wants to adopt, they had better have a history of gold. (that gos for straight folk too.)
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: MCWAR
quote:
___________________________________________________________________
posted by: Zysoclaplem
What would you consider a history of gold?
___________________________________________________________________



A number of things, such as when a background check is done, if by interviewing family or friends or whatever means, a subject is known to invite 3rd parties( or more) into he bedroom, they don't have a history of gold. If there is footage of them acting like deviant freaks at the annual gay pride march, (wich most of the people attending those things do) they don't have a history of gold. If they are known to attend events like Southern decadence down here in New Orleans, wich is a total s&m freakshow of gay delights, they do not have a history of gold. If that sounds bias too bad. If it is offensive, go home and cry to your daddy and your mommy-daddy.( JUST KIDDING)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the idiocy and ignorance.

 
There's more evidence that homosexuality is socially caused rather than genetically (i.e., homosexuals do not pass on their genes, yet after countless generations there certainly are many about today). Of course, nothing is solid and it'll be many years before we understand homosexuality completely. Maybe it could be either, or both.

It is unfair to the children to be brought up into an unnatural environment. You might consider that everything will be normal for the child but they will have to be taught about homosexual relationships at a much younger age. What happens when the teacher at school gets the kids to make some paintings and tells them to take them home to their mummies? What's the kid going to think? Where is my mummy? why do all the other children have a mother and a father? Why do I have two dads? All this will result in much confusion to the child. Children should not be concerned with issues like this at this age, they have far more pressing work to do in developing.

As for where I get this supposedly random feeling as to why a stable family with a mother and father is a better environment for a child. Well lets put it this way: My mother was a teacher for > 20 years, as was my father. My mother was in primary schools and my father at a secondary where the kids from the primary would normally go. Between them they have seen hundreds of children grow from a young age to young adulthood. Naturally over the years we have spoken in length about the children and it is without doubt that children with single parents/family issues/unstable homes have the most trouble at school when it comes to working and behavioural issues. Children with stable family lives were usually more stable themselves.
There is absolutely no doubt that having two natural parents is better for a child. It is the natural method of procreation and social development. A child needs to have constant access to adults of both sexes in order for normal social development.

As for expelling all "abusive" children from schools... well that's a little absurd. Look at the above examples of children laughing at others because of large noses/ginger hair/etc. This is the way children are, they have not developed enough to be aware of the importance of accepting others for who they are not what they look like, etc. It's a dog-eat-dog world for children where they are constantly seeking to find their rank in the pecking order and define who they are. School is highly stressful and I would feel guilty condemning my child to years of torment if I were a gay parent.


I know there's countless examples of "normal" parents abusing children, but of course we never hear of all the examples where a family has worked out great for a child. In this age where we seem to becoming more distanced from the roots of what is a decent upbringing (e.g. MTV bringing up children, advertising aimed at kids, magazines for 12year old girls with tips on how to look more attractive to the opposite sex, etc etc) it is important that we try as hard as possible to maintain stable, natural families as much as possible.

There will always be too many children looking for foster homes-hell, one child is too many. I believe it would be more appropriate to focus on making child fostering more common and popular as well as finding and solving the causes of all the "unwanted" children (obviously parental death can't be avoided).

Children are losing their innocence too young these days. Having an actual emotional childhood seem to be becoming a thing of the past. Look at how young children are drinking/smoking/joining gangs/having children (some at 12)/shooting each other. They are treated to the realities of life at a far too young age where they simply do not have the maturity to handle these situations. The longer you can maintain a child's "innocence", the longer you can develop the many life skills they require. There is a point in a child's life where the parent no longer is their idol and instead it becomes their peers. At this stage there is much less that a parent can achieve with the child as their basic character will have reached a set irreversible stage of maturity here. Exposing a child to the true realities of life at a younger age is detrimental and will likely reduce this threshold age. A lower threshold age more often results in behavioural and social problems for the child.

Before I get all of the accusations of my being homophobic, let me make it quite clear that this is certainly not the case. I am very accepting, but I do not believe homosexuals should be in a position where they can raise a child.

My 2c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top