Gay adoption

[MCWAR]

originally posted by: aidanjim
Thanks for the idiocy and ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: MCWAR
aidanjm, Im sorry if I cut to the quick of your homo-errotic behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

originally posted by: aidanjim


What do you mean?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was asked a question, and you chimed in with your idiocy and ignorance comment.
My natural human response to your personal attack was to swing back at you. Sorry I sank to your level, I have edited my previous post.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: loic2003
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.

I see what you are saying, but that is society's failure, not the parent's or the child's.
Things change, things that were once considered abnormal, or unnatural, are now normal. Society must adapt to changes within it. Plain and simple.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: loic2003

My 2c.

:thumbsup: 100% agreement

 

[jackschmittusa]

oic2003

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).

Where is the science behind that? Please show how it is necessary for someone genetically predisposed to homosexuality needs to have received the genetic combination from a gay parent. Many genetic traits are seen in the offspring of parents who do not display the trait.

It is unfair to the children to be brought up into an unnatural environment.

Unnatural enviornment is your personal opinion. There are others who disagree with you.

You also seem to assume that a gay couple would poorly prepare the kids for school. "Where is my mummy?" is not likely to come as a bolt out of the blue, taking the kid unawares.

A child needs to have constant access to adults of both sexes in order for normal social development.

So, kids from single parent homes and those in orphanages are doomed?

The longer you can maintain a child's "innocence", the longer you can develop the many life skills they require.

Innocence rarely develops life skills. It is surviving or surmounting adversity that develops life skills. Those that are coddled and shielded extensively are invariably the ones who find themselves at a loss to function by themselves. We counsel and guide them when they encounter new and different things, especially those that may have negative effects. Sometimes we even let them make bad decisions (i.e. If you climb up on that, you will fall.). They then learn that actions have consequences. It works the same with social interactions as well. There is an age appropriate answer to any kids questions. Sometimes you have to think to figure it out.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: loic2003
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).

Source?

 

[Emultra]

Nature vs. nurture is a false alternative in this case.

For example, even identical twins - human and animal - have different patterns in their skin and blood vessels. That is developed during pregnancy; so could homosexuality.


And what it all comes down to is whether or not you want to use governmental authority to violate the rights of people, or if you don't.

There is no middle ground.

 

[loic2003]

Where is the science behind that? Please show how it is necessary for someone genetically predisposed to homosexuality needs to have received the genetic combination from a gay parent. Many genetic traits are seen in the offspring of parents who do not display the trait.

What's you're talking about there are recessive genes, for example the genes for ginger hair or having no earlobes. If one parent is a carrier of the recessive gene but the other has the dominant genotype, the dominant phenotype will be displayed. However, unless the characteristic bought about by the recessive genotype actually prevents the animal/person from reproducing, the genes will remain within the gene pool. I.E. ginger people do reproduce... Homosexuals rarely reproduce and so if it was genetic, the trait should have been eliminated long ago. However, there are many social factors involved. Not too long ago, homosexuality was considered a disease or perverted so many would-be homosexuals may have lived in straight relationships and in fact reproduced. It also may be caused by random mutations within certain genes....

Unnatural enviornment is your personal opinion. There are others who disagree with you.

It is an unnatural environment. A natural environment is one where the genetic parents raise their offspring. This is what you can observe throughout nature and is the only way in which new generations can be produced. Same-sex couples are not natural. This is not to say it is wrong, or whatever, but strictly speaking, it is not natural.

So, kids from single parent homes and those in orphanages are doomed?

Please read the above paragraph that I wrote about children with unstable upbringings.

Innocence rarely develops life skills. It is surviving or surmounting adversity that develops life skills. Those that are coddled and shielded extensively are invariably the ones who find themselves at a loss to function by themselves. We counsel and guide them when they encounter new and different things, especially those that may have negative effects. Sometimes we even let them make bad decisions (i.e. If you climb up on that, you will fall.). They then learn that actions have consequences. It works the same with social interactions as well. There is an age appropriate answer to any kids questions. Sometimes you have to think to figure it out.

Of course. You can't expect to make a child live in some kind of safe bubble until the age of fifteen, but this isn't what I was suggesting. Basically put, we should aim to maximise the time where we can develop reading/writing/arithmetic skills before the child becomes sexually aware and is distracted. Of course this is a simplistic look at the situation, but I don't have the time to go so far in depth.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: loic2003

It is an unnatural environment. A natural environment is one where the genetic parents raise their offspring. This is what you can observe throughout nature and is the only way in which new generations can be produced. Same-sex couples are not natural. This is not to say it is wrong, or whatever, but strictly speaking, it is not natural.

no you're wrong, gay couples can be and have been observed in nature. yeah they can't have offspring...and? not all even all heterosexual animals have offspring. also, new generations not being produced is perfectly natural. All extinct species failed to make new generations, other wise they would not be extinct. That is not to say they went extinct due to homosexuality, i doubt humans will either. But none of your examples are unnatural. you underestimate the boundaries of nature.

 

[loic2003]

Male + female -> offspring.

Male offspring + female offspring -> further offspring

This is the natural way for the circle of life to continue. There is no other way.

 

[mordantmonkey]

and? so? what? thanks for the 5 grade sex ed lesson.

male + condom + female =/= offspring.

OMG condoms are unnatural and must be banned.

but seriously, what if someone never wants to have kids and so remains celebate, or even simply takes a vow of celebacy? it must be unnatural, however you can't really force them to do it now can you?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: loic2003

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.

Stop trying to perverse people by making unfounded claims and misinformation. Here's an excerpt from the primary literature that studied Homo/heterosexual couples and their children.

Stacy, J., and Biblarz, T.J. 2001. How does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review 66: 159-184.

The findings summarized in Tables 1 and 2 show that the "no differences" claim does receive strong empirical support in crucial domains. Lesbigay parents and their children in these studies display no differences from heterosexual counterparts in psychological well-being or cognitive functioning. Scores for lesbigay parenting styles and levels of investment in children are at least as "high" as those for heterosexual parents. Levels of closeness and quality of parent/child relationships do not seem to differentiate directly by parental sexual orientation, but indirectly, by way of parental gender. Because every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children's mental health or social adjustment, there is no evidentiary basis for considering parental sexual orientation in decisions about children's "best interest." In fact, given that children with lesbigay parents probably contend with a degree of social stigma, these similarities in child outcomes suggest the presence of compensatory processes in lesbigay-parent families. Exploring how these families help children cope with stigma might prove helpful to all kinds of families.

Please read up on the actual studies on the situation instead of making up things just to promote the misconstruing of reality.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Where is the science behind that? Please show how it is necessary for someone genetically predisposed to homosexuality needs to have received the genetic combination from a gay parent. Many genetic traits are seen in the offspring of parents who do not display the trait.

What's you're talking about there are recessive genes, for example the genes for ginger hair or having no earlobes. If one parent is a carrier of the recessive gene but the other has the dominant genotype, the dominant phenotype will be displayed. However, unless the characteristic bought about by the recessive genotype actually prevents the animal/person from reproducing, the genes will remain within the gene pool. I.E. ginger people do reproduce... Homosexuals rarely reproduce and so if it was genetic, the trait should have been eliminated long ago. However, there are many social factors involved. Not too long ago, homosexuality was considered a disease or perverted so many would-be homosexuals may have lived in straight relationships and in fact reproduced. It also may be caused by random mutations within certain genes....

I really suggest you take a basic genetics class.

>>>"Homosexuals rarely reproduce and so if it was genetic, the trait should have been eliminated long ago. "
This statement is completely false. Completely.

[False] Assumptions you made:
#1 - Homosexuality is controlled by a single gene. In fact, almost all mammalian traits are coded by a lot more than 1 gene. Even eye color, buddy. If there was a single gene, I guarantee you it would have been found by now. Because it is NOT a single gene, your dominant/recessive claims are irrelevent.
#2 - Genes have independent assortment. FALSE! Genes are linked to each other because of their proximity on the chromosome. So, IF there really was a single homo gene, it wouldn't necessarily die out of the gene pool because other genes would drag it along. Let emphasize that in all likelihood, it is NOT a single gene.
#3 - Random mutations can consistently cause a single phenotype. Do you know what the chances are that homosexuality is caused by random mutations??? Close to zero!

Because of these completely false assumptions, you really have no argument that homosexuality is a completely social happening.

In all likelihood, a large combination of genes give a predisposition to homosexuality, and environment takes it from there. But there is not a single ounce of proof of what environment and what degree of predisposition is required to "Create" a homosexual.

If it was as simple as drop a kid in a homosexual family and he becomes gay, I am 100% positive that it would have been in a scientific journal by now.

Unnatural enviornment is your personal opinion. There are others who disagree with you.

It is an unnatural environment. A natural environment is one where the genetic parents raise their offspring. This is what you can observe throughout nature and is the only way in which new generations can be produced. Same-sex couples are not natural. This is not to say it is wrong, or whatever, but strictly speaking, it is not natural.

That's an interesting definition of "natural". My dictionary says: "Faithfully representing nature or life." Homosexuality is found throughout nature.

By your definition of "natural", a sexually dysfunctional male married to a healthy woman would not be a natural enviroment for a kid. Are you against all forms of adoption?

Really, you should use a better word than natural. Be straight with us. How about "morally correct"? Cause that's what you really mean.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

Innocence rarely develops life skills. It is surviving or surmounting adversity that develops life skills. Those that are coddled and shielded extensively are invariably the ones who find themselves at a loss to function by themselves. We counsel and guide them when they encounter new and different things, especially those that may have negative effects. Sometimes we even let them make bad decisions (i.e. If you climb up on that, you will fall.). They then learn that actions have consequences. It works the same with social interactions as well. There is an age appropriate answer to any kids questions. Sometimes you have to think to figure it out.

Agree completely! Man, once you get to college you really see what happens to the kids who were sheltered as a kid. They were the ones dunk off their arses, screwing around and generally being annoying.

As to a "normal" childhood I think they are overrated. I know a few people who parents weren't divorced and they did great, but no better then some of us, the products of "broken homes". One of my good friend's mom is a lesbian and she turned out just fine. A little too liberal for my taste but we still get along well.

As far a needing both a man and a women I would agree, but they don't have to be your parents. Big brother and sisters (the group) is a great way to help. Also just family and friends can help out too (gay people have families and friends incase you didn't know).

The thing that I think is lacking in homes right now is discipline and the concept of "love them enough to let them hate you." It seems to many parents are placating to their kids and are trying to be their friends. If a gay couple is ready to take on the challenge of having a kid and raising that kid to be a good person, I say go for it!

Side note, being gay has been around for a VERY VERY long time. Hell, it's even in the bible.

 

[conjur]

FOX News' John Gibson has a...um...interesting take:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150672,00.html

A word about gay marriage: As you might have heard, a judge in San Francisco has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to ban gay marriage (search). That means all those same sex couples who were married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom can go back to thinking they are married.

Now, just to be clear on this, those same sex couples are something, but I am quite sure it is not married.

Why? Because marriage is something men and women do. They don't always do it well ? you only have to look at the divorce rate, or the number of pregnant women killed by their spouse to realize that. But, nonetheless, for all its imperfections, for all the gory fun of divorce court, it is something that men and women do.

Why is it just men and women? Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.

The first knuckle-dragging people recognized they didn't want to raise their kids like the monkeys, so they set up another system.

Gays can't have kids ? other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains ? so by definition they're out of the marriage game.

In theory, so would couples who get married in their eighties. Chances are good that no kids come out of that holy union. But it is at least theoretically possible. Not so with gays.

Now, gay couples should have certain rights of marriage ? inheritance, insurance, visitation ? all that lawyerly stuff.

But they should take the advice of a friend of mine who said he'd defend gays against any form of discrimination, but they had to pick a new word ? marriage is taken.

Now what about this ruling that gay marriage is legal from the judge in San Francisco?

Well what about it? He's a judge in San Francisco ? of course he says gay marriage is constitutional. You think he could live there if he said otherwise?

As they say in Jersey: "Fuhgedaboutit!"

That's My Word.

:Q

Why is that moron allowed to speak his hatred and bigotry via a national news site?

Disgusting.

 

[azazyel]

the gay agenda..

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/030629gays.htm

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: loic2003
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).

Source?

the council for responsible genetics for starters.
i've posted a link to their site and article dealing with the "gay gene". they consider the whole argument a waste of time. simply put, we can't figure out a person's handedness as it relates to genetics, how are we gonna pinpoint something with so many factors?

 

[mordantmonkey]

abandoned kid store? what a fvcktard.

 

[classy]

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.

I voted no. Its an absolute fact of life, children highly tend to emulate their parents. Until someone can prove me wrong, the fact is, we choose who we sleep with. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Shuxclams]

I know 2 girls who where raised by their Gay mother. They both got A's in High School, Went to collage and have steady job and relationships with men. No signs of "Beaver Chasing" what so ever... I wonder very seriously about middle-america....

If there are people who are willing and caring enough to raise a child then why not let them raise a child.... who business is it of yours or the goverments anyway?









SHUX

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: classy

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.

I voted no. Its an absolute fact of life, children highly tend to emulate their parents. Until someone can prove me wrong, the fact is, we choose who we sleep with. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple.

So why don't you give us a link demonstrating that a high percentage of children with gay parents are gay? I know many people who had gay parents, and none of them are gay.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: classy

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.

I voted no. Its an absolute fact of life, children highly tend to emulate their parents. Until someone can prove me wrong, the fact is, we choose who we sleep with. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple.

So why don't you give us a link demonstrating that a high percentage of children with gay parents are gay? I know many people who had gay parents, and none of them are gay.

You can spout any bs you want. But children have and always will develop after their parents. If you believe two gays can raise a child with that child not learning the ways of homosexuals your just plain stupid and in denial. Children are taught, its as simple as that. How can two men walking around flaming quite often dressing as women teach a young man how to be a young man? Same with two gay women walking around acting manly teach a young lady how to act? You don't go to med school to be a lawyer. As a parent I can't teach my children not to be a drunk, if I am a drunk. Sexual behavior is no different than learning anything else in life, you will emulate behavior based on what information you are exposed too. And this idea that its an urge or a knowing is a joke. I have an urge everyday to drive 80 mph and I can do it too, it doesn't make it right. When I got married the urge to want to sleep with other women didn't just vanish and I 've had those urges all my life. But because I am married, to sleep with other women is wrong, so I resist the temptation. If I have to control myself, having homosexual desires shouldn't allow you to have a free pass not to do what is right. Fact is the equipment you have determines what you are, plain and simple. The truth is in the mirror and my advice is believe the truth and reject everything else, because if it contradicts the truth then its a lie.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: classy
You can spout any bs you want.

I see that. You do it quite well

The fact that you think all gay men run around in pink dresses covered in rainbows leads me to believe you don't really know very many or ANY people that are of that orientation.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: classy
You can spout any bs you want.

I see that. You do it quite well

The fact that you think all gay men run around in pink dresses covered in rainbows leads me to believe you don't really know very many or ANY people that are of that orientation.

No I don't believe that. But its totally ridiculous for anyone to believe that a homosexual couple's behavior is not going influence a child's development.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: classy
You can spout any bs you want.

I see that. You do it quite well

The fact that you think all gay men run around in pink dresses covered in rainbows leads me to believe you don't really know very many or ANY people that are of that orientation.

No I don't believe that. But its totally ridiculous for anyone to believe that a homosexual couple's behavior is not going influence a child's development.

it's a silly argument to say that because the parents are gay, the children will be gay.

the reverse has been proven untrue. there are plenty of gay teenagers who had no significant encounters with homosexual. look at Allen Keyes' daughter -- somehow the most anti-gay enviornment imaginable produced a gay child.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: classy
You can spout any bs you want.

I see that. You do it quite well

The fact that you think all gay men run around in pink dresses covered in rainbows leads me to believe you don't really know very many or ANY people that are of that orientation.

No I don't believe that. But its totally ridiculous for anyone to believe that a homosexual couple's behavior is not going influence a child's development.

Okay, so give us a link to demonstrate that children who have gay parents are more likely to be gay.