NationStates Jolt Archive

It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child. Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating eefects on the childs Psyche. As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent. To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of thehuman species but, as mentioned above, has crushing effects on the raised child and consequently, similar effect on society.

I don't know if what you've said is entirely true.
Children with both mother and father can turn out - and HAVE turned
out - just as messed up, if not moreso. Look at the Jacksons.
Extreme, I know, but still, true. :wink:

Look at most criminals in the justice system.
Look at other people who've turned out odd. Similarities between
them? MANY of them have BOTH a mother and a father! (I know that
it 's not all of them, but certainly there is quite a majority)
And yet the world has really yet to properly even try out same sex
couple adoption on any meaningful scale that would prove that it would
be a bad thing, so who are you to say that this wouldn't work?

Orphanages are FULL OF children, homeless and without family.
You think that they all end up as some Hans Christian Anderson story
fantasy, where they get the perfect family, the perfect life after the
orphanage, and all live happily ever after? Oh my, no.

So, with all these factors in mind, why shouldn't people at least
TRY this option before flying off the ethical handle?

No. Most criminals have ONLY ONE PARENT. Sad to say, but (boys especially) children who grow up with single mothers are the ones who abuse drugs, go to jail, become prostitutes etc.

No. Most criminals have ONLY ONE PARENT. Sad to say, but (boys especially) children who grow up with single mothers are the ones who abuse drugs, go to jail, become prostitutes etc.

I'd like to see the research on that one. :D

That sounds like quite a sweeping generalisation.
I've met quite a few single mothers, and children of single mothers, and oddly enough, they didn't turn out to be criminals, yet the criminals I've met (a few in my time) predominantly had both their parents. In fact, I'm at a loss to find one who had only one parent, and certainly none who had both the same gender.

And, even for a moment, a child raised by a single mother has two parents.

Still, that doesn't address the issue which Wiestlandia appears to have raised, that being: "why would it be such a bad thing to, rather than just stating what people think will happen in a child's upbringing (with so many of the same factors attributable to children of two different gendered parents), why not actually try it out instead?

I think that he only problem caused to children being raised by two same sex parents, would be the attitudes towards them by other people. Not an attitude or teaching or familial issue imposed on them by the seme sex couple.

There's no real proof that two mothers or two father make a wrong. Get over it, it's happening, we'll be able to adopt someday. Just like we're able to get married now.

Provide some evidence that shows that children are adversely effected by being raised by same sex couples, or pipe down, you homophobe.

I'd be happy to know that more children actually had two adults to help them grow in their formative years. Not to mention the likelihood that they would have a superior socio-economic level to grow up in allowing them to tools to access higher levels of education and become more productive citizens.

I'd sooner back a proposal mandating same sex couples adopt than denying such citizens their rights.

It amazes me how despicable so many of you are when it comes to taking care of your citizens and allowing them to experience freedom. Take a good long look at yourselves.

All types of parenting can mess up a kid. It depends on the individuals involved.

We're not going to support this because it is based on generalisations and 'morals'. Give me proof of either one and I'll consider backing you up.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child. Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating eefects on the childs Psyche. As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent. To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of thehuman species but, as mentioned above, has crushing effects on the raised child and consequently, similar effect on society.

The vast majority of psychological experts agree that the important thing is for kids to be raised in a stable, loving environment with 2 parents, and that the genders of the parents are relatively minor in significance. That means that it is far better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to leave them in an orphanage, and since there aren't enough straight couples who want to adopt to take in all the children in all orphanages, the best thing for the kids and the gay couples is to allow adoption by gay couples.

From a biological point of view, if we followed our biologically natural behaviour in modern times we would be seen as evil, immoral, and criminal. For instance, it is natural for the alpha male in a human group to rape females when they join the group, and then for the other males to do the same in the order of their dominance in the group.

From a biological point of view, if we followed our biologically natural behaviour in modern times we would be seen as evil, immoral, and criminal. For instance, it is natural for the alpha male in a human group to rape females when they join the group, and then for the other males to do the same in the order of their dominance in the group.

Considering homosexuality is part of the natural order of things as outlined by it's existance in the animal world where free will has no impact on the behaviour of animals there is no basis for suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural.

Then again with the closed-minded attitudes being ponied about by Patria Grande I'm sure they are just working up to institutionalized rape and Alpha male dominance as they promote ignorance and a might-makes-right agenda from their basis of deep-seated fear of an all-mighty invisible god telling them what to do.

From a biological point of view, if we followed our biologically natural behaviour in modern times we would be seen as evil, immoral, and criminal. For instance, it is natural for the alpha male in a human group to rape females when they join the group, and then for the other males to do the same in the order of their dominance in the group.

Where did you read that? Leviathan?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Letila - there was an interesting documentary series in the UK a while ago called "Walking with Beasts" which showed the evolution of mammals with CGI, and the last one in the series was on the emergence of modern humans - that's where I got that.

Not to mention, as Fleurychuksylvania points out, there is a growing body of evidence that homosexuality is natural anyway.

Newsflash. Reports are coming in from universities and research groups worldwide proving that over 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families. Save the children and BAN opposite sex families and adoptions!!! :roll:

Same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt. Mothers who give up their children for adoption probably dont want their kids growing up in a perverted same sex home. (the only exception to this could be if the mother gives specific permission to allow this) How would a young girl learn about things like her period? Most guys dont even think about this. How would she (the young girl) feel about shopping for a bra with one of her fathers? It is totally unpractical in many more areas than just those two. Likewise, how would a young boy feel without having a male role model in his life? More than likely, he would start to idolize some star actor or something. That is definatly not healthy. Either way, if same sex couples are allowed to adopt, it will hurt all the children.

Letila - there was an interesting documentary series in the UK a while ago called "Walking with Beasts" which showed the evolution of mammals with CGI, and the last one in the series was on the emergence of modern humans - that's where I got that.

Given that the Ju|'hõasi and other hunter gatherer societies don't work like that. In fact, they are generally lacking in hierarchy, having only a ceremonial chief and making decisions mainly through concensus. They certainly aren't organized like wolf packs.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt. Mothers who give up their children for adoption probably dont want their kids growing up in a perverted same sex home. (the only exception to this could be if the mother gives specific permission to allow this) How would a young girl learn about things like her period? Most guys dont even think about this. How would she (the young girl) feel about shopping for a bra with one of her fathers? It is totally unpractical in many more areas than just those two. Likewise, how would a young boy feel without having a male role model in his life? More than likely, he would start to idolize some star actor or something. That is definatly not healthy. Either way, if same sex couples are allowed to adopt, it will hurt all the children.

:roll:

It's you versus the experts. See my comments above about the general consensus within the psychological community. Plus, thankfully, the kind of narrow-minded, homophobic view that you expect mothers to have is becoming much rarer than you would think or, apparently, like.

Letila - this was the emergence of human society - I would imagine that even hunter-gatherer groups have come some way since then. Or perhaps I was wrong on that specific point of behaviour, but my point still holds that if we followed our instinctive behaviour, which is what could be seen as natural, we would not be conforming to any sane idea of ethics or morality.

I am in total agreement with you Patria Grande, these poofs have gone on to long acting likes poofs and then expecting us to put up with it. I mean it is a defect of the brain what happens to them. If you inject them with testosterone the disease (which is spreading) will dissapear.

Yeah, hunter-gatherer societies are in general pretty socially developed, even if they're technologically waaay behind. However primitive you are, it's impossible not to undergo some social evolution in a few hundred thousand years.

I'm not sure that _Myopia_'s version of early human society is authoritative - there's a lot of speculation in this field - but pretty much every primate society behaves much this way, so it's a reasonable guess. Certainly the 'natural' human society would have behaved in plenty of ways we'd find morally repugnant; in any case, humans are a fundamentally unnatural species. Certainly, however, it seems unlikely that early human societies raised kids in a nuclear one-father one-mother environment; extended tribal families where all children are cared for by all adults, with some but by no means total involvement with one's mother, is the model in pretty much every non-industrialised society; the 'nuclear family' was thus-named because it only became seen as the norm in the nuclear era. So, is it unnatural and damaging for a child not to have fifty siblings and a score of uncles and aunts all looking after them?

You might as well argue that we should all hunt our own food instead of buying it from the supermarket - after all, nutrition is as fundamental a need as the family unit.

I am in total agreement with you Patria Grande, these poofs have gone on to long acting likes poofs and then expecting us to put up with it. I mean it is a defect of the brain what happens to them. If you inject them with testosterone the disease (which is spreading) will dissapear.

:roll:

If it occurs in nature, it is natural. "Nature" doesn't just mean the wilds of Central Asia, it refers to the entire UNIVERSE. If it happens on this plane of existence, it is happening in nature, and hence is natural.

It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child.

Wow, both ethically and morally wrong. On another, apparently less important note, why is this so?

Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating eefects on the childs Psyche.

I wish politicians in the real world could get by just making up random facts, figures, data, and studies they wanted to support whatever theories they wanted. Oh, wait, they can. ~_~

In other words: rhetoric alone means little without supporting evidence.

As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been.

Right. So says the person sitting in a chair built in a factory on another continent, looking at their monitor, typing on their keyboard, using the microprocessor in their computer, and connected to the internet -- all of these things have been entirely possible since the beginning of time. Progress is, by definition, an entirely bad thing, and anyone who tells you otherwise is an amoralist hippy.

Each species has a female and male parent.

First, no, they don't. Second, humans do not historically imitate other animals for the express purpose of imitating those animals. Third, divorces and dead parents -- both of which result in a situation contrary to your supposition -- do not typically lead to spontaneously combusting children.

To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of thehuman species...

Evidently not, seeing as it happens regularly.

From a biological point of view, if we followed our biologically natural behaviour in modern times we would be seen as evil, immoral, and criminal. For instance, it is natural for the alpha male in a human group to rape females when they join the group, and then for the other males to do the same in the order of their dominance in the group.

Ah, Myopia, what will we do when you move to another forum? :D

A very good point in my eyes, anyway, if that wasn't clear.

Where did you read that? Leviathan?

Just about every primate society appears to function that way, and I seem to recall some silly thing about their being human ancestors.

Given that the Ju|'hõasi and other hunter gatherer societies don't work like that. In fact, they are generally lacking in hierarchy, having only a ceremonial chief and making decisions mainly through concensus. They certainly aren't organized like wolf packs.

Non-point, Letila; you gave an example of a civilized society. Having a lower technology level doesn't automatically convert a group of people into savages.

Mothers who give up their children for adoption probably dont want their kids growing up in a perverted same sex home.

Because any home where people (gasp!) have monogamous sex in marriage MUST be a house of the DEVIL and PERVERSION!

How would a young girl learn about things like her period?

Ever heard of books? Does the ability to experience menstrual cramps really seem to you like a good prerequisite for parenthood or adoption?

Likewise, how would a young boy feel without having a male role model in his life?

I somehow don't find it plausible to assume that living with two mothers will both eliminate the presence of males from a child's life and remove any sense of morals from his mental being.

More than likely, he would start to idolize some star actor or something.

Yeah, it certainly would suck if the adopted children of homosexuals ended up acting just like the biological children of heterosexuals. ¬_¬

If children have a loving home versus an orphage then I'm all for it hetro or homo parents. This only proves that religion has no place in politics and yet seems to pervade our country. I have no problem w/ religion, but when counties are dry (alcohol) especially in college towns; and drunk driving rates go up(trust me they do) you can thank organized religion for that and monopolistic economic practices as well. If our country really learned anything from the civil rights movments from the 60's then even gay marriage would not be an issue. I guess it only shows that ignorance is bliss for the powers that be.

As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent.

1.Earthworms and other worms are hermaphrodites.
2.The male seahorses give birth.
3.Females of the Texas Plateau Geckos can reproduce by parthenogenesis. When stimulated by another female gecko.
4.Most reptiles abandon their eggs, and insects usually die after reproduction is complete.
5.Male/ male and female/ female penguins often form pairs, and raise offspring together.
6.Female/ female and male/ male relationships can be found through out mammalian class. Such as giraffes, wolves, mice, dolphins, apes, and monkeys.
7.The Bonobo chimpanzees are well known to form lasting relationships with members of the same sex.

Your logic is flawed. If homosexuals raise homosexuals, then the same should be said that heterosexuals raise heterosexuals. Which raise a chicken and the egg paradox; how would you get a homosexual if their were only heterosexual couples that raise heterosexual children. Above all else you forget mother nature is a Freak.

I believe it's wrong of you to try to foster your own dubious ethical and moral system on those who disagree with it. My UN delegate puppet actively approves proposals but I think this is one I'm going to skip...

I am in total agreement with you Patria Grande, these poofs have gone on to long acting likes poofs and then expecting us to put up with it.

Do tell me why we (the civilized humans on this world) should be forced to put up with *you*.
From your logic I should be allowed to shoot you trough the head to *cure* your childish hatred.

The idea that someone would even suggest something like this is mind-boggling. They are no less entitled to raising minions-- er, children, than heterosexuals. And don't give me this mumbo jumbo about children raised in homosexual homes being less adjusted than children raised in hetero homes. Come to the Wesperosphere and see how psychotic children raised in hetero homes can be. Knife-wielding demons.

-Secondary Minister James Allen Pope, DTW

No. Most criminals have ONLY ONE PARENT. Sad to say, but (boys especially) children who grow up with single mothers are the ones who abuse drugs, go to jail, become prostitutes etc.

I and many of my friends have grown up with only one parent. All of us are rather productive members of society and have graduated college. I would like to see this data.

As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been.

Such a weak argument. In order for humans to survive we must adapt to whatever changes come our way. It's an evolutionary requirement. I see homosexuality as something humans must adapt to, as in my opinion its cause is natural, not artificial or something one 'learns' to do. If we kept things the way they always have been, we'd be holding summits in caves and beating each other over the head with wooden clubs while grunting in low, hoarse tones.

Then again, it tends to be that way anyhow, with the exclusion of the cave.

-Secondary Minister James Allen Pope, DTW

As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent.

1.Earthworms and other worms are hermaphrodites.
2.The male seahorses give birth.
3.Females of the Texas Plateau Geckos can reproduce by parthenogenesis. When stimulated by another female gecko.
4.Most reptiles abandon their eggs, and insects usually die after reproduction is complete.
5.Male/ male and female/ female penguins often form pairs, and raise offspring together.
6.Female/ female and male/ male relationships can be found through out mammalian class. Such as giraffes, wolves, mice, dolphins, apes, and monkeys.
7.The Bonobo chimpanzees are well known to form lasting relationships with members of the same sex.

Your logic is flawed. If homosexuals raise homosexuals, then the same should be said that heterosexuals raise heterosexuals. Which raise a chicken and the egg paradox; how would you get a homosexual if their were only heterosexual couples that raise heterosexual children. Above all else you forget mother nature is a Freak.
I would just like to congratulate Unidox for this wonderful post.

I am in total agreement with you Patria Grande, these poofs have gone on to long acting likes poofs and then expecting us to put up with it.

Do tell me why we (the civilized humans on this world) should be forced to put up with *you*.
From your logic I should be allowed to shoot you trough the head to *cure* your childish hatred.

I know Greece and Cyprus in RL - he doesn't believe these things with the vigour his comments suggest, he just says stuff like that to annoy leftwingers and see what kind of reaction he gets. Don't let him get you angry.

Ah, Myopia, what will we do when you move to another forum?

A very good point in my eyes, anyway, if that wasn't clear.

:D Thanks. There's no danger of me leaving the NS forums soon, my addiction is only growing what with all this free time I have on exam study leave.

I think a point many people seem to miss is that parents aren't the only adults with which kids have contact and are influenced by. Gay dads will not lock a child away in the house and only allow him/her contact with other men, nor will lesbian parents stop their child having contact with men.

Patria Grande, Bureaucrat wrote

"It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child. Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating efects on the childs Psyche. As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent. To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of the human species but, as mentioned above, has crushing effects on the raised child and consequently, similar effect on society."
We agree with the opinion of the Patria Grande.
No to GAY ADOPTION OF CHILDREN.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Kybernetica: all those arguments have been overturned, set on fire, and stomped into the ground. A brief service was held to remember them, and then they were left to rot. Saying 'I agree' without coming up with any counterarguments whatsoever makes it look as if you have no basis for your position.

It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child. Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating eefects on the childs Psyche. As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent. To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of thehuman species but, as mentioned above, has crushing effects on the raised child and consequently, similar effect on society.

So outlaw it in your own nation and leave the rest of the world alone.

Santin: books definatly do not take the place of a loving caring mother who, understanding her daughters needs and able to empathize with her, tells her about her body. No male role model, no matter how great, can take the place of a father. Ok, I can see your point on the last thing, many kids of heterosexuals do idolize actors.

I have a mother. When I asked her what the blood was she said she was surprised I didn't look it up in a book. I would have pointed out that she is a nurse so I usually go to her with medical problems but I was really panicking at the time.

The moral to the story; 'ideal' parents are hard to find. You can't love them all, they don't know everything, they are human, some of them screw up your life. Sexuality has little to do with that.

Of course we can just give the girls to lesbians, at least they would understand the concept of PMT.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Santin: books definatly do not take the place of a loving caring mother who, understanding her daughters needs and able to empathize with her, tells her about her body. No role male role model, no matter how great, can take the place of a father. Ok, I can see your point on the last thing, many kids of heterosexuals do idolize actors.

But the real point is that by arguing that homosexual parents will damage a child's development you are contradicting the view of the majority of experts.

Santin: books definatly do not take the place of a loving caring mother who, understanding her daughters needs and able to empathize with her, tells her about her body. No role male role model, no matter how great, can take the place of a father. Ok, I can see your point on the last thing, many kids of heterosexuals do idolize actors.

But the real point is that by arguing that homosexual parents will damage a child's development you are contradicting the view of the majority of experts.

And how many times have "the experts" been wrong?
"The experts" once said the world was flat! :roll:

Funny how the author never actually provided scientific/documented evidence proving homosexuals together cannot raise children properly as it adversely effects them... :wink:

You are a crazy moron if you think that a child growing up with two parents of the same sex with mess up the child. Children that grow up in homosexual family tend to be more tolerant (as you seem not to be) and have better judgement about their environment. It does not matter that a child hastwo parents of the same sex as long as there is two of them, that is the way human psychology works, sorry if your are brain dead and do not realise that.

Santin: books definatly do not take the place of a loving caring mother who, understanding her daughters needs and able to empathize with her, tells her about her body. No role male role model, no matter how great, can take the place of a father. Ok, I can see your point on the last thing, many kids of heterosexuals do idolize actors.

But the real point is that by arguing that homosexual parents will damage a child's development you are contradicting the view of the majority of experts.

And how many times have "the experts" been wrong?
"The experts" once said the world was flat! :roll:

And once they said that gays are mentally ill too! :p

Three pages of posts, and we still haven't seen the evidence for or against the idea that children raised by a same-sex couple are as functional in society as children raised in by an opposite-sex couple or single parent. Daryn is a nation of families, and we take the welfare of children very seriously. If it can be shown that increasing the adoptive parents pool to include same-sex couples will not negativly affect the children, Daryn will consider backing the resolution

Minister Mar Darenka
Ambassador to the UN
The Most Serene Republic of Daryn.

And how many times have "the experts" been wrong?
"The experts" once said the world was flat!

The difference is that today experts use the scientific method to draw conclusions, and so the view of the majority of experts is all but certain to be the view that is best supported by all the factual evidence, and the view which directly contradicts it is likely to be the one least supported by the factual evidence.

Those who directly contradict modern scientific experts without expertise or factual evidence are usually wrong, and if they are right it is through chance not intelligence.

I quote "There have been studies put out by the American Academy of Pediatrics, among other groups, that assert same-sex parents can raise children who turn out to be just as emotionally stable as those raised by heterosexual parents. And, almost without exception, those studies are flawed.

At least, that’s according to Dr. Robert Lerner, a well-known debunker of bunk. In 2001, Lerner authored a report examining 49 empirical studies on same-sex parenting. He found a “fatal flaw” in each of the studies he examined. Among them were nonexistent control groups, defective measurements and sample groups too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Most troubling perhaps is that only one of the studies Lerner examined had any kind of longitudinal aspect to it."

So maybe your fantastic studies are not so amazingly great.

Well,

It has been an intresting couple of days. I like to see that I have caused some reaction amongst UN members. I would just like to state a few things about all the "against" replies that were posted. First of all, most opposers stated I had no facts and then went on to list websites which cointained "facts" used as counter arguments to mine. Newsflash! Websites are probably the most unreliable sources of information on the planet. SO, sticking to them for facts is like a blind man leading another one. Secondly, when I said that humans should keep things the way they have always been, I was right. Humans, just like all other animals, have continued to reproduce since their existence. If they discontinue this practice (i.e. become homosexuals) they will disappear within 100 years max. I hope you don't need a website to tell you that. The fact will the be argued that not all humans will be homosexual, and the announcers of such facts are correct when stating so. However, there should be no institutions in place to encourage this type of behaviour. If same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they will no doubt teach the child that being gay is a very viable and acceptable way to live. If being gay is presented as an alternative to being straight, the chances of a child accepting to live that way will inevitably grow, thus spreading the practice. I also hope you don't need a website to figure out that math. Lastly, I saw some postings talking about how homosexuality occurs in nature amongst the animal kingdom. This is strictly impossible by definition. For all you fact junkies out there:

The concise Oxford Dictionnary states homosexuality as an attraction between PERSONS of the same sex, gender.

By defintion, animals cannot be homosexual, only humans can. Humans are not naturally homosexual, it happens that some may be, but it is not natural, it is a deviance. Animals are not able to make rational conscious choices, they have instinct. Do you need a website to tell you that too? Or do you have meaningful conversations with your pet about the meaning of life and the origin of the universe? Since animals do not express conscious thought, they do not chose to be gay. Animals simply search ways of reproduction, ways to procure themselves food for energy for reproduction, and that's it. If you see an animal willingly and consciously contributing to the advancement of knowledge, society and other, let me know I'll bring my video camera.

Back to my original point. If same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they won't necessarily raise criminals, which I never said they would anyway, they will simply instruct the child that he should no feel obliged to contribute to the preserving of the human race, but that he can live how he chooses to, regardless of what may happen after his death. If homosexuals don't agree with me that they are living only for their time, then they are a walking contradiction.

Finally, our institutions have been voted and created for the need of the majority, the great, not the particular. Chnaging defitntions of institutions to allw teh comfort of teh few is unacceptable. If you want to be gay, fine with me. If you want to live with another gay person as a united under law couple, fine with me, I'll even attend the civil union. But if you want to change the traditional defintion of marriage, the traditional defintion of family or some other things so that you may impose you particular intrests on the heterosexual majority, forget it. Like some have said already in the forum, if you believe in evolution, then practice it. Homosexuals will just have to learn to adapt to their environment, and certainly not the other way around. Be ngay if you want, but don't teach others to be gay too, just keep it to yourselves and if some want to be gay with you, which again is fine be me (I've been wrongfully accused of being a bigot and a homophobe), then they will make that CHOICE when they are old enough to understand the consequences.

Thanyou all for your time, The Protector of Patria Grande

Its a fact that abuse in homosexual homes (especially lesbian) is extremely high conmapered to a real family. Frc.org look at the homosexual fcts page.

First of all, most opposers stated I had no facts and then went on to list websites which cointained "facts" used as counter arguments to mine. Newsflash! Websites are probably the most unreliable sources of information on the planet. SO, sticking to them for facts is like a blind man leading another one.

Certain websites can be very reliable, for instance established sources of information like brittanica.com.

Secondly, when I said that humans should keep things the way they have always been, I was right. Humans, just like all other animals, have continued to reproduce since their existence. If they discontinue this practice (i.e. become homosexuals) they will disappear within 100 years max. I hope you don't need a website to tell you that. The fact will the be argued that not all humans will be homosexual, and the announcers of such facts are correct when stating so. However, there should be no institutions in place to encourage this type of behaviour. If same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they will no doubt teach the child that being gay is a very viable and acceptable way to live. If being gay is presented as an alternative to being straight, the chances of a child accepting to live that way will inevitably grow, thus spreading the practice. I also hope you don't need a website to figure out that math.

You're not seriously arguing that homosexual adoption will lead to the extinction of the human race are you?! Homosexuality is never going to become widespread enough to do that. It is probably true that gays brought up by homosexual couples are more likely to be honest with themselves about their sexuality and not repress it, but this simply means that their mental health will not be damaged by the repression of their homosexuality, plus a few more people not making babies might be a good thing - Earth has something of an overpopulation problem.

Lastly, I saw some postings talking about how homosexuality occurs in nature amongst the animal kingdom. This is strictly impossible by definition. For all you fact junkies out there:

The concise Oxford Dictionnary states homosexuality as an attraction between PERSONS of the same sex, gender.

By defintion, animals cannot be homosexual, only humans can.

Ok, if you're going to be fussy about wording, then same-sex sexual relationships have been observed to occur naturally in many animals, which can be seen as analogous to homosexuality in humans. Happy? The point still stands that some animals are gay.

Humans are not naturally homosexual, it happens that some may be, but it is not natural, it is a deviance.

And you're basing this on what? Plus, we've already demonstrated that somethiong being natural doesn't make it good, and something being unnatural doesn't make it bad.

Animals are not able to make rational conscious choices, they have instinct. Do you need a website to tell you that too? Or do you have meaningful conversations with your pet about the meaning of life and the origin of the universe? Since animals do not express conscious thought, they do not chose to be gay. Animals simply search ways of reproduction, ways to procure themselves food for energy for reproduction, and that's it. If you see an animal willingly and consciously contributing to the advancement of knowledge, society and other, let me know I'll bring my video camera.

What does this have to do with anything?

Back to my original point. If same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they won't necessarily raise criminals, which I never said they would anyway, they will simply instruct the child that he should no feel obliged to contribute to the preserving of the human race, but that he can live how he chooses to, regardless of what may happen after his death. If homosexuals don't agree with me that they are living only for their time, then they are a walking contradiction.

Like I said, it is ridiculous to suggest that gay adoption will lead to everyone being homosexual and not reproducing, and if we want to avoid the disasters that overpopulation can bring, it is actually in the collective interest of the human race that we reproduce a bit less. Additionally, most liberal heterosexual parents would also bring up their children to be honest with themselves about their sexuality, and to accept it if they realise they're gay.

Finally, our institutions have been voted and created for the need of the majority, the great, not the particular. Chnaging defitntions of institutions to allw teh comfort of teh few is unacceptable.

Wrong. By saying that government should only provide for the majority, you effectively advocate tyranny by majority. Minorities must also be protected from persecution and oppression. In what way is redefining marriage to benefit a minority without harming anyone unacceptable? Nothing is imposed on heterosexuals, the right to marry is not denied from them.

Like some have said already in the forum, if you believe in evolution, then practice it. Homosexuals will just have to learn to adapt to their environment, and certainly not the other way around.

This is ridiculous. You are saying that because we believe evolution was the natural process by which life developed that we should apply the principles of evolution to the way we run society.

Be ngay if you want, but don't teach others to be gay too, just keep it to yourselves and if some want to be gay with you, which again is fine be me (I've been wrongfully accused of being a bigot and a homophobe), then they will make that CHOICE when they are old enough to understand the consequences.

You're implying here that homosexual parents would brainwash their kids into being homosexual, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous (I seem to be using this word a lot).

Frc.org

Yes, a nice impartial source of info there. :roll:

Frc.org

Yes, a nice impartial source of info there. :roll:

Is anything impartial? :wink:

well considering its facts are backed up bu us censorship records and goverment recorded data i would say it is pretty good but obviously you ignored it.

OT: Damn, these forums are slow...

Firstly, the NationState of Frobar is against gay marriage. Let me explain why.

I believe civil libertarians are concentrating more on `rights' rather than sustainability and genetics. For instance, unless you're adopted, you have a family tree. You have traits, given to you by your parents. Now, what gay marriage effectively does, is removes half the genetics side of a family and instead concentrates on simply having a child. Sure, the child might have his/her mother's/father's hair color, but since the other mother/father isn't <i>really</i> the child's mother/father, then the child has the traits of some random sperm/egg donor. Most adopted children seek their natural parents (and probably a reason), but put yourself in the shoes of those children from a gay marriage.
As for the argument that the adopted child will choose for itself- Give me a break. Children don't learn from a mystical force of nature- they learn a lot from their parents. I was listening to the radio (TripleJ), and they had a forum about gay marriage, and one of the callers was a lesbian. She said that there wouldn't be a lack of male influence, because she knows a lot of gay males, who were willing to be `father figures'. If you grew up in a family were girls went with girls, and boys with boys, then it's really not hard for the child to see a pattern here.
I know I've been concentrating a lot on the children side of it, but that seems to be a pretty important part of the argument. As for the simple, `We just want to be married, but the government won't let us' argument, in Australia at least, they now have the `financial benefits'. Yet they still want to be married. A question I ask is this- <i>why do you have to get married?</i>
My apologies if I sounded harsh, but that's my opinion. The NationState of Frobar needs some `ground rules' in order to survive.


Cheers

If you grew up in a family were girls went with girls, and boys with boys, then it's really not hard for the child to see a pattern here.

Some children are allowed to go outside ya know?

I believe civil libertarians are concentrating more on `rights' rather than sustainability and genetics. For instance, unless you're adopted, you have a family tree. You have traits, given to you by your parents. Now, what gay marriage effectively does, is removes half the genetics side of a family and instead concentrates on simply having a child. Sure, the child might have his/her mother's/father's hair color, but since the other mother/father isn't <i>really</i> the child's mother/father, then the child has the traits of some random sperm/egg donor. Most adopted children seek their natural parents (and probably a reason), but put yourself in the shoes of those children from a gay marriage.


Frobar, let us use an example. My son is currently dating a nice young woman. He's rather infatuated with her -- it's quite sweet. However, my son's girlfriend, as a result of a disease a few years ago, is sterile. Should they ever decide to have children, they must either do so by adoption or by egg donation. So, should we prohibit my son from marrying this young woman because she cannot bear his children?

Now, many of our countries have laws against discrimmination by, among other things, sex. So, my son is legally allowed to marry this attractive, but unable to bear children, woman, but were her gender switched, he would be unable to do so.

Of course, you could always solve this by requiring medical exams for each couple before they are granted their marriage licenses, and rejecting those that are infertile or incompatable. And prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying, of course.

Minister Mar Darenka
Ambassador to the UN
The Most Serne Republic of Daryn

Humans, just like all other animals, have continued to reproduce since their existence. If they discontinue this practice (i.e. become homosexuals) they will disappear within 100 years max.

I hope you're trying to be funny. There's no evidence that homosexuals haven't been around since prehistoric times; since when have they been a threat to the perpetuation of the human genome? If homosexuals are so incapable of survival, how do they survive -- with so much strife and opposition from people like you -- for generation after generation after generation? Hm? Care to explain?

If same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they will no doubt teach the child that being gay is a very viable and acceptable way to live.

Yes, you're right. Gays are like communists, rats, and all those other political undesirables -- they multiply in the dark and kill you when you turn your back. It seems to me to stand easily to reason that if heterosexual and single parents can raise homosexual children on a regular basis, then it's quite likely that homosexual parents can raise heterosexual children.

You also appear to be under the impression that sexual preference is an active choice; it does not appear to be so. Argue all you want -- all I have to do is ask you to turn homosexual for a day, and you'll find that either (a) you can't, or (b) you're bisexual. Have a nice day.

If being gay is presented as an alternative to being straight, the chances of a child accepting to live that way will inevitably grow, thus spreading the practice.

You've forgotten one important thing -- while all the gays are off not having children, the vastly superior number of heterosexuals will be literally pumping out babies at a rate of, oh, easily several hundred per day. Homosexuality is not a threat to the contiuance of the species or the ecosystem.

The concise Oxford Dictionnary states homosexuality as an attraction between PERSONS of the same sex, gender.

By defintion, animals cannot be homosexual, only humans can.

I somehow wonder if the people at Oxford would agree with your conclusion. Maybe you should write them a letter to explain your so-called logic? You might even get a response back saying that another widely accepted definition would be, "sexual attraction to another of the same sex." Aw, shucks. Stinks when words have more than one precise definition, doesn't it? Concise dictionaries aren't exactly conclusive.

And never mind, of course, that the phrase could all just as easily be replaced with "same-sex attraction in animals." Your point seems meaningless to me.

Humans are not naturally homosexual, it happens that some may be, but it is not natural, it is a deviance.

Wait wait wait... so it happens naturally, but it's not natural? Are you trying to contradict yourself?

Animals are not able to make rational conscious choices, they have instinct. Do you need a website to tell you that too? Or do you have meaningful conversations with your pet about the meaning of life and the origin of the universe? Since animals do not express conscious thought, they do not chose to be gay. Animals simply search ways of reproduction, ways to procure themselves food for energy for reproduction, and that's it. If you see an animal willingly and consciously contributing to the advancement of knowledge, society and other, let me know I'll bring my video camera.

You sure went to a bunch of effort to say that there are no homosexual animals, and now here you are talking about the homosexual animals. Huh. Even so, is this really relevant? When was the last time you saw a dolphin sitting in a folding chair? An ant brushing its teeth? A cobra piloting a plane? Are all of these things unnatural, abnormal, and abhorrent? They, too, are uniquely human activities; by your provided criterion, they appear to be so, but they are obviously not -- clearly, your criterion is flawed.

If same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they won't necessarily raise criminals, which I never said they would anyway, they will simply instruct the child that he should no feel obliged to contribute to the preserving of the human race, but that he can live how he chooses to, regardless of what may happen after his death. If homosexuals don't agree with me that they are living only for their time, then they are a walking contradiction.

And how are homosexuals turning their back on the human race, exactly? How are they contributing to its demise? Why are they such a sinister threat?

Chnaging defitntions of institutions to allw teh comfort of teh few is unacceptable.

Yeah, silly things like human rights only apply to the majority. You're right.

While we're at it, those pesky black people are trying to move into my neighborhood again. They make me uncomfortable and they destroy my life, and just look how much crime they commit; can I ban black marriage? Or maybe just ban black adoption? Wouldn't want such screwed up people raising kids.

If you want to be gay, fine with me. If you want to live with another gay person as a united under law couple, fine with me, I'll even attend the civil union. But if you want to change the traditional defintion of marriage, the traditional defintion of family or some other things so that you may impose you particular intrests on the heterosexual majority, forget it.

What view, exactly, would be imposed on the majority? That they can't tell people whether or not they can be parents? That they can do so without any study, debate, or evidence to support their bigotry?

Like some have said already in the forum, if you believe in evolution, then practice it.

Funny thing about that. Evolution is a process that takes some time. Take social evolution. People used to despise black people in many areas -- groups like the Klu Klux Klan were once admired and respected, where in modern times they are, more often than not, detested and spit at. What changed? People realized that there was no reason to despise racial minorities and frowned upon those that did so. Take the right of women to vote -- once decried as the end of civilization, an inherently stupid action, now viewed in the whole of the Western world as essential to democracy and freedom. What happened? People realized that denying someone the right to vote simply because of their sex was stupid and frowned upon those that did so. Can you see where I'm going? Yes. Give it a few decades, and school children may well be learning about the evils of segregation by sexual orientation. Give it a few decades, and you and people like you may well be the face of oppression for all to see and frown upon.

Homosexuals will just have to learn to adapt to their environment, and certainly not the other way around. Be ngay if you want, but don't teach others to be gay too, just keep it to yourselves and if some want to be gay with you, which again is fine be me (I've been wrongfully accused of being a bigot and a homophobe), then they will make that CHOICE when they are old enough to understand the consequences.

Since when was marriage involved in this discussion? I thought we were talking about adoption. I suppose I should have stopped expecting continuity when a guy using arguments like "By Jove, homosexuals will destroy the human race!" claims there's no basis to call him a homophobe.

Its a fact that abuse in homosexual homes (especially lesbian) is extremely high conmapered to a real family. Frc.org look at the homosexual fcts page.

Try to at least reference slightly less obviously biased websites, would you? Anything with a tagline like "Defending Family, Faith, and Freedom," doesn't sound like the most objective source to me.

well considering its facts are backed up bu us censorship records and goverment recorded data i would say it is pretty good but obviously you ignored it.

Ah, good. So you can link said data, then, instead of the demagogue-filtered website?

I believe civil libertarians are concentrating more on `rights' rather than sustainability and genetics. For instance, unless you're adopted, you have a family tree. You have traits, given to you by your parents. Now, what gay marriage effectively does, is removes half the genetics side of a family and instead concentrates on simply having a child. Sure, the child might have his/her mother's/father's hair color, but since the other mother/father isn't <i>really</i> the child's mother/father, then the child has the traits of some random sperm/egg donor. Most adopted children seek their natural parents (and probably a reason), but put yourself in the shoes of those children from a gay marriage.

I'm afraid I can't make a point out of that. Maybe a point against adoption in general, but I don't see a sufficient conclusion to disagree with.

As for the argument that the adopted child will choose for itself- Give me a break. Children don't learn from a mystical force of nature- they learn a lot from their parents.

Again, heterosexual parents regularly raise homosexual children. What evidence is there to suggest that this won't work the other way around.

If you grew up in a family were girls went with girls, and boys with boys, then it's really not hard for the child to see a pattern here.

People who love each other live together? What an evil pattern to ingrain into our children.

I know I've been concentrating a lot on the children side of it, but that seems to be a pretty important part of the argument. As for the simple, `We just want to be married, but the government won't let us' argument, in Australia at least, they now have the `financial benefits'. Yet they still want to be married. A question I ask is this- <i>why do you have to get married?</i>

Agreed that the children are obviously quite important, if not the main consideration. Not sure about your second point -- wouldn't that apply to heterosexual couples, too? Would they have the grounding to be angry if the government banned them from marrying? I mean, after all, you seem to think marriage shouldn't be important, so I'm just wondering what you think about that.

No. Most criminals have ONLY ONE PARENT. Sad to say, but (boys especially) children who grow up with single mothers are the ones who abuse drugs, go to jail, become prostitutes etc.

That's not necessicarly true. A huge protion of the jailed population actually have Anti-social disorder. The statistics are there, just ask a psychologist. Anti-social disorder doesn't necessicarily have anything to do with having only one parent. Besides, it's not like there have been many (if any) same sex couples raising children that we can actually take research from. Even if there were a few, there certainly weren't enough to make a valid conclusion on the outcome of the children.

Newsflash. Reports are coming in from universities and research groups worldwide proving that over 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families. Save the children and BAN opposite sex families and adoptions!!! :roll:

How does this prove your point. Assuming that you are against homosexuality in general, this only disproves your point against homsexuals adopting, and starting families. If 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families, then that means that the heterosexual families must have screwed up somewhere. Let the homosexual families give it a try.

Same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt. Mothers who give up their children for adoption probably dont want their kids growing up in a perverted same sex home. (the only exception to this could be if the mother gives specific permission to allow this) How would a young girl learn about things like her period? Most guys dont even think about this. How would she (the young girl) feel about shopping for a bra with one of her fathers? It is totally unpractical in many more areas than just those two. Likewise, how would a young boy feel without having a male role model in his life? More than likely, he would start to idolize some star actor or something. That is definatly not healthy. Either way, if same sex couples are allowed to adopt, it will hurt all the children.

Hello? Are we on the same planet here? First of all, girls learn about their periods in the 5th grade now, if not sooner. Boys idolize "star actors or something" all the time; so do girls. Idolizing someone is very healthy. It allows a young person to say, "hey, I want to do that when I grow up." If they do become an actor, or a star, then good for them. If they become something else, and were just daydreaming, that is perfectly healthy too. As for shopping for a bra, that is pretty much covered in health class too. She can always go shopping with her girlfriends anyways. That's what most girls do nowadays; a lot of them are embarrassed to go with their mothers. Also, what about families with only one parent? Girls grow up just fine, and sometimes better with just a father, and likewise for boys with just a mother. Adding one more is just gonna make a slightly bigger, and more loving home. Lastly, who ever said that same-sex homes are perverted (other than you)? That is the broadest generalization that I have ever heard. That could be just as true for heterosexual homes. People that get married have a deeper commitment than that, whether they are gay or straight. Sex is just a part of the package, not the main motivation (you can get that without merriage if you want to).

I am in total agreement with you Patria Grande, these poofs have gone on to long acting likes poofs and then expecting us to put up with it. I mean it is a defect of the brain what happens to them. If you inject them with testosterone the disease (which is spreading) will dissapear.

Excuse me, but there is absolutely no proof of that, and the psychological community has totally abandoned homosexuality as a curable disease (except for a few hold outs, but they'll probably all die soon anyways). You aren't going to get rid of this by simply injecting people with testosterone.

Newsflash. Reports are coming in from universities and research groups worldwide proving that over 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families. Save the children and BAN opposite sex families and adoptions!!! :roll:

How does this prove your point. Assuming that you are against homosexuality in general, this only disproves your point against homsexuals adopting, and starting families. If 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families, then that means that the heterosexual families must have screwed up somewhere. Let the homosexual families give it a try.
Judging by that quote, I'd say New Fuglies was being sarcastic about what some of those who are not in favour of adoptionby homosexuals are saying.

Might I add to Patricia Grande's statement that w/ homo activity we would cease to exist within 100yrs max. Check your history woman, Greek hoplites(yes soldiers) were well documented as having thier squires (boys aged 12-17 yrs of age who assisted in the warrior's many needs :wink: ) as thier sexual partners. I'm not saying this is right or wrong I'm just saying that this was going on long ago and hey guess what... we're still here!

Santin: books definatly do not take the place of a loving caring mother who, understanding her daughters needs and able to empathize with her, tells her about her body. No role male role model, no matter how great, can take the place of a father. Ok, I can see your point on the last thing, many kids of heterosexuals do idolize actors.

But the real point is that by arguing that homosexual parents will damage a child's development you are contradicting the view of the majority of experts.

And how many times have "the experts" been wrong?
"The experts" once said the world was flat! :roll:

That '"The experts" once said the world was flat! :roll:' bit get's pretty tiring. "The experts" had no way to test whether the world was flat or not. We have unbelievable technologies, research strategies, and proven theories about development then we could have ever hoped for in the past. Yes, things change, and experts change, but the fact remains that they know more about the issue than you do, and therefore hold much more weight in an argument, until you can prove them wrong that is (yeah, right).

well considering its facts are backed up bu us censorship records and goverment recorded data i would say it is pretty good but obviously you ignored it.

The government has a pretty good track record of manipulating data to their best interests *caugh*conservative republicans*caugh*, and the fact that they are backed up by "censorship records," meaning that they are censored records, as in they don't disclose everything, I wouldn't take this source as absolute truth. Just another source in the pile of contradictions.

Newsflash. Reports are coming in from universities and research groups worldwide proving that over 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families. Save the children and BAN opposite sex families and adoptions!!! :roll:

How does this prove your point. Assuming that you are against homosexuality in general, this only disproves your point against homsexuals adopting, and starting families. If 98% of homosexuals were raised in traditional heterosexual families, then that means that the heterosexual families must have screwed up somewhere. Let the homosexual families give it a try.
Judging by that quote, I'd say New Fuglies was being sarcastic about what some of those who are not in favour of adoptionby homosexuals are saying.

Well, you may be right. I'm rather thick when it comes to sarcasm.

If you grew up in a family were girls went with girls, and boys with boys, then it's really not hard for the child to see a pattern here.
If we use that line of logic why aren’t all people from heterosexual families heterosexual?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

This has to be a joke...

I must apologize for the statements I made, not becaused I feel they were wrong, because they aren't, but because the United Nations is a body designed to pass laws for international cooperation, peace and so on. Things like wether homosexuals are allowed to adopt, marry, whatever....are relevant to each nation. The UNited Nations should discuss issues pertaining, not to individual Nation's charters, morals and laws, but to things which relate to international accords, disaccords, problems and solutions. I apologize for my rookie mistake on this point, but I still stand by my views and in no way apologize for those. It was pretty cool to have received so many replies, positive and negative, and I have to say I enjoyed it. However, these issues will not be resolved in a UN forum, but they would have to be debated amongst ourselves, by telegram or other. From now on, I will only use the UN forum to discuss international issues (simulated of course). Thanks for the controversy, but lets talk about cooler stuff than gay adoption, like nuclear weapons, economic embargos and sanctions, security councils and international conflicts and agreements!

Thanks, The Protector of Patria Grande

The Un can be used to forward any agenda you wish. Democratically, that is.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Indeed. This UN can discuss and legislate on whatever it chooses (assuming its within the boundary of the rules). I don't think even the game's creators intended that we stick solely to issues which would be normally regarded as international, why else would we have resolution categories such as "moral decency"?

Of Portugal, that "evidence" has already been discounted in another forum thread.

I believe civil libertarians are concentrating more on `rights' rather than sustainability and genetics. For instance, unless you're adopted, you have a family tree. You have traits, given to you by your parents. Now, what gay marriage effectively does, is removes half the genetics side of a family and instead concentrates on simply having a child. Sure, the child might have his/her mother's/father's hair color, but since the other mother/father isn't <i>really</i> the child's mother/father, then the child has the traits of some random sperm/egg donor. Most adopted children seek their natural parents (and probably a reason), but put yourself in the shoes of those children from a gay marriage.

What's your point?

As for the argument that the adopted child will choose for itself- Give me a break. Children don't learn from a mystical force of nature- they learn a lot from their parents. I was listening to the radio (TripleJ), and they had a forum about gay marriage, and one of the callers was a lesbian. She said that there wouldn't be a lack of male influence, because she knows a lot of gay males, who were willing to be `father figures'. If you grew up in a family were girls went with girls, and boys with boys, then it's really not hard for the child to see a pattern here.

As has been pointed out, family is not the only influence on a child's development.

I know I've been concentrating a lot on the children side of it, but that seems to be a pretty important part of the argument. As for the simple, `We just want to be married, but the government won't let us' argument, in Australia at least, they now have the `financial benefits'. Yet they still want to be married. A question I ask is this- <i>why do you have to get married?</i>

Because when society and the government that represents it refuses to recognise their love in the same way that it recognises heterosexual love, it implies (not very subtly) that their love is somehow less worthy of recognition.

Personally I'm fine with same-sex adoption.
Treat it the same as heterosexual adoption, but have safeguards in
place for both of them.
Have the social workers visit the homes of the couples every month
or so often.
Heterosexual couples can - and have been known to - visit
suffering upon their adopted charges, and it is, in potentia, possible
for their gay counterparts to do so, too.
So same for both, in my eyes.

One final note, though: if this passes, regardless of your beliefs on
the subjects, I foresee a lot of nations leaving the UN (especially
in light of that other resolution which passed).

Brandons South said, [quote] "That '"The experts" once said the world was flat! :roll:' bit get's pretty tiring. "The experts" had no way to test whether the world was flat or not. We have unbelievable technologies, research strategies, and proven theories about development then we could have ever hoped for in the past. Yes, things change, and experts change, but the fact remains that they know more about the issue than you do, and therefore hold much more weight in an argument, until you can prove them wrong that is (yeah, right)." [quote]

Okay...Okay so that was alittle extreme! However, "the experts" being wrong despite all the technology of the era holds true throughout history. I hope you dont think that the human race is going to stop advancing, that new technology that will disprove the theroys of today will never be developed! Because, frankly, thats bull. New technologies have and will continue to be developed that will disprove many theroys of today.

Personally I'm fine with same-sex adoption.
Treat it the same as heterosexual adoption, but have safeguards in
place for both of them.
Have the social workers visit the homes of the couples every month
or so often.
Heterosexual couples can - and have been known to - visit
suffering upon their adopted charges, and it is, in potentia, possible
for their gay counterparts to do so, too.
So same for both, in my eyes.

One final note, though: if this passes, regardless of your beliefs on
the subjects, I foresee a lot of nations leaving the UN (especially
in light of that other resolution which passed).

The problem with putting more safeguards in place is that there isn't the funding to suppot them most of the time. Social workers have hundreds of cases that they are supposed to check up on every month - impossible. They aren't paid enough, and there aren't enough of them. It's rediculous really.

Yes but you can't exactly prove what the experts of the future will agree and disagree with.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Brandons South said, [quote] "That '"The experts" once said the world was flat! :roll:' bit get's pretty tiring. "The experts" had no way to test whether the world was flat or not. We have unbelievable technologies, research strategies, and proven theories about development then we could have ever hoped for in the past. Yes, things change, and experts change, but the fact remains that they know more about the issue than you do, and therefore hold much more weight in an argument, until you can prove them wrong that is (yeah, right)." [quote]

Okay...Okay so that was alittle extreme! However, "the experts" being wrong despite all the technology of the era holds true throughout history. I hope you dont think that the human race is going to stop advancing, that new technology that will disprove the theroys of today will never be developed! Because, frankly, thats bull. New technologies have and will continue to be developed that will disprove many theroys of today.

No, I realize that new technologies will be developed, and that theories will be overturned. It's just that the theories that we have now are here because the smartest people in the world, and the best technologies that we have have prove them. What else do we have to go with? You can't go with some theory from the past that's already been disproven, and you aren't gonna be able to disproove any current theories yourself. So, what's left? Only the theories that we have right now. If the psychological community later discovers, through more experiments and case studies, that children are harmed in some way by being in a sams sex marriage home, then by all means the children should be the first people to be protected since they would be the innocent victim. So far though, that is not the case. If you contradict the experts when you have not enough proof to back up your claims, like years and years of research and experience, then you're setting yourself up for emarassment. If you can prove your point, then by all means be my guest.

Frobar, let us use an example. My son is currently dating a nice young woman. He's rather infatuated with her -- it's quite sweet. However, my son's girlfriend, as a result of a disease a few years ago, is sterile. Should they ever decide to have children, they must either do so by adoption or by egg donation. So, should we prohibit my son from marrying this young woman because she cannot bear his children?
I knew adoption would show up. No, because she has a medical condition. She was unfortunate enough to have a physical disorder, and if it wasn't for that, she would have been able to. `Not having different reproductive organs' isn't a medical disorder.

If we use that line of logic why aren?t all people from heterosexual families heterosexual?
98% are (at least going by some unknown statistic mentioned here). It would be fair to say that in a homosexual family, that would be much, much higher. No, they don't learn everything from their parents, but when they grow up with both parents the same sex, that's `how things work'. Children aren't university professors- They don't look to their parents and say, `I know that the majority of parents are heterosexual, I understand why you my dear parents are homosexual, and I'm fully comfortable with my newly established ethics you've taught me about the world!'. Ahem.


Because when society and the government that represents it refuses to recognise their love in the same way that it recognises heterosexual love, it implies (not very subtly) that their love is somehow less worthy of recognition.
`Less worthy of recognition'. Recognition seems to be a common argument here. Why is `recognition from society/govt.' so important? I personally havn't seen married couples go from defacto to married because they simply wanted to yell from the rooftops that they were married. Gays who want `recognition' seem to be simply wanting to show off to heteros (look at all the new privileges I've got!). Most of society, inc. the government, are probably happy for them, but couldn't really care less. They seem to get plenty of `recognition' whining about it.


Cheers

Disgusting. Can you imagine the physiological effect if a child walks in while daddy_1 is giving daddy_2 oral sex?.

Homosexuals should be banned from adopting a child. In fact, homosexual marriages should be banned all together.

It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child. Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating eefects on the childs Psyche. As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent. To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of thehuman species but, as mentioned above, has crushing effects on the raised child and consequently, similar effect on society.

Guess what. Guess what, I am tired of your christian nazi bullshit. I am tired of it, and your propaganda just pisses people off. What are some type of fucking pseudo scientist like the Nazi 'doctors' who measeared your nose to find out if you were a jew?? Your just as bad as them, just pulling bullshit outa the air like some magician just so you can try to explain why you believe the way you do. Your argument hold no ground. You are just a bigot, and a prejudice pig. GOD people like you piss me off :evil:

AND on anothe rnote Hitler was also a homophobe, you trying to follow in his footsteps?

Same-sex couples SHOULD have the right to adopt. They should have the right to be as close to a normal family as possible. There has been no proof that a child will turn out homosexual if raised by homosexual parents. It's all in the genes and DNA and all that stuff. You have my opinion. Do with it what you will, even if you say that I am wrong and you are right and that homosexuals will soon conquer the world or whatever it is you close-minded people say.

Disgusting. Can you imagine the physiological effect if a child walks in while daddy_1 is giving daddy_2 oral sex?.

Homosexuals should be banned from adopting a child. In fact, homosexual marriages should be banned all together.

Could you imagine the psychological effects if a child waks in while daddy_1 was giving mommy_1 (or visa versa) oral sex? I really don't see how the two scenarios would be different. Both would be tramatizing.

Could you imagine the psychological effects if a child waks in while daddy_1 was giving mommy_1 (or visa versa) oral sex? I really don't see how the two scenarios would be different. Both would be tramatizing.

Well, if they had the technology then, as they do now. Given my parents, I coulda taped it and made some good money on the internet....


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Here is the long and short of things.

1. The exclusion of same-sex couple adoptions is based on a moral belief that same-sex couples are wrong. There has been NO psychological testing or study that shows children of homosexual parents are in any way perverted or deviated from society due to the nature of their parent's relationship.

2. The moral decision against same-sex couples extends largely from our religious beliefs. To limit same-sex couples from adopting children is an infringement on their basic rights.

3. Homosexuality has been shown to exist in the animal kingdom. Humans are, above all else, still animals. We just have higher brain functions. If we are a forward thinking global society, then we must accept that same-sex couples are a natural thing.

4. There are far too many children who do not have a family at all. If you were to ask them which they would prefer, I can tell you most would answer a family even if it means a same-sex couple. The psychological ramifications of a child growing up in an environment where they do not feel loved is far more dangerous than some archaic belief that same-sex relationships are wrong.

Aside from all this, I do feel that same-sex couples should show that they are loving, committed and monogamous relationships. Then again, I feel this way about any adoption. There are sometimes serious psychological harm for children to be subject to divorce or serial relationships of a parent. Children require stability to know that they are loved and will be cared for at all times.

This is not to say that children of divorced or separated same-sex couples should have the adoption overturned. This is equally damaging (if not more so) than the subjectification of the separation.

There are many loving, dedicated, and available parents for a number of children without homes if we allow same-sex couple adoptions. There is a lot of good that can come from allowing this, that far passes the imagined negatives.

I must apologize for the statements I made, not becaused I feel they were wrong, because they aren't, but because the United Nations is a body designed to pass laws for international cooperation, peace and so on. Things like wether homosexuals are allowed to adopt, marry, whatever....are relevant to each nation. The UNited Nations should discuss issues pertaining, not to individual Nation's charters, morals and laws, but to things which relate to international accords, disaccords, problems and solutions.

How about:

A married homosexual couple from my nation visits yours with their adopted child (which is legal in my nation).
The child has an accident, and ends up in the hospital. Would your nation deny the couple visiting rights since, from your nations point of view, they are not the legal parents?

There's an international issue for you.

98% are (at least going by some unknown statistic mentioned here). It would be fair to say that in a homosexual family, that would be much, much higher. No, they don't learn everything from their parents, but when they grow up with both parents the same sex, that's `how things work'. Children aren't university professors- They don't look to their parents and say, `I know that the majority of parents are heterosexual, I understand why you my dear parents are homosexual, and I'm fully comfortable with my newly established ethics you've taught me about the world!'. Ahem.

You must have some pretty retarded kids then. :?
Any kid with half a brain and with more than a dead horse living nearby will realise, even without its parents telling it so, that male-female is how 'it' works.
And any kid who hasn't been raised by a bunch of loonies will realise that, while male-male or female-female won't make babies, they aren't an abomination of nature spawned by Satan's left kidney either.

Why is `recognition from society/govt.' so important?

:roll:

`Less worthy of recognition'. Recognition seems to be a common argument here. Why is `recognition from society/govt.' so important? I personally havn't seen married couples go from defacto to married because they simply wanted to yell from the rooftops that they were married. Gays who want `recognition' seem to be simply wanting to show off to heteros (look at all the new privileges I've got!). Most of society, inc. the government, are probably happy for them, but couldn't really care less. They seem to get plenty of `recognition' whining about it.

When society recognises one type of love but refuses to recognise another, that is an insult to those who feel the second. If you think that marriage is not an important right for homosexuals to have when heterosexuals do have it, how would you feel if the right to marry was withdrawn from heterosexuals but given to homosexuals?

Adams Empire, why would the parents being of the same sex make such a situation any worse than if they were opposite sexes?

this proposal goes agains the resolution "Gay rights"

WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

We consider that this propsoal, if passed, would be discrimination against homosexuals, and thus has to be removed. It would also be working to repeal above resolution. I will be making a request to the moderators anon to remove this proposal for these reasons.

Irrelevant squabbling over the various ethics are pointless - Gay adoption is already permitted, and it is impossible to repeal.

It would be nice if nations spent some time researching their proposals before posting them and being made to look stupid :roll:

I disagree 100%. Same sex couples SHOULD be allowed to adopt. It is not your authority to say whether they can or can not. Your argument that someone needs a mother and father to protect their "psyche" :roll: is very stupid. I was raised by a single parent, my mother, and I am a very intelligent person. Religious reasons should NEVER be brought into an argument, first of all, Jesus said nothing about gays, Christians are supposed to believe in the New Testament as the "new" bible. Believing in some of the crazy rules of the old is nonsense. You don't even know your own religion! The Old Testament favors stoning of the most trivial of biblical offenses, which is very very contrary to what Jesus taught. Jesus was supposed to be one who taught love and was "the prince of peace". Alot of us don't even believe in God. You should take that into account. By the way, I don't even believe in God, I'm an atheist. And I'm gay.

I say this should be left up to each individual state not to the UN! Let each nation decide on how to handle this issue. We don't want a big arguement over a highly sensitive issue such as this.

My opinion, leave it to each NS country to decide on how to handle the adoption Issue.

It is ethically and morally wrong for same-sex couples to be able to adopt and raise a child.

Against WHOSE moral code? Yours? Who the Hell are YOU to impose YOUR beliefs on ME?

Beyond religious arguments are psychological and bilogical ones. A child needs both a mother and a father and the absence of either or their substitution by a member of opposite sex can have devastating eefects on the childs Psyche.

According to WHOM? Where are there statistics that point to this? Where is there documented and confirmed research that points to this as a fact. Until you can provide me with an impartial, objective study that illustrates this, it is just your opinion unsubstantiated by anything.

As animals sharing this planet among others, it is important to keep things the way they have always been. Each species has a female and male parent. To break that sort of continuum not only goes aagainst the biological disposition of thehuman species but, as mentioned above, has crushing effects on the raised child and consequently, similar effect on society.

There is homosexuality among animals. It's pretty common, in fact. All you are doing is repeating a point that has no basis in fact. And anecdotal evidence does not count as fact.

I think adoption should be open to individuals or couples who are able to demonstrate they can provide a loving home and then follow through on that.

If we were real life countries, I'd tell you that you were threatening my sovreignty by trying to impose your system of beliefs on my country and my government. There's a name for that. It's an act of war.

Exhibit B why my country is not in the United Nations.

Well. I´m sorry to say that to all: but there is no objective way in resolving this issue.
We all have moral and ethical believes. We do have them here in Nation states, we do have them in the Real World.
Were do those believes come from????
The answer is: they have developed during our history.
The basis for the western moral and ethical system lays in the jewish-christian tradition. Even after the secularisation the moral and ethics are the basis of the society. Also the overwhelming majority of non-religous people can agree to the moral and ethics of it. I´m not a very religous person. Although I recognize and realize the importance of the moral and ethical code the jewish-christian tradtition gave us.
Monogamy is for example a product of that. The picture of Adam and Eve is the role model for a family and not that of Adam and Adam and Eve and Eve. If nature wanted gays to have children it would have made it possible for them to get children the natural way. This is simply not the case. Our society, our tradtition and our values clearly say to give children in the best environment possible: and that is a caring family with a father and a mother.
To have a male and a female role modell is of the utmost importance for the development of a child.
It simply isn´t the same thing to have two fathers and no mother or no father and two mothers than having - as natural - a mother and a father.

We can not agree to a policy that is ignoring those facts. We do not care what people do in the privacy of their homes, but we care about the children and we want to give them in an environment were they can develop the best way possible: and that´s a caring family with a father and a mother.

Could someone answer these two questions please.

1. Many Nations here will have separations of church and state. So Why should they obey your codes?

2. Why should this be a UN issue rather than a domestic one?

Could someone answer these two questions please.

1. Many Nations here will have separations of church and state. So Why should they obey your codes?

2. Why should this be a UN issue rather than a domestic one?

I have to agree with Conceptualists! This should be done at the state level not the UN level. Leave this up to each nation, that way, we can preserve the integrity of the UN!

:D

This is the first time anyone has agreed with me in the UN

Admittedly this is the third thread I have ever been in, the 2nd being back in January

It was the pro-gay faction who made this an international issue by pushing a gay-marriage proposal, which passed with a slight majority and tried to push through a proposal demandig gays having the SAME RIGHT to adopt a child than a hetero sexual couple, failing to realize that this is impossible: we can not treat as equal what is different. A mother and a father is different than having two mothers and no father or two fathers and no mother.
It was the pro-gay faction which tries to force they views on us.
We, the repbulic of Kybernetia could live with a solution living those issues with any sovereign state.
But if such resolutions come up or are even passed we reserve ourself the right to take counter-measures and support counter-resolutions.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Here here!

No, you are right. You cannot treat everyone equally, as everyone is differant. But you can give them equal rights. To use your example. We cannot treat anyone equally because we are all differant. But again this is no excuse for the state to favour certain individuals. Unless of course it is a feudal state.

Although I agree these are state, rather than international issues

I must apologize for the statements I made, not becaused I feel they were wrong, because they aren't, but because the United Nations is a body designed to pass laws for international cooperation, peace and so on. Things like wether homosexuals are allowed to adopt, marry, whatever....are relevant to each nation. The UNited Nations should discuss issues pertaining, not to individual Nation's charters, morals and laws, but to things which relate to international accords, disaccords, problems and solutions.

How about:

A married homosexual couple from my nation visits yours with their adopted child (which is legal in my nation).
The child has an accident, and ends up in the hospital. Would your nation deny the couple visiting rights since, from your nations point of view, they are not the legal parents?

There's an international issue for you.