NationStates Jolt Archive

This issue lands in the public forum in Portugal from time to time...the Portuguese constitution included quite recently sexual orientation in article 13 that bans discrimination of portuguese citizens on grounds of race, religion, etcetra. Some gay men who wish to adopt have contended that when they apply with social security for adoption and declare their sexual orientation, they´re turned back. Many gay and lesbian associations purport that this practice violates directly the said article 13 of the Constitution. However, others claim that adoption is not a right of the adult seeking to adopt (be they gay or not) but should instead serve the best interests of the child. These opinions hold that portuguese society, particulary in the countryside, still has a quite negative view of homossexuality, and that this would reflect strongly on the treatement dispensed to the adopted children of gays and lesbians. Namely, it could lead to mistreatement from fellow pupils ("we all know how cruel childrens can be"). Although not opposing the idea from a moral or religious basis, they state that changes of social attitudes in such prickly affairs should not be brought about by state decree, but from a genuine maturing and debate in the community.
So, what dýou say?

Everybody should have the same rights, and the same obligations. As heterosexual couples are allowed to adopt children, then homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children.

I see no reason why a child should have to stay in an orphanage or foster home when there is a perfectly suitable adult who wishes to care for them available.

Are we next going to say that non-Catholics may not adopt? People who are missing a finger?

If there is nothing to suggest that the potential adoptive parent is violent or a pedophile, I can see no reason in keeping a child in an institution over placing him in a loving home.

same here. i don't know whether any of you have ever met achild brought up in an orphanage but let me tell you, those are not looked upon favourably either, and they get picked on probably worse than kids raised by gays.

I've met kids raised by gays and lesbians, and they do just fine.
I see no problem with gays and lesbians adopting children.

This issue lands in the public forum in Portugal from time to time...the Portuguese constitution included quite recently sexual orientation in article 13 that bans discrimination of portuguese citizens on grounds of race, religion, etcetra. Some gay men who wish to adopt have contended that when they apply with social security for adoption and declare their sexual orientation, they´re turned back. Many gay and lesbian associations purport that this practice violates directly the said article 13 of the Constitution. However, others claim that adoption is not a right of the adult seeking to adopt (be they gay or not) but should instead serve the best interests of the child. These opinions hold that portuguese society, particulary in the countryside, still has a quite negative view of homossexuality, and that this would reflect strongly on the treatement dispensed to the adopted children of gays and lesbians. Namely, it could lead to mistreatement from fellow pupils ("we all know how cruel childrens can be"). Although not opposing the idea from a moral or religious basis, they state that changes of social attitudes in such prickly affairs should not be brought about by state decree, but from a genuine maturing and debate in the community.
So, what dýou say?


Personally, I think that's the wrong question. The question should not be "Why should person X be allowed to do a particular act"... but "Why shouldn't person X be allowed to do a particular act".... That is, reason itself should not be restrictive, reason should be used only to restrict that which is logically necessary...

In general, however, the question assumes "right of adoption" (that is the assumption that everyone has a right to adopt a child, and that such concerns exist apart from the exercize of the act)... So, first, it must be found that one group or person has a "definitive right" to adopt... Unless such can be proven, I doubt the argument of it as a "discrimintory restriction" is valid. Does anyone in particular have a viable "right" to take posession of a child apart from the consideration of the child's wellbeing? It can be clearly seen that we have "a right to" expressing our opinions; it can be clearly seen that we have "a right to" our own bodies (and thus have "a right to" form relations with others in equal recognition of their rights....); but, is it logical to assume that we have "a right to" a child that is not our own? Or is our allowance towards another's child an exercize which is privilidged through constraints based upon social concerns for the child's ultimate wellbeing?

I side with the latter... No one has "a right to" adopting a child... Such "adoption" is a privilidge; and therefore I cannot argue on their behalf if exercized from the opinion that such is, in the first place, a fundamental "right". Really, the question should fall upon the issue of whether or not it is logical to restrict adoption based upon sexual orientation of the person(s) who seek such; as opposed to assuming a "right" which does not logically exist.

Yeah but only the gay kids.

Yes they should.

Personally I think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. When it says "equal rights" it implies priviledges as well. However if adoption by a homosexual couple does not suit the best intrests of the child, for example a homophobic child, then in that case I would say that they shouldn't.

Its one of those things that should be handled on a case by case basis... Just like traditional heterosexual adoptions.

I wish people would just accept people for who they are. I know plenty of gay/lesbian couples who have either raised a chiled better than many heterosexual coupouls out there or would be much better parents than a heterosexual couple. Personaly if I was an orphan and I was told that a homosexual couple wanted to adopt me I would be estatic just to get out. My opinion is let the kids choose, they usualy know who would be kind to them or not.

Adoption of a child is not a right! It is a privilege that entails a heavy responsibility. If a married couple, hetero- or homo-sexual, is willing to commit itself to this life-time responsibility, then it should be granted the privilege of adopting a child. Certainly it is far better to place a child in a loving home than to let it stay in an institution.

Definitely.

I don't know whether it is required under the Portuguese Constitution or not, but I'm totally in favor.

You guys are all idiots....there is no way in hell any sane (not liberal) child would want to have fag parents. Do you guys even understand what your willing to put the child through, just in the name of "equal" rights. This is insane.....You guys should all move to Spain, Canada, or the Netherlands.

I've met kids raised by gays and lesbians, and they do just fine.

If this is true of all cases, than I can't have any resonable problems with homosexual adoption.

If this is true of all cases, than I can't have any resonable problems with homosexual adoption.

Do you think it is true of all cases of heterosexual adoption?

Take a moment to consider this fact, which is not fact of my own opinion. There is a natural order belonging to life and the way it behaves. Take procreation of human beings for instance. In this behavior, only a male and a female can create an offspring wherein the offspring requires both sexes of its creation to be nutured in a proper balance during its growth. This is a natural order. Now, does it seem natural to disrupt this biological rule? What intelligence is there in taking a behavior of natural balance and forcefully subjecting it to our own desires?

Take a moment to consider this fact, which is not fact of my own opinion. There is a natural order belonging to life and the way it behaves. Take procreation of human beings for instance. In this behavior, only a male and a female can create an offspring wherein the offspring requires both sexes of its creation to be nutured in a proper balance during its growth. This is a natural order. Now, does it seem natural to disrupt this biological rule? What intelligence is there in taking a behavior of natural balance and forcefully subjecting it to our own desires?
Well, i see where you´re coming from, but that "natural order" argument is tricky...for instance, slave-owners in the US confederacy considered that slavery of blacks was a consequence of the "natural order" that God intended...

Take a moment to consider this fact, which is not fact of my own opinion. There is a natural order belonging to life and the way it behaves. Take procreation of human beings for instance. In this behavior, only a male and a female can create an offspring wherein the offspring requires both sexes of its creation to be nutured in a proper balance during its growth. This is a natural order. Now, does it seem natural to disrupt this biological rule? What intelligence is there in taking a behavior of natural balance and forcefully subjecting it to our own desires?

Better stop using your computer then.

Hardly "natural," is it?

For what it is worth, since homosexuality is innate and found in other animals, it is most definitely "natural."

Take a moment to consider this fact, which is not fact of my own opinion. There is a natural order belonging to life and the way it behaves. Take procreation of human beings for instance. In this behavior, only a male and a female can create an offspring wherein the offspring requires both sexes of its creation to be nutured in a proper balance during its growth. This is a natural order. Now, does it seem natural to disrupt this biological rule? What intelligence is there in taking a behavior of natural balance and forcefully subjecting it to our own desires?

Non-relevant... We're dealing with placement of children (in the end) into nuturing enviroments, whereby presently they are not in possession of such to any extent (have no parents or direct familial nurture of any sort)... Thus, providing them with such (whether male/female household, or male/male, female/female, singular male, singular female; to the best benefit of the child.)

The concern with placement of children lacking parents and a familial house, should be upon, and only, whether or not those seeking adoption can provide the child with the resources and love necessary in their upbringing, to the best of the applicable parties. While a mom and dad may be the "best" - a single mom, a single dad, two dads, or two moms, is better than no mom and no dad at all.

You guys are all idiots....there is no way in hell any sane (not liberal) child would want to have fag parents. Do you guys even understand what your willing to put the child through, just in the name of "equal" rights. This is insane.....You guys should all move to Spain, Canada, or the Netherlands.Maybe you ought to move to Iran--seems like you'd fit in better there, based on this asinine post.

Adoption of a child is not a right! It is a privilege that entails a heavy responsibility. If a married couple, hetero- or homo-sexual, is willing to commit itself to this life-time responsibility, then it should be granted the privilege of adopting a child. Certainly it is far better to place a child in a loving home than to let it stay in an institution.
Yes, you can't have a 'right' to adopt a child, but you can have a right to be granted the privilege of adoption.

Maybe you ought to move to Iran--seems like you'd fit in better there, based on this asinine post.

Yeah that would be a good idea...except for the fact that the majority AGREES with me...so sorry...looks like I wont be the one moving.

Yeah that would be a good idea...except for the fact that the majority AGREES with me...so sorry...looks like I wont be the one moving.

The majority of who, exactly? Certainly doesn't seem to be the majority of people on this thread...

Yeah that would be a good idea...except for the fact that the majority AGREES with me...so sorry...looks like I wont be the one moving.

Your "majority" is slipping.... We're not going anywhere... and our numbers are growing... Really, it's a matter of WHEN it happens, and not IF.

Well, i see where you´re coming from, but that "natural order" argument is tricky...for instance, slave-owners in the US confederacy considered that slavery of blacks was a consequence of the "natural order" that God intended...

Being that you answered with a religious twist, I will answer with one. I never understood why they thought "God" wanted the African peoples to be slaves when HE went through all the trouble of parting the Red Sea and freeing hebrew slaves from Pharoh? Were the Confederates not reading the same Bible? I guess not.

The majority of who, exactly? Certainly doesn't seem to be the majority of people on this thread...

Majority of the population of the U.S. and in MOST countries.

Being that you answered with a religious twist, I will answer with one. I never understood why they thought "God" wanted the African peoples to be slaves when HE went through all the trouble of parting the Red Sea and freeing hebrew slaves from Pharoh? Were the Confederates not reading the same Bible? I guess not.

Hebrews were not black...they were middle eastern....the slaves were black. theres a difference not that it really matters to your point..just clearing that up

Your "majority" is slipping.... We're not going anywhere... and our numbers are growing... Really, it's a matter of WHEN it happens, and not IF.

Thats a matter of opinion...we have always had more liberal decades, and more conservative decades....however as long as we have strong people like Bush or Arnie in power...I can rest peacfully with the thought that my country is safe from queer marriage and queer adoption.

Maybe you ought to move to Iran--seems like you'd fit in better there, based on this asinine post.

He was a little blunt, but he has a point. If I were a child living in an institution, I think I'd rather stay there than be adopted by two "parents" of the same sex. I think a lot of kids would feel this way. The child him/herself should have some say in the matter.

Majority of the population of the U.S. and in MOST countries.

Ah the U.S., touché.

He was a little blunt, but he has a point. If I were a child living in an institution, I think I'd rather stay there than be adopted by two "parents" of the same sex. I think a lot of kids would feel this way. The child him/herself should have some say in the matter.

Exactly...90% of the kids (who are straight) i have ever met (and i have lived in pretty liberal areas, i dont have to even speak for the kids from conservative areas lol) are weirded out by gays and would never want to have gay parents.

Ah the U.S., touché.

lol

Better stop using your computer then.

Hardly "natural," is it?

For what it is worth, since homosexuality is innate and found in other animals, it is most definitely "natural."

There is a difference between Humans and animals...humans have choice and conscience. Animals may only do as their "innate" instincts force them to.

Hebrews were not black...they were middle eastern....the slaves were black. theres a difference not that it really matters to your point..just clearing that up

No, Hebrews were not black indeed, but they were slaves, which was the example of slavery that supported my point. Not the color of their flesh or race.

He was a little blunt, but he has a point. If I were a child living in an institution, I think I'd rather stay there than be adopted by two "parents" of the same sex. I think a lot of kids would feel this way. The child him/herself should have some say in the matter.


Well in that case, then the privilage should not be taken away. With straight couples, a child can choose to not be adopted during all the court proceses and such. It doesn't happen often because the children want a family, but it has occured.
If a child is at an orphanage, and a homosexual wants to adopt the child, if the child has any objections, the same instance would occur.
But then we get into a situation of "what of those who aren't thinking yet?" For example, 3-year-olds. Then the same rule should apply: if the adopter is a good person with the ability to fully take care of a child, why care?

To not let somone be adopted because they'll be put into a situation that is not "biologically perfect" then you leave the door open for all sorts of arguments. Humans are biologically programmed to have partners in raising children. It is scientifically "biologically imperfect" for a single mother to raise a child. Are you not going to let a single straight person adopt? I think not.

We have too many children needing homes to restrict it to what the conservative view of what "right" is. We need to let the children go to any stable, caring home.

Being that you answered with a religious twist, I will answer with one. I never understood why they thought "God" wanted the African peoples to be slaves when HE went through all the trouble of parting the Red Sea and freeing hebrew slaves from Pharoh? Were the Confederates not reading the same Bible? I guess not.

But after obtaining their freedom from Egypt, the Hebrews themselves went on to own slaves. The Bible does not condemn slavery. The Old Testament gives guidelines for the treatment of slaves, while the New Testament says that slaves should obey their masters, but if they are given (by their masters) the chance to obtain their freedom, they should take it. (Colossians 3 & 4 if you want to look it up.) This doesn't necessarily mean that God is in favor of slavery, but is merely recognizing that it exists and giving guidelines for its practice. This also doesn't mean that I personally approve of slavery. I'm just pointing out the fallacies of your statement.

There is a difference between Humans and animals...humans have choice and conscience. Animals may only do as their "innate" instincts force them to.


Oh, that is not exactly true. Animals, specifically primates and gorillas, are capable of thought. For example the Gorilla Coco that learned sign language. She is fully capable of speaking. She even taught her children. The research journals had an interesting situation one day in which Coco saw a duck. She had never seen one before. She turned to her humans and signed "look, a water-bird."
If that's not proof of at least slight intelligent thought, then I don't know what else it could be.

Oh, that is not exactly true. Animals, specifically primates and gorillas, are capable of thought. For example the Gorilla Coco that learned sign language. She is fully capable of speaking. She even taught her children. The research journals had an interesting situation one day in which Coco saw a duck. She had never seen one before. She turned to her humans and signed "look, a water-bird."
If that's not proof of at least slight intelligent thought, then I don't know what else it could be.


I would agree that Gorilla's are truely wonderful creatures. I would also agree that the canine's I work with that are trained to be the hands and feet of parapalegic individuals are wonderful too. Intelligence of animals was not the debate.

Majority of the population of the U.S. and in MOST countries.

This "majority" also once believed that slavery was right, women were second class citizens and the best way to cure a fever was to have leeches applied to you by a "trained professional".

Of course I'm in favor of Gays adopting.

I may be the resident Right-Wing Fundamentalist NRA nut, but I have no problem with Gay's adopting. It's not like it makes a different. They DID do a study that said that being raised by a homsexual makes no difference...

Anyways, even if you don't like Gay People, it's a HELLUVA lot better then staying in an orphanage or the streets.

Silly Europeans. >_<

But then we get into a situation of "what of those who aren't thinking yet?" For example, 3-year-olds. Then the same rule should apply: if the adopter is a good person with the ability to fully take care of a child, why care?

.

Because the child him/herself may very well care when he/she gets a little bit older.

Because the child him/herself may very well care when he/she gets a little bit older.

But the same could occur with a straight person. The child may dislike their adopter. Even with natural parents, many times children dislike their parents for something about them (like me, I don't like that my mom is an alcoholic). You don't take away the children for that.
The point is to get the children into a home.

This "majority" also once believed that slavery was right, women were second class citizens ".

That's because that was what was "politically correct" at the time. What's politically correct is, of course, subject to change. Sometimes that change brings us closer to universal truth, and sometimes it leads the other way. Unfortunately, few people even believe in a universal truth anymore, and those who do often have a hard time figuring out exactly what it is, including yours truly. ;)

I think the government should let gays marry, and have all the same rights as a strigth couple. however, as a cathloc, i say that SPIRITUALLY they should not. the church does not have to accept the gay couple as married, but th government should

But the same could occur with a straight person. The child may dislike their adopter. Even with natural parents, many times children dislike their parents for something about them (like me, I don't like that my mom is an alcoholic). You don't take away the children for that.
The point is to get the children into a home.

And perhaps scarring them for life in the process. Although, as you pointed out, this can also take place when a child is raised by his/her biological parents.

I won't be going into such an argument, monkeys/primates preferences are not really my concern, and if anyone needs to use this argument go ahead, but it is not convincing me. Humans are more complicated than animals.

This issue is difficult to decide, and it looks like most people posting here are in favor of gay people being able to adopt. Personally, I don't see it happening any time soo. Even if I do support legalising gay unions [i.e. givivng gay partners the same legal rights as the heteresexual couples have to insurance, inheritance, etc.] I won't be supporting this particular issue any time soon. I would be afraid for the children.
I would say that if one of the gay partners is related by blood to the child adopting should be available, but other than that it is still too much of a chance for abuse to let it pass. Yes, abuse. Please, don't get too offended. The system [as I have seen it] is not perfect, and truly look around you. Do you think that suddenly allowing gay people rights to adoption is going to change the majority's view on same-sex couples? I don't think so. The problems of acceptance would at least double for the child of such couple, no matter what you might think. You cannot force people to think one way, at least not in democracy.

I think the government should let gays marry, and have all the same rights as a strigth couple. however, as a cathloc, i say that SPIRITUALLY they should not. the church does not have to accept the gay couple as married, but th government should

The government (not just of this country, but of any country) has always had the right to define marriage. This may or may have line up with what various religions teach on the matter. The state may recognise a marriage, while some churches do not, and vice-versa.

Because the child him/herself may very well care when he/she gets a little bit older.

But that could be true for any adoptive child. They could always wish they had been adopted by different parents. The fact is that most children working their way through the US system, however, tend to be more grateful that they actually have someone who wants to adopt them period and are less picky about the whys and wherefores.

The system is not nice. Children are separated from siblings, shuttled in and out of foster homes or, more often, government institutions that provide only a minimum of care and labeled "unadoptable" at age four because the majority of people adopting want a perfect white baby that hasn't had a chance to be ruined by living in the system. Ultimately, and despite the best intentions of many of the people who work in the system, the system itself doesn't and can't care about the individual. For example, over the past 10 years, 100,000 children have gone missing from Florida adoptive care and yet that is still considered preferable than allowing children to be adopted by capable, loving homosexual couples.

Of course the child, if they are old enough, should have some say in the matter and in many cases they do. However, it's a strawman argument to say that a very young child might later wish they had not been adopted by homosexual parents.

You cannot force people to think one way, at least not in democracy.

Nor in non-democracies, for that matter. Ah, that pesky free will! Causes all sorts of problems, doesn't it? ;)

yep, it a double edge sword, it is. :)

Of course the child, if they are old enough, should have some say in the matter and in many cases they do. However, it's a strawman argument to say that a very young child might later wish they had not been adopted by homosexual parents.

Perhaps, but strawman or no, I think it would put a strain on most kids' lives sooner or later. It's just something kids shouldn't have to deal with. Childhood these days is hard enough as it is, without bringing the philosophical arguments of adulthood into it. What you're doing, in essence, is turning kids' lives into a social experiment, thus making them the equivalent of lab rats.

Perhaps, but strawman or no, I think it would put a strain on most kids' lives sooner or later. It's just something kids shouldn't have to deal with. Childhood these days is hard enough as it is, without bringing the philosophical arguments of adulthood into it.

And there is no reputable study suggesting that children coming from a same sex household are any more likely to be maladjusted than children coming from a mixed sex household. I think you're right and it's very hard to be a child these days. It occurs to me that it must be exponentially harder to be a child while being slowly ground up in a system that is fundamentally incapable of providing for you while you hope for adoption. If you're an adolescent or have some sort of disability or illness, you chances for that adoption go down even further. It seems to me that, as there is no research supporting any idea that children from same sex households face any sort of negative psychological repercussion from simply being in a same sex household, that it would be better for them to be in the care of loving parents, regardless of the gender, than in the system.

Anything else strikes me as personal bias interferring with what is best for the child.

There is a difference between Humans and animals...humans have choice and conscience. Animals may only do as their "innate" instincts force them to.

But if conscience violates natural instinct, conscience is unnatural.

If morality is based on nature (which I do not think it is), then it is immoral to suppress one's natural homosexual instincts.

But I still maintain that this argument is irrelevant. Morality is not based on nature, and if you truly thought it was you would not be using a computer, let alone the internet.

Extremely high infant mortality rates are also "natural." Are you in favor of dismantling the health care system so that our death rate can be more "natural"? Or demolishing our buildings so that we can live more "naturally"? Or dismantling the "traditional family" in favor of a more "natural" system?

Independent of nature, I hold that it is completely unjustified and immoral to restrict the consensual expression of love between adults, and to restrict the right of a child to grow up in a loving household because his or her parents may be gay.

I won't be going into such an argument, monkeys/primates preferences are not really my concern, and if anyone needs to use this argument go ahead, but it is not convincing me. Humans are more complicated than animals.

This issue is difficult to decide, and it looks like most people posting here are in favor of gay people being able to adopt. Personally, I don't see it happening any time soo. Even if I do support legalising gay unions [i.e. givivng gay partners the same legal rights as the heteresexual couples have to insurance, inheritance, etc.] I won't be supporting this particular issue any time soon. I would be afraid for the children.
I would say that if one of the gay partners is related by blood to the child adopting should be available, but other than that it is still too much of a chance for abuse to let it pass. Yes, abuse. Please, don't get too offended.

Could you please offer some sort of reputable study to show that gay parents are somehow more inclined to abuse their children? Otherwise this is a horribly misguided thing to say. Unless you are referring to abuse occuring because society, in your opinion, will preferrentially attack children from same-sex households.


The system [as I have seen it] is not perfect, and truly look around you. Do you think that suddenly allowing gay people rights to adoption is going to change the majority's view on same-sex couples? I don't think so. The problems of acceptance would at least double for the child of such couple, no matter what you might think. You cannot force people to think one way, at least not in democracy.

Again, though, there is not one reputable study in existance that supports the idea that children coming from same sex households are in any way more prone to psychological issues than children coming from mixed-sex households.

Furthermore, as you sort of said, an adoptive child has issues of acceptance to deal with anyway. However, there is no reason to believe that a same-sex household makes those issues any more pronounced or harder to deal with and overcome. Should a caucasian couple be allowed to adopt a baby of a different ethnicity? Should mixed-race couples be allowed to adopt at all? How about children who are dealing with a disability or an illness?

The fact remains that the majority of heterosexual couples seeking children for adoption want perfect, healthy, white babies. That's why it can take up to five years for them to successfully adopt. Not because there aren't children out there, slowly being destroyed by a system that's doing it's best but is tasked with a job it simply can't perform, but because they only want a certain type of child. Non-traditional adoptive parents, such as singles or same-sex couples, tend to be more open to the idea of adopting adolescents and children with disabilities/illnesses who otherwise might only leave the system through emancipation.

Perhaps, but strawman or no, I think it would put a strain on most kids' lives sooner or later. It's just something kids shouldn't have to deal with. Childhood these days is hard enough as it is, without bringing the philosophical arguments of adulthood into it. What you're doing, in essence, is turning kids' lives into a social experiment, thus making them the equivalent of lab rats.

Childhood these days is hard? Hah! Childhood these days is bloody easy compared to what it has been in the past. Kids will always whine about how crappy it is being a kid, but seriously, being a kid in this day and age is great. Arguably too good, since today's spoiled children are growing up to be tomorrow's arrogant, selfish adults. But that's a different issue.

But yes, having gay parents would likely put a strain on child's life as they grow older, because of the social stigma it would entail. But not so long ago there was a lot of social stigma for kids whose parents were not married, there is still some today, though not as much. The same is true for children of single parents. Or children of parents with disabilities. I remember when I was at primary school, this one girl used to get teased incessantly because her father lost his legs in a car accident and was in a wheelchair.

There are innumerable things that will put a strain on a child's life as they're growing up and if it isn't one thing, it will be another. I don't see how that is a reason for denying a child a home, be it a home with homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.

As for making children's lives into a social experiement... there are already many people out there who grew up in a home with homosexual parents, and many children who are growing up in such homes. The 'experiment' part is already done.

Anything else strikes me as personal bias interferring with what is best for the child.

Ahem! Isn't that what the whole gay adoption issue is about, basically? Putting personal bias ahead of what is best for the child?

No. Children should ideally have both a mother and a father.

Ahem! Isn't that what the whole gay adoption issue is about, basically? Putting personal bias ahead of what is best for the child?

And studies have repeatedly shown that what is best for a child is having a personal parental structure, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religious stance or number of parents, rather than being brought up in the system or in an endless succession of foster households. That is what is best for the child.

Childhood these days is hard? Hah! Childhood these days is bloody easy compared to what it has been in the past. Kids will always whine about how crappy it is being a kid, but seriously, being a kid in this day and age is great. Arguably too good, since today's spoiled children are growing up to be tomorrow's arrogant, selfish adults. But that's a different issue.

But yes, having gay parents would likely put a strain on child's life as they grow older, because of the social stigma it would entail. But not so long ago there was a lot of social stigma for kids whose parents were not married, there is still some today, though not as much. The same is true for children of single parents. Or children of parents with disabilities. I remember when I was at primary school, this one girl used to get teased incessantly because her father lost his legs in a car accident and was in a wheelchair.

There are innumerable things that will put a strain on a child's life as they're growing up and if it isn't one thing, it will be another. I don't see how that is a reason for denying a child a home, be it a home with homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.

As for making children's lives into a social experiement... there are already many people out there who grew up in a home with homosexual parents, and many children who are growing up in such homes. The 'experiment' part is already done.

LOL! OK, you're right, kids today don't necessarily have it rougher than a few generations ago. At least they don't have to work 60 hours a week in coal mines or things like that!

When I was growing up, I was the only kid I knew whose parents had divorced. It was hard explaining this to other kids and I was stygmatized to an extent. That is why I think it wrong to stygmatize kids with untraditional parents as long as that can be avoided. If it can't be avoided, as in my case, you have no choice but to live with it. But if it CAN be avoided, it SHOULD be!

Childhood these days is hard? Hah! Childhood these days is bloody easy compared to what it has been in the past. Kids will always whine about how crappy it is being a kid, but seriously, being a kid in this day and age is great. Arguably too good, since today's spoiled children are growing up to be tomorrow's arrogant, selfish adults. But that's a different issue.

But yes, having gay parents would likely put a strain on child's life as they grow older, because of the social stigma it would entail. But not so long ago there was a lot of social stigma for kids whose parents were not married, there is still some today, though not as much. The same is true for children of single parents. Or children of parents with disabilities. I remember when I was at primary school, this one girl used to get teased incessantly because her father lost his legs in a car accident and was in a wheelchair.

There are innumerable things that will put a strain on a child's life as they're growing up and if it isn't one thing, it will be another. I don't see how that is a reason for denying a child a home, be it a home with homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.

As for making children's lives into a social experiement... there are already many people out there who grew up in a home with homosexual parents, and many children who are growing up in such homes. The 'experiment' part is already done.

LOL! OK, you're right, kids today don't necessarily have it rougher than a few generations ago. At least they don't have to work 60 hours a week in coal mines or things like that!

When I was growing up, I was the only kid I knew whose parents had divorced. It was hard explaining this to other kids and I was stygmatized to an extent. That is why I think it wrong to stygmatize kids with untraditional parents as long as that can be avoided. If it can't be avoided, as in my case, you have no choice but to live with it. But if it CAN be avoided, it SHOULD be!

Childhood these days is hard? Hah! Childhood these days is bloody easy compared to what it has been in the past. Kids will always whine about how crappy it is being a kid, but seriously, being a kid in this day and age is great. Arguably too good, since today's spoiled children are growing up to be tomorrow's arrogant, selfish adults. But that's a different issue.

But yes, having gay parents would likely put a strain on child's life as they grow older, because of the social stigma it would entail. But not so long ago there was a lot of social stigma for kids whose parents were not married, there is still some today, though not as much. The same is true for children of single parents. Or children of parents with disabilities. I remember when I was at primary school, this one girl used to get teased incessantly because her father lost his legs in a car accident and was in a wheelchair.

There are innumerable things that will put a strain on a child's life as they're growing up and if it isn't one thing, it will be another. I don't see how that is a reason for denying a child a home, be it a home with homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.

As for making children's lives into a social experiement... there are already many people out there who grew up in a home with homosexual parents, and many children who are growing up in such homes. The 'experiment' part is already done.

LOL! OK, you're right, kids today don't necessarily have it rougher than a few generations ago. At least they don't have to work 60 hours a week in coal mines or things like that!

When I was growing up, I was the only kid I knew whose parents had divorced. It was hard explaining this to other kids and I was stygmatized to an extent. That is why I think it wrong to stygmatize kids with untraditional parents as long as that can be avoided. If it can't be avoided, as in my case, you have no choice but to live with it. But if it CAN be avoided, it SHOULD be!

Childhood these days is hard? Hah! Childhood these days is bloody easy compared to what it has been in the past. Kids will always whine about how crappy it is being a kid, but seriously, being a kid in this day and age is great. Arguably too good, since today's spoiled children are growing up to be tomorrow's arrogant, selfish adults. But that's a different issue.

But yes, having gay parents would likely put a strain on child's life as they grow older, because of the social stigma it would entail. But not so long ago there was a lot of social stigma for kids whose parents were not married, there is still some today, though not as much. The same is true for children of single parents. Or children of parents with disabilities. I remember when I was at primary school, this one girl used to get teased incessantly because her father lost his legs in a car accident and was in a wheelchair.

There are innumerable things that will put a strain on a child's life as they're growing up and if it isn't one thing, it will be another. I don't see how that is a reason for denying a child a home, be it a home with homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.

As for making children's lives into a social experiement... there are already many people out there who grew up in a home with homosexual parents, and many children who are growing up in such homes. The 'experiment' part is already done.

LOL! OK, you're right, kids today don't necessarily have it rougher than a few generations ago. At least they don't have to work 60 hours a week in coal mines or things like that!

When I was growing up, I was the only kid I knew whose parents had divorced. It was hard explaining this to other kids and I was stygmatized to an extent. That is why I think it wrong to stygmatize kids with untraditional parents as long as that can be avoided. If it can't be avoided, as in my case, you have no choice but to live with it. But if it CAN be avoided, it SHOULD be!

This issue lands in the public forum in Portugal from time to time...the Portuguese constitution included quite recently sexual orientation in article 13 that bans discrimination of portuguese citizens on grounds of race, religion, etcetra. Some gay men who wish to adopt have contended that when they apply with social security for adoption and declare their sexual orientation, they´re turned back. Many gay and lesbian associations purport that this practice violates directly the said article 13 of the Constitution. However, others claim that adoption is not a right of the adult seeking to adopt (be they gay or not) but should instead serve the best interests of the child. These opinions hold that portuguese society, particulary in the countryside, still has a quite negative view of homossexuality, and that this would reflect strongly on the treatement dispensed to the adopted children of gays and lesbians. Namely, it could lead to mistreatement from fellow pupils ("we all know how cruel childrens can be"). Although not opposing the idea from a moral or religious basis, they state that changes of social attitudes in such prickly affairs should not be brought about by state decree, but from a genuine maturing and debate in the community.
So, what dýou say?I wouldn't be so quick to say it's mainly in the country side. Those assholes from the PNR are mainly based in large cities. Hell... I'm from the countryside and I'm very socially progressive, and I know tons of others who are as well.

LOL! OK, you're right, kids today don't necessarily have it rougher than a few generations ago. At least they don't have to work 60 hours a week in coal mines or things like that!

When I was growing up, I was the only kid I knew whose parents had divorced. It was hard explaining this to other kids and I was stygmatized to an extent. That is why I think it wrong to stygmatize kids with untraditional parents as long as that can be avoided. If it can't be avoided, as in my case, you have no choice but to live with it. But if it CAN be avoided, it SHOULD be!

Okay, but which would you honestly have rather had: Divorced parents or no parents? Of course there's stigma. There will always be stigma. It can be said that such trials are what builds character and that every child will have to deal with them in some way. Which is worse, having to go home to your parents and say some tiddlywink was hateful because their parents taught them to be or having no one to go home to at all?

Honestly. Just answer this.

What's better?

Gay Parents, or No Parents.

Sexual orientation does not matter whatsoever. As long as the parents are responsible and caring, and the child will have a better life than at the orphanage, then let them adopt.

LOL! OK, you're right, kids today don't necessarily have it rougher than a few generations ago. At least they don't have to work 60 hours a week in coal mines or things like that!

When I was growing up, I was the only kid I knew whose parents had divorced. It was hard explaining this to other kids and I was stygmatized to an extent. That is why I think it wrong to stygmatize kids with untraditional parents as long as that can be avoided. If it can't be avoided, as in my case, you have no choice but to live with it. But if it CAN be avoided, it SHOULD be!

I agree, if it can be avoided, it should be, or if it cannot be avoided, it should be lessened. I tend to think the strain on a child of living in an institution as a ward of the state, or frequently being shifted between different foster families would be a far worse strain than the problems they would have for living in a different sort of home than most of the other kids. Kids will find reasons to be cruel to each other no matter what, if they don't tease a kid because they have gay parents, they'll tease them for being too fat, or too thin, or too tall, or too short, or too freckley, or redheaded, or for having a dad with a massive, long beard or a mother who's a teacher, or any number of other things.

You guys are all idiots....there is no way in hell any sane (not liberal) child would want to have fag parents. Do you guys even understand what your willing to put the child through, just in the name of "equal" rights. This is insane.....You guys should all move to Spain, Canada, or the Netherlands.

Do you understand what living in an orphanage until age 18 with no one who cares about your further than whether you are fed and clothed, and then being kicked out to be responsible for oneself does to a person?

Really. Try to make your point without the insults -- it only detracts from what argument you have. And I am very comfortable here in the US, thank you very much.

Oh and BTW: unofficial warning. Calling other posters idiots and liberals insane is flamebaiting.

Worse than flamebating, it's being self-deprecating and stupid.

There seems to be two major points being made against gays adopting. These seem to be that a child being brought up in a homosexual household will himself become a homosexual, and that a heterosexual child will despise being brought up by homosexuals.

If we look at the first point, this is the old nature versus nurture argument. Is homosexuality something built into a person's personality, or is it put there by their upbringing?
The basis of the argument that a child will become gay is based on the principle that nurture is responsible. Let me throw an interesting point into the debate here. In 2002 an experiment revealed that there were male sheep that, when presented with a choice of a female or a male sheep, they chose to mate with the male sheep. Furthermore, their brains were physically different in structure to that of heterosexual rams (details of this experiment can be found at www.narth.com/docs/sheep.html). Now while this isn't humans, as we are both mammals that are conceived and that grow in the same way, one cannot help but think that homosexuality could be down to nature, not nurture, in humans too. This would certainly explain why there are people that get married, have children, then announce they are in fact gay. They were nurtured as heterosexuals, but something natural inside them couldn't be contained. If homosexual parents led to a homosexual child, then there is no reason why he/she shouldn't suddenly announce that they're straight, as their natural heterosexual tendancies can no longer be suppressed by their homosexual nurture.

On the point of a child hating their homosexual foster parents, may I suggest that a lot of homosexuals (I'm not saying all), due to the way they are treated in society, tend to be more liberal in their outlook to life. There is no reason why a 'just-looking-for-acceptance' attitude wouldn't be seen in the way they bring up a child. This would mean that they would enforce neither sexuality on their child, merely encouraging him/her to be himself/herself. In this way, a child's hatred of their gay parents would be based on no more than any other child's hatred for parents, not really down to the fact they are homosexual.

On the point of being stigmatised, unfortunately I feel someone will always be stigmatised for something, be it their appearance, mannerisms, etc, etc. I too received some grief in Secondary School on account of my parents being divorced, but believe it or not I was stigmatised for them being together (as they then were) in Primary School where most of my fellow students had divorced parents, as they felt I 'hadn't had it as bad' as they had. Bullying will always occur, no matter what the background.

For these reasons, I feel that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.

Birkovia

No. Children should ideally have both a mother and a father.

Though it's probably a good thing for children to have role models of both genders, there is nothing that says that those role models need to be the child's parents. Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, good friends... all of them can fill places as role models for children.

Besides, if you disallow people to adopt just out of the belief of 'one mother and one father is best' (which I don't think is true), then are people going to start banning single people from raising their children, or forcing them to marry?

I wouldn't be so quick to say it's mainly in the country side. Those assholes from the PNR are mainly based in large cities. Hell... I'm from the countryside and I'm very socially progressive, and I know tons of others who are as well.
Well. PNR really isnt such a political party as more of a loose-assemblage of Salazar´s revivalists and youths mad at everyting and everyone...the latter could just as easily enroll in Bloco de Esquerda. :p They dont really have the numbers to be a force to reckon with.
But i, for one, wouldnt be to quick in stablishing an hard- and- fast rule about the countryside as a hotspot for progressive thinking...in some villages in Tras-os-montes, women wont go to the local café on their own after 5 pm.

What the hell?

I'm no liberal.

In fact, tons of NSer's say I'm bordering on Facism.

But I can still say that Gay People should be allowed to adopt.

Better stop using your computer then.

Hardly "natural," is it?

For what it is worth, since homosexuality is innate and found in other animals, it is most definitely "natural."

Computers are 100% natural. If you can take a bunch of elements and materials, and stick them together, and they do something, it's natural.

I think the government should let gays marry, and have all the same rights as a strigth couple. however, as a cathloc, i say that SPIRITUALLY they should not. the church does not have to accept the gay couple as married, but th government should


Off topic.

But if conscience violates natural instinct, conscience is unnatural.

If morality is based on nature (which I do not think it is), then it is immoral to suppress one's natural homosexual instincts.

But I still maintain that this argument is irrelevant. Morality is not based on nature, and if you truly thought it was you would not be using a computer, let alone the internet.

Extremely high infant mortality rates are also "natural." Are you in favor of dismantling the health care system so that our death rate can be more "natural"? Or demolishing our buildings so that we can live more "naturally"? Or dismantling the "traditional family" in favor of a more "natural" system?

Independent of nature, I hold that it is completely unjustified and immoral to restrict the consensual expression of love between adults, and to restrict the right of a child to grow up in a loving household because his or her parents may be gay.

Despite what any individual's instinct dictates their sexual orientation to be; a child requires the nuturing balance of both a male and female parental relationship in acceptable healthy circumstances. The question should not be if Homosexual people should be able to adopt. That is indicative to the fact of the personal desire to have a child. The proper question that has already been answered which is being avoided and denied is; What is in the best interest of the child?

Despite what any individual's instinct dictates their sexual orientation to be; a child requires the nuturing balance of both a male and female parental relationship in acceptable healthy circumstances. The question should not be if Homosexual people should be able to adopt. That is indicative to the fact of the personal desire to have a child. The proper question that has already been answered which is being avoided and denied is; What is in the best interest of the child?

What is in the best interest of the child are loving, nonabusive parents capable of providing for the child's needs. If this happens to be a mixed sex household, great. However, there is not a single reason to believe that a same sex household can not provide these things better than a state or federal agency. You are right, the interests of the child are paramount. However, until there are more couples seeking to adopt all available children, the argument is not Heterosexual vs. Homosexual, but Parents vs. State.

Honestly. Just answer this.

What's better?

Gay Parents, or No Parents.

I agree. Besides, I guess almost everyone would rather have loving gay parents than having abusive and violent straight parents...

They should not be allowed to in my opinion, as the environment young children grow up around my affect their choices later in life. And if God meant for someone to be a homosexual, then they should naturally become one. We don't want a heterosexual growing up gay, because it could create major pshychological problems in the future.

Well. PNR really isnt such a political party as more of a loose-assemblage of Salazar´s revivalists and youths mad at everyting and everyone...the latter could just as easily enroll in Bloco de Esquerda. :p They dont really have the numbers to be a force to reckon with.
But i, for one, wouldnt be to quick in stablishing an hard- and- fast rule about the countryside as a hotspot for progressive thinking...in some villages in Tras-os-montes, women wont go to the local café on their own after 5 pm.Of course not. But things are changing.

As for the PNR... As macabre as they may be, they are growing, unfortunately. The past three legislative elections they went from a few hundred votes, to 4,000 and then to over 9,000. I wish the MLS (http://www.liberal-social.org/) could grow that fast. :(

EDIT: I've also encountred on other forums... many well read educated peers, in their twenties that support and fight for those sick ideals. It's beyond my understanding...

They should not be allowed to in my opinion, as the environment young children grow up around my affect their choices later in life. And if God meant for someone to be a homosexual, then they should naturally become one. We don't want a heterosexual growing up gay, because it could create major pshychological problems in the future.

Honey, the only way you can become gay is naturally. That's why straight parents can raise kids who are gay.

Honey, the only way you can become gay is naturally. That's why straight parents can raise kids who are gay.

IMO, it's a brain defect. And I don't care what the medical association says, they're just trying to be PC. Homosexuals must somehow be anatomically different from heterosexuals.

Honey, the only way you can become gay is naturally. That's why straight parents can raise kids who are gay.
Yes, I realize that, but a young child could have serious social problems if they grow up in such a bizarre enviornment compared to most other children their age.

IMO, it's a brain defect. And I don't care what the medical association says, they're just trying to be PC. Homosexuals must somehow be anatomically different from heterosexuals.

"I don't care about reality and what people who actually know something about anything say - I'll stick to my prejudice and stuff I've pulled out of my ass!"

Heh. I'm surprised people like you aren't stricken by your own silliness while writing something like that, equivalent to "lalalalala can't hear you, my fingers are in my ears, and as long as I don't hear you, it's not true!"

Anyway, we had this debate years ago in this country before gay couples were allowed to adopt, so I'm sort of sick and tired of the subject. It's allowed, the children aren't doing worse or better with gay parents and that's all there is to say. It's no big deal.

IMO, it's a brain defect. And I don't care what the medical association says, they're just trying to be PC.
If homosexuality is a brain defect... then so is heterosexuality.

IMO, it's a brain defect. And I don't care what the medical association says, they're just trying to be PC. Homosexuals must somehow be anatomically different from heterosexuals.

*chortles* Oh yes, an organisation full of dedicated scientists who have performed extensive research into the subject are just being PC and YOUR personal opinion must be correct. :rolleyes:

IMO, it's a brain defect. And I don't care what the medical association says, they're just trying to be PC. Homosexuals must somehow be anatomically different from heterosexuals.

For the record, a difference is not the same as a defect. Unless, of course, you are also suggesting that people who are left handed are suffering from a brain defect.

Anyway, we had this debate years ago in this country before gay couples were allowed to adopt, so I'm sort of sick and tired of the subject. It's allowed, the children aren't doing worse or better with gay parents and that's all there is to say. It's no big deal.

Ahhh, but you live in Sweden, where reason seems to prevail! I wish I lived in Sweden. :(

Edit: Swedes also produce some ass kicking heavy metal. Another point in Sweden's favour.

Yes, I realize that, but a young child could have serious social problems if they grow up in such a bizarre enviornment compared to most other children their age.

Having two parents is somehow more bizarre than having no parents?

And what about children with divorced parents, that was bizarre compared to most children once. Should we make divorces illegal again, because of that? And how about children with only one parent, or who are being raised by a relative other than their parents? All of these can be considered 'bizarre' compared to most other children their age. However, many children are raised in situations like that without serious social problems.

If homosexuality is a brain defect... then so is heterosexuality.

WTF? Heterosexuality is NATURAL, it follows the cycle of life.

Saying heterosexuality isn't natural is like saying oxygen isn't natural.

Ahhh, but you live in Sweden, where reason seems to prevail! I wish I lived in Sweden. :(

No, you don't. Never wish to live somewhere you've never visited - you don't know what it's like. Ours is hardly a utopian society.

Yes, I realize that, but a young child could have serious social problems if they grow up in such a bizarre enviornment compared to most other children their age.

But how is a same-sex household "such a bizarre environemnt" in comparison to a mixed-sex household? There seems to be an tacit assumption that the second a gay couple gets the kid, they'll start taking them to circuit parties, forcing them to watch Judy Garland films, requiring them to take home ec over shop and indulging in a whole host of other stereotypical activities that have little to no basis in the reality of same-sex households. The environment itself is hardly bizarre, but it is made to seem bizarre by the baseless prejudices of others.

Seriously, what are the specific qualities inherant in all same-sex households seeking to adopt children that make them fundamentally more bizarre than mixed-sex households?

For the record, a difference is not the same as a defect. Unless, of course, you are also suggesting that people who are left handed are suffering from a brain defect.

Left-handed people aren't anatomically different. Everything's in the right place. It's a choice they make. Just like most of us choose to be right-handed, and a select few choose to be ambidextrous.

This issue lands in the public forum in Portugal from time to time...the Portuguese constitution included quite recently sexual orientation in article 13 that bans discrimination of portuguese citizens on grounds of race, religion, etcetra. Some gay men who wish to adopt have contended that when they apply with social security for adoption and declare their sexual orientation, they´re turned back. Many gay and lesbian associations purport that this practice violates directly the said article 13 of the Constitution. However, others claim that adoption is not a right of the adult seeking to adopt (be they gay or not) but should instead serve the best interests of the child. These opinions hold that portuguese society, particulary in the countryside, still has a quite negative view of homossexuality, and that this would reflect strongly on the treatement dispensed to the adopted children of gays and lesbians. Namely, it could lead to mistreatement from fellow pupils ("we all know how cruel childrens can be"). Although not opposing the idea from a moral or religious basis, they state that changes of social attitudes in such prickly affairs should not be brought about by state decree, but from a genuine maturing and debate in the community.
So, what dýou say?
I say that children who were raised by single moms used to be mistreated by their fellow pupils. Having a single parent wasn't considered normal. And yet no-one (I hope) thought of not allowing these mothers to keep their children. Nowadays it's normal to be raised by a single parent, mostly because it hasn't been forbidden...

Allowing gay adoption will be an effective way of changing the social attitudes. Sometimes community maturing has to be brought about by law.

What is in the best interest of the child?

It is in the best interest of the child not to be denied the opportunity to grow up in a loving household because other people are hateful and intolerant.

WTF? Heterosexuality is NATURAL, it follows the cycle of life.

I think the phrase you may be looking for is "baseline normal" as homosexuality is as "natural" (meaning being found in nature) as heterosexuality.


Saying heterosexuality isn't natural is like saying oxygen isn't natural.

Well, in the vast majority of the universe, it isn't very natural. Or, rather, it deviates from the baseline which is subjectively defined as normal. There's a lot more "nothing" than there is oxygen.

I say that children who were raised by single moms used to be mistreated by their fellow pupils. Having a single parent wasn't considered normal. And yet no-one (I hope) thought of not allowing these mothers to keep their children. Nowadays it's normal to be raised by a single parent, mostly because it hasn't been forbidden...

Allowing gay adoption will be an effective way of changing the social attitudes. Sometimes community maturing has to be brought about by law.

You can't force people to believe something. Hitler tried that, and Stalin tried that, and Pol Pot tried that, and look how all those countries turned out.

Left-handed people aren't anatomically different. Everything's in the right place. It's a choice they make. Just like most of us choose to be right-handed, and a select few choose to be ambidextrous.

Oh, the sheer ignorance - it's like you like pulling random stuff you know nothing about out of your ass. Handedness is not a choice - it seems to be a matter of brain lateralisation. (http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/brain.html)

I think the phrase you may be looking for is "baseline normal" as homosexuality is as "natural" (meaning being found in nature) as heterosexuality.



Well, in the vast majority of the universe, it isn't very natural. There's a lot more "nothing" than there is oxygen.

1) Wrong again. People assume that "natural" means that it's found in nature. WRONG. Natural means that it's the normal, cycle of life development. Homosexual animals have the same defect as homosexual humans.

2)Oxygen is still as natural in the far reaches of the universe as it is here. It's just absent from there.

Personally I think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. When it says "equal rights" it implies priviledges as well. However if adoption by a homosexual couple does not suit the best intrests of the child, for example a homophobic child, then in that case I would say that they shouldn't.
I imagine that in most cases an adopted child would be too young to be homophobic. In any case, getting raised by gays would probably mean that one less person goes out into the world being homophobic.

You guys are all idiots....there is no way in hell any sane (not liberal) child would want to have fag parents.
Hahahaha! Hear that? That's the sound of you getting laughed out of the thread.

While a mom and dad may be the "best" - a single mom, a single dad, two dads, or two moms, is better than no mom and no dad at all.
I agree with this.

Thats a matter of opinion...we have always had more liberal decades, and more conservative decades....however as long as we have strong people like Bush or Arnie in power...I can rest peacfully with the thought that my country is safe from queer marriage and queer adoption.
You've got to be a joke! Keeping "my country is safe from queer marriage" yes, those gay terrorists, right? Arnold Schwarzenegger supports gay marriage.

No, you don't. Never wish to live somewhere you've never visited - you don't know what it's like. Ours is hardly a utopian society.

Well, I dare say it's better than where I am, currently. I guess I'll find out when I head up that way in the next couple of years. I originally intended to just see Norway, but I figure a bit longer saving and I can see all of Scandinavia.

So has the whole 'gays adopting' thing just become a non-issue up there now?

Oh, the sheer ignorance - it's like you like pulling random stuff you know nothing about out of your ass. Handedness is not a choice - it is a matter of brain lateralisation. (http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/brain.html)

That just means that each person will lean towards using a certain hand. I myself was once ambidextrous, as my right hand was injured and unusable. When it recovered, my left hand took a backseat again.

That just means that each person will lean towards using a certain hand. I myself was once ambidextrous, as my right hand was injured and unusable. When it recovered, my left hand took a backseat again.

Again, "I don't care what people who know anything about anything say, I'll just make something up and stick to it."

Left-handed people aren't anatomically different. Everything's in the right place. It's a choice they make. Just like most of us choose to be right-handed, and a select few choose to be ambidextrous.

The predilection for left-handedness is a genetic trait that, by your definition, would be a brain defect. So, yes, they are "automatically different" because their genes say so. However, this difference is certainly not a defect. Of course they can force and train themselves to override their natural inclination, but they will never be right-handed anymore than someone who is right-handed can ever be left-handed.

So has the whole 'gays adopting' thing just become a non-issue up there now?

It's not debated all that much anymore, no. There are people who disagree, of course, but it's basically a non-issue to anyone who isn't involved in the adoption process.

Again, "I don't care what people who know anything about anything say, I'll just make something up and stick to it."

I think I know my own life better than you do, and I'm pretty sure I remember using my left hand almost perfectly, and also being able to use my right hand (if it wasn't injured).

The predilection for left-handedness is a genetic trait that, by your definition, would be a brain defect. So, yes, they are "automatically different" because their genes say so. However, this difference is certainly not a defect. Of course they can force and train themselves to override their natural inclination, but they will never be right-handed anymore than someone who is right-handed can ever be left-handed.

It's not a defect. Left handedness serves a purpose. Homosexuality does not.

Natural means that it's the normal, cycle of life development.

Firstly, why is something being part of the "normal, cycle of life development" somehow better than something that is not?

Secondly, do you have a problem with "unnatural" death rates?

Are you in favor of denying people health care because modern technology is hardly "natural"?

Are you in favor of destroying agriculture because growing food at such levels is hardly "natural"?

It should rest soley on the child. If he/she feels that gay parents will be detrimental to their upbringing, then the child should have full right to refuse to live or be adopted by gay/lesbian parents.

"Should gays be allowed to adopt?"

If the child ends up in a good, loving environment, I couldn't care less if they were frakkin' aliens!

I think I know my own life better than you do, and I'm pretty sure I remember using my left hand almost perfectly, and also being able to use my right hand (if it wasn't injured).

And your anecdote has nothing to do with anything, especially as it's been discredited for years as it was such a failure in schools when they used to force left-handed people to write with their right hands. What you're basically doing is inventing a little story and sticking to it, regardless of the actual reality of the matter.

1) Wrong again. People assume that "natural" means that it's found in nature. WRONG. Natural means that it's the normal, cycle of life development. Homosexual animals have the same defect as homosexual humans.

Actually, Websters would disagree with you.

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
(etc.)

So not wrong. Your interpretation is non-standard.


2)Oxygen is still as natural in the far reaches of the universe as it is here. It's just absent from there.

Hence the presence of oxygen deviates from the baseline normal of the universe as, most of the time, you're going to find nothing rather than oxygen.

It's not a defect. Left handedness serves a purpose. Homosexuality does not.

Left handedness serves no person. It simply isn't detrimental.

It's not a defect. Left handedness serves a purpose. Homosexuality does not.

You REALLY need to elaborate on that. What 'purpose' does left-handedness serve in relation to right-handedness, exactly?

Firstly, why is something being part of the "normal, cycle of life development" somehow better than something that is not?

Secondly, do you have a problem with "unnatural" death rates?

Are you in favor of denying people health care because modern technology is hardly "natural"?

Are you in favor of destroying agriculture because growing food at such levels is hardly "natural"?

1) Because if it's part of the cycle of life, it serves a purpose.

2) Modern technology and agriculture are completely natural. You put the things together, and it does stuff. Put two gay men together and it achieves nothing.

It's not a defect.

According to your own logic and definition it is. Perhaps you should be more specific in the future.


Left handedness serves a purpose.

Such as?


Homosexuality does not.

That you are aware of. There have actually been several theories put forth that might possibly explain the natural presence of homosexuality, both in the standard definition of the term and in your definition

Of course they should be alowed to adopt! Whats next? no white people adopting blacks? This is no different than racism. I don't care what you think God wants, unless you have a personall hot line to Him (although God is probably an 'It') you have no right to stop others form living they way they want to unless it hurts others. Which it's not by the way.

It should rest soley on the child. If he/she feels that gay parents will be detrimental to their upbringing, then the child should have full right to refuse to live or be adopted by gay/lesbian parents.

That's kinda stupid. Those kids don't even know what gay means yet...

Hehehe... I'm laughing at Ukraine and Atlantian. Both of you are so hopelessly out-debated that it isn't funny. Oh... yes it is. :D
FYI, Ukraine, I'm left-handed, and I distinctly remember not chosing to be left-handed.

Anyways. As long as both parents are loving and supportive of the child, I see no problem with them adopting a child.

You REALLY need to elaborate on that. What 'purpose' does left-handedness serve in relation to right-handedness, exactly?

It does exactly the same thing.

According to your own logic and definition it is. Perhaps you should be more specific in the future.



Such as?



That you are aware of. There have actually been several theories put forth that might possibly explain the natural presence of homosexuality, both in the standard definition of the term and in your definition

1) No. My definition of a defect is an abnormality that hinders, or has no beneficial qualities.

2) Left handedness is the same as right handedness.

3) What? Homosexual decreases the birth rate because we're overpopulated? That hinders the human race.

1) Because if it's part of the cycle of life, it serves a purpose.

2) Modern technology and agriculture are completely natural. You put the things together, and it does stuff. Put two gay men together and it achieves nothing.

Actually, you put gay men together and sometimes you achieve hot man-on-man sex, and sometimes a long-term, loving relationship, and sometimes a loving environment to raise a child that everyone else has, one or way or another, abandoned to the state.

Hehehe... I'm laughing at Ukraine and Atlantian. Both of you are so hopelessly out-debated that it isn't funny. Oh... yes it is. :D
FYI, Ukraine, I'm left-handed, and I distinctly remember not chosing to be left-handed.

Anyways. As long as both parents are loving and supportive of the child, I see no problem with them adopting a child.

Like I said, you lean towards a certain hand. If you wanted to, you could learn to be right handed.

Okay, Ukraine... Homosexual marriges accomplish something: They keep two people from becoming lonely. Look, your logic is severely flawed. Following your train of thought, a marriage between a man and a woman is "wrong", if they don't have any children. Face it, that's correct by your logic.

EDIT: And no, I don't "lean" towards a certain hand. I have tired to write right-handed (even practicing it). I can't.

2) Modern technology and agriculture are completely natural. You put the things together, and it does stuff. Put two gay men together and it achieves nothing.
It prevents the over population of the earth.

Thanks a lot, Germany-Ukraine, you're turned a thread about a real issue into another thread about "homosexuality: right or wrong?" You conservatives can never resist doing that.

You REALLY need to elaborate on that. What 'purpose' does left-handedness serve in relation to right-handedness, exactly?

From my own childhood experience, I'd say its purpose is to make buttoning up your shirt mind-bogglingly difficult.

But truth be told, yeah, left-handedness is a good example of a congenital defect that is an aberration from the statistical norm, and owing to the fact that, statistically speaking, left-handers live about seven years shorter than right-handers do, you could call it unnatural, because it seems to have a negative effect on the proper flourishing and survivability of the human.

3) What? Homosexual decreases the birth rate because we're overpopulated? That hinders the human race.

Er... no it doesn't.

being gay doesnt rub off. you are either gay or you are not. the conservatives are worried that if the children are raised by gays they will become more open minded about different sexual orientations,so they claim that gays are a bad influence on kids. gays do not teach the kids to be gay and they dont usually molest the kids(this is a fear tactic used by conservatives.) gay and lesbian people are just as capable of providing a safe and loving environment....

I think everyone is batty here, especially the homophobes. However, I think the liberals are too blinded by 'rights' to see the whole issue.

My humble opinion, as a Christian and a member of the human race (as ****ed up as that is, I can't deny it), I'd have to say that... why the hell not? Homosexual parents raising kids? It's no different than single parents to me. Maybe not as ideal to me as a heterosexual couple raising children, but better than none at all. However, there are problems.

For one, yes, the kid will be going though hell if anyone finds out. Children are jackals. They'll tear each other to pieces just to make themselves feel good. Children have the potential for great kindness, but also for unnatural cruelty. It's just a matter of maturity, and alot of kids don't have it (depending on age and knowledge, of course, but for the most part...). So say little billy has gay parents, and his classmates knew. Odds are VERY good that some little bastard is going to give him a hard time about it, and even accuse him of being gay himself. It's what children do.

As lenient as I am on civil rights, I foam at the mouth when I see bullying, for I have been bullied as a kid. Sacrifice the rights for gays to adopt just so that a kid doesn't get bullied by his mates? Pretty tempting to adopt, I assure you.

Secondly, children need both a male and female influence at home. Not even gay relationships where one of the partners is the 'man' or 'woman' can replace this social aspect. Sure, one can be the nurturing one and the other can be the diciplinarian, but there's a certain 'je ne s'ais quois' about the mother father child relationship that cannot be duplicated. Sure, the kid could find such a figure at a Big Brother/Big Sister organization, or the YMCA, but it is only half effective. That influence is better spent at home.

This doesn't mean i'm against gay adoption. I'm just pointing out the potential risks. It's called Devil's Advocate. You liberals should try it sometime. And for God sakes, try to put some intelligent effort into it!

In conclusion, I believe that it is better to have a heterosexual couple raise a child. However, I would not ban gays from adopting. They can raise a child just fine, even if there are a few lacking components in the relationship, or if the child will be adversely affected. It is still better than no parents at all.

And to those who say that gay parents make gay kids... sure, kids are easily influenced, but that won't make them gay. Genetics determine sexuality too, just as much as mental influence. Horomones are pretty powerful when they kick in. And besides, gay parents should know even better than straight parents that you can't just change a person's sexuality overnight. So will having gay parents make a kid gay? I don't know. Will the gay parents try to make the kid gay? HELL NO!!!!

I'd also like to add the saying, "It takes a village to raise a child". Couples shouldn't be an isolated unit with their offspring in tow. Neighbors, teachers, authority figures, they're everywhere. In their own way they teach, protect, and raise the child too. The most important thing for a child is that community of people teaching the boys and girls to become good men and women. That can go a long way to making up for anything that's lacking in a household environment. Thank you.

Of course not. But things are changing.

As for the PNR... As macabre as they may be, they are growing, unfortunately. The past three legislative elections they went from a few hundred votes, to 4,000 and then to over 9,000. I wish the MLS (http://www.liberal-social.org/) could grow that fast. :(

EDIT: I've also encountred on other forums... many well read educated peers, in their twenties that support and fight for those sick ideals. It's beyond my understanding...
The PNR may be growing, but they're so close to 0% that I couldn't care less about them. Anyway they're a bunch of rebels with low self-esteem. As Eric Hoffer said: The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause....
Same goes for all the racist, homophobes, xenophobes and the like.

It prevents the over population of the earth.

Thanks a lot, Germany-Ukraine, you're turned a thread about a real issue into another thread about "homosexuality: right or wrong?" You conservatives can never resist doing that.

I'm a liberal you idiot.

Well, actually, I'm my own group. Common-sensers. We're centre-left.

Okay, Ukraine... Homosexual marriges accomplish something: They keep two people from becoming lonely. Look, your logic is severely flawed. Following your train of thought, a marriage between a man and a woman is "wrong", if they don't have any children. Face it, that's correct by your logic.

EDIT: And no, I don't "lean" towards a certain hand. I have tired to write right-handed (even practicing it). I can't.

1) No. As long as they are capable of having children. The choice is theirs.

2) Well, you just suck then. :p I learned to use my left hand quite well in around a month.

1) No. My definition of a defect is an abnormality that hinders, or has no beneficial qualities.

which is a complete switcheroo from your first post which you equated difference with defect.


2) Left handedness is the same as right handedness.

Clearly it's not.


3) What? Homosexual decreases the birth rate because we're overpopulated? That hinders the human race.

Not necessarily. One theory says a population that is approaching the carrying capacity of it's environment may possibly produce offspring that do not produce offspring themselves in order to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity of it's environment. This allows the avoidance of a more severe culling from disease and starvation. Another theory postulates that a population may produce a subset of non-reproducing members in order to care for offspring of reproducing members who are involved in other societal aspects as well. The point is, population growth and genetics is far more convoluted than, "No babies, so it's bad." If homosexuality served absolutely no purpose biologically, then why has it not disappeared entirely or, indeed, even lessened in frequency?

I'm a liberal you idiot.

Well, actually, I'm my own group. Common-sensers. We're centre-left.

Might want to watch calling other people "idiots". Mods don't tend to go for that sort of crap.

1) Because if it's part of the cycle of life, it serves a purpose.

Everything accomplishes something. The question is whether the accomplishment is worthwhile.

2) Modern technology and agriculture are completely natural. You put the things together, and it does stuff. Put two gay men together and it achieves nothing.

Sure it does. It achieves joy for those involved. Homosexuality is perfectly natural too, by your second definition, which is different from your first.

If it is true that a computer is natural because one is using materials found in nature to produce a result, it is also true that homosexuality is natural, because human beings are composed of materials found in nature, and hence their tendencies are aspects of things found in nature.

I'm a liberal you idiot.

Well, actually, I'm my own group. Common-sensers. We're centre-left.
[ Rolls on the floor laughing! ]

BTW ... "pragmatists" are almost always center or center-right here. :D

Er... no it doesn't.

Yeah, it does. We already have something to control population: epidemics. Or pandemics. Whatever.

If the bird flu comes around, kills 150 million people, negative pop. growth combined with prevalent homosexuality, we don't have enough people to replenish the pop., a few 100 years go by, the human race goes extinct. Thank you Freddy Mercury.

1) No. As long as they are capable of having children. The choice is theirs.

2) Well, you just suck then. :p I learned to use my left hand quite well in around a month.

You have shed logic, Ukraine.

1. What about man-woman couplings in which one is incapable of conceiving children? Are those couplings wrong?

2. A simple "Lalala I'm better than you!" retort, which is far too common in Conservatives today. My body will not allow me to write right-handed. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean everyone else can.

Yo Germany, other dudes... do you mind? Your arguments are becoming quite redundant.

(Besides, nobody has yet to comment on my well constructed, well thought out argument).

Might want to watch calling other people "idiots". Mods don't tend to go for that sort of crap.

Neh. I've had worse.

WTF? Heterosexuality is NATURAL, it follows the cycle of life.

Saying heterosexuality isn't natural is like saying oxygen isn't natural.
My point exactly. You're the one who is trying to imply that the sexual orientation of an individual ins't natural. That what determines an individual to be heterosexual or homosexual is the exact same thing.

You have shed logic, Ukraine.

1. What about man-woman couplings in which one is incapable of conceiving children? Are those couplings wrong?

2. A simple "Lalala I'm better than you!" retort, which is far too common in Conservatives today. My body will not allow me to write right-handed. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean everyone else can.

1) Probably. Most of the time it's not a genetic defect though.

2) I was joking. Laugh.

Yeah, it does. We already have something to control population: epidemics. Or pandemics. Whatever.

If the bird flu comes around, kills 150 million people, negative pop. growth combined with prevalent homosexuality, we don't have enough people to replenish the pop., a few 100 years go by, the human race goes extinct. Thank you Freddy Mercury.

Yes, the world does have a notable underpopulation problem.

:rolleyes:

2. A simple "Lalala I'm better than you!" retort, which is far too common in Conservatives today. My body will not allow me to write right-handed. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean everyone else can.

Careful boyo. You're showing the liberal 'i'm more enlightend than thou' attitude.

Could you please explain to me why a man-woman marriage is socially unacceptable?

You can't force people to believe something. Hitler tried that, and Stalin tried that, and Pol Pot tried that, and look how all those countries turned out.
Can't you read? :headbang: No-one would be forcing no-one to believe. Read again. If gay adoption turns out to be legal, nobody is going to forbid homophoby. So don't pull the Hitler/Stalin/whatever card on me. Troll.

Yeah, it does. We already have something to control population: epidemics. Or pandemics. Whatever.

If the bird flu comes around, kills 150 million people, negative pop. growth combined with prevalent homosexuality, we don't have enough people to replenish the pop., a few 100 years go by, the human race goes extinct. Thank you Freddy Mercury.

Um... 150 million people dead out of 6 billion does not the extinction of the human race make.

My point exactly. You're the one who is trying to imply that the sexual orientation of an individual ins't natural. That what determines an individual to be heterosexual or homosexual is the exact same thing.

No, I'm saying that the process of becoming a hetero is normal. Something goes wring there, the person becomes homo, that's the problem.

The PNR may be growing, but they're so close to 0% that I couldn't care less about them. Anyway they're a bunch of rebels with low self-esteem. As Eric Hoffer said: The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause....
Same goes for all the racist, homophobes, xenophobes and the like.
Meu... That's beautiful. :D

AHEM! :mad:

Back to the adoption issue, you twits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I'm saying that the process of becoming a hetero is normal. Something goes wring there, the person becomes homo, that's the problem.Why should it be a problem? You're intolerance is the only problem I see here.

Could you please explain to me why a man-woman marriage is socially unacceptable?

You know, honestly? I don't care who marries who, or who adopts who. Does it put cash in the government's coffers? Yes? Good. Great. More power to homosexuals. My interest is finding out where biology went wrong, and trying to fix it.

Can't you read? :headbang: No-one would be forcing no-one to believe. Read again. If gay adoption turns out to be legal, nobody is going to forbid homophoby. So don't pull the Hitler/Stalin/whatever card on me. Troll.

But you're forcing onto a child circumstances he may not want. He is too young to understand, but maybe went he learns, he might not be so happy.

:(

I write out that well thought out, well constructed argument... and nobody even gives a damn. I thought this forum was for debate. Now I know it's just an excuse for people with different political ideologies to hiss and spit at each other. What a load of crap. I'm outta here.

No, I'm saying that the process of becoming a hetero is normal. Something goes wring there, the person becomes homo, that's the problem.

Yet your concepts of normality and naturality are arbitrary and contradictory.

For instance, you say that homosexuality is not ordinary in the cycle of life, but have no problem with modern technology and large food supplies - far less ordinary than homosexuality - interfering there.

Um... 150 million people dead out of 6 billion does not the extinction of the human race make.

Thank you for completely ignoring the parts about negative growth and prevalent homosexuality.

You know, honestly? I don't care who marries who, or who adopts who. Does it put cash in the government's coffers? Yes? Good. Great. More power to homosexuals. My interest is finding out where biology went wrong, and trying to fix it.

Biology doesn't go 'wrong'. There is no right or wrong to biology because it is not an intelligent process that can be held to human moral standards. Biology happens the way it happens.

Why should it be a problem? You're intolerance is the only problem I see here.

... *sigh*

Because it's biologically wrong!

God, I hate PC people. A man could have a tail, a pair of wings and a third eye, but you'd say it's completely normal.

Yet your concepts of normality and naturality are arbitrary and contradictory.

For instance, you say that homosexuality is not ordinary in the cycle of life, but have no problem with modern technology and large food supplies - far less ordinary than homosexuality - interfering there.

I already said, I consider those things to be natural.

But you're forcing onto a child circumstances he may not want. He is too young to understand, but maybe went he learns, he might not be so happy.

How does a young child know that it doesn't want to have homosexual parents ? It would only 'know' this if it were older and had the idea planted in it's head that homosexuality is wrong !
There's nothing at all wron with Smae-sex couples adopting children or getting married. It's a simple civil right.

Yeah, it does. We already have something to control population: epidemics. Or pandemics. Whatever.

If the bird flu comes around, kills 150 million people, negative pop. growth combined with prevalent homosexuality, we don't have enough people to replenish the pop., a few 100 years go by, the human race goes extinct. Thank you Freddy Mercury.

Freddy Mercury helped give us the songs "Princes of the Universe" and "Who Wants to Live Forever?" He's made his contribution to society.

And if the bird flu actually manages to kill 150 Million people (that is the projected worst case scenario), that is a drop in the ocean. With 6.5 million humans on this planet and the population growing exponentially, we are in no danger of going extinct unless something REALLY drastic happens (eg. alien invasion, global nuclear war, genetically engineered super virus, the dolphins finally get pissed enough to show their power and smite us all.)

Also, you're making the assumption that somehow homosexuals will overtake heterosexuals in the population and won't breed. This is not and never has been the case in human population, or in any other animal population that I'm aware of. To my knowledge, the ratio of homosexual animals within a population remains fairly steady unless a specific environmental stimulus triggers a surge or a decline.

Also, there is the assumption that homosexuals are incapable of breeding. Does being gay somehow make a person infertile? Last time I checked, most lesbians could still get pregnant and most gay men weren't shooting blanks.

Neh. I've had worse.

From earlier in this thread.


Oh and BTW: unofficial warning. Calling other posters idiots and liberals insane is flamebaiting.

So if you want to bait the mod, go right ahead.

How does a young child know that it doesn't want to have homosexual parents ? It would only 'know' this if it were older and had the idea planted in it's head that homosexuality is wrong !
There's nothing at all wron with Smae-sex couples adopting children or getting married. It's a simple civil right.

No it's not, for the last time, it's a priviledge.

Thank you for completely ignoring the parts about negative growth and prevalent homosexuality.

Seeing as humanity has gone through several plagues with smaller populations and much worse medical standards, and survived... I don't see the problem. Because, funny story, there were still homosexuals then, too. Probably the same percentage of the population as it is nowadays.

Also, you seem to be confusing 'homosexual' with 'sterile'. Homosexuals are entirely capable of producing children.

EDIT: Ooh, Revasser beat me to it.

... *sigh*

Because it's biologically wrong!

God, I hate PC people. A man could have a tail, a pair of wings and a third eye, but you'd say it's completely normal.

No, we wouldn't. We just wouldn't bar that poor person from society! What would you do? Shut that person up in a small, dehumanizing facility, just because they're different? I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. I'm out of this debate. You, sir, are a bigot. May God have mercy on your soul.

Linthiopia

From earlier in this thread.



So if you want to bait the mod, go right ahead.

I'm not worried, ok? I've been banned 5 times from GameFAQs, twice from LUE2 and once from XBox-Scene.

I already said, I consider those things to be natural.

Yes, arbitrarily, and in violation of your earlier definition of natural.

You can say what you want, the question is whether it makes sense.

No it's not, for the last time, it's a priviledge.

How can it be a privelidge if heterosexual couples can do the same ?
There's no privelidge in parenthood - it's a part of life.

Seeing as humanity has gone through several plagues with smaller populations and much worse medical standards, and survived... I don't see the problem. Because, funny story, there were still homosexuals then, too. Probably the same percentage of the population as it is nowadays.

Also, you seem to be confusing 'homosexual' with 'sterile'. Homosexuals are entirely capable of producing children.

You know, I don't think he's confusing that at all. In fact, I know he knows they're not sterile. It's not a matter of if they could, it's if they want to.

To say they have no desire to procreate is of course, total crap.

After all, they want to raise children? Sexual attractions aside, they want to have children to love and care for. Otherwise this adoption issue wouldn't be an issue at all!

But you're forcing onto a child circumstances he may not want. He is too young to understand, but maybe went he learns, he might not be so happy.
How do you know that the child may not want it? Most children just want nurturing parents.

I'm not worried, ok? I've been banned 5 times from GameFAQs, twice from LUE2 and once from XBox-Scene.

:rolleyes: That's not something to brag about.
\
For one, bans are bad.

For another, X-Box's are total junk. Don't use them.

... *sigh*

Because it's biologically wrong!No it's not.

God, I hate PC people. A man could have a tail, a pair of wings and a third eye, but you'd say it's completely normal.I don't believe in god, and I don't know what PC stands for.




p.s. Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual.

No, we wouldn't. We just wouldn't bar that poor person from society! What would you do? Shut that person up in a small, dehumanizing facility, just because they're different? I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. I'm out of this debate. You, sir, are a bigot. May God have mercy on your soul.

Linthiopia

My god is stronger than the Christian god.

I never said that person should be shut out. I said that they should be seen as NOT NORMAL. Because they're not. And we should see if we can fix it.

Because it's biologically wrong!

How can the processes of life be biologically wrong?

You know, I don't think he's confusing that at all. In fact, I know he knows they're not sterile. It's not a matter of if they could, it's if they want to.

Yes, well, if the human race somehow found itself on the way to extinction, I don't think all the homosexuals are going to step up and say "Screw you, I'm not touching a [person of the opposite gender]!"

No it's not, for the last time, it's a priviledge.

It is indeed a privilege. One that there is absolutely no scientific or rational reason to deny to same-sex couples. Feel whatever you like about homosexuality and its "naturalness". The objective facts, however, do not support any limiting of adoption rights based on sexual orientation.

How can the processes of life be biologically wrong?I think maybe because God said so. :D

:rolleyes: That's not something to brag about.
\
For one, bans are bad.

For another, X-Box's are total junk. Don't use them.

Yes it is.

Yes, well, if the human race somehow found itself on the way to extinction, I don't think all the homosexuals are going to step up and say "Screw you, I'm not touching a [person of the opposite gender]!"

AYE YAY YAY!

DIdn't you read the second part? Of course they will! They have before! It's just that they don't like it! I already showed to you that they still have a desire to rear children, and to do so they will adopt, or even... mate with a straight person.

GAWD, you people!!!!!!!!!!!!

... *sigh*

Because it's biologically wrong!

God, I hate PC people. A man could have a tail, a pair of wings and a third eye, but you'd say it's completely normal.
Show me your evidence saying that it's biologically wrong then ;)

You know, I don't think he's confusing that at all. In fact, I know he knows they're not sterile. It's not a matter of if they could, it's if they want to.

To say they have no desire to procreate is of course, total crap.

After all, they want to raise children? Sexual attractions aside, they want to have children to love and care for. Otherwise this adoption issue wouldn't be an issue at all!

Indeed. Many homosexuals do want to procreate and are perfectly capable of doing so. But going through surogacy/IVF/screwing a member of the opposite sex (ew) can be a real downer, so adoption seems to the logical choice (and also the better choice for society as a whole, I think.)

You're also right about us getting side-tracked. We really shouldn't feed the trolls.

No it's not.

I don't believe in god, and I don't know what PC stands for.




p.s. Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual.

So? Everyone's a homosexual these days.

Show me your evidence saying that it's biologically wrong then ;)

Oh god...

Fine. Have it your way. That black, autistic, limbless, homosexual dude next door? Totally the same as me. In every single way.

So? Everyone's a homosexual these days.

Funny, last I checked I got a raging hardon whenever I see a good looking female. Hasn't changed since I was nine. Won't change now.

Oh god...

Fine. Have it your way. That black, autistic, limbless, homosexual dude next door? Totally the same as me. In every single way.

No, that's just unfortunate.

Funny, last I checked I got a raging hardon whenever I see a good looking female. Hasn't changed since I was nine. Won't change now.

I was pointing out that it doesn't surprise me. I mean, he was Italian, wasn't he? Exactly.

I never said that person should be shut out. I said that they should be seen as NOT NORMAL. Because they're not. And we should see if we can fix it.

Is your last name Kerry, cause you're flip flopping faster than an Olympic acrobat on poppers.

You are, in effect, shutting out a same sex couple by saying they should not have the same adoption rights as a mixed sex couple.

As for the "fix it" nonsense, now we're not only going WAAAAAAY off topic, but we're going into eugenics. I'd advise you to stay the hell OUT of that topic.

Oh god...

Fine. Have it your way. That black, autistic, limbless, homosexual dude next door? Totally the same as me. In every single way.

DIfferent =/= Wrong

AYE YAY YAY!

DIdn't you read the second part? Of course they will! They have before! It's just that they don't like it! I already showed to you that they still have a desire to rear children, and to do so they will adopt, or even... mate with a straight person.

GAWD, you people!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny story, I don't think the human race has been under threat of extinction recently. As in, within recorded history. Possibly never.

No, that's just unfortunate.

Yes because clearly his autism, race and disabilities are caused by his homosexuality. Do ou nkow what, I was wrong homosexualism should be banned outright ! [end of irony]

I was pointing out that it doesn't surprise me. I mean, he was Italian, wasn't he? Exactly.

Wow... stereotypes. Always a good measurement of one's personality. I'm Canadian, therefore I am...

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BULL****

I was pointing out that it doesn't surprise me. I mean, he was Italian, wasn't he? Exactly.

Wow, did you just call all Italian's homosexuals?

Yep, this is where I leave the thread because it's officially dead.

Is your last name Kerry, cause you're flip flopping faster than an Olympic acrobat on poppers.

You are, in effect, shutting out a same sex couple by saying they should not have the same adoption rights as a mixed sex couple.

As for the "fix it" nonsense, now we're not only going WAAAAAAY off topic, but we're going into eugenics. I'd advise you to stay the hell OUT of that topic.

Once again, I never said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. i don't care either way.

Eugenics? That's trying to make the master race. I don't want that. I want to fix the obviously negative features of people.

Wow, did you just call all Italian's homosexuals?

Yep, this is where I leave the thread because it's officially dead.

No. Actually, I have no idea what I was saying. I just made it up on the spot.

But yeah, Italians are flamboyant...

Wow... stereotypes. Always a good measurement of one's personality. I'm Canadian, therefore I am...

Whoa, you're Canadian? Then you're obviously unnatural, biologically wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to adopt children!

Once again, I never said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. i don't care either way.

Eugenics? That's trying to make the master race. I don't want that. I want to fix the obviously negative features of people.

Granted, if we prevented say... people with hemophilia from mating, then we could potentially wipe out hemophilia.

Good on paper, but in practice genetic diseases are hard to wipe out. Someone will always carry it. There may be less people with it, but still.

Funny story, I don't think the human race has been under threat of extinction recently. As in, within recorded history. Possibly never.

Black death, killed 1/3 of Europe. May not have made us extinct, but could have eliminated an entire ethnic group.

Yeah, it does. We already have something to control population: epidemics. Or pandemics. Whatever.

If the bird flu comes around, kills 150 million people, negative pop. growth combined with prevalent homosexuality, we don't have enough people to replenish the pop., a few 100 years go by, the human race goes extinct. Thank you Freddy Mercury.

Indeed, thank you Freddy Mercury, you we're one of the greatest. But praising Freddy is not the subject of this post, is it ;)

Why would homsexuality be a threat to the human race? World population numbers still grow almost exponentially, so 150 million is peanuts to replace. For homosexuality to disrupt that process the frequency of it would have to rise above 50% of the population. Do you see that around you? Is half of your friends gay?

Maybe that's the case, and you feel excluded? Is that why you preach your intolerance?

I'm a liberal you idiot.

Well, actually, I'm my own group. Common-sensers. We're centre-left.
Hey, that's my group!

Yeah, right you're liberal, but you think that gays need to be "fixed".

[ Rolls on the floor laughing! ]

BTW ... "pragmatists" are almost always center or center-right here. :D
What about Drunk Commies?


God, I hate PC people. A man could have a tail, a pair of wings and a third eye, but you'd say it's completely normal.
"You're just being PC!" is the laziest response ever.

Once again, I never said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. i don't care either way.

Eugenics? That's trying to make the master race. I don't want that. I want to fix the obviously negative features of people.


What is obviously negative about homosexuality ?!!

I was pointing out that it doesn't surprise me. I mean, he was Italian, wasn't he? Exactly.


Any italians want to respond to that? :D

Granted, if we prevented say... people with hemophilia from mating, then we could potentially wipe out hemophilia.

Good on paper, but in practice genetic diseases are hard to wipe out. Someone will always carry it. There may be less people with it, but still.

Once again, I never said to stop them breeding. I said, one day, in the distant future, find a cure, and inject it into them. Easy.

Inbreedia...

Make yourself at home. ;)
http://invisionfree.com/forums/NationStates_Canada

Once again, I never said to stop them breeding. I said, one day, in the distant future, find a cure, and inject it into them. Easy.

Actually, I don't remember you saying that. You're arguments are constantly made on the fly, aren't they? Let's just call this little flamewar a draw, shall we?

Hey, that's my group!


What about Drunk Commies?

I don't know about drunk commies. But I can tell you I'm a drunk socialist !

And I think I'll be visiting your neck of the woods in a few weeks. Well, not Dublin, but a small villiage near Tipperary.

What is obviously negative about homosexuality ?!!

It slows the birth rate! That may look like a good thing, but in the long run, I'm sure we'd be glad to have a really big population.

Once again, I never said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. i don't care either way.


Then why, why in the name of Apollo, are you posting on this thread?

It slows the birth rate! That may look like a good thing, but in the long run, I'm sure we'd be glad to have a really big population.

It's the opposite, really.

It slows the birth rate! That may look like a good thing, but in the long run, I'm sure we'd be glad to have a really big population.

Yeah, in case the aliens start invading our little dirtwater planet, and we need every available human in the war against the invaders! LOL

Germany-Ukraine... trust me... you're not a liberal...

Actually, I don't remember you saying that. You're arguments are constantly made on the fly, aren't they? Let's just call this little flamewar a draw, shall we?

Fine. But I did say "fix" genetic defect. What other meaning could that possibly have besides "cure".

Germany-Ukraine... trust me... you're not a liberal...

Naw, just a smeghead. ;)

Is your last name Kerry, cause you're flip flopping faster than an Olympic acrobat on poppers.

You are, in effect, shutting out a same sex couple by saying they should not have the same adoption rights as a mixed sex couple.

As for the "fix it" nonsense, now we're not only going WAAAAAAY off topic, but we're going into eugenics. I'd advise you to stay the hell OUT of that topic.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, or evolution would have shut it out completely. There is something "wrong" with homosexuality (as in biologicaly), but I see no reason to fix it. We don't really need more people do we?

It slows the birth rate! That may look like a good thing, but in the long run, I'm sure we'd be glad to have a really big population.

Haha, how ever does homosexuality significantly slow the birth rate ! It's not like 50% of the world's population are homosexual !
The birth rate is hardly slowed at all !

Black death, killed 1/3 of Europe. May not have made us extinct, but could have eliminated an entire ethnic group.

Which is still not the extinction of the human race. Ethnic groups will come and go over the milleniums.

Germany-Ukraine... trust me... you're not a liberal...

Pro abortion, pro green-stuff... I'd say I'm pretty close.

Once again, I never said to stop them breeding. I said, one day, in the distant future, find a cure, and inject it into them. Easy.

Sigh, if pathetically abject ignorance were only so easily "cured"...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, or evolution would have shut it out completely. There is something "wrong" with homosexuality (as in biologicaly), but I see no reason to fix it. We don't really need more people do we?

Yes. Yes we do.

Good old green stuff. I'm listening to His Bobness' Rainy Day Woman #12 & #35 right now !
Let's all go and protest now... By taking Bobby D's advice : 'everybody must get stoned' !

Once again, I never said to stop them breeding. I said, one day, in the distant future, find a cure, and inject it into them. Easy.

I think that would have to have something to do with the use of genetically modified retroviruses, which is ground that really shouldn't be tread. At least not without being very, very, VERY careful.

Once again, I never said to stop them breeding. I said, one day, in the distant future, find a cure, and inject it into them. Easy.

Maybe it's you that needs an injection to cure you from your homophobia. Although I don't think you'd like what I have in mind ;)

Sigh, if pathetically abject ignorance were only so easily "cured"...

Why cure ME? I'm right. I'm 100% right. I'm always right. I'm the greatest motherf- who ever lived. If everyone followed me, we'd be living on the moon right now. I'm greater than Jesus, mohammed and Moses combined. I'm the best person who ever lived.

I think the government should let gays marry, and have all the same rights as a strigth couple. however, as a cathloc, i say that SPIRITUALLY they should not. the church does not have to accept the gay couple as married, but th government should

Why should it make a difference? If the goverment accepted gays, why shouldn't the church? Why is the church so rooted in tradition, that they try to cling on to old values instead of concerning themselves with changing beliefs and opinions?

Anyway, back on the topic :rolleyes: . I think gays should be able to adopt, as long as the child has a choice in the matter. It will take a large step before some people begin to view gays as equal citizens. People capable of being good, loving and caring parents. It is the ATTITUDE TOWARDS GAYS that needs to change. Governments should start by taking this step in the right direction, because if the state discriminates against giving gays the privilige to adopt, what kind of message does that send out to its' citizens?

I'm a liberal you idiot.

Well, actually, I'm my own group. Common-sensers. We're centre-left.
ROFL. According to the opinions you have posted on this thread, you seem to be as liberal as Pat Robertson :p

Haha, how ever does homosexuality significantly slow the birth rate ! It's not like 50% of the world's population are homosexual !
The birth rate is hardly slowed at all !

Actually, it can be argued that homosexuality in the population doesn't actually affect the birth rate at all, since, to the best of our knowledge, homosexuals have always been present in the population in a fairly consistent ratio. Saying that they slow the birth rate assumes that a) they don't breed at all and b) that they are increasing in numbers and c) that somehow homosexuals will prevent heterosexuals from breeding.

Why should it make a difference? If the goverment accepted gays, why shouldn't the church? Why is the church so rooted in tradition, that they try to cling on to old values instead of concerning themselves with changing beliefs and opinions?

Anyway, back on the topic :rolleyes: . I think gays should be able to adopt, as long as the child has a choice in the matter. It will take a large step before some people begin to view gays as equal citizens. People capable of being good, loving and caring parents. It is the ATTITUDE TOWARDS GAYS that needs to change. Governments should start by taking this step in the right direction, because if the state discriminates against giving gays the privilige to adopt, what kind of message does that send out to its' citizens?

You can't for the church to accept homosexuality, because that's called "fascism", and is frowned upon in most societies.

Yes. Yes we do.


That's the most useless answer I've ever seen. You're just stating something. If you think it's true SAY WHY.

Interestingly enough, seeing as sexually reproducing organisms are probably vastly outnumbered by asexually reproducing organisms, and you describe the majority as the norm, then we're all abnormalities of biology. However, that's not really how it works...

Why cure ME? I'm right. I'm 100% right. I'm always right. I'm the greatest motherf- who ever lived. If everyone followed me, we'd be living on the moon right now. I'm greater than Jesus, mohammed and Moses combined. I'm the best person who ever lived.

Cocaine is a helluva drug...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, or evolution would have shut it out completely.

How so?

How so?

As gay couples don't reproduce the 'gay' trait would be eliminated.

To those of you against gays looking after children:

In England we have a company caled "Man not Included". This company supplies sperm, predominantly to lesbian couples. When one on these couples concieves, should the child be taken away from its mother?

Cocaine is a helluva drug...

Actually it's Asperger's.

Before you say anything, Asperger's is far more beneficial than it is hindering. Many great people had Asperger's. Bill Gates, Isaac Newton, Einstein. Far more.

Interestingly enough, seeing as sexually reproducing organisms are probably vastly outnumbered by asexually reproducing organisms, and you describe the majority as the norm, then we're all abnormalities of biology. However, that's not really how it works...

Well, see, we're BETTER than every other species. That makes us "correct".

As gay couples don't reproduce, thus eliminating the 'gay' trait.Homosexuality is not inherited. Idiot.

Actually it's Asperger's.

Before you say anything, Asperger's is far more beneficial than it is hindering. Many great people had Asperger's. Bill Gates, Isaac Newton, Einstein. Far more.
Include Steven Spielberg and José Mourinho. :D

Homosexuality is not inherited. Idiot.

Can we at least agree that THAT guy should be ejected from the house?

Homosexuality is not inherited. Idiot.

Maybe you should read back. I was stating why homosexuality couldn't be hereditary. Idiot.

If this is true of all cases, than I can't have any resonable problems with homosexual adoption.


But it states in Romans 1;27 that being gay is a sin, how are we suposed to reproduce anyway if they want kids being gay is not the way to go you can't reproduce, but i think that they should be allowed to adopt, they do want kids, plus, they usually abusers or anything.

As gay couples don't reproduce the 'gay' trait would be eliminated.

Wow, this is a profound and blatant misunderstanding of genetics and, by extension, evolution.

I mean, I just don't even know where to begin with this one...

Maybe you should read back. I was stating why homosexuality couldn't be hereditary. Idiot.

I knew that. :D I just wanted to say something witty...

Well, see, we're BETTER than every other species. That makes us "correct".

No we're not. Maybe we're better at inventing things than other species, but that's one thing. We're horribly outclassed as an organism in many other ways.

Organims like sharks and a bunch of single-celled organisms are 'better' designs than humans, shown in how they haven't changed greatly over a vast amount of time.

Cockroaches are much 'better' than humans when it comes to sheer survivability.

No organism is inherently better than another. Nor are we 'correct', nor are we the end-all of evolution.

Sure, why the hell not? Anyone should be allowed to, so long as they have no criminal background, as long as they're mentally stable, and as long as they have the resources for raising a child.

Wow, this is a profound and blatant misunderstanding of genetics and, by extension, evolution.

I mean, I just don't even know where to begin with this one...

Sigh...

Great Bled
Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, or evolution would have shut it out completely.

How so?

As gay couples don't reproduce the 'gay' trait would be eliminated.

In other words, homosexuality is not a genetic trait because there would be strong selection against it, since homosexuals tend to have less offspring than homosexuals. Clear B?

They should definitely be allowed to adopt. Discrimination based on sexual orientation should definitely not be alowed.

Left-handed people aren't anatomically different. Everything's in the right place. It's a choice they make. Just like most of us choose to be right-handed, and a select few choose to be ambidextrous.

It is clear from this statement that you understand nothing about heredity.
Do people with blue eyes choose that (without cosmetic intervention)?

Actually it's Asperger's.

Before you say anything, Asperger's is far more beneficial than it is hindering. Many great people had Asperger's. Bill Gates, Isaac Newton, Einstein. Far more.

How acn Asperger's be at all beneficial ?!
There are far more people who are hindered by it than those famous people. And just because they are famous doesn't mean that they aren't hindered by it and are benefitted by it !

It does exactly the same thing.

Wrong.

Ask a south paw to use a pair of "normal" scissors in their preferred hand.
To open a door using the doorknob.
To flip on the lights as they enter a room.
To write in a traditional spiral notebook (spiral on the left side).

They CAN do them, but it's harder because all these things were created with the convenience of a right handed person in mind.

Is anyone paying attention to psychology? ANY of the perspectives or domains of psychology? (Biological, evolutionary, cognitive are perspecties, and neuroscience, therapeutic, etc., are domains).

(Yes, I know this disagrees with the sheep studies, but the sheep studies are still not completed to the "what does this mean for humans" stage in the realm of psychology, so I'm using this one, which is a recent but accepted finding). The "homosexual trait" is genetic - and present in everyone. So is the "straight trait." No one is inherently JUST homosexual, nor JUST heterosexual. Hence there is nothing *wrong* with either, nor anyway to *cure* either. The environment in which a child grows up will affect how he/she views homosexuality and heterosexuality, but it will NOT affect WHICH he/she exhibits. He/she will exhibit one or both based upon what he/she thinks about the people he/she meets. He/she will then view him/herself based upon what environment he/she grew up in.
So, open environment and any tendency will often be happy with him/herself. Closed straight environment and straight tendency will often be happy with him/herself. Closed gay/bi environment (which I have yet to hear anything about) and gay/bi tendency will often be happy with him/herself. Closed straight environment and gay/bi tendency will often NOT be happy with him/herself (which is not pretty - I've seen it). Closed gay/bi environment (which I STILL have not heard anything about) and straight tendency will often be NOT happy with him/herself. Why? Because people want to be accepted by society. Humans are social animals, and we just work that way.

So, now that we know that there is no right or wrong involved, just difference, I can now say with great certainty that being gay is no reason why a person should not be able to adopt. If the person is otherwise the same as a qualified straight person, that person should be officially qualified too. The mother&father environment is, yes, the best, but ANY loving environment is better than a non-loving environment (and that has ALSO been proven in psychological studies. If you don't believe me, ask anyone in the field of psychology and they can find you studies).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the scissors debate, the reason why Germany-Ukraine was able to become left-handed during that time, while the other person (I forgot who, sorry!) can't become right-handed was that when a body part becomes useless, the part of the brain in charge of that area will take over something else, generally what is used to compensate for the useless body part. Ex.: The temporal lobes of deaf people are used for sign language instead. The occipital lobes of blind people are used for reading brail. (Neuroscience studies have proven these examples, and the general idea is a neuroscience theory).
An interesting point, there is not a noticeable difference in brain structures of left and right handed people, but right handed people use only one side of their brain for the motor part of writing while left handed use both.

Sigh...

In other words, homosexuality is not a genetic trait because there would be strong selection against it, since homosexuals tend to have less offspring than homosexuals. Clear B?

No, K, it's actually not clear because it only assumes a regular, one-to-one dominance/recessive relationship in any genetic loci that may regulate sexual orientation. If you add multiple controlling loci and incomplete dominance leading to multiple phenotypes, then not only does that answer the whole idea of the necessary allels being wiped out of the population, but it also accounts quite nicely for the continuum of sexuality which seems to be expressed in the population as a whole.