NationStates Jolt Archive

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 !

Agreed. And I'd know, 'cause I have it. :(

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?

So it's a genetic disorder?

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.

B because of a tired right hand. No disrespect meant.

You are right, my statement is too simple. Sexual preference is a continuum, and can therefore not be explained by a simple genetic model. I apologize for posting stupidity.

Just a remark on your post: if sexual preference could indeed be described by a quantum genetic model, wouldn't you be able to pick up a statistical pattern if you analyzed parent-offspring sexuality? In other words wouldn't homosexual parents have an increased chance to have homosexual offspring?

So it's a genetic disorder?

And that's still not what I said.

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.

Thank you for comfirming your trollhood.

Honestly. Just answer this.

What's better?

Gay Parents, or No Parents.

No parents, but that's just me.

No parents, but that's just me.

Would I be right if I assumed that you do, in fact, have at least one parent?

B because of a tired right hand. No disrespect meant.

You are right, my statement is too simple. Sexual preference is a continuum, and can therefore not be explained by a simple genetic model. I apologize for posting stupidity.

No worries. We've all done it. :D


Just a remark on your post: if sexual preference could indeed be described by a quantum genetic model, wouldn't you be able to pick up a statistical pattern if you analyzed parent-offspring sexuality? In other words wouldn't homosexual parents have an increased chance to have homosexual offspring?

Possibly. In an ideal world where everyone told the truth and one's sexuality was unaffected by environment (which, to be fair, probably has about as much to do with homosexuality, at least in it's expression, as genetic factors), I would be inclined to say probably. However, if you even just assumed a three-loci controlling group with two allels for each loci, you already have a number of potential phenotypes to give rise to a sexuality continuum.

So the question would remain not so much clear cut as, "Are homosexual parents likely to have homosexual children?" but, "What is the allelic frequency within the given population?"

Would I be right if I assumed that you do, in fact, have at least one parent?

Both are still alive, although they've been divorced for 54 years now.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about adoption in this thread...

In the US (generalizations)

1) Single people cannot adopt (the ones you are thinking of most likely adopted in another country and brought the non-American child to America). Couples must be married a minimum time period (two years is common requirement)

2) Couples go through some form of pre-adoption child rearing 'training' lessons.

3) Homes are checked and visited by child-councilors (advocates for the child not the parents) who have the right to 'fail' applicants if they are not satisfied that the would be parents understand what they are getting themselves into.

4) Various financial credentials of the household must be met. Adoptive parent will need to have an income adequate to provide for the daily living of a child.

5) An attempt is made, and the system ‘favors,’ the placement of children with parents of similar ethnic/cultural and religious background whenever possible.

6) There are more couples trying to adopt already than there are children available for all of them, the waiting period is sometimes years and sometimes 'never' for couples that suffer compared to other couples trying to adopt in their communities. (Yes, I know that 'most' couples wait to adopt an infant and older children are not adopted, but what reason do you have to suppose that more people list (homosexual or otherwise) would be any different?)

7) Couples are sometimes required to prove that they suffer from infertility and are no longer actively seeking infertility treatment before their applications are accepted.

8) Adoptive parent must be of an age similar to the range suitable to birthparents.

9) Adoptive parents must be in reasonably good health. Individuals who are in remission from cancer, or have received alcohol and/or drug therapy, will need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

10) Adoptive parents become disqualified sometimes if they have a successful pregnancy of their own.

11) Adoptive parent must understand a second adoption cannot be attempted until the adoption of the first child is finalized and the child is at least one-year of age (unless siblings are adopted).

12) Adoptive parents are limited to how many ‘placements’ they may have (two is a common number, if after two placements both children are returned, the couple is likely to be ‘blackballed’ per-se).

You people keep talking about children in foster homes and about being placed with Same-Sex couples or not placed with parents at all, but that is NOT a realistic summary of the situation today.

Foster children are mostly children taken or temporarily removed from their homes, not children you can adopt anyway. New orphans are 'usually' placed with relatives. There are disability infants and other children that do not have homes, but the requirements to adopt disability children are actually 'higher,' not lower than the requirements for less disabled children because we need to ensure that the couple adopting a special needs child can actually deal with the special need of the child, above and beyond everything else.

Placing children in prospective homes should never be done simply as a political statement.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that one of the reasons some adoption agencies have religious requirements and standard is because many birth mother's seek out those adoption agencies that ensure them that they will check the religiosity of the homes before their child will be placed there. Many women will not put their child up for adoption until they get that assurance. It's a really BIG credential to some single mother's before they agree to give up their children.

Maybe you should read back. I was stating why homosexuality couldn't be hereditary. Idiot.Woops... :D my mistake. Not Idiot.

You people keep talking about children in foster homes and about being placed with Same-Sex couples or not placed with parents at all, but that is NOT a realistic summary of the situation today.

Foster children are mostly children taken or temporarily removed from their homes, not children you can adopt anyway. New orphans are 'usually' placed with relatives. There are disability infants and other children that do not have homes, but the requirements to adopt disability children are actually 'higher,' not lower than the requirements for less disabled children because we need to ensure that the couple adopting a special needs child can actually deal with the special need of the child, above and beyond everything else.



If you are painting as rosy a picture as all that, then tell me please: why does my local news station run a human interest story weekly which spotlights different children in the system who need parents? And encourages people to contact the agency if they would like the opportunity to begin the process of checking their qualifications?

Here is my opinion, but before I state it hear this: I have been stating this opinion for longer than you would probably believe. I am a christian and I am proud of it. I have been called everything but a white man and frankly I don't really care. Insulting me won't change anything and neither will arguing.

Homosexuals and even Bisexuals shouldn't even be allowed to exist on earth, they are a stain on the already tarnished state of humanity, corrupt and uncorrupt. They are a direct creation of satan and should be dealt with as such, burned at the stake at best, along with those who commit beastiality and incest. How do you think AIDS and HIV got spread around in this hemisphere?! Nobody was created equal, The Bible, The Koran and many other religious scriptures have stated constantly that Homosexuality is an evil of this world. Argue all you want but you cannot escape the simple truth, unless your minds have already been desensitized to this evil. just like violence, sexuality, etc... This is my opinion and if you don't like it then I don't care, if you approve of what I say then I thank you.

If you are painting as rosy a picture as all that, then tell me please: why does my local news station run a human interest story weekly which spotlights different children in the system who need parents? And encourages people to contact the agency if they would like the opportunity to begin the process of checking their qualifications?

I’m not trying to paint a ‘rosy’ picture. I’m trying to paint a more realistic picture. “Good” Foster homes and “good” people trying to adopt are always needed and always wanted.

As it is though, couples that have to wait seven months to become qualified and be approved and begin their ‘wait’ for a Caucasian non-special needs child, they are likely passing their chances to adopt an African American child in the same situation in less than their first month of their wait. But do they don’t do it, no. Don’t blame me, I’m just stating facts. What makes you think increasing the number of people that can become qualified (increasing the single adults and reducing the standards for respective parents would help this situation in any way?).

I don’t see how your local channel providing a good public service translates into them showing us a situation that is so bad that they need to approve every application that they get. Without knowing which state or locale (and please, you don’t have to tell us, the point stands without my knowing) that I’d bet even money that they turn away more applicants for adoption than they accept.

Good foster homes are always needed, everywhere. People who feel a calling for that kind of service (becoming a foster home etc.,) should apply, even when they have more homes than children it is never too soon to begin the process of becoming an approved home for children that may need a place to stay in the future.

All these rules on adoptive parents but there are no checks on a the suitability of a couple of fertile people getting together and having a kid.

I mean look at how many fucked up parents there are out there who either have children they cant support or have children they neglect and abuse.

I’ve written more than a few posts and started a few threads complaining about our lack of societal pressure in how we raise our children. I’ve complained over and over and tried to show how being responsible parents and setting good community standards for raising children in this very forum is good for the children… So, I totally agree that is a problem.

The only realistic methodology we have of improving that situation though is through educating the community and increasing social standards at a grass roots level. Removing children from their homes should not be out first choice.

How do you think AIDS and HIV got spread around in this hemisphere?!
It can also be spread by drug use, it can be spread by heterosexual contact, it can be spread from mother to child when a mother is giving birth or possibly when breastfeeding.

HIV is not a "gay diease".

A person's sexuality should not be a factor in whether they can or cannot adopt. Why leave a child to languish in an orphanage, if there is a couple - gay, bi, hetero or chinese crested hairless lovin' couple that can provide this child with shelter, love, and a sense of belonging.

What goes on in a person's bedroom is not a factor in defining a "good parent" unless the couple are in the habit of getting in on in the kitchen while the kiddies are eating their breakfast. ;)

Being gay is not a disease or a mental illness. Gay people have the capacity to love and nurture a child just as well as any heterosexual couple. There are children out there crying out to be loved; why should they be denied a potential home because of homophobia

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.
You realise that this argument applies to all human procreation...?

As a matter of fact, AIDS and HIV is most often spread now by people who frequent prostitutes bringing it home to their wives and girlfriends.

Homosexuals and even Bisexuals shouldn't even be allowed to exist on earth, they are a stain on the already tarnished state of humanity, corrupt and uncorrupt. They are a direct creation of satan and should be dealt with as such, burned at the stake at best, along with those who commit beastiality and incest. How do you think AIDS and HIV got spread around in this hemisphere?! Nobody was created equal, The Bible, The Koran and many other religious scriptures have stated constantly that Homosexuality is an evil of this world. Argue all you want but you cannot escape the simple truth, unless your minds have already been desensitized to this evil. just like violence, sexuality, etc... This is my opinion and if you don't like it then I don't care, if you approve of what I say then I thank you.
LOLOL I'm glad to see someone is willing to provide the comic relief...

Should I post a list of historical and wonderfully brilliant and influential homosexuals or should I spare you the futility of embarrassing you?



The only thing you've managed to do with your rant is take one step closer to believing that all followers of theistic religions are brain-washed, fools that have been baptized and spoon fed BS since before they could even think for themselves. Brought up to believe a series of rigid never changing rules much like muslim fundamentalists.

Homosexuality occurs naturally, just like heterosexuality occurs naturally.

Oh and by the way... the bible hints at Noah's homosexuality and incestous relationships, with his sons... yeah... the ark guy.

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

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

Just because something is natural doesn't automatically make it good. After all, hemlock and arsenic are natural, but I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.

Something else to consider too: 100%* of homosexuals come from heterosexual parents, so obviously, being raised in a heterosexual family is no guarantee that one is going to be a heterosexual. Why should being raised in a homosexual family make it inevidable that one is going to be a homosexual?

* plus or minus 3%, like any good statistic

LOLOL I'm glad to see someone is willing to provide the comic relief...

Should I post a list of historical and wonderfully brilliant and influential homosexuals or should I spare you the futility of embarrassing you?



The only thing you've managed to do with your rant is take one step closer to believing that all followers of theistic religions are brain-washed, fools that have been baptized and spoon fed BS since before they could even think for themselves. Brought up to believe a series of rigid never changing rules much the muslim fundamentalists.

Homosexuality occurs naturally, just like heterosexuality occurs naturally.

Oh and by the way... the bible hints at Noah's homosexuality and incestous relationships, with his sons... yeah... the ark guy.


Oh, hey, Canada6, I'm Catholic and I never spew that kind of stuff....

As a matter of fact, AIDS and HIV is most often spread now by people who frequent prostitutes bringing it home to their wives and girlfriends.

Where did you get that data from? I've heard something similar about some African American communities but nothing that would lead me to believe that 'most often' would be a qualitative statement to that regard.

From my understanding, in Europe and America, the homosexual male community still suffers from a much higher percentile when compared to the general public than they should.

Perhaps your statement is true about the sub-Sahara African nations that contend with the AIDS outbreak and the proliferation of HIV. Is that what you were talking about? If so I retract my question.

Oh, hey, Canada6, I'm Catholic and I never spew that kind of stuff....I myself was brought up roman catholic for example. After learning what Jesus was really all about, and accepting the bible as the fairy tale it is, and understanding how people can be led to believe anything in order to achieve certain goals... that's when things began to change for me.

The only thing you've managed to do with your rant is take one step closer to believing that all followers of theistic religions are brain-washed, fools that have been baptized and spoon fed BS since before they could even think for themselves.

Here's a follower of a theistic religion who thinks the real "sin" as far as this issue goes is homophobia and hatred.

There you go...religion needs to reform and conform itself with reality. It begins with the vatican. And I'm not even talking about abortion, or homosexuality yet. I mean... gosh... let's just start with acknowledging the fact that married couples can have sex whenever they please and for whatever purpose they please. :D

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?

Wait, they're afraid to let gays adopt because their children might be discriminated? For crying the fuck out loud, it doesn't get any more idiotic than that! It's the same reasoning of the guy that says "a girl that dresses skimpy should expect a rape, therefore it's her fault". No, I refuse that. Society must be taught to respect difference, and until it learns, it must be forced to. Where's law enforcement? Where are the teachers to prevent bullying against the kid? It's THEIR problem, not the gay couple's. If Article 13 says they're equal (and even if it didn't), it means they ARE. Period. Rednecks that can't accept difference aren't to be pampered, they're to be taught to respect difference, and, in case they make people suffer from their bigotry, arrested and tried like any other criminal. Mob mentality and bigotry should have no bearing on this decision, a decision that Article 13 already made.

Wait, they're afraid to let gays adopt because their children might be discriminated? For crying the fuck out loud, it doesn't get any more idiotic than that! It's the same reasoning of the guy that says "a girl that dresses skimpy should expect a rape, therefore it's her fault". No, I refuse that. Society must be taught to respect difference, and until it learns, it must be forced to. Where's law enforcement? Where are the teachers to prevent bullying against the kid? It's THEIR problem, not the gay couple's. If Article 13 says they're equal (and even if it didn't), it means they ARE. Period. Rednecks that can't accept difference aren't to be pampered, they're to be taught to respect difference, and, in case they make people suffer from their bigotry, arrested and tried like any other criminal. Mob mentality and bigotry should have no bearing on this decision, a decision that Article 13 already made.


It sounds to me like you are saying that even a religious group should not be protected from the 'thought' police of their government? Perhaps even a Church in Canada (for example) that refused to accept and teach that homosexuality and same sex marriage is an acceptable option in their doctrine, should be forced by their government of Canada to change their ways or face the consequences?

Interesting. That sounds strangely like what the anti-advocates of SSM said would happen. Their very right to object would become criminal behavior…

It sounds to me like you are saying that even a religious group should not be protected from the 'thought' police of their government? Perhaps even a Church in Canada (for example) that refused to accept and teach that homosexuality and same sex marriage is an acceptable option in their doctrine, should be forced by their government of Canada to change their ways or face the consequences?

Interesting. That sounds strangely like what the anti-advocates of SSM said would happen. Their very right to object would become criminal behavior…

Umm, the "Church" in Canada isn't obliged to perform nor solemnize SSM. They are prohibited however in promoting hatred and violence towards members or groups of any race, religion and sexual orientation. (see Bill C-250 and be sure your source has the gov.ca suffix ok?) And as before, protestants Muslims and Jews don't get married in nor attend Catholic churches and vice-versa because "God's" thought police says we are one big happy family. :rolleyes:

Should gays be allowed to adopt?


Yes.

Anyone who will love a child and give them a healthy home to grow up in should be able to adopt.

Yes of course they should be allowed to adopt. For the sake of the child though they should make sure the child also has a good female role-model (assuming the foster-parents are men) as role-models of both genders are important in the social development of any child.

Here is my opinion, but before I state it hear this: I have been stating this opinion for longer than you would probably believe. I am a christian and I am proud of it. I have been called everything but a white man and frankly I don't really care. Insulting me won't change anything and neither will arguing.

Homosexuals and even Bisexuals shouldn't even be allowed to exist on earth, they are a stain on the already tarnished state of humanity, corrupt and uncorrupt. They are a direct creation of satan and should be dealt with as such, burned at the stake at best, along with those who commit beastiality and incest. How do you think AIDS and HIV got spread around in this hemisphere?! Nobody was created equal, The Bible, The Koran and many other religious scriptures have stated constantly that Homosexuality is an evil of this world. Argue all you want but you cannot escape the simple truth, unless your minds have already been desensitized to this evil. just like violence, sexuality, etc... This is my opinion and if you don't like it then I don't care, if you approve of what I say then I thank you.

ROFL!

Oh man, it's hilarious and frightening at the same time. I guess there is still good ol' fashioned hate, ignorance and religious zealotry out there! Yeah, gimme that old time religion!

It sounds to me like you are saying that even a religious group should not be protected from the 'thought' police of their government? Perhaps even a Church in Canada (for example) that refused to accept and teach that homosexuality and same sex marriage is an acceptable option in their doctrine, should be forced by their government of Canada to change their ways or face the consequences?

Interesting. That sounds strangely like what the anti-advocates of SSM said would happen. Their very right to object would become criminal behavior…

No. I was by no means saying that the churches and people couldn't hold or state their misguided little beliefs. What I said was that threat of violence, verbal or physical, against anyone, must be dealt with as a crime.

Should gays be allowed to adopt?
How could they possibly be prevented from adopting?

Here is my opinion, but before I state it hear this: I have been stating this opinion for longer than you would probably believe. I am a christian and I am proud of it. I have been called everything but a white man and frankly I don't really care. Insulting me won't change anything and neither will arguing.

Homosexuals and even Bisexuals shouldn't even be allowed to exist on earth, they are a stain on the already tarnished state of humanity, corrupt and uncorrupt. They are a direct creation of satan and should be dealt with as such, burned at the stake at best, along with those who commit beastiality and incest. How do you think AIDS and HIV got spread around in this hemisphere?! Nobody was created equal, The Bible, The Koran and many other religious scriptures have stated constantly that Homosexuality is an evil of this world. Argue all you want but you cannot escape the simple truth, unless your minds have already been desensitized to this evil. just like violence, sexuality, etc... This is my opinion and if you don't like it then I don't care, if you approve of what I say then I thank you.

You dumbass aids was created through the sex of monkeys and humans, it had nothing to do with homosexuals. As for burning them on the stake you would get sent to hell faster then you could click your fingers together. No matter what people say god gave us morals and values in order to put our life into process. HUMANS were the ones who gave us the bible to control us. I believe love is a beautiful thing and if Satan is bringing happiness to two men or women that in that case I might just convert to satanism :D

Don't rely so much on teh bible no matter what the church says God did not waste his time telling us exactly how to live our life, he gave us morals and values for that. It was the stupid popes who created it in order to launch the witch burning trials and the crusades.

How could they possibly be prevented from adopting?

Children of divorce evidence many more psychological, academic and other forms of dysfunction than do children of intact, two-parent families:

Dr. Judith Wallerstein, found that nearly half the children in her study were "worried, underachieving, self-deprecating and sometimes angry young men and women" even 10 years after their parent's divorce. Dr. Nicholas Zill, writing in the Journal of Family Psychology, says he found that children of divorce showed "high levels of emotional distress, or problem behavior, (and were more likely) to have received psychological help."

A recent study of divorce among gay couples in Sweden and Norway sheds some interesting light on the prospects for gay divorce. The researchers found that female-female couples were about three times MORE likely to dissolve their partnerships, and male-male couples were about one and one-half times MORE likely to dissolve their partnerships, as were married opposite-sex couples.

What motivation is there to allow children to be adopted by couples that are ‘more’ likely to get a divorce before the children move out? Isn’t it bad enough already without making it worse? If same-sex couples begin to show more stability and the children they raise begin to match up with two-biological-parent results instead of just matching up with single parent homes (as they do now), then I will withdraw my objection. But in the meantime, all the pretty faerie stories about SSM couples making good stable homes for children is speculation in fancy, not fact.

Currently, the best data suggests that there are substantial differences in the affects different types of home life environments have on children, to pretend otherwise is just politics.

Absolutely they should be allowed to adopt

You dumbass aids was created through the sex of monkeys and humans, it had nothing to do with homosexuals. As for burning them on the stake you would get sent to hell faster then you could click your fingers together. No matter what people say god gave us morals and values in order to put our life into process. HUMANS were the ones who gave us the bible to control us. I believe love is a beautiful thing and if Satan is bringing happiness to two men or women that in that case I might just convert to satanism :D

Don't rely so much on teh bible no matter what the church says God did not waste his time telling us exactly how to live our life, he gave us morals and values for that. It was the stupid popes who created it in order to launch the witch burning trials and the crusades.

I'm reasonably certain that the whole 'sex with monkeys' thing is a myth. I believe that certain people eating monkeys is accepted as much more likely to be the origin.

Children of divorce evidence many more psychological, academic and other forms of dysfunction than do children of intact, two-parent families:

Dr. Judith Wallerstein, found that nearly half the children in her study were "worried, underachieving, self-deprecating and sometimes angry young men and women" even 10 years after their parent's divorce. Dr. Nicholas Zill, writing in the Journal of Family Psychology, says he found that children of divorce showed "high levels of emotional distress, or problem behavior, (and were more likely) to have received psychological help."
No qualms with this part.

A recent study of divorce among gay couples in Sweden and Norway sheds some interesting light on the prospects for gay divorce. The researchers found that female-female couples were about three times MORE likely to dissolve their partnerships, and male-male couples were about one and one-half times MORE likely to dissolve their partnerships, as were married opposite-sex couples.
I'd really be interested in seeing these studies. Any links?

What motivation is there to allow children to be adopted by couples that are ‘more’ likely to get a divorce before the children move out? Isn’t it bad enough already without making it worse? If same-sex couples begin to show more stability and the children they raise begin to match up with two-biological-parent results instead of just matching up with single parent homes (as they do now), then I will withdraw my objection. But in the meantime, all the pretty faerie stories about SSM couples making good stable homes for children is speculation in fancy, not fact.
The problem here is that you are denying people the ability to do something based on a probability. Sure same sex couples may get divorced but so may opposite sex couples. You can't say for certain which couples will get a divorce or wont. And denying all of them the ability to do so based on the assumption that some might get a divorce is crazy.

[FONT=Arial Black]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.

First of all, its Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands who have legalized gay marriage, not Spain. Second, it is only because of people like you that the issue of the child being teased at school because of his parents sexual orientation exists.

Currently, the best data suggests that there are substantial differences in the affects different types of home life environments have on children, to pretend otherwise is just politics.

Need we bring up that a different study [by the Barna Research Group] showed the highest rates of divorce in America were among Christians [24%, 27% for 'born again' fundamentalists] and the lowest among atheists [21%], so believers shouldn't be able to adopt either?

Currently, the best data suggests that there are substantial differences in the affects different types of home life environments have on children, to pretend otherwise is just politics.

Of course. A child with heterosexual parents that are abusive and alchoholic must be better than caring homosexual parents. :rolleyes:

If you want studies, Swedish Christian Democrat Jerzy Einhorn performed a study that concluded there were no differences for children living with straight or gay couples. In true Christian manner, his party decided to bury the report because it didn't coincide with their opinions.

Article in Swedish (couldn't find one in English): http://www.sr.se/Ekot/arkiv.asp?DagensDatum=2002-09-12&Artikel=117381

A communique from the Father.

Homosexuality is neither a sin nor a perversion, it is repeatedly demonstrated in nature by countless species of animals, why we even have a gay male dragon pair in the palace that make excellent egg incubators, they are in fact better parents then most female-male pairs, we sometimes give them eggs to hatch even if the mother is still around, dragon babies are very expensive and our gay dragon pair (Tioppe and Fansa) have never let one die yet, which is great for us pedigree dragon breeders and the babies.
So any anti gay rhetoric spouted by any nation's leader is absolutely ridiculous.

We of Cthag-gothu welcome gays to our lands and I would like to mention that we have lots of shops amenities and late nite bars specially tailored for you guys, and if anyone starts on you for being gay then they will be explaining themselves to the police (not recommended) very soon after, we have a zero tolerance policy on intolerance.

i know two kids raised by some gay friends of mine and they are doing splendid!

i'm a lesbian and if my partner and i want to adopt a child or two we will go right ahead!

Definitely not! It is the statement of The Most Serene Republic of Tungusia, because "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi!" :)

Sushi and Fish Eggs: Spain HAS legalised gay marriage.

On topic... I thought I would throw my two cents in fo two reasons.

1) I am a gay man and I am sick an tired of people saying 'think of the children'. We are just as capable of providing loving stable homes as straights. Whatever the sexuality of the parents there will always be people who shouldn't have children.

2) My partner grew up in an orphanage and he would have given anything to be adopted by anybody whether they were straight or not. He wouldn't even have cared if he only had one parent because one would have been better than none.

Anyway, gay people can in many cases adopt already. The debate is whether to allow a gay couple to adopt jointly.

Of course they should be able to adopt... if they are able to provide for the kid and are wiling and ready, I fail to see any reason why they shouldn't.

There are 2 kinds of adoption: The first is where an existing parent divorces, or the other parent dies, and he or she decides to continue his/her life in a homosexual relationship (happens more often than you might think).

In this case, giving the ability to adopt the child to the new partner should be a no brainer. If s/he cannot adopt, s/he will never be able to have legal custody over the child who views him/her as an important person in his/her life, legally the new partner would be a stranger to the child if adoption is not possible.

The other kind is where a homosexual couple wants to adopt a foster child. This should be handled on a per-case base, just like with heterosexuals. There is no general "right" to adopt a child. The child is top priority, not someone's wish to have one, be they homo- or heterosexual.

There are 2 kinds of adoption: The first is where an existing parent divorces, or the other parent dies, and he or she decides to continue his/her life in a homosexual relationship (happens more often than you might think).

In this case, giving the ability to adopt the child to the new partner should be a no brainer. If s/he cannot adopt, s/he will never be able to have legal custody over the child who views him/her as an important person in his/her life, legally the new partner would be a stranger to the child if adoption is not possible.

The other kind is where a homosexual couple wants to adopt a foster child. This should be handled on a per-case base, just like with heterosexuals. There is no general "right" to adopt a child. The child is top priority, not someone's wish to have one, be they homo- or heterosexual.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a sane, balanced and logical answer. :)

With the amount of children in the world that need adopting I think that gays should be allowed adopt. I used to be quite cautious about it, until I met someone who as a child in Ireland was from a single parent family and was born outside of Ireland. I can't describe the stigma that was associated with this in Ireland up to the mid 1990's, it was tough but she survived. Yes kids may be subjected to name calling etc, but what my friend found was that most kids her own age where fine, it was others parents who were the problem. It probably is best if a kid can grow up in what would be described as a 'stable' and 'normal' environment with a Mom & Dad, house, graden and a dog, but this is not always the case.

If you had a choice to either be adopted by gay parents or live on the streets of Calcutta or even New York or in an orphanage which would you choose?

Homosexuals and even Bisexuals shouldn't even be allowed to exist on earth, they are a stain on the already tarnished state of humanity, corrupt and uncorrupt. They are a direct creation of satan and should be dealt with as such, burned at the stake at best, along with those who commit beastiality and incest. How do you think AIDS and HIV got spread around in this hemisphere?! Nobody was created equal, The Bible, The Koran and many other religious scriptures have stated constantly that Homosexuality is an evil of this world. Argue all you want but you cannot escape the simple truth, unless your minds have already been desensitized to this evil. just like violence, sexuality, etc... This is my opinion and if you don't like it then I don't care, if you approve of what I say then I thank you.

If homosexuals shouldn't be on this earth may I ask who created them and in his wisdom put them there? Who created Satan, after all?

You are a nutter. Go away and cast your first stone elsewhere.

[FONT=Arial Black]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.

First of all, its Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands who have legalized gay marriage, not Spain. Second, it is only because of people like you that the issue of the child being teased at school because of his parents sexual orientation exists.

spain as well. link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/11/spain.marriage.reut/)

Spain legalised gay marriages a couple of weeks before Canada did.

Children of divorce evidence many more psychological, academic and other forms of dysfunction than do children of intact, two-parent families:

Dr. Judith Wallerstein, found that nearly half the children in her study were "worried, underachieving, self-deprecating and sometimes angry young men and women" even 10 years after their parent's divorce. Dr. Nicholas Zill, writing in the Journal of Family Psychology, says he found that children of divorce showed "high levels of emotional distress, or problem behavior, (and were more likely) to have received psychological help."

A recent study of divorce among gay couples in Sweden and Norway sheds some interesting light on the prospects for gay divorce. The researchers found that female-female couples were about three times MORE likely to dissolve their partnerships, and male-male couples were about one and one-half times MORE likely to dissolve their partnerships, as were married opposite-sex couples.

What motivation is there to allow children to be adopted by couples that are ‘more’ likely to get a divorce before the children move out? Isn’t it bad enough already without making it worse? If same-sex couples begin to show more stability and the children they raise begin to match up with two-biological-parent results instead of just matching up with single parent homes (as they do now), then I will withdraw my objection. But in the meantime, all the pretty faerie stories about SSM couples making good stable homes for children is speculation in fancy, not fact.


Are gay couples allowed to adopt in Sweden or Norway?

Is there a study that says that gay couples with adopted children are more likely to divorce than straight couples with adopted children?

Side note: I've seen two different types of adoption being talked about here now, straight up infant/orphan adoption and adopting the children of your spouse. I have been talking about infant/orphan adoption, adopting the children of your spouse has more to do with the absent parent's condition than anything else and is not an issue to my discussion.


I'd really be interested in seeing these studies. Any links?

http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=40208


The problem here is that you are denying people the ability to do something based on a probability. Sure same sex couples may get divorced but so may opposite sex couples. You can't say for certain which couples will get a divorce or wont. And denying all of them the ability to do so based on the assumption that some might get a divorce is crazy.

It has to be based on probability. There is nothing else that can be done. Contact, assesment and probability. Minimum marriage credentials could be increased since more couples would be added to the list of perspective would-be adoptive homes anyway, increasing the limits of difficulty shouldn't be a problem.

Such as: you've been sufficiently employed for seven years, with no reason to think that will change, your family home has been sufficiently maintained for three years and you and your spouse claim to be happy... Vs., You have a great job now, but you've been fired three times in the last two years, you just met your mail order bride two months ago and you have a no lease rental apartment... The interview is irrelavent.

Probability is the only thing you can base it on, even when it is wrong. The long term couple first mentioned above might actually be the bad one of the two, perhaps they are only trying a last ditch effort to avoid a divorce by adopting a child (bad idea), and the short term couple above may be finally settled down now for life and are fully capable of providing a loving home for the life of the child, but there is no way of 'knowing' those things so probability is the only recourse we have.

Need we bring up that a different study showed the highest rates of divorce in America were among Christians [24%, 27% for 'born again' fundamentalists] and the lowest among atheists [21%], so believers shouldn't be able to adopt either?

Actually I would like to see that report. The studies that I have seen show that people who do not attend religious services frequently (holiday attendance only for example) but call themselves a particular religious type often skew the results of those studies. Age, poverty and overall conditions come into factors as well. The overall population of self described ‘atheists’ is approximately 4.1% of the population, then, what percentage of them get married?

But to answer your question, yes. People that are ‘likely’ to get a divorce should not be able to adopt IMO. The divorce rate for heterosexual couples is 42% now. The anticipated divorce rate of SS couples (if the Norway Sweden study is evidence of what will occur in America) would be 61% for male-male couples and 75% for female-female couples…

Of course. A child with heterosexual parents that are abusive and alchoholic must be better than caring homosexual parents. :rolleyes:


Nice strawman that, who's defending abusive criminals? Was that the topic?

If you want studies, Swedish Christian Democrat Jerzy Einhorn performed a study that concluded there were [b]no differences for children living with straight or gay couples. In true Christian manner, his party decided to bury the report because it didn't coincide with their opinions.

Article in Swedish (couldn't find one in English): http://www.sr.se/Ekot/arkiv.asp?DagensDatum=2002-09-12&Artikel=117381

I can’t read the article. The studies I have seen have compared divorced heterosexual parents with divorced homosexual parents. But the fact remained that neither group did as well as non-divorced parents. The divorce and separation of the parents is the problem. Although I have also seen reports that girls raised in female-female SS household are more likely to experiment with sexuality earlier and more often than girls raised in heterosexual households.

Spain legalised gay marriages a couple of weeks before Canada did.
More streamed lined government … they both made the proclamation at a very similar time but Canada took a bit to implement it

All in all they both should be applauded.

I've seen alot of people mention that its not natural, etc... that it should be a heterosexual husband and wife and so on.
First off the 'nuclear family' is not natural. Its only been around since the industrial revolution, before that extended families were the norm.
Now personally i don't know whether gay parents are better/worse that heterosexual parents. What i do beleive is that who ever adopts should have an extended family to fall back on. That way if the husband/wife/lifepartner/whatever should leave the child will still have a family.

Is there a study that says that gay couples with adopted children are more likely to divorce than straight couples with adopted children?


Same study, I linked to it in the post above. What they were trying to determine was IF the hope of creating of children kept heterosexual couples together longer than SS couples stayed together in similar situations. The divorce rate of childless heterosexual couples was previewed and it turned out that it didn't explain the discrepancy.

More studies are needed. To ignore what we can already see though would be irresponsible. The onus of proof is on the new home-environment to show that is will be sufficient for the children, not the other way around.

We need more time to study the situation.

More streamed lined government … they both made the proclamation at a very similar time but Canada took a bit to implement it

All in all they both should be applauded.

especially spain IMO, being catholic and all.

especially spain IMO, being catholic and all.
Yeah I was surprised by Spain they have had a history of strong religious influence … shows you they are growing up

It has to be based on probability. There is nothing else that can be done. Contact, assesment and probability. Minimum marriage credentials could be increased since more couples would be added to the list of perspective would-be adoptive homes anyway, increasing the limits of difficulty shouldn't be a problem.
I would think background/economic situation/etc would be a much better system to base off who should adopt rather then the probability that someone may or may not divorce.

Such as: you've been sufficiently employed for seven years, with no reason to think that will change, your family home has been sufficiently maintained for three years and you and your spouse claim to be happy... Vs., You have a great job now, but you've been fired three times in the last two years, you just met your mail order bride two months ago and you have a no lease rental apartment... The interview is irrelavent.
I'm sorry but I don't know what you are trying to get at here. Are you just using a background check as an example?

Probability is the only thing you can base it on, even when it is wrong. The long term couple first mentioned above might actually be the bad one of the two, perhaps they are only trying a last ditch effort to avoid a divorce by adopting a child (bad idea), and the short term couple above may be finally settled down now for life and are fully capable of providing a loving home for the life of the child, but there is no way of 'knowing' those things so probability is the only recourse we have.
But the problem with probability is that it doesn't account for everyone they are a generalization. I mean lets look at senior citizens. They are more likely to get into car accidents then other age groups so why aren't we taking away all senior citizens' liscense? No we recognize that not all senior citizens will cause accidents but we do make sure they can still pass the driving test. We do not deny them the ability to drive a car based on statistics. You can not for certain say which group may or may not get a divorce. You can not absolutely take to couples and tell me which one will get a divorce. If you were to be fired from your job today because some statistic said that whatever sex/race/creed was more likely to steal money from the job then you would be up in arms. And I disagree that probability is the only recourse. You have background checks, you have interviews, etc that can be used to figure out if the couple applying for an adoption would make good parents. You also say there is no way of knowing those things so probability is the only recourse. The problem with this statement is that probability gives less then a concrete answer then say a background check or an interview. If we were to not let blacks do something because statistically they are more incline to steal/kill/etc everyone would be up in arms yelling discrimination.



Actually I would like to see that report. The studies that I have seen show that people who do not attend religious services frequently (holiday attendance only for example) but call themselves a particular religious type often skew the results of those studies. Age, poverty and overall conditions come into factors as well. The overall population of self described ‘atheists’ is approximately 4.1% of the population, then, what percentage of them get married?
Funny you should say that other factors affect these studies but you really never mention these when we are talking about same sex couples.

But to answer your question, yes. People that are ‘likely’ to get a divorce should not be able to adopt IMO. The divorce rate for heterosexual couples is 42% now. The anticipated divorce rate of SS couples (if the Norway Sweden study is evidence of what will occur in America) would be 61% for male-male couples and 75% for female-female couples…
You can not predict which couples will divorce based on statistics. You can only say that they might get a divorce buy you can not accurately predict which couples will get one. For all we know by doing this we may be removing a section of the population where these kids can have a good home. Also 42% is a very high number. That means out of all the heterosexual couples that get married almost half get divorced. Should we take away heterosexual's ability to adopt as well?

Yes, as long as the persons in question can demonstrate that they can provide for a child, have no violent criminal records, etc..., they should be allowed to adopt.

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.

Ok, that's enough. Take a one day break -- and when you come back, remember not to call people insane or idiots just because you disagree with them

I'm seeing a definite pattern in your posts here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9766168&postcount=215
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9744861#post9744861
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9728681#post9728681

One day forumban.