NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it whenever the idea of homosexuals or lesbian adopting children brought up, the Conservative and Christian goes "OMG, NO THEY'LL BE BRAINWASHED BY THE EBIL LIBRALS!!!!111!!!" Two gay men can be in a loving, caring, and stable marriage/relationship and can raise a healthy child (both physically and mentally) that will be a productive member of society. And yet, they can't adopt because they just happen to be gay. Meanwhile, we have several dysfunctional family and broken homes in this country due to child abuse, spousal abuse, drug problems, drinking problems, all sort of problems and the children are raised by heterosexual couples?

One of the arguments is that children need both a mommy and a daddy. Well I've seen homosexual men where one "wears the pants" and one wears the "skirt". If you don't realize that I was kidding, end yourself. I've seen single mothers, and single dad raise children all the time, normal, well adjusted children, and they did it without a mommy or a daddy, so why can't two men or two women raise a child?

I would much rather have a child raised by two loving, caring, and wonderful homosexual couples than to be put in a heterosexual home that's filled with so many problems that the child will have problems itself.

In conclusion, I say let the homosexual community adopt the bastarded children! :D

I think you are absolutely right. Homosexuals can provide loving, caring, supportive homes for adopted children.

I just have one question. Who are the "bastarded children"?

I think you are absolutely right. Homosexuals can provide loving, caring, supportive homes for adopted children.

I just have one question. Who are the "bastarded children"?

Alternative terminology for orphans. If bastard weren't such a swear word in the U.S, then it'd be used more often in the original context.

I think you are absolutely right. Homosexuals can provide loving, caring, supportive homes for adopted children.

I just have one question. Who are the "bastarded children"?

Meh, that was just the first thing that popped to my mind when I was thinking of the title. I was thinking along the line of that comedian who said "Let the one eye bastards play". She was doing a routine on dangerous toys like the Lawn Darts.

*orders Lawn Darts*

*orders Lawn Darts*


The PERFECT Toys For Tots donation for bastarded children.









No, not really.

The PERFECT Toys For Tots donation for bastarded children.

No, not really.

You are right, the perfect gift for bastarded children is a bastard sword. Otherwise known as the hand-and-a-half sword, or the son-of-a-gun.

But what about those of us who don't want children? ;_;

Funny, I've always known bastard to mean the product of a sexual relationship outside of marriage; an illegitimate child. I have never known it to mean orphaned.

Source, please?

If we let them adopt children next they'll want to give birth to their own children, yes even the homosexual men. It's a slippery slope that I nor any of my peers wish to go down on and I don't mean go down on in a sexual way or do I?

Pssst, they can give birth to their own children.

Besides, I don't see the big deal. There are lots of kids languishing in foster care or waiting for adoption -- I don't think they're better off in the state's care than in the care of loving, non-abusive parents of WHATEVER type.

If we let them adopt children next they'll want to give birth to their own children, yes even the homosexual men. It's a slippery slope that I nor any of my peers wish to go down on and I don't mean go down on in a sexual way or do I?

What's wrong with with letting them breed?

Is homosexuality a less desirable genetic trait?

As a member of a sentient species that beat natural selection, I think, that this is an experiment worth doing.

Funny, I've always known bastard to mean the product of a sexual relationship outside of marriage; an illegitimate child. I have never known it to mean orphaned.

Source, please?

Well, that is the most technical definition, but in the sense that Wilgrove is using it, it's basically kids existing outside of a parentage of a married couple. My semantics were off, but it was a reply to the OP. Blame Wilgrove.

*Turns over the metaphorical table in the Old West bar, and thus making Katganistan angry, quietly backs out so that Wilgrove takes the blame. Much the same way the U.S. operates in the Middle East, ducking out when the internal turmoil ensures no hope of recovery.*

But what about those of us who don't want children? ;_;

Sorry, if you signed up to be a homosexual, you will be assigned an orphan. Didn't you read the contract?

On the up side, you will also get a great wardrobe, and you can choose either the optional spa package, or a proficiency in campy karaoke singing.

Oh, and have we mentioned the great vacation plan?

:p

If we let them adopt children next they'll want to give birth to their own children, yes even the homosexual men. It's a slippery slope that I nor any of my peers wish to go down on and I don't mean go down on in a sexual way or do I?

I've got an idea. Suppose we agree that they can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the conservatives', but that they can have the right to have babies.

...
I would much rather have a child raised by two loving, caring, and wonderful homosexual couples than to be put in a heterosexual home that's filled with so many problems that the child will have problems itself.

Why do you compare the best of one group against the worst possible scenario in the other group? Shouldn't you rather compare the best of both groups against each other and then the worst of both groups, and with that done figure out what the likely 'middle ground' (and most probable group) would really look like for most children needing placement?

Does the adopting family have family longevity indicators for the child's long term needs? Although no family is guaranteed, some have early warning signs of problems ahead. What is the likelihood of divorce or breakup? Does the adopting family have the financial means necessary? Have they made the long term commitment for reasons that will be beneficial to the child? What about respecting the child's ethnic background and religious beliefs? Will the adopting couple be able to meet those needs? These types of questions are the proper questions to be asked when looking for child placement needs.

You do realize of course, that there is a waiting period for infants and very young children needing placement. And of course, the older children in foster care and or orphaned children, or special needs children ALL require even more questions answered (more than the few I asked above) before placement of these children ‘should’ take place. Since we are talking hypothetically I will ‘assume’ best possible is the objective and not just any home will do mentality.

What's wrong with with letting them breed?

Is homosexuality a less desirable genetic trait?

As a member of a sentient species that beat natural selection, I think, that this is an experiment worth doing.

Of course I'm talking about men giving birth and women being impregnated by other women. That may seem impossible to you, but I'm sure the gay agenda has something up their sleeve like when they invented stem cell research and other evil things. You obviously don't read enough patriotic conservative news.

Do you get my drift?;)

What's wrong with with letting them breed?

Is homosexuality a less desirable genetic trait?

As a member of a sentient species that beat natural selection, I think, that this is an experiment worth doing.

I think that was sarcasm. But I agree with you. We won the battle against natural selection when we started draining swampland and building cities.

Sorry, if you signed up to be a homosexual, you will be assigned an orphan. Didn't you read the contract?

On the up side, you will also get a great wardrobe, and you can choose either the optional spa package, or a proficiency in campy karaoke singing.

Oh, and have we mentioned the great vacation plan?

:p
A spa package, you say? >_>

Ah, well, as long it's only one orphan, I guess it's worth it for the free bubbles.

I've got an idea. Suppose we agree that they can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the conservatives', but that they can have the right to have babies.

I can have babies without any problems, I'll have you know.

I just won't enjoy it as much as straight men.

Gay =/= infertile.

I could have sex with a woman to make a baby. If I really wanted to.

And shut my eyes tight while thinking about sexy naked men.

Why do you compare the best of one group against the worst possible scenario in the other group? Shouldn't you rather compare the best of both groups against each other and then the worst of both groups, and with that done figure out what the likely 'middle ground' (and most probable group) would really look like for most children needing placement?

Does the adopting family have family longevity indicators for the child's long term needs? Although no family is guaranteed, some have early warning signs of problems ahead. What is the likelihood of divorce or breakup? Does the adopting family have the financial means necessary? Have they made the long term commitment for reasons that will be beneficial to the child? What about respecting the child's ethnic background and religious beliefs? Will the adopting couple be able to meet those needs? These types of questions are the proper questions to be asked when looking for child placement needs.

You do realize of course, that there is a waiting period for infants and very young children needing placement. And of course, the older children in foster care and or orphaned children, or special needs children require even more questions answered than the few I asked above, before placement of these children ‘should’ take place. Since we are talking hypothetically, I will ‘assume’ best possible is the objective and not just any home will do mentality.

Errr... sure. All that should be asked. None of it precludes homosexuals possibly being the better choice. I don't think anybody wants kids placed in BAD homosexual situations... we just want recognition that there are GOOD ones.

Of course I'm talking about men giving birth and women being impregnated by other women. That may seem impossible to you, but I'm sure the gay agenda has something up their sleeve like when they invented stem cell research and other evil things. You obviously don't read enough patriotic conservative news.

Do you get my drift?;)

Oh, that gay agenda.
I thought you meant the one where it was utterly impossible for, say, a gay person to have relations with a member of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation -- which is just silly.

A spa package, you say? >_>

Ah, well, as long it's only one orphan, I guess it's worth it for the free bubbles.

You get the naggiest of the orphans who is also allergic to water

You get the naggiest of the orphans who is also allergic to water

That's homophobia! :(

That's homophobia! :(

Actually, that's hydrophobia.

Errr... sure. All that should be asked. None of it precludes homosexuals possibly being the better choice. I don't think anybody wants kids placed in BAD homosexual situations... we just want recognition that there are GOOD ones.

Shouldn't you have to 'prove' the good ones exist before we hand out the children (like the hetersexual couples have to do already before they are allowed to adopt)? OR do we hand out the children and wait to see if everything turns out alright?

Side point: How many homosexual couples that want to adopt children and have good homes do we think there are anyway, I'm not being fallacious, I honestly don't know how many you guys think we are talking about? If homosexual represent 3-5% of the population, what percentage of that group is in long term child rearing commitments? What the divorce or separation rate? What’s the longevity of these relationships? What’s the percentage of these homes that would be approved for adoption IF they were heterosexual couples and homosexuality was a non-issue? It should take MORE than just money to place a child with a couple.

Actually, that's hydrophobia.

...


Damn you all.


Now I have to go burn my bathing suit and fix up a children's room where my bathroom used to be.

I think that was sarcasm. But I agree with you. We won the battle against natural selection when we started draining swampland and building cities.

I noticed the sarcasm, and was experimenting on responses to "conservative argument" about marriage... realized my mistake by putting evolution in my response. (T_T)

All and all, I just wanted to know, there are so many orphaned child in the world,... are there enough capable straight foster parents in the world who actually care?

If not, don't you think that these children need all the help they can get?

Actually, it's because I'd be so relieved if a gay couple would lighten the social burden these children imposed, because I don't care enough for them.

A spa package, you say? >_>

Ah, well, as long it's only one orphan, I guess it's worth it for the free bubbles.

Well, one unless they are siblings, in which case your heart will go out to them and you will take both. Or all three... or the whole flock. We are just sure of it.

Ummm... hang on, I am about to blow the whole deal here...


What I meant to say was when can you pick up your orphan, or shall we ship him/her to you?





*Spa package may be substituted for karaoke if all terms and conditions are not met. One wardrobe per customer, clothing not included. Small (large) extra fee for vacations taken between January 23rd and January 21st. No refunds, all orphans final. Heterosexuality is optional, but if heterosexuality is opted, deal is null and void, however orphans cannot be returned without original packaging and receipt*

Oh, that gay agenda.
I thought you meant the one where it was utterly impossible for, say, a gay person to have relations with a member of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation -- which is just silly.

Isn't it ckalled bisexual if they do that? :confused:

Shouldn't you have to 'prove' the good ones exist before we hand out the children (like the hetersexual couples have to do already before they are allowed to adopt)? OR do we hand out the children and wait to see if everything turns out alright?
Of course. But the point you seem to be missing is that homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF should not be an automatic black mark.

Side point: How many homosexual couples that want to adopt children and have good homes do we think there are anyway, I'm not being fallacious, I honestly don't know how many you guys think we are talking about? If homosexual represent 3-5% of the population, what percentage of that group is in long term child rearing commitments? What the divorce or separation rate? What’s the longevity of these relationships? What’s the percentage of these homes that would be approved for adoption IF they were heterosexual couples and homosexuality was a non-issue? It should take MORE than just money to place a child with a couple.

I don't have stats on this, just personal experience. I know a wonderful homosexual couple who have taken on four at risk kids (two born drug addicted, one with aids, one developmentally disabled) that no one else wanted and have done a MARVELOUS job with them. The kids are happy, well cared for, loved... the family is stable and supportive and delightful. If they had been turned down because they are homosexual, that would have been tragic. But they did have to go through all the interviews and screenings that any prospective adoptive parents do.

At the moment, in many states, divorce rate statistics are impossible to figure, since marriage is not yet legal. But even so, though my friends could not legally marry, they are raising these children as a family.

Of course. But the point you seem to be missing is that homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF should not be an automatic black mark.


Let's not even go there.

Isn't it ckalled bisexual if they do that? :confused:

Nope. It is only called bisexual if they are actually ATTRACTED to members of both sexes. It is still possible to have sex with someone where sexual attraction is not the case.

Gay men can function with women (well, some can... some can't) just the way straight men could function with gay men, if there was a pressing need to do so (for instance, men in prison, ones who are not gay, do it all the time).

Let's not even go there.

Yeesh. :rolleyes:

Funny, I've always known bastard to mean the product of a sexual relationship outside of marriage; an illegitimate child. I have never known it to mean orphaned.

Source, please?

You are entirely correct.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "bastard" as "[o]ne begotten and born out of wedlock; an illegitimate or natural child."

The OED defines "orphan" as "[a] person, esp. a child, both of whose parents are dead (or, rarely, one of whose parents has died). In extended use: an abandoned or neglected child."

The categories of orphan and bastard may overlap, but they are entirely different sets of people.

You are entirely correct.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "bastard" as "[o]ne begotten and born out of wedlock; an illegitimate or natural child."

The OED defines "orphan" as "[a] person, esp. a child, both of whose parents are dead (or, rarely, one of whose parents has died). In extended use: an abandoned or neglected child."

The categories of orphan and bastard may overlap, but they are entirely different sets of people.

Clearly, the OP meant that we should take bastards from their parents and give them to the gays instead!

Shouldn't you have to 'prove' the good ones exist before we hand out the children (like the hetersexual couples have to do already before they are allowed to adopt)? OR do we hand out the children and wait to see if everything turns out alright?

Side point: How many homosexual couples that want to adopt children and have good homes do we think there are anyway, I'm not being fallacious, I honestly don't know how many you guys think we are talking about? If homosexual represent 3-5% of the population, what percentage of that group is in long term child rearing commitments? What the divorce or separation rate? What’s the longevity of these relationships? What’s the percentage of these homes that would be approved for adoption IF they were heterosexual couples and homosexuality was a non-issue? It should take MORE than just money to place a child with a couple.

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or being silly.

No one is talking about handing out kids on street corners to anyone with a gay membership card and $20.

Gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt just like anyone else. They should be held to the same general standards required of anyone seeking to a adopt. No more. No less.

There is ample research out there that gays and lesbians make suitable (good, even) parents. See, e.g., link (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html), link (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28gay+parent%29), link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12361102&query_hl=2).

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or being silly.

No one is talking about handing out kids on street corners to anyone with a gay membership card and $20.

Gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt just like anyone else. They should be held to the same general standards required of anyone seeking to a adopt. No more. No less.

There is ample research out there that gays and lesbians make suitable (good, even) parents. See, e.g., link (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html), link (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28gay+parent%29), link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12361102&query_hl=2).

But the Bible disagrees, and, as everybody knows, the Bible is the only source worth considering for anything. It is infallible and contains everything worth knowing!

"homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF should not be an automatic black mark."
Gay is the new black!

If we let them adopt children next they'll want to give birth to their own children, yes even the homosexual men. It's a slippery slope that I nor any of my peers wish to go down on and I don't mean go down on in a sexual way or do I?

:p

OP: Agreed, there is no reason why homosexual couples shouldn't be able to adopt under the same criteria as heterosexual couples.

In the UK recently the Catholic Chuch said that if the adoption agencies they ran were forced by law to allow gay couples to adopt they would have to consider withdraw from their work with children. I must admit my thought was "they still allow the Catholic Church to work with children!".

In the UK recently the Catholic Chuch said that if the adoption agencies they ran were forced by law to allow gay couples to adopt they would have to consider withdraw from their work with children. I must admit my thought was "they still allow the Catholic Church to work with children!".

:eek:
...
Those poor children. :(

In the UK recently the Catholic Chuch said that if the adoption agencies they ran were forced by law to allow gay couples to adopt they would have to consider withdraw from their work with children. I must admit my thought was "they still allow the Catholic Church to work with children!".
Something similar happened in New England recently, and I had precisely the same thought. I still can't believe that the Catholic Church is permitted to run any organization that deals with children. If any secular organization had done what the Church did, they'd be run out of the country.

Of course. But the point you seem to be missing is that homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF should not be an automatic black mark.

I thought I made that clear when I said IF they were heterosexual couples and homosexuality was a non-issue? So yes, I was going with that premise.

I don't have stats on this, just personal experience. I know a wonderful homosexual couple who have taken on four at risk kids (two born drug addicted, one with aids, one developmentally disabled) that no one else wanted and have done a MARVELOUS job with them. The kids are happy, well cared for, loved... the family is stable and supportive and delightful. If they had been turned down because they are homosexual, that would have been tragic. But they did have to go through all the interviews and screenings that any prospective adoptive parents do.

Then that's great and it shows that the road to better homes for children in need is already taking place in you area.

At the moment, in many states, divorce rate statistics are impossible to figure, since marriage is not yet legal. But even so, though my friends could not legally marry, they are raising these children as a family.

I'm disappointed that divorce and separation rates and statistics are nearly impossible to figure even in states where it is legal to marry or cohabitate. It seems the states are not disclosing this information, I have no idea if there is a reason fo that or not, but it most certainly is true.

In the UK recently the Catholic Chuch said that if the adoption agencies they ran were forced by law to allow gay couples to adopt they would have to consider withdraw from their work with children. I must admit my thought was "they still allow the Catholic Church to work with children!".

Natural 20, everyone!

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or being silly. Actually I started by objecting to the fact that the OP presented a biased presentation to start us off. He presented an artificially and obviously 'unfair' advantage to the group he favored to ensure they won the comparison. Like a sports umpire telling one team that they need to sit all their tier 1 and tier 2 players and play only their tier 3 players vs. the home teams tier 1 players...

Then I moved into talking about what needs to be shown to actually adopt children, which is, show the good about where they will be placed, not talk bad about the other places they could have been placed instead...

No one is talking about handing out kids on street corners to anyone with a gay membership card and $20. Actually, several people here have been talking about something very much like that... ;)

Gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt just like anyone else. They should be held to the same general standards required of anyone seeking to a adopt. No more. No less.

There is ample research out there that gays and lesbians make suitable (good, even) parents. See, e.g., link (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html), link (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28gay+parent%29), link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12361102&query_hl=2).

I totally agree that if they meet the standards required then there should be no problem. As to the links you provided about children being raised by gay couples though, I didn't see anything in those that answer my questions about how many couples are we talking about and what percentage of that group is in long term child rearing commitments? What the divorce or separation rate? What’s the longevity of these relationships? What’s the percentage of these homes that would be approved for adoption IF they were heterosexual couples and homosexuality was a non-issue?. In fact, they mentioned that there are so few male SS couples with children that it's hard for them to get data but they assigned the results from lesbian couple to them anyway without really explaining that reasoning for our review.

Additionally, if that is correct and there really is such a low number of new qualified households that would be opened up by this change (if it were to take place) I'm curious what this topic is for? Is it a boon for the SS couples themselves, by showing the validity of their relationships with each other, or is it for the children that need homes? If the total number of good homes for foster children were increased by such a little amount as to be an immeasurable improvement or no change at all, what's the point of putting child care and adoption agency efforts into such an endeavor at all? Their limited resources would be better spent on statistical improvements, not political games. Playing games with the lives of foster care children for ulterior or political reasons seems deliberately obtuse or being silly to me.

Why is it whenever the idea of homosexuals or lesbian adopting children brought up, the Conservative and Christian goes "OMG, NO THEY'LL BE BRAINWASHED BY THE EBIL LIBRALS!!!!111!!!"

It's funny as hell because the irony is that they brainwash their own children with delusions and turn them into self propelled hate machines that carry on the religious discrimination.

One of the arguments is that children need both a mommy and a daddy. Well I've seen homosexual men where one "wears the pants" and one wears the "skirt". If you don't realize that I was kidding, end yourself. I've seen single mothers, and single dad raise children all the time, normal, well adjusted children, and they did it without a mommy or a daddy, so why can't two men or two women raise a child?
It was pure luck. Children need a stable home with a mother and a father, both roles, both parents, anything else is asking for trouble.

Nope. It is only called bisexual if they are actually ATTRACTED to members of both sexes. It is still possible to have sex with someone where sexual attraction is not the case.

Gay men can function with women (well, some can... some can't) just the way straight men could function with gay men, if there was a pressing need to do so (for instance, men in prison, ones who are not gay, do it all the time).

I would like to hear some clarification of THAT position. It probably needs it's own thread, but really, what does that mean? What IS gay then? How can you define gay as something that does not consist of the definition of "someone who has sex with people of the same gender". Sure the assumption is that it can be true for heterosexual men in prison to participate in gay sex without being gay themselves, the claim is made all the time (usually by men just out of prison), but does that assumption stand up to scrutiny?

If people as individuals simply want sex, and we know that some of them will do it with who ever is available, even whatever inanimate objects might be available, wouldn't that indicate that all people are really just sexual beings with preferences? No real measurable differences between them as individuals, only indicators of what flavor they like the most?

If so, then there is no real gay, heterosexual or bisexual people at all, just different settings a person has of 'what I prefer' or 'how much sexual drive' a person has. Some choosing no sex, some choosing only sex with their one and only spouse, some choosing sex with a few partners, some choosing to participate in sex with complete strangers and so on and so forth... But their real concern is with their own sexual organs, not their partner's sexual organs or lack thereof, when choosing a sexual partner.

the only important difference between individuals then is if they have control of our sexual actions or not, do their desires control them or do they control themselves. Or so it would seem to me by your statement there.

I would like to hear some clarification of THAT position. It probably needs it's own thread, but really, what does that mean? What IS gay then? How can you define gay as something that does not consist of the definition of "someone who has sex with people of the same gender". Sure the assumption is that it can be true for heterosexual men in prison to participate in gay sex without being gay themselves, the claim is made all the time (usually by men just out of prison), but does that assumption stand up to scrutiny?

If people as individuals simply want sex, and we know that some of them will do it with who ever is available, even whatever inanimate objects might be available, wouldn't that indicate that all people are really just sexual beings with preferences? No real measurable differences between them as individuals, only indicators of what flavor they like the most?

If so, then there is no real gay, heterosexual or bisexual people at all, just different settings a person has of 'what I prefer' or 'how much sexual drive' a person has. Some choosing no sex, some choosing only sex with their one and only spouse, some choosing sex with a few partners, some choosing to participate in sex with complete strangers and so on and so forth... But their real concern is with their own sexual organs, not their partner's sexual organs or lack thereof, when choosing a sexual partner.

the only important difference between individuals then is if they have control of our sexual actions or not, do their desires control them or do they control themselves. Or so it would seem to me by your statement there.

Give the man (/woman) a coconut!

I would like to hear some clarification of THAT position. It probably needs it's own thread, but really, what does that mean? What IS gay then? How can you define gay as something that does not consist of the definition of "someone who has sex with people of the same gender". Sure the assumption is that it can be true for heterosexual men in prison to participate in gay sex without being gay themselves, the claim is made all the time (usually by men just out of prison), but does that assumption stand up to scrutiny?

If people as individuals simply want sex, and we know that some of them will do it with who ever is available, even whatever inanimate objects might be available, wouldn't that indicate that all people are really just sexual beings with preferences? No real measurable differences between them as individuals, only indicators of what flavor they like the most?

If so, then there is no real gay, heterosexual or bisexual people at all, just different settings a person has of 'what I prefer' or 'how much sexual drive' a person has. Some choosing no sex, some choosing only sex with their one and only spouse, some choosing sex with a few partners, some choosing to participate in sex with complete strangers and so on and so forth... But their real concern is with their own sexual organs, not their partner's sexual organs or lack thereof, when choosing a sexual partner.

the only important difference between individuals then is if they have control of our sexual actions or not, do their desires control them or do they control themselves. Or so it would seem to me by your statement there.

I think the word you missed, which is surprising really, as it was all capitalised, was ATTRACTED.

In conclusion, I say let the homosexual community adopt the bastarded children! :D

I thought they already could. :confused:

I thought they already could. :confused:

Only in a very few countries and states in the US and Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_adoption

Only in a very few countries and states in the US and Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_adoption

This is really too ridiculous. Name me one good reason why homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children.

*sighs* What a gay enabler :rolleyes:

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Seriousness may be lacking here.

This is really too rediculous. Name me one good reason why homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children.

I couldn't name one, I agree with you. It's odd really, homosexuality is legal in many countries, yet laws regarding adoption haven't been extended to same-sex couples. I suppose it's possible that they would be allowed if there's no explicit law condemning it.

EDIT: And it is spelt 'ridiculous'.

EDIT: And it is spelt 'ridiculous'.

Apparently you are right. Strange my computer said it was properly spelled...I'm suspicious of it.