Gay couples adopting kids ... NO WAY

What about guys that get a vasectomy, should they no longer be able to adopt, because they gave up their ability to reproduce...?

 

Would of been much better if you didn't put words into tarpon's mouth to fit your agenda in this discussion.
He gave a pretty good example, btw.
Should all these women who cannot have a child because of certain medical complications shouldn't be allowed to adopt ? Because they certainly can't do it "naturally".

 

That's a dumb argument man. Gay's can't have kids not because of a medical condition, but because of their chooses in life.

 

Ok, how about this example:

 

Hell no dammit.

 

How does that relate to the issue of this thread?

 

A guy gets a vasectomy, thus cannot reproduce any longer. Why does he have the right to adopt a child, and gay guys (who don't conduct sexual intercourse with women, thus cannot reproduce as well) don't have the right ?

 

There is a rule that gays follow;

`DINK` - `Double Income No Kid`

 

Too sensitive a subject.but i must say a big NOOOOOOOOO

 

It's it funny how the people against it are totally unable to offer any kind of reasonable argument to support thier view.

 

The average guy is not interested in the "gay life style" and doesn't want "gay pride" forced on them. Go ahead and giddy-up and don't draw attention to yourself. Thats the smart thing. Otherwise if you keep trying to ram this down the publics throat, all you will get is a constitutional admendment banning gay marriage and adoption.

 

I'm trying to see is anyone is able to justify not allowing gay people to adopt kids without being hypocritical, illogical, or discriminative...

I was raised in a single-parent home, and I faired a lot better then most of my peers (some of which had two parents)...

So...

Once again, with these two quotes... It looks like if a person doesn't have the ability to have children, you don't think they should be allowed to adopt... right? Like the vasectomy scenario; if a man gets his junk snipped, he's no longer able to have kids, just like a gay man, so the straight guy shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

 

No reason why?

No reason why?

Exactly! (other then "gay people are icky", haha)

 

I'm glad to see people stand up for their beliefs.

The silent majority needs to speak up.

 

Maybe we should let the original parents of the child decide? When they put the kid up for adoption, they can check 'yes' or 'no' on whether or not they'll be okay with the baby being adopted by a gay couple.

And then when the child is old enough to decide for themselves, the kid can decide whether or not they're okay with it.

It's not really affecting OUR lives - unless we're the ones adopting or being adopted. If the child is okay with going with a gay couple, then they should be able to be adopted by them.

They're not getting a traditional 'mother and father' in an orphanage anyway. And it's better they go to a home where they can get individual attention than grow up in an orphanage they're whole life because no one wants them.

And do keep in mind, the kid probably won't be locked in the house all the time. They'll probably go to a public school and interact with all sorts of straight people. They'll see straight people all the time on tv. Straight people everywhere they go.

So it's not like the only interaction they'll get will be with their gay parents.

 

I really want to know where these kids will be coming from.

What I see is gay couples buying babies from poor counties like Guatemala.

So if the parents have an objection to a gay adoption you send them another $20 via paypal.

 

It's a shame the ones that "stand up" for leaving kids in orphanages rarely have any kind of reasonable argument to back up what they think and more often than not do nothing more than repeat their objection.

 

I am really curious how being in an orphanage would be better then being adopted by gay parents?

Can any of you explain that?

 

Nope please reread it for yourself, you may not have said but you implied. A woman being unable to via a health condition does not make it unnatural, or biologically unable to.

Totally different story, you are grasping at straws trying desperately to prove a point that is not there.

Actually he gave a pretty piss poor example, in order for his example to hold any merit or logical discussion it would need to be something similiar that you could actually discuss it. The two things are totally different, unless of course you're going to make the jump that gays need medical attention.

Medical conditions are totally different then BIOLOGICALLY not being able to have kids.

that's funny I'm still waiting for something more logical than monkey's have gay sex