Gay couples adopting kids ... NO WAY

But your logic is so flawed that you can't even answer simple questions straight foward...

Again...

1) will you admit that some gay people could make better parents then some straight people?

2) will you admit that physically, sexual reproduction plays no part in the adoption process?

 

You didn't address the question. You just restated your opinion. The lifestyle of choosing to marry someone who's infertile is also devoid of the ability to have a child. So as I asked before, would you then say (based on your logic) that a man choosing to enter that situation by marrying a woman who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to be an adoptive parent? If you honestly believe that, that's fine, and I'll respect your basic opinion. I'm just curious as to whether you're a hypocrite, or honestly hold onto the same belief system when the facts change.

So people should never get inseminated? There's never a justification to kill (like if someone's about to kill you)? Nothing in life is that black and white.

 

You claim it's in your makeup, little things like that are easily learned and you do not even realise it

Yet again nothing to do with could they be good parents, being gay, the very concept = not being able to have children. Is it trully that difficult to understand?

I wish I could do lots of things, but wow being a male there are just certain things I can't do.

But gays think they should beable to do whatever the hell they want in this situation, or at least the supporters of them having kids. Worse yet it's a child involved not just a simple 'want' but a child that with their lifestyle takes away the ability to even have one.

Yeah I should just overlook that fact, plus support them and their gay pride, but only again when it is convenient for them. In cases such as having a child, throw that entire gay pride out the window and squirm to find a reason to get people to support it. Sounds good to me

 

My logic is flawed, lol don't make me laugh.
#1 I already answered it
I said being gay does not = them being bad parents, and that is NOT my reason for being against it.
#2 In the adoption process of paperwork, well in my eyes yes it does as I feel they should not beable to adopt.
Writing paperwork, well children could do that as well, should we let children adopt? Anyone who can write?

Sorry but this is also laughable, again 'health' related is totally different then being gay. Until you say that you think being gay is health reason or problem then your argument is simply pathetic.

 

Ah, but a man getting a vasectomy is a lifestyle CHOICE. It's not a health problem, he CHOSE to get it done. Same thing as when a women gets tubal ligation - it's a choice.

Also, a lot of gay people say they didn't choose to be gay. That they were always that way - born that way. In which case it wouldn't be their fault, because they didn't choose it.

(just like I didn't choose to be straight, or short, or dislike seafood - it's just the way I am)

So? I can't give birth to cats but I still have 4 of them. And this isn't about who can HAVE A CHILD it's about if a gay person can RAISE A CHILD. Like, can they provide for the child.

 

You're tip-toeing around the question. My question isn't about if someone just happened to have a health problem. It's about the ones who make the conscious choice to enter into a non-child-bearing lifestyle by becoming involved with someone they know is infertile. It's all in the choice. They could easily leave that person behind and go with someone that can bear children if they knew about it, and that's what I'm asking you. If you made the conscious CHOICE to be with someone you couldn't produce a child with (therefore choosing that set lifestyle) by your own logic, doesn't that then mean that individual shouldn't be able to adopt?

 

Sigh, even getting your tubes tied, or snipped for a guy is a health condition. It is a chosen health condition but a health condition, your argument there was destroyed long ago.

Now you're down to comparing pets to children? Wow you're logic trully is off, or was it never there to begin with?

---merging

It is not tip-toeing at all, even if it's a known about health condition it's still a health condition. Being gay is not a health condition....

You made a choice to have a relationship with someone with a heart problem, does that mean you should not get treatment for the heart problem? Of course you should!

My answer is the same for the straight couple who knew they could not have children naturally from a HEALTH CONDITION, of course they should find alternate methods if they choose to. It is a HEALTH condition, not a lifestyle.

 

Well, in that case being gay can be a health condition. They have the health problem of not being able to reproduce with each other. So it's not their fault, we should let them adopt.

And I don't think anyone answered this:

What can a straight/asexual person provide that a gay person can't?

 

I think you're really hard-pressed to call something like getting your tubes tied a "health condition." It can be the result of a health condition. It's not a health condition in and of itself. In other cases, it's a choice to live a non-child-bearing lifestyle... and since you're saying being gay is completely a choice (or that's how I'm taking it based on what I've read here), you would have to be completely hypocritical to not address the similarity. Again, if you simply believed that everyone fitting your qualification shouldn't be able to adopt (anyone choosing to life a non-child-bearing lifestyle), it would be one thing. But while you're complaining that gay people want to alter the rules to what's convenient for them, you're really doing the same thing. And on that note... time to do some real work before getting caught up in another DP squabble. If nothing else, at least this is an interesting discussion.

 

Was this in response to my post?

Because, if so, you're trying real hard not to answer those questions... It's a simple yes or no... Why not just answer them?

 

Oh so you're going to say that being gay is a health condition, but the gays themselves say it is not.

Are there any gay people here who wish to state being gay is a health condition? A condition that treatment can provide to treat being gay?

As far as the other question, what do you not get about that is not my reason for being against it? Are you trully that thick?

 

just curious but why shouldn't everyone just be able to do "whatever the hell they want" in all situations where they are not hurting others?

Its free county,isn't being able to do what you want the basis of out freedom?

How are children left in orphanages better off, then children of gay parents?

 

Sigh..Seriously here.
I am not saying being gay is a choice #1 I believe what they are born that way, some may have a choice, whichever reason it is who they are.

I am not anti gay either, so don't try to even pull that crap with me.

It's very easy to see being gay = the inability to have children, not for a health reason but for the lifestyle.

Being straight and having your tubes tied, the tube tie is a health reason. Nothing hard pressed about it, you just have no way to deny it. If the process could be reversed as in treated, you know a health condition the person could have children again.

I responded to you below that one, I did answer you

 

Being gay is based on sexual orientation, that you get when you're built in mom's belly, like everything else. It's not an illness...
I'm heterosexual, so I'm ill??

 

So, ok, we're getting somewhere "being gay does not = them being bad parents"...

Now, about #2, you're admitting that sexual reproduction plays no part in adoption right?

And as for your horrible example, "should we let children adopt"... If the child is found to have a stable income, able to support an adoption financially, and displays the responsibility to raise a child, and the ability to run a decent household, sure!

But back to the question, you're admitting that sexual reproduction plays no part in adoption right?

 

'hurting anyone' there is a child involved. A child even if not being hurt IMHO devoids the entire do whatever they want if it's not hurting anyone, a child is not property and does not fit the norm.

There are straight people wanting to adopt that wait in huge lines unable to do so.

---merge

Sigh I have stated this over and over, get your facts straight and your argument together before even continuing. I am not against it because of possible bad parents, nor the adoption process, w/o the correct argument you have no argument

 

there is nothing that a gay person cannot provide I know a lady (she was once married and abused by a man in fact he beat her on their wedding night) she adopted her nephew the child wants for nothing and in fact most people don't even know she prefers women when she dies he inherits a house worth about $400000 plus she has an insurance policy to the tune of $250000

 

I, personally, don't think it's a health condition most of the time. But if a choice - such as tubal ligation - can be a 'health condition' then I guess anything can.

Man, I don't like waking up early - so I guess I can just claim that as a 'health condition'.

Also, not all health conditions can be treated. I'm sure people die everyday because they can't be treated.

And if you don't think they'll be bad parents then why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? If they can properly care for the child then that's all that should matter. The kid needs some place to go.

If the child is okay with it - then it should be allowed. It only affects the gay couple and the child being adopted - no one else. My life isn't going to change because some kid is living with gay people. The gay couple might be able to provide a better life than someone else can.

Heh, and if we don't let the gays adopt then all the celebrities are going to adopt all the kids as accessories.

 

(for some reason DP isn't letting me "quote")...

To Grim:

So, if adoption has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, and you don't feel that all gay couples would create a bad household... Why not let them adopt?

Your excuse that "gays can't make babies naturally" doesn't make sense, because sexual reproduction plays no part in adoption...

 

Wow this isn't even worth responding to.

There is a huge difference from a health condition to a non health condition, to a lifestyle that = not being able to have children to one = being able to have them.

Of course not all health conditions are treatable, how does that = a lifestyle that can not have kids being able to have them?

If you say gay is a health condition then you treat the 'gay' not find a way for them to bypass the condition to have children, not treating the condition.

As far as the child being ok with it, how are you going to ask babies if they are ok with it? Even young children to young to know what they want?

Ohyeah just because your life doesn't change, yep live in a bubble and dont' care what's going on. This is a child not someone smoking a joint down the street, not someone having orgies, but a child..