Gay couples adopting kids ... NO WAY

Sigh, I have answered this over and over and over and over and over again. Do you not read?

Being gay = the inability to have children! Their entire lifestyle, the biology = not being able to have children! If they want equal rights, if they want gay pride then with it comes the bad! You can not have it both ways, this is a clear case of having it both ways! Only use gay pride when it's convenient, bypass it when it doesn't work for you.

 

"Being gay = the inability to have children" <--- now explain how that could hinder the adoption process

 

Getting tubal ligation is not a health condition. There is NOTHING wrong with the women, she's CHOOSING to give up her ability to have a child. Just like people were saying earlier that gays were choosing to give up their ability to raise a child because they 'chose' to be gay.

(and like I said, I don't think it's a health problem).

And, they can have regulations where gays can only adopt children that are old enough to agree for themselves. If you ask the child if they are willing to go live with a gay couple - male/male or female/female - and they're okay with it.. then good!

(and if the child is too young to choose, then the original parent(s) can say if they're okay with a gay couple adopting their child or not.)

And I don't live in a bubble, if the child is not being harmed I don't see a problem with it. If the gay couple can provide a good upbringing for the child then there is no reason they shouldn't be able to raise one.

 

Do you not read?
Wow yeah kids can adopt, murderers if we want to could adopt, hell anyone could :rolleys:

Explain to me why a lifestyle that = not being able to have children, being proud of this lifestyle does not make it having it both ways to drop the gay pride and then to adopt on the side?

The lifestyle = not being able to have kids, even my 8 year old could understand that, but yet you can not?

 

Gay pride has nothing to do with not being able to have kids. Gay pride has nothing to do with kids.

So I don't see why gay pride matters. You can still be proud and take care of a kid.

 

It is a health condition, a chosen health condition but a health condition in any case. So someone who gets alcohol poisoning is not a health condition as they chose to? Someone who tries to commit suicide is not a health condition to treat and save because they chose to?

Seriously you can not make something that is a health condition not be one, no matter how hard you grasp at those straws.

I am not for gay adoption at all, however parents wishing their children to be raised by gay couples is a bit different then children at an orphanage.

But yep, lets again forget about the gay pride, because only when convenient

Are you trully that dense?
It has everything to do with it.
If you are proud to be gay that comes with the goods and the bads. Being gay = not able to have children, if that's a good or a bad it will depend on the gay couple, it however is the case, it is fact. You can try to bypass it all you want with adoption or insemination, it however is bypassing who they are!

Actually you stated.

 

Gay pride is for those who are proud of their sexual orientation. Are they having sex with the adopted child? No. Then gay pride doesn't matter here.

I don't think there is a rule book to gay pride.

Also, not all gays have this whole 'gay pride' thing going on. Some of them are quiet about it and the only way you'd know they were gay would be if they told you.

 

Just because a person is gay, wouldn't exempt them from a background check...

Why are you talking about gay pride? this has nothing to do with gay pride, it has to do with gay adoptions... Just like you're "health" excuse, you're trying to pull in irrelevant arguments to justify your cause...

I think you're a tad too stubborn to see the flaw here, otherwise just to proud to admit it...

"lifestyle = not being able to have kids" <--- (mostly) correct, but that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with raising a kid, or adoption

 

Wow seriously it is not hard to follow, call it what you will, gay pride or not, it is who they are. Them being gay = not being able to have children. Stubborn, oh my god don't make me laugh. You people have no logic, you talk about having kittens, monkeys having gay sex, and try to equate that to gays, people who can not have children, allowing them to adopt.

Seriously, get a better argument....

Background check or not, being a good parent or not, is not the reason! Do you not read? You are trying an argument that DOES NOT work with me as it's not my reason for being against it! You have a one track mind, only one way to argue as it's most peoples reasons for being against it. It however is not mine, seriously until you see that there is nothing to debate as you're arguing on a total different level/reason than I am against it.

 

"lifestyle = not being able to have kids" <--- (mostly) correct, but that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with raising a kid, or adoption

Why should a person's natural ability to reproduce play a role in adoptions?

Also, check this out... If there was a ban on gay adoptions:

Should those 9k-14k be removed from their homes because you don't think gays should be able to adopt, because it's harder for them to reproduce naturally?

 

Ok question

kids have AIDS so are unadoptable why should these kids not have these men as parents full story here http://www.buddybuddy.com/adoption.html The Loftons

 

There are people waiting in lines to adopt healthy white babies, for children of other races this is not so much the case

 

Sigh yet again, is this trully that difficult for you to understand? It has everything to do with it as their lifestyle = not being able to have children, not being able to have children = just that, can you seriously not follow that?

Never did I say anything or support anything to forcefully remove those already in care of gay couples.

As far as hard to adopt cases, those might and I stress might be a great spot for special circumstance cases. In anything, even such as weed being illegal 'which I do not feel it should be' there is special circumstance laws that trump the standard overall law

As a general rule, general I will not support it.

For those who can not be adopted I would be more willing to.

Even those who are not healthy and white there are many cases of people not being able to adopt them. I have read many stories, hell knew a couple who were willing to take any health, any age, any race. No criminal history, made enough, stable enough, but still could not adopt, took them years. Believe they finally ended up going the black market route if I remember correctly.

Believe it or not but there are healthy straight people out there willing to give good homes to ANY child, and still are unable to do so.

 

I'm amazed by how you, Grim, refuse to accept the fact that:
Being able to have children, and to adopt a child are 2 different things.
Your argument is pretty lame. You are against gay couples adopting children because they cannot naturally reproduce, because it's their "lifestyle" - Which, again, has nothing to do with raising a kid, or adoption - as tarpon said.
The connection between the both is irrelevant here.
It all comes down to people, that are able to give a child love, attention, food, home, and a family.

 

And with all the kids needing parents right now this makes a great solution to solving a big problem. Right now these children are leaches on our system, the government has to subsidize orphanages, and foster care - if these people want the kids and they pass background checks, psychological evaluation, and have a checkup from the government every six months or so I say more power to it. It's better for the kid than being bounced around all their whole life until they become a criminal and then become a further leach on the system - and wholly more costly than before. It saves me money, it saves the kid the problem of growing up like a ping pong, and so what if a few turn out gay? Less people to worry about in any case.

Look at it from a capitalist point of view, letting homosexuals adopt children will save money, and besides there's really nothing wrong with it. Would you rather the kid get shoved around in thirty different homes, or abused in a juvi center... or, go to a homosexual household where the government doesn't need to feed, clothe, and otherwise take care of the child, saving money, and saving the child from a life of constant instability?

Given those two real choices - I say let the child be adopted.

 

Why does Grim have this new user name? Is he reproducing asexually now?

 

Sponges reproduce by budding >.>

 

If we aren't going to allow orphans to go to people that don't make enough money or have a big enough house, then we can assume that we are trying to give the child an ideal situation to live in. Is living without a mother or a father an ideal situation? Definitely not.

 

Is living in a foster system where children are regularly lost and abused better than living with a homosexual couple?

 

Last I heard, being gay did not mean you lack the ability to be abusive.