Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

Oh my god Stox you are truly an idiot. No 'refining' was needed.

They can not have children because of who they are and their lifestyle, NOT because of a health condition. They are totally different.

I see you take your lack luster debate strategy from a few others on here, when shown to be wrong, try to twist it as much as you possibly can.

 

How am i twisting anything? I am quoting what you said word for word and you said they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they "can not have children and should deal with it".

If now you are saying that you meant they can't have children through a choice they have made let bring up vasectomy patients. They are unable to reproduce not because of a medical condition, But because a choice they made. Should another child stay in an orphanage or are vasectomy patients allowed to adopt? And consider this, After giving your answer, Should a gay man who has had a vasectomy be allowed to adopt?

Can you not see that you refine your reasons so that they exclusively apply to gays? Who are you trying to kid grim? We are on to you.

Have the courage to admit why you are against it grim. The only thing worse than a bigot is a cowardly bigot.

 

A 'vasectomy' even if chosen to be done is still a medical condition Stox, horrible attempt.

Yes you quote a small phrase and act like an idiot to try to compare health conditions with a none health condition. It to me and most others is obvious that 'can not' does not include health conditions as health conditions can be TREATED! Can being gay be treated?

But yet even after holding your hand over and over you still try to claim the same thing over and over that 'straight' couples have the same thing as gays at times, which is FALSE.

A gay man with or without vasectomy still could not have a child because of who he is. Seriously how fucking dumb are you?

I do not 'refine' my reasons Stox, do you not see you are nit picking and twisting at a lame attempt to link the two when there is no linking to be done? No refining is needed, only problem is your lack luster attempt to try to connect health conditions with being gay.

So being gay is now a choice? Wow I thought most gay people said it wasn't a choice, you seriously are not pro gay are you?

You would know on being a cowardly bigot Stox, that would be you

It's so simple even you can understand it, I've held that itty bitty hand of yours. When you get a real argument please come back, until then you simply don't have one.

Pathetic

 

So now you are saying that it's not their inability to naturally conceive that should disqualify them from adopting?
Because that is what you said before. You said they can't have children and should deal with it.

Can you not see how you refine your arguments so that they exclusively apply to homosexuals?

 

I know plenty of people who were raised by gay couples and turned out just fine, whether they were teased in school or not.

Would you rather a child be raised by a crackhead for a mother and an abusive prick for a father - simply because that couple happens to be straight?

While extreme, I think that case is a little more "physically and mentally" damaging to a child than being raised by a gay couple.

 

I don't know what you're talking about! Gay people are automatically not-fit to be parents because they're gay! Straight people always provide nice households!

Straight couple cages and abuses adopted children
Woman burns, handcuffs, abuses her 11 adopted kids

 

Seems like a false dilemma to me. Why is it abusive heterosexual versus perfect gay? Seems the real question should be well-adjusted gay versus well-adjusted heterosexual.

 

You suggesting that gays don't abuse children?

 

Nope, not at all!

Just hoping to point out that just because a couple is straight, doesn't mean they're going to create a better environment for an adopted child...

 

I don't get the logic. You're saying that the only metric for determining a "better environment" is abuse statistics?

I'm fairly sure they should be considering a lot more than just whether or not the adoptive parents are going to beat the kid.

 

You have quite a warped idea of what rape is. Rape is an attack against another person, not sexual desire spun out of control. Thats why elderly women, men, and young children get raped almost as often as college women. Its about power and dominance, not about sex.

As for gay/lesbian couples being lustful, who are you to say they are not in love? There is nothing that says they can't love each other just as much as a heterosexual relationship.

And there is nothing that says heterosexual couples don't get married for being "lustful." With the rap and celebrity culture being so pervasive, "hotness" is a number one priority on almost everyones minds, not just homosexuals.

 

Wow... shocked at the results of this poll.

Yes. No debate cause its such a trivial issue. What does it matter to me if a same sex marriage occurs. Has absolutely no effect on me at all so I couldn't care.

 

1. There's people that have posted in this thread that clearly believe homosexuals are not fit to parent simple because they're gay.

2. By posting a couple examples of when straight people were not fit to parent, hopefully they'll see that this issue should be argued on a case-by-case basis. Gays should not be simply veto'd because of their sexual orientation.

3. No, abuse is not the only factor in deciding the quality of a child's environment; I never said that it was. but it sure can be a big factor.

Is the logic really not clear? Because it seems clear to me...

 

No, it's not logic, but it is clear.

First off, I believe you are misrepresenting the opposing position. Grim isn't saying that gays are unfit parents. He's saying that they are not ideal adoptive parents. Big difference there. If a gay person has a child, he surely has a right to raise that child.

But should we be placing children with gay parents? One thing to consider in placing children is placing them with families that can identify with the children. I believe that Black children should, when possible, be placed with Black adoptive parents. Black children endure experiences that White parents may not readily identify with. Same goes for White, Asian, etc, etc. Children should be placed "as close to home" as possible, ethnically and otherwise.

And some 90+% of those children are going to be heterosexually, so it might be serving the child's interests to place them in heterosexual homes.

Let's format this as a syllogism and see if it floats.

Heterosexual parents sometimes abuse children.
Child abuse is contrary to good parenting.
Therefore children should be placed with gays.

Nope. I don't think Aristotle would approve of that logic.

 

You misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

I wasn't attempting to imply that gay couples are perfect (I'm sorry if you took it that way.) A previous poster made the comment that children adopted by gay couples ran the risk of physical and emotional damage, and that children should only be raised by a mother and a father. I asked if he would feel that way if a straight couple abused and neglected their child; would it still be better than being raised by gay people?

I certainly wasn't saying that gay people don't abuse and neglect their kids, and that all straight people do. I hope that helps to clarify the comment a bit.

 

I have never heard anything so ludicrous. Your sexual orientation doesn't determine how close you can connect with your child. I am heterosexual, my (adoptive) parents are heterosexual, and I don't agree with them on a single thing. I do, however, have a very close connection to my homosexual best friend.

I also had three Asian friends who were triplets, adopted by a white couple, when I was younger. They had a fantastic life. They are all at great colleges and seem to be happier than most people I know. They never expressed dissatisfaction with their parents' skin color or eye shape, as far as I'm concerned, things like love, attention, and consideration go a lot further.

I have a LONG history in adoption - I was adopted, my siblings were adopted, all of my cousins were adopted by my aunt, and my dad was adopted into his family.

I am of Russian heritage and I look nothing like my Italian family. Trust me, that has never factored into my love for my family. I am tall and thin with black hair, my youngest sister is short and curvy with blonde hair, I have a low voice, she has a high one... etc. etc... Guess what? It doesn't matter. Neither does black vs. white skin tone.

And honestly, I don't think its a smart idea to discourage anyone (unless they're abusive or otherwise) from adopting in this day in age. I have seen a lot of group homes and foster homes in my time and let me tell you, those kids would be happy to have ANYONE they can call "mom" or "dad." They would be thrilled to not have to move around from place to place. Why don't you ask an 8 year old living in a group home what he thinks. Seriously.

 

Who said it did? Don't go straw man on me. Cheap tactics like that just destroy your credibility.

So you suppose those White parents shared with them their rich Asian heritage?

 

If anything, I would think that placing children with adoptive parents of different ethnicities would allow those children to grow up MORE culturally aware. The child and the parent could each learn about their respective nationalities and grow more appreciative and tolerant of their similarities and differences.

 

Hell yeah. I agree one hundred percent. I think cultural identity should be slaughtered on the alter of political correctness.

Just one question. How is an "Asian" child going to share his or her Asian heritage with those White parents when the Asian kid only know Whiteness?

And the use of the word "Asian" by Cryspatus tells me you're White. Japanese don't refer to themselves as Asian; nor do Koreans or Chinese or others that White people group as "Asian".

 

You said Asian in your initial post. Also, I have plenty of Asian friends who refer to themselves as Asian when talking about Asia in general. Of course people refer to themselves by the country they're from, but what specific country those girls were from is irrelevant to the topic at hand, we're talking about race in general.

If you deny an Asian an adoptive family because that family is white, you're denying them a home and security. Ask yourself this. If you went into a group home (nice word for orphanage) how many children do you think would refuse a home because the parents were of a different race?

Like I said earlier, I'm russian and my parents are italian. I don't feel like my heritage has been sacrificed because I was adopted. I'm happy to have been adopted then to go from one foster home to another through out my life.

Also, my Korean friends were taught a lot about their heritage and culture. I remember being over their house when I was 8 and their mother was playing traditional Korean music and explaining why their mother couldn't take care of them. She was a great mother and did everything to make them feel secure.

I think you're denying the impact that the foster system can have on a child's life. Its far greater than being Russian in an Italian family. Many of them end up as teenager mothers, end up in Juvenile hall and/or jail, behavior problems, remedial classes, health problems, etc. My aunt took care of foster kids and I saw this problem a lot. I don't know why you think that this is acceptable as long as the kids don't mix racially.

-------
And one other thing. You are trying to make the point that when Asians are adopted by other races, it denies them their cultural heritage. How, then, does the foster-care system protect their cultural heritage? Because as you know, it's one or the other when they're up for adoption. And I'm assuming you believe foster care is the best option. I just can't wrap my head around how being thrown around from home to home will give them a better sense of their cultural heritage than being adopted by a loving family.