Gay couples adopting kids ... NO WAY

Either way, both situations are abnormal and shameful for the "parents"

 

This thread is making waves.............and most of DP members agree that gays should not be permited to adopt

 

And I've never heard that gay people are disproportionally abusive, either... There's bad apples in every bunch...

 

But I have yet to see a good, logical reason why gays should not be allowed to adopt...

So far, the only one that really attempted was grim, and his reasoning was "because gays can't naturally conceive and deliver babies, they should not be allowed to adopt"... And to a few of us, that makes no sense...

 

How is it relevant that yes, just as anyone can, so can they - when in fact the people who would be adopting willingly are much less likely, and would provide a stable living environment whereas jumping from home to home and being more at risk for abuse would not?

You're making the same argument that is equal to "Last I heard, being German did not mean you lack the ability to like Hitler". Same bull. "Last i heard, being smart did not mean you lack the ability to be ignorant" "Last I heard being a republican did not mean you lack the ability to be a closet gay" "Last I heard being George Bush did not mean you lack the ability to do two things at once" "Last I heard snorting a can of hairspray did not mean you lacked the ability to do math (2+2=5)" "Last I heard being a woman did not mean you lacked the ability to be a man" I could go on forever. "Last I heard trying illogical arguments in the DigitalPoint Political forum did not mean you lacked the ability to have brain fungus"

 

My advice would be to read up on some sociologic studies on child development when there is not both genders in a household. There are some negative impacts. My personal point of view is that if we're going to keep orphaned children out of homes for small reasons such as how much the parents make or how many rooms they have in their house, then we should likewise find the ideal situation for a child to be in from a sociological stand-point. It really has absolutely nothing to do with turning the child gay (although there can be arguments that this may exist).

 

Pretty much their argument can be summed up as gays are sinners/abnormal/icky so therefore should not be allowed to care for children

The whole thing is pretty much totally against American values, where all people are created equal and have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

The vote is typical of these types of issues, and that is the reason we have a judiciary branch in our country, instead normally having people vote on laws. The masses cannot be trusted to make decisions of that magnitude, masses are easily swayed by emotion etc

 

There are study's trying to prove everything, but I've know plenty of people from single parent homes that came out fine... I'm from one myself, and think that it made my family closer...

 

most GLBT do have relatives or friends to help fill the need of the opposite gender of what they are like why couldn't "straight" Aunt/Uncle/etc.... fill the need so gay men can adopt have Grandma or Aunt or female friend fill the mother need if need be but think how many children out there never grow up having a mother or father to love them at all

 

If Pamela Anderson and Angelina Jolie gonna be my mother than I would surely sign up dude!

What a happy boy I am

Bout' the discussion: I would say it depends on the kid. If they will get a better life and education why not? However that might adverse their psychological growth

On one side it's good, on other side it might bad. There is social element involved in this so it might get a little complicated.

 

That's true. But i haven't heard any stories about this happening have you? where there are numerous straight couples who adopt for either just the money or to abuse the child.

 

You're right. I am such a fool. Being gay is about flying kites and having a nice garden.

 

Way to go, produde (That's a yank expression); you are beginning to see that lot's of folks besides homsexuals engage in this practice, and I am glad you concede to Devil's point.

 

Ohhh!!! That's right; did you see that on the news a while ago (maybe a month or two) where a family kept adopting kids, then it was found they had designed cages for each of the kids, and locked them up like dogs...

I know it's kind of off-topic, but that was disturbing... And it was a straight couple (there, now I'm on-topic )...

 

For a straight married guy you have this horrible fixation about Anal sex.. it's truly a bit disturbing!

 

How about we call a spade a spade??? Anyway you try and sanitise sodomy the whole thing revolves around the rectum/anus. Which brings me back to my point: Anal sex (poo pushing) is a disgusting act which should in no way be condoned. It is unhealthy (it damages the rectum) and those involved in it should get help and not ask for equal rights because "I like it up my anus" Get it? A spade is a spade.

 

What ever. Can you most past the sex bit and look at us as well i don't know Humans?

What about this quote any come back to this?? or again just ignoring something that dosn't fit your ideal world?

 

So by your logic, anyone who enjoys anal sex (a lot of heterosexual couples included) should not have the same rights as "normal" heterosexuals who don't enjoy anal sex ?
Should all the women and men who have anal sex on a regular basis have less rights than you ?
This isn't even about gay people now ?

 

Devil! you know he will just ignore this or just say that he doesnt know any hetero couples who indulge in the dark stuff so there for it doesnt happen He lives with his head in the sand!

 

Don't expect him to answer difficult questions, selltrib.
On the gay marriage thread he completely ignored a very good question asked by one of the debaters.
He's one of those people who lets the bible do his thinking, ya know ?