Should gays be able to adopt?

yes. i would say it's a market issue. if there is a large supply of orphans, any child will be better off with parents rather than with orphanage caretakers unable to provide the child the necessary attention.
 
If an adoption agency or other custodial figure wants to hand over guardianship of a child to a couple of gay guys (or girls), I think that should be their business and nobody else's.
 
To add,

My solution to make this a non issue for potential child abuse and turning out gay children.

Let gay female couples adopt male children.
Let gay male couples adopt female children.

Problem solved.
 
buffalokid777 said:
To add,

My solution to make this a non issue for potential child abuse and turning out gay children.
Let gay female couples adopt male children.
Let gay male couples adopt female children.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

You cannot "catch" or "learn to be" gay. Being raise in a gay house does not mean you will be gay any more than being raised in a heterosexual household means you will be straight.
 
The welfare of the child is what matters, and it seems to me, that may involve more than just whether or not the child will be influenced to turn out ‘gay’.
 
AutoDas said:
I don't know, it should be the kids right to decide.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unfortunately we live in a barbaric society where individuals are automatically incompetent until the age 18 when they become only partially competent.

It should always be up to the individual. If an individual is unable to make a choice only individuals with a valid claim of guardianship should be able to transfer guardianship.
 
It's a state issue, and the only reason I say it is a state issue is because there is no enumerated power for the federal government to concern itself in this matter.

I believe that they should have the right to adopt, as it is the only consistent pro-life answer. As long as that child is going to a loving home, in my opinion, that is all that matters.
 
buffalokid777 said:
To add,

My solution to make this a non issue for potential child abuse and turning out gay children.

Let gay female couples adopt male children.
Let gay male couples adopt female children.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Your answer falls into one of three categories for me...

1. You're implying that "gayness" rubs off on children. I would love to see some kind of actual evidence of this to back up such claims. Of course, I would expect data to be slightly skewed since the children of straight parents who really are gay, might not even mention it for fear of being ostracized. A lot of times they wait until they're far from home to start to figure things out. Do the sexual practices of heterosexual parents rub off on their children? My mother and I have had some discussions that lead me to believe their sex life is far blander than mine. I never gave what positions they had sex in, or what fetishes they might have, a second thought as a child in my formative years. Hell, I never gave it a first thought.

2. You mention abuse, which adds a sad element to this. One might read into this, and the way you phrase the rest of your answer, to imply that two male parents would potentially abuse a male child sexually. On the flipside, it also seems to imply that two female parents would abuse a female child sexually. This plays into long-held myths about true pedophilia being a mostly "gay" thing. It's ridiculous.

3. You are being sarcastic, in which case the post was just silly and in poor taste.
 
specsaregood said:
Does anybody remember why Dr. Paul "Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) "?
Click to expand...

Paul also reveals a deeper antipathy when he says of gay couples, "just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else." That sounds more like the Texas congressman who, while opposing a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act which, in part, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages (even when recognized under state law) for purposes such as filing joint federal taxes, Social Security inheritance and spousal immigration. And Paul voted in 1999 to bar the District of Columbia from [using federal funds for adoptions by unmarried parnters].
Click to expand...

I believe the "federal funds" portion of that answers your question ;)

From another source:

In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill. The amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia. The amendment in question was not present in the final bill.[70] Rep. Paul votes against most federal funding as an unconstitutional use of taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't a kid be better off with two gay parents that loved him/her than being a ward of the State?
 
I don't see a problem with it, provided that private adoption agencies aren't forced to send kids to gay homes if they don't want to.
 
Should single people be able to adopt?

Essentially it is a non issue for me as long as private Christian adoption agencies couldn't be sued out of business because of "sexual discrimination".

I think we are moving in this direction though. Eventually I suspect gays will gain the elusive "hate crime" status like blacks have.
 
Last edited:
My Thoughts

libertybrewcity said:
Is this a states' rights issues? Federal issue? Not up to the state? Not an issue?

I am currently living in San Francisco with a family of one gay dad who adopted 3 children. They are aged 19, 16, 15 and don't show any tendencies that make me think they were homosexual in any way.

Thoughts
Click to expand...

It should be a "States' Rights" issue because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to deal with such matters of the family.

As a matter of Biblical principle, I would say there should never be any public acknowledgment or endorsement of homosexual families. Consequently, that would take care of the problem of whether gay couples should adopt or not.

In that one family you speak of, I would say such a family actually indoctrinates the kids that it is okay to be gay and have a family, even if the children do not choose to be gay themselves. That sort of instruction, nonetheless, still undermines society because it allows generations to create pseudo-families with no moral justification nor ultimate authority for why gay families are righteous.

Because we have become so desensitized to immorality in our society, many people fail to understand how having homosexual families destroys the basic unit of our society, which is the family. Having a state legislature vote to legitimize such a union does not make it right simply because a state did it as opposed to the federal government. Any state is supposed to protect families; they are not to undermine them via legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top