Should gays be able to adopt?

[Theocrat]

Consider the Opposite

What if a state law gives preferential treatment to available straight parents, over a gay couple?

It works the other way around, too. What if a state law gave preferential treatment to a gay couple over straight parents? I would say that would be more plausible than your scenario, given how much our state and federal governments today are ruling in favor of homosexual "civil rights" issues, with the use of "hate crime" legislation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It works the other way around, too. What if a state law gave preferential treatment to a gay couple over straight parents? I would say that would be more plausible than your scenario, given how much our state and federal governments today are ruling in favor of homosexual "civil rights" issues, with the use of "hate crime" legislation.

But the Constitution is supposed to save us from that! Whatever could have gone wrong? /sarcasm

 

[dannno]

It's a state issue, but my personal opinion would be, can gays have a child naturally? Two men, or two woman? The answer of course is no.

Can a man a woman have a litter of kittens naturally? The answer, of course, is know. Therefore families should not be able to adopt kittens. Period. The state says so, you MUST obey THE STATE

 

[Arion45]

This is a not a government issue at all. Now this question will separate the men from the boys. Should children be sold through the free market?

 

[Arion45]

Can a man a woman have a litter of kittens naturally? The answer, of course, is know. Therefore families should not be able to adopt kittens. Period. The state says so, you MUST obey THE STATE

Logic is a bitch isn't it?

 

[reillym]

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.

I think society has become desensitized to bigotry like this. People don't choose to be gay. If that were true, when did you choose to be straight? Why would someone choose to be gay if there is so much hate towards them around the world from bigots like yourself? Makes no sense.

Also, do gay animals choose the gay lifestyle? Do they want to be immoral in the face of some space fairy (god/allah/flying spaghetti monster)? I think not.

For you to prioritize your own religious extremism over the the future of parent-less children is truly, utterly and completely disgusting. Surely, any god worthy of an intelligent man's respect would be disappointed in your beliefs.

What people do in their bedroom is none of your business. How they raise their kids, as well. Even if they did "choose" (which they don't) to be gay, that is none of your business whatsoever. They aren't hurting anything except your own fantasy.

 

[jbrace]

I think society has become desensitized to bigotry like this. People don't choose to be gay. If that were true, when did you choose to be straight? Why would someone choose to be gay if there is so much hate towards them around the world from bigots like yourself? Makes no sense.

Also, do gay animals choose the gay lifestyle? Do they want to be immoral in the face of some space fairy (god/allah/flying spaghetti monster)? I think not.

For you to prioritize your own religious extremism over the the future of parent-less children is truly, utterly and completely disgusting. Surely, any god worthy of an intelligent man's respect would be disappointed in your beliefs.

What people do in their bedroom is none of your business. How they raise their kids, as well. Even if they did "choose" (which they don't) to be gay, that is none of your business whatsoever. They aren't hurting anything except your own fantasy.

Homosexuality violates natural moral law, it doesn't have to be from a biblical view. ( I believe some religions use Natural law to come to their conclusions)

As the professor from Illinois that got fired laid out,

"But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body."

If you homosexuality is a genetic disorder,or, a choice, either way, homosexuality is an error. We live in a day and age where our culture has forgotten what sex is for. (this is due to the ready availability of contraceptives, society, media.. etc) Sex is for procreation; nothing about man/man, or woman/woman coming together is conducive to sustaining life. I also think it's funny when people say it's a 'state issue'. Like the state is good at determining what's best for an individual.

 

[LibertyVox]

The individual church, mosque, temple and the synagogue has the right to say no to homosexual marriage or homosexuals adopting kids. Let's just hope these religious institutions are not savage when they do tell their members what their respective scriptures say.

From a libertarian stand point I believe, if Homosexual adults are deemed to be sane, harmless and normal people who can tell right from wrong, have with normal cognitive ability and intelligence (which I hope we all agree they do), then we cannot impinge on their rights.

Constitutionally, they are guaranteed the right to pursue their felicity. I, therefore don't think this is state's rights issue. We cannot legislate or referendum someone's rights away. We do not have that right ourselves, how can we impose it on others.

 

[acptulsa]

It seems to me that the ultimate question is, if gays adopt can the kids adapt? I don't know the answer to that one.

 

[hotbrownsauce]

The ACLU has a dvd out called "Freedom Files" that actually discusses this.
Here is a playlist I found on youtube... I am not sure if this is the whole segment about gays and adoption from the "Freedom Files" dvd.
YouTube - Fatherhood Dreams - a film about gay men as parents

http:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=IozpcuGR174&feature=PlayList&p=F9A386C3AD6981BF&playnext_from=PL&index=1&playnext=1

For some reason when the forum posts that link it places a space in between F9A386C3AD6 and 981BF& there should be no space.

 

[teacherone]

there are a lot of unwanted kids out there.

thank god that there are people with enough love in their hearts to welcome an unwanted child into their home as their's.

Anybody who treats an unwanted child with love and respect and raises them with care should be able to adopt.

don't matter if they're black, brown, paraplegic, dwarf, slightly dim, neo-conservative, or homosexual-- they treat that kid right and they're good by me.

 

[EvilEngineer]

 

[reillym]

Homosexuality violates natural moral law, it doesn't have to be from a biblical view. ( I believe some religions use Natural law to come to their conclusions)

As the professor from Illinois that got fired laid out,

"But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body."

If you homosexuality is a genetic disorder,or, a choice, either way, homosexuality is an error. We live in a day and age where our culture has forgotten what sex is for. (this is due to the ready availability of contraceptives, society, media.. etc) Sex is for procreation; nothing about man/man, or woman/woman coming together is conducive to sustaining life. I also think it's funny when people say it's a 'state issue'. Like the state is good at determining what's best for an individual.

So having sex = good parenting? You avoided the question entirely. Giving parentless kids a home has nothing to do with "compatible" anatomy.

Natural moral law? According to whom? God? You? The pope? The earth? As I understand it, religious use that term to avoid a real reasoning behind their beliefs. I could just as easily say the natural moral law allows for homosexuality, hence its appearance in many animals.

I've always *really* wondered why religious people demonize homosexuality. Could it be that religious parents (male/female) can raise (indoctrinate) a kid from a very young age and instill "religious values" that are very very difficult to unhinge? Adoptive parents may have a harder time since the kids are often older and have had previous encounters with religions.