Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

Oh gawd, we're back to the "choice" issue again... There's actually a separate thread for that...

Being gay is not a "lifestyle choice". You make it sound like some kind of annual gym membership.

"Have her womb removed on purpose" - what, as distinct from those poor women who lost theirs when they tripped and fell at the bus stop? Why would a woman have her womb removed unless she needed to (medically) or she had already had her children and wanted to prevent further pregnancies (in which case she wouldnt be seeking a baby to adopt).

Sonics2k

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

That's just nonsense. Like, complete and utter nonsense.

cowzerp

Seachmall wrote: »

What about someone who married someone they knew was infertile?

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Yes they are exactly the people who should be allowed adopt children.

smash wrote: »

Actually that's not the case at all. Your attitude and people like yours is to deny them the choice.

I'm not denying them anything, im just saying my opinion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sonics2k wrote: »

That's just nonsense. Like, complete and utter nonsense.

He didn't.... did he?

Coeurdepirate

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

I'm actually flummoxed by the fact that some people still believe that homosexuality is a choice.

Sonics2k

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

He didn't.... did he?

I believe he did, yes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So he did. I had to check.

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

Oh. Dear. God.

What about people who have to sacrifice their fertility in order to preserve their health? The womb might have been removed to save the woman's life.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

While we appreciate this is an emotive topic, can we please keep it civil.

Please report any posts you deem inappropriate, thanks.

Pushtrak

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm not denying them anything, im just saying my opinion.

Voicing an opinion is irrelevant. What people here are talking about this for is that people with an uninformed, ignorant opinion like yours, when presented with a ballot box will vote in a way which will reflect your opinion. Rights should never be subject to the popular vote.

Edit: Ignorant is the same as uninformed, and uninformed because the studies are there. Inform yourself.

AnonoBoy

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Directly attacking cowzerp ?

The LBGT gang have been more than willing to report posts in the past to silence others who don't agree with them.
I think that post should be reported.

Considering a warning has been issued I think it's safe to say it has been reported.

And if you think the post should be reported why don't you report it yourself?

As for your conspiracy theory about LBGT gang reporting posts to silence others? Perhaps they're just reporting posts that needed reporting. It's hardly their fault if homophobes have difficulty debating things without being abusive now is it?

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Yes they are exactly the people who should be allowed adopt children.

But they made a choice knowing they wouldn't be able to conceive naturally, which is your argument for not letting gay people adopt, right?

cowzerp

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So he did. I had to check.



Oh. Dear. God.

What about people who have to sacrifice their fertility in order to preserve their health? The womb might have been removed to save the woman's life.

oh dear god yourself, that's totally missing the point-Nobody just removes their womb for the craic and that was my point, if ya did that is your choice

for medical reasons is totally different

cowzerp

Pushtrak wrote: »

Voicing an opinion is irrelevant. What people here are talking about this for is that people with an uninformed, ignorant opinion like yours, when presented with a ballot box will vote in a way which will reflect your opinion. Rights should never be subject to the popular vote.

Edit: Ignorant is the same as uninformed, and uninformed because the studies are there. Inform yourself.

So anyone who disagree's with you is uninformed

My vote would be as worthy as yours.

Coeurdepirate

cowzerp wrote: »

oh dear god yourself, that's totally missing the point-Nobody just removes their womb for the craic and that was my point, if ya did that is your choice

for medical reasons is totally different

Nobody decides to be homosexual or bisexual and experience discrimination, disowning, hatred, violence and even death for the craic either.

Coeurdepirate

cowzerp wrote: »

So anyone who disagree's with you is uninformed

My vote would be as worthy as yours.

Your opinion is silly yet I still think your vote is valid and worthy and I would fight for your right to express that opinion, as I believe in equal rights. Can't say the same for you.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

Yes they are exactly the people who should be allowed adopt children.



I'm not denying them anything, im just saying my opinion.

That tired old line that's trotted out from time to time. "It's just my opinion" is not actually a reason for having an opinion, you do realise that? Why come out and state your opinion in the first place if, when you are asked to substantiate it, you whine, "It's just my opinion ok?" Sure we'd be here all day and going nowhere if we all did that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cowzerp wrote: »

So anyone who disagree's with you is uninformed

My vote would be as worthy as yours.

Chances are she's made the decision by then. Why would a woman want to have her womb removed if it's not medically nessecary?

This isn't a vote thing, it's a discussion. And if you wish to discuss it, then come up with some sensible reason as to why you object to gay adoption that is not hased on badly-judged morality, scaremongering or bigotry. And then back it up with research.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

So anyone who disagree's with you is uninformed

My vote would be as worthy as yours.

Your vote would be, yes. Your opinion isn't.

His is supported by evidence and reason, yours seems to come from an intuition that is contradictory to about a dozen studies posted thus-far.

AnonoBoy

What about a man who decides to get a vasectomy and then later in life he gets married and decides he does want a child. Should he be refused access to adoption services?

CreepingDeath

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Especially not when compared to your own unsubstantiated opinion of 1.

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.
Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me and boards would probably represent a more open minded
segment of the Irish population, over-represented by the LGBT community.

CreepingDeath

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.
Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me.

and 651 don't. What's your point? Why don't you start making some points instead of whingeing about attacks that don't exist and the fallacious argumentum ad populum?

Seachmall

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me.

You should support your opinion by presenting scientific research, not by what the minority of boards users believe.

Coeurdepirate

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.
Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me.

Why are you posting here? I haven't seen you make a single contribution to this thread other than sweeping generalisations that you can't seem to back up.

blatantrereg

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.
It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students, and were has it been published ?



You're dismissing 30% of the people who don't agree with you on this thread and comparing them to conspiracy nuts?
Typical gay reaction, labelling others as bigots, small minded or Neanderthal because they don't share your views.

The reasons why most don't speak out and express their views is that the LBGT side here gang up on individuals, back slap each other with thanks and report posts they don't like to get people banned.

I'll tell you what, how about the biological parents or their nearest relatives (if any) have to give explicit consent to allow gays to adopt their child.
So there'd be a sort of "opt in" check box when giving up a child for adoption?

I'm not gay. Typical stupid person reaction calling people gay.

cowzerp

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Chances are she's made the decision by then. Why would a woman want to have her womb removed if it's not medically nessecary?

go back and read it in context-i was not saying people do, was comparing it.

hooradiation

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.

Having to defend your opinions is such a terrible conspiracy to enforce silence, isn't it.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me.

Ignoring that Argumentum ad populum is pile of shit, nearly double that think you're wrong.
It's not a good idea to draw attention to your views being in the minority if you're trying to use consensus to lend legitimacy to them.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

So anyone who disagree's with you is uninformed

My vote would be as worthy as yours.

It's funny that you claim you are not "denying" people anything - "It's just my opinion" and yet you feel quite strongly about the power of your vote (of course, not something to be taken lightly) but do you not see that if your voting reflected your (supposedly innocuous) opinion then you WOULD be denying those rights? (Now, dont get all "you dont agree with me so you're telling me how to vote" - I am simply making the point that when people vote on issues like these, they ARE paving the way or not for the minority groups in question so please dont come out and say "gay people should not adopt" and then pretend that if there was a referendum tomorrow that your vote would simply be "just my opinion but I am not denying anyone their rights")

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.
Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me and boards would probably represent a more open minded
segment of the Irish population, over-represented by the LGBT community.

... out of 944. You sure you know how voting works?

And this is AH, not LGBT. And you still only have 32% support.

NuMarvel

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Chances are she's made the decision by then. Why would a woman want to have her womb removed if it's not medically nessecary?

As well as that, I think a woman would be hard-pressed to find a doctor and a hospital willing to remove a womb just because. It's not like getting an ingrown toenail sorted or getting a mole removed, it's major surgery.

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.
Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me and boards would probably represent a more open minded
segment of the Irish population, over-represented by the LGBT community.

No no, that was me. I overstepped the forum rules and insulted someone.

And I wouldn't really call it an attack, at least not in a real sense. Saying someone is "weird and unnatural" is attacking someone, calling someones uninformed, uneducated, bigoted, and offensive opinion stupid or so, is not an attack.

He has been presented evidence, both first-hand (myself, bluewolf, and others) and from fully credited peer-reviewed articles, and still refuses to even alter his opinion. And is now trotting out gibberish about those who may have their womb taken out, and even hinting that sexuality is a choice.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.
Look at the poll for this thread, 293 people agree with me and boards would probably represent a more open minded
segment of the Irish population, over-represented by the LGBT community.

Please do not speak for me

cowzerp

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's funny that you claim you are not "denying" people anything - "It's just my opinion" and yet you feel quite strongly about the power of your vote (of course, not something to be taken lightly) but do you not see that if your voting reflected your (supposedly innocuous) opinion then you WOULD be denying those rights? (Now, dont get all "you dont agree with me so you're telling me how to vote" - I am simply making the point that when people vote on issues like these, they ARE paving the way or not for the minority groups in question so please dont come out and say "gay people should not adopt" and then pretend that if there was a referendum tomorrow that your vote would simply be "just my opinion but I am not denying anyone their rights")

yes and if i felt that the minority where in the wrong i would vote against them, if i felt they where right i would vote for them-how is that not hard to grasp.

i'd go with my opinion on the subject and righly so.

Sin City

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

Being gay isnt a choice

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

i'd go with my opinion on the subject and righly so.

But when that opinion is so clearly flawed you'd have to be a fool to maintain it let alone hold it to any esteem.

And I'm not saying that because I disagree with you but because there is clear scientific evidence to demonstrate it's got no basis in reality.

smash

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm not denying them anything, im just saying my opinion.

your opinion that they shouldn't be able to adopt. This is denying them having a choice.

Coeurdepirate

cowzerp wrote: »

yes and if i felt that the minority where in the wrong i would vote against them, if i felt they where right i would vote for them-how is that not hard to grasp.

i'd go with my opinion on the subject and righly so.

Please don't ignore my posts. You said that women who need to get hysterectomies should be allowed to adopt because although they cannot naturally have a child, you don't just get a hysterectomy for the craic. Do you think people choose to be gay and lead a life that may include discrimination, ridicule, hatred, verbal abuse, physical abuse and perhaps death 'for the craic' ?

Pushtrak

cowzerp wrote: »

So anyone who disagree's with you is uninformed

Of course not. That wasn't the point I was making, and it doesn't speak to your intelligence to try to make that point. Peer reviewed studies get cited. Your rebuttal? "Weird" "Unnatural" "Choice" type argumentation. If this is the best you can do to counter peer reviewed scientific work, years of sociological work then I ask of you, if not uninformed, what would you call it?

My vote would be as worthy as yours.

I was talking about opinion. If you think rights should be subject to popular vote, then no, your opinion isn't worth anything. You are on the wrong side of history on this one.

Civil rights get denied to a group, and there are two sides on the issue. The one that is about persecution loses. Just a matter of time. Yes, in the ballot box what you vote is the same as any other.

Sad that we still have dinosaurs.

cowzerp

smash wrote: »

your opinion that they shouldn't be able to adopt. This is denying them having a choice.

No it's not-If the majority agreed with me then the majority would be denying them that choice, their is lot's of things in life we have no choice to do even if we wanted too.

your argument is weak.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I love the people people are talking about the good idea of voting, i.e. making a choice, to deny people the right to make a choice.

Pushtrak

cowzerp wrote: »

No it's not-If the majority agreed with me then the majority would be denying them that choice, their is lot's of things in life we have no choice to do even if we wanted too.

your argument is weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

KamiKazeKitten

cowzerp wrote: »

No it's not-If the majority agreed with me then the majority would be denying them that choice, their is lot's of things in life we have no choice to do even if we wanted too.

Don't push the blame on to the rest of this majority you're talking about. You want to deny people a choice, judging from the poll above the rest of boards does not.

You've got a right to your opinion of course, but this is a debate, people are entitled to pick it apart.

Sonics2k

cowzerp wrote: »

yes and if i felt that the minority where in the wrong i would vote against them, if i felt they where right i would vote for them-how is that not hard to grasp.

i'd go with my opinion on the subject and righly so.

You absolutely have the right to your opinion, I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

All that is happening is that people are showing you that your opinion is misinformed and incorrect.

As an example, there was once a time when Divorce was not legal here, and people had the opinion that it should never be allowed as it was immoral. People discussed and debated the issue, and the law was changed to suit a better society.

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The LGBT crowd love to attack an individual and hope it silences the rest.

I am not in the LGBT community, I am straight myself. So this ad hominem is nothing to do with me. More likely it is just an attempt to shift away from the arguments you have been unable to answer by attacking some generalized, but baseless, ad hominem directed at an entire community.

As for me: I merely highlight unsubstantiated opinion when I see it, on any topic. Something we should all be doing so that bias and bigotry and opinion do not get mistaken for fact. Alas what you are thus far presenting on the thread IS baseless opinion coupled by an admitted unwillingness to even bother to read the studies that counter that opinion or find any that support your own. You have even ignored whole replies and posts from people, such as myself, by skipping over them entirely. This really is the linguistic equivalent of sticking ones hands over ones ears and going "La la la la la I cant heeeeeear you".

As I said before, this issue comes down to one simple point for me which I said before and you ignored. If one lists the things that a child actually needs for a healthy upbringing... things like love, understanding, security, patience, nutrition, education... one finds there is nothing on that list that is precluded any parental configuration but afforded another. Whether that be a single parent, gay parents, or any other.

This is a simple point and yet every time it is made the only result is that the anti gay parenting brigade sound the retreat and find another post easier to reply to... or start moaning about how the LGBT community as a whole just want to attack them.

The only thing "silencing the rest" therefore is well made and valid points which your crowd can not counter.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

yes and if i felt that the minority where in the wrong i would vote against them, if i felt they where right i would vote for them-how is that not hard to grasp.

i'd go with my opinion on the subject and righly so.

I knew you were going to pick up on that. Nobody is telling you how to vote. I am simply making the point that if you were prepared to vote "no" if this came to a referendum (and there's nothing wrong with voting "no) then your claim that you are not denying anyone their rights is simply not valid. I'm not saying you would be wrong to vot "no" I am saying that your "opinion" is no longer just an opinion, it will determine the rights (or lack thereof) of a specific minority.

Incidentally your post is not "hard to grasp" but I think perhaps my response was... :rolleyes:

smash

cowzerp wrote: »

No it's not-If the majority agreed with me then the majority would be denying them that choice, their is lot's of things in life we have no choice to do even if we wanted too.

your argument is weak.

As weak as "Just because..." which seems to be the basis of your argument.

Now you said that being gay was their choice and as such they can't procreate together and your opinion is that they shouldn't be allowed adopt because of their choice. It is not a choice to be gay, and your opinion to deny them the choice to have children just because can't procreate together is shocking.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

No it's not-If the majority agreed with me then the majority would be denying them that choice, their is lot's of things in life we have no choice to do even if we wanted too.

your argument is weak.

So you think your vote will be ineffectual because you will be in the minority? If everyone thought like that why would anyone bother voting?

Nothingbetter2d

Gary4279 wrote: »

I just don't think it would be fair on the child to say for example have two fathers, and no mother figure.

many kids grow up without a mother figure or father figure in their lives (due to a death, divorce, or abandonment) and most are no worse off than if raised by a gay couple.

personally i see no problem with gay couples giving a decent home to a kid that in all likeliness would have been put into state care otherwise. and we all know how crap the state is at caring for children.

Sin City

Can I asked those who wish to deny gays to adpot for their reasoning?

Aside from the bullying reason as that seems to be an invalid one

Are they afraid that it will destroy the family nuculos and if so how.

As for the ridiculous notion that gays knew what they were getting into when they chose to be gay, Im sure you thought the same thing during the civil rights movement that they all chose to be black.

Denying someone the right to adopt because of their sexual oreientaton is wrong
Saying that because they arent able to naturaly have kids that its ok to deny them adoption is also insane

Many straight couples cannot have babies naturaly
Should they be denied adopting?

cowzerp

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So you think your vote will be ineffectual because you will be in the minority? If everyone thought like that why would anyone bother voting?

No, if i was in the majority then i'd believe i was right, if not the majority is right and i was wrong and the people would get what they want, that is how democracy works-all people have a choice if they want to procreate or not, to say otherwise is false.

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Just because people want something does not mean they should have to get it.

conor.hogan.2

cowzerp wrote: »

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Yes.

But this has what to do with adopting a child who through various tragedies now has no family or none willing to take care of them?

You think infertile people should not be allowed to adopt? People over 40? (arbitrary date, post being able to have children)