Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Please provide peer reviewed studies to back up this view, otherwise you must clearly be a small minded bigot to hold that point of view. :rolleyes:

You really can not call people small-minded after some of the posts you've thrown out.

In what way is prejudcie against orientation different from prejudice against race? No studies needed, just give me an idea.

bbam

IvySlayer wrote: »

Are you of the opinion females are automatically better at raising kids than males?

I can speak from the perspective of being a heterosexual male with two adopted children.
My opinion would be that "in general" yes women are better at raising children. Not based on any science, just my opinion and experience.

Pedant

To those who are against gay couples having equal rights in the adoption process, please read this before posting (posted originally by oldrnmisr):

The following link contains links to comprehensive scientific peer reviewed papers on gay/lesbian parenting that point to the fact that children raised in families with same-sex parents are at no less disadvantage than those brought up in families with opposite-sex parents.

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING

I don't think that these studies can be posted too often here on boards as the ignorance on the issue seems to be widespread.

P.S: Apologies to moderators for the use of bold text and large font.

WolfgangWeisen

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Please provide peer reviewed studies to back up this view, otherwise you must clearly be a small minded bigot to hold that point of view. :rolleyes:

Nah, you see much like the rest of civilised society, I don't care to waste my time dealing with small minded, backward thinking hicks who are afraid of anything in any way different to them.

Racists and homophobes are an embarrassing stain on modern,21st century society. Thankfully they're part of an ignorant, dying breed though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pedant wrote: »

To those who are against gay couples having equal rights in the adoption process, please read this before posting (posted originally by oldrnmisr):

The following link contains links comprehensive scientific peer reviewed papers on gay/lesbian parenting that point to the fact that children raised in families with same-sex parents are at no less disadvantage than those brought up in families with opposite-sex parents.

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING

I don't think that these studies can be posted too often here on boards as the ignorance on the issue seems to be widespread.

P.S: Apologies to moderators for the use of bold text and large font.

We are havign trouble getting them to read the three studies posted here as it is!

Babybuff

I'd say about 70% of gay women I know already have kids from previous relationships. I don't personally know any gay men who want families and two in particular who are against gay adoption. (based on a pool of apx 50 or so people)

Pushtrak

Babybuff wrote: »

I'd say about 70% of gay women I know already have kids from previous relationships. I don't personally know any gay men who want families and two in particular who are against gay adoption.

The pertinent issue here is that they legally should have the rights afforded them under the law. I'm a hetero who has no plans on having kids. Just because I could doesn't mean it is my intent to go and do so. Not every person on the planet wants the responsibility of parent. Those who do, again should have the right to do so.

Babybuff

Pushtrak wrote: »

The pertinent issue here is that they legally should have the rights afforded them under the law. I'm a hetero who has no plans on having kids. Just because I could doesn't mean it is my intent to go and do so. Not every person on the planet wants the responsibility of parent. Those who do, again should have the right to do so.

I don't disagree. In my own experience these issues mostly involve those who are in ltr and who already have kids and the complications induced under the terms of civil partnership as it currently stands. I just thought some perspective was needed.

Hoffmans

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

We are havign trouble getting them to read the three studies posted here as it is!

so any studies/stats on ss couples adopting the ss?

CreepingDeath

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You really can not call people small-minded after some of the posts you've thrown out.

I disagree.

Both men and women have a lot to contribute to the upbringing of a child in different constructive ways.
My view is that you get the best of both worlds/genders with a male and female as opposed to a single-sex couple.

You get gender diversity in the parents.
It's funny how you are pro-diversity in many ways except for the gender of parents.

I never said gays couldn't bring up children, in fact go back to my first here yesterday for a refresher. Link

However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple without having a prepared opinion force fed to me by some clinical snapshot questionnaires and shouted at me in huge fonts.

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Nah, you see much like the rest of civilised society, I don't care to waste my time dealing with small minded, backward thinking hicks who are afraid of anything in any way different to them.

Racists and homophobes are an embarrassing stain on modern,21st century society. Thankfully they're part of an ignorant, dying breed though.

I got banned for less than that in AH before in a similar thread.
Just because you don't name a poster doesn't mean you're not directly insulting them, especially when you quote them and everyone knows who you're talking about.

Although I did think it was funny how you talk about racists and homophobes being a "dying breed" in a thread were you're demanding custody of other peoples babies.

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Both men and women have a lot to contribute to the upbringing of a child in different constructive ways.
My view is that you get the best of both worlds/genders with a male and female as opposed to a single-sex couple.

Prove it.

Pedant

CreepingDeath wrote: »

However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple without having a prepared opinion force fed to me by some clinical snapshot questionnaires and shouted at me in huge fonts

Farting against a hurricane is not an effective way to stop it.

WolfgangWeisen

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I got banned for less than that in AH before in a similar thread.
Just because you don't name a poster doesn't mean you're not directly insulting them, especially when you quote them and everyone knows who you're talking about.

Although I did think it was funny how you talk about racists and homophobes being a "dying breed" in a thread were you're demanding custody of other peoples babies.

My post was directed at anyone who discriminates based on race or sexual orientation, if you fit that description then that is most certainly your problem and not mine. I don't know you but seeing as you're quite clearly arguing in favour of denying people rights, people who like you were once a little sperm fertilizing an egg in someone's womb, who 9 months later came out a vagina but is wired just a little bit differently to you, then I have to say that I absolutely don't want to get to know you.

And yes, I am absolutely thrilled that homophobes and racists are a dying breed. I don't care who they are, or what they've contributed to society, if they look at a black person and say that person deserves less rights than them for purely being black, or a gay person for purely being gay, then I cannot wait to see them and their ilk disappear from society.

And they will, because their hatred is based on fear and ignorance, something that is thankfully dissipating with the advancement of our modern, multi-cultural societies.

Demanding custody, is that what people who think that gay people should have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to apply to adopt a child? No, sorry, it's not. I'm sure in the sensationalist, red-top dregs of journalism you get your "facts" from that these things might be touted as some sort of hostile snatch and grab of poor little children.

These children enter the adoption process because they have parents that cannot parent them, or have no parents at all. Demanding custody? Please, fúck off with that garbage. The process is intended to give them good homes to get a good life in and there is absolutely not one iota of evidence, quite the contrary if you bothered reading the posts above, that gay people cannot provide a stable, loving home as much as their heterosexual counterparts.

NuMarvel

CreepingDeath wrote: »

However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple without having a prepared opinion force fed to me by some clinical snapshot questionnaires and shouted at me in huge fonts.

And we're entitled to question the basis of that opinion. We're talking about the welfare of children here, so you'll have to do better than "it's common sense" or "because I said so" if you want to deny them their right to a loving nurturing caring family environment.

So if you have some independent, verifiable sources that show that same sex parents CAN'T provide that kind of environment, then please share.

bodice ripper

Domo230 wrote: »

Gay people should be allowed to adopt





So long as they aren't mixed race* :pac:


*Wouldn't want the child being bullied for being part of a half caste relationship afterall.

^^^
this

Pushtrak

I say we ensure both parents have the same star sign. Astrological purity must be maintained!

Babybuff

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I disagree.

Both men and women have a lot to contribute to the upbringing of a child in different constructive ways.
My view is that you get the best of both worlds/genders with a male and female as opposed to a single-sex couple.

You get gender diversity in the parents.
It's funny how you are pro-diversity in many ways except for the gender of parents.

I never said gays couldn't bring up children, in fact go back to my first here yesterday for a refresher. Link

However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple without having a prepared opinion force fed to me by some clinical snapshot questionnaires and shouted at me in huge fonts.



I got banned for less than that in AH before in a similar thread.
Just because you don't name a poster doesn't mean you're not directly insulting them, especially when you quote them and everyone knows who you're talking about.

Although I did think it was funny how you talk about racists and homophobes being a "dying breed" in a thread were you're demanding custody of other peoples babies.

It's kinda funny but they are already doing it, lots and lots and lots of them and the great thing is that you can't really stop them, you can only deny them their rights. I'm also fairly confident that most of those kids are happier and more well balanced than their counterparts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hoffmans wrote: »

so any studies/stats on ss couples adopting the ss?

not sure what you're asking me for here.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I disagree.

Okay, so a brief recap:

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Giving a child good heterosexual role models will help them to fit into normal cultural gender roles and follow in the success of billions of other heterosexual people.

Narrowminded for reasons pointed out.

Women tend to have better social and language skills, they nurture the child and would have a better emotional connection with them.
Men tend to challenge kids to learn and improve themselves, enforce discipline and provide a more level headed, wider, and more logical view of the world.

Narrowminded. You say "tend to be" but for your point to hold water, it would have to be "automatically is"

Exposure to a diversity of personalities will help a child see different views of the world. Whereas a gay couple would tend to only have half of that psychological diversity to teach the child.

Narrowmined. Unless the child is going to be rasied without any outside influences whatseover.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We haven't just being "doing something for millions of years", we've been doing it successfully for millions of years in countless species.
The gay community have only really come out of the closet and started demanding "rights" in the last 100 years or so and think they can rewrite the parenting books in the process. :rolleyes:

EXREMLY narrowminded. To beleive that there is only one way of going forward. Also, why should rights not be demanded? Also assumes you even need to change parentign in the first place. Also homophobic, imo.

The majority of children are heterosexual, and should be brought up in a heterosexual environment where they see, day in day out, how a heterosexual domestic relationship works.

Narrowminded.

No, I understand that, but they don't see the 24x7 inner domestic workings of a normal heterosexual family from people outside the family.

Narrowminded to beleive this is nessecary.

Obviously minority groups try dragging up obscure "peer reviewed studies" to aid their agendas. Who funded those studies?

Narrowminded and wrong - when confronted with studies, you ignored the, didn;t read them and then claimed they were biased.

Both men and women have a lot to contribute to the upbringing of a child in different constructive ways.
My view is that you get the best of both worlds/genders with a male and female as opposed to a single-sex couple.

I never said gays couldn't bring up children, in fact go back to my first here yesterday for a refresher. Link

Well if you believe they CAN, why should they be DISCRIMATED AGAINST?

However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple without having a prepared opinion force fed to me by some clinical snapshot questionnaires and shouted at me in huge fonts.

The problem is that your viewpoint has been proven to be wrong and narrowminded. What you're sayign here is that you're right and massess of studies going back nearly half a century by well respected doctors and scientists are wrong? Now that really IS narrowminded.

filmbuffboy

i know plenty of heterosexuals who are awful parents. does that mean all straight people are unfit to parent? NO! why would all gay people be unable to raise a child well? its a ridiculous question!

Sin City

Pushtrak wrote: »

I say we ensure both parents have the same star sign. Astrological purity must be maintained!

Sod that , families today should all be blond haired blue eyed and.of.pure germanic decent. (lets face it , they have the money )They must all be christian and any deviation from this norm should be eradicated

I think my ideology is both original foolproof and.makes bloody good sense

CreepingDeath

NuMarvel wrote: »

And we're entitled to question the basis of that opinion. We're talking about the welfare of children here, so you'll have to do better than "it's common sense" or "because I said so" if you want to deny them their right to a loving nurturing caring family environment.

Again, read the first line of the post I made here yesterday. Linky

I didn't say they couldn't bring up children, I'm not denying their right to apply. However I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedence to give them a normal lifestyle and not some alternative lifestyle led by a minority of the population.

Why don't you ask the other 295 people who voted against it ?

I'll tell you why... they're probably afraid to go public considering the way the hostility mounts fairly fast against anyone in AH who doesn't have a "politically correct" point of view sanctioned and approved by the minority groups.

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

I have to say that I absolutely don't want to get to know you.

...Please, fúck off with that garbage.

There was already a mod warning to be civil here.

Babybuff

I have a kid but I'm not gay according to the strict lgbt definition, I just happen to be a woman who has relationships with women but I know my kid is no less than any child of traditional parents, in fact I know she has advantages in areas some of her counterparts are lacking in. I wish you could meet her creeping death just to put your fears aside and show you how capable, loving and intelligent she is.

conor.hogan.2

CreepingDeath wrote: »

who doesn't have a "politically correct" point of view

You mean humane and decent POV?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Again, read the first line of the post I made here yesterday. Linky

I didn't say they couldn't bring up children, I'm not denying their right to apply. However I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedence to give them a normal lifestyle and not some alternative lifestyle led by a minority of the population.

Another probelm with your "argument" is that you assume hetrosexual parents are automatically "normal".

CreepingDeath

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Okay, so a brief recap:

Narrowminded for reasons pointed out.

Narrowminded.

Narrowmidned.

blah, blah , blah

As usual, you bore people to death by dissecting every word of a post.
It's tiresome and I'm out of here, thanks for curing the insomnia.

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I didn't say they couldn't bring up children, I'm not denying their right to apply. However I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedence to give them a normal lifestyle and not some alternative lifestyle led by a minority of the population.

So, say there was a vote, would you vote against the rights being present? Or would you vote in favour? If you vote against, then you are against their rights. So, if you are being truthful above, then you would vote for it, yes?

Ultimately, when this issue comes up in a vote, that is when this matter counts. It is so people will vote on the issues in an informed manner. That is why it is worth while discussing these things.

We can't discuss these things with the other people who just vote because they haven't participated in the discussion. I completely disagree with the opinion you hold, but I will thank you for actually vocalizing your opinion. Chances are the kind of points you bring up are points other people who voted in the poll same as you are thinking, and the lurkers who didn't actually ask can see the responses to the questions.

Perhaps someone who is lurking and thinks similar to you will try to bring up a point that you hold, or try to strengthen your case. And it will be up to the people who disagree to counter that perspective.

geetar

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Again, read the first line of the post I made here yesterday. Linky

I didn't say they couldn't bring up children, I'm not denying their right to apply. However I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedence to give them a normal lifestyle and not some alternative lifestyle led by a minority of the population.

Why don't you ask the other 295 people who voted against it ?

I'll tell you why... they're probably afraid to go public considering the way the hostility mounts fairly fast against anyone in AH who doesn't have a "politically correct" point of view sanctioned and approved by the minority groups.



There was already a mod warning to be civil here.

its not your right to determine whether a baby will have a "better" upbringing because of the sexuality of the parents.

if that was the case, then technically wealthy people should get preference ahead of other less well off couples, and white couples should get preference in case the child got bullied from racist children.



we should not accommodate people with discriminatory views by refusing people in society basic rights in case they get bullied.

the reason why a child might get bullied for having gay parents is not because of an opinion that a bully is born with. It is something that is inherited.

that means that we must allow gay couples to adopt, and work on changing peoples attitudes towards homosexuality, rather then depriving people of basic human rights to accommodate ignorant, narrow minded idiots.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I have no argument, so I'm just going to render a pathetic insult and go to bed.

FYP.

Jester252

yes
because its okay to have kids so you can get a house quicker

Pedant

Jester252 wrote: »

yes
because its okay to have kids so you can get a house quicker

We're not all advocates of the welfare state here.

Pushtrak

Pedant wrote: »

We're not all advocates of the welfare state here.

I'm not always a stickler for strict adherence to topics, and can enjoy some threads evolving. On this, though, I'd rather the thread didn't go down a pros and cons here. Would prefer we kept on the topic at hand.

Dr. Jonathan Crane

They absolutely should. They should also be allowed to marry. I'm a straight male and it's my personal opinion that if the idea of gay marriage and adoption offends you, you're a fagg*t.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

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.

Dr. Jonathan Crane wrote: »

They absolutely should. They should also be allowed to marry. I'm a straight male and it's my personal opinion that if the idea of gay marriage and adoption offends you, you're a fagg*t.

Well, that's one problem solved...:D

Pushtrak

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Well, that's one problem solved...:D

Yep, and being a boards user, his work was reviewed by his peers.

Pedant

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm not always a stickler for strict adherence to topics, and can enjoy some threads evolving. On this, though, I'd rather the thread didn't go down a pros and cons here. Would prefer we kept on the topic at hand.

Gay people who work in private sector and aren't on the welfare ... good

Gay people who feed off state welfare ... bad ... (extended to all people on the welfare)

Pushtrak

Pedant wrote: »

Gay people who work in private sector and aren't on the welfare ... good

Gay people who feed off state welfare ... bad ... (extended to all people on the welfare)

Thanks for ignoring my previous, I'll repeat myself. I'm not going in to that debate. It has no place here. Please don't bring it up.

Pedant

Pushtrak wrote: »

Thanks for ignoring my previous, I'll repeat myself. I'm not going in to that debate. It has no place here. Please don't bring it up.

Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Someone wants to be a mo-der-at-or.

Pushtrak

Pedant wrote: »

Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Someone wants to be a mo-der-at-or.

I really, really don't. But I'm not going to have a topic that matters degenerate to an axe you want to grind. Sorry.

Pedant

Pushtrak wrote: »

I really, really don't. But I'm not going to have a topic that matters degenerate to an axe you want to grind. Sorry.

Oh, go one. You do. All that power, success and fame!

Annasopra

Pushtrak wrote: »

I really, really don't. But I'm not going to have a topic that matters degenerate to an axe you want to grind. Sorry.

then report posts

ManCityChamps

No one with any sense would think that two men should be raising a child rather than a man and a woman. But no one with any brain would think that children should be rotting in an orphanage rather than being raised by two men.

Let gays adopt children with no - or highly abusive - parents, BUT screen their backgrounds vigorously.

NuMarvel

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Again, read the first line of the post I made here yesterday. Linky

I didn't say they couldn't bring up children, I'm not denying their right to apply. However I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedence to give them a normal lifestyle and not some alternative lifestyle led by a minority of the population.

Why don't you ask the other 295 people who voted against it ?

I'll tell you why... they're probably afraid to go public considering the way the hostility mounts fairly fast against anyone in AH who doesn't have a "politically correct" point of view sanctioned and approved by the minority groups.

What's a "normal" lifestyle? And what do you think gay couples do that would mean they'd practice an "alternative" lifestyle?

And btw, you STILL haven't furnished any scientific back up to support your assertion that children are better raised by heterosexual couples.

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Obviously a woman can help guide a girl through puberty much better than a man can and would be more approachable and empathetic on typical womens problems or even the simple stuff.

I am not so convinced that this is true. Most of what children learn about sexuality and sexual related biology like this tend to come from peers, cousins, sex education in school, magazines, television and books. Not directly from ones parents.

Nor is a man precluded in any way from teaching such things to a girl, or a woman to a boy. Nor is approchability on such subjects mandated by sex. It is mandated by personality and relationship... and which parent or parents a child feels is approachable on embarrassing subjects is as variable as any aspect of human relationships. Where one girl would feel better approaching their mother, another would feel better approaching their father.

Perhaps you have little or no knowledge/symathy/empathy/understanding of the workings of the menstrual cycle. That does not allow you to draw the conclusion the rest of the world of men do not either.

I am afraid therefore that this argument is just yet another in a long list of examples on this thread of you pigeon holing the sexes into your own sexist view of the world where each sex has a fixed role and identity in life. Your entire "argument" supporting your bias against gay marriage appears based on wanting to maintain that dynamic. A dynamic which exists no where in the real world except in your own head.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Both men and women have a lot to contribute to the upbringing of a child in different constructive ways.

So you keep saying, but every time you are asked to adumbrate those differences and show how one sex is precluded from providing something the other can.... you run a mile. Why is that I wonder?

CreepingDeath wrote: »

However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple

So you keep saying despite the fact no one has once suggested you are not entitled to your opinion. Ever. The issue is that WE are entitled to point out that your opinion is unsubstantiated and baseless nonsense. You seem to desperately want to equate disagreement with your opinion as people trying to remove your rights to having an opinion. It is not so and your protests therefore are just white noise filler to cover the fact you are offering nothing of substance in the current discussion. It seems you want the right to express your opinion and if anyone expresses a counter one you cry foul as if your rights are somehow being impinged. They are not. So get over it.

It is a good general rule to note in fact. If you are having a discussion with someone and they suddenly stop discussing the topic but instead go on some meaningless rant about how they are entitled to their opinion... or how everyone is attacking and insulting them.... or "hostile" or some other "wah wah woe is me" phrase.... you know they have nothing more to say on the actual subject at hand and they are just deflecting.

cowzerp

smash wrote: »

No you're not. You're just born with an attraction to the same sex.

Thus choosing to not procreate, nature obviously did not intend 2 men to father a baby.

Oh and the people comparing a gay couple not been able to have a child as the same as a woman who can't for medical reason's are way off, and that was never anything to do with my debate.

Their is also plenty of Men/women couples out there who want babies but cant conceive who would be happy to adopt so either way I'd put them top of any adoption list over Adam and Steve.

To the poster who think's I am ignoring them, I'm not-just seen your post's now and I don't have the time or am I so strongly against it that I feel the need to respond, I think people feel I am a raging Homophobe!! I am not, Just think kid's ideally should be with a Man and a Woman.

nozzferrahhtoo

cowzerp wrote: »

Thus choosing to not procreate, nature obviously did not intend 2 men to father a baby.

Nature does not "intend" anything. However being born with an attraction to men is not a choice not to procreate. One can still do so through surrogacy. Being gay is about who one spends ones life with as a life partner and sexual partner.

cowzerp wrote: »

Oh and the people comparing a gay couple not been able to have a child as the same as a woman who can't for medical reason's are way off, and that was never anything to do with my debate.

In other words you want your "argument" to apply when it suits you and not to apply when it does not. The way the "argument" was presented was that a gay person choosing another gay person as a partner is therefore choosing not to be able to procreate and hence one should not give rights to adoption to someone who has made that choice.

However a person who chooses to marry an infertile partner is also making that same choice, yet in that case you would not remove their rights to adoption. Yet essentially at the core of it there is no difference in the "choice".

So the only way to get out of that is to simply declare that this "argument" applies to one, and not the other, based on nothing but the fact that doing so suits your position.

cowzerp wrote: »

I think people feel I am a raging Homophobe!! I am not, Just think kid's ideally should be with a Man and a Woman.

As with creepingdeath you are in danger of sounding over protective and over paranoid at being attacked. While some may want to rush to name calling you homophobe, others have not. The simple fact that seems apparent to people like myself, but not to people like yourself, is that the position that a "Man and a woman couple" is some how the "ideal" is baseless.

The only support you appear to offer for holding that position appears to be to repeat it over and over. Alas repeating a position over and over does not strengthen it in any way.

It really is a simple point but it appears not to be addressed by you or your cohorts in this discussion: If one lists the things a child actually requires for a healthy and successful upbringing.... there is nothing on that list that is somehow precluded from any one parental configuration over another. Whether that be a single parent, gay parents, straight parents or any other configuration.

Therefore what basis is available to declare one configuration the "ideal" over another is entirely opaque to us and each time we ask for that basis we either find our posts entirely ignored... or we simply find you restating your position again as if that helps. Given that, it is hard to not understand why some people need to rush to labels like "homophobe" to at least try and draw some substantiation out of you... especially given an anti gay stance based on apparently no argument, evidence, data or reasons.... pretty much IS the definition of "homophobe" and if the shoe fits... as they say...

cowzerp

Yeah whatever!

I have no problem with gay people, none whatsoever-I just think/know it is Man and Woman who are meant to make babies, If Man and Man was meant to, then they would.

Their is no point in debating with you if you just keep saying that anyone who agree's with you is just repeating themselves-well that tends to happen when you believe that opinion and feel it is correct as I do.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Thus choosing to not procreate, nature obviously did not intend 2 men to father a baby.

Nature is not sentient, it has no intent. It does not decide what is correct or good, it just is.

Oh and the people comparing a gay couple not been able to have a child as the same as a woman who can't for medical reason's are way off, and that was never anything to do with my debate.

No. Your argument is two men shouldn't have a child as nature did not provide them with that capability. A logical expansion of that would be arguing that a woman born infertile shouldn't have a child as nature did not provide her with that capability.

You're engaging in fallacious appeals to nature and special pleading.

Their is also plenty of Men/women couples out there who want babies but cant conceive who would be happy to adopt so either way I'd put them top of any adoption list over Adam and Steve.

And yet children still find there way into state care.

Just think kid's ideally should be with a Man and a Woman.

Ideally they wouldn't need to be adopted but reality very rarely coincides with ideals.

Looking at the facts there are no quantifiable negatives to gay couples raising children. Which, oddly enough, is ideal as it allows for more children to find loving and capable parents.

nozzferrahhtoo

cowzerp wrote: »

Yeah whatever!

Killer response that. Destroys my points every time. Oh wait sorry, this is reality... I forgot.

cowzerp wrote: »

I have no problem with gay people, none whatsoever-I just think/know it is Man and Woman who are meant to make babies, If Man and Man was meant to, then they would.

This is the second appeal to intent on behalf of nature in as many posts.

There is no "intent" or "meant" in nature. The only thing it does is push genes from each generation into the next. How they get into the next is something nature is entirely indifferent to.

Procreation is not the only stage in this.... nor is it the topic of this thread.

Care for and nurturing of the child is a big part of nature and the subject of this thread is whether the contents of ones underpants... or who ones shares those contents with in life.... should dictate who should or should not be doing that caring and nurturing.

cowzerp wrote: »

Their is no point in debating with you if you just keep saying that anyone who agree's with you is just repeating themselves

Indeed. If repeating your position is all you can do then there IS no point in you "debating". Why you continue to do so therefore is entirely opaque to me. This is not debating, it is soap boxing.

Were you to actually present some arguments and substantiation to back up your opinion THEN we could engage in something that is worthy of the label "debate".

As long as you insist on simply restating your position over and over then you are soap boxing, not debating, and there is no response open to us other than to point out a) your opinion is unsubstantiated and b) you are just repeating it over and over again as if repeating something enough times suddenly makes it true.

Otacon

cowzerp wrote: »

Yeah whatever!

Good argument.

cowzerp wrote: »

I have no problem with gay people, none whatsoever-I just think/know it is Man and Woman who are meant to make babies, If Man and Man was meant to, then they would.

What does making babies have to do with adopting babies. Heterosexual couples who cannot conceive can adopt.

cowzerp wrote: »

Their is no point in debating with you if you just keep saying that anyone who agree's with you is just repeating themselves-well that tends to happen when you believe that opinion and feel it is correct as I do.

I would like to know what you believe a homosexual couples lacks that a heterosexual couple has. What criteria would a homosexual couple need to fill before they could adopt, in your opinion?

Jester252

I see the word normal throwen around a lot. What is that a loving man and woman having 2.5 kids? How many people did you know have a single parent? I know people that are worrying about their birthday as their mum and dad might get in a fight. Look at another thread on boards about a guy that whats to forget about a child that he made during a one night stand. Look at the social welfare of kids that in the state which kids are moved around Ireland for one house to another. These are normal in today world but two loving men/woman are not allowed to adopt is just wrong. A kid needs people who care for it, it needs a stable home.