this has become a big deal lately,

i'd like to know others feelings on it,

my stance is that i'm against it.

not because i dislike homosexuals, or don't think they'd be good parents, or that it would be harmful home environment.

i think when it comes to the life of a child you should put your own selfish petty wants and desires behind, and concentrate on the kids,

why do most gay people stay in the closet so long,

the ridicule they have to endure,

but they don't give a shit about the ridicule that a child might and quite possibly will recieve from growing up in a homosexual household?

a 14 year old boy with two girls, or a 14 year old girl with two boys,

i can hear it now, in an already delicate subject matter in regards to the child,

they're bi ain't they and use you to fill what's missing,

or they're not your real parents ever dream of getting it on with them, a threesome?

did you ever catch your mom's doing it,

i can see a boy with two girls handle that situation better than a girl with two guys,

there's absolutely no limit to the amount of humiliation you can lay on somebody whose the same sex as their gay parents,

especially a guy with two dads.

i bet one of your dads thinks about you when they get it it on at night,

did you like it when they bathed you when you were younger,

they're probably closet pedophiles and were attracted to you, that's they adopted you.

the first adopted child of gay parents pushed over the edge i think would make columbine look like a disney world commercial.

there's a chick at work here who just had a baby, and another chick said she wanted a baby again,

i asked her, for whose benefit, yours or the childs.

no answer, because it wasn't the one that would make her look good.

anybody else?

I'm not officially against it, but it does have dubious implications as far as the life of the child. Some things are really intended by nature, and one of those is that a child has a male and a female parent. The mother and father each fulfill a unique role in parenting, and complications in the child's life when raised without one or both parents are well-documented and far-reaching. I'm all for people to have the freedom to do very nearly whatever they want, but I have serious doubts as to whether a homosexual couple (male or female) would provide a balanced and healthy environment for a child to grow up in.

quote:

---

but they don't give a shit about the ridicule that a child might and quite possibly will recieve from growing up in a homosexual household?

---

So just because society is stil not completly ready to accept homosexuals with open arms, does it mean we should continue hiding it?

Yes, the kid might have few jokes thrown at his expense - nothing's wrong with that, he'll get over it. It's not like he's been addopted by two murderders. Besides, as time will pass, people will get used to it.

quote:

---

or they're not your real parents ever dream of getting it on with them, a threesome?

---

I could say this about any adoptive family. Even a heterosexual couple.

quote:

---

they're probably closet pedophiles and were attracted to you, that's they adopted you.

---

Do even you even know how many heterosexual pedophiles there are?

quote:

---

Some things are really intended by nature, and one of those is that a child has a male and a female parent. The mother and father each fulfill a unique role in parenting, and complications in the child's life when raised without one or both parents are well-documented and far-reaching. I'm all for people to have the freedom to do very nearly whatever they want, but I have serious doubts as to whether a homosexual couple (male or female) would provide a balanced and healthy environment for a child to grow up in.

---

Now that's an intelligent reply. (lostmind, take notes)

Gravehead, the thing is that nature hasn't forgotten about homosexuality either. Gays are members of our society - we can't deny it anymore. It's normal that they too wan't to raise a family of their own. If there's a certain percentage of homosexuals in society, there's no reason to why there shouldn't be a certain percentage of people issued from homosexual families.

They are members of society but in matters of adoption the only important thing is the safty and well being of the children. I belive that a study of children raised in gay house holds versus those raised in foster care, straight adoptive families, and straight non adoptive families should commence.

It should be allowed provided it shows greater overall benefit than foster care with no higher risk of predatory activity. If not it should not be allowed.

In the end though the child as always should have the ability to refuse adoption.

what gravehead said. you need a mother and a father, not a butch dad and a fem dad.

the fact that homosexuals CAN'T have children should mean that homosexuals can't have children... if you catch my drift.

probably not - i mean, the fact that homo's can't have children means that homo's weren't meant to have children..?

I know what i mean.

you can't say that just because someone is gay that they are unfit to have children. while, a child would get shit for having gay parents, it would be a temporary thing (hopefully). gay people is something that the world needs to accept, not just tolerate, and hiding them in a dark corner and giving them the bare necesities is not going to help anyone.

they cannot physically have children (obviously), but that does not mean that they are not worthy of children.

apart from the children getting shit from people, which hopefully will not be an issue, there is no real problem. children raised in single parent families turn out okay. it would be better for a child to have two parents over one anyday.

quote:

---

i mean, the fact that homo's can't have children means that homo's weren't meant to have children..?

---

There's a lot of stuff that humans weren't meant to do by nature, but stil menaged to accomplish it with the help of advanced technology.

Also, don't forget that most of the couples who adopt kids are among those who can't give birth (like when a wife has some problems with her organs etc...). and yet, they stil are allowed to adopt the child.

As for this whole "a child must have a mom and a dad" issue, I think it's outdated. The reason one would want heterosexual parents is because it makes him more 'normal' in nowdays world. However, since the percentage of openlly admitted homosexuals grows every year, a child raised in a gay family should be considered as a 'normal' phenomenon too.

Besides, think of how many kids don't even have a foster home (not every country is able to organise this for it's citizens), and must live on the streets in the harshests conditions. The right for homosexuals to adopt children might save a lot of poor souls.

i didn't say they were 'unfit' i said they weren't 'meant to have kids'.

you can't argue with that.

even if it does get the thumbs up any time soon, it will be a looong time before its accepted by the majority - and for as long as it isn't accepted to the majority, it will be detrimental to the child.

bad idea. best not go there.

hp, you dipshit, those derogatory things Lost said were not his own opinions, they were examples of gay things the kids would hear everyday of their lives. Theyre not supposed to make sense shithead. He is right, the kids in that situation would be better off dead.

>>>Yes, the kid might have few jokes thrown at his expense - nothing's wrong with that, he'll get over it.<<<<<

LoL thats what Russel Yates said about his wife's mental illness.

>>>>It's not like he's been addopted by two murderders. Besides, as time will pass, people will get used to it.<<<<

Probably not. In either case, if you are so committed to this "victory" for "equality" put your own dignity, self-esteem, and entire life on the line, dont throw helpless orphans with no say in the matter into the line of fire to prove the point of your grand social experiment. Most, if not all, would want nothing to do with this wonderful sacrifice of their entire being for the sake of some degenerates whose need for anal reconstructive surgery creates a paternal void.

quote:

---

even if it does get the thumbs up any time soon, it will be a looong time before its accepted by the majority

---

Gotta start somewhere. Not like this bill is gonna be voted tomorow anyways... years more will pass before the first couple adopts it's first child.

quote:

---

the kids in that situation would be better off dead.

---

I'll assume that you rather kill your own daughter than have her raised by a homosexual couple. I guess the fact that she'd be mocked in school for couple of years is too much to endure. Better kill the kid them let him suffer such 'humiliation'.

quote:

---

Most, if not all, would want nothing to do with this wonderful sacrifice of their entire being for the sake of some degenerates

---

For the sake of degenerates? What the fuck are you talking about? The foster homes haven't forgoten their number one priority - safety and happiness of the kids. If a reform which would give the gays the right to adopt the children becomes a fad, doesn't mean all children will be 'sacrificed' to the homos. The'll be stil a certain test to pass before a couple could adopt the child. If, however, the couple proves that they got all it takes to offer to a child, then there is absolutly no reason to why they can't have that kid.

Its cool how you only addressed the fringe elements of my post and attacked the wording, but did not once answer for its fundamental point.

You believe in this wonderful cause, and the people who will suffer, miserably, to advance it, are children thrown at it by people like you, who want nothing to do with it. If these people cared so much for children, they would not subject them to a life that will be defined by degrading mockery and emotional trauma. The question at the end of the entire argument is, are innocent children with no mind for causes the right tool to advance your vision?
You have answered, of course, and that sickens me and thank god, most of America.

No, you dumbass. I clearly stated that the main reason for which I support this cause is because I want to help the kids. It's my number one priority.

There are millions of orphans around the world, most of them don't even have a foster home and must do whatever they can (in most cases its prostitution) to survive on the streets. Think of the number of kids we'd be able to save.

Besides, how many children are laughed ay for being poor? or for being born with a physical defect? or for having not-cool-enough parents?

Can you honestly tell me that at some point you weren't mocked at school? Bullshit. We've all experience it. It's not that much of a problem. The overal benifet for the kids is much, much greater.

Haha, so now its not about gay adoption, its just a way to add a few potential parents to ease the suffering of hordes of miserable third worlders?

There are waiting lists for years for the kids people actually want to adopt. No one wants Brazilian street kids with AIDS and nutritional problems, including homosexuals. And even when the small handful do, the bureacracies of those countries, and corrupt foster care systems that run sex slave outfits and sweatshops make it incredibly difficult. A few homos on the list wont change that.

The mockery a fat kid, or weak one, or kid whose hair isnt cool enough, is nowhere near as traumatizing as if the kids had two faggot fathers. Stop insulting my intelligence and quit trying to convince me you are ready to swear those kids will grow up happy and normal.

quote:

---

so now its not about gay adoption, its just a way to add a few potential parents to ease the suffering of hordes of miserable third worlders?

---

Better few then nothing at all. I'm sure that the trend will catch up and more homosexual couples will follow the example.

quote:

---

No one wants Brazilian street kids with AIDS and nutritional problems, including homosexuals. And even when the small handful do, the bureacracies of those countries, and corrupt foster care systems that run sex slave outfits and sweatshops make it incredibly difficult.

---

Seems to me you have no idea how the whole system works. First of all, there's been a lot of cases of adoption of foreign children for heterosexual couples and it seems to be getting more and more popular. Sure, it might not be reliable 100% and sometimes a complicated process, but it's nothing that we can't deal with. If the couple wants that kid, they shall have it. It's up to them to do all the paper work.

The least we can do, as a society, is to give them such right... which shouldn't have been forbiden in the first place, but let's not get into that now...

quote:

---

Stop insulting my intelligence and quit trying to convince me you are ready to swear those kids will grow up happy and normal.

---

The only person who's insulting your intelligence is yourself.

Homosexuality is a very normal phenomenon in our society. Homos might be different then the rest of us, but nonetheless, they are absolutly normal.

hp if you had read the beginning of my post you would've noticed i said i had nothing agianst homosexuals, nor did i think they would be bad parents.

as for the they'll get over it comment,

i'm sure that's teachers and others thought at columbine.

it's obviously apparent you have not watched clockwork orange,

clockwork orange was about a guy who was cured of doing any harm to anybody, this was the "humane" way of treating criminals, by taking away their ability to commit crime without doing time.

the question raised is that any criminal can readjust to society, but can society readjust to a criminal, you see the "cure" not only prevented him from committing crimes but also from defending himself.

in the end society stripped the cure from him because of all their evils, and for the trouble the "cure" caused him he was well taken care of, but back to his old self, which it seems is the way society wanted him to begin with.

"cures" like that will not work, until society can look past, past actions of an individual,

in the same sense, gay adoption will not work until society can look past sexual preference, in my opinion.

the day will come though.

we shouldn't have to rush it.

we are talking about adoption, not natural child birth, some kids will grow up thinking,

god, what a fucking waste i must be the only people in the world who wants me is a couple of fags, who probably wouldn't even have me if it was possible for them to have their own together.

quote:

---

the question raised is that any criminal can readjust to society, but can society readjust to a criminal

---

Society creates the criminal (in a sense that they create the laws that would criminilase the individual), therefore, it (the society) can always decriminalise him. So yes, IMO, the society can readjust to the 'criminal'.

quote:

---

in the same sense, gay adoption will not work until society can look past sexual preference, in my opinion.

---

Like I said earlier, better start somewhere. When results of the conducted tests would come out as proof that homosexuals can be responsible and caring parents, it might influance the opinions of the ignorant society.

quote:

---

what a fucking waste i must be the only people in the world who wants me is a couple of fags, who probably wouldn't even have me if it was possible for them to have their own together.

---

Once again, i'll repeat myself, this might be a problem at first but eventualy, the child will realise that he got nothing to worry about. Plus, the people arround him will view things from different perspective.



[This message has been edited by hp (edited 03-28-2002).]

>>>>Like I said earlier, better start somewhere. <<<<<

Probably not. But I dont see how anyone can agree "somewhere" is where kids are thrown into a humiliating experiment they have no desire to take part in.

I refer to my previous statements.

wisdom smithee, but how do we achieve these statistics?

at what risk?

"Like I said earlier, better start somewhere"

this totally depends on the situation,

you wouldn't hand the keys of a car to a two year old and say, he's going to drive anyway, may as well start somewhere.

although most parents won't wait for the legal age to start teaching,

they do observe a certain level of maturity,

and i don't think mankind has it yet.

The statistics are acheivable currently. lesbians who have had artificial insemination is an easy source of statistical information. It is however, harder to get the statistics on gays, though possible provided a large enough pool of homosexual men have wound up with their children in divorce settlements where the mother was deemed unsuitable or where the mother has died before the child has reached the end of their formative years.

In the case of the lesbians incidences of psycological problems among their children would be multiplied by Cp, where Cp is the constant signifieing the increase in psycological problems between children raised in traditional families and those raised in foster care. The constant signifieing risk of predatory behavior shall be designated Cr. should the demagraphic numbers when multiplied by the constant excede the numbers established for foster care In risk of predatory behavior than It, lesbian adoption, should be forbiden. If the risk of psycological problems be greater than in foster care it should only be allowed provided it offers less risk of predatory behavior beyond the statistical margin of error.

In the case of gays Cr will still hold wheras Cp will be altered to analogus situations to those experienced by the children of straight fathers. Though the criterea after the numbers are created are the same.

quote:

---

you wouldn't hand the keys of a car to a two year old and say, he's going to drive anyway, may as well start somewhere.

---

Bad analogy.

A better analogy would be the case with the man of the moon; many people initialy opposed the project and thought it was a waste of money and effort, but after many years, mankind has attained his goal.

Yes, it was long, yes it was hard, but people had to start somewhere.

quote:

---

they do observe a certain level of maturity,

and i don't think mankind has it yet.

---

Well, I think it'll be safe to say that, generaly, homosexuals are accepted in our society. Sure, you have idiots who'd try to cause problems here and there, but all in all, it seems all right. Don't forget the gay parades, the gay olympics etc...

So if we start working on the gay adoption issue right now, I do believe that in 5 years or so, everything will settle down.

>>>>A better analogy would be the case with the man of the moon; many people initialy opposed the project and thought it was a waste of money and effort, but after many years, mankind has attained his goal.

Yes, it was long, yes it was hard, but people had to start somewhere.
<<<<

Thats a worse analogy. The men who went to the moon knew they might not come back. They wanted to be the ones to work hard and sacrifice. Tiny kids being dropped into mockery do not have that conviction. No cause that can only be advanced by kids with no say is legitimate.

wow, this is a tough one.

I believe that law should not prevent a homosexual couple from having a child. But I imagine that it would and should be almost as difficult as it would be for a single parent to adopt, because of the lacking opposite sex. Naturally, people aren't all statistics and of course two guys are going to get help from people regarding their daughter and vice-versa. You really can't impersonalize this if you are going to take it before law, and law is all about being impersonal. So really, law is not applicable. Standards should be set and maintained - segregation of any type should not be a factor. Not until it is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this would harm the child. This is America we're talking about, and I'm fucking tired of people claiming "free-country" every time it suits them and "good for the whole" when free-country doesn't.

Lastly, why is it all about the kids? It's part of a natural cycle of life to have children. Without having had a child, a human dies lacking. (This is not a pure statement, but a generalization) Why should the parents always come last?

Is it because children are born weak and helpless into a world where *gasp* everyone there once entered in the same fashion. The mindset people have put over their own selves is that "children didn't choose to be here" and all that bullshit. Who gave people the right to choose? Adults didn't choose to be where they are either. Just because a person for instance, chose to have sex (and perhaps a mistake occured), doesn't mean they should be fucked for life. THey still have their whole life and the child is a part of that, not a domination. The two lives will live synchroniously for many years, with a great bond, but the adult doesn't have to sacrifice themselves (although many parents would do so without second thought).

There is nothing wrong with having children for your own benefit. It should be mutually beneficial.
Fuck "I care only about the children".

but goatboy, having children in a natural way is also part of the natural life cycle,

which homosexuals, i shouldn't say don't have, but are in contradiction of.

i see where you're coming from hp,

you don't have to convince me that homosexuals would be good parents,

look at all the child is going to be exposed to,

what if the child grows up resentful of homosexuals?

that doesn't always come down to the way he's raised.

my parents have never seen drugs, and preached against them my whole life,

i use drugs.

i know people who don't do drugs, because of their parents teachings,

i also know people who do drugs because their parents do,

and i also know people who don't do drugs because their parents do,

parental guidance isn't the only thing that molds a childs mind.

although proud of what the child they raised has become, my parents still tell me that if i didn't look so much like them, they'd swear i wasn't theirs,

just because of how vastly different personality wise i am from them, and in my likes and dislikes,

almost exact opposites on everything; political views is about all we have in common with each other, which we didn't even have that when i was a teenangster.

but views on religion, drugs, family and nearly everything else we are worlds apart on.

my parents are devout christians, i'm a deist, and don't believe in christianity.

my parents are against drugs, i do drugs and have a job as a programmer with no college education.

my parents are big on family, and although i cherish immediate family like parents and grandparents,

aunts and uncles and cousins are people i probable wouldn't even know or care toknow had i not been related to them.

despite all they taught me, i grew up as an individual, with my own opinions and reasoning behind them, contradictory to what i was taught growing up.

and i can't believe that i'm the only person in the world who is like this,

and can only expect it to happen to others as well, including adopted children with gay parents,

i can guarantee you there will be children in this day and age who will grow up racist in that kind of environment,

saying things to their friends like, you think you got it bad,

i got a couple of fags bringing me up, hell though it keeps me out of trouble when i go to the counsilor and tell him how hard it is growing up in a homosexual environment.

maybe that's why we differ so much in our views on the terrorist war hp, you seem to think mankind can rise above anything,

whereas i'm of the opinion that if i can think of it,

it's already been done. and have very little respect or admiration for my fellow man.

unless they earn it.