Should Gay Couples Be Allowed To Adopt?

[WinePusher]

Should gay partners, male or female, be allowed to adopt and raise children of any age.

In my opinion, this is a direct assult on the nuclear family and it harms the childhood devlopment process.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/g ... t/9290.htm

This is not a gay rights issue, this is about the rights of children and what they can and cannot be subject to. The rights of gay couples does not trump the psychological health and devlopment of a child.

[Lux]

I understand your point and their is some truth to it, but are you telling me that if a gay couple wanted to adopt a child, and that child explicitly said they didn't want to go, that the child should be forced to go?

No. Like I said before:

If a kid of any age explicitly says he/she doesn't want to go with a certain couple, they shouldn't be forced, in my opinion, regardless of the couple's sexual orientation or any other factor. But to go to a child and ask him: "Hey these people want to adopt you, but they're gay. Is that cool with you or would you rather spend a couple more years in foster care and see what other offers you get? Here are the statistics concerning gay adoption and foster care success rates." would not be helpful.

The kid. Whether the kid is intelligent or not is not for you to decide.

Kids should decide whether they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions? Do you realize the implications of this? School drop out rates would increase like crazy. Dentists would go bankrupt. Child obesity would probably skyrocket too.

If you had a 13-year-old and he told you he wants to get married tomorrow to his girlfriend (or boyfriend...) and that he feels like he's old enough to make this decision, would you honestly be ok with that?

[chris_brown207]

I understand your point and their is some truth to it, but are you telling me that if a gay couple wanted to adopt a child, and that child explicitly said they didn't want to go, that the child should be forced to go?

No. Like I said before:

If a kid of any age explicitly says he/she doesn't want to go with a certain couple, they shouldn't be forced, in my opinion, regardless of the couple's sexual orientation or any other factor. But to go to a child and ask him: "Hey these people want to adopt you, but they're gay. Is that cool with you or would you rather spend a couple more years in foster care and see what other offers you get? Here are the statistics concerning gay adoption and foster care success rates." would not be helpful.

The kid. Whether the kid is intelligent or not is not for you to decide.

Kids should decide whether they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions? Do you realize the implications of this? School drop out rates would increase like crazy. Dentists would go bankrupt. Child obesity would probably skyrocket too.

If you had a 13-year-old and he told you he wants to get married tomorrow to his girlfriend (or boyfriend...) and that he feels like he's old enough to make this decision, would you honestly be ok with that?

I would say, while I agree overall with your sentiment, the point that is being debated in these posts is moot to the overall conversation. As McCullough pointed out in an earlier post, each state has its own written age of consent in which a child is allowed to make a decision of this magnitude on their own.

If the child is of the age of consent, and he decides not to go with the proposed adoption parents (no matter what race, age, sex, sexual orientation, or socio-economic class) then that is his/her prerogative. If the child is not of the age of consent, then it is completely up to the adoption agency and the proposed parents.

So the issue has already been answered, and taking it any further should probably be done in a new thread.

This line of questioning is really just a detour from the main issue, which is whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt equally with heterosexual couples, all else being equal.

[perfessor]

This line of questioning is really just a detour from the main issue, which is whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt equally with heterosexual couples, all else being equal.

Exactly, and it is also worth noting that many adoptions occur during the infancy of the child. In such a case the judgment rests with the agency, and they will have established criteria for determining the suitability of the adoptive parents. Should the sexual orientation of the parents be one of those criteria? I vote no.

[WinePusher]

This line of questioning is really just a detour from the main issue, which is whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt equally with heterosexual couples, all else being equal.

Exactly, and it is also worth noting that many adoptions occur during the infancy of the child. In such a case the judgment rests with the agency, and they will have established criteria for determining the suitability of the adoptive parents. Should the sexual orientation of the parents be one of those criteria? I vote no.

Both of you are wrong. You, and others, have forcebally turned this into a so called "gay rights issue" when it has nothing to do with gay rights. Same with marriage. The issue regarding gays and marriage is not about gay rights, its about the future of the institution of marriage, as adoption is not about "gay rights" its about the choice and future of the child. And the fact is, the precious rights of homosexuals are considered by some on this forum to be of more importance than the consent and choice of the child. I believe that the abortion argument is, the mother should be able to choose. Does that only apply when it comes to terminating fetuses, or does it apply to children as well? Another double standard by the cultural left.

[WinePusher]

Yes, gay people should be able to choose what to do with their lives. They should be granted all rights bestowed by marriage.

I appreciate the agreement we have here.

Thank you, I hope I am not sounding like a homophobic and gay discriminator by the stances I'm taking.

McCulloch has given an initial response to this. We could discuss the particulars in more detail, but I think the main point is that there are legitimate and significant complications with polygamy (and polyandry) that are not present with a two-person marriage.

I am not aware of such complications.........Granted I am not an expert on Marital laws

http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/bmstat.html

-You will be eligible to live in neighborhoods zoned for "families only".
-You will have the right to own property together and inherit property from each other.
-You will pay special rates for insurance (car, home, health, etc).
-You can make medical and financial decisions for each other in emergencies.
-You don't have to testify against each other in court.
-You can file a joint return or create a family partnership to divide business income.
-You will be able to set up trusts to reduce estate taxes; and receive benefits from pensions, Social Security, Medicaid and disability income insurance.
-You can make tax-free gifts to each other, with no limit on the dollar amount.
-You are also entitled to sue if your spouse dies because of a "wrongful" act by another person.
-You will inherit, from your spouse, if they die without a will.
-You will be able to claim dependency deductions if you have children.

Using this standard, I see no complications arising for polygamists other then the second to last point concerning inheritance, simply split the inheritance....

[WinePusher]

"Torn apart"? Don't drink the water from that well.

What well is this? The well that provides water that "tells it like it is without playcoating the issue"? The water is quite refreshing and enlightening........

This seems the extent of the argument presented by homosexuals.

Yes, and if marriage were to become what the homosexuals want it to be, it would then be discriminatory to polygamists, would it not?

It discriminates against polygamists now.

As of now, marriage has been voted by the majority of americans to remain between one man and one woman, making it "discriminatory" to all others who wish to have marriages that don't conform to this standard. So, we have three options

1) Keep marriage as it is and bestow all rights granted by marriage unto gay partners without redefining the institution

2) Make marriage an institution open to all people, whether it be ploygamists or same sex couples or sam sex polygamists or so on.....

3) Re-define marriage to allow only 2 same sex people to marry, thus discriminate aganist polygamists.

[WinePusher]

Changing the laws to allow for polygamy and polyandry would lead to legal complications not there for two person marriages, and thus would be far more difficult to implement.

What complications?

I find it ironic that Christians oppose the recognition of same sex marriage on the basis that it might lead to polygamy. Same sex relations it can be argued are explicitly condemned in the Bible. Polygamy, on the other hand, has no explicit prohibition and several examples, in the Christian Bible. Why then would a Christian argue against same sex marriage on the basis that it might lead to polygamy?

I do not reject gay marriage and polygamy because of my christianity. I reject it because it changes and redefines an institution that has existed in one form for the past centurary. I reject both because, it is once again, another attempt to destroy the traditional America and move us into a type of un recognizable country. That is why the wise american public continually strike down every single homosexual marriage equality law passed. America has spoken in favor of traditional marriage and conserving the good parts of america, and because the progressives cannot get an ounce of public support they go to the courts and have them smother liberty and active democracy.

[McCulloch]

Changing the laws to allow for polygamy and polyandry would lead to legal complications not there for two person marriages, and thus would be far more difficult to implement.

What complications?

Marital breakups are currently a bit complex and messy, who gets the kids, how are the assets divided, who owes continued support to whom. This would become more complex with poly relationships.

Marriage normally confers certain benefits, the assumption of being the next of kin, survivor benefits etc. This also would be made more complex with the addition of more than one candidate.

[msmcmickey]

I do not reject gay marriage and polygamy because of my christianity. I reject it because it changes and redefines an institution that has existed in one form for the past centurary. I reject both because, it is once again, another attempt to destroy the traditional America and move us into a type of un recognizable country. That is why the wise american public continually strike down every single homosexual marriage equality law passed. America has spoken in favor of traditional marriage and conserving the good parts of america, and because the progressives cannot get an ounce of public support they go to the courts and have them smother liberty and active democracy.

So gay marriage is on par with slavery? Is that what you are saying?

[chris_brown207]

This line of questioning is really just a detour from the main issue, which is whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt equally with heterosexual couples, all else being equal.

Exactly, and it is also worth noting that many adoptions occur during the infancy of the child. In such a case the judgment rests with the agency, and they will have established criteria for determining the suitability of the adoptive parents. Should the sexual orientation of the parents be one of those criteria? I vote no.

Both of you are wrong. You, and others, have forcebally turned this into a so called "gay rights issue" when it has nothing to do with gay rights. Same with marriage. The issue regarding gays and marriage is not about gay rights, its about the future of the institution of marriage, as adoption is not about "gay rights" its about the choice and future of the child. And the fact is, the precious rights of homosexuals are considered by some on this forum to be of more importance than the consent and choice of the child. I believe that the abortion argument is, the mother should be able to choose. Does that only apply when it comes to terminating fetuses, or does it apply to children as well? Another double standard by the cultural left.

I don't quite see how we "forcibly" turned this into a gay rights issue, but I will agree that it is. This is one occasion in which homosexuals are not provided equal access, and are discriminated against based one their sexual orientation.

If you do not agree with the Age of Consent Laws, then start a new thread or take it up with your state legislator. Children do have the right to decide, once they reach the age of consent.

As for homosexual marriage, there is a whole other thread already dedicated to just this question. I recommend you take that up there.

Again, these are detours, and dare I say even distractions from the issue at hand. If you have evidence to support denying homosexuals the right to adopt, then please present it. Evidence has already been presented to show that children fare just as well under homosexual parents as they do under heterosexual parents. What evidence do you have to show that homosexual parents should not be allowed to adopt? (And frankly, "that is the way it has always been" is not the strongest of arguments to support your case... as msmcmickey pointed out, slavery would still be in effect if it was)