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.

[Ooberman]

Every child has his/her right to his own mom and dad. So homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

And if those parents are dead, in prison or patently unfit (like the "good" hetero couple that had killed two of their kids from neglect and abuse, but had 3 other kids)?

I guess we just take those kids and bury them with the parents, lock them up, or let them fend for themselves!

Note to moderators: I have about had it with the insanity around this topic: can I swear and make a few personal attacks? Please?!?!?!! I need to vent.

[Cathar1950]

Even the idea that the data says homes without fathers is detrimental is questionable. I would think the loss of a parent or lack of funds would have consequences.
There are cultures where the uncle disciples the children and is the head of the family. Also there are extended families.

If they can show they can provide for them and love them they all the best for them as anything is better then nothing or abuse and neglect.

I would think as long as they have older men and women around to relate to they will be just as healthy as any. I doubt most gay couples know others of the opposite sex as friends and relatives. This might call for better social relations and communities but I am sure we can all rise to the occasion and accept and welcome any that care enough to raise and nurture children.
How many children in our societies die for the results of poverty every year?
Let me look it up...

I don't know how valid the data is but I am PRETTY SURE it isn't something we should brag about.
I am sure there is better data. I found it disturbing when we spend trillions on bailing out Big Corporations while we fight extending unemployment or health-care.
Here is just a few things I found:

http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm

Poverty's Effect on Children
Unfortunately, not all of America's poor have been so fortunate. According to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau in September 1996, 13.8% of Americans live in poverty. Many more are on the borderline. Poverty affects all ages, but an astonishing 48% percent of its victims are children:

*

About 15 million children -- one out of every four -- live below the official poverty line.
*

22% of Americans under the age of 18 -- and 25% under age 12 -- are hungry or at the risk of being hungry.
*

Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty; 27 die because of it.
*

Children and families are the fastest growing group in the homeless population, representing 40%.

I guess it should cause some of use to swear when we hear about how gays are going to ruin marriage and destroy the family especially when so far the data seems to show they do a pretty good job with our traditional values.

But I am sure they could come up with some story about how all the poverty is really the fault of the homosexuals too.

[Ooberman]

Even the idea that the data says homes without fathers is detrimental is questionable. I would think the loss of a parent or lack of funds would have consequences.
There are cultures where the uncle disciples the children and is the head of the family. Also there are extended families.

If they can show they can provide for them and love them they all the best for them as anything is better then nothing or abuse and neglect.

I would think as long as they have older men and women around to relate to they will be just as healthy as any. I doubt most gay couples know others of the opposite sex as friends and relatives. This might call for better social relations and communities but I am sure we can all rise to the occasion and accept and welcome any that care enough to raise and nurture children.
How many children in our societies die for the results of poverty every year?
Let me look it up...

I don't know how valid the data is but I am PRETTY SURE it isn't something we should brag about.
I am sure there is better data. I found it disturbing when we spend trillions on bailing out Big Corporations while we fight extending unemployment or health-care.
Here is just a few things I found:

http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm

Poverty's Effect on Children
Unfortunately, not all of America's poor have been so fortunate. According to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau in September 1996, 13.8% of Americans live in poverty. Many more are on the borderline. Poverty affects all ages, but an astonishing 48% percent of its victims are children:

*

About 15 million children -- one out of every four -- live below the official poverty line.
*

22% of Americans under the age of 18 -- and 25% under age 12 -- are hungry or at the risk of being hungry.
*

Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty; 27 die because of it.
*

Children and families are the fastest growing group in the homeless population, representing 40%.

I guess it should cause some of use to swear when we hear about how gays are going to ruin marriage and destroy the family especially when so far the data seems to show they do a pretty good job with our traditional values.

But I am sure they could come up with some story about how all the poverty is really the fault of the homosexuals too.

I wonder if Euphrates, with his heroic mission of making sure the government intervenes in any familial condition that is damaging to children, will include abusive, drug-using parents to his litany of people unfit for parenthood - or is it just gays?

[micatala]

Another milepost on the march to equal rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/2 ... 35751.html


A Florida court has now overturned one of the more, if not the most, draconian ban on gay adoption. Note the following.

MIAMI — Florida will immediately stop enforcing its ban on adoptions by gay people following a decision by a state appeals court that the three-decade-old law is unconstitutional, Gov. Charlie Crist said Wednesday.

Crist announced the decision after the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a 2008 ruling by a Miami-Dade judge, who found "no rational basis" for the ban when she approved the adoption of two young brothers by Martin Gill and his male partner.

"I'm very pleased with the ruling on behalf of the Gills," Crist told reporters in Tallahassee. "It's a great day for children. Children deserve a loving home."

It is also interesting that Crist, a "former Republican" is willing to express his approval, probably because he is now out from under the purview of his largely anti-gay party.

[Cathar1950]

Another milepost on the march to equal rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/2 ... 35751.html


A Florida court has now overturned one of the more, if not the most, draconian ban on gay adoption. Note the following.

MIAMI — Florida will immediately stop enforcing its ban on adoptions by gay people following a decision by a state appeals court that the three-decade-old law is unconstitutional, Gov. Charlie Crist said Wednesday.

Crist announced the decision after the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a 2008 ruling by a Miami-Dade judge, who found "no rational basis" for the ban when she approved the adoption of two young brothers by Martin Gill and his male partner.

"I'm very pleased with the ruling on behalf of the Gills," Crist told reporters in Tallahassee. "It's a great day for children. Children deserve a loving home."

It is also interesting that Crist, a "former Republican" is willing to express his approval, probably because he is now out from under the purview of his largely anti-gay party.

Sometimes reason does march on and it kind of gives you hope.

[Slopeshoulder]

Using the word "allowed" in the OP establishes an unjust power realtiosnhip and itself establishes tryranny. I find the wording of the question offensive.

And it IS a gay rights issue unless you can PROVE that gay parents negatively impact children. This is America. If you want to limit rights, the burden is on you to prove your case (or swindle the gullible though fear tactics, which also works).

[chris_brown207]

Using the word "allowed" in the OP establishes an unjust power realtiosnhip and itself establishes tryranny. I find the wording of the question offensive.

And it IS a gay rights issue unless you can PROVE that gay parents negatively impact children. This is America. If you want to limit rights, the burden is on you to prove your case (or swindle the gullible though fear tactics, which also works).

You have to look at who opened this thread and the way some of his previous opening threads were posted... do you think he might be a fan of "Fox News"???

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

You have to look at who opened this thread and the way some of his previous opening threads were posted... do you think he might be a fan of "Fox News"???

This isn't really necessary. Please remember to debate the topic, not the person.

[chris_brown207]

Moderator Comment

You have to look at who opened this thread and the way some of his previous opening threads were posted... do you think he might be a fan of "Fox News"???

This isn't really necessary. Please remember to debate the topic, not the person.

Very true, my apologies. Sometimes I just have to wonder if some of the posts I have seen from one or two of the posters come from a place of honest debate or just for the purpose of being inflammatory.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Sometimes I just have to wonder if some of the posts I have seen from one or two of the posters come from a place of honest debate or just for the purpose of being inflammatory.

Please be sure to make these kinds of responses via PM in the future.
To that end, I did send you a private message in response.