[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
I think people who don’t have the willingness to adopt children in need have no right to say if others can or cannot. Same goes for military service.[/quote]
x2
[quote]kamui wrote:
the previsible consequence of the legalization of gay adoption is not an increase in the number of 5 year old african orphans adopted, but an increase in the number of commercial surrogacies and embryo’s adoptions.
ie child trafficking.
in addition, naturally sterile heterosexual couples would have an harder time adopting children because of the increased competition.
We should remember that having a child is NOT a right. So, the whole “equal right” rhetoric is nothing more than a fallacy.
Is it so hard to face and accept the consequences of one’s lifestyle ?[/quote]
More competition? You’ve stated (indirectly) that gay couples will look to artificial conception and then go on to state that heterosexual couples are going to have competition for adoption?
And child trafficking already happens. Instead of wring our hands at how it might possibly increase (which is weak conjecture), look at stamping it out completely.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the previsible consequence of the legalization of gay adoption is not an increase in the number of 5 year old african orphans adopted, but an increase in the number of commercial surrogacies and embryo’s adoptions.
ie child trafficking.
in addition, naturally sterile heterosexual couples would have an harder time adopting children because of the increased competition.
We should remember that having a child is NOT a right. So, the whole “equal right” rhetoric is nothing more than a fallacy.
Is it so hard to face and accept the consequences of one’s lifestyle ?[/quote]
More competition? You’ve stated (indirectly) that gay couples will look to artificial conception and then go on to state that heterosexual couples are going to have competition for adoption?
And child trafficking already happens. Instead of wring our hands at how it might possibly increase (which is weak conjecture), look at stamping it out completely.[/quote]
Haha. Let’s not forget the foster care system! No one wants one of those kids. That “supply” wont run out anytime soon.
People (heterosexual or homosexual people) usually don’t want to adopt “children in need”.
They won’t adopt a child who has not the required skin tone, the required eyes color, the required hair color, the required age, the required gender, the required health, etc.
Children who doesn’t fit these dreamed criteria usually remains unadopted for years.
If homosexual couples are allowed to adopt, they will add themselves to the already too long list of the people who want the already too rare adoptable babies.
Net result :
-an increased competition to get these babies.
-More frustrated couples (heterosexual and homosexual couples), who will hire surrogate mothers and/or will litteraly buy embryos to get their beloved perfect child.
And, obviously the “children in need” will remains in need.
why not.
But I have yet to see a gay activist opposing the laws that legalize commercial surrogacy and “on demand” embryos.
So, while i wait, i will keep thinking that the whole “children in need” argument is hypocritical.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
-A divorced father who discover he is gay [/quote]
LOL…this just gets better and better…
Well GOLLY…look what I just discovered!
“But you were born that way”
I was?[/quote]
I have a friend who didn’t find out he way gay until his early 30s. He always considered men attractive, but thought it was more like appreciating art than a sexual thing. Meanwhile, he had trouble getting arroused while having sex with women. After having sex with a couple of men, he figured out this arrousal issue was connected to the sex of his partner. He had no problem with men and found himself much hornier than he’d previously been.
I have another friend who was always told he was gay because he got naked at parties, would always wear a thong, and studies flowers for a living. So he tried making out with a gay dude one time. He even told his wife he was going to do it and received her permission. He shortly figured out that his bodily reaction was decidedly not gay. I also know of a guy who went down on another guy in a mmf and then decided he was not as gay as he’d thought. He never played around with a guy again.
Lastly, I have a female friend who waited until she was in her twenties to tell her parents she was gay because she’d never had sex with a guy and therefore wasn’t sure whether she’d really like it or not (meanwhile, she’d had sex with quite a few women).
My point is, you have to have sex to really know for sure what you like while having sex. Many people think they are going to like one thing, try it, and discover it doesn’t do anything for them or vice versa. This happens with many other variables in sex unrelated to the sex of the partner (kinks). Why does it surprise you that it happens regarding the sex of the partner as well?
[/quote]
Please bear with me I’m trying to understand all this. So what you’re saying is that a man can have hundreds of successful sexual encounters (to orgasm) with women but after say 10 or 15 years decide that they prefer other men?
Do I have that right?
That’s pretty funny forlife. It was you who made use of the above outlier example to make a point. My comment was tongue in check.
Do you have a study we can look at in it’s entirety online? Not just the conclusion, as we would need to consider the methodology. If not, don’t wast our time.
[quote]kamui wrote:
People (heterosexual or homosexual people) usually don’t want to adopt “children in need”.
They won’t adopt a child who has not the required skin tone, the required eyes color, the required hair color, the required age, the required gender, the required health, etc.
Children who doesn’t fit these dreamed criteria usually remains unadopted for years.
If homosexual couples are allowed to adopt, they will add themselves to the already too long list of the people who want the already too rare adoptable babies.
Net result :
-an increased competition to get these babies.
-More frustrated couples (heterosexual and homosexual couples), who will hire surrogate mothers and/or will litteraly buy embryos to get their beloved perfect child.
And, obviously the “children in need” will remains in need.
why not.
But I have yet to see a gay activist opposing the laws that legalize commercial surrogacy and “on demand” embryos.
So, while i wait, i will keep thinking that the whole “children in need” argument is hypocritical.
[/quote]
Well I adopted 2 kids who are of a differnt race than I out of the foster care system. I am pretty sure they were “in need” since they had no where to go but the foster care system initially. I am not gay but I don’t see how it would matter either way. Children need homes, and couples who are willing to give them safe and happy homes should be allowed to do so, no matter who they are attracted to sexually.
The rampant homophobia of many Americans should not inhibit kids from having families. I think it is ridiculous for people to think they have the right to decide what other couple deserve or have a right to do.
For the record, it took over 2 years for both of my kids to be legally adopted by my wife and I. While we were waiting for the adoptions to go through, we fostered 3 other kids who were “in need”. My wife and I are both atheists, and we adopted kids from Christian families. My son may grow up to be a Budhist or an atheist or a Hard core God head. He may be gay or straight. I will love him either way. The main reason why I hope he turns out straight is so he will not have to deal with the bigots that call themselves religious.
This is the crux of the problem isn’t it. Many don’t believe it’s the case in a homo family.
For most, I think it’s just a reaction to homo agitation, having it thrust into the gradeschools etc. For many it’s a moral judgement, certainly not a phobia. You may feel different; shall I describe you as morally degraded?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
This is the crux of the problem isn’t it. Many don’t believe it’s the case in a homo family.
For most, I think it’s just a reaction to homo agitation, having it thrust into the gradeschools etc. For many it’s a moral judgement, certainly not a phobia. You may feel different; shall I describe you as morally degraded?
[/quote]
Morally degraded? What do you mean.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Shit if the straight people would stop having gay babies this whole issue wouldn’t exist![/quote]
You’re right only heterosexual couples can have babies, even gay babies. Homosexual couples can’t. Thanks for pointing that out. So, keeping it “natural” we should in fact not allow homosexual couples to adopt because it is unnatural. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Shit if the straight people would stop having gay babies this whole issue wouldn’t exist![/quote]
You’re right only heterosexual couples can have babies, even gay babies. Homosexual couples can’t. Thanks for pointing that out. So, keeping it “natural” we should in fact not allow homosexual couples to adopt because it is unnatural. :)[/quote]
That is some fucking twisted logic there.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Shit if the straight people would stop having gay babies this whole issue wouldn’t exist![/quote]
You’re right only heterosexual couples can have babies, even gay babies. Homosexual couples can’t. Thanks for pointing that out. So, keeping it “natural” we should in fact not allow homosexual couples to adopt because it is unnatural. :)[/quote]
That is some fucking twisted logic there.[/quote]
We were using the GPS to find the trail head to Mt. Adams last weekend and ended up on some sort of logging road that lead nowhere. (Fuck You GPS!!!)
Kinda like that.
But we did end up at Mt. Adams. Bitch of a hike.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You just don’t understand the importance of doctrinal subtleties. For example, Catholics believe that the Eucharist contains the literal body and blood of Christ. Whereas Lutherans disagree insisting that the body and blood of Christ is only ‘truly and substantially present in’ the Eucharist. Calvinists, Anglicans and Presbyterians have even crazier ideas. You can see why we have to stop them right?
Oh and some kook Lutheran sects and some other whacky Protestants I can’t remember right now believe the Vatican is the ‘antichrist church.’ That could represent a more substantial doctrinal difference.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
I know a lovely girl aged 18 who’s just off to study maths at Cambridge, who was raised by two women in a civil partnership, one of whom sadly died of cancer this year. Girl is normal as teenage girls can get. But obviously extrapolating from that would be too far.
[/quote]
Of course it would be. I know a few French people who aren’t arseholes but extrapolating from that would be, likewise too far.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
That’s pretty funny forlife. It was you who made use of the above outlier example to make a point. My comment was tongue in check.
Do you have a study we can look at in it’s entirety online? Not just the conclusion, as we would need to consider the methodology. If not, don’t wast our time.
[/quote]
Nope, I was just pointing out the irony of cherry picking even within the one family, focusing on the gender disoriented child while ignoring the two older heterosexual children.
How about we just agree that outliers like this prove absolutely nothing, and leave it at that?
I have posted research on same sex parenting in the past, but it never makes a difference to people who are predisposed against it. Apparently, 40 years of research isn’t long term enough to know the real effects of a child being raised by gays.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I have posted research on same sex parenting in the past, but it never makes a difference to people who are predisposed against it. Apparently, 40 years of research isn’t long term enough to know the real effects of a child being raised by gays.[/quote]
Well, you decided to get involved in this thread, and I guess you’ve already typed a few hundred words. Go ahead post it again; it’s only a few clicks of work.
But remember, we have to be able to look at the complete study, otherwise how can we evaluate it? You must have read the complete study yourself, otherwise how could you make an intelligent unbiased decision?
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
This is the crux of the problem isn’t it. Many don’t believe it’s the case in a homo family.
For most, I think it’s just a reaction to homo agitation, having it thrust into the gradeschools etc. For many it’s a moral judgement, certainly not a phobia. You may feel different; shall I describe you as morally degraded?
[/quote]
Morally degraded? What do you mean.[/quote]
Man, I can only try my best to explain:
You called those against homosexuality homophobiac, namecalling is what it is. I explained such people have their reasons. Some see it as a moral issue. You have no moral feeling about and think it’s ok. Can I label you as morally degraded? That is, call you a name because you don’t agree with my position.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I have posted research on same sex parenting in the past, but it never makes a difference to people who are predisposed against it. Apparently, 40 years of research isn’t long term enough to know the real effects of a child being raised by gays.[/quote]
Well, you decided to get involved in this thread, and I guess you’ve already typed a few hundred words. Go ahead post it again; it’s only a few clicks of work.
But remember, we have to be able to look at the complete study, otherwise how can we evaluate it? You must have read the complete study yourself, otherwise how could you make an intelligent unbiased decision?
[/quote]
If I thought it would make any difference to your opinion, I would make the effort. However, I don’t, so I won’t. Six years of experience on this board says otherwise.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and I have no desire to change it. I just wanted to state for the record what the research shows, and anyone with the ability to search the internet can confirm that if they actually care to do so.