Notices

View Poll Results: Should homosexuals be able to adopt children

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 50.00%
  • No

    10 50.00%
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Should homosexuals be able to adopt children?

  1. #1 Should homosexuals be able to adopt children? 
    Forum Freshman Rationalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    71
    I posted my thoughts on whether or not homosexuals should be able to get married, then stated that it lead to this question. I would like to get some feedback on this, especially if anybody has any evidence on things like whether or not being raised by a gay couple makes that child more likely to become gay. This also will lead into whether or not being a homosexual is genetic or a learned behavior or both. So let's just discuss it all.


    "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

    -Dr. James Watson, American biologist
    (Discoverer of DNA)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    yes... and ... maybe he will be bisexual?? i dont know. that ok with me though. i mean he might have some trouble on the playground and all but...everybody is different


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Good question!!!!!!

    While we are at it maybe we should ask whether any of the following should be allowed to adopt children. I mean when you think about it, the beliefs and lifestyles of any one of these groups could do incalculable harm to a child.

    Atheists?

    Jehova Witnessess?

    Mormons?

    Moonies?

    Hari Krishna?

    Scientologists?

    Jews?

    Fundamentalist Christians?

    Muslims?

    Hindus?

    Catholics?

    Communists?

    Capitalists?

    Lawyers?

    Police?

    I would include polygamists, but they are currently considered illegal and so as criminals I guess they are automatically disqualified.

    Actually I would include a lot more groups but this should give you enough of an idea that I am sure you can think of more.

    Every single one of these groups including homosexuals are on shaky ground as far I am concerned. It is important that they demonstrate that their beliefs and lifestyles will not be harmful to a child before they are allowed to adopt children - on a case by case basis.

    I voted yes, but adding the provision above, applied to them and all these other groups as well.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    ive said yes, i'd rather a child grew up in a loving stable relationship, than kept in an instutution or being moved from family to family with foster care :-D
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Should homosexuals be able to adopt children? 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist
    I posted my thoughts on whether or not homosexuals should be able to get married, then stated that it lead to this question. I would like to get some feedback on this, especially if anybody has any evidence on things like whether or not being raised by a gay couple makes that child more likely to become gay. This also will lead into whether or not being a homosexual is genetic or a learned behavior or both. So let's just discuss it all.
    I don't think there is any evicdence either way, if there were I reckon it would have been more widely publicised by 'the winning side'.

    There must be a high proportion of 'gays' born to 'straight' parents, and since these offspring have a different suxual orientation to their parents then why not the same for adopted cildren of 'gay' couples.

    I have seen material that suggests all humans are 'bi-sexual' to some extent but many suppress these feelings, I'm not sure I agree with this but then a het would say that wouldn't he.

    One thing I'd caution you all to think about, there has always been a section of society 'ostracized' by the rest, from immigrants, to smokers, choice of dress/hair style, you name it, somebody has stoned them at some point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Should homosexuals be able to adopt children? 
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist
    I posted my thoughts on whether or not homosexuals should be able to get married, then stated that it lead to this question. I would like to get some feedback on this, especially if anybody has any evidence on things like whether or not being raised by a gay couple makes that child more likely to become gay. This also will lead into whether or not being a homosexual is genetic or a learned behavior or both. So let's just discuss it all.
    I don't think there is any evicdence either way, if there were I reckon it would have been more widely publicised by 'the winning side'.

    There must be a high proportion of 'gays' born to 'straight' parents, and since these offspring have a different suxual orientation to their parents then why not the same for adopted cildren of 'gay' couples.

    I have seen material that suggests all humans are 'bi-sexual' to some extent but many suppress these feelings, I'm not sure I agree with this but then a het would say that wouldn't he.

    One thing I'd caution you all to think about, there has always been a section of society 'ostracized' by the rest, from immigrants, to smokers, choice of dress/hair style, you name it, somebody has stoned them at some point.

    I think someone being gay doesn't come from their upbringing else there would be go gay's born to hetrosexual parents, as you say
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Mitchell appeals to tolerance by listing other groups who, arguably, might also be questioned as to their suitability to be parents. It is a clever device and may persuade some fence sitters to vote Yes.

    But it is only a device. Every one of Mitchell's listed groupings, from Police to Scientologists, are capable of naturally having children if they pair up, male with female. Indeed a policewoman could have children with a male scientologist. These groups are incidental to the ability to have and raise children.

    In contrast a homosexual relationship, regardless of the longevity, depth and sincerity of the relationship cannot generate those children. To compare the two quite different classifications is a red herring.

    I am not arguing against homosexual couples adopting children. I am saying Mitchell's subtle argument for it is invalid. A different set of arguments is needed to justify the position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Rationalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    71
    I realize I started this topic but have not yet stated how I feel. I do believe that it is better for a child to be with loving parents than in some foster home. I also agree that it is important to judge who can be the parents on a case by case basis. On the idea that the children will be persecuted because of having gay parents, yes, this may happen, but as megabrain pointed out, this may occur due to any number of characteristics. I think the main point is that they have a stable upbringing. As the nation becomes more tolerant and accepting it will be easier for both the homosexuals and their kids. On whether or not it is genetic and what not, the one thing I have heard is that cerain hormones during pregnancy can alter brain chemistry as the young baby developes. Also, I have heard of the idea of the X and Y chromosome actually crossing over, has anyone else heard of this and its effects? I am not sure how these things tie into, for instance, a documentary on a male who felt like he was supposed to be a female. He was in fact like a female in pretty much all aspects, and eventually got a sex change. Perhaps this was a case of brain chemistry altering during development, or maybe it was genetic. Anyone know or have an idea?
    "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

    -Dr. James Watson, American biologist
    (Discoverer of DNA)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Mitchell appeals to tolerance by listing other groups who, arguably, might also be questioned as to their suitability to be parents. It is a clever device and may persuade some fence sitters to vote Yes.

    But it is only a device. Every one of Mitchell's listed groupings, from Police to Scientologists, are capable of naturally having children if they pair up, male with female. Indeed a policewoman could have children with a male scientologist. These groups are incidental to the ability to have and raise children.

    In contrast a homosexual relationship, regardless of the longevity, depth and sincerity of the relationship cannot generate those children. To compare the two quite different classifications is a red herring.

    I am not arguing against homosexual couples adopting children. I am saying Mitchell's subtle argument for it is invalid. A different set of arguments is needed to justify the position.
    This is an interesting reversal of roles we have here.

    But as it has been pointed out to me before any couple no matter what their sex, religion, philosophy, or occupation could be incapable of having children. So I think calling this a red herring or invalid is absolutely incorrect.

    Nor was I being subtle or clever. I was dead pan serious. Members of every single one of those groups really do need to demonstrate that their, religion, philosophy or occupation will not be harmful to an adopted child. In other words the well being of the child must be paramount, and only those people directly involved, knowing the child and the prospective parents, are in any position to make a judgement call on this. Fananatics come in all shapes, sizes and flavors (some are called workaholics), and so care must always be taken to see that the child's best interests are considered very seriously.

    Just as small example, it is quite possible that those involved could judge that certain atheist parents might not be entirely conducive to the well being of a particular muslim orphan.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is an interesting reversal of roles we have here.
    Perhaps I am just disagreeable. 8)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    since any couple no matter what their sex, religion, philosophy, or occupation could be incapable of having children. So I think calling this a red herring or invalid is absolutely incorrect..
    A male and female pairing are, potentially, capable of having children. The function of marriage, whether viewed from the religious, social, or scientific perspective is to provide an environment in which children may be raised in an optimal manner. It is incidental if a) the couple prove unable to have children, or b) in pursuit of other imperatives decide not to have any. Consequently my arguments stands firmly on logical grounds.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Nor was I being subtle or clever.
    My apologies you brash ignoramus. :wink:
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Members of every single one of those groups really do need to demonstrate that their, religion, philosophy or occupation will not be harmful to an adopted child.
    This is a separate argument. One which, in a serioulsy overpopulated world, I could feel much sympathy with. But it remains a different topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is an interesting reversal of roles we have here.
    Perhaps I am just disagreeable.
    Are you just putting up a debate or are you really undecided on this issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    since any couple no matter what their sex, religion, philosophy, or occupation could be incapable of having children. So I think calling this a red herring or invalid is absolutely incorrect.
    A male and female pairing are, potentially, capable of having children. The function of marriage, whether viewed from the religious, social, or scientific perspective is to provide an environment in which children may be raised in an optimal manner.
    Gosh this sounds familiar. Almost like it was quoted from one of my own posts. But that post was on the topic of marriage, this thread is concerned with adoption.

    I do believe that this is the purpose of marriage. But requiring marriage for the raising of children is a different matter. Of course we are not going to take a child away from his mother because she is not married. Furthermore there are often circumstances where adoption by a single parent is in the best interest of a child, because there are more important things (like bonding) than the ideal of having both a mother and a father.

    There is an important distinction here between what is considered ideal and what is secularly sanctioned as not harmful. There is no way that religion and beliefs can be separated from ideals of parenthood, and thus religious freedom must guarantee the right to pursue these ideals of parenthood within justifiable limits. Since adoption does involve the government it must be conducted on secular standards of what can be scientifically supported. If there is sufficient scientific proof that having both a mother and father in cases of adoption provides a better environment for a child then perhaps that should be considered by the government in such decisions, but since that is obviously not determinative that cannot be the only consideration.

    Of course there is a difference between natural birth and adoption, but that is simply that the government must keep out of a family's business in the first case unless there is a complaint, whereas in adoption the government is already involved at the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It is incidental if a) the couple prove unable to have children, or b) in pursuit of other imperatives decide not to have any. Consequently my arguments stands firmly on logical grounds.
    That is true only if one presumes that the presence of both a mother and father are of paramount importance in the raising of a child. Otherwise it is simply one issue among a multitude of things that should be considered on a case by case basis, exactly as I have suggested all along.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    I really cannot see why they would even want to adopt, and think about the child, “Can Freddy come for a stop over Daddy/Mummy ?”
    Also it would go through a fair bit of stick at School. I wonder, being as they can’t interbreed will they become an extinct species?? my vote is no
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
    I really cannot see why they would even want to adopt, and think about the child, “Can Freddy come for a stop over Daddy/Mummy ?”
    These are indeed things which should be thought about and raised when a homosexual couple is applying for adoption. BUT we do not need inflexible prohibitions when the well being of the child is absolutely the only consideration of importance! Let the people who are directly involved and know the particular situation of both child and prospective parents make such decisions with the well being of the child as their ONLY consideration!
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    mitchellmckain wrote
    [/quote] BUT we do not need inflexible prohibitions when the well being of the child is absolutely the only consideration of importance! Let the people who are directly involved and know the particular situation of both child and prospective parents make such decisions with the well being of the child as their ONLY consideration![/quote]


    Perhaps we are too flexible to-day in many things, I still wonder why they would want to adopt, it certainly is not to bring up a child in natural family surroundings, and the people who make these decisions have a pretty good record of getting it wrong. To-day there are more than enough normal married couples who are childless and would give their all to adopt a child.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I have been looking into adoption requirements in different locations, and I notice that most states of the United States require marriage and prohibit homsexual couples from adopting. There are even difficulties in getting some states to recognize homosexual adoptions that have been completed in another state. I noticed that Britain has very few legal restrictions and that most restriction are those imposed by adoption agencies. This opens up a whole different can of worms about what restrictions adoption agencies should be allowed to make, which is a completely different civil rights issue.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman llantas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    42
    I know you could probably argue that the government does a good job preventing such parents from being able to raise children, and there's really not much I could do to prove or disprove this. But from my experience, with some of the awful parents I have seen who are autistic or crack addicts or whatever that have been recognised by the government and deemed perfectly capable of raising children, it is absolutely illogical to me that the same government should even consider the possibility that living in a household with homosexual people is a horrible scarring thing for a child. This is with my personal view that homosexuals are just as capable as everyone else. (assuming 'everyone else' is capable...)
    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts

    http://godisimaginary.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I have been looking into adoption requirements in different locations, and I notice that most states of the United States require marriage and prohibit homsexual couples from adopting.
    I don't know. Further research is overturning this conclusion or making it a more complex than I thought. It would seem that actual state law prohibiting adoption by homosexuals is not so common: only Florida and Ohio perhaps. The previous conclusion was based on a website which on more carefull examination only indicates official hostility to and legal precedents against such adoptions.

    Part of the problem may be that the legal situation is seeing a great deal change right now due to conservative activism in the U.S.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I have been rather amused by encounters with devotees of the gay-rights "homosexuals-have-no-choice" religion, who because they cannot comprehend my aversion to their doctrine, think that I must be a homophobe. And yet when it comes to the issue of adoption by homosexual couples suddenly the tables are turned and they are the ones who have reservations when I do not.

    In the interest of compromise I suggested only that adoption by homosexual couples not be unilaterally prohibited. I mean I suppose I can understand that some people would prefer all adoptions be done only by members of their own faith, but one must bow to reality that such a restriction is not practical. Shall religion be a valid reason for determining the eligability of people for adopting? Religious freedom forbids! But in that case, what makes an adoption by a homosexual couple so much worse than an adoption by people with contempt for your faith/beliefs?

    Is there not some real homophobia lurking in this issue. People imagine themselves growing up with homosexual parents and are horrified by the idea because of what other people will think. I can understand that, but letting that dictate policy is to affirm and uphold the prejudices of our society.

    Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, there are no parents which are perfect. They all have their sins. But in the raising of child, it is the love they have to give that child in raising him which is paramount, is it not? And where there is an existing bond due to circumstances, is it right to dismiss this as worthless because of their lifestyle and turn the child over to strangers in foster care?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    It is the 'gut' instinct of many over here (britain) to put kids into as 'normal' a family as possible, since they have already been through one set of catastrophies. I cannot see putting kids into a gay relationship serves any good for the welfare of the child, which must at all times be paramount.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    It is the 'gut' instinct of many over here (britain) to put kids into as 'normal' a family as possible, since they have already been through one set of catastrophies. I cannot see putting kids into a gay relationship serves any good for the welfare of the child, which must at all times be paramount.
    Well maybe foster care does not have as many horror stories and stories of failure in Brittain as it has in the US.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    My understanding is that once children are fostered they are visited every week by the local authority for a period, then every 2 until it ends up at about every 3 months or so, but this may vary in different areas, there is also adoption as well as fostering. It's probably step kids that get the worst deal, there's no local gov input whatsoever. I'd suspect there may simply be a tighter rein on it over here. The scrutiny to start with is very high, they check the family history, pay regular unanounced visits and do all sorts of checks first, I think upto 90% of applicants fail. But again it is very area dependant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    Again I must ask, why would they want to?? It certainly is a way to make their life style seem normal to the Child.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    Maybe they see kids as fashion accessories, like Michael Jerkson or Madonna
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    I think it goes deeper, they want that which they are denied as a pair of homos, but it certainly is a good tool to perpetuate their way of life, perhaps nature has provided a safe guard and ensured that man can not breed in this situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    You know throughout history there have been many men (including ceaser) who had male companions but also a wife, it was not uncommon in victorian times for homosexual men to take a wife 'out of duty' just to keep the line going but have male lover(s) as well, and ironically to also prove they were 'straight' and avoid any taints. There's no stigma today..

    Did you know Oscar Wilde perhaps the famous Victorian homosexual of all actually married in 1884?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman jagoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    88
    my answer: NO

    Gay people are disgusting. Anyhow a pair of Gay men already have two little friends :P
    Ignorance is Bliss ... till death
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •