Many trial cases have denied gays the right to adoptions...i agree to the courts, i dont think they should be able to adopt other what doyou think

I do believe the gays have the right to adoptions.I think the gays can organize a families, they can adopt. Perhaps people may disagree with their sexual tendency, but people can not negate their ability to raise up children.

Why shouldnt they be allowed to adopt? They're human right? From my understanding thats a pretty big decision factor in deciding whether or not someone should adopt, and then the consideration of economics and social status may come into play. If a gay couple is financially stable, and not a junkie or an abuser, what is the problem? We allow single gay people to adopt, why not gay couples?

You can unaccept the gay but you can't prevent them to have their baby. Having the children is the humun's right. Although they can't have their babies actually, they can adopt the children. It's the best way for them and they can help many children who has no parents. They can also take care of their children. Why don't give the chance to them?

There are a great number of people in this world who should not be allowed to have children, whether it is because they are abusive, uncaring, or neglectful. If a person or couple can provide a stable, loving, and nurturing envrionment for a child, sexual orientation, race, religion or color should not even be a factor in the consideration of adoption.

Parents need children, children need parents. Sexual orientation should be the last thing on the list of things to check, heck, it shouldn't be on the list.

I'd like to understand what it is that makes people think gay men or women would be inept parents. My child is not involved in my straight sex life, so how exactly does my being straight have any effect on her? Same goes for gay parents.

There are social issues... such as being teased in school. That happens for other reasons too. Interracial parents, poor parents, rich parents, too smart, too dumb, not athletic, buck teeth, glasses, nerdy shoes, etc...

Should we ban all of the above?

The only other issue I can even begin to think of is Father's Day when you have two Mommies or vice versa.

Come on, if two people love each other and want to have a family and raise children... if they are stable people who otherwise have no marks against them for parenthood.... what's the big deal?

It doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect me. Any moreso than the people next to me getting a divorce, the woman across from me newly divorced with two children, the people beside her happily married with two children. None of them affect me besides forgetting to get my mail while I'm on vacation.

I can not think of a reason why a person who is homosexual could not raise a child.

shoot, you know if them gays raised a kid, they'd be givin em those gay germs an then those poor kids'd grow up an be gay too!!!

It's sad that something like this is even an issue.

As a gay man who has fostered two sons (both straight) with my male partner, I would obviously be in favor of couples like us being able to legally adopt. I'm a bit uneasy about some of the qualifiers here, though. Perhaps it's just because we're discussing adoption at all, regardless of the sexual orientation of the potential parents - at least I hope that is the case. "If they are stable people" or are "financially stable" or aren't junkies (!) - shouldn't this apply to straight couples as well? If so, why even mention such qualifications?

Juber: As you are the only participant so far who doesn't feel we should be able to adopt, might I ask why?

Wow!!
We are talking about human beings here!!! There sexual preference shouldn't be an issue AT ALL in the decision of adopting a child. LOVE has no color, no smell and no gender. It saddens me to see that in our era we still have issue regarding people who have different sexual preference than our own.

SEXUALITY IS GENETIC. We cannot pass it to someone like a cold or a flu!

Homosexuality has been witnessed and studied within the animal world as well. Now if it's not genetic how could you explain 2 male whales or lions et.. playing sexually together even though there are female that are ready to mate just next to them?

True love is in the love of our difference!

None of us has chosen our genetic make up and no one is better than another one!

We shall embrace all the differences in this world and we shall love and respect each others by being finally united in this big entity which we are all part of.

Satine
(female)

Satine, Oh my Lord, I was joking! I thought that would be qualified by my second statement, that I can't believe it's even an issue at all!

...but... some of my best friends are gay ...!!

I find it hard to believe that with conservatives on this board that there's no more dissenting opinion to this than a simple, general statement saying that it is wrong with no explaination as to why... Is there nobody that will tackle it, or is it just that people of reached the point of apathy with this issue, and don't care one way or the other?

I'll step up to the plate on this one, Stefan. I consider myself conservative, yet I favor gay adoption. It almost seems silly to me that it is even a question. If a couple fits all the qualifications for adopting a child, then let them - who cares if they are gay?

I'm a young conservative, though. I'm also not Christian. It's seems the majority of those against gay adoption are older conservative Christians. This is just my perception, though, and it could be way off.

The only question I have with gay adoption is, What effect does discrimination against gays have on their children? Anybody seen any studies on this? My general philosophy is gays should have every right, including marriage, that straights have. When children are involved you have to make sure that what seems morally the right thing is not a burden on the children.

I haven't seen any studies, but this would seem to be an argument against discrimination rather than a potential argument against gay couples adopting. There is or has been discrimination against many groups of people in this country. I don't know of any other minority being prevented from adopting on those grounds. Do we know of any ill effects on children adopted by black or disabled parents? I agree that as much as possible should be done to keep children from being burdened with "adult" problems which are beyond their control - but should this prevent any child from having the opportunity of being raised in a loving environment? I don't know the answer myself.

One consideration: Would it be better for gay teens in state care to be fostered and/or adopted by gay parents who might be better prepared for whatever discrimination might come their way?

Oh goodness!

That would be like a kid in a candy store though, you know, with what people say about *whispers* homo sexuals.

Think of the orgies!















Sorry, had to stick something smacking of 'older conservative christian' in there.

If they started posting arguments like, I that wouldn't mind smacking a few 'older conservative christians' myself.



Actually, one of our foster sons was very sexually conflicted when we met him. He was a heroin addict (now in recovery) who'd been supporting himself as a male prostitute - and he was, like, thirteen years old. My partner and I were eventually able to help him realize that, while he may be somewhat more bisexual than many of us, his own natural preference was more heterosexual. Our other son has been unquestionably straight since we met him (and, as he's freakin' gorgeous, this is a real boon for the women of the world!) - he's unattached at the moment, too, in case any of you single women are contemplating a trip to Ireland in the near future...

This is a little off the subject, but I don't consider you conservative at all Jaime, to me that seems like a compliment but I'm sure it may be taken differently to you.

Wertz, I don't think anyone is saying that a gay couple is more apt to be a druggie or anything like that. I think they are saying that the same basic criteria should apply to anyone wanting to adopt.

At least that's the way I took it.

Them's fightin' words...

Who's to say that gays can't be good parents?

CP

adoption is a privilage not a right and being gay is not a civil right children need need a mother figure and a father figure not two dads or two moms

A mother teaches a boy about women and how he should treat them and respect them while a father teach him about manhood and fatherhood and probably teach what kind of girls is best for dating
while a father teaches a girl about men and how to treat and respect them and a mother teaches her about women and motherhood and teaches her what kind of boys is best for dating.

Freedom-man I don't think it makes any difference if it were 2 moms or 2 dads. What about the kids raised by a single parent. There is either a mother or a father not both. What about the child wertz has who was addicted to herion. How many married couples would adopt a child with an addiction or a handicap. Not too many I think. I think as long as it were either a mother and father, 2 moms or 2 dads, 1 mother or 1 father, as long as they LOVE that child, clothe them, feed them, educate them and let them grow to their upmost potential it doesn't make a difference.

So gays don't deserve the sam eright the rest of us have?

CP

I don't really qualify for this statement but I'm probably the closest so far.

I don't consider myself older but I'm probably older by comparison to the population of this board.

I hardly consider myself conservative but I'm always being accused of it.

I was raised Catholic although I don't believe in organized religion.

All that aside, I believe that there are too many children in this world needing loving homes that it's terrible to even consider that a family wouldn't qualify based on sexual orientation of the couple.
__________

I saw an interview with Elton John last night. A picture of Elton and his male partner appeared on the cover of a magazine recently. Elton said that in the 70s or even 80s that would have never been done. We've come a long way on gay issues -- that's probably why we aren't getting very many people opposed to gay people adopting children on this thread.

Not to go off topic but these statements by Elton made me realize that the 70s and 80s weren't that long ago and change has been positive throughout the years regarding this issue. It encouraged me that many other issues we are dealing with today actually could be resolved within my lifetime.

Conservpat being gay is NOT a civil right gays and adoption is NOT a right. being gay does not entitle you for adoption. children deserve better than to live with 2 gay males or 2 females. they have the same rights as the rest of us(free speech, religion association etc). and they get equal treatment under the law. what would 2 gay men teach a boy about girls? what would 2 lesbian women teach a girl about boys?

I would love to know where you get that it is not a right to be gay? I would love to know where you got it is a right to be straight? And where do you get being gay does not allow you the right to adoption? Can you prove these facts or are they just your feelings against people being gay? These kids that are up for adoption I think, and this is my opinion, Just want a family life. Someone to Love them, clothe them feed them educate them. When they are old enough they will know if their adoptive parents are straight or gay and I would bet my bottom dollar they could care less. They will love these people who were willing to form a family life for them.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't teach my children about the opposite sex -- I teach them about people! Sex education to children is pretty straight forward -- the birds and the bee's type talks. There are great books out there on the subjec too.

I would think that a gay couple would also have more to offer when teaching about sex education -- they probably have a better handle on sexual safety issues than the heterosexual population.

If your comment is less sexual education and rather a relationship interaction education, I offer that most men in this world can't explain women to their children anyway. And most women in this world can't explain men.

I just poured over the constitution again and found no mention of rights regarding sexuality; or adoption for that matter.

Freedom man, should single parents be forced to give up their children as well? Surely a single-parent family would have even less to offer than a homosexual one. Your argument doesn't hold water anyways because it presupposes that if the parents aren't able to 'represent' gendered information then nobody is. In your average gay (meaning male or female homosexual) couple I'm willing to bet that there are a multitude of differentially sexed family members and close personal friends that can always step in in that rare example when a child demands info. straight from the source.

(And I can explain women just fine thanks... I just don't know WHY they act the way they do. )

FM: I must admit I am baffled by some of your opinions - and won't even speculate on how you came to some of your gender stereotypes regarding the responsibilities of parenthood. But I have to take exception with one of the opinions you put forward:
My partner and I (two gay men, btw) raised two sons - both straight (even though one of them was very sexually conflicted for a number of years for reasons I've gone into elsewhere). When we were leaving Ireland (where the boys had been raised) a few years ago, David, then twenty-one, was staying behind with his girlfriend. The night before we left he told us, in tears, that he could not have had two better parents. It was one of the proudest and most heart-rending moments of my life.

David is one of the most well-adjusted young men you'd ever want to meet - especially considering the abusive upbringing to which he was subjected by foster parents in a traditional nuclear family before we took him in. Our kids may well have deserved better parents than my partner and I are as individuals (though they don't seem to think so), but any of our shortcomings as parents have nothing whatsoever to do with our sexual orientation - they have to do with being human.

Forgive me for taking your remarks a bit personally, but I would argue that children deserve better than to live with people who harbor such prejudices as yours, gay or straight.

Wertz --

Your experiences are an excellent example of good parents appropriately leading children through life. A family that harbored prejudices would have been ill equiped to positively help children with issues you've described find their way and their identity. A prejudice family probably would have done more harm to the adopted children's emotional well being.



-laughing-

Having 3 children of my own, a girl, oops a young lady of 16 and two boys 13 and 10, I have tried to have meaningful conversations about the birds and the bees and other boys and girls with them. However it seems that my children are just as independent and know it all as I was. They get a lot of their thoughts on relationships from their friends in school and from the society that they are exposed to, be it at the Shopping Mall or what they see in public and what they see at home.

Two people that love each other and support each other? How could that be a bad role model?

What could "2 gay men" teach a boy about girls? Maybe a whole lot.
What could "2 lesbian's" teach a girl about boys? Maybe a whole lot.

With the large number of children waiting to be adopted, I think that any perspective parents should be judged on their ability to support, love and nurture, and nothing else.

Amen, single parents have the same case as gays, should we disallow them to have kids?

CP

Wertz so you are labelling me as a homophobe because i speak my mind? you are the one with prejudices by calling me a hate monger. I have every right to fight the gay agenda and being gay does not entitle you to special rights why should people who refuse to reproduce naturally get the right to adopt kids? what about heterosexuals that want to have kids but cannot procreate because if infertility problems? and I did not say single parents should give up thier children.


i love how people here are labelling me as prejudiced. what is happening to free thought?

I don't see how a willingness to reproduce "naturally" has anything to do with the issue of adoption. Many people who adopt, both homosexual and heterosexual, do it because they can't reproduce naturally or they haven chosen not to reproduce for whatever reason. That is why they choose to "adopt."

Wild guess here.........

I think freedom-man's comments in the last post are trying to indicate that he doesn't feel there are enough children to adopt. Therefore, he believes that heterosexual couples that want to have kids but cannot procreate because if infertility problems should have a priority over people who choose a life purposely where they can't procreate.

Remember, it's a wild guess but I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

If this is his intended message, my only comment is..........

There's plenty of children that need homes to fulfill everyone's desires to adopt. Obviously, my statement is only true if people aren't going to be particular about sex and race, which they shouldn't be. Regardless, the gender of the parents should not be a determining factor for adoption.

Eva straight couples that are having infertility problems should get the privilage of adopting. people that refuse to reproduce naturally should not adopt kids.

Thanks for clarifying. I was pretty close!

I disagree, by the way.

In an effort to be more productive, I'll elaborate. It appears as if nothing I can say will change your mind. It's your right to think whatever you want but I'm lost as to how you can justify it. I'm leaving this thread perplexed and glad I had an opportunity to discuss this issue because I believe where I stand on this issue with my entire heart.

(Edited for additional comments other than "I disagree, by the way.")

Why? Did it ever occur to you that some people may choose not to reproduce naturally, even if they can, because they don't want to bring another child into the world when there are already so many who need loving homes? This applies to people of all sexual orientations. Why deny a child the chance to live in a loving home when there are good people who are willing to take them? Would you rather they not have the chance at having a family at all?

1. What, in your mind, is the "gay agenda," exactly?

2. If adopting children is a right for heterosexual couples (and it is), it seems to me that if a gay couple wants that right, it is by definition the seeking of an equal right, not a special right...

3. The logic of your argument dictates that only infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. Not gays, not heteros who choose not to procreate. Is your theory that if one can procreate, one has no right to refuse to do so? That indeed one has a mandate to procreate?

4. Free thought is exactly that - your freedom to express your opinion, and others' freedom to refute it.

And just to reiterate the first bit, because I really would like to see your explanation, what qualities of being homosexual would make them a bad adoption choice? What, in your opinion, is the gay agenda, and why would gays make bad parents? You've got the shovel in your hand, you may as well dig the hole!

Cyan whatever Adoption is a privilage NOT a right

I don't see how this statement furthers this debate in any way. If you are going to post an opinion, you should be prepared to back it up with reasons why you feel that way. Whether or not adoption is a previledge or a right, does not answer the question at hand. Why do you feel that homosexuals are not qualified to raise a child? What difference does it make if a couple does not wish to procreate naturally if they have a desire to love and raise a child who is already without a family? Would you rather see children exist without any family structure at all?

FM, you are correct, Adoption is a privilege and Not a Right.

Any person that wants to adopt a child should be rigorously checked to ensure that they will be good loving parents and not just to see how
God Made Them, be it male, female, white, black or gay or heterosexual.

The entire process should be done with the child's welfare at heart and not by what any narrow minded people think.

Quarkhead there are radical gays that form groups such as GLAAD that want to enforce thier views on the rest of society and censor all opposing views plus some of them are screaming for lowering the age of consent. Free thought is not labeling others as prejudiced, or a hatemonger when you disagree with someone and some members here are labeling me as prejudiced when i speak my mind. Cyan I have already stated the reasons why gays should not adopt kids

And what is this gay agenda ?

CP

the gay agenda is radical gays imposing thier views on the rest of the population combined with the suppression of opposing views through terror, censorship and voilence using gougps like GLAAD and blocking traffic and disrupting cities by marching in streets telling the world to worship them. for more go to This site and and this one you need to do your homework

This thread is starting to get off topic. Please feel free to start a new thread on the gay agenda if you want to discuss it. Let's not derail Juber's thread.

You sound like you believe what you're saying, but the sites you listed - the first is dead, and the second one, I gotta tell ya, is complete bunk. If anyone needs to do some homework here, it is you. You keep throwing out untrue and denigrating arguments about homosexuals, but can't offer any support except other people who are also spouting hateful opinions. You are showing poor research skills here.

Here is the topic: gay adoption. If you think no, which you obviously do, then give some support for your argument. Look up some figures. Research adoption facts. If gays wouldn't make good parents, tell us something more specific than what you've come up with already.

Let me ask you this: is it "radical" for people to seek and struggle for equal rights? Remember, the struggle for civil rights in this country was not every black person in the US marching. It was a "radical" few who pushed for change.

Terror? Please supply some evidence.

Violence? Ditto above. I'd like to see evidence of gay activists commiting violence against heterosexuals.

Censorship? Censorship is by definition imposed by those who have the power.

I've never heard that the marches are an attempt to tell the world to "worship them." Can you back this up?

One major point which is being overlooked here is that millions of gay men and lesbians are natural parents - and have been since the beginning of time. I realize that people like freedom-man would probably argue that once one of these gay parents becomes honest with him/herself (and his/her spouse) and actually comes out, that their chidren should be summarily removed from their care - and, as that would render the remaining parent single - that the child should be left wth no parents. Fortunately, in most places, sanity is beginning to prevail over such mindless prejudice. Elsewhere...



Why, yes, freedom-man - yes, I am. Because the things your mind is speaking are homophobic - by definition. Spade is a spade is a spade is a spade.


As a matter of pure fact, I have not called you a hate monger. But if I had, I would have had every right to identify your quixotic fight against the "gay agenda" as being based on hatred. Or maybe fear. Do you prefer "fear monger"? You may see this as prejudicial, but my identification of those who even perceive a "gay agenda" as being based on hatred and fear is drawn from over thirty years' worth of experience. People who hold exactly the same opinions that you do have campaigned to oppose my constitutional and legal rights, have called me names (and not just "faggot" and "queer", but worse, more hateful names like "unfit parent"), have beaten me up, have brutally murdered (and, I might add, systematically exterminated) people like myself, and, on one occasion, tried to kill me. Forgive me if I fail to see how you are in any way exceptional.


Yeah? So? Who's looking for anything "special"? Trust me, sharing the same rights that you have doesn't strike me as being "special" in the least.


Because maybe they'd make better parents than you would? My brother and sister-in-law recently adopted a kid they've been fostering for several years now. They have three natural children of their own, but decided that they would "refuse to reproduce naturally" this time and instead take in someone else's unwanted child. My brother, btw, is a Methiodist minister and his wife is a school teacher. They're about as heterosexual as they come and have always provided a stable, loving environment for their children (all of whom have thrived). You are arguing, freedom-man, that they should not have the right to adopt because they "refused to reproduce naturally"; you are arguing that their son should be taken away from them. How do you sleep?


That much is becoming clear. Are you beginning to see this as some sort of martyrdom?


It is alive and well - as demonstrated by America's Debate. No one is denying or even questioning your right to speak your mind with as much prejudice, hatred, and fear as you like. But if you expect everyone to fall over themselves in the rush to agree with your world view, then you are in for a life of severe disappointment. And you might wanna rethink your nickname...

-------------------------


That's a very good question, Quarkie. I've been "out" all my life and publicly unabashed about my God-given sexual orientation for over thirty years; I've been involved in the organized gay rights movement since the mid-seventies, have worked on a gay newspaper and a gay magazine, and have marched with over 100,000 others on our nation's capitol demanding the consideration of equal rights - and no one has ever shared this "gay agenda" with me. Am not gay enough or something?

So I started a search for this elusive agenda and - lo! - my research paid off. The following was evidently issued by the Head Homosexual some years ago. I must have been nude sunbathing in Provincetown at the time and missed it:

• 6:00 am Gym
  
• 8:00 am Breakfast
  
• 9:00 am Hair appointment
  
• 10:00 am Shopping
  
• 12:00 PM Brunch
  
• 2:00 PM
  1. Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State, and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
  2. Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
  3. Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
  4. Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
  5. Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated, imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
  6. Bulldoze all houses of worship, and
  7. Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
  
  
• 2:30 PM Beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
  
• 4:00 PM Cocktails
  
• 6:00 PM Light Dinner
  
• 8:00 PM Theater
  
• 11:00 PM Bed (du jour)

I should be careful about posting stuff like that, though. A few years ago, a writer for Gay Community News came up with a similar (if edgier) lampoon - and suddenly it was being reproduced on all these fundamentalist web sites going "See! This is proof of how evil they are!!!"

Wertz I agree with you completely and am pleased to see you make such a great post. But you missed something in response to this quote


So if a man or woman, in a heterosexual relationship, is unable to reproduce then they should not have the right to raise a child. They go through artificial insemination, they even buy sperm and eggs.

Once more Wertz keep up the good work.

"Why should people who refuse to reproduce naturally get the right to adopt kids?"

Why should people who choose not to reproduce in a certain fashion be denied the right to adopt kids?