Personally, I'm very up in the air about this issue. On one hand, I have said on numerous occasions that I am for gay rights [equal rights], and that would include adoption. And on the other hand, my concern is that a child with gay parents may be affected [how I'm not sure, but you've got to think that they would be]. So that's my take. So what do you think? Should gays be allowed to adopt?

CP

Look, the best way to raise a family is with a man and a women. thats the way nature is. Same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children as it is not the proper parental influence for children to be raised. Parents are to serve a childs needs, children are not there to serve a parents needs.

A child needs the influence of a male and female in parenting. Where is a father figure gonna come for guidance with two females as parents? I know there are single parent homes out there, but there is still visitation rights. And come on, you know that is better than two males or females raising a child. What would the kid think when he goes to a friends house? How would he/she find acceptable friends?

Think about it, you know what locker room talk is like, all the gay jokes, the kid would constantly hear bad talk about their parents. Not to mention, the harasment, physical and verbal the kid would take. I can see it now from parents too, "I dont want my kid going over to a house with two fags as parents". You know what people are like, it just isnt logical to have a child adopted by two same sex couples.

And no, people wouldnt become more accepting because of this. In a traditional family first society like ours, the kid would become a target of harasment and dislike. I just think he/she would be better served in a more traditional legimitate family.

ALso, Children require a more restrictive environment and are more likely to get it from a heterosexual married couple than from two lesbians or gay men. Children also need balanced roll models, a mom and a dad. Having gay parents is like having two single parents. Single parenting is something forced on somebody due to death or divorce, not a first choice option.

I voted Yes for several reasons. First I believe that there is no qualitative difference in the care that a child will receive from a heterosexual parent vs. a homosexual parent. If a person (or people) want to adopt a child then it is up to qualities within that person which will determine the quality of parenting. How patient, caring, conscientious, ect. is he or she? These faculties are what is conducive to good parenting and would differ person to person, not from sexual preference to sexual preference.

Also, I am basing my answer on the idea that one doesn't have choice in determining their sexual preferences. I know this is debatable, but that is my belief. If this is true (that sexuality isn't a choice), then gay parents aren't going to raise gay children, or adopt them and "turn them gay". If you were a parent would you want the best for your child, or to force them into something? I believe that good parents (ie. parents that listen to their kids, encourage them, give them opportunities, and let them make choices) won't try to force an agenda on their kids.

I know that kids in a two mom or two dad (or single homosexual parent) house could have problems. I say this only because it is unique and non-traditional as opposed to the regular mom/dad home. I could very easily see other children (in middle school and maybe high school) making fun of these kids, but that may be only because it seems taboo. With all this anti-gay marriage bull flying around I think that maybe people will think homosexuals shouldn't adopt too because it's "unnatural". Also, children gain many of their beliefs from their parents, to be accepting of an idea does not mean one will follow it. I accept that conservatism is a political belief, but I don't usually prescribe to it. The idea behind that example is to say that if these children are treated differently in school by other children, it might be because of the parents telling their kids that homosexuality is wrong/bad/unnatural/abomination/whatever.

So, in conclusion I feel that the only reason kids in a gay household would be treated differently would be from stereotypes or misconceptions about gay parents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some excerpts from Children and Their Development

"As parents, gay and lesbian couples are more similar to heterosexuals couples than different. There is no indication that gay and lesbian parents are less effective than heterosexual parents. In fact, some evidence suggests that gay men may be especially responsive to children's needs, perhaps because their self-concepts include emotional sensitivity that is traditionally associated with the female gender role (Patterson, 2002)."


"As adolescents and young adults, the vast majority are heterosexual (Baily, et al., 1995). In other respects - such as self-concept, social skill, moral reasoning, and intelligence - children of lesbian mothers resemble children of heterosexual parents."

"Children benefit from good parenting skills, whether it's a mother and a father or grandparents - or two women or two men - doing the parenting."

Kail, Robert V. Children and Their Development. Third Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 2004.

To me, this issue is a childs right issue, not a gay rights issue. I do not think it would be in the best interest of the child. It raises too many questions and what ifs.

Wow, there's an awful lot of blanket, unsupported generalizations you've thrown out here. Care to provide any evidence for any of them? "Parents are to serve a child's needs, children are not there to serve a parents needs." I guess you thought that was a pretty brilliant line, so brilliant that you felt the need to bold it. So apparently, every gay person who wants to adopt wants to do so out of some insanely selfish desire to have a child to serve their own needs (whatever needs these may be, I have *no* idea), instead of adopting for the same reasons heterosexual couples adopt - to provide a loving home for a child that otherwise would be getting sent from foster home to foster home. Are you telling me that you'd rather a child be bounced from one environment to another, over being with two responsible individuals who'd love that child very much? Oh wait, no they can't love the child, because gays only want to adopt to satisfy their personal selfish needs and desires.

Ooh, a child of gay adoptive parents might be teased for it! I've got news for you; children are cruel. They will find any reason to pick on someone in order to feel cool or to feel better about themselves. If it wasn't for having gay parents, it might be for the way they dressed. If it wasn't for the way they dressed, it might be for their hairstyle. If it wasn't for their hairstyle...
So to go down this line of thinking to prohibit gays from adopting simply because they might get teased because of it is ludicrous.

But your last paragraph blew my mind, pretty frankly. First unsupported blanket statement of the paragraph: Children require a "more restrictive environment" (again, whatever the hell that means). Second unsupported blanket statement: Children are more likely to get this environment from a heterosexual married couple than two gay men or women (nevermind the fact that gays can't get married through no fault of their own, but can still be just as committed as a married couple).

This whole "must have a female/male role model" is pure, unadulterated bunk. Do single females raising sons lack the ability to teach their male child right from wrong? Are they not able to tell their son how to treat women respectfully? Are they less able to instill values that make someone a decent human being? My point is that the vast majority of issues involved in raising a child are gender-neutral. If two gay men have a daughter, and the daughter gets her period - these are not things that only a female can deal with! I'm pretty sure men are equally capable of possessing knowledge about the menstrual cycle as females are. And in any case, from what I've observed about gay relationships, there is often a masculine partner and a feminine partner. I've met some gay men who are more feminine than my own mother, and met gay women more masculine than my dad. What studies have you seen that conclude that this kind of partnership isn't just as effective as a genuine female/male one? Does someone have to have testosterone be able to raise a boy? Does someone have to have estrogen to raise a girl?

Now, all that being said, I do recognize that there are a few more advantages in having two different sex parents over two same sex parents. But these differences are definitely not important enough to deny a child the right to live in a sstable, loving home.

This is a rather simple issue for me.

It comes down to a simple question. What is better for the child? To be raised by the government or an agency, or to be raised by two parents who just happen to have the same parts?

There are alot of children without homes. There are alot of homosexual households without children. It would seem to be the solution to one of our social problems.

I have never seen a reputable study that suggested that children raised by homosexual couples were at a higher risk of anything then children raised by heterosexual couples, so what is the issue?

I would rather see a child raised by 2 men who love and care for him or her then have that child be raised as a number in the care of the state.

Form a fiscally conservative point of view: I would rather see the cost of raising a child be paid by private citizens then by tax dollars, whenever possible.



Other then a possible social stigma being attached to them by other kids in school, for having two daddies, or two Mommies I really don't see what this could be. I don't even think that stigma would be wide spread, as the the concept of being gay is no longer foreign to most in our society. Also, orphan children probably suffer for a greater social stigma, being children without parents. I know I suffered constant harassment and verbal abuse at the hands of my peers because I had curly hair. Kids are capable of picking anything and making it the basis of shunning, teasing and the like. It's what kids do.



Would you have accepted this argument in the 1800s if you substitute the word gay with Irish? Would you accept this argument in the 1940s if you substitute the word gay with black? Would you accept this argument in the 1960s if you substitute the word gay with interracial?

I do not see a down side here, so I can do nothing but vote: YES, homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt assuming that they meet all the requirements (other then the man and a women bit) currently required for adoption (though some of those should go as well, but that is a topic for a another debate ).

okay no need to get personal here, just a difference in opinion. But, can u explain to me how it would be healthy for a child to grow up in a same sex environment? having the parents gay friends coming over, when his friends house doesnt have this same situation. How in the world can that be good for a child?



Of course the adoption system is messed, and needs to reformed. But that does not mean that we should permit gay adoption just because it would be easier on the system.
This issue clearly affects society.

So, it should be decided the same way gay marriage was decided in 11 states. we should get to vote on it on a state by state basis. Sure there are more straight people than gay people, but If its a societial effect, society deserves a say in the matter.

And if people want adoption by gay couples, they will permit it in the vote. If not, gay couples must live with the result, just like pro family people like myself will.

I would say this is a good idea, but I think most people are woefully uneducated and narrow-minded when it comes to homosexuality, which to me was proven by this last election.

Pro-family? Oh god, I can't wait to see what's the opposite of that. Anti-family?

The fact is that children need a stable environment to grow up. I think that should be accepted by everyone. If a child doesn't not have proper attention and support they can have developmental problems. So, I think the question here is: Would these developmental problems be worse than the developmental problems stemming from a homosexual house? I believe the answer is no mainly because very, very serious problems arise if a child lacks parents.



The problem is you're making blanket generalizations with no proof. If you can come up with proof backing your claims that's one thing, but putting out an opinion laden with serious claims that have no backing is another.



It would be healthy because the child would have stability and a caring family, which is arguably the most important aspects of a family. You act as if gay people only know other gay people which are from some other planet. The gay parents would have their friends over. Do people have qualifiers for their friends? I am straight, but can I only have straight friends? No, I have people who I enjoy hanging out with and talking too, which incidently, can be gay or straight people. I don't understand how it would be bad for friends to be over? Do you have fun with friends or is it a high tension bad situation every time? Friends mean having fun, and laughing and what have you. Plus, every child is at one point going to meet someone who is gay. Do we have to protect them from that too?

Should gays be allowed to adopt?
Of course they should.

The simple fact here is that as Suzy said, the tasks required to raise a child (save things like breast feeding) are gender neutral. All that a child needs is parents that love him/her and will encourage him/her to excel.

Currently there are thousands of kids that go un-adopted each year. These kids either wind up as wards of the state living in orphanages or they get bounced from foster home to foster home. Almost every study in the book cites that this isn't healthy for a child. These children often end up poorly adjusted and become a drain on society.

Gay and Lesbian parents are perfectly capable of providing a stable environment for children and if anything it only benefits the children by ensuring that they are more open minded and tolerant of differences - we could definitely use a little bit more of that quality in certain areas of the country.

Today's family isn't the traditional nuclear family that TennesseeDemocrat is suggesting. That kind of thinking is rather old fashioned in my opinion and doesn't jive well with today's reality. In today's reality we have single parents (both male and female) where the other parent is unknown or not involved, we have divorced parents, we have step parents, we have multi-racial and multi-cultural parents and there are a decent number of gay and lesbian parents as well.

Homosexuals have been adopting kids for a while now and many of them are grown men and women at this point. Don't you think that if there was something inherently wrong with these parents we would be hearing about it all over the news? I mean seriously, that would be the smoking gun for certain elements of our society. The fact here is that homosexual parents make great parents and produce children who feel loved, are well adjusted, open minded and become productive members of society. I can personally attest to this because I know a few homosexual parents and their children.


How is it unhealthy? Can you find one reputable study that shows that homosexuality can somehow be "taught or caught"? I don't think you will, because there aren't any.

You make it sound like having gay people around is the end of the world. The children in these families don't see it that way, they just see them as family friends. I mean seriously, what are these "gay people hanging around the house" going to do exactly? This fear of homosexuals is completely unfounded and ridiculous.


Last time I checked one of the principles of our society is that the interests of the majority shouldn't trample on the interests of the minority.

Why should anyone decide whether or not you are qualified to be a parent? If we are going to go down that road why don't we just start taking children away from divorced heterosexuals, because divorce has been proven to be bad for children. If you are going to make a value judgement on who is qualified to be a parent, you had best look at the heterosexual population first, because there are far greater issues there.

Out of curosity, is it legal in any states for gay couples to adopt at this current time?

If you read Cube Jokey's post, then you'll see that yes, it is legal:




I'd like to welcome you TennesseeDemocrat, but please read the posts that are put up, and as I know your new 'round these parts you might want to not post one-lines (the admin. doesnt' like it).

The answer is it depends on what state you live in. In some states it is expressly prohibited and in other states it is expressly permitted. In the majority of states, it is left up to the judge. It is my understanding that common practice dictates that one parent adopts the child, and the other one isn't an official legal guardian. This is part of the reason why many homosexuals want equal rights because if for example the legal guardian died, the child can't automatically be cared for by the other parent like with any heterosexual couple, they'd have to go through the process again.

I disapprove of the idea that every right for gays and lesbians should depend on the fickle whims of heterosexuals. Society is not at risk from a overwhelming amount of gay couples looking to adopt children.

The argument against gays adopting children are based too much on "what ifs" and "what might" happen. Let me tell you from someone who used to write stories about kids stuck in the Children Services maze of foster parents and orphanges. The ONLY thing that a child wants is to be loved and if that love comes from two lesbians or two gays, the sexual orientation of the adopting parents is less important that their willingness and capacity to take in a child and give them a home.

If you are really "pro-family" TennesseeDemocrat, you should consider being more flexible in what constitutes a "family" in 2004.

Additionally, there are components to adoption that most of us are unaware of: the issue of the cost of adoption and the race of the child.

The children who are in the greatest demand are also in the shortest supply. Those who want to adopt healthy white babies in the US may wait as long as five years, agencies say. In contrast, they add, the waiting for African-Americans is often measured in weeks and months, especially for baby boys.

The demand for biracial (black/white) babies falls in between, and the wait reflects this. The waiting period for a biracial girl can be more than a year.

It's also the case that adopting a white baby costs more than adopting a black or biracial one.

Adoption fees for healthy Caucasian babies can be as high as $40,000, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. For biracial babies, the cost is about $18,000. For African-American newborns, it ranges from $10,000 to $12,000, agencies say.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

So let me put this question to you, TennesseeDemocrat. If there aren't enough black familes adopting black babies and white families in America don't want to adopt them either, would you rather those babies go overseas to go to presumably straight white foreigners than stay here where an American homosexual couple might be happy to adopt these kids?


Addditionally, I found this from a Newsweek "My Turn" column:

I had adopted Sasha seven months earlier from Eastern Europe. While we knew that not everyone approved of "gay adoption" as a concept, we couldn't believe that anyone would prefer that this specific child had been left in his orphanage. He wasn't exactly thriving there. At 17 months, Sasha was the size of an American 5-month-old. While most kids walk by 12 months, Sasha could barely crawl. He didn't babble or coo. His eyes were vacant and haunted.

Born 10 weeks premature and at less than four pounds, Sasha would have benefited from early intervention. But he spent his first 17 months lying alone in a crib. He was sickly and withdrawn. I asked one of the orphanage workers if Sasha ever smiled, and she replied "No, he's a serious child." Imagine a child who's never smiled.

When children aren't loved, they drift away. Sasha lived in his own world. He cared for no one. It didn't matter who held him--we were all the same. Toys slipped unnoticed from his hands. Even when no longer confined to a crib, he just lay on his back sucking his thumb. At the orphanage, they told me he had "normal curiosity," but I think they meant normal for a stone. When I brought Sasha to an expert in the psychological assessment of orphaned children, he diagnosed Sasha as having institutional autism.

Sasha's story would be unbearably sad if it weren't for how well he's done since coming home. By his 2d birthday, he was grinning and laughing all the time. He went from being severely underweight to downright chubby. He's engaged and affectionate, and every day he wakes up happy.

But anti-gay prejudice hurts many children. Hundreds of thousands of them need homes. Yet some people would prefer that children be stuck in foster care or institutions rather than live with two loving parents of the same sex. I can't decide if that's more crazy or cruel.

My partner and I don't feel like heroes for adopting Sasha. We're the lucky ones to have this wonderful child. But had we not taken a risk on a kid who wasn't looking too good at the time, Sasha might still be in that orphanage. His beautiful, inspiring light would have been lost. For the person who reported us for abuse and for the lawyers for the state of Florida (who recently defended that state's ban on gay adoption by claiming "there is not a fundamental right to adopt or to be adopted"), that loss would have been acceptable. If they really cared about kids, just one of Sasha's smiles would change their minds.

Homosexual adoption is permitted in every state except Florida and Utah. Shame on them.

So what you are getting at is "what's best for the child?" Is that a fair assessment?

Well there is actually a great deal of scientific evidence that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well (or better) adjusted as their hetero-familial counterparts.

I've already posted this study before, but I will do it one last time:



This is from a study by Ellen Perrin. A footnote for this study, and several others can be found in this post.

Now, I say that I've already posted this study before because the last two times I have actually brought up EVIDENCE that dispells the notion that children under gay parents would be harmed, it has been roundly ignored.

However, you cant provide evidence that the child does not suffer outside the home from other people their entire lives and that is precisiely my point. There are some on this board who appear to me, want to make me out to be some kind of a bigot because i do not share their same beliefs towards adoption. Thats like calling americans stupid or gay bashing, because they voted for bush over kerry. Although im sure some of the anti war/pro saddam types might feel that to be the case. But look, I have no problem with civil unions, I just dont support gay marriage. By some peoples logic, there should be no debate, we should just allow gay marriage without thinking it through. It is unfair to label people bigots or homophobes for choosing to protect the definition of marriage.

There is no discrimination in this. It is my feeling that Two homosexuals getting married is simply not marriage. That's like saying the Lakers lead the NBA in first downs.

Again, there is no discrimination. A gay guy has the same right as me: to marry one woman. Where's the discrimination in that?

I can't marry a man, just like he can't. Sure, we could be like canada and allow gay marriage AND adoption, but think about this. In Canada, They allow gay marriage, gay couples to adopt children, are pushing for the decrimination of marijuna, some wish to outlaw spanking, they actually had to have the federal supreme court rule on this! and even recently, some are suing for the right to assist in suicide, and more canadians than not support this right to assist suicde! Some morals huh.

So, If not embracing this type of thinking is going backwards, being a bigot, not wanting to be apart of this type of liberalism, than I guess i am not willing to change with the times. I refuse to embrace these situations as going with the times, they are not for american society. Move to Canada or France if you support assited suicide and legalizing drugs.




Also, anyone who says gay marriage cant have an effect on society, should take a look at this article.

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_ma...in_scandinavia/




An extreme example? Maybe, maybe not. But, this is a societial question, and as such, we all have a say in gar marriage. That means no suing from gay groups who dont like the decision, and no suing from religious groups.



I

First off, this article doesn't talk much about the adoption of children into gay house holds, instead it rambles about whether or not gay-marriage should be allowed. And this quote, if I understand it correctly isn't even what people who are pro gay-marriage want to do. They don't want to equalize cohabitation and marriage, they want to make people rights to marry equal. If marriage = cohabitation, then sure, marriage would just become an unnecessary label that didn't really mean anything. But that isn't what people want to do.

This article doesn't have any evidence that same-sex marriages provide a worse living situation than different-sex marriages. It covers children born out of wedlock, but that's not what we're talking about in this thread.

And the burden of proof, at the moment, is on people who are against adoption rights for gay couples because numerous articles, books, and web sites have been covered in previous posts showing that there is no reason to believe that child development is affected in gay vs. straight households.

First of all, no one has used those words, nor in my opinion implied them. We are a very serious discussion forum here and that type of thing simply isn't tolerated. If you feel someone has violated the rules, please use the report button, that is what it is for

Now that being said, you are expected to defend your positions with evidence and you simply haven't done that yet.

Now with that out of the way....

TD, if you'll go back and look at Joe's post (directly above yours) he did provide that evidence if you care to look into it. What you haven't done is back up your assertion that children of homosexuals are somehow damaged goods when they enter the real world. We can respect your personal opinion, but for the purposes of this debate you are going to have to prove it to the rest of us. Your opinion doesn't constitute evidence.


Your flawed assumption here is that being gay is a choice. Did you choose to be heterosexual at some point in your life, or is that just the way you are? Asking a gay man to be with a woman is just as revolting as it would be for me to suggest you give gay love a try.

I know several children of gay parents, some of them adopted. Each of them is as happy and well-adjusted as any other kid.


I have yet to see a rational moral argument for prohibiting gay people from adopting. The fact that some ill-bred children will make fun of these kids, and some ignorant bigots will denigrate their parents, does not constitute such an argument.

Many social workers see gay couples wishing to adopt as a Godsend.

Thus, all the people actually involved in the situation seem happy with it. It seems the only people that have a problem with gay adoption are those who are not affected by it at all.

Interesting, honestly I did not even know that adoption was permitted in america among gays yet. And i have now heard from several people who have seen the children, and have told me they have grown up alright and not been harmed. I understand it is still a risk, but given the situation of the adoption process, and the alternative of children suffering in the foster system, I can understand your point of view.

Perhaps I could have a change of opinion as I learn more regarding the matter. Although I think more time needs to pass on this issue before the longterm effects on children with same sex couples as parents are truly revealed. Pretty new situation still.

I also dont need proof that this would effect a child, it is an opinion of what I personally believe would happen. and studies showing nothing has happened overwhelmingly so far in gay homes isnt conclusive enough to change view on this.

This is one of those wedge issues such as abortion or gay marriage, it definately affects all of society. Again, I stress this to be a vote, like a proposition of banning gay marriage, or the 3 strikes rule in California. If not that, at least let our elected officials in the senate vote on it.

First, I should say that I think some people have been coming down a bit hard on TennesseeDemocrat - he does, after all, represent what is probably a majority opinion in the US, if not here at America's Debate. I'm glad to see that he is, at least, keeping an open mind and is receptive to evidence on both sides.

It is time, therefore, to trot out the personal experience again. As this topic has been visited a few times now, I won't reiterate much of what I've posted elsewhere. If you're interested, TennesseeDemocrat, I am probably one of the few gay parents posting here at the moment and you can find a bit of my story here. It is entirely anecdotal as it relates pretty exclusively to my own family, but you might find it worth a look.

Later in that same thread, I cite a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics in which they state:
The social stigma could be a problem (though it never has been in my experience) - but that problem does not lie with gay parents, but with the prejudice against them. This was the same sort of argument that was used against interracial and even interfaith marriages at one stage. Had that argument held sway, blacks and whites, protestants and jews may still not be marrying, never mind successfully raising children.

Further:
That's right: gay men might be better fathers than straight men. I don't know if I'd endorse this entirely - at least not in my own experience. I can't say that I am a better father to my kids than most straight fathers that I know. My partner and I are far from perfect and we've made mistakes as parents as we have in every other area - just like heterosexuals. But anyone who claims I am worse parent than them solely on the basis of my sexual orientation can meet me with pistols at dawn.

I hope that helps a bit.

I think overlandsailor has stated the central nub of this argument, and almost everyone has missed it.



Permit me to re-phrase for emphasis.


Once more for the cheap seats - Gay adoptive parents versus straight adoptive parents is a false dichotomy - the choice is between adoption and institutional care.

We are not swamped with vast numbers of adoptive parents - period. As it is, most adoptive couples start out wanting a baby under a year old. Older children, especially teenagers, are almost impossible to find adoptive parents for.

Any subtle differences in the behaviour of children raised by one or two people, or by two people of the same gender versus a more traditional couple - and to my knowledge there have been no truly conclusive studies along these lines that go well beyond statistical errors anyway- are dwarfed by the behavioural differences between children raised in some kind of family unit and those raised in institutional care.

Childhood abuse, mental illness, criminality, violence - all this things are dramatically more prevalent among institutionalised children. Link?

I ask you, which is worse - nightly violence and/or sexual abuse from your outwardly respectable institutional "carer", or having the other kids at school say things about your parents (adoptive or otherwise) during lunch? All together now: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".

NB - This is emphatically NOT the same as saying that most or all those raised in institutional care will never lead useful or productive lives - most can and do.

It's also worth pointing out that most repsonsible adoption agencies vet prospective adopters to within an inch of their lives. All natural parents have to do is have sex, and these days outside agencies tend not to get too involve in deciding who can have sex with whom (thankfully).

In the UK system at least, few geniune people, if any, that want to adopt, are ever turned down, except those that have historically been prevented from doing so because of marital status or sexuality (gay adoption is an live issue here too; and we've only recently permitted unmarried couples or single people to adopt subject to the same strict controls as all other adoptions).

ASIDE Paedophilia is, obviously enough, one of the best reasons to deny adoption to a candidate, and should stay that way. I don't believe it is anywhere on the normal sexual spectrum; I only mention it here to pre-empt others from using the "gay adoption is the thin end of the wedge" argument. No, it isn't. It's a different wedge altogether.

Now, if those opposed to gay adoption know of another way of dramatically increasing the number of potential adoptive parents from the "traditional family" constituency, implement that first. Then we can indulge ourselves in debating the relative benefits of being raised in gay or straight households. Until then, it's a no-brainer - of course gays should be allowed to adopt.

And the "adoption is about the child's rights, not those of parents" argument also naturally leads to the same conclusion, since the child's right to a stable, loving upbringing is far more imperilled by staying in institutional care than by being adopted. Since this is the true nature of the choice before society, the answer to the question at hand is again - of course gays should be allowed to adopt.

I can't see how any other position rests on the facts.

I will admit that I didn't read this entire thread. I will go back and read it, but I honestly doubt it will change my mind.

Two gay parents mean two parents that have thought about having a child and considered the consequences. Gays cannot accidentally have a baby. A wild night doesn't lead to lesbians or gay men having a child. It's not like buying new shoes, I believe they would talk about it, and decide that they can do it. If they meet the same criteria for a heterosexual couple to adopt (sans the difference in genetalia), then I support them. I think that children would be better off in an openly gay househould than they would be in a foster home. I can not think of a single reason why two gay individuals would be incapable of raising a child. The gay couple is not going to make the child gay, although they might make them more understanding of non-conventional relationshps. I don't see a problem with this.

I think that if a couple of any persuasion decides that they want to love a child and give them a home to grow up in, be loved in, and flourish in, then they should be allowed to offer it. It is in the best interest of both the child and the couple willing to open their lives to that child.

Should gays be allowed to adopt?

Absolutely. Gays couples should be allowed to marry and they should be allowed to raise a family. I am in complete agreement with Overland and Suzy - the question should be - what is in the best interests of the child - a foster home or a loving couple willing to share their home and heart with a parentless child?

This issue is controversial and therefore I would ask that we try to refrain from calling those who disagree with gay adoption homophobes or bigots. Labeling only alienates and polarizes. We need to find common ground - seek a new approach to gay issues.

Interesting. I am definitely after reading a mans story on here about his child looking at this with a different perspective. Like I said before, If a child can be just as happy in a gay home, and not be affected greatly socially outside the home, and can grow up in his/her adult years unaffected and lead a normal happy life, I really have no objection.

I however am not entirely convinced that is the case, although I am pleased to hear that many people are doing quite well raising children in gay homes, and god bless you for it. I can definitely see the argument that these homes are better than the foster system, I know friends who have adopted out of the system and I know how poor it is on the kids. Therefore, if the gay homes these children are going to are full of support, and there are no signs of the child struggling or adjusting to life despite the differences of a heterosexual home, than I cannot in good conscious object to it.

I just figured at a childs teenage years, there could be hostility and anger towards the parents out of confusion and learning more about sexuality, but if that is not the case among many people, I am relieved to hear it. I know that studies have shown among single woman raising kids, children at these ages have become hostile or defensive, so that was my worry towards gay parents. But, again, if that is not the case, I could definitely change my position on the matter.

Also, I do not think anyone has been that hostile over this matter to me or anyone else, its just a controversial issue.

If anyone has experience or knows how some children have acted throughout their lives and into adulthood, I would be interested to hear more about it.

I have seen this argument come up a lot. This type of "They already have rights" equalization is flawed because it assumes the basis of marriage is gender. Any marriage to any woman, therefore, would be equal was long as it was a woman. However, marriage seems to be based on more than that, what some might say would be "love." If that is the case, then disallowing gay marriage denies someone the right to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are allowed to, Homosexuals are not. This is the type of qualification they prefer. This concept is similar to why I won't marry just anyone with the opposing sex organs, marriage is based on more than that.

To the narrower subject of gay adoption, I have no problems with it. The only thing I'm worried about is how the child will fair against all those people who absolutely hate gays. I wouldn't want an adoption to take place if it was going to occur in some "moral" place where serious hard could come to the parents, and by virtue of that, the child.

Of course, all of those negative consequences still might be better than an adoption clinic.

This is the only thing that i dislike about Bush's Policy. I believe that no matter what sexual orientation you are, you should be able to adopt. There is no evidence that just because you are a homosexual then you will make a bad parent. This is just foolish. The people that made this plan is disallowing 'fair and equal treatment under law'. In the US Navy the last line of the Sailor's Creed is "I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all". This is just not fair to the homosexual community.

Should gays be allowed to adopt?
Yes, without question. They should be allowed to go through the same process as current adoptive couples and be reviewed on their merits and not their sexual orientation.

Those who worry about the social influences of those who hate gays should recall a similar issue with racially mixed couples. The passions ran just as high there and while I don't think we've totally cleared all the hurdles of acceptance in that realm, its certainly become far more common and far more accepted culturally. Ironically, that's exactly what those wishing to prevent this capability fear the most. Homosexuality is seen as some deviant choice or product of upbringing that will infect future generations to come. (For some reason I'm reminded of the graduation scene from "In & Out" with Kevin Kline, which was hysterical) I have yet to see any evidence giving that argument a shred of credence.

I would also be very curious to find out the child abuse rates in homosexual families vs. non. This might be an argument in favor as well.

Doc

Here's the problem I have with this part of BecomingHuman's argument...how exactly would this differ from say, a minority or biracial couple adopting someone just a few decades ago (or still, in many places)? I think the very same arguments could apply then, but that most everyone would recognize the inherent discrimination in that. There's really only one group that shouldn't be allowed to adopt...bad parents. Unfortunately, they're not so easy to spot.

I also see a very interesting conundrum...if gays aren't fit to be parents...what do you do with children of parents, one of whom 'comes out' after their birth? Do you then take that child, or parent, away? Do they lose their parental rights? What if they're gay, but don't say anything? Does that then make them worthy parents?

No, there's simply no basis for this, and trying to argue for it just raises too many questions that can't be answered. There's no evidence that I have seen that indicates that children raised in such an environment fair any worse than any other environment. Given that...what else would be the reasoning?

I had not really given this question a great deal thought until seeing it here, and for the first time since joining A.D. I could feel my opinion taking shape as I read the various threads/opinions/arguments and pondered my own upbringing.

My initial concerns came from experiencing not only the same "obstacles" that every person experiences in childhood, but with the additional hurdles (that many of us had) of parents who divorced (and re-married and divorced multiple times), all the moving around (insecurity) that went with it, alcoholism, physical violence...

Gosh, I didn't mean to get so depressing. What I'm trying to say is that my first concern was whether or not adding the potential hurdle of having homosexual parents (anti-gay bigotry and all that may or may not go with that) is the right thing to expose these children to. That physicians creedo comes to mind...paraphrased-"First, do no harm!"

But since it is clear that children have thousands of potential "hurdles" to overcome, it suddenly seems idiotic to me pick one potential hurdle and use it to deny to an unwanted child, the love and care of two capable adults (I am assuming that homosexuals who want to adopt receive the same screening as heterosexuals).

But what's the alternative? Should all these children who desperately need loving parents remain trapped as unwanted leftovers in a government bureaucracy and all that goes with that? Unless someone can provide comprehensive evidence
that the adopted children of homosexuals are in fact burdoned and/or harmed to a greater degree than children with heterosexual parents in general, I can only give cheers to my fellow citizens (whatever their sexuality) who voluntarily choose to provide love and care to those who need it.

TennesseeDemocrat, you are not alone in not knowing gays can adopt kids. Many Americans have that same perception. But it should be pointed out that not being prevented from adopting children is a little different from being "permitted." It has already been explained that only two states actually allow for adoption by gay couples, and 40 don't actively stop it.

I am also glad you are willing to keep an open mind, however, how long is long enough to determine "longterm effects." And how will the issue be studied, who will do the studying, etc? What kind of evidence do you require? I am not trying to gang up on you, but merely examining what you really think.

I personally agree that gays should be allowed to marry (civil union at the courthouse or fullblown religious ceremony if they can find a preacher, minister, priest, shaman or monk to do it). I think they should be allowed to adopt kids as long as they meet all the criteria that everyone has to meet. I do not think they are inferior as parents, and I have not seen any evidence that says they are unfit as parents.

I honestly believe that gay people should be able to adopt. I mean, they are people just like everyone else. And we are allowed to adopt, aren't we? So why can't they? I know people who are gay, and adopted a baby, and those people are so nice and caring, that i know that baby is going to be a great kid! You shouldn't be allowed to adopt if you've had a crime record or a violent history, but being gay shouldn't stop you from doing anything!

It needs to go further than that, Argonaut, as I tried to describe earlier in the thread.

Those opposed to homosexual couples being allowed to adopt need to be able to show that being raised by gays is demonstrably and consistently more harmful to a child than being raised in social care, because those are the real-world alternatives.

I'm with the OP. I feel gays should be allowed the same freedoms as the rest of us, but where a child is involved I hesitate simply because there isn't any information (as of yet) whether a child would be socially impeded by being brought up by two moms or two dads. I would feel more comfortable after detailed research proceeds in this area, and I would agree with the findings of those studies.

The question to be posed is this:

a) Should a soldier who happens to be gay, and fought for America in Iraq or Afghanistan be allowed to adopt a kid?

and/or

b) one of the passengers who help fight the terrorists on the united flight that crashed in pennsylvania instead of its intended target was gay .. would you guys consider someone like him to be of moral character enough to raise a kid?
Reference: http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/wtc/wtc-gay.html (google for others)


Who in here's going to answer "no" to both of those questions?

Gee, thanks. It's not like I've made NUMEROUS references to a whole host of studies on the subject. Here's an abstract I've posted numerous times, including in this forum about a month ago:



That is from a study which I referred to in this post.

There is evidence. Lots of it. Please read it.

I voted no.

I voted no because of the following reasons.

The founding fathers enacted established laws in America for the general citizen under common law in the constitution. Common law was originated in the Roman Empire and further defined by Judeo-Christian values in Western Europe leading up to the discovery of America. It was the Romans that first allowed the average citizen to interject suggestions of law to the empire. Most common laws were dealing with property but not limited to property. Later, Judeo-Christian values were incorporated into common law. One could say that common law protected the majority in expected norms and violations of norms would be adjudicated by a judge, for violations or infractions of the expected norm of the majority. As time passed after our constitution was established it was modified. Recall women and slaves were not afforded equal treatment until such fought for recognition because at the time the norm was women and slaves were lesser in view of the administrator of law.

I conclude American law was established as a means of assuring social norms. All activities outside of the social norm are normally illegal, not necessarily because they are dangerous rather based on values the countries laws were founded. For example, a man can only have one wife. That is a value-based law based on Judeo-Christian values. Likewise, a thief is incarcerated and punished or rehabilitated in accordance to the view of the public. Again, this is a Judeo-Christian value based law. Had the offence occurred in Saudi Arabia the thief’s hands could be cut off, not a Judeo-Christian value adopted law. Again, I conclude the founders found value in the common good, common being the expected norm of the majority.

Now one must ask do the majority of American citizens consider sexuality an openly public matter? Is it the expected norm for a man and wife to approach other adults and say or imply I engage in oral and anal sex? Well do you? The answer is that would be no that would be abnormal, correct? When a gay person announces publicly they are gay that is what they are imposing on the upset of the expected norm. Being gay is not a bad thing but saying I’m gay or I have gay pride is saying publicly sexuality and implied acts. These acts and admissions are contradictory to the values common law is based as they upset the norm. The upset of the norm is why all persons who voted NO did so and explained their reasons. It is abnormal!

I spent twenty years plus in the US Army and served with gays that I respect. Yet, not one of them openly stated sexuality to violate the norm. The military, under the Clinton administration adopted this exact policy. Don’t ask and don’t tell, because it upsets the norm.

I say being gay is normal and grabbing a megaphone announcing it is abnormal. How did I conclude this, because the norm is not violated by an abnormal act.

Pay attention now and consider which political party does the gay agenda thrive? Is it the same party that says a woman has the right to choose, to choose harm would befall her if she had to endure a life with an abnormal Downs Syndrome child and supports killing that child with its shoulders out of the womb. The choice is provided for PBA because of abnormality expected. If a purple light flashed indicating gay baby at the same point in pregnancy as a Downs Syndrome would we be discussing this matter? No, abnormality is out of the norm.

Gay activism is a new thing being promoted by Hollywood. An almost identical method was used to promote cigarettes in the 1950’s and 60’s. A step even deeper in this Hollywood gay agenda promotion reveals not only the norm may be upset for all the points I point out along with those who debated NO on the issue but also the abnormal may take away normality through the action of acceptance. Prime example the expected norm is that young normal boys need groups such as the Boy Scouts to mentor values and traits leading to a strong roll model. This minority ruling over the majority is the reverse of what the nation’s laws were founded on. Without an amendment to the constitution for gay marriage or openly gay being normality gay adoption should not be allowed because it is abnormal.

So what does jesus, the roman empire, founding of america and hollywood have to do with gay people having equal rights, nothing actually. If you read about the founding fathers, some did not really have much nice things to say about christian beliefs, not all of them though. I doubt a theocracy would have religion separated like church and state, but i did notice the clause to make roman wear the norm though i know its almost weird to think about, but it just goes to show the depths people will go to in order to support why they can be a bigot really. I guess this goes alone with the environment is fine, pollution is good for you, and much more.

I dont know if america is ready to actually have liberty, i think more or less its just like a bedtime story we tell each other or something. Then again, i know that theocracy is all about liberty, and keeping the church out of government. hollywood makes many movies, about many things, i did not see any socialist propaganda supporting gay rights in the passion of christ, or so on, it reminds me of that black sabbath song, paranoid or something you know. I fear what the republican party makes for a line to tow these days.

Many social customs all over the world only allow for a male to have one female in terms of marriage, and i dont know about you, but i know that western theology like many things came from other beliefs also, so i guess we can just keep going back in time until we reach cavemen and other primates or so on, but i dont want to scare anyone. I dont know how many times i have been in this debate, founding fathers were all christians making a christian america is a bold faced lie, nothing more, i am not going to be a history instructor either.

Gay people will continue to being bashed as long as such ignorance is allowed to exist, its really that simple. I mean in some parts of america, i am sure its not a bad thing to joke about hanging them or burning them, and of course i like when people that were biased against and hurt for such simple difference of their own take on to such action, must be some form of a psychology thing or something.

ol sarge, do you have anything as conducted by the scientific method to explain your position in terms of fact or are you taking on faith your position on why gays should not be allowed to adopt. The history i know of america from study and that of smoking does not speak of what you say is true, and more to the point i really cant find anything of such in the history of what you speak about. I know that many of the people that left to come to america did because of oppression, by government and or religion, and or poor living conditions or to take advantage, try to get rich. I know that history or smokeing does not include it primarily becomeing huge from movies brainwashing the populous, and for the most part if that was true i think human culture in america would be a bit different giving all the movies one can watch. I know that people have perception and in such relativity exists. This is why i like science, because through time it comes to fact which can aid in reason on areas like this. In america if you are an america you are entitled i would imagine to equal rights via liberty and such, its something i would hope most americans to treasure really, i know that right now with the holy persecutor in office, that he is trying to enable such bigot activities by allowing states to go over american rights as a citizen, and that relativity in perception is also enabling such activities, and that our constitution is at the mercy of such just like the u.s.s.r's was. I can only hope people want to work to peace via understanding, but i dont think such will occur under the blind and or ignorance really.

For someone that claims not to be a hard right religious type ol sarge, you seem to carry that message perfectly, maybe i am confused, or you think you have to do such to broadcast your ideas.

Ol Sarge,


The military's 'Dont ask, dont tell' policy is wrong. Its a discriminatory policy based on a compromise in order not to lose needed personel, in the same vein as blacks giving their lives for the country and also being second class citizens in the past. The message is clear, you are good enough to fight for us but not good enough to have the same rights afforded to all others in this country. Take it or leave it. It may be neccessary in the military, because the nature of men being that they might do each other when no other options are available, much like in prison, and they cant have THAT in the armed forces can they?



The sexual nature of a male/female relationship is never in question, what they do in their bedrooms is accepted as their own business. There are heterosexuals with children that engage in kinky, swinging, S&M, only anal, only oral or no sex at all. Its noones business and the same applies with homosexual couples. A union of two people does not qualify that any certain sexuality is practiced, what-so-ever. Imaginative busybodies can presume what is ocurring in the bedrooms of any couple, same or opposite sex, but the subject is a non-issue when it comes to raising children. For most responsible adults, sex acts are a personal matter between consenting adults. Who is doing who how (?) has never had anything to do with raising children in heterosexual relationships, so therefore has nothing to do with raising children in homosexual relationships either.
(Im just using your argument that its about sex acts)

Children are raised in many different home environments, from grandparents to single parents. Sometimes a single dad is doing the babysitter, sometimes a single mom has only single female friends, there are multiples of combinations available. Therefore no real reason to consider a homosexual upbringing as out of the norm.



Thats absurd but an understandable reaction to something one cannot relate to, like womens or race rights were in the past. Pretending something does not exist, or ignoring that people are disenfranchised by ones ignorance doesnt make it go away.
I believe that when homosexuals are given their due rights there will be less megaphones. Once society accepts that gays are a part of our world and give them that which all of us take for granted, not only will things die down but peoples fears of the unknown will be quelled. The world will not stop turning on its axis and we shall have less confrontational situations which make heterosexuals uncomfortable. I have seen this in countries where gay rights are reasonably a given. Everyone just settles in.



This argument contradicts itself. On one hand (I assume) you are saying that the Democrats are the gay agenda party, supporting gay rights, supporting in your words 'abnormality', on the other hand denouncing the same for what you think is supporting aborting Downs syndrome babies strictly because of their 'abnormality', therefore not in support of 'abnormality'. This is known in debate as strawman tactics, one has nothing to do with the other. Besides that, your facts are wrong, but that is the topic of another thread.
Gay rights have little, if anything to do with Hollywood, or abortion, or the Democratic Party. I'd like to introduce you to the Log Cabin Republicans, one of plenty of conservative gay rights groups.
http://gaylife.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...abin/about.html



Minority ruling over the majority is not the case here. The minority in this case only asks for what is a given already for the majority, and has no effect over the majority if given.
I accordance with the poll here, the majority declines to believe as you do and suports gay adoption.

From what I have seen in my life, there is plenty of prescident for gay rights and what I percieve to be the reasons, laws and basis of what the US was founded upon is precisely -that the mob does not have rule over all people in the nation- that the US Constitution was created to protect minorities and others with rights agendas. I have seen this in history and action with women's right to vote (women are not a minority), the end of slavery, The Civil Rights Movement , sexual harrassment , child labor and equal pay for equal work laws..also the right to protest in public, burn the flag and conciencously object to going to war. IE: Big Megaphones every time, winning causes every time.

Needless to say I am for gays adopting children for all the reasons put forward by the previous posters, and more. When it comes down to human to human, compassion for people and especially children, its all very simple.

For example, Conserv Pat, you said when opening this thread that you had reservations, but if you read Wertz links to his personal experience, it becomes neither an abject nor object situation, but a known. Theres a lot to say for inner/relationship understanding and compassion.
Besides, dont conservatives hate their hard earned money being taken away from them for child welfare? You cant have it both ways, its a painted corner which is lose-lose. Choose.

This is a dubious conclusion. The main goal of the Constitution was to ensure that the rights of the people were not trampled by an overly powerful and invasive state. The Constitution (and US common law in general) explicitly seek justice, not conformity to social norms. If the Founders had wanted to assure conformity to social norms, they would have come up with a far more effective method than the Constitution. We probably would have ended up with a Taliban- or or Saudi-style list of prohibitions on nonstandard (and thus illegal) behavior, with a huge and ever-growing list of victimless "crimes" of nonconformity.

Even if your conclusion were somehow correct and the Founders had prioritized enforcing scocial norms, you present this as ipso facto proof that denying gays adoption rights is the right thing to do. If this emphasis on assuring social norms was wrong when it came to denying black people and women equal treatment, then why should we consider it automatically right when it comes to equal treatment for gay people?

Maybe I got this wrong, but you seem to be saying, "Societal values are generally incorporated into common law, and common law has the effect of enforcing (some) societal norms. Therefore, if a behavior is not practiced by a substantial portion of the society, it should be illegal."

First of all, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Secondly, I cannot think of a more unAmerican concept.

You cannot make a rational, moral case against change merely by pointing out how things currently are, nor by pointing out that they have been that way for a long time.



By your statndard, yes. Any time I talk about my wife, comment on how attractive I find a woman, or otherwise imply that I am straight, I am apparantly breaching an important norm and pushing my predilection for certain "implied acts" on the listener. Or wait, maybe there two standards - one for those in the societal mainstream and one for the "abnormals"? Again, a very scary, unAmerican concept.



So being gay is normal, but not so normal that we can let anyone know about it.




The "normal/abnormal" fixation of your post crescendos with this last paragraph. It would be helpful if you defined your criteria for "normal" and "abnormal" and explain what bearing they have on adoption rights. Do you differentiate on the basis of, say, mental or physical health, or sexual practices in general (ie are some "straight" sex acts also enough to get one on the "abnormal" list?). You seem to using "abnormal" as a codeword for gay, or unhealthy, or maybe just "icky"? Please elaborate.

First let me apologize for failing to track this issue and being distracted by other posts. I assure I will get back with each and everyone of you responding to my entry.

First let me take the easiest and provide an answer to the “Federal Governments rule” “don’t ask-don’t tell.” This policy or rule is an obvious violation of Federal common law discrimination. So how did Clinton do it? The military is outside of Constitutional protection. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are controlled in many terms outside of constitutional protection. The military considers you working 24 hours a day 365 days a year and controls when you may be free “of duty.” Freedom from duty is requested and at the beck and will of the Federal Authority. Every action a service member enjoys is covered by a “regulation not constitution.” I say what is good enough for the military should be good enough for all when it comes to proclaimed abnormality! Gays cannot be compared to blacks or women because gays may also be blacks and women. Gays are just abnormal to nature and the Federal Government recognized it and your congressional representatives recognized it. In open society compassion is displayed and in closed society it is objected to. Check out the link and read to your bleeding hearts content. http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html which reads in part:

“You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT."

Nature’s law or Nature's God if you like says only the strong will survive. In the modern human society compassion allows abnormality to “live.” Its natures law what more can I say but go visit a farm and check out the chicken house. That’s where the “pecking order” got its name from and in nature the weak are pecked to death!

A short farm story about “stressed sexuality”, two 3,000 pound bulls pace a fence between two farms both of normal sexuality wanting to rule domain, to fight to win right over a territory of the “strong females that survived throughout history in the same manner.” They break the barrier and fight three hours to exhaustion and the farmers place them apart. That is nature’s way! The same two bulls are taken to the stock market and placed in a small cage and with instinct and stress of imminent death they become homosexual just like people placed in small cages together. It is an abnormal nature stress induced mental imbalance! I watched it happen when I was ten years old and could not believe my eyes.

OK now I will click the track this thread or whatever and follow up on your other points.

I don't see what your statement has to do with gays adopting children, but I'll refute it anyway. I assume you are suggesting that gays are abnormal and are or should be those "pecked to death."

This sounds more like the Social Darwinian theory of Englishman Herbert Spencer and his American disciple William Graham Sumner. In other words, a reincarnation of Social Darwinian thought, the survival of the fittest, rather than "Nature's law" or "Nature's God."

It sounds like you are saying that might makes right, except when might chooses not to exercise itself. This is not entirely true, since restraint of law has as much to do with the alleged survival of weaklings as the generosity of the mighty.

For a complete understanding of the Social Darwinian views you are espousing, see the late Social Historian Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought. It's only about 200 pages. It should be a piece of cake.

It apparently made quite an impression on you. (BTW surely you mean they were taken to the stockyard, not the stock market?)



And black people can be women. What does that have to do with anything?



So since you disapprove of homosexuality, gay people should be stripped of their Constitutional protections. Applying these military rules to US society at large means what, you favor deportation of gays?




If you can't explain how this "abnormality" interferes with someone's ability to raise children, all I hear when you say "abnormal" is "most people don't do it and I find it icky". You can say "abnormal" all day long but if you don't explain yourself, it just comes off as an excuse to be irrational.



You seem to be suggesting that straight people are two-faced, cowardly bigots who say one thing in public and the opposite among their buddies. I take offense at this.



So far your metaphors for a better society are totalitarian military rule and a henhouse where chickens peck each other to death. I'm not inclined to agree.

What if you meet a gay guy who can beat you up, Ol Sarge? Does that mean he deserves a better place in society than you? Maybe HE should be allowed to adopt, but a weakling should not?

Or maybe you're speaking on a larger scale, so that if enough people object violently enough to a certain minority, that minority should "know its place" and accept its lot - or be punished. (?)

I guess I'm just not understanding how your military and farmyard analogies apply to a adoption by gays or to a desirable society in general.

Many animals will pick the weaker to death as part of their instinct for survival, and in many species the adult males will kill the brood (if able in order to preserve their own dominance for awhile, and in some insect colonies they kill off all the 'higher' males after breeding with the queen and just keep worker males, if that, in some they just keep the females.

If we are going to base our society on animal societies I prefer the latter, but we dont do that because we are human and (some) have evolved to higher thought. We make our own new rules which tend to be a little more all inclusive!

Hitler had similar ideas about 'abnormality' and started his campaign eliminating the disabled of various genre.
Under this sort of thinking we would have been without great minds and talent such as Steven Hawking, Beethoven, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Charles Dickens, Thomas Edison, Henri-de Toulouse-Latrec, August Renoir, Wilma Rudolph, Jim Abbott, Itzak Perlman, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, and Homer, need I go on?

What is abnormal anyway in your thoughts? Should this be everyones scale? What would you recommend anyone do who falls outside those guidelines? Wither away and die, alone and head hung in shame... without a mere wimper?
No. People do not do that. They fight for their place in life, it IS the way of humans.
Abnormality is a weak argument because many people have been or are seen as abnormal in society and are still given their rights.

To add, there are a whole lot of 'abnormal' people out there with children ( if youve been driving around the country ever), so why would this particular abnormality in your words, be so important in allowing needful children to go without homes? Please try to be more explicite to the topic.

I believe that gay couples should be allowed to adopt if there are no heterosexual couples available. The research is in its infancy as to whether children raised by gay couples have any problems stemming from their situations. Gays first began adopting/raising kids in the mid to late 80s I believe. Those children now are only starting to reach adult age.

As the studies become more established I may be ok with revising my opinion. Until then, I am not convinced that the male/female model is not the best for the kids. On the other hand, if no heterosexual couple is available-- then of course a gay couple should be able to step in. I am just not yet convinced that it is to be on the same par as a traditional setting.

My spirit and intent in discussing the pecking order as nature’s guide is to point out that nature’s method of survival is always for the strongest of each species to survive.

We are addressing homosexual adoption while it does not have exclusivity for being abnormal adoption practices. There are many very bad foster parents, strait people adopting children and so on. All of these very bad parents should not be allowed to adopt children but I will try to stay on topic in my reasoning.

A child available for adoption is the ward of the state or government and the state has authority outside of the constitution in these situations as it pertains to a citizen’s freedom, in this case a child citizen. The state, in my opinion, is conducting a social experimentation with citizens. Experimentation with humans is not allowed in any other form in America to my knowledge clinically or socially.

From my position I find homosexuality having traits less supporting than strait people with regards to nature’s plan. A child’s view of the world, or an adult for that matter, is based on their surrounding environment. It is my contention such government action may alter the citizen’s viability as a productive member of society. I further find the acceptance of such “government action” has resulted in the compromise of the Boy Scouts. The key argument used by gay activist against the Boy Scouts is embarrassment to the gay adopted citizen (child) under government grant.

Darwins method for description of process behind evolution was indirect but none the less had something of factual nature to it. Today we know a lot more from direct means, and most of it confirms darwins notions. I will skip detail, but bacteria under hanford that has via mutation changed its biology to survive in the toxic waste ground will not be very strong in other environments, nor is a sloth really, or a cow for that matter, its nothing more then fitness in terms of survival in a giving ecology really, that is the connection in that. Trying again to apply something not at an level of full understating and absorbed and or dissolved into a giving pattern or perception is bound to product relativity, fallacy and of course has ignorance all up it that stuff, a nice brew really.

what does gay rights have to do with darwin and or biology, our biology allows for whatever gays do to be done, and would allow for us to allow them to have rights as americans in america. If it produces fitness, then well done i guess...

really though, nothing in the constitution allows for americans to have their civil rights in a federal status refined to being defined by the states in order to ban either them really or their behavior. Its silly to me really, being it bears no merit actually. In terms of a giant universe of the unknown, as in just the cosmos itself it makes me sad that this is an issue, but then again the massive center of the universe was humans i guess... anyways, what is the point to it. If we still lived by social norms and were never progressive, we would still be in caves doing whatever cavemen did at some point in time really. I guess though people of the christen faith that say such a statement then can agree with why jesus had to die, darn liberal. It really makes no sense like most things really, like a drug war that really does nothing but pack prisons, mess up peoples live and swallow money, and nothing more then that actually, being drugs are still alive and well and will continue to do such, and the new drug market is very lucrative to say the least, nice little commercial about having a bad day at work or something, maybe some viagra or a beer...

So many people strike liberals down for using the government to tell people how to live, i still cannot see any difference then anyone else really, and in history of america i dont see any real difference either. SO i guess they are all fascists just working different issues i guess, wow, i think i am onto something.

I guess we would rather leave children to the system then to give them a positive home, being anything negative you can say about it occurs in different sex homes and or would be a product of unfounded bigotry, but then again its just our biology, or our nurture, or the whole mix, wish i had some fact.