Gays/Lesbians and Adoption

[neoolong]

Ideally, a child should have both male and female influences in life. So as long as the parents don't completely immerse their children in a single-gender lifestyle (Gay or not, a kid only exposed to women is going to have major issues). Let the kid go fishing with an uncle every now and then, and things should be A-OK.

Yes, but you should realize that even in different sex households a child can have only one or the other influences in their life. It's like a girl how does stereotypically girl things and doesn't have a male influence. Or the boy who becomes too macho because he has only had a stereotypical male influence.

[Larz]

Why not. These children who have been put up for adoption came from homes that couldn't take care of them or couldn't bother to take care of them. I'd figure that being put into a homosexual family and living at least a semi-normal if not a better than ordinary family life (no family is normal, its just a myth) is better then being bounced around the system for the rest of their life. But I still hold my stand that people who have children because they like to screw without protection should be cut up and used as organ donors for the older, wiser people who weren't cut up for having unprotected sex...

[Shinova]

There is one flaw to this thread being posted here.




THE COMPETITION IS NONEXISTENT

[haas mark]

There is one flaw to this thread being posted here.




THE COMPETITION IS NONEXISTENT

But that makes me wonder who voted "No..." *sly look*

[Colonel Olrik]

But that makes me wonder who voted "No..." *sly look*

Don't forget CAW..

[haas mark]

But that makes me wonder who voted "No..." *sly look*

Don't forget CAW..

Well, then he'd have to make anwrgument, now then, wouldn't he?

[Darth Yoshi]

Gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt if they want. I mean, as long as the child is raised in a nurturing, stable environment, who are we to say who the shild can or can't be raised by?

[Antediluvian]

I don't see why not.

If they're kind and loving parents who provide for them, that's good enough for me.

That's what matters, their ability to take care of the child, not their sexuality.

In other words, I'm all for gay/lesbian adoption!

[Alyrium Denryle]

ES Arkaje(sp) posted the homosexuality thread a while back. He is a broken record, no matter how many times you use the smakdown he keeps using the same repeating arguments. Then when you leave the forum in frustration(As I did, used to be moonblade) he claims victory.

[Alyrium Denryle]

On the parellel thread at spacebattles*shudder*

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is one thing which can really outrage me about the current state of affairs. It's stupid, because it's unchristian, and even among all the unchristian things done, it makes less sense than most. I mean, really, what is the big deal about homosexuals adopting children?

There are millions of children who starve to death or die of other causes, disease or suffering in conflict, in wartorn and poverty inflicted regions of the globe. And at least some of those children, perhaps, would be adopted by homosexual couples. There would be at least some less dead children in the world if this ridiculous policy was ended.

And what outrages me about it the most is that it doesn't even make sense. Even if these children when they're adopted somehow get "corrupted" by their homosexual parents into an immoral lifestyle, and into homosexuality themselves - Well, at least they're alive, SO THE CHURCH HAS A CHANCE TO SAVE THEM SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE!!

Sorry. This subject really bothers me. The reason, of course, that the fundamentalists can't accept homosexual adoption, despite the above comment, is that if a large number of homosexual adoptions took place, it would decisively disprove all of the allegations of "corruption of youth" that the fundies hurl at homosexuals. So they condemn who knows how many children to die in horrific conditions so they can have another argument, and a flimsy one at that, to use to attack the so-called "homosexual lifestyle."

And that is what there should be truly no limit of one's disgust for.

[haas mark]

DoZ: I think that is what we need more of in society...and I thank you for your response. Very well thought out, and very well written.....and I guess I can say that is what I have been trying to convey, but have had a hard time doing so.

As it stands at this point, the vote is 30-1-3.

[Shinova]

Except for that one vote, the competition is nonexistent.

This board is pretty much anti-fundie, pro-gay equality and such all the way.

[Utsanomiko]

Shit, if a woman can marry a rock, I think two gay men should be able to marry each other.

ROTFLMAO! That's right, I remember now! In 1975 Californian resident Janine Swift married a 30-pound rock!! God, I dig that crazy shit.

Wierd thing is, the 'consentual' love reasoning applies to this situation, as the rock technically can't be considered 'unconsenting' towards Janine in any regard, considering the rock's utter lack of freewill. If she wants to fuck a rock, it can't really complain. Personally, I'd suggest she buy a vibrator (but perhaps she had moral reasons against 'traditional' masturbation?). My last question: Who's name did she take on?

Anywho, to add to the thread, I think it's obvious that people who can raise children well should be allowed to adopt.

[Antediluvian]

Shit, if a woman can marry a rock, I think two gay men should be able to marry each other.

ROTFLMAO! That's right, I remember now! In 1975 Californian resident Janine Swift married a 30-pound rock!! God, I dig that crazy shit.

Wierd thing is, the 'consentual' love reasoning applies to this situation, as the rock technically can't be considered 'unconsenting' towards Janine in any regard, considering the rock's utter lack of freewill. If she wants to fuck a rock, it can't really complain. Personally, I'd suggest she buy a vibrator (but perhaps she had moral reasons against 'traditional' masturbation?). My last question: Who's name did she take on?

Anywho, to add to the thread, I think it's obvious that people who can raise children well should be allowed to adopt.

Janine Swift-Rock.

[Antediluvian]

ES Arkaje(sp) posted the homosexuality thread a while back. He is a broken record, no matter how many times you use the smakdown he keeps using the same repeating arguments. Then when you leave the forum in frustration(As I did, used to be moonblade) he claims victory.

I know how you feel, AD. I debated him on all matter of subjects, and actually got him to give up once in a Women in the Military thread, and he still refused to change his position, even with the overwhelming evidence I gave.

Es Arkajae, feh.

He's the main reason I left SB.

[salm]

ES Arkaje(sp) posted the homosexuality thread a while back. He is a broken record, no matter how many times you use the smakdown he keeps using the same repeating arguments. Then when you leave the forum in frustration(As I did, used to be moonblade) he claims victory.

I know how you feel, AD. I debated him on all matter of subjects, and actually got him to give up once in a Women in the Military thread, and he still refused to change his position, even with the overwhelming evidence I gave.

Es Arkajae, feh.

He's the main reason I left SB.

yup, he´s a fucking idiot!

[haas mark]

ES Arkaje(sp) posted the homosexuality thread a while back. He is a broken record, no matter how many times you use the smakdown he keeps using the same repeating arguments. Then when you leave the forum in frustration(As I did, used to be moonblade) he claims victory.

I know how you feel, AD. I debated him on all matter of subjects, and actually got him to give up once in a Women in the Military thread, and he still refused to change his position, even with the overwhelming evidence I gave.

Es Arkajae, feh.

He's the main reason I left SB.

Vendetta's why I'm not going back.

[Frank Hipper]

ES Arkaje(sp) posted the homosexuality thread a while back. He is a broken record, no matter how many times you use the smakdown he keeps using the same repeating arguments. Then when you leave the forum in frustration(As I did, used to be moonblade) he claims victory.

I know how you feel, AD. I debated him on all matter of subjects, and actually got him to give up once in a Women in the Military thread, and he still refused to change his position, even with the overwhelming evidence I gave.

Es Arkajae, feh.

He's the main reason I left SB.

Vendetta's why I'm not going back.

Sometimes I think Vendetta's two different people. Es Arkajae is always a dick.

[haas mark]

I know how you feel, AD. I debated him on all matter of subjects, and actually got him to give up once in a Women in the Military thread, and he still refused to change his position, even with the overwhelming evidence I gave.

Es Arkajae, feh.

He's the main reason I left SB.

Vendetta's why I'm not going back.

Sometimes I think Vendetta's two different people. Es Arkajae is always a dick.

LOL, well, I may not go back to SB for quite a while...

[Bob McDob]

Heeeey, I still have the thing I wrote up between Es and Shadow_43 . . .

Originally posted by Shadow_43

Originally posted by Es Arjakae
Oh and Shadow, I fail to see how being gay gives you better insight into the minds of
homophobes and how they are more likely to beat up their wives etc. as you
claimed.p

Simple, it doesn't. And how does being straight give you any insight into the minds of gays
as you have claimed.(I know you haven't, but I made no such claim either so now we're
even)

You didn't back up that claim, merely said you were gay and thus could
understand it better than us, which is a cop out and a rather illogical statement as one
would assume someone disapproving of gays and disgusted by them would have a better
understanding of homophobes.

can you give me a quote please? I don't remember saying I could read a homophobe's
mind. I remember saying everyone knows that homophobes beat their wives(which may or
may not be true)

As for the animal thing, I truly do hope that homosexuality is a genetic trait and
the result of biology as the 'gay community' claims, for if it is then that means that with
advances in genetic engineering we can eliminate the homosexuality defect from the
genepool, thereby also getting rid of the social aberation.

Nothing like eugenics to rid the world of all the genetic defects.... gays, cripples, black
people, jews.... This sounds familiar....

My nation is a free one, and gay people are entitled to be gay, I will support and
defend their right to be gay.

That's funny, from your above quote it sounds as though you would like to deprive people
of that right....

I do not approve of homosexuality personally, I find homosexuality in men
disgusting as it is the anti-thesis of what a man should be and aside from 'lesbian' porn
(where the absence of a hairy male arse is a nice change), I do not approve lesbianism
either.

Well what exactly SHOULD a man be? Why is being gay the antithesis of what a man
should be? Answer me these questions....er...two.

Society would be better off without it, I believe.

Once again why

Originally posted by Es Arkajae
I believe you did right here:

Originally posted by Shadow_43
Here's a FACT for ya, I am gay. I think I may have a better grasp of the facts than you
do."

That wasn't about homophobes. That was about what it's like to be gay.

Gays and cripples are genetic defects and one doesn't have to enforce anything,
the parents being told that their potential child will be gay will make the decisions
themselves and have it fixed, I can't think of any parents who would actually want their
children to be born gay.

Aww, and people say ABORTION cheapens human life. What if parents don't want their
children born black? What then?
I mean, there is racist descrimination out there as well. Suppose the parents want to
protect their children from that by making them white.

Homosexuality encourages effeminancy in men, a man is supposed to be strong
and masculine a bedrock of support for women, many if not most homosexuals are
not

How so? And many times women come talk to me when their "masculine bedrock of
suppourt" leaves them for no reason. Or beats them. Are those the actions of a good
"masculine bedrock of suppourt"? I'm one of the most suppourtive guys I know. Way
more suppourtive than a guy who only cares about "getting ass from his bitches."

, the odd exception are still into unhealthy levels of subordination as far as I can
tell,

Please define "unhealthy levels of subourdination"

they are a disruptive and detrimental drain on societys young male population
especially as the liberal media has taken to encouraging them."

Why do you believe this?

Homosexuality is a sexual deviance, it goes against the very grain of what is
'right' with the world in that it has members of the same sex having intercourse with one
another, aside from disgusting issues such as anal sex and so on, the idea of two men
being sexually intimate with eachother is repulsive to me.

What, exactly, IS "right" with the world? Why is it desgusting to you? What makes it
more disgusting than you inserting your penis into a vagina? What makes it worse than
hetero anal intercourse? And again, where did all the lesbians go?

Whether or not YOU think these arguments and reasons have merit is irrelevent
to me, I hold them to be true, no where do I accuse homosexuals of beating women or
anyone really (you seem rife with accusations) , I merely extend my opinion on the issue
and expect it to be taken as that, an opinion.

Then don't be suprised when I ask why your opinions are what they are.

Please learn how to use the quote feature properly

Please understand that I do not care how the quote system works. It is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Sesi


Oh, no! A switch-hitter! hehe


Which religious organizations? How do you know they're right?


Which word of god? The god that says it's ok to sell your daughters into slavery, or the
one that says you can have sex with sheep?
Or one of the many other gods?


You're not right because you use a computer and computers are not natural. You've had
vaccinations. That is not natural.


Everyone's a mutant. How is it a defect? I see it as a bonus.


Even in the 1960s? The 1860s? The 1060s BC? Also, that's a CAUSE of homosexuality. It
doesn't explain why they don't like gays.


Logic has never stopped me before

It was part of an argument that began with you accusing homophobic men of
being wife bashers unsupported.

You're running a few posts behind. What i said was in response to this:

And homosexuality isnt as subjective as you might think it is(yes it is). Their are
facts assigned with it, if you can find them, read them, see them or accept them or not is
your own problem(That's YOUR OPINION).

If a black couple want that then that is their perogative, if a white couple want their child
born black then thats also their perogative.[/q

And you understand that you would never have existed if your parents wanted a girl(under
this system)?


I never said all. I said any. Any guy that is only concerned about getting ass from his
bitches can't be really suppourtive. And there are PLENTY of guys like that. I edited my
message so people wouldn't take it that way. Apparently I was too late.


Straight people are never into domination? Can I judge most straight people by the way
dominatrixes act? Is "mistressdominator.com" an accurate representation of what goes on
in straight bedrooms at night?


I'll assume you mean undesirable.... and gays are not undesirable. As a matter of fact, gays
have the most disposable income since we don't have to raise children. Corporations desire
that disposable income quite a bit.


Should you be the only male on earth then?
[/b]

Great reasoning. Nobel prize for logic.


It's not. It's natural. If you weren't supposed to have earwax you would not have earwax.


Depending on what species you are it could be.


To serve me, of course.


Ditto.
You have been insulting, arrogant, and downright evil.


And here is your inevitable fucking question: Why?


I've admitted that my single accusation was based on my own personal experience. Now
you answer the questions.


I've been on this board longer than you've probably been alive. I suggest you "piss off" if
you can't think of anything other than insults to reply with.





At least YOU taking it that way was... that's why I changed it.
Ever hear the term "pussy whipped"? You could be in subourdination and not even know
it.


Moral desirability.... what makes one morally desirable? Conformity?


How can love be a mistake?


Exactly. But I don't think all people that don't like strawberries are mistakes, and I
certainly wouldn't want to weed them out of the gene pool.


My argument is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
To me, it seems as though your claims that homosexuality is a mistake and a dirty thing
seem to be far fetched. That homosexuals should not exist in the first place is even worse
still. At the same time you say that homosexuals have a right to exist and I see a
contradiction there. You have yet to involve any sort of substantiation for your claims,
aside from "they are" and "fuck you." The latter being quite convincing....


You're welcome. I aim to please.


No-one ever said you were rational.


Now it's time for you to defend your accusations, and you've made many more of them
than I. You haven't even admitted having ANY experience in any of your accusations,
aside from "once seeing a butch-type"


Yay... now what about YOU?


Never really had a use for it. Quotation marks make it easier for everyone. You can see
my response and what i'm responding to, AND you can quote BOTH in your response so
there is no loss of continuity.





I'm just happy I'm immune...


Well then, too bad for you I guess.


Or like the blonde


No idea why then?


No, but there's always "piss off"


You know, there are some people that don't WANT to know if their child is a boy or a
girl. They don't care if it's straight or gay. Blonde or brunette. And frankly, that kind of
genetic engineering will never be available to the entire population. And if by some strange
miracle it does become available to everyone, some people still wouldn't use it.

Again, is there a reason why homosexuality is "unfortunate" to you? Is it just because you
don't like the idea?


Sure it is. If everyone was rational the human race would be perfect.


Well then, I have made no accusations either. I expressed my opinion. It is my opinion that
homophobes are more likely to be abusive.

You've encountered effeminate homosexuals? Personally?


Oh, you've seen through my clever disguise of caring too much





You know that such genetic engineering has been proven to CAUSE more defects than it
cures. Tampering with genetics is an imperfect science as of yet. 90% of genetically
engineered creatures die in the embrionic stage. Also, you can bet that the republicans
aren't going to allow designer babies any time in the forseeable future.


Unfortunately, you are in a dying breed. Hehe. People who think like you are dying off
faster than the people that can't reproduce. Now THAT's funny.


Exactly. Perfect.


And if I happen across research suppourting my opinion?


That's funny... In the hundreds of times i've been to gay bars and clubs I have NEVER met
a gay person who was effeminate. I was beginning to think that the "gay controlled media"
made the whole effeminate homosexual stereotype up so that homosexuals would be a
source of entertainment.





Lets say you consider blue eyes a defect. Thus: designer babies.
Again, you have yet to demonstrate that being gay is bad.


Go to amsterdam and see if that still rings true.


...and? It's a damn good exception if i do say so myself. And the rest of the world becomes
more western every day.


That should not be hard to find, given that there are six billion people in the world.


A cross dresser is not necessarily a homosexual, and vice versa. Some drag queens are
more masculine than you are. Just because you wear womens clothes doesn't mean you act
like a woman.





...and?


But if you remove a segment of dna you must replace it with something otherwise the
genetic code is incomplete.


Given that you are the one making a claim(fact or opinion) it falls upon you to substantiate
that claim. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.


Been there. Houston has a thriving gay community.


The next step after tolerance is acceptance. As tolerance grows it evolves into acceptance.


Not yet.


I have met homosexual transvestites. They are not particularly effeminate.





And what useful genetic information would that be?


How? How would you remove a gene from a being that it's already been activated in? The
logistics of replacing every gene in every cell is mind boggling.
And what if homosexual activity is instinctual, not genetic? A subconscious choice?

[Bob McDob]

I move we begin research into candidates for invasion / invaders.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And That my friend is why i stoped posting there, infact that very debate and conversation(used to be moonblade)
But yes let us begin invasion plans

[haas mark]

Goddamn.....

[The Dark]

I personally believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. From what I have seen of homosexual people I am friends with, they are perfectly normal people (well, except verilon, but there's always an exception ) who just happen to have an alternate sexual orientation to what is "typical" in society. Being heterosexual parents is no guarantee of providing a solid household. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and from watching such things occur, a divorce is very traumatic to most children. While the influence of both masculine and feminine role models should be allowed to imprint a child, careful selection of schoolteachers, whether by heterosexual or homosexual parents, should provide such influences. There is no evidence that being raised by homosexuals will "turn" a heterosexual into a homosexual, just as there is no evidence the other way. In short, the only reason to ban homosexual couples from adoption is sexual discrimination, which could very well be considered a violation of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
[quote="Amendment XIV"]
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This Amendment provides for "equal protection of the laws" and requires that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges...of citizens." To refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt a child is to refuse them the privilege of raising the next generation of the nation, and is an intolerable injustice to the citizens of the United States.