Gays/Lesbians and Adoption

[haas mark]

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.

*thwap* lol, I know you mean well, but no, I'm NOT normal...as for ability to raise kids, well, I had to half-raise 5 brothers and sisters....I am pretty well capable of raising kids. Whether I'd actually WANT to is where my issue stands...

[ArthurDent]

When two men can have sex and make (without medical intervention of any kind) a baby, I'll support both gay marriage and gay adoption. Until that time my vote is firmly in the NO column.

[haas mark]

When two men can have sex and make (without medical intervention of any kind) a baby, I'll support both gasy marriage and gay adoption. Until that time my vote is firmly in the NO column.

Why? Where (other than the Bible) is it stated that sex must create a child?

[ArthurDent]

When two men can have sex and make (without medical intervention of any kind) a baby, I'll support both gasy marriage and gay adoption. Until that time my vote is firmly in the NO column.

Why? Where (other than the Bible) is it stated that sex must create a child?

Mother Nature has had that pretty much covered for...well, gee....the entire procreative history of our species.

[haas mark]

When two men can have sex and make (without medical intervention of any kind) a baby, I'll support both gasy marriage and gay adoption. Until that time my vote is firmly in the NO column.

Why? Where (other than the Bible) is it stated that sex must create a child?

Mother Nature has had that pretty much covered for...well, gee....the entire procreative history of our species.

Maybe you forget to look into the fact that there are many animals od many species (yes, humans are animals) that act in homosexual manners?

[ArthurDent]

Maybe you forget to look into the fact that there are many animals od many species (yes, humans are animals) that act in homosexual manners?

And how many of them who act in a homosexual manner reproduce?

[haas mark]

Maybe you forget to look into the fact that there are many animals od many species (yes, humans are animals) that act in homosexual manners?

And how many of them who act in a homosexual manner reproduce?

More than I can remember at this point.....sheep, dogs, cats, dolphins, BIRDS, and others...

[Kuja]

Maybe you forget to look into the fact that there are many animals od many species (yes, humans are animals) that act in homosexual manners?

And how many of them who act in a homosexual manner reproduce?

More than I can remember at this point.....sheep, dogs, cats, dolphins, BIRDS, and others...

He means WITH HOMOSEXUAL PARTNERS, Veri.

[haas mark]

Oops, misread that. Anyways, does it matter if they reproduce? Also, again, where does it say that sex MUST cause reproduction?

[Stormbringer]

When two men can have sex and make (without medical intervention of any kind) a baby, I'll support both gay marriage and gay adoption. Until that time my vote is firmly in the NO column.

What about infertile couples? because they can't concieve should they be denied the ability to adopt?

[Kuja]

Oops, misread that. Anyways, does it matter if they reproduce?

Darwinian law, Verilon.

Also, again, where does it say that sex MUST cause reproduction?

It IS the rule with any sepcies that has two sexes, Verilon.

[haas mark]

Oops, misread that. Anyways, does it matter if they reproduce?

Darwinian law, Verilon.

Where does Darwin come into the society? How does Darwin affect whether gays should be able to adopt?

Also, again, where does it say that sex MUST cause reproduction?

It IS the rule with any sepcies that has two sexes, Verilon.

Maybe so, but where in nature is it specified that homosexuality is not allowed?

[Kuja]

Where does Darwin come into the society? How does Darwin affect whether gays should be able to adopt?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about ANIMALS, as in, without society.

Maybe so, but where in nature is it specified that homosexuality is not allowed?

Nowhere, but I thought we were talking about animals WITHOUT society at this point.



My stance: if you can provide a decent, positive home for a kid, you can adopt.

[ArthurDent]

:oops: Oops, misread that. Anyways, does it matter if they reproduce? Also, again, where does it say that sex MUST cause reproduction?

Reproduction matters to me. Our design requires that we have one of each sex from our species to reproduce. One of the strongest drives, even for us, is reproduction. Science has shown us that men and women think and act differently. In essence, a child placed in an environment where it cannot learn from both sexes will have greater challenges than a child who has that environment.

As for sex and reproduction, up until the last few decades the only way for us to procreate was sexual intercourse. Even with modern medical technology you still have to have a part from the male (sperm) and a part from the female (egg). Every child conceived is the product of a man and a woman. As for cloning, I'm not sure that could count as procreation, but I digress.

I think it's bad form to try to break a natural reproductive scheme that has worked for thousands if not millions of years. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[haas mark]

Where does Darwin come into the society? How does Darwin affect whether gays should be able to adopt?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about ANIMALS, as in, without society.

Maybe, but seeing as humans are animals, and the topic of the thread, we must incluse humans and society. And animals all have their own societies, if subtler than our own.

Maybe so, but where in nature is it specified that homosexuality is not allowed?

Nowhere, but I thought we were talking about animals WITHOUT society at this point.

See above.

My stance: if you can provide a decent, positive home for a kid, you can adopt.

Ditto that one.

[Stormbringer]

Oops, misread that. Anyways, does it matter if they reproduce? Also, again, where does it say that sex MUST cause reproduction?

Reproduction matters to me. Our design requires that we have one of each sex from our species to reproduce. One of the strongest drives, even for us, is reproduction. Science has shown us that men and women think and act differently. In essence, a child placed in an environment where it cannot learn from both sexes will have greater challenges than a child who has that environment.

As for sex and reproduction, up until the last few decades the only way for us to procreate was sexual intercourse. Even with modern medical technology you still have to have a part from the male (sperm) and a part from the female (egg). Every child conceived is the product of a man and a woman. As for cloning, I'm not sure that could count as procreation, but I digress.

I think it's bad form to try to break a natural reproductive scheme that has worked for thousands if not millions of years. Just my thoughts on the matter.

If I may? What about infertile couples? Should they be denied the right to adopt simply because they can't have children naturally?

[Kuja]

If I may? What about infertile couples? Should they be denied the right to adopt simply because they can't have children naturally?

I'll back up Stormy on this one. Do you believe that infertile couples should be denied children?

[haas mark]

Oops, misread that. Anyways, does it matter if they reproduce? Also, again, where does it say that sex MUST cause reproduction?

Reproduction matters to me. Our design requires that we have one of each sex from our species to reproduce. One of the strongest drives, even for us, is reproduction. Science has shown us that men and women think and act differently. In essence, a child placed in an environment where it cannot learn from both sexes will have greater challenges than a child who has that environment.

Just because it has two parents from one sex does not mean that the child cannot learn from both sexes. That is why we have school, and relatives. Many teachers in a child's life are going to be of both sexes, so the child will learn how a person of the opposite sex of the parents will act and feel. There are also other children at the school...yet another learning opprtunity. Plus, we have FAMILIES, damn it. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins. Interaction with family is a must.

As for sex and reproduction, up until the last few decades the only way for us to procreate was sexual intercourse. Even with modern medical technology you still have to have a part from the male (sperm) and a part from the female (egg). Every child conceived is the product of a man and a woman. As for cloning, I'm not sure that could count as procreation, but I digress.

And you miss the point. It shouldn't matter whether the people can procreate with each other....all that matters is that they have feelings for each other, and a lot of times, that is expressed through intercourse. Are you banning condoms and birth control as well?

I think it's bad form to try to break a natural reproductive scheme that has worked for thousands if not millions of years. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Again, are you banning technology? Invitro fertilization? Sperm donation? Condoms? Birth control? Tying of the fallopian tubes? What is your stance there? That is also "interrupting the natural reproductive scheme."

[The Dark]

VERY hypothetical here (and I don't believe this, I'm just throwing it out because it was something I thought of and discarded as a theory). Could homosexuality be nature's attempt to relieve overpopulation in a region? If a population is going to destroy its resources, then its population must be decreased in some way. Since homosexuals do not naturally reproduce, it would ensure a smaller next generation, which would allow for a longer overall survival of the species as a whole.

Personally, I don't hold any belief in this, but I'm just curious as to what the various sides in the discussion will think (*prepares to duck the thwap that will most likely be coming*).

[ArthurDent]

If I may? What about infertile couples? Should they be denied the right to adopt simply because they can't have children naturally?

If you speak of a heterosexual couple that is willing to provide an environment where a child can thrive, they should adopt.

[Stormbringer]

If I may? What about infertile couples? Should they be denied the right to adopt simply because they can't have children naturally?

If you speak of a heterosexual couple that is willing to provide an environment where a child can thrive, they should adopt.

Then what is the difference between a homsexual couple that would provide the same environment?

[haas mark]

If I may? What about infertile couples? Should they be denied the right to adopt simply because they can't have children naturally?

If you speak of a heterosexual couple that is willing to provide an environment where a child can thrive, they should adopt.

If I may be so bold, you can think of homosexuals as "infertile." They just happen to be attracted to the same sex. Therefore, by YOUR logic, they should be able to adopt.

[ArthurDent]

Just because it has two parents from one sex does not mean that the child cannot learn from both sexes. That is why we have school, and relatives. Many teachers in a child's life are going to be of both sexes, so the child will learn how a person of the opposite sex of the parents will act and feel. There are also other children at the school...yet another learning opprtunity. Plus, we have FAMILIES, damn it. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins. Interaction with family is a must.

There is more to learning than that. Indeed a child won't enter school until 4 or 5 years of age and on average they really won't spend all that much time with family outside of the nuclear unit. So really the entire foundation for their whole life and how they will relate to others is in those formative years in the home. If they are given the attention they need, and well deserve, they will be better prepared for when they do venture forth into the world.

Again, are you banning technology? Invitro fertilization? Sperm donation? Condoms? Birth control? Tying of the fallopian tubes? What is your stance there? That is also "interrupting the natural reproductive scheme."

No, I'm not banning technology. In fact I have friends that have been trying for almost a decade to have kids. If technology can help them acheive that goal, great. But I am wary of using technology to supplant the natural order of things. Nature made us a certain way, I think it unwise to change it.

[Kuja]

There is more to learning than that. Indeed a child won't enter school until 4 or 5 years of age and on average they really won't spend all that much time with family outside of the nuclear unit. So really the entire foundation for their whole life and how they will relate to others is in those formative years in the home. If they are given the attention they need, and well deserve, they will be better prepared for when they do venture forth into the world.

So if a gay couple provided that attention, why should they not be allowed to adopt?

No, I'm not banning technology. In fact I have friends that have been trying for almost a decade to have kids. If technology can help them acheive that goal, great. But I am wary of using technology to supplant the natural order of things. Nature made us a certain way, I think it unwise to change it.

Are you afraid everyone's going to become gay/bi or something?

[ArthurDent]

If I may be so bold, you can think of homosexuals as "infertile." They just happen to be attracted to the same sex. Therefore, by YOUR logic, they should be able to adopt.

No, because they cannot provide the necessary foundation for a child during the formative years.

Look, I'm not saying that gays are bad people or are evil. I just see, from my experience with my child, that children need a mother and a father so they can be rounded.