CDZ Should Homosexual People Be Allowed To Legally Adopt Children?

[Asclepias]

Hmmm...

... Wonder what would happen if a county clerk...

... wouldn't issue the adoption certificate...

... based on religious objections?

They go to jail or get another job.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

as long as you try to dictate from emotion instead of solid fact you will never understand what exactly it is Im saying and which side of things I am ultimately on.

It's interesting and telling how EVERY TIME that I make a rational and logical case for equality that you guys can't deal with...EVERY TIME that I back you to the wall, you accuse me of being emotional as in irrational. Discrimination, my friend is what is irrational.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

as long as you try to dictate from emotion instead of solid fact you will never understand what exactly it is Im saying and which side of things I am ultimately on.

It's interesting and tell how EVERY TIME that I make a rational and logical case for equality that you guys can't deal with...EVERY TIME that I back you to the wall, you accuse me of being emotional as in irrational. Discrimination, my friend is what is irrational.

have you considered that It might only be rational and logical in your own mind?

 

[Asclepias]

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

as long as you try to dictate from emotion instead of solid fact you will never understand what exactly it is Im saying and which side of things I am ultimately on.

It's interesting and tell how EVERY TIME that I make a rational and logical case for equality that you guys can't deal with...EVERY TIME that I back you to the wall, you accuse me of being emotional as in irrational. Discrimination, my friend is what is irrational.

have you considered that It might only be rational and logical in your own mind?

Have you considered that other people believe the poster to be rational?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

"Gay" parents have been around raising their children for ions. You just didn't "know" they were gay.

and either did their opposite sex spouse. or their kids, or their neighbors.

That had no effect on their parenting; only their marriage. If I'm understanding your posts correctly & molestation is your concern, there is no greater threat in a "gay parent" household than there is an a straight parent household.

I never mentioned molestation, you assumed.
is that something that you personally see as an issue here?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Adoption is not a right in the sense that marriage is. However, that does not mean that gay people can be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to qualify as adoptive parents, simply because they are gay.

You say “just because they are gay” as if it means nothing. It's like speaking of disallowing a blind person to be a taxi driver, as if being blind means nothing.

A set of parents means a father and a mother—not two of one and none of the other. As much as those in the LGBpbWTF movement wish to deny it, there are very real and important differences between male and female, and it matters that a child needs one of each in order to get the fullness of the upbringing and example that will prepare that child to seek a marriage partner when he is an adult,and to properly relate to that partner.

I know how to be a man, because my father showed me, by example.

I knew what to look for and expect in a wife,because of the example that my mother set.

I know how to treat my wife, and how to expect my wife to treat me, because of the example set by my father and my mother in how they treated and related to each other.

You just cannot get that without a proper set of parents, a father and a mother, joined in marriage and faithful to it.

 

[Asclepias]

Adoption is not a right in the sense that marriage is. However, that does not mean that gay people can be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to qualify as adoptive parents, simply because they are gay.

You say “just because they are gay” as if it means nothing. It's like speaking of disallowing a blind person to be a taxi driver, as if being blind means nothing.

A set of parents means a father and a mother—not two of one and none of the other. As much as those in the LGBpbWTF movement wish to deny it, there are very real and important differences between male and female, and it matters that a child needs one of each in order to get the fullness of the upbringing and example that will prepare that child to seek a marriage partner when he is an adult,and to properly relate to that partner.

I know how to be a man, because my father showed me, by example.

I knew what to look for and expect in a wife,because of the example that my mother set.

I know how to treat my wife, and how to expect my wife to treat me, because of the example set by my father and my mother in how they treated and related to each other.

You just cannot get that without a proper set of parents, a father and a mother, joined in marriage and faithful to it.

Who told you a set of parents means a father and a mother vs two fathers or two mothers?

par·ent
ˈperənt/
noun

1. 1.
   a father or mother.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

as long as you try to dictate from emotion instead of solid fact you will never understand what exactly it is Im saying and which side of things I am ultimately on.

It's interesting and tell how EVERY TIME that I make a rational and logical case for equality that you guys can't deal with...EVERY TIME that I back you to the wall, you accuse me of being emotional as in irrational. Discrimination, my friend is what is irrational.

have you considered that It might only be rational and logical in your own mind?

Have you? Your really grasping at straws now old sport

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Yes.

Both my parents are straight, but I'm bi. If logic is consistent, gay parents should raise straight children.

Even among children who are raised by homosexual “parents”, without the benefit of having both a father and a mother, the vast overwhelming majority are going to be heterosexual, and will eventual want to settle into a marriage with a spouse of the opposite sex.

Men and women are different, and for one to relate to the other is often not easy. I've been married for twenty years now, and I still struggle to understand and relate to my wife, because of these differences. I hate to think of how difficult it would be, if I had not had the benefit of a genuine set of parents—a father and a mother—to show me by example how it's done. I hate to think of innocent children willfully deprived of this benefit in order to cater to the desired of immoral perverts who care more about their own perversions than they care about the well-being of the next generation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who told you a set of parents means a father and a mother vs two fathers or two mothers?

par·ent
ˈperənt/
noun

1. 1.
   a father or mother.

We can start with basic biology.

A human child does not even come into existence without both a father and a mother having been involved.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Yes.

Both my parents are straight, but I'm bi. If logic is consistent, gay parents should raise straight children.

Even among children who are raised by homosexual “parents”, without the benefit of having both a father and a mother, the vast overwhelming majority are going to be heterosexual, and will eventual want to settle into a marriage with a spouse of the opposite sex.

Men and women are different, and for one to relate to the other is often not easy. I've been married for twenty years now, and I still struggle to understand and relate to my wife, because of these differences. I hate to think of how difficult it would be, if I had not had the benefit of a genuine set of parents—a father and a mother—to show me by example how it's done. I hate to think of innocent children willfully deprived of this benefit in order to cater to the desired of immoral perverts who care more about their own perversions than they care about the well-being of the next generation.

how about the kids in the traditional family where the parents fight all the time, or one of the parents is an alcoholic or drug addict.
there are always exceptions

 

[Asclepias]

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Yes.

Both my parents are straight, but I'm bi. If logic is consistent, gay parents should raise straight children.

Even among children who are raised by homosexual “parents”, without the benefit of having both a father and a mother, the vast overwhelming majority are going to be heterosexual, and will eventual want to settle into a marriage with a spouse of the opposite sex.

Men and women are different, and for one to relate to the other is often not easy. I've been married for twenty years now, and I still struggle to understand and relate to my wife, because of these differences. I hate to think of how difficult it would be, if I had not had the benefit of a genuine set of parents—a father and a mother—to show me by example how it's done. I hate to think of innocent children willfully deprived of this benefit in order to cater to the desired of immoral perverts who care more about their own perversions than they care about the well-being of the next generation.

They can get their modeling behavior from anyone. It doesnt have to be a parent. Also in the gay relationships I have personally witnessed there is "male" gender role from one parent and a "female" gender role from the other.

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you a set of parents means a father and a mother vs two fathers or two mothers?

par·ent
ˈperənt/
noun

1. 1.
   a father or mother.

We can start with basic biology.

A human child does not even come into existence without both a father and a mother having been involved.

That has nothing to do with being a parent though but nice deflection.

 

[playtime]

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

"Gay" parents have been around raising their children for ions. You just didn't "know" they were gay.

and either did their opposite sex spouse. or their kids, or their neighbors.

That had no effect on their parenting; only their marriage. If I'm understanding your posts correctly & molestation is your concern, there is no greater threat in a "gay parent" household than there is an a straight parent household.

I never mentioned molestation, you assumed.
is that something that you personally see as an issue here?

No I certainly do NOT. But what I don't understand is why you said you would accept lesbians adopting rather than gay men (I think that's what you wrote) & (the possibility of molestation) is why I thought perhaps is why you were against gay adoption. Other than that...I don't understand why you would have reservations.

 

[playtime]

Adoption is not a right in the sense that marriage is. However, that does not mean that gay people can be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to qualify as adoptive parents, simply because they are gay.

You say “just because they are gay” as if it means nothing. It's like speaking of disallowing a blind person to be a taxi driver, as if being blind means nothing.

A set of parents means a father and a mother—not two of one and none of the other. As much as those in the LGBpbWTF movement wish to deny it, there are very real and important differences between male and female, and it matters that a child needs one of each in order to get the fullness of the upbringing and example that will prepare that child to seek a marriage partner when he is an adult,and to properly relate to that partner.

I know how to be a man, because my father showed me, by example.

I knew what to look for and expect in a wife,because of the example that my mother set.

I know how to treat my wife, and how to expect my wife to treat me, because of the example set by my father and my mother in how they treated and related to each other.

You just cannot get that without a proper set of parents, a father and a mother, joined in marriage and faithful to it.

Really? There are plenty of marriages where there's domestic abuse. THAT is also learned by a son, how to be a 'man' & treat his wife. There's plenty of 2 parent (hetero) households where there is no love, only a bunch of related people living under the same roof... dysfunctional as can be & their kids grow up with many issues & can't have real emotional relationships because of the examples they had while growing up.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

how about the kids in the traditional family where the parents fight all the time, or one of the parents is an alcoholic or drug addict.
there are always exceptions

That some families built on genuine marriage sometimes fail in rather bad ways is no excuse for putting children into a fake family based on a fake marriage, that is almost certain to fail them.

 

[Asclepias]

how about the kids in the traditional family where the parents fight all the time, or one of the parents is an alcoholic or drug addict.
there are always exceptions

That some families built on genuine marriage sometimes fail in rather bad ways is no excuse for putting children into a fake family based on a fake marriage, that is almost certain to fail them.

Who made the determination the marriages or families were fake?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They can get their modeling behavior from anyone. It doesnt [sic] have to be a parent. Also in the gay relationships I have personally witnessed there is "male" gender role from one parent and a "female" gender role from the other.

Seriously? You're going to claim that effeminate homosexual male is a suitable replacement for a mother, that such a freak will be able to provide the example that will show a child what to expect from and how to relate to a woman?

I guess I shouldn't be so surprised to find that some think that, in a society that is so degraded and insane that there are many who think that a Bruce-Jenner-type freak is the same thing a a woman.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who told you a set of parents means a father and a mother vs two fathers or two mothers?

par·ent
ˈperənt/
noun

1. 1.
   a father or mother.

We can start with basic biology.

A human child does not even come into existence without both a father and a mother having been involved.

That has nothing to do with being a parent though but nice deflection.

It has everything to do with it. However you might try to distort the word, “parenting” does not happen at all until a child is created, and that does not happen without there being both a father and a mother.

 

[Asclepias]

They can get their modeling behavior from anyone. It doesnt [sic] have to be a parent. Also in the gay relationships I have personally witnessed there is "male" gender role from one parent and a "female" gender role from the other.

Seriously? You're going to claim that effeminate homosexual male is a suitable replacement for a mother, that such a freak will be able to provide the example that will show a child what to expect from and how to relate to a woman?

I guess I shouldn't be so surprised to find that some think that, in a society that is so degraded and insane that there are many who think that a Bruce-Jenner-type freak is the same thing a a woman.

Before you [sic] yourself to death in an attempt to deflect be aware I have little use of grammar on a message board. It seems you are reduced to making claims that require someone to adhere to your definitions of "suitable" which arent really important or relevant.