CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gay Adoption
Alright, so here is the issue at hand:
Some people say that children need a mother and a father to raise us, to give us both viewpoints of gender: masculinity, femininity and all the issues those entail. However, there are others who say that gender does not matter when it comes to child rearing; two women (or two men) can do just as well as a man and a woman.
You should care. What if the kid thinks that everyone has two Daddies or two mommies. How are they going to adequately explain the "birds and the bees?"
Why should I care? Explain one reason why I should care, as I said above, if the kid comes out okay, and is taken care of? People come out of single parent, and single-sex, relationships just fine. I say go ahead. I do not think I am so high and mighty that my own opinion justifies the rule of behavior for a whole section of society. I am just not that self-confident, I guess...
But, I'm getting off subject. It's not my place to care. The "birds and the bees" get explained just fine to boys and girls that never had the opportunity to have mothers or fathers. And I think you know it, Bill.
I have actually never been given the ' birds and the bees ' speech from my mother or father. Even if a couple is homosexual they still know what the speech is I mean I have never heard it from my parents but I have heard it from other people and on TV. So what difference does it make that a couple wants a kid even if it is a couple of 2 males or 2 females. Studies have already proven that a child from a homosexual couple turns out the same as a child from a heterosexual couple.
If children should be amongst children that has a father(male) and mother(Female) the children is going to mock at them.They wont know how to act amongst children with normal parents.
generally, the kids that are going to mock them are going to find something to mock them about no matter who their parents are, and the people that accept them are going to accept them no matter who their parents are
Uh... you just explain to them that most people don't have two mommies/daddies. And I think that homosexuals understand, as you put it, the birds and the bees just as well as heteros.
What if the couple breaks up who'll get custody? How will they determine who is the better parent? How will the adoption agency approve the couple? Don't they say they should get married!!!!!!!!!
That's waaaay outside the scope of the debate. I have no clue. It's a tough moral decision, and one that I don't have to make for a reason. I couldn't; and I'm not qualified to do so even if I could.
Who gets custody if a straight couple breaks up? The better parent. Who would get custody is a gay couple breaks up? The better parent.
How do they determine the better parent? The same way they would with a straight couple. There are no differences, because father's have been fighting for their rights to their children.
And yes, parents should get married before they adopt. That's a great reason to let gays get married. Thank you, Tugman.
What if a heterosexual couple breaks up? Who will get custody? How will they determine who is the better parent?
If people like you would shut up gay people could get married. Some day your gay grandchildren will look down at their adopted child and explain "That's okay baby, your grandparents were clinically insane and unable to form a coherent thought. Lucky for us those crazy liberals took over and fixed things."
I swear everything you've said makes you look dumb... If your mom and dad broke up how would they share custody of their kids being a gay couple with kids doesn't make them different from anyone else. So there's no determining who's the better parent or who gets custody or anything we're all normal and the same no matter who or what gender we chose to be with.
Man, when will people just understand that we are humans first. Sexual orientation doesn't matter. It... It really doesn't.
Instead of asking yourself "Should gay couples adopt?" Ask yourself if ANY couples without any moral standards should adopt. Once again, sexual orientation does NOT bear on one's moral standing, those who think so are fools.
I don't think any couples without good moral standards should adopt. That includes homosexuals. If it makes you feel any better that also includes a whole lot of straight people.
I believe the sexual orientation does bare on one's moral standing. Why am I a fool for thinking that?
So what you are saying is that two men can never love each other in a romantic way? That they can never want to spend the rest of their lives together, through good times and bad, in sickness and in health? Why? What in your 18 years of life allows you to be so certain of this claim? Are all homosexuals who claim to be in love lying? And now you are calling me arrogant? I am not the one stepping on people's liberty? I am not the one who is calling an entire group of humanity Would you marry a man? Then why should a lesbian be forced to marry a man? To claim that you are not denying people rights is as ludacris as the argument segregationists used to keep interracial marriage illegal: "we're not violating their rights, because no one can marry outside of their gender, not just blacks."
I have a problem with the fact that your only reasons stem from a 2,000 year old book, and not from reason. Should we make shellfish illegal? The bible says we should. How about the part of the Bible that says, when a man sleeps with his daughter they both should be put to death. Allow me to repeat that for you: if a little girl is raped by her dad, she should be killed. By basing your ideas on religion, and not reason, you are essentially creating a theocracy. Are you familiar with the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
A law based on religious reasons is an establishment of religion by definition. Your definition of family is equally bullshit. If I had a religion that said black people were evil, could I make laws that would discriminate against them? Well your own church thought so up until the 1970s.
Until you give me an actual reason as to why gays should not adopt, you are still a fool for denying Americans rights. Your failure to recognize love in more then the narrow forms that your religion defines shows both narrow mindedness and bigotry. I can say this and know that in no way am I being arrogant, because if you were to ask me why I believe any action is either moral or immoral, I could give you reasons, and not mindlessly quote some book. Whether I am right or wrong is certainly debatable, but at least I can back up my beliefs.
revelation from God vs a television show. Hmmm. I chose not to watch that video because I have already seen it. Do you really think that I take everything from the bible literally and blindly? Because if you do then you are a fool.
Do you know where those quotes are from Exactly? I would like to know what books they are from within the bible, and what the situation was. Looks like you blindly took those to garner support.
Then why should a lesbian be forced to marry a man?
Haha really!? I don't remember saying anything about forcing marriage on people. Do you?
Your definition of family is equally bullshit.
Oh really? How so exactly?
Once again Arrogant.
I want to tell me exactly what law my church made against black people? Or wanted to make.
Once again I am not a fool and I am not denying people rights.
Now lets take the religion out of this, why should we change the definition of marriage for a select few?
Give me a reason why homosexuals should raise children. And I'm tired of hearing about that friend of yours, give me an actual reason. You are the one who wants change you should have to answer my question first.
I doubt you will so just go watch the west wing and be a little follower of the media.
Looks like you blindly took those to garner support.
Well I guess looks can be deceiving.
Shellfish:
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)
A girl who is raped must be put to death:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Selling you daughter into slavery:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Is this enough, or would you like me to keep going. Do not forget Jake that I go to church every week, so I know plenty about Christianity.
As far as racism in the LDS church, how about we just look to Brigham Young?
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed."
Mormons used this, and other racist statements made by leaders of the Church, as a reason to oppose interracial marriage.
As for forcing people to marry, that is exactly what you said. You said that a homosexual could get married, just not to someone of the same sex. This means that if they want to marry the have to marry someone they don't want to.
Now lets take the religion out of this, why should we change the definition of marriage for a select few?
You want to take religion out of it? It's about time.
Marriage is a social construct. That means it was created by people, and as such it is in our power to change it. We now know that not everyone is born heterosexual, but in fact many people are born homosexual. If marriage is defined as between only a man and a woman, these people are excluded from starting a family of their own. In addition, homosexuals make up more than "a select few" and therefore it affects millions of people in the U.S. At the same time, extending the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, would have absolutely no effect on the marriage of straight couples. In this sense marriage isn't being changed at all. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because love knows no gender.
Give me a reason why homosexuals should raise children. And I'm tired of hearing about that friend of yours, give me an actual reason. You are the one who wants change you should have to answer my question first.
Actually, in most places it was not illegal for homosexual couples to adopt. Then people started making laws against it. These laws were declared unconstitutional, but people then passed amendments. In this sense you are wrong about me wanting the change, however, I will still back up my point.
Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt because they have been shown to be equally capable parents through numerous studies source. Therefore, homosexual parents would be a great group of people to adopt orphans, and therefore there would be less foster children. In addition, people should have the right to raise a family. Since no harm is done by homosexual parenting, there is no reason to outlaw adoption by homosexuals.
Jake you claim that you do not "take everything from the bible literally and blindly"? and yet you still fail to give me reasons why homosexuality is wrong that are not religious. I can only interpret this to mean you have no reasons. Therefore you are forcing your religion on others. For someone who claims to be patriotic, this is the least American action I have heard in a long time.
Edit:
I forgot one more Bible quote. It's one of my favorites:
Jake you claim that you do not "take everything from the bible literally and blindly"? and yet you still fail to give me reasons why homosexuality is wrong that are not religious.
Amen. A that's a good video! Thank you for posting it.
"why homosexuality is wrong that are not religious."
That is because God is involved with everything. You people keep talking about "the bible the bible", well if you don't believe in God which both of you don't than the it is irrelevant. This is about God.
we will all take that as a no, and since the government isn't allowed to establish your religion as its own, then the government shouldn't say that something is illegal because your god doesn't like it.
Yes Pineapple, listen to the 17 year old who lives with his parents about what is childish.
""we live in a country of religious freedom... where religion has the freedom to oppress."
FALSE
Now you are blaming America. Well I'm on Americas side. You should be more grateful to live in this country."
Remember the pyramid that you so arrogantly showed Pineapple the other day?
Well you just resorted to contradiction, responding to tone, and ad hominem.
You said "FALSE" without providing evidence.
You criticized Pineapple for "blaming America" without providing evidence for the actual argument.
You then criticized Pineapple herself telling her to be more grateful, while once again failing to argue the actual point.
Irony sure is a fickle mistress.
Furthermore she is on America's side too, which is why when she sees a problem with the country she brings it up. Criticizing the country for it's wrongdoings is the most patriotic thing you can do.
No, you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is. Insulting someone is not necessarily an ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you insult someone instead of addressing the argument in question.
I wanted you to understand your hypocrisy for criticizing Pineapple for not using accepted debating technique and then doing the same thing to an even greater degree.
How exactly did she falsely accuse the country of anything? She, along with anyone else who would want to, cannot marry someone of the sex due to the opinion of religion. I think that would qualify as religious oppression.
Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
A religion is unjustly exercising its authority by forcing everyone in the country to heed by it's teachings. Your church specifically I might add was primarily responsible for the passage of Proposition 8 due it's significant funding of an intolerant and fear-mongering campaign.
"I don't plan on adding a reason because it's so obvious."
I think this is your biggest problem. You accept everything your parents, priest, etc. tell you and don't even look for reasons because "it's so obvious."
"Ad hominem is when you insult someone instead of addressing the argument in question."
Well in that case I'm not guilty. If anything I'm the one that tried to tell people how ridiculous it is to do that.
"How exactly did she falsely accuse the country of anything?"
By saying that this country allows oppression. It does not. Yes it has in the past. But nothing to that degree is going on right now.
"Your church specifically I might add was primarily responsible for the passage of Proposition 8 due it's significant funding of an intolerant and fear-mongering campaign."
Intolerant? Fear mongering? How so?
"I think this is your biggest problem. You accept everything your parents, priest, etc. tell you and don't even look for reasons because "it's so obvious.""
Okay maybe it was a lame thing to say, I guess the ad homonym is contagious. But if I wasn't looking for a reason then I would go with the flow, not go to church, and do what is easy. Does that sound familiar to you?
"Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power"
I guess then, that I am being oppressed by you two double teaming me on every freaking debate.
"I'm the one that tried to tell people how ridiculous it is to do that. "
That may be, but you just practiced ad hominem against Pineapple.
"By saying that this country allows oppression. It does not. Yes it has in the past. But nothing to that degree is going on right now."
Saying that this country allows oppression is a false accusation? You need to read over American history again. The slaughter of Native Americans, slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps are all particularly relevant. The degree of oppression is impossible to quantify and totally irrelevant. Any amount of oppression is completely and totally unacceptable. It is a fact that due to religious opinions in this country, same-sex marriage is illegal. While this may not be as severe as slavery, that does not take away from the fact that it is oppression caused by religion and therefore is religious oppression.
"Intolerant? Fear mongering? How so? "
You want to see a fear mongering campaign? I was hoping you would ask.
If you can watch that video and tell me it is not using scare tactics and intolerance, then I am done debating you clearly we cannot agree.
"Okay maybe it was a lame thing to say, I guess the ad homonym[sic] is contagious."
Every time you criticize your opposition it is not an ad hominem. I responded to every one of your points and criticized something you said. And no it does not sound familiar to me. I did not follow any religious traditions as a child and I don't believe I even was told of my parents political affiliations until I had formulated my own opinions. Additionally I am more liberal than both of my parents, and I have changed their minds on many issues, while they have never changed my positions that I can recall.
"I guess then, that I am being oppressed by you two double teaming me on every freaking debate."
Quit belly-aching. I personally relish debating when outnumbered, but it should not make it any more difficult. If your arguments are valid, they will stand against an infinite number of people. There are other conservatives on this website and it is not our fault if they are too afraid to come to your aid.
"Saying that this country allows oppression is a false accusation? You need to read over American history again. The slaughter of Native Americans, slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps are all particularly relevant."
Thats exactly why I said "going on right now". Do you remember that? Or do you have selective reading?
As for the video, I see where you are coming from with the 'fear mongering'. But the thing is, everything in that video is true. If I don't want my kids being taught that homosexuality is normal or okay why should I have to worry about it?
I believe that it is wrong. In a democracy if the majority believe that something is wrong then it is fair. The minority can get over it or move to another country. Instead of fear mongering and saying that religion is bad because it will oppress you.
You said she should not accuse the country of oppression and I was pointing out that our country has a history of it. And as I said even though past oppression may have been worse, it does not take away from the oppression now. But you failed to respond to that point, typically.
No everything in that video is not true. Proposition 8 had nothing to do with schools or children. As I said in another recent post, under California law parents can remove their children from any health or family lesson. Proposition 8 did not even mention kids or adoption or education.
"In a democracy if the majority believe that something is wrong then it is fair. The minority can get over it or move to another country."
Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. If you had a true or false question, "Is America based on majority rules?", the answer would be false. The system is set up with majority rules and minority rights with the latter not being an afterthought. The founders specifically set it up that way to avoid the kind of oppression that they experienced in Great Britain. The majority does not have the legal right to oppress the minority. Morally I strongly disagree with you that the oppressed minority should just "get over it or move to another country." Should the slaves have just gotten over it? But of course morals are opinions so neither of us is right. Legally, however, you couldn't be more incorrect.
Jake, you're misquoting me now. Which I appreciate less than paraphrasing.
When I said, "If you don't have anymore valid points then shut up!" you simply quoted, "shut up!" And when I said, "If you don't make a valid point soon, you're going to look very stupid" you simply quoted, "you're going to look very stupid."
By leaving out those words, you attempted to make me look belligerent. Which in turn made you look stupid... which I warned you about.
And I'm not accusing the country of everything. I'm doing exactly what that guy is saying, accusing Mormonism. Because they spent millions of dollars to spread lies about the California constitution, schools, Obama, and a lot more.
Your Religion monetarily supported my oppression. (Evident by the above.)
"If you don't have anymore valid points then shut up!"
No. I will under no circumstances shut up, at your command. And it's still belligerent. Because regardless, you where telling me to shut up and assuming that I didn't have any more valid points.
And don't say that you where not because if that was true you wouldn't have said any of that.
"If you don't make a valid point soon, you're going to look very stupid"
I don't care what your opinion of me is. Is this getting through to you? At all?
"And I'm not accusing the country of everything."
I didn't say that you where. The key word there is everything. It sounded to me, (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you where blaming the U.S. for letting religion oppress people. If you where, then you are wrong.
"Because they spent millions of dollars to spread lies about the California constitution, schools, Obama, and a lot more."
What lies? I want you to tell me in full detail exactly what lies my church spread about all of those things that you so boldly stated. Go ahead. And prove that they are lies.
I was only challenging you to make an actually point. Which, at the time, you were not doing. I didn't actually want you to shut up.
"And I'm not accusing the country of everything."
I meant anything. But everything does work, too. Because everything includes anything. And no, I didn't accuse the country of anything or everything. I am blaming your religion for oppressing people. Your religion used lies and fear mongering, in order to change the law via 'democracy', to do so. And that is wrong, in my opinion.
Pineapple let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he can't click links and I will tell him what the site says okay?
Here were some of the lies spread by the Proponents of Prop 8:
Prop 8 doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. Prop 8 took away a right that gays already had. They were able to get married, and the passage of prop 8 took away that right. Regardless of whether not you agree with prop 8, it took away a right they already had and therefore is discrimination.
Children will be taught that same-sex marriage is ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not live in California. I cannot tell you how many ads I saw talking about how children would learn that homosexuality is alright. Regardless of how intolerant that is, it is a lie. Prop 8 mentioned nothing about education, and the California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell assured everyone that Prop 8 did not even mention education and under California law, parents can remove their children from any health or family instruction they disagree with.
There is no reason for them to be mentioning kids.
Oh by the way in watching that clip I found a lie. Well more of a half-truth. "Both presidential candidates support traditional marriage." What they don't say is that Obama opposed prop 8 and any ban on same-sex marriage. He took a lame wishy-washy stance, but he still opposed prop 8 and the video implied that he did not.
A little under a minute and a half in: "The rights of children are at risk. Children have the right to be raised by a mother and father."
This has nothing do with kids. Nothing in proposition 8 affected education or adoption. It was all lies and propaganda.
Another gem in that video. "We need to protect religious freedoms." So how does forcing everyone else to abide by your religion protect religious freedom? That seems a bit bassackwards to me.
Your religion was the main source of funds behind this campaign and all of these advertisements. Please I beg you, try to really think critically about all of this.
I like the color green. I think it's great. You like the color red. You are a bad person. I don't want my children to hang out with someone who likes the color red.
A lot of little boys don't grow up without father figures. Should we take every kid away from single mothers?
The thing is, Jake, that your morals are not exactly... moral.
The judging of a couple's ability to raise a child is not up to you. Gay people have fine morals! They have jobs, they pay taxes, they participate in committed loving relationships, they love and respect their parents. In fact, aside from who they love, there is nothing more "immoral" about homosexuals than straight people at all.
Other than what your faith teaches you, what don't you like about homosexuality?
We shouldn't take kids away from parents unless of course it's abuse or something.
"Gay people have fine morals! They have jobs, they pay taxes, they participate in committed loving relationships, they love and respect their parents."
Not to be crude but the same can be said for child molesters. Homosexuality is also a sin, but you don't believe in god so whats the point in debating?
"Other than what your faith teaches you, what don't you like about homosexuality?
"
Well, I don't like anything that distorts what a family really is. Our definitions of family and morality are obviously different. And it is a sin.
Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open.
You say yours eyes are open, that's great. Now try your brain.
Homosexuality has been a sin for only about 2000 years now...
You are a product of brainwashing. I'm not going to say that again, because as a product, you can't understand it. But you need to open your mind and understand that there is nothing wrong with being gay!
And again, the bible is not meant to be applied to law. So YES, gays should adopt.
And what is a family to you?
Family is an ambiguous word these days. I hope you don't have that picturesque little household with a white picket fence, with a mom and dad, and a Golden Retriever who brings in the paper, et cetera... because that would be weird.
It's a matter of perception. And I have to tell you that other than biblical references, there is no excuse for thinking being gay is wrong. Or for thinking that gay people can't raise children. They aren't retarded. They understand the world, and the people in it. And they have love to give, and can create a stable environment for a child just as well as a straight couple. Every difference is trivial.
"Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open."
If I blindly agreed with you would you be calling me closed minded?
People only seem to use the 'closed mind' argument against people they disagree with. That in it's self is pretty closed minded if you ask me.
"It being a 'sin' is irrelevant."
It may be to you, but it is not to me. Do you see how pointless this is?
"You are a product of brainwashing."
I can assume the same about you. You are young and for gay marriage/adoption. So I can assume that you have been brainwashed by the mainstream media. Just like you assumed me a Christian, of being brainwashed, ...because I'm Christian.
Don't call somebody closed minded and then make assumptions about their beliefs.
"And again, the bible is not meant to be applied to law. So YES, gays should adopt.
Well, yeah I believe in the separation of church and state but this is a democracy. I will vote based on what I want, and you can do nothing about it.
"I hope you don't have that picturesque little household with a white picket fence, with a mom and dad, and a Golden Retriever who brings in the paper, et cetera... because that would be weird."
Whats wrong with that!? The media must tell you that image is bad.
"Or for thinking that gay people can't raise children."
Hey, if it makes you feel any better. I think most gay people would make better parents than a lot of straight parents. Many people should not be able to adopt kids. I'm not singling anyone out.
I am calling you closed minded. You have to be willing to attempt to see the issue from the other person's point of view. I have tried to see this issue from your point of view, that of someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it to be so. But even if I accepted that, I would still have to forfeit that I can't find anything else wrong with it. So that one little fact, that the bible says it's wrong, isn't enough for me. But at least I have opened my mind and tried to understand it.
My mind is always open, at least when I'm talking to logical people (ie. not belligerent or insane).
I'm bisexual, remember? I was attracted to girls before I had even seen a television. So no, I'm not brainwashed. I'm fighting for what I know, and understand. I know I'm not an immoral person. I don't "sin." I'm a really good person, in fact. So to me, it feels like people want LGBT people to be all sinning and rebels and haters. No. We're just fun, sweet, people who are constantly attacked by a single idea that's seeded it's silly little butt into a whole mess of people's heads. The sinners are those hot Catholic school girls who take their shirts off for girls gone wild the second they get out of the house. In fact, that is what's wrong with the white picket fence scenario. It's too straight edge. The people who grow up in those houses don't, in my experience, even know what the real world is.
By opening your mind, I want you to try and think of homosexuality as "not a sin" for maybe just a minute. And I know your faith tells you not to do that, but that is a method of self preservation of the Church. You don't have to change you entire ideals forever. I just want you to imagine, and think. Then once you're done, you can go back and apply those thoughts. It's not a bad thing to do. It's like looking in a mirror... just get a little outside prospective.
You can vote however you like. It's your right. But, what I can do about it is try and help you understand that you are blindly hurting people and families by voting this way. You hurt people who just want to love and raise a family. And you are hurting families who are already established by invalidating their love for each other, and telling them it's blasphemy. If someone said that about your family or a member of your family, wouldn't it hurt you?
I forgot you're a Mormon, and not just a Christian. A family, to me, is a unit of people who love each other. With or without children, with or without a traditional marriage, with or without money, a house or even a marriage license. A family is who you can always count on.
That being said, I have a father and a mother. I also have a step mother, a step father, I have a sister, I have a brother, I have my niece, I have my niece's father, my nieces father's family, my cousins in Japan, my cousins in Poland, my cousins in Colorado, my aunts and uncles, and my grandma. All family.
But do you know who my family is? My mother. That's it. My father is an abuser and a recovering alcoholic, my brother and sister are both schizophrenic and gone. So why is my mother my family? Because she taught me right from wrong, she never turned her back on me, and she will always love me. And yes, I'm young. But I've been through a lot of shit, and had a lot of life experience. And at the end of the day all I need is that love from my mother. If she were gay I wouldn't care, if she were autistic I wouldn't care, if she weren't even my real mother I wouldn't give a damn. because she loves me. So I know, that all it takes to raise a good kid is love and dedication. Screw the Church, screw the State.
I don't think he was saying you were a Mormon as an insult, but I have some understanding of your religion and feel it is related to the question to ask you if you feel African Americans should be allowed to adopt?
2 NEPHI 5:21
---------------------------------
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
We shouldn't take kids away from parents unless of course it's abuse or something. I belive this is correct, so we must disagree on whether having gay parents is abusive.
Gay people have consenting partners which is not the same as child molestation. Would comparing gay people to child molesters be considered a disgusting and immoral hyperbole to you? if so, should you be allowed to have kids?
PS - everyone is a sinner - including your parents and you.
since we are to go off of your definition of natural and moral and your definition obviously doesn't come from the old testament, new testament, or the qu'ran, maybe you should elaborate on what you find acceptable and how you devine those value judgements.
what is sin and which sins preclude adoption of kids who don't have parents?
There is nothing wrong with homosexuals and to be persecuted because of sexual orientation is wrong. If a gay couple wants a kid give them a kid. But I think that there could be consequences and pluses.
But I think that letting them adopt children would be leading those children into an extremely awkward upbringing. That would make them outcasts. Kids are extremely brutal just read A Child's Machiavelli, everything rings true. Picture your average bully not only picking on a kid because of his looks but now he has a weapon that would make that kid a total outsider to all other kids. Kids find it odd when a kid has no father or mother, or when he/she lives with his/her grandparents or are adopted to a hetero family a kid with 2 fathers or mothers doesn't fit into the mix for a proper upbringing in a peers perspective at a young age. It would all lead down a messed up life for the kid down the road he would be confused with his sexual orientation and countless other issues.
But then ,maybe all the toughness would make that kid an even better person than all the other kids that made fun of him or didn't step forward to defend him. I cannot say for sure since I have not had such an experience.
But it is a free country and if one person can adopt another person should be able to as well.
You bring up a very interesting point DaWolfman. Would gay adoption be unfair for the child? From my point-of-view, I would say no. If the parents were loving and caring, and the child was raised in a good household, then I would imagine it would be more of a benefit than a hindrance. As for the bullies on the playground picking on the kid, it is unfair but it happens. Children are picked on for a plethora of reasons: for their intelligence, hair, freckles, deformities, you name it. But I don't think that means they should compromise to fit the social norm (especially the social norm of a playground bully, whatever age that may be).
But I do think you raised an interesting point. It would be intriguing to hear from a child who is raised by gay parents, or from an adult who was raised by gay parents. I think that would provide more of a psychological insight. They'd be a first-hand source.
There have actually already been studies that prove the latter is true that children raised by same sex parents turned out just fine. But I still cannot get over the idea in my head that they would not come out right. Just like everyone understood that the world was round but they just couldn't get it through their head that it wasn't flat =]
...there's no way they could hav kids w/o adoption. Also, so what if ppl will laugh. That's THEIR problem. They should understand that ppl hav free will and exercise it. Not everyone is straight u kno.
Funny Thing: U can sidestep yo mama jokes if u hav two father rofl
Okay if you want to go this far, you should be asking should straights adopt, should single perants adopt! Why the heck does it matter the sexuality of the perants, I mean the only ones who should really worry about all of this is the perants and the kid. I think the kid would do anything to have someone, anyone to love them! Who are you to judge that?
Homosexuality hasn't been considered a disease by most scientists for 50 years by now, and I see no reason why homos shouldn't be allowed to raise children like everyone else.
People, people, people. IT DOES NOT MATTER. All these debates about should gays adopt, do redheads have bad tempers, are most girls shallow, these are all the same kind of debates! Gays can adopt, straight people can adopt, bisexual people can adopt, anybody can adopt! It doesn't make a difference. Also, I'm not saying they SHOULD adopt, but that they can, and it doesn't make much of a difference.
This is actually a very prevalent issue. Gay adoption is still a widely debated subject. There are a few organizations trying to dismantle gay adoption (Here is an article from 2006...I'm sorry it's a bit old, but I feel like it still has weight to it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption_x.htm) )
Also, you stated: "...I'm not saying they should adopt, but that they can, and it doesn't make much of a difference." Explain your reasoning. Why wouldn't it make much of a difference? Personally I am pro-adoption, but I feel that hearing out details would be more beneficial than stating simple claims.
I've never seen an argument for "no" backed up by scientific evidence. You'd think they'd notice that, but morons take to bigotry like fat kids to cake.
1. Gays are not confined to rigid gender roles as straights tend to be. The "outsider perspective" tends to give LGBT's a more astute view of society, and a frankness that's rare in straights. Give me AN EXAMPLE of how two male parents would be worse than a man and a woman.
2. And no, it won't make the kid gay; There is no evidence to support that. There's also no evidence linking homosexuality with pederasty. There is no evidence to link gay households with problem children. Sorry, you're full of shit.
3. The adoption screening process is excessive. And that's awesome. It means the average adoptive parent is far less likely to be abusive or neglectful, and they are guaranteed to WANT the child, unlike many straights.
It is called human rights people! It has already been proven through tedious studies that children adopted into same sex families turn out just the same as any other kid. So I have to say yes because to me the answer is obvious.
Though I agree with your position, I feel like more questions need to be asked. For instance, how old are these studies? Are they still going on?
Though I am for gay adoption, I do not think the answer is so obvious. It is stirring so much debate because gay adoption is going against the previous traditional values of American society, and any shift from one set of morals to another is bound to bring up some questions.
So, yet again, I implore others who are against gay adoption to post and give their point-of-view. I would like to keep this debate as level as possible.
The most important thing for a child to have in his or her life is a stable home, especially one where they can see a loving relationship. Yes, they need role models from both men and women. They need role models from as many types of people they can. I am a lesbian and I plan on having children eventually but I'm not going to seclude them from men. I have my father, my cousins, friends, and uncles all of whom I consider decent people and I'll make sure they can see all the types of lives in the spectrum. No study has shown that children raised by gay parents have more problems with gender roles or sexuality than those raised by straight couples. The only negative impact I can see is a child getting picked on for it but a) that is not the parents' fault but the society's and b) kids will always find something to make fun of because they are kids. It's what happens and, to an extent, it builds strength when paired with love from others. Hopefully, by the time my kids are old enough to learn what discrimination is, they world will be a bit better. And last- there are so many nameless kids in the system, why would we oppose something that puts them in loving homes?
My father walked out when I was three and my brother was six. Has our lack of a masculine finger crippled us horribly? No.
This shouldn't even be a question. If two loving people are prepared to take a child into their home, out of a corrupt system that simply doesn't work, why would that not be allowed?
I've been reading the opposite side with a lot of interest and just like I expected, people have brought in a whole array of "issues" they have about homosexuality.
First I read about how the motives of the gay person are selfish
My response: WHO CARES? I see an old lady crossing the street. I help her cross over. Did I do it because I truly cared for her or did I do cause I wanted to feel good about myself? Does it matter? As long as I didn't help her because I wanted to steal her purse in the process then where is the harm???? So what if gays want to satisfy their parental instincts by caring for a child? How does that undermine the care and the love? Don't straight couples do the same? How many times have I heard straight couples saying that they will have children because that "completes the family", that they can't wait to be great mums or great dads. That's selfish too isn't it? But is it wrong? Hell no! I would be worried of someone didn't have that streak of selfishness in them. In my opinion, the people that make the best parents are the ones that wanted to be parents in the first place. Not just procreate, but BE PARENTS afterward. Here we have people that are begging to be parents and we're telling them "you can't! we'd rather leave the kids in the orphanage than give them to you!"
Then it's about how it is unnatural for them to become parents because by definition they would be required to do something that is unnatural for them
Right, so, should we exclude all infertile individuals from the right to adopt?
Because the above argument basically implies that inability to conceive/procreate equals inability to perform as a parent, because nature didn't want you to become one in the first place. Isn't that ridiculous? The fact that we have children in foster care proves that the ability to conceive/procreate does not equal the ability to become a parent. So the two are clearly not cross linked.
Then it's about how it is no one's right to adopt because the only person that has authority over a child is the biological parent - only they can "appoint" someone to look after their child
Someone actually used the word "property", the child is the property of the biological parents and no institution should ever have the right bypass them and give the child to someone else.
Since when are human beings "property"?
As a parent, all you have, is the responsibility to raise the child and provide for it. That's all you have. You don't posses a child. No one has possession of another human being, however young.
Now, I know for a fact that adoption agencies always look for people in the immediate or larger family that would foster the child. It's only when they have exhausted all those possibilities that the child is put up for adoption. In other words, no one in the family has offered to take over the responsibility! So it is then in the hands of the agency to find suitable parents from the general public. Let's be realistic, the family has absolved itself, or is not existent, or is mentally incapable. Now, I'm not saying everybody else then has the right to be their parent. But I think they do have the right to at least apply for the role, whether gay or straight.
But the child is going to be bullied!
Well, is that really an argument? If the kid is going to be bullied that's because the parents of the other children are bigoted and they have instilled that bigotry on their bully-kid. Kids are bullied everyday for being black, Muslim, Asian, tall, short, ginger etc etc. Does that mean we should take them away from their black, Muslim or ginger parents?
The reality is, these kids are spending their life in an orphanage. I find it funny how people who are otherwise unwilling to adopt them, think that they have the right to obstruct others who do. And they justify it with an array of bigoted crap. And all this time, those kids remain in the orphanage, when they could be in the hands of very loving, very caring, very responsible people who could give them a much better life, a much better education and much more to experience.
There's no reason they can't. It's not like they can have biological children without a suragate, and what if they don't like that option? Moreover, the children would just as happy a life with a gay couple as a straight couple.
To say that two men or two women necessarily can't raise a child as well as a one-man-one-woman couple is sexist and inaccurate. We all know there are some heterosexual couples who are clearly unqualified to raise children. Restrictions on adoption should depend on the individual circumstances of the adopting family, not on generalised statements about the differing parenting styles of men and women.
Why shouldnt they be able to, if they are willing to provide a safe loving home for kids without one, why keep the child from having a home jsut because the parents that want to adopt are gay?
one key point that should be included in the valuation is that the children that need to be adopted are often wards of the state and will live without any parents (typically in group homes, though sometimes in short or long term foster care). Is it better to have gay parents, or no parents?
I don't think that having two mothers or two fathers can screw a child up. By this, I mean that I don't think he will become a serial killer or schizophrenic or anything based solely on the fact that his parents are of the same sex. I have heard that there have been tests on this sort of thing, and gay couples children have turned out to be just about 'normal.' Perhaps, if the child is female, and her parents are both male, she will turn out to be more masculine than the average girl, but what is wrong with that? I also believe that if her two parents are both very feminine, she will turn out to be 'normal.' So, it is not so much the gender of the parents, but their personalities that mold the child. In this country, many hetero parents with children get divorces, or one of the parents dies, and it is then legal for only the mother/father to raise the child on their own. So, if having either no mother/father figure screws up a child, shouldn't raising a child on your own be illegal for as long as gay adoption is?
Also, don't most, or at least some, adopted babies come from third world countries where they will end up living their lives in poverty, violence, and probably no parents if they are not adopted? I don't understand why anyone would want to see a child raised this way instead of with two men who will love and care for them. It makes me sick.
Too many kids in the foster care program are being ignored in some states because they wont let a gay couple take them in. Well how about we send that kid back to their messed up home! I'm sure they'd love it their too. I think in the rare cases that they live in a homophobic comunity they would rather deal with the ridicule of having gay parents then the ridicule of having bruises all over their face.
Really, why should it matter? Is being the child of a gay couple really worse than having no parents at all? It's just cruel not to afford a parent-less child every opportunity to have a caring and supportive family. There are too many kids without parents to turn down a couple on the basis of their sexual orientation.
In my own personal feeling i think they should be able do adopt. Why can they have the wonders and joys that other people get to experience that they want in their lives. Its just not right picture if you were in their situation and you wanted a child what would you do? I would go out and adopt a kid because sometime you need kids to make your life more exciting. Maybe they don't want to leave the earth without a memory of them so if they gays want to adopt feel free because you have my support.
Come on you are over thinking this. It is about wat the child wants and since being gay is more acceptabel then less bulling for them i guess but saying homophobic stuff like it's disgusting thats why it's hard to live life you always have to worry about wat some one thinks. I APLUDE OPEN GAYS! THEY STAND UP TO BULLIES AND DON'T CARE WAT THEY SAY ISAY YOU GO GAY! ;)
Yes. Their sexual proclivities do not say much about their parenting skills. Indeed, there are plenty of cases where the gay or lesbian couples are better suited and prepared to raise the children than those who gave them up in the first place.
And to those who think that their "lifestyle" will cause kids to be especially targeted by bullies at school or have a distorted view of life, doesn't this already happen with the children of nerds, hippies, rednecks, etc.?
I think they should be able to adopt and/or have surrogates, homosexual people should not be denied the rights that the heterosexuals receive, and they should be allowed to experience a child loving them as a parent like the rest of us....I speak for both communities as I am Bisexual.. our hearts are created equal as well as god created us. We love with every fiber of our being and wish the rest of the world would open they're hearts, eyes and minds to the point we are just like you we just are attracted to the same sex!
I do believe that gays should adopt children. In my life I've seen children and teens be much better adjusted because they've had to go through not only the normal chaos of childhood with other children calling names and being mean but they've also had to go through what I might call an orientation that very few kids have...and that is that prejudice, hatred and a lack of understanding for the human condition so thoroughly exists in this world. I've seen them build both strength and character through their upbringing.
I tell you what I've experienced personally and do not resort to the "fact" sheets. The facts are not in yet to any great degree in either direction. In 5-10 years we will have a greater amount of statistics to go by.
This is true. Since this issue is so recent, I don't think we have any long-term studies about the effects of gay adoption, but maybe we'll have a better understanding in 10 or 20 years. However, I feel that during arguments it is better to argue from a logical standpoint, as opposed to an emotional one. Still, I agree with your stance.
As someone who knows someone with homosexual parents I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that:
You are dead wrong
You also make the assumption that homosexuality is wrong when you say:
He might think this is alright if he is gay too
Of course he/she will think this, because being gay is alright, and the only reason people like him will ever be discriminated against is because people like you say otherwise.
The argument is invalid. What is particularly true in one instance cannot be inferred as universally true in all instances.
Arguments that reason from that which is true in one example to a conclusion that is universal is fallacious.
Example: andsoccer has hair, andsoccer is a male; therefore, all males have hair.
Moreover, what is true today of your judgment may not be necessarily true in fact. Though your judgment may be valid today your judgment precludes your right to change your mind about something you are unaware of that would alter your judgment. Just because you have judged that a person is not gay today doesn't rule out the possibility that the judgment may change in the future.
One last statement, for you, it's obvious that all homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals. And by reason of such, nobody can validly argue that the parents sexual orientation predetermines the sexual orientation of their children. (your welcome)
The argument that "people may bully or harras the child" is flawed. However how about the development stages of the child. Studies have shown that a child needs a mother and a father to develop..... both genders do have specific roles to play. Now I am not disputing that same sex couples will be bad parents, I am sure they will be good parents, but human nature is that children should be brought up in a dual gender relationships.
Children get teased for many reasons. "Gay and lesbian parents are well aware of the difficulties that a child may face - many have dealt with prejudice all of their lives. Most see it as an opportunity for ongoing discussion that will help their children grow as people."
According to studies, "Wendell Ricketts and Roberta Achtenberg, in the article "Adoption and Foster Parenting for Lesbians and Gay Men: Creating New Traditions in Family" from Homosexuality and Family Relations, address social workers grappling with the issue by asking, "...should children be sheltered from every experience in which their difference might challenge prejudice, ignorance, or the status quo (or in which they would be 'exposed' to the difference of others)? Agencies conforming to such a standard must ask themselves whether it is their function to honor the system that generates stigma by upholding its constraints." They continue, "Teasing is what children do. Does this mean that child welfare policy must be set at a level no higher than the social interactions of children?"
"The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay". 11
"Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of "significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals". 12
"Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children's development in gay and lesbian families.
The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."
Psychiatrist Laurintine Fromm, of the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, agrees with that finding. "[The] literature...does not indicate that these children fare any worse [than those of heterosexual parents] in any area of psychological development or sexual identity formation. A parent's capacity to be respectful and supportive of the child's autonomy and to maintain her own intimate attachments, far outweighs the influence of the parent's sexual orientation alone."
There is no "normal" anymore. The divorce rate is through the roof, a lot of people don't even bother to get married anymore before having children. Some kids have one mommy, some kids have two. Some kids have a mommy, and two daddies. Some kids have a mommy M-F and a daddy Saturday and Sunday.
Children aren't stupid. They are way more open to new situations than adults, and most children these days, and very understanding. The only reason a child would not be understanding is if their parents were telling them that homosexuality is a nasty dirty thing, and that Timmy's two daddies are evil.
And you know what?
IF A CHILD IS GAY, IT IS OKAY!
What would you do if you had a gay child?
Don't you ever ever ever tell your child it is not okay to be gay. That breeds intolerance, and hate, and frankly... disgusts me.
it is alright if he is gay it is his choice and why cant gay's and lesbians adopt? they are a cupple and dosent matter if they are same sex if they are good for them if they want a kid let them have a freaking kid
I wrote a paper a few years back on this topic and I can tell you that everything you state here has no validity. Don't get me wrong, it has points that many make but there are plenty of studies out there that will put you at ease.
First, I would recommend you do a little research on childhood psychology.
Second, adolescent children will at some point become curious in sexual activity and it is the parent's responsibility to inform them appropriately. This comes from a parental unit, regardless of sexual orientation. There are good and bad parents out there and not all will inform their children. My point it that parents are parents and some are good at it; others are bad.
Finally, if you are trying to insinuate that because someones parents are gay they will become gay themselves is ludicrous. I'm sure you're using the "monkey see, monkey do" ideology. Let me ask you this, Heterosexual parents have children that are gay so your ideology is flawed.
One last note, on a personal level: What makes you think children will perceive their family as abnormal just on the premise if they're gay? I was proud of my family, my father was overweight and my mother was from Spain (i was made fun of for years on top of having horrible acne in High School). Growing up in a small town almost entirely made up of white republican Catholics, I was abnormal; I knew I was different. Guess what, I'm doing just fine. And I'm not overweight and proud of my dual nationality. If anything it brought about a better sense of self.
In my own personal opinion being homosexual isn't right and thats it.
And the communites around me doesn't get too involved in homosexual activicties even the government.
It's common to see girls and boys hanging out together but not boys and boys hugging each other touching here an there.
Kids learn from their parents and it's monkey see monkey do. When babies were born, they are weak and they are dependant on their mothers or those whom they think is his/her parents that he/she could relate to. Kids learn from their parents because it's the parents responsiblity to teach their children what is right and what is wrong and not someone elses.
Unless you're trying to prove to me that the parent's role isn't to teach the children what is nature and what is not according to nature etc. you cannot have sex with a man like you did with a woman.
It's impossible unless that man was a woman before a sex change operation and was reluctant to change her organs.
What 'most' debate i saw about how homosexuality is morally accepted by people utterly shocked me to the core. I'm not sure what kind of world are you in but i certainly do not accept it as 'normal'because it is abnormal and going against nature.
Firstly, the environment i grew up in doesn't have too much catholics and christians but mostly made up of other religions. I personally abhor christianity because of its contradictions and it's violation of karma.
One quote i recieved from my friend who is a christian. He was determined to convert me from a buddhist to a christian but once i heard it i brushed him aside.
'If you don't believe in Jesus christ, you shall go to hell'.
This is a total piece of bullshit, who in the world needs to go to hell when he is accumulating merits here and there is no such thing as absolute creator god who creates the whole universe in seven days.
And god don't love us too.
If he has the powers of a clairvoyant and loves us, if he saw the future of man he would'nt have created us in the first place. He would'nt have created Adam and Eve in the first place.
And if he truly is an absolute god he would'nt have creatd lucifer whom he knew that one day lucifier is going to turn bad and become satan.
Christianity is bulljunk and i totally hate it.
Although i hate christianity i don't really hate christians.
This is the most preposterous item I've heard in years. Are you ignorant to what is natural and not?!
Acceptance vs taboo
If you know anything about animal and human sexuality you would properly acknowledge that homosexuality has been around since the existence of sexuality. Animals display it on a daily routine. Alexander the Great, one of the most powerful men in ancient history, had many homosexual tendencies. (even on a more intense level of pedophilia)
As an evolving society, homosexuality was bound to get to the point it has today. Let me also add that if you knew anything about the adoption procedure and the psychological harm that those who go through adoption have to deal with, it would pale to comparison to the teasing they would go through in their schooling.
My point is that on items of sexuality it is not all monkey see monkey do.
I have so many points and so little time. I'm very happy to see the down votes. (means I'm getting to you people!)
As for your opinion, I'm not here to change it. I'm just here to point out all the fallacies in your argument.
If it was monkey see-monkey do, then how come there are many gay children coming out to their heterosexual parents?
Its choices. Everyone has a right to their own choice. YOU have no right to strip someone from their choice solely for your own selflish beliefs. Someone's sexual orientation should not affect you and, if it does, then quit brown nosing because it is not any of your business.
I'm wondering what part of,"The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," confuses you? Your argument against gays adopting appears to be completely speculative. Also, I'm wondering what kind of buddhism you practice.
I not only wonder what kind of Buddhism YOU practice after giving a very poor and disgusting diatribe on Christianity...I wonder most of all where you're getting all your Reward POINTS and UP VOTES from for only being here for 13 days and gone the last four? Can it be that Buddhists have multiple personalities which create multiple accounts? I have NEVER seen such utter hatred and blather so richly and constantly REWARDED on this site!
Don't change the topic i am talking about the topic on christianity don't bring in points or buddhism.
They are irrelevant and for your information i don't actually practice buddhism it's more like practicing noting :]
Points ain't inportant for me, i don't have so much free time to spam and multiply my accounts so that i could earn more points and be the top of this place.
Ah, that would be stupid ain't it :]
And also i am not pointing how inferior chrisitanity is i am just trying to show the difference between buddhism and christianiy. Unless all of you are trying to show me that you don't get what i mean.
And that you are ignorant oh perhaps we are in two different worlds with different perceptions.
With different beliefs and different lifestles.
I never get personal with anyone never unless he/she has been hostile to me like you :]
hmm i am not actually a buddhist nor a christian nor a atheist.
I am just ME !
If you want to criticise, please criticise me instead because i am the master who practices buddhism or christianiy or atheism.
If you wonder how bad i practice buddhism you got it right i just slack all day long as if i am an atheist.
Buddhism is great but i am not, you are just blatantly scolding the wrong thing at the wrong time.
I believe you are the person who changed the topic when you gave your vulgar thoughts on Christianity and those who believe in it very strongly. As to your points, they are highly suspect. Oh, now you don't practice Buddhism? Earlier, you did. My, oh my, things happen very quickly in Oz.
You were not showing the difference between the two belief systems, not at all. I do not believe you have the capacity to show them and present them in a mannerly and organized fashion. You are a "master" at nothing other than the smoke and mirror show.
I've been here for a fair amount of time and know a bit about the way people up vote and down vote. Never take any of the regulars here for fools...for if you do, you'll fall into your own trap and be the worse for it. You mistake truth for hostility and that will dilute any Karma you have obtained, if any.
Show me the difference between christianity and buddism in an orderly and organized fashion.
This might take some time but nevertheless i do wish to see what kind of mannerly and orderly fashion you have in mind that you want to show.
I don't mind mistaking the truth for hostiliity because clarity comes from chaos.
I rather learn things the hard way and of course with reasoning and proper understanding, i would'nt believe in god that is omnipotent and thats it i need to know and understand more about it.
Please do show me what your opinions are between these two religions.
I don't mind them being vulgar but i just need them to be understandable.
Whatever vulgar stuff there is i don't care and i can't stop you :]
I need show you nothing but what the topic is on this debate. Do you not comprehend what is mannerly and orderly? You have said some very despicable things about Christianity. It's up to you to research your remarks before you make them and it's not my job to educate you in such things. You're the person who needs to explain themselves not I.
If i am not wrong you are the superhero who tried to intervene into this cannot be won debate and you tried to lure me to think that i had take the truth for hostillity for which i had not. you're the one who thinks so almighty of himself and still thinking of the land oZ oh thats so childish.
If insulting people is ignorant and giving opinions is ignorant perhaps, insulting other people with names and not getting to the point is more ignorant.
Perhaps the word 'ignorant' is an understatement to describe the idiocy of someone like you. I'm trying to express some of my personal opinions on christianity and i do not intend to post it all over createdebate to let everyone regular or not to know my opinion.
It's called Freedom of Speech, freedom to express one owns opinion unless you're against it.
Your job is not to educate me in such things, your job is to just keep your mouth zipped up or at least voice out some opinions.
And bloody hell not to condemn me while i am trying to type out my opinion here.
At least my post ain't reduced to MERE name calling unlike someone who came here just to critizicise me for saying despicable things about christianity.
You are evidently trying to take the 'Freedom of Speech' away from me and i can sue you for it.
And i did not personally attack christians that christianity is fake.
I am just pointing out this this and that that and thats it and i am not surprised i got some downvotes for voicing out my horrible opinions on that matter.
and also i am not surprised you got some downvotes there too.
Don't think of yourself as smart or regular there are new-comers who know more than you.
how active you are on this site doesn't count, you need some common sense and an working mind. But i think you don't. For topic such as these there are always more than one side to the story and not yes gays should adopt fullstop.
i appreciate those who reasnwered me to my post unlike you mis kuk.
Sorry to you and to all who have seen my rubbish and nonsensical posts about christianity and were offended by them. What you said made absolute sense to me and i apologize for what wrong i had done.
Especially to those who had their efficiency dropped for no rhyme of any reason.
I hope you could forigve me and let the past behind us.
One more thing, i do live in Singapore and i have '524493' for my Zip-code and not 52449. I really wished i could add that '3' in to clear some misunderstandings but there is not enough space i guess. :]
Thank you Kroticfate for coming clean and admitting that what you did was wrong. I'll try and post that for you on the FATE or KROTICFATE debate since we're having computer problem on the site right now. I am proud you did this and I think others will give you the second chance you deserve, as I will. I will now gladly add you to my ally list for being courageous enough to tell us and make it right.
You dun sound as if you is frum a reel dun edumuhcated civuhlization.
Translation, wtf? Just because homosexuality isn't right for you, doesn't give you the right to judge others. Don't hate on people who are just trying too love one another. As long as no one is forcing you into anything, what should you care?
First of all, i grew up in a Christianity based home, i got taught that liking the same sex is wrong and not part of nature. That if God would be okay with this, we would all be men or all be be women. But what of I have learned is to be opened minded. Most people really don't don't understand Christians, because they believe in a greater power. You say if God see's ahead of everything then why did he create man, since he knew how we were going to become. He knew but God test man, to see if man is strong to follow whats right, in the Bible sense. So really it shouldn't matter what religion you are it only matters if you have the best intensest for man kind and not take advantage of that fact. If a gay man or women want a child they have all the right too. They have a right to just like us, they are human, we are all human. Remember this is America the land of the free, maybe not all the way free but to a certine point it is, that's why other from other countries come to America. By the way i rather worry about criminals on the street and to have them in jail than if gays can adopt!
What 'most' debate i saw about how homosexuality is morally accepted by people utterly shocked me to the core. I'm not sure what kind of world are you in but i certainly do not accept it as 'normal'because it is abnormal and going against nature
Ignoring the fact that we actually do find many instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom and thus nature....
You're violating the naturalistic fallacy. You assume that something which is natural is inherently "good" and something not natural is "bad".
If you can show me where in nature we find skyscrapers and microchips....that would be great! Because these things aren't exactly natural either. Yet something like cannibalism is actually pretty common in nature.
I understand that people who are ignorant and uneducated may think that 'gayness' is contagious. Let me assure you, it isn't.
During childhood, everyone is laughed at for something.
No child will assume a man gave birth to them if the parents explain things the way all parents do. Did you assume your father gave birth to you until your mother said she did?
It is alright if he is gay too. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Their is something wrong with judging people and telling children that their gay parents are sinners and are going to hell.
There is something wrong with laughing at a child for having two parents who love them. Any orphan would gladly take two fathers or two mothers over no parents any day of the year.
it's not about whether the parents are gay or straight, it's about how they raise their children, with truth or with lies, open minds or fear. both straight and gay parents are capable of both, their sexuality is irrelevant.
during anyone's childhood others may laugh at them for random reasons. the child wouldn't mind having happy gay parents and getting laughed at by mindless kids as much as he/she might mind having a straight couple as parents if they gets divorced or have a drug addiction or are abusive.
if a gay child grows up with straight parents, they don't fit in either. he might think he is straight. the mindset would stay with him for a long time, also. and that would be just as wrong as what you claimed.
when teaching about reproduction gay parents would have to tell the child where babies come from and how they do so. being gay doesn't mean they will make up some story about how gay people can conceive. they could, but being gay doesn't mean they will. what about all the straight parents who tell their kids they come from cabbages?
I'm pretty darn sure they would have long ago tell the kid he was adopted. And would you rather him face 'ridicule at a young age' or live in a shelter without a family at all.
hell no gays should never be allowed to adopt a child the very ill behaved people they ruin things in this country let them go to eurpoe and live the choose there life style is real sick a guy on top of guy a discussing thing same as a woman kissing a woman is sick and noway way should a child be brought into that situation.
good strategy - I hadn't thought of just picking the other side and making a stupid argument - way to help illuminate some of the ludicrous things people on the other side tend to say. hopefully that is what you are doing.
How does a single father explain "girl stuff?" That's just fine, but when it happens to be two men, it's not okay anymore. I don't see the difference here.
For that matter, how does a single mother explain "boy stuff?" This situation is socially accepted, but essentially the same thing isn't when it's two of the same sex. As long as the kid's fine who really cares? Why is that?
I don't know if you have kids or where recently in school but the government is hiring people to get to the point long before the parents even want to think about it. Most straight parents don't even explain this stuff to their kids anymore either because they don't care or because they say one word and the kid says 'Yeah mom/dad I know. Remember that paper you signed last week giving the school permission to teach me that crap? Yeah please don't go there.'
What about single parents? They do it by themselves and to be quite frank I would find it more akward as a single straight parent then a gay couple who don't find any atraction to that sex what so ever. So how bout you through that argument in a single parents face and see if you still have a face when they're done with you.
What would you do if a gay couple adopted your brother? Or why not you? There are many people who aren't gay that are not allowed to adopt and they'd be good parents.
Well, much of that argument is outside the scope of the debate. What would I do? Well, I, personally, wouldn't like it. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. That's where I think many people are missing the point. They aren't drawing the line between what they like and what is right.
I don't like it because I myself am not gay, and I don't approve of the gay lifestyle. But I do think they should be able to do that if they want. It's a weird little part of me, I know, but that's just how I feel. I don't like it.
I can't prove that there isn't anything wrong with it, but I can't prove it just as much as you can't. There is no way to prove it either way.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible
Gay couples are just like straight couples. You tend to fully judge, what you don't fully understand.
Gay parents get things done. Just like a modern straight couple might have a "Mr. Mom" who stays home, while the wife goes to work, doesn't mean that that couple wont be good parents.
There are many untraditional families who make it work. Just because they don't have to body parts you find fit, doesn't mean they can't raise children.
One father can take on the role of the mother. He can be feminine and caring, loving et cetera. These "roles" you place on parents are just an illusion.
Your just sayin? You as an authority on the subject?
Of course they are not exactly the same, but the different we are trivial and or cosmetic. The core values of parenting can be preformed similarly by both kinds of parents.
Your right, I am not an authority. Just a parent as I am sure you either are or aspire to be judging by your passion..
That was an attempt to show that it was meant to be a light hearted poke at the wording.
But I am curious, why so intolerant? Why just jump right to the "authority" sarcasm?
Well, as long as we are at it, and as a non-authority...I disagree for the block! The differences go way deeper than trivial or cosmetic.
Women cannot pass masculinity to a male child. A boy cannot learn from a woman what it means to truly be a man just as two men cant teach a young woman what it means to become a real woman.
Two women cant do any better raising a boy to be a man than a single mother can, and we all know what that has done to entire generations of young men.
The damaging effects on children from the absence of a father in a family is well documented.
When it comes to the matter of masculinity its just not possible. Its not that its wrong...its just not possible.
Truly I am sorry. I didn't mean to step on toes. Just my non-authoritarian opinion.
All homosexuals, male or female, who would adopt a child, are acting in a manner that is contrary to the nature and consequences of homosexuality. For by reason of their supposed natural, sexual orientation, as they call it, their actions negate the possibility of becoming progenitors as a consequence. Moreover, the homosexual nature also axiomatically negates the necessary and natural predisposition of progenitors as parents as well as negating the necessary and natural predisposition of progenitors to place their well-being as secondary and a child’s primary. However, before they have attempted to adopt a child, all homosexuals have already, in life, demonstrated the predispositional consequences of their sexual orientation which evidence the fact that they cannot put the well-being of anyone before their own subjective well-being. For don’t all homosexuals act contrary to the heterosexuality of their parents from which, as a consequence, they were born into this world? Moreover, do they not solely seek to please themselves at the expense of the sorrow of their parents and families? So it should be understood that any homosexual male or female who wants to adopt a child is both, acting contrary to his/her sexuality, and is attempting to make the well-being of a child secondary; for homosexuals who want to adopt a child are choosing to do so for themselves and never because a child wants to be raised by homosexual males or females.
In conclusion: if adoption is acceptable in a society, the choice as to whom the child can be adopted by must remain the sole authority of the progenitors of the child or relatives and never the public or an institution. For neither the public nor any institution can be held accountable for sorry decisions that ill-affect a child; whereas a parent who gives up its’ child for adoption must live with the consequences of that decision and will therefore choose as wisely as is possible in a manner that agrees with the nature of the parent.
Homosexual males and females refuse to be parents. And therefore no rational person ought to give their child to a person who is incapable of acting against his or own nature.
The progenitors give up their authority to the child the second they give it up for adoption. I'm sorry to say that your conclusion is flawed in that regard.
If you are not willing to or cannot take responsibility for maintaining a child and "give" it up for adoption, you lose all rights to that child.
Hence the term "give him/her up for adoption".
You must also note that the acceptance by society makes it an institution.
I must lastly note that most of your first paragraph has no psychological validity in the nature of homosexuality.
Bare in mind that homosexuals that adhere to the theory of evolution must also necessarily adhere to the principle of the theory which posits the propagation of the fittest sexually reproductive species; and consequently has damned the homosexual, for the homosexual doesn't propagate its species.
If I understand your logic correctly, your argument is that since homosexual's cannot naturally produce a child, they have no right to become parents. Am I hearing this correctly?
No statement contained within any of my arguments asserts that homosexuals are biologically incapable of sexual reproduction; the terms of my arguments were carefully chosen so as to not exclude the ability of homosexuals to sexually reproduce. Yet, in order for them to sexually reproduce and propagate their genetics through a progeny they must act contrary to their nature and have unprotected sex with the opposite gender, and probably more than once.
Now, since they actually are biologically capable of becoming progenitors we must therefore conclude they are not willing to do what is necessary to become parents. They choose to do that which will never produce offspring and are suffering the consequences of their choices; moreover, if they don’t like the consequences of their choices they ought to change their minds.
Conclusion: Individuals of the homosexual orientation can become progenitors. Yet, they choose to not do what must be done in order to become progenitors.
And finally, no man or woman has the right to become a parent. Parenthood is not a right; parenthood is a consequence of sexual reproduction. And no man or woman can justly claim authority over the progeny of another progenitor without the progenitor’s conference of authority over its progeny.
Well spoken, yet I cannot agree with you. In your conclusion you state that there is an aspect of choice. There are a few ways I can interpret your second sentence. (in the conclusion) Here is mine, individuals of homosexual orientation can become progenitors by choice, but must do this by an act that goes against their sexual orientation. Thus, their sexual orientation is against that of a progenitor and since progenitors are what create life and that very creation of life is a consequence of sexual reproduction, parenthood is formed.
Now parenthood has many definitions and the ones that go into what I called "maintenance" is what I'm directly interested in. Yes, parenthood is, in part, the result of progenitors, but it is also very much so the raising and the nurturing aspect as well. When adoption is going to take place the progenitor/parent/s of origin are giving up their responsibility of raising and nurturing said child. In that aspect, they give up their rights to parenthood.
You state that parenthood is a consequence of sexual reproduction, which I do not disagree, but another aspect of parenthood is the raising and nurturing.
Having the ability to raise or nurture or both does not have reference to sexual orientation.
Since this is the most important aspect to "parenthood" then any human possible of possessing a nurturing or raising nature is a possible target to be a parent. Perhaps they aren't the progenitors, but are fully capable of parenting. Thus, any human can posses the abilities to parent. Because of this a homosexual couple can posses the abilities to parent and thus have a right to be offered the option of adoption.
Yes, you have rightly understood the conclusion of my recent argument with which you do not agree.
Next, you stated in the second paragraph,” Now parenthood has many definitions and the ones that go into what I called "maintenance" is what I'm directly interested in.”
My response:
The premise posits that the term parenthood has, ’many definitions’. It also, propositionally, establishes that the argument is based upon multiple definitions of the same term. (This is a non- discreet way of using the fallacy of ambiguity to argue through to an ambiguous conclusion.) The introduction of ambiguity into a debate is nothing more than an attempt to redefine the key term/s of the debate to prove a predetermined a conclusion. And moreover, the explicit claim that more than one definition will be used for the same term invalidates the entirety of the argument. However, disregarding what your intent may or may not be, I will continue with my rebuttal of the remainder of your argument wherein we disagree.
You stated:
When adoption is going to take place the progenitor/parent/s of origin are giving up their responsibility of raising and nurturing said child. In that aspect, they give up their rights to parenthood.
My response:
If what you claim is true then let’s test the principle of that proposition by application of the principle. The principle: When a man or woman no longer wants to be responsible for that which is theirs, they no longer have rights to that which is theirs. (Lucidly stated for the debate)
A. A husband and wife decide they want to get rid of their house; they no longer have a right to choose whom receives the house.
B. A husband and wife decide to offer up their car for free; they no longer have a right to choose whom takes the car.
C. A husband and wife decide to give up their animal pets; they no longer have a right to choose whom receives the pets.
All three examples contradict the reality of the transfer of ownership. Albeit, a thief is more likely to agree with the examples than the common person. For the thief presumes it is now his/her property for the taking.
All parents have the natural law of authority of ownership and must first transfer that authority unto another party before another party can rightfully claim the same authority over the respective property whether it is of children, vehicles, houses, or pets. Let’s move on to the next statement.
You claimed:
Since this, (to raise or nurture), is the most important aspect to "parenthood" then any human possible of possessing a nurturing or raising nature is a possible target to be a parent.
My response:
Children of the age 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, demonstrate that it is possible for them to possess a nurturing or raising nature; therefore they are possible targets to be parents. Individuals who suffer from diseases of the mind also meet the same criteria. Should they too be allowed to adopt? Pedophiles exactly meet the criteria. Should they be allowed to adopt? The most hardened criminals meet the criteria. Should they be allowed to adopt?
The ultimate conclusion, logically deduced from my arguments, is that no man, woman, or institution has authority to determine the recipient of the transfer of authority of that which is not theirs to begin with, including myself. No one in the world has a right to adopt. No institution in the world has a right to adopt. For if we argue that some have a right to adopt then we must reason that they have authority to steal that which belongs to another person.
A homosexual has no right to adopt. However, the sister of a homosexual has the authority to transfer authority of her child to her homosexual sibling. No right is necessary. And the friend of the sister has no right to determine the recipient of the authority.
Therefore, no gay has a right to adopt. Which is the actual question of the debate.
From my understanding, the Topic is Gay adoption and should the opportunity of adoption be extended to those in a homosexual relationship. Whether if be a man and a man or a women and a women as a couple having the opportunity to raise a child. Also, the topic makes mention of human interaction with the child, during the raising and nurturing, from a male and a female. Can the same be done with two of the same sex? I would argue that you cannot compare apples to oranges. That is why I was interested in the specific points of nurture and the ability to raise. Which you so eloquently wrote out and felt the need to go into an extreme situation. While I do understand what you are stating, that is why we have a legal system in place. This is to prevent what US society would not consider a suitable parent. What you fail to address is how a Gay couple would not make a suitable parental unit.
You will find that adoption is considered: the creation of a parent-child relationship by judicial order between two parties who usually are unrelated.
In the beginning of my argument I explained why I would not choose to allow a homosexual to adopt. Primarily, the homosexual is inescapably self-centered. The conclusion is to be understood as a universal statement of all homosexuals, not particular. And hence, no explanation is required when it’s two homosexuals seeking to adopt. However, I will now take the time to compound my argument with additional facts after already having logically established my position.
You claim that my argument, ‘fail(s) to address (is) how a Gay couple would not make a suitable parental unit.
My reply is yes, I did not address that question, now consider my explanation.
You are requesting that I prove a negative conclusion, i.e. how a gay couple would NOT make a suitable parental unit. It is logically impossible to prove a negative conclusion. I cannot syllogistically arrive at a negative conclusion from negative propositions. The burden of proof belongs to those who claim that homosexuals are suitable parents. Consider the example of what you have accused my argument of lacking.
Gays are bad, the bad should not adopt; therefore, gays should not adopt. The argument is valid, but it is petition principii, begging the question.
Gays are not good, only the good should adopt; therefore, gays should not adopt. The argument is invalid and fallacious.
Gays are perverts, perverts are evil; therefore, gays should not adopt.
Argument is both invalid and fallacious.
Gays are not evil, evil is not good; therefore, gays are not good. (Again invalid and fallacious)
Or you could say: 1 is not 2, 2 is not 3; therefore 1 is not 3. . (Again invalid and fallacious)
There are an unlimited number of examples that I could use to demonstrate the impossibility of syllogistically proving a negative conclusion. I suppose the examples I’ve provided shall suffice for the subject at hand.
They who would argue that homosexuals are suitable parents must be burdened by the burden of proof to logically prove their point.
I truly did go to an extreme conclusion in my last argument, as you have stated. Yet, only for the purpose of reductio ad absurdum, reducing the proposition until it is obviously false. And lastly, your reference to the legal system is an appeal to authority, Argumentum Ad Verecundium. (the truth, falsity, or validity of an argument is not subject to a legal system)
Bare in mind that my arguments are for the sake of knowledge and not the sake of attacking or debating; so take no offence for none is intended.
No offense taken, I rather enjoy a good debate. I see where I've been butting my head the whole time. I've been trying to comprehend/grasp the concept, logically, of the homosexual being inescapably self-centered. Please explain.
I understand the logic of your explanation on the topic of the negative conclusion.
Burden of proof:
I must understand your logic prior to being able to bring up this in a logical manner. Please forgive me for having you reiterate your main point but I must understand it.
Is sex a crime? No, sex is not a crime. Can a crime be committed by sex? Yes, rape is a crime against another person, which generally implies forced sex. Is the desire for sex a crime? (No) Can a crime be committed as a consequence of a desire for sex? Yes, for a rapist desires to have forced sex with another person. In these examples it can be seen that neither sex nor the desire for sex are crimes and that some crimes are sexual.
All physically, healthy men and women are fully capable of committing sexual crimes. However, and thankfully, most do not commit sexual crimes. Most men and women choose to not force themselves sexually unto another person. They are therefore making a conscious decision. Furthermore, all decisions about with whom they will have sex with are choices evidencing their desire.
The desires of all men and women are consequences, not causes. Then what is the cause of desire? Is it internal or external? Is it genetic? In order to answer these questions I must begin with some fundamentals of the lives of all men and women.
All men and women are responsible for the choices they make; they both suffer or benefit from the consequences of their choices; they also cannot rightfully be held accountable for the choices that others have made. For example, Person (A) cannot be justly imprisoned because of the crimes of person (B). Also, if person (A) is coerced by person (B) to perform a certain act or speak a certain word, person (A) has chosen to comply and is therefore responsible. Person (A) suffers the consequences of compliance or resistance; in either situation, person (A) remains responsible for his/her choices. Regardless of the specific choices that men and women make, all choices are consequences of their desires. Ultimately, we can conclude that all men and women will choose according to their desire and must accept the consequences whether they are joyful or sorrowful.
The desire of man is predicated upon at least one value system. And from that value system are all desires identifiable. Simply stated, the value systems are as follows:
1) My needs are more important than the needs of another person. (Identity=selfish,unjust)
2) My needs are equally as important as the needs of another person. (Identity=just,honest)
3) My needs are less important than the needs of another person. (Identity=affectionate)
I have completed my response. But I have only posted part no.1. We can debate this part before we move on to part 2. I have yet to logically tie the pieces together.
Homosexuals do not pass on their genes directly, however many studies have shown that they may make reproduction more likely for their siblings. In fact, the prevalence of homosexuality in other species makes it fairly obvious that homosexuality among a portion of the population, must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole. In addition, studies with humans have shown that those people with more older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.
The problem with your argument is that you look at evolution from simplistic perspective. Evolution works on helping the individual survive, however in those organisms that reproduce sexually, species evolve in groups. Therefore any characteristic that allows the group to survive will be passed on. There is no definitive proof that homosexuality is one of these characteristics, but the possibility is a strong one.
I am very surprised that you would opt to oppose an argument of mine so soon after our last debate. Perhaps you enjoyed the debate? Let’s see where round number two shall lead the discourse.
You asserted: The problem with your argument is that you look at evolution from simplistic perspective.
You state that my argument has a problem; however, you then move onto affirming that my view of evolution is of a simplistic perspective. Your proposition is identical in principle to the following proposition:
The problem with your car is that you are looking at the gas cap from the wrong side.
Both propositions are simply irrational.
Moreover, instead of identifying the problem of my argument, your argument proceeds to make claims that have not been syllogistically demonstrated. The argument presumes that the audience grants the propositions without argument; unless of course your argument is purely hypothetical. And lastly, there is an abundance of uncertainty in your argument, which in turn calls into question the wherefore of asserting such things.
A. They may make
B. More likely
C. Fairly obvious
D. Must be
E. More likely
F. No definitive proof
G. The possibility is a strong one
Do you simply want to engage in a debate? If so, name the subject-matter.
But you are operating under a simplistic view of evolution for your argument. You even seemed to show your ignorance of the difference between a mechanism for evolution(natural selection) and the theory of evolution itself. We're not entirely certain if or how natural selection works on humans. Being sentient beings seems to mess with the dynamic a bit.
Before I begin, the following reminder is in order :
In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I suppose your reply is an attempt to rebut my assertions: "Bare in mind that homosexuals that adhere to the theory of evolution must also necessarily adhere to the principle of the theory which posits the propagation of the fittest sexually reproductive species; and consequently has damned the homosexual, for the homosexual doesn't propagate its species."; And that your reply is in favor of: "Homosexuals do not pass on their genes directly, however many studies have shown that they may make reproduction more likely for their siblings. In fact, the prevalence of homosexuality in other species makes it fairly obvious that homosexuality among a portion of the population, must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole. In addition, studies with humans have shown that those people with more older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.
The problem with your argument is that you look at evolution from simplistic perspective. Evolution works on helping the individual survive, however in those organisms that reproduce sexually, species evolve in groups. Therefore any characteristic that allows the group to survive will be passed on. There is no definitive proof that homosexuality is one of these characteristics, but the possibility is a strong one.
My response:
Consider the consequences of supporting the opposition’s argument.
If homosexuality is a consequence of evolution and such a consequence is for the purpose of the survival of a species; how does homosexuality benefit the survival of a group of its species? We can immediately infer that evolution has removed the homosexual from genetically contributing to its own species. And thus, the genetics of the homosexual are not conducive to the survival of the species, but are destructive of the survival of the species. Therefore, the answer to the question is: Evolution excludes certain individuals from genetic contribution to its species through homosexuality for the survival of the group for the survival of the species. Furthermore, evolution has eliminated certain genetic consequences from genetically multiplying with members of its own species.
We can also infer that all groups of species are beneficiaries of the homosexuality of the individuals of their group. Is the author implying that in order for sexual reproduction to propagate the species more effectively, certain individuals must be homosexual so that others will not be homosexual?
The author invalidly reasons: “In fact, the prevalence of homosexuality in other species makes it fairly obvious that homosexuality among a portion of the (human) population, must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.
Either the author is attempting to insult the intelligence of the audience of this debate or is guilty of granting that which is unreasonable. (I don’t think the author intentionally does either one, but unintentionally accomplishes both.) If we were to reason according to the example by the author we can arrive at some very interesting conclusions. For example:
The prevalence of inbreeding in other species makes it fairly obvious that inbreeding among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.
The prevalence of cannibalism in other species makes it fairly obvious that cannibalism among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.
The prevalence of random breeding in other species makes it fairly obvious that random breeding among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.
The prevalence of vomit consumption in other species makes it fairly obvious that the consumption of vomit among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.
The prevalence of butt-licking in other species makes it fairly obvious that butt-licking among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.
Just because certain things are true of many other species doesn’t allow any man or woman to validly infer the same is true of another species. This is called in layman terms: jumping to conclusions.
If you were to reread and carefully consider the assertions of my original argument as re-posted above, you will see that the assertions are subjective on the behalf of the proponents of evolution. The propositions only indicate the inescapable conclusions that the theory supports. I did not assert that the theory of evolution accounts for all that is known of the processes of life’s continuity. Nor did I suggest one should embrace the theory.
I have simplistically explained some of the consequences of some of the supposed complexity of the theory of evolution. And by doing such, I have demonstrated that wherein I reference evolution, I can reduce the supposed complexity of that subject of the theory of evolution to its simple illogical conclusions. And for this reason I am not troubled by an accusation that I view evolution simplistically. (Albeit, my argument is particular, yet I was accused of an universal argument.)
Another issue that I must address, before I am accused of neglecting it, is the matter of social contributions made by homosexuals, both tangible and intellectual. Whether a homosexual or any other person has made any tangible or intellectual contribution that enabled/s the survival of a species is purely fallacious. Speculations of what one person has or has not done that conclusively contributed to the survival or destruction of a species are of the fallacy, argumentum ad speculum. We can indefinitely speculate by hypothetical reasoning that which may have been or should have been. Yet, until there is conclusive evidence that would lend itself to the scrutiny of sound reasoning that concludes that any member, or group of any species is a necessary cause or consequence of/for the survival or death of a species, we should not speculate that it is obvious. Can we speculate that we would be ignorant of the law of gravity if Kepler and Newton were never born? Can we speculate that we are alive today because of that knowledge? Yes, we can speculate about anything, but we cannot rationally speculate unto a definitive conclusion that is reasonably useful.
One last thing before I end this rebuttal; my rebuttals explain the wherefore of my propositions. Your rebuttals on the other hand evidence nothing that supports your argument. Your arguments seem to always come in the form of either a straw-man, ad hominem, or red-herring fallacy. In fact, there is no argument in your rebuttals. You simply assert whatever you think is ad populum. A little advice: if you are unwillingly to take the time to support your case, I suggest that you forego rebutting the arguments of someone who will take the time. However, I welcome your legitimate attempts to support your views that are contrary or contradictory to my arguments.
"The progenitors give up their authority to the child the second they give it up for adoption. I'm sorry to say that your conclusion is flawed in that regard.
If you are not willing to or cannot take responsibility for maintaining a child and "give" it up for adoption, you lose all rights to that child.
Hence the term "give him/her up for adoption".
You must also note that the acceptance by society makes it an institution."
My response:
Your argument is an excellent example of the fallacy, self-refutation. The argument affirms in one statement that which it denies in another.
You argument asserts that a progenitor gives up its authority to the child when the progenitor gives up the child for adoption. It therefore must be also true when state agencies give up children for adoption they too have no authority. Explain why the argument expresses the denial of authority for the progenitor in the case of adoption while consequently implying the affirmation of authority of state agencies that too seek adoption for a child. Whether your argument is willful deception or a logical error remains for you to decide.
Next, reread the conclusion and you will find: ’ …..the choice as to whom the child can be adopted by must remain the sole authority of the progenitors of the child or relatives’…... The child remains under the authority of the parent until the child is adopted. You attempted to redefine that which was previously defined in the argument, and your argument is attempting to establish the straw-man fallacy.
Again, you stated:
'You must also note that the acceptance by society makes it an institution.'
Therefore in accord with that proposition the following is valid:
Society accepts homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality is an institution.
Society accepts masturbation. Therefore, masturbation is an institution.
Society accepts stupidity. Therefore, stupidity is an institution.
Society accepts whatever. Therefore, whatever is an institution.
Reductio ad absurdum!
Again, you stated:
'If you are not willing to or cannot take responsibility for maintaining a child and "give" it up for adoption, you lose all rights to that child. '
What do you mean by maintaining a child? Your arguments are validating my arguments.
Parents maintain their cars, houses, lawns, toilets, tubs, sex toys, etc., but never can it be said that they maintain their children, unless of course they are alike janitors and maintenance personnel. Parents, through out the life of either themselves or their children, always strive to care for their progeny in whatever capacity is required at any given time and provide both tangible and abstract necessities.
You assert: “I must lastly note that most of your first paragraph has no psychological validity in the nature of homosexuality.”
Your final statement doesn’t challenge any assertion in paragraph one. Moreover, paragraph one of the argument is not a psychological description of any subject and hence cannot be psychologically valid or invalid. It is however an argument that is demonstratively evidenced by the deeds of homosexuals. No attempt was made in my argument to suggest a description of the mind or the thought processes of male or female homosexuals.
And lastly, if homosexuals are that caring why would they adopt a baby that they cannot breast feed? For breastmilk is the best milk for infants. All companies that produce baby formula admit that their products are second best.
The natural order of life among animals is predicated upon the breast milk of the mother. And just because female homosexuals can be made pregnant by methods contrary to nature doesn’t mean they should be a mother; for by reason of their nature they will not naturally become mothers.
It's not in our nature to fly but we build airplanes. The inability to CONCEIVE children is a consequence of homosexuality, but in no way reflects on ones ability to raise and love a child.
Does not.
"Moreover, do they not solely seek to please themselves at the expense of the sorrow of their parents and families? "
uh... NO.
So Gay people being themselves are pleasing themselves by making their parent sad when they come out? What? There are more assumptions in this statement than I care to address.
Not all gay people are pleased with being gay due to the society we are in, and to assume all parents hate to hear their kid is gay just completely shows us how twisted your logic is.
Wouldn't your statement also be true if you brought home a someone of a different race to your racist parents? You see where your line of thought is coming from? Bigotry. The assumption that there is something existentially negative about being gay.
It was referring to the inability to conceive with one's partner through direct sexual intercourse. Read the entire argument. This was the context he set up in his premise.
Your first argument compares two things that are not related; this is a fallacy of faulty analogy. The ability to fabricate an aircraft does not evidence an ability to raise and love a child. The argument does not deductively evidence why any person, gay or not gay, can raise and love a child. Moreover, you have asserted that homosexuals are not able to conceive children. Therefore, we can deduce from your claim that homosexuals are biologically deprived of the necessary organs for the conception of a child. Lastly, the argument is ineffective in proving any thing syllogistically. And as for the remainder of your claims and rhetorical questions they don’t deserve refutation. The entirety of the argument fails to prove one thing that has been validly deduced by the author.
Your final statement,” The assumption that there is something existentially negative about being gay.”
A. It is a sentence fragment. The subject is identified but there is no predicate.
B. You affirmed there is something that is existentially negative about being gay; they cannot conceive children.
Your whole of your argument begins with irrationality and ends with irrationality.
I expect that your future reply will also be equally irrational.
Hi LM! What allows you to assume that gay people don't have a parental bone in their body? Many gay people want children. That gene or set of brain cells were surely there at birth even though others were not!
Simplified answer: Healthy human beings who choose to not propagate their own sons and daughters are doing such for selfish reasons.
For the record: I despise the state institution of adoption. Thou shalt not covet…
No man or woman can provide a reasonable justification for transgressing that commandment. The fact that there exists a supposed argument that would justify the act of coveting the sons and daughters of other humans is evidence to me of a people who are dead to the words of the commandments.
If you would care for a more specific explanation, I have no problem submitting additional information.
This debate should be private. If you'll initiate a new debate that is private, I'll thoroughly represent the principles of my viewpoint within that format.
I perceive you are asking a legitimate question concerning my understanding of adoption; I care to only discuss the matter with you. (I'll explain more in the private debate)
Well, first of all, preventing gays from adopting because of a religious law would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.
Secondly, we are not talking about 'coveting' the sons and daughters of other people, because we are talking about orphans who don't have parents. Even if we weren't talking about orphans, this makes the assumption that children are the literal property of their parents.
Heres where you screwed yourself... well first off, in your mother's basement, where you obviously reside.
Secondly, when you said, "Moreover, do they not solely seek to please themselves at the expense of the sorrow of their parents and families?"
I believe that you're implying that all families are sad and distraught over their child's homosexuality? This is not the case.
Homosexuality can be accepted, tolerated, and celebrated. Just because you are a homosexual doesn't mean that you are in defiance of anything.
You are embracing your own feelings. You are being true to yourself. I would argue that someone who does not love themselves, should not attempt to love anyone else. You have to love yourself, and you have to have a genuine love for someone else in order to successfully raise a child. The child understand that love. He or she can learn that there are many types of love, and that it can be expressed in whatever way, with whomever he or she finds suitable for them. But that child needs just an example of love.
Your argument begins with foolishness and ends with foolishness.
If you look, read, and understand the folly between your foolish statement, and foolish command, you will realize that you provided evidence that proves the point of my argument.
I think that everyone should be given the chance to care for a child. And it all depends how you best give the proper guidance and love for your children. But I am not still favor of gays adopting a child. Child should be well-guided and be nurture and I believe that only a legitimate couple complete with a mom and dad could only provide this. There are studies that children with no father image at home tend to engage more into drugs and other things. This is also the same case if mom is not around. I believe this could be worsen if you are reared by parents who has the same gender.
This is an interesting topic because most people argue based on their emotions rather than rational thought. Before individuals start accusing me of being homophobic, homosexuality should be accepted as part of life however the raising of children in a same sex household has many questions unanswered.
Dr Albert Dean Byrd a well educated child and family pyschologist has researched this topic for sometime and he found that children throughout their developmental stages need a MOTHER and a FATHER.
He states
"Children raised in homes with both mothers and fathers navigate the
developmental stages more easily, are more solid and secure in their sense of
self and in their sense of gender identity, perform better in the school system,
have fewer social and emotional problems and become better functioning
adults."
He further points out the roles the Mother and Father play in the up bringing of a child.
"Mothers use touch to calm, soothe and to bring comfort to children. When mothers
reach for children, they frequently bring them to their breasts to provide safety,
warmth and security. Father’s touch is most often described as playful and
stimulating, bringing with it a sense of excitement to the child."
The combination of these roles within a dual gender household clearly shapes the upbringing of a child. The selfish notion of same sex couples wanting to adopt a child or have a child through IVF, or a carrier should be treated with caution.
Exactly! I am not really against gay marriage or gay rights. However, I am glad I finally found a post that I totally agree with. Some kids are born gay, but most are born straight. So unless the same-sex parents are raising gay children, I do believe it is a little selfish to put the kids in that environment. With that said, I didn't grow up in an orphanage, so it is tough to be entirely sure on a position without some doubt...
Gays folks should not adopt for a very simple reason. No American baby, adolescent, toddler, teen, or adult (young or mature) would receive the proper nourishment, values, or knowledge with same sex parents. Also, the Man upstairs made it possible to procreate between a man and a woman. Don't you think we ought not argue with the creator of all things?
I really can't stand downvoting and I would like to know the culprit who is responsible for downvoting my arguments. If you believe gay adoption is good or acceptable, then fine. I don't. I think being gay is not mainstream enough for a child to feel comfortable in a gay household. But fine, allow it. Then compare the children living with gay couples and the children living with straight couples. I'm positive there'd be a huge difference, psychologically speaking.
P.S. I have NOTHING against the gay community. I think it is completely natural. Society deems otherwise.
I wish they could. I think many gay couples would be much better parent than a lot of heterosexual couples; you can't really have an "accident" if you're gay. But, I have been a kid and I know that children are extremely cruel. The adopted child of a gay couple would likely be put through a living hell by his peers.
This is a topic far more complicated than gay marriage. I believe society is still trying to get along with gay marriage and gay pride as to throw gay adoption in the way. I am not against gays, but I do believe that adoption is a whole new level. Gay parents will of course condition the child even if they don't want to, not to mention the hard time the child will have in school and the moral dilemma when he sees that his classmates have moms and dads. I'm not saying this will never happen, I'm just stating that gay couples adopting is not something society can deal with right now, we must be logical when it comes to promoting such laws, a step like this one is too much too soon.
I am a biologist and my point of view is other. The focus isn't on the kid's growth but who this will affect the population. Ok, maybe this will take some time, but is happen know. Moreover, the global warm was like this a few years ago. What I am trying to say is, if the gays have kids their kids will become gays. If they become gays, they won't meet someone to reproduce. If they won't reproduce the population will become old. If the population become old every one will die. Ok, maybe this can be extremist but this is the path that we are taking. If they solve this problem, I guess there won't be a problem whit this, I mean it will be great 'cos there will be more girls for me and a three some will be always a good call.
They should not because a child should atleast have a father and mother or else the child willl be raised a homo. That is unacceptable and inappropriate. Do you pro-gay adoption voters want a child to be bullied at school? If so, you are a c*.
gay marriage is already a step that they're trying to get.. it hurts nobody, but gays adoptiong children hurts the children and will confuse them since their environment is not suited right.
The Homosexual community continue to adopt children! This is training these children to grow up and be gay themselves! Children are being brainwashed to say oh well look at my 2 moms or look at my 2 dads! it must just be okay or normal!? Children are being taught sinful inmmoral behaviors today that will destroy this country in the near future!!
The Homosexual community continue to adopt children! This is training these children to grow up and be gay themselves! Children are being brainwashed to say oh well look at my 2 moms or look at my 2 dads! it must just be okay or normal!? Children are being taught sinful inmmoral behaviors today that will destroy this country in the near future!!
Yes, because it's much better if these kids remain orphans. Besides the fact that there is not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that children raised by homosexuals will become homosexual. Or that we even have reason to fear such a thing.
This is a touchy subject. However, I believe that it's important for a child to have been raised by a mother and a father. Each parent gives his or her child different life lessons and raises a child differently. Sure, one man could act as the father and the other as the "mother", but I think gender is a factor in how you raise your child, no matter sexual orientation. And then there's single parents. The difference there is that they are open to dating other people, so the boyfriends or girlfriends can come into the home and help the single parent in raising his or her child.
But then what happens if there is a family with a mother and a father, but, say, they get divorced, or a parent dies, or something, and then there is only one parent? Is the child going to come out of childhood 'messed up,' or different, like you say would happen? There are plenty of examples of successful, well-rounded adults coming out of homes of all types, ones with only a father, many with only a mother, so I don't see the difference, in your example, if there is a single parent or two parents of the same gender.
I agree with HGrey's point here about the subjectivity of gender. I do not think there are specific things that can be "taught" through ONLY one gender. However, I do think having a parent of that gender helps; a daughter would want to talk to her mother about her period, if given the choice. But fathers can definitely talk about it as well (even though it might be a bit uncomfortable).
To quickly state my piece:
Yes, I believe gay parents should be able to adopt. I do not think a child needs a mother and father to get a healthy perspective on things. I found an old article about this issue a while ago:
By doing a quick google search, you can see that it is not on the forefront of the political crossfire as gay marriage is, but it is a important issue. I think one of the main reasons it makes people so uncomfortable is that everyone feels like they know how to rear children the best, whether it is with homosexual parents, hetoersexual parents, single parents, or whatever. It is a touchy issue for most people, since everyone has to listen to their mother-in-laws bicker once and a while.
I'm interested to hear more from the anti-gay adoption side. This debate is open to all.
I disagree. And I'm actually picking your argument to comment on because it made more sense than most of the others on here. Although you are right in saying each parent gives certain lessons to a child and it's important that that child has different influences, these lessons do not have to come from people of the same gender. Different parents are going to be different no matter their gender. Nurturing doesn't necessarily come from the mother and discipline from the father. Also, say the parents are both men, the children aren't going to be secluded from women in their life. They will have aunts, grandmothers, teachers, family friends, etc that can serve as role models and examples. Also, regardless of whether your arguments make sense or not, it simply isn't shown in any studies done on children raised by gay parents
Blah. Forget it. I'm not going to beat around the bush. I think a child having two fathers or two mothers is completely unnatural. It's not the way nature intended. Nature did intend for gay people to be around, but not for them to have children.
For what reason? From what I understand, 'marriage' is a social construct. 'Marriage' has not held the same definition since its creation, and it is also different across cultures. In some cultures, men can have four wives. In other cultures, men can have a wife and a girlfriend. And look at this country: until only just recently (the past 50 years or so), it was completely acceptable for husbands to beat their wives. It was a "personal" issue, not domestic violence.
I suggest reading this article on how traditional marriage has changed over time:
What I'm trying to get at is: of course homosexual marriages are unnatural. ALL marriages are unnatural. They are constructs of society. And if the society sees it fit, it can change the rules.
1. I'm pretty sure nature, not God, did intend for parents to be heterosexual couples. Why else would we reproduce sexually? A mother and a father can make a baby, and thus a mother and father are more equipped to raise a child.
2. True, unnatural doesn't mean bad. But does it necessarily mean good?
3. You have no right to tell me to denounce my religion. I happen to love my religion and just because you don't believe in a higher being does not mean the whole world must think like you.
1. My point was that the word "intent" implies intelligence.
2. Irrelevant. The point is not that gay adoption is good, the point is that it's not bad and therefore ok.
3. Heh, I know. I just thought I'd throw that out there to see how you'd react. You strike me as too intelligent a person to restrict yourself to an outlook based on nothing but blind faith.
I try my hardest to keep religion out of my debates, unless of course the debate is about the existence of God. =p But other than that, I keep them secular.
I do not think we should label 'religion' as nonsense. Having a moral code is a valuable part of human life, whether or not we define it as religion. But I don't want to change the argument: yes, I agree, just because a religious doctrine may discourage homosexuality, does not mean we must apply that doctrine to a secular government.
But please, feel free to add to this argument/write against it. I am encouraging more debate!
Yeah and they can't conceive children, but they can care for the unwanted children of heterosexuals and in some cases(lesbians) use artificial impregnation techniques just like heterosexuals to conceive a baby. The nature argument is very weak. We as humans bend nature to our will on a daily basis.
Well to sort of counter the downvotes, I'm going to just add another argument. I really love it when people downvote without a reason... not! Seriously, if you're going to downvote an argument that you disagree with, say so! If it's bad grammar, which is rare for me, then fine (and not just one misspelled word). This is a legitimate argument with no misspellings or grammatical errors and there is NO right to downvote it.
Well to sort of counter the downvotes, I'm going to just add another argument. I really love it when people downvote without a reason... not! Seriously, if you're going to downvote an argument that you disagree with, say so! If it's bad grammar, which is rare for me, then fine (and not just one misspelled word). This is a legitimate argument with no misspellings or grammatical errors and there is NO right to downvote it.
Andrew, how old are you and what could you know about what can "screw up a kid?" I'll need some back-up on your blanket statement which makes little sense to those who are a bit older and more well versed.
My question is how old are you? Do you know what can screw up a kid Kuklapolitan? You cannot judge others by age. You could be in your forties and never have raised a kid in your life. I on the other hand have had alot of experience with children and gay parents and I am in my twenties. I could be well more knowledgable about this topic then you.
oh... is there an age limit on this site... hmmm i don't think there is ...what are you even trying to say ...you sound like some lonely sixty year old laddie.... what do you mean about blanket statement
No, there's no age limit on this site, nor did I say so. I asked how old you are! This site gets more and more unfortunate with people like you and your brother on it. I'm not a laddie child. OMG...it doesn't even know what a blanket statement is. Poor little mite.
so your some lonely 60 year old guy who say stuff like "OMG" ? wow my life my life is already turning out better then yours..... and I'm only 15 :) and I'm glad i don't know what a blanket statement is ... so suck on that!
your the mental one ....down voting me just be cause you feel like it ....so you a 60 year old lonely women ....right ? with absolutely no life pffft old people
I down vote no one simply because they down vote me. I'm down voting you because you're a nasty, demented child who has nothing better to do than write garbage! And no, I'm not a 60 year old lonely woman...I'm a 62 year old very happy woman with a life you could never dream of.
Mom wakes you up. Makes you breakfast. You are driven to school. You eat your lunch your mom packed you. You come home and do your homework. Watch tv, maybe whatever it is you do for fun. Eat your dinner your mom makes, go to sleep.
"wow my life my life is already turning out better then yours"
What do you mean your life is turning out well? You live with your parents. You have no responsibilities, accomplishments, or qualifications for anything as you are 15. You are not even old enough to get a job, what are you talking about?
Ah I see you are related to JakeJ. I can't say I am surprised.