Should Gay Couples Be Allowed To Adopt Children?
Yes! There are loads of children in care, it would be unfair to not let them be adopted because their parents are gay. There is only the issue that they need to understand their children- if their child is the opposite gender- gay men need to understand periods and things to properly support a female child, should they choose to adopt a girl, and lesbians would also need to uderstand how to deal with a boy.
As long as they can take care of the children and give the things that they need. Same sex marriage is only acknowledged in some states. While those couples may enjoy some tax advantages because of their union in their own states, they are denied them on a federal level. But strangely, the IRS's "second parent adoption credit" actually works in the favor of same-sex married partners.
Second Parent Adoption Credit (personalmoneynetwork.com)
Gays pose a threat to society. They have a much higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases, look it up. According to LA Times, homosexuals are 20 times more likely to use methamphetamine than heterosexuals. They have a much, much more active sexual past than heterosexuals AND...drum roll...the average gay marriage lasts 1.5 years. A YEAR AND A HALF! Think about that. They are a high-risk group and shouldn't be allowed to f*ck up a child's life even worse than it already is. A foster child needs security and stability, not two gay dads complicating an already topsy turvy life.
The higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases isn't much of a issue when it comes to if they should be able to adopt. Its mainly in existence due to the smaller pool of sexual partners, not being educated on safe sex practices, and the anus being more absorbent.
The higher sexual activity isn't much of a issue either, its mainly in existence because of less barriers to sexual activity. No worries of getting pregnant, no periods, more similar and in tune masculine sex drives, a sense that a sex partner is rarer and thus more attractive(boasting the sex drive) etc.
The higher risk of methamphetamine or drug usage in general will be found among any minority group. This is due to less social acceptance, less inheritance due to the treatment of or by ancestors, etc. Potential adopters should be screened individually, not by what minority groups they belong to.
A adopted child does not necessarily have a already Topsy turvy life; especially if they were adopted young. Gay people generally do not complicate situations, most if not all complications result as a synergistic effect involving their non-acceptance in a group or all of society.
What complications might result for the child? Could the child be teased, yea: so? being teased is a important lesson, it teaches that some people are simply not worth trying to please and that you should give no importance to them(at least for the analytical child). Should a child that needs glasses be teased? no, but he will; does that mean he does not need glasses? will a child that need parents be teased? yes, most if not all children are teased, and any perceived abnormality will be used as a tool for the process; does that mean that parents should be as "normal" as possible?
Gays pose a threat to society. They have a much higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases, look it up. According to LA Times, homosexuals are 20 times more likely to use methamphetamine than heterosexuals. They have a much, much more active sexual past than heterosexuals AND...drum roll...the average gay marriage lasts 1.5 years. A YEAR AND A HALF! Think about that. blah blah blah...
What a crock of sh*t...
If the (assumedly reputable) adoption agency is happy that the gay couple in question are suitable to adopt then who gives a crap what the LA Times thinks about gays in general?
Your revolting bigotry reveals that you are simply a prejudiced individual with an axe to grind with homosexuals.
That is the real truth here...
Perhaps you are gay yourself...and cannot deal with it...dont worry that is common enough.
I am bisexual and it took me a while to accept that..so you are not alone. ;)
"They have a much higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases"
And this has what to do with the children they would adopt? They are gay, that doesn't mean they are going to sexually assault a child. Why should the fact that someone likes their own gender, really effect their chance of having children? The children they have probably wouldn't become gay, because that's not something a parent can influence. Having a child together could probably also bring them together more, creating more of a family, not just a relationship between two people that are of the same gender.
No, first of all gay marriage should not even be legal in the first place, but picture your self 7 or 8 yrs old and you just got adopted by a gay couple would you feel comfortable? I mean I sure as hell wouldnt. I would kill my self before I go off to live with them I mean could you imagine like at school making new friends, "hey my name is Billy I have two dads who are you?" the kid would laugh at you and be like yeah ok you are weird. Think from the child's perspective would you really want to grow up with two dads or two moms and try to live like other people and have friends because to be completely honest I would not be friends with someone who has two dads or moms.
Hell no! All moral issues aside, homosexuality is socially unacceptable to a great many people who will ridicule the child to no end. Adoption may please selfish Gays but it will make the child's life a living hell. I say it is child abuse to place a child in a position like that, but I am sure everyone is more concerned with the rights of queers than the well-being of children.
They said the same thing about mixed marriages. Mixed children turned out fine. Homosexuals need equal rights, so do Bisexuals, Transgendered people and so on. Concealing them from the public's eye only protracts the bigotry. Making homosexual adoption widespread means that within one generation it will become completely accepted.
Homosexuality is only socially unacceptable to bigots.
Your use of the term queers reveals that you are a bigot.
We do not all think like you Enlightened, thank God.
What I consider as really abhorrent about your post is using the excuse of the child's well being to justify the restriction of the civil liberties of homosexuals.
If bigots like you were not permitted to persecute homosexuals or punished if they did then your concerns for the well fare of children would be a moot point.