Should Gays be allowed to adopt?

I already know it is not nurture. The question is do Homosexuals have the genetic trait to procreate? Or do they simply have sex for fun, if the latter, than they should not be permitted children.

FM, no legal reasons yet. Just in nature it doesn't happen, even though it does. Also, chimps and other smart animals can adopt kids, say a chimp with two kids dies, the group will put the kids with other chimps, so it would be possible for gay chimps to get a kid.(unlikely, but still could)

Chimps, raise their children communally, meaning that though there is a mom and dad, all the moms and dads share what responsibilites there is. This style of raising wouldn't be too bad for humanity, and in this case there is absolutely no reason to distinguish between sexuality.

But Humanity's family oriented social behavior out-weighs communal raising. So giving a child to a homosexual would be giving it to a homosexual, not like in chimp society where they all take turns.

Also, in a chimp society, if a homosexual chimp tried to hump another guy chimp....he'd probably be killed.

Another interesting note, is there are no lesbians in the natural world. This is why I've always felt sexuality in woman is just optional, some are lesbians because they prefer women, others are straight because they prefer guys, and others are bi because...this I've never heard of as being observed in the wild. Probably because animals don't know about oral sex, and almost all animals do not have sex for pleasure...so naturally, there is no way a female anything can have sex with a female anything. But if you can find a lesbian couple in the wild, reference, anything, do tell...

Legally they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because that would be saying they are something they are not. You can't suck all of the pigmant out of a black person legally...it has to be his choice (Like MJ). As for a homosexual person, it is not their choice, it is the child's choice.

The reason why the statement that Children shouldn't be forced into heterosexual families is stupid, is because there's no avoiding it. You HAVE to be born to a heterosexual family.

Good luck at pooping out that child.

Sincerely,
no signature

I'm on the phone and haven't even read everything you've said, Freemason, but let's hope you're one of the ones who can't reproduce.


[Edited on 18-12-2002 by St. Theresa]

Bob88 is right.

Ill say this one more time.

Homosexuality is no more than a lifestyle of lust for the
reason of sexual pleasure and nothing more.

they have sex for the reason of????

nothing.

other than??

to be lustfull, just like man and women haaving sex out of marriage.


it is an abomination of self pleasure and sick sadistic wants and needs by
two of the same race.

there is no outcome for having sex other than ??


peace.

[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Truth]

Bob88 is right.

Ill say this one more time.

Homosexuality is no more than a lifestyle of lust for the
reason of sexual pleasure and nothing more.

they have sex for the reason of????

nothing.

other than??

to be lustfull, just like man and women haaving sex out of marriage.


it is an abomination of self pleasure and sick sadistic wants and needs by
two of the same race.

there is no outcome for having sex other than ??


peace.

shut up truth.

Don't worry St. Theresa, I promise I'll have oodles of biggoted kids just for you

Sincerely,
no signature

Oh my. So many arguments, so many holes, so little time. I've opened the reply screen in a new window so that I can easily review your most hysterical points. What's wrong and what deserves a reply seems so clear in my mind, but it's as difficult as trying to explain one plus one equals two. You DO agree that 1+1=2, right? Just checking.

Your apples and oranges argument was, quite simply, apples and oranges. It was irrelevant for more reasons than I have time to explain. I mean, really, Freemason...an apple isn't an orange, therefore homosexuality is abnormal? I hope you didn't spend a lot of money or time on that study, dude. But while we're there, let's just leave it with this: apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit and they're both healthy foods.

And I've already digested your lame argument that fertility and parental ability are one and the same, but you had to take it a step further and say that homosexuals who want to adopt are greedy. I'm sorry, but you'll have to extend the same condemnation to infertile heterosexuals...you know, those greedy people who adopt crack babies and discarded Chinese girls? Right? Because if nature didn't give them the tools to breed, they're obviously not supposed to be parents. I don't know what we'd do with the overflow of kids who need adoption, but hey...certainly it's much BETTER for these kids to float around in foster homes forever than to live with someone who's ABNORMAL.

And that gay couple who've cared for HIV/AIDS infected children, staying up all night to comfort them in their pain, clean up their puke, bring down their fevers...greedy bastids. They should be thrown in jail!

[/end sarcasm]

I can't believe you'd be so naive as to think that homosexual relationships are based purely on sex, while hetereosexual relationships are the only kind based on love. ARGHHHHHHHHH! I'd have to go into Attraction, Romance and Love 101 for this and I just don't have the time. A LOT of straight couples start out when the guy gets a look at that hot babe and thinks about what he wants to do with her. Seriously, dude, just because that might not be YOUR approach doesn't mean that's not how it often plays itself out. That whole soapbox you got on about this so-called deviance from normality, and how it's some sort of selfish, perverted thing, was just friggin' hypocritical.

If you stop thinking about fertility and your definition of normal or how two people of the same sex would express their love to each other in private, you're left with some basic realities.

The only difference between being gay and being straight is that your attractions are different. Anatomically speaking, you'll express your love in different ways. After that, there's no difference. Gay people can be successful, loving, caring, loyal and responsible. They cook dinners, kiss boo-boos, read bedtime stories and play catch.

There are no LOGICAL arguments against these facts in this thread. Not counting biblical nonsense, which I never count, all I've gotten was a) fertility and b) what will the neighbors think?

Since we've already established that fertility has never been a requirement of adoption (nor should it be), and that if kids suffer by having gay parents, it's only because society has a bigotry addiction, I'd like you to go to the drawing board and start over again.

Originally posted by St. Theresa
Oh my. So many arguments, so many holes, so little time. I've opened the reply screen in a new window so that I can easily review your most hysterical points. What's wrong and what deserves a reply seems so clear in my mind, but it's as difficult as trying to explain one plus one equals two. You DO agree that 1+1=2, right? Just checking.

Your apples and oranges argument was, quite simply, apples and oranges. It was irrelevant for more reasons than I have time to explain. I mean, really, Freemason...an apple isn't an orange, therefore homosexuality is abnormal? I hope you didn't spend a lot of money or time on that study, dude. But while we're there, let's just leave it with this: apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit and they're both healthy foods.

And I've already digested your lame argument that fertility and parental ability are one and the same, but you had to take it a step further and say that homosexuals who want to adopt are greedy. I'm sorry, but you'll have to extend the same condemnation to infertile heterosexuals...you know, those greedy people who adopt crack babies and discarded Chinese girls? Right? Because if nature didn't give them the tools to breed, they're obviously not supposed to be parents. I don't know what we'd do with the overflow of kids who need adoption, but hey...certainly it's much BETTER for these kids to float around in foster homes forever than to live with someone who's ABNORMAL.

And that gay couple who've cared for HIV/AIDS infected children, staying up all night to comfort them in their pain, clean up their puke, bring down their fevers...greedy bastids. They should be thrown in jail!

[/end sarcasm]

I can't believe you'd be so naive as to think that homosexual relationships are based purely on sex, while hetereosexual relationships are the only kind based on love. ARGHHHHHHHHH! I'd have to go into Attraction, Romance and Love 101 for this and I just don't have the time. A LOT of straight couples start out when the guy gets a look at that hot babe and thinks about what he wants to do with her. Seriously, dude, just because that might not be YOUR approach doesn't mean that's not how it often plays itself out. That whole soapbox you got on about this so-called deviance from normality, and how it's some sort of selfish, perverted thing, was just friggin' hypocritical.

If you stop thinking about fertility and your definition of normal or how two people of the same sex would express their love to each other in private, you're left with some basic realities.

The only difference between being gay and being straight is that your attractions are different. Anatomically speaking, you'll express your love in different ways. After that, there's no difference. Gay people can be successful, loving, caring, loyal and responsible. They cook dinners, kiss boo-boos, read bedtime stories and play catch.

There are no LOGICAL arguments against these facts in this thread. Not counting biblical nonsense, which I never count, all I've gotten was a) fertility and b) what will the neighbors think?

Since we've already established that fertility has never been a requirement of adoption (nor should it be), and that if kids suffer by having gay parents, it's only because society has a bigotry addiction, I'd like you to go to the drawing board and start over again.

I agree with you. A gay couple can love a child the same as a heterosexual one. One thing is that the media influences children to become bigots [ I am not saying all children become bigots. ] Just look at music. We have sick bastards singing about killing/harming women, killing/harming gays. killing/harmig gays. They sing about sexual abuse like it is okay, they aslo sing about hatred toward God and his son Jesus Chirst. An example is that bastard Eminem or whatever it is spelled. Young kids listen to that sh*t and they think it is okay. Well of course it is not okay. Bigotry is mainly spread though the media.

Where I live I am bashed for my beliefs in gay rights. A friend of mine said asked me if I would be happy if I had gay parents. I said as long as they loved me I don't give a damn if they were gay. He was shocked when I said that, it was if I cursed God. He said I would go for hell for beliefs in gay rights. But here is one thing. I do not belive that gays are ''evil''. I go by the fact that we should Love thy neighbor. Like God says in the Bible that is what I belive in. Being a bigot is worse than belivein in gay rights. Bigots break many of the Lords laws, one of the Seven Deadly Sins, wrath. They break the Lord's saying '' Love thy Neighbor.

OK, all of you who say that it is "abnormal" and "disgusting" to be gay, what makes you say that? Because the people like other people of the same gender? Bad reason, there.
That's what it comes down to: You're not opposed to the adoption portion, it's the fact that the parents are gay. That sort of discrimination is unneeded. Like JM said, way back when, we thought left-handed people were "evil" and "monsters". Then a few hundred years later, whites thought the same of African-Americans and Orientals. It's foolishness.
As long as the parents are not beating on the kid(s) constantly, or making out in from of them, it should be fine. Nothing you'ved been arguing over makes sense.

Originally posted by Truth

Bob88 is right.

Ill say this one more time.

Homosexuality is no more than a lifestyle of lust for the
reason of sexual pleasure and nothing more.

they have sex for the reason of????

nothing.

other than??

to be lustfull, just like man and women haaving sex out of marriage.


it is an abomination of self pleasure and sick sadistic wants and needs by
two of the same race.

there is no outcome for having sex other than ??


peace.

Truth, show me how being gay is ''lustfull''. They made a choice in life, and no one can change that choice. God loves all of us the same.

Truth, they aren't gay because they have sex with someone of the same race. It's sex, not race, race is skin color, sex is not. Get it right.

Also, wasn't a white girl having sex with a black guy a hell worthy sin before the 1970's?? Wasn't eating meat on a certain day a hell worthy sin? Wasn't walking backwards while holding your crotch a hell worthy sin?(Ok, maybe not that one, but you get the point) So just wait, this hell worthy sin practiced by many preists won't be hell worthy sooner or later.

Besides, only reason this considered a sin or wrong is because people are bigots. So wait for people to stop being bigots and learn a person controls themselves, you can't control them. You don't like they write left handed? To bad, that how they write, can't say that a abomination, you go to hell. Learn that, and the world, yes the world, will be a better place, for me, and you, just wait, you'll see.

James that is what I, and others are trying to get across. I agree totally with you on this one.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Truth, they aren't gay because they have sex with someone of the same race. It's sex, not race, race is skin color, sex is not. Get it right.

Also, wasn't a white girl having sex with a black guy a hell worthy sin before the 1970's?? Wasn't eating meat on a certain day a hell worthy sin? Wasn't walking backwards while holding your crotch a hell worthy sin?(Ok, maybe not that one, but you get the point) So just wait, this hell worthy sin practiced by many preists won't be hell worthy sooner or later.

Besides, only reason this considered a sin or wrong is because people are bigots. So wait for people to stop being bigots and learn a person controls themselves, you can't control them. You don't like they write left handed? To bad, that how they write, can't say that a abomination, you go to hell. Learn that, and the world, yes the world, will be a better place, for me, and you, just wait, you'll see.

Finally!! You're agreeing with us!! Sort of...

Looks like the bigots lost this agruement.

YES!!!

Eh, I shouldn't take any credit, you guys won this before i got here.

Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
As long as the parents are not making out in from of them, it should be fine.

Why is this wrong? Shouldn't it be appropriate for parents to express their love?

Bigots always loose. I'm no bigot (nor have I mentioned the bible!!) and yet I oppose, at this time, gay adoption. Truth - you may agree w/ me thought I don't agree with your assumptions (other than it's not right to have sex outside the marriage - and not because of religious reasons, per se). I think the children are the only one to get hurt in this situation and their needs have to be thought of first � especially the children that are being adopted � they need plenty of TLC in a loving, stable, family environment. It�s not that I don�t think a gay couple couldn�t provide that really � it�s just the bigger picture. As of now, gay marriages aren�t accepted in a majority of states � yet adoption is allowed? I myself don�t think a single parent should be allowed to adopt in just any circumstance. The child�s best interests should the most important factor here. There are lots of things to be considered! (Oh �it�s not like gays haven�t already adopted, btw)
Here�s an interesting story I came across: www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by Winston Smith

Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
As long as the parents are not making out in from of them, it should be fine.

HL, why can't the gay parents express love through kissing etc.?

Not what I meant when I typed "making out." I mean, like any parents, it's wrong for them to be doing.... eh.......you-know-what in front of the kids. Kissing is fine.

"Since when did we condone sex for the fun of it? "

since last night, since like, forever.

jesus H christ why the hell do you screw?
it it some masochistict act you indulge in purely to experience self loathing or somthing.

sex is biologically created to be fun.
thats why women have clits. They evolved to make sex more pleasurable and give us a really great reason for bumping uglys.

sex is fun, 90% of sex is purely a recreational activity.