CaneBrain 95 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Love is not enough. Good intentions are not enough. All the available studies conclude that a male-female scenario is superior to a gay scenario in terms of healthy and happy development of an infant. It's pretty damn obvious too. With older kids, it's debatable, but with infants it's not.However, if there are truly, absolutely, no straight couples around to adopt a kid, the gay option is better than foster care. But I doubt that ever happens.If the last sentence of your post was true then there would be no kids in DCF. There are always plenty of straight couples around to adopt babies. There are never enough straight couples around to adopt all children. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I think for a lot of kids who are not in the desirable adopting age, homosexual couples might be their best bet. There are still tons of kids who bounce around foster care.and the mere fact that this scenario could occur (even if only rarely in your opinion) that should still be enough for gay adoption to be legal.I didnt say it should be illegal...i dont think its the governments business, but I also dont think an agency should approve them except in rare circumstances Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 the goaltender? man, that would've made a great story.First Colombian born goalie in pro hockey, lol. (If he makes it, of course). Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Gay couples adopting isn't a static issue.Kids are mean in school, putting a generation or two in a condition of constant teasing shows that the gay adopt thing is a selfish thing.As far as the marraige thing, it's the word marriage. Again, the gays don't want what's best, they want what they want.I'm not allowed to marry another man, why should they be allowed too? They want extra rights because of how they perform the sex act.Don't forget less than 40 years ago being gay was classified as a mental disorder caused by a dominating mother and an absent or wimpy father figure. Now of course it's caused by voting democrat too often Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 As far as the marriage thing, it's the word marriage.This Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I'm not allowed to marry another manYes you are. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Yes you are.I just asked the wife, and she said I wasn't. So it appears you are wrong again vb. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I just asked the wife, and she said I wasn't. So it appears you are wrong again vb.whipped imo. Link to post Share on other sites
checkymcfold 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I think gay people are behaving in an incredibly selfish manner in wanting to raise an infant. It is treating kids like a car or a house. I want it "just because", and "just because" I want it, I should be allowed to have it. You have to think of the child's well being above all else, and put your own selfish desires under wraps. It's too important a responsibility to be undertaken for personal aggrandizement.i think the same thing about infertile men and women.but wait, wait, back up here for a second. i still don't think that interracial couples should be allowed to marry or that families of one race should be allowed to adopt children of another. these are obviously different issues and need to be taken on before we can even start with the whole gay thing. Link to post Share on other sites
checkymcfold 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 All the available studies conclude that a male-female scenario is superior to a gay scenario in terms of healthy and happy development of an infant.quote me one study that accounts for socioeconomic factors. one. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 is it better or worse than being shuffled around, never finding a permanent home at all?shame there's not much data, but I've heard plenty of promising anecdotal evidence about adoptees in gay families.There are quite a few studies on the issue I think. I was watching a parliamentary debate re-run and the speakers referenced quite a few names and studies into the matter, though the conclusion wasn't very clear either way.Gay couples adopting isn't a static issue.Kids are mean in school, putting a generation or two in a condition of constant teasing shows that the gay adopt thing is a selfish thing.As far as the marraige thing, it's the word marriage. Again, the gays don't want what's best, they want what they want.I'm not allowed to marry another man, why should they be allowed too? They want extra rights because of how they perform the sex act.Don't forget less than 40 years ago being gay was classified as a mental disorder caused by a dominating mother and an absent or wimpy father figure. Now of course it's caused by voting democrat too oftenAre you being serious or making a joke?They want extra rights because of the way they perform a sex act? WTF are you talking about? They want equal rights, they don't want to be disadvantaged by tax breaks to married couples, which i'm not sure if that is the case atm but in England the party who's about to win the next election is planning on doing just that. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 There are quite a few studies on the issue I think. I was watching a parliamentary debate re-run and the speakers referenced quite a few names and studies into the matter, though the conclusion wasn't very clear either way.Are you being serious or making a joke?They want extra rights because of the way they perform a sex act? WTF are you talking about? They want equal rights, they don't want to be disadvantaged by tax breaks to married couples, which i'm not sure if that is the case atm but in England the party who's about to win the next election is planning on doing just that.Exactly. To me it is more about Tax Breaks and other financial issues than it is about expressions of Love or Relationship. My wife and I are childless by choice and therefore rarely see any benefits from so many breaks given to families with children. We are taxed WAY out of proportion relative to benefits we get back. It is just too easy for politicians to pass out these sorts of benefits because it doesn't take much thought. I believe that "marriage" should be a non-government definition.Instead of redefining Marriage, I think we need to redefine the Tax Breaks and other legal views of committed relationships. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 This is just an issue that puzzles me. This isn't necessarily a Dem or Repub thing because as we found out in the VP debate, both are against it.Basically, if you're against it, why? How does it affect you if two dudes or two gals you've never met get married? Does it cost you money? Do they get benefits you don't? What's the deal? Now, I'd rather not read that it's morally wrong, or not a traditional marriage, because that's simply applying your belief system to other people, which I think is wrong, and a lot of what's wrong with this country.So basically, how are you actually affected by two gay people being dumb enough to want to get married? How does it hurt you? I don't care. I believe God does but that's between gays and God, it's not my life or choice to make. Link to post Share on other sites
neretva 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 quote me one study that accounts for socioeconomic factors. one.I don't care about socioeconomic factors. They are irrelevant.The best option for a child's healthy development is a responsible man married to a responsible woman with a stable household.Every other option involves a compromise and increased risk of dysfunction. The goal should always be to place an infant in the best possible circumstances.If that is impossible, then we can prioritize and explore the alternatives (infertile straight parents, gays, whatever). Aside to the forum: Please don't supply your personal anecdotes about rising above your gay, infertile, schizophrenic drug-addicted parent(s). It's boring. The argument is not about what humans can endure in their upbringing. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I don't care about socioeconomic factors. They are irrelevant.The best option for a child's healthy development is a responsible man married to a responsible woman with a stable household.Every other option involves a compromise and increased risk of dysfunction. The goal should always be to place an infant in the best possible circumstances.If that is impossible, then we can prioritize and explore the alternatives (infertile straight parents, gays, whatever). Aside to the forum: Please don't supply your personal anecdotes about rising above your gay, infertile, schizophrenic drug-addicted parent(s). It's boring. The argument is not about what humans can endure in their upbringing. Now this is a man I can get behind. Link to post Share on other sites
x Swift x 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 If gay people want to be as miserable as the rest of us then let them Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Now this is a man I can get behind.lol Link to post Share on other sites
ktjb23 0 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 It has nothing to do with "contagion" or "pedophiles". I think every child needs a parent of both genders for healthy psycholgical development.I know this is slightly off topic, but what about being raised by a single parent? I had no father figure in my life up until I was 21 years old. I don't think i had an unhealthy psycholigical developement at all. Obv its more desirable to have a mother and father figure, but to say you think every child needs that for a healthy psychological developement seems a little narrow minded. However, I do realise thats your opinion, I just wanted to know your thoughts on single parent situations. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 I'll ask, because no one else will. What has your success rate been?12%if you add in fingers, 35%I think gay people are behaving in an incredibly selfish manner in wanting to raise an infant. It is treating kids like a car or a house. I want it "just because", and "just because" I want it, I should be allowed to have it. You have to think of the child's well being above all else, and put your own selfish desires under wraps. It's too important a responsibility to be undertaken for personal aggrandizement.no more selfish than a straight couple wanting to have a baby, or one of those weirdo couples in Arkansas that have 18 kids in 18 years and name them all something starting with the letter KGay couples adopting isn't a static issue.Kids are mean in school, putting a generation or two in a condition of constant teasing shows that the gay adopt thing is a selfish thing.As far as the marraige thing, it's the word marriage. Again, the gays don't want what's best, they want what they want.I'm not allowed to marry another man, why should they be allowed too? They want extra rights because of how they perform the sex act.Don't forget less than 40 years ago being gay was classified as a mental disorder caused by a dominating mother and an absent or wimpy father figure. Now of course it's caused by voting democrat too oftenI know making mostly unfunny jokes in a political thread and having Nutz follow up with a slurp and burp is kind of your thing, but I don't get any of this, regarding humor or merit.Kids are mean regardless. That doesn't factor in. So fat kids should be killed too? Because they receive the worst of it in school.Marriage means marriage? What does that even mean? They don't want extra rights, just the same as you to marry the person they are choosing to spend the rest of their life with. If you wanted to marry a dude, you'd be allowed. It's a civil union, not some fantasy world of god blessing your marriage. God is your thing, not eveyone's thing. Keep it that way.Who cares about 40 years ago and gays being considered mentally disabled? 40 years ago blacks were hung from trees and shot in public and the guilty parties were acquitted in court by a jury of white peers. 40 years ago's ignorance has nothing to do with today. (and yes, I read some civil rights stuff recently about a young black man in GA shot for using a white's only water fountain at some guys gas station. Gas station owner came out and shot the kid dead and was acquitted by an all white jury. Not to even mention the numerous pictures of lynchings and people, men, women and children standing around bodies swinging from trees, posing for pictures. So please, spare me the "40 years ago" defense)Now I think this is the part where you come back in and make a two word quip and I get faced.I don't care. I believe God does but that's between gays and God, it's not my life or choice to make. Post number 6 out of 5000 that I agree with LoisThe best option for a child's healthy development is a responsible man married to a responsible woman with a stable household.and how often does that actually happen in the real world anymore? Not very often. Times have changed. This isn't Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best anymore. It's a real world with divorced parents, step-dads, etc. There is no regular family life anymore. Normal is what's normal and works for you. I wish people would stop clinging to the past and evolve with the times, and by people, I mean republicans. (that last part was a joke, basically)Now get back on topic people: GAY MARRIAGE, WHY ARE YOU AGAINST IT? Link to post Share on other sites
donk4life 34 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Because it goes deeper than gays getting married. If we legalize gay marriage, that opens the door for other people preaching their practices should also be legal. Do you believe polygamy should be legalized? If members of the same sex can now get married, why can't men have multiple wives? Is raising children in a homosexual environment better than raising them in a polygamist environment? So, we allow gay marriages, next we allow polygamy, what are going to allow next? Marriage between a man and a horse? Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Because it goes deeper than gays getting married. If we legalize gay marriage, that opens the door for other people preaching their practices should also be legal. Do you believe polygamy should be legalized? If members of the same sex can now get married, why can't men have multiple wives? Is raising children in a homosexual environment better than raising them in a polygamist environment? So, we allow gay marriages, next we allow polygamy, what are going to allow next? Marriage between a man and a horse?I dont see anything wrong with Polygamy in theory. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Because it goes deeper than gays getting married. If we legalize gay marriage, that opens the door for other people preaching their practices should also be legal. Do you believe polygamy should be legalized? If members of the same sex can now get married, why can't men have multiple wives? Is raising children in a homosexual environment better than raising them in a polygamist environment? So, we allow gay marriages, next we allow polygamy, what are going to allow next? Marriage between a man and a horse?And SEX WITH DOGS! PEOPLE WILL BE HAVING SEX WITH DOGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET! Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 It should be allowed. Anyone against it is a fckn *******Gay people should be allowed to adopt. Pleny of hetero couple have babies because they "want" a child and tons more have accidental babies or just keep procreating even though they shouldn'tGay people shouldn't have to suffer from the prejudices of those who don't agree with their lifestyleGay people are human. Love is human. Plenty of heteros screw around like dogs in heat and are complete sluts, so the promiscuity issue is rendered null and voidMany Creationists are against gays. This alone is worth supporting gay rightslol @ the dogfckng discussion. It's like saying marijuana use automatically leads to herion addiction Link to post Share on other sites
donk4life 34 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 And SEX WITH DOGS! PEOPLE WILL BE HAVING SEX WITH DOGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET!Is that such a stretch? Hell there are pornos out there of women having sex with horses and dogs. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Is that such a stretch? Hell there are pornos out there of women having sex with horses and dogs.You would know.But seriously, are you serious? I cant tell. Gay people getting married will not lead to people fucking animals. Those perverts are probably already doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now