• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Kristen Gillibrand announces bill to help adoptive LGBT parents

Well even if it doesn't pass (whatever does these days with the ****ty 60 votes rule?), i always like when civil rights comes to vote just to see and prove once again how evil the republican party is
 
If they don't go to normal [every child needs a mother and father] people's homes, it should be classified as child abuse IMHO.

OK... so then by your own definition an orphan, a child without either a mother OR a father is being subjected to abuse IYHO. So do you think being subjected to the abuse of being without a mother and father is better or worse than the "abuse" of being with and having two mothers or two fathers?
 
How will they be at a disadvantage? What makes a mother and father situation more healthy than a situation with homosexual parents? Do you have a source to back up your claim?

A study by the United States Department of Health and Human Services outlines the importance of fathers in a child's life. I'm assuming the father in this study is a male parent, but I'm not entirely sure. If that is the case, would you concede that a male-female parental unit is better than a male-male or female-female one?
 
A study by the United States Department of Health and Human Services outlines the importance of fathers in a child's life. I'm assuming the father in this study is a male parent, but I'm not entirely sure. If that is the case, would you concede that a male-female parental unit is better than a male-male or female-female one?

Interesting. You are posing a question that is not of the topic at all. Actually the topic is, is the situation of having gay parents better than no parents at all.
 
Interesting. You are posing a question that is not of the topic at all. Actually the topic is, is the situation of having gay parents better than no parents at all.

I will kindly redirect you to the question posed by Anomalism:

How will they be at a disadvantage? What makes a mother and father situation more healthy than a situation with homosexual parents?

I would love to see all of the nearly 1,000,000 children without stable homes in this country be placed into one, and I have no qualms with homosexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, et cetera., to clarify. I'm merely posing a question in response to his.
 
I will kindly redirect you to the question posed by Anomalism:



I would love to see all of the nearly 1,000,000 children without stable homes in this country be placed into one, and I have no qualms with homosexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, et cetera., to clarify. I'm merely posing a question in response to his.

Fair enough.
 
A study by the United States Department of Health and Human Services outlines the importance of fathers in a child's life. I'm assuming the father in this study is a male parent, but I'm not entirely sure. If that is the case, would you concede that a male-female parental unit is better than a male-male or female-female one?

If you're familiar with that study would you mind giving me a synopsis of why they believe male-female parental units are more healthy? I really don't feel like reading the entire thing.
 
If you're familiar with that study would you mind giving me a synopsis of why they believe male-female parental units are more healthy? I really don't feel like reading the entire thing.

Of course, I'll give you the bullet-point summary:

  • Children with involved, caring fathers have better educational outcomes.
  • Children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections with peers.
  • Children who live with their biological father in a married household are significantly less likely to be physically abused, sexually abused, or neglected than children who do not live with their married biological parents

Now, this doesn't necessarily take-away from any possible effects a mother-mother or father-father relationship has on a child, but it's interesting nonetheless. If a father is, according to this study, a good thing for a child to have, would you - if presented with the choice - give a child to two married women or a man married to a woman, ceteris parabis?
 
Of course, I'll give you the bullet-point summary:
Now, this doesn't necessarily take-away from any possible effects a mother-mother or father-father relationship has on a child, but it's interesting nonetheless. If a father is, according to this study, a good thing for a child to have, would you - if presented with the choice - give a child to two married women or a man married to a woman, ceteris parabis?

I'd really have to take the time to find out how they came to those conclusions. If it was indisputably proven that heterosexual couples raised healthier children I would give a child to the heterosexual couple first. However I doubt that study in any way shows that homosexual couples raise unhealthy children, so considering the need for parents that want to adopt there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals.
 
A study by the United States Department of Health and Human Services outlines the importance of fathers in a child's life. I'm assuming the father in this study is a male parent, but I'm not entirely sure. If that is the case, would you concede that a male-female parental unit is better than a male-male or female-female one?

That's not a study but an argumentative essay full of psych 101 jargon that cross references other studies, without providing any direct data. There is no attempt to control for variables, for instance claiming that fathers beat their kids less than mothers, but not considering that mothers might be around their kids far more.

Most of it refers to studies done 20 years ago, before gay parents were even common, and reaches not remotely persuasive conclusions such as "some studies suggest." It pushes programs like 'Boot Camps for New Dads' with no evidence that they work. It makes no attempt to follow outcomes for *adopted* kids, or any mention of gay parents that i can find.

It's more like an advertisement for department programs and begging for extra funding.
 
If they don't go to normal [every child needs a mother and father] people's homes, it should be classified as child abuse IMHO.

Your opinion is noted and laughed at. A loving home is better regardless of the gender of the parents.
 
A lack of suitable adoptive parents is a made up problem do gooder liberals invented so that they could fix it..

Tim-

My son and his wife are in the middle of an adoption now. You know nothing about adoption.
 
Sounds good to me. Is there a rational reason to not support this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-bill-adoptive-lgbt-parents-article-1.2225814

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced a bill Sunday that would remove legal barriers to adoption by lesbian, gay and transgender parents. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she will introduce legislation this week that would prohibit discrimination against adoptive parents. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act would prohibit any entity that receives federal funds from discriminating against adoptive or foster parents based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.

Since no one chose to answer my question, I'll ask you directly:

What federal laws are currently impeding LGBT adoption?
 
IMO being an orphan is hard enough without having to explain to the other children that your adoptive mommy use to be a dude.

So putting a child into that environment, IMO, would be a form of mental abuse.
Why would you explain it? Its nobody else's business and nobody would know just out of the blue
 
Sounds good to me. Is there a rational reason to not support this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-bill-adoptive-lgbt-parents-article-1.2225814

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced a bill Sunday that would remove legal barriers to adoption by lesbian, gay and transgender parents. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she will introduce legislation this week that would prohibit discrimination against adoptive parents. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act would prohibit any entity that receives federal funds from discriminating against adoptive or foster parents based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.

While I am fine with reducing legal barriers to the above adopting children - I am against the government forcing people to not discriminate. I have said time and time again, people should be free to be as pathetically discriminatory (on ANYTHING) as they want to be. And if some adoption agency does not want to give children to gays/lesbians - that should be their choice.

I am sick and tired of governments forcing people to act as the state wishes (outside of violence/threads/stealing/etc.). People should be free to be prejudiced if they want to be - even if it goes against 99.9999% of the rest of the nations population's wishes/beliefs.

What is the point of freedom of expression if you are not allowed freedom to express your opinion - no matter how distasteful it may be?
 
Sounds good to me. Is there a rational reason to not support this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-bill-adoptive-lgbt-parents-article-1.2225814

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced a bill Sunday that would remove legal barriers to adoption by lesbian, gay and transgender parents. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she will introduce legislation this week that would prohibit discrimination against adoptive parents. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act would prohibit any entity that receives federal funds from discriminating against adoptive or foster parents based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.

One can support this move and at the same time wonder why pandering to a certain segment of the population is good government policy. I'd simply say, why not pass legislation that makes every legal age adult with the financial means and social maturity eligible to adopt a child in need of a home?
 
OK... so then by your own definition an orphan, a child without either a mother OR a father is being subjected to abuse IYHO. So do you think being subjected to the abuse of being without a mother and father is better or worse than the "abuse" of being with and having two mothers or two fathers?

Given that I believe M/M and W/W is sinful.....you tell me.
 
Your opinion is noted and laughed at. A loving home is better regardless of the gender of the parents.

You guaranteeing that? We are talking about what is best for the child.

Living in a deviant, sin-filled atmosphere hardly seems "loving"
 
You guaranteeing that? We are talking about what is best for the child.

Living in a deviant, sin-filled atmosphere hardly seems "loving"

Dragging some kid to hear about the make-believe man in the sky is the real child abuse!
 
IMO being an orphan is hard enough without having to explain to the other children that your adoptive mommy use to be a dude.

So putting a child into that environment, IMO, would be a form of mental abuse.

I would think being an orphan is hard enough with having to explain to the other kids what happens after death, why there is war, what the meaning of life is, whether history and time are infinite, why the universe is so big, what resides outside the universe, whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and whether Gandalf could beat Dumbledore in a duel. Having to explain why your mommy used to be a dude sounds like a softball to me.



For those interested, Dumbledore would win because, simply put, Dumbledore used magic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom