• 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!

Do you object to gay couples adopting?

Would you allow gay people to adopt?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 59.4%
  • No

    Votes: 41 40.6%

  • Total voters
    101
Of course they can, just not from them being with one another sexually...

Wow - it's funny how some people twist and spin things around in an effort to try to be cute.

Gay people can't produce children. Some other person can produce a component to a child and they stick it in the gay person - but the gay couple did not produce that child. It's why it's called ARTIFICIAL insemination.

"Artificial" is the operative word there.

Which reminds me of a Family Guy episode where two gay people were getting artificially inseminated.

"We're going to need some sperm and an applicator shaped like Jodie Foster's knuckles"


:lol::lol::lol:
 
The definition of perversion is "not the norm". Gay parents are certainly not the norm.

Sometimes the norm is not always right for everyone.
 
According to the only collective study on the frequency of homosexuality, the numbers are at 10%. That is the common figure that people quote from the Kinsey report. Though the section that popularization has conveniently skimmed over (probably due to discomfort) is that the realm of bisexuality places the human species at 40% in this category. Most people have homosexual tendencies even if they are not "100% gay".

I find the anti-gay movement to be perverse, since it denies all scientific evidence that homosexuality is a normal occurence in nature. It uses institutions which rely on non-secular evidence to perpetuate the heteronominalization of society, as if that is the correct thing to do or even their place to do so.

Given the number of unwanted children in this world, I would base adoption qualifications on a case by case basis, not a group by group basis. Heterosexuals as a whole cannot be said to be more suited to adoption. There are some really screwed up heterosexual couples out there. There are at least three cases a year that I can think of about some nutjob couple that fosters children and puts them in cages. But that's not because they are heterosexual, it's because they are clearly insane.

Likewise, there are plenty of stable gay people who could give great homes to parentless children. If I were a policy maker, I would rather see a child have the opportunity to go to school and have a stable, consistent livelihood than simply abandon them to souless and inconsistent foster care system in perpetuity, all because a section of society thinks that their homosexual benefactors are going to molest them.

Get real people. There are bigger priorities than this travesty of a debate.
 
Only if there are no qualified married couples available.

I don't think you get it. A qualified married couple that wants to adopt, can adopt assuming they have the financial means to do so. Its not as though orphans in this world are in short supply. There is no need to run commercials on adoption: "We only have a few orphans left, better get them before they are gone!".
 
I don't think you get it. A qualified married couple that wants to adopt, can adopt assuming they have the financial means to do so. Its not as though orphans in this world are in short supply. There is no need to run commercials on adoption: "We only have a few orphans left, better get them before they are gone!".

The K-Mart special:lol:
 
I don't think you get it. A qualified married couple that wants to adopt, can adopt assuming they have the financial means to do so. Its not as though orphans in this world are in short supply. There is no need to run commercials on adoption: "We only have a few orphans left, better get them before they are gone!".
There is no shortage of qualified, heterosexual, married couples either. Until there is then gays should not adopt.
 
There is no shortage of qualified, heterosexual, married couples either. Until there is then gays should not adopt.

If this were true, then why are there so many unadopted kids?
 
If this were true, then why are there so many unadopted kids?
Ask the well qualified parents for their opinion on this, after being on a waiting list for 2 years and paying outrageous and often hidden fees. I suspect it is bureaucratic nonsense, none of which would go away if gays were allowed to adopt, and in fact would probably get worse.
 
Ask the well qualified parents for their opinion on this, after being on a waiting list for 2 years and paying outrageous and often hidden fees. I suspect it is bureaucratic nonsense, none of which would go away if gays were allowed to adopt, and in fact would probably get worse.

LOL I lived in an adoption home for 5 years. There most certainly was a shortage of parents willing to adopt those kids. They weren't tied up in waiting lists or bureaucratic bull****. They just didn't exist.
 
Anecdotal evidence.

Ludicrous. There are a lot of orphans just in the United States, not to mention world wide. 127,000 is estimated in America, there doesn't seem to be 127,000 heterosexual couples jumping up and down trying to get these kids. There's not a line for adoption. You have people getting fertilized, giving birth to octuplets before you have people looking to adopts. You may say that a mother and father make the best home...maybe. But any loving home is better than what the State can provide and if same-sex couples want to adopt, I say let them. We need all the people we can get willing to adopt. Children need a home, not "adults" arguing whether or not they get a loving family due to the make up of that family.
 
Last edited:
Ludicrous. There are a lot of orphans just in the United States, not to mention world wide. 127,000 is estimated in America, there doesn't seem to be 127,000 heterosexual couples jumping up and down trying to get these kids. There's not a line for adoption. You have people getting fertilized, giving birth to octuplets before you have people looking to adopts. You may say that a mother and father make the best home...maybe. But any loving home is better than what the State can provide and if same-sex couples want to adopt, I say let them. We need all the people we can get willing to adopt. Children need a home, not "adults" arguing whether or not they get a loving family due to the make up of that family.

Waiting time to adopt varies depending on the type of adoption and any unforeseeable circumstances that may arise. Estimates of waiting time are:

* Healthy infant: 1 up to 7 years
International: 6 up to 18 months
Child waiting in foster care for an adoptive family: 4 up to 18 months

(National Endowment for Financial Education, 1997)
NATIONAL ADOPTION STATISTICS
 
People who want to adopt adopt, that's the bottom line. There's not a shortage of kids in the US or the rest of the world. People are not lined up waiting for an orphan to be created. The US may have a bunch of laws that makes it take a lot of time to get paperwork through (waiting time is not a line, and you don't have to get an infant, there are plenty of other children needing homes), but there still are not enough willing heterosexual couples out there wanting to adopt to soak up all our orphans. Thus we should open it up to same-sex couples as well.
 
There is no shortage of qualified, heterosexual, married couples either. Until there is then gays should not adopt.

Yes, you are right, there is no shortage of qualified, heterosexual, married couples, that are capable of adopting. However, there is a huge shortage of qualified, heterosexual, married couples that are willing to adopt.

So why could anyone in good conscience deny a child a family simply because of that?
 

As a parent that has adopted, if you want to adopt, you have the means to do so, and your suitable for adoption, then you can adopt. Maybe we should just totally streamline it, remove all the background checks that take so much time, that way any married couple, no matter what their financial situation is, mental health state, criminal history, type of home, and so on can adopt the day they decide to do so. Boy that would be great huh.
 
Last edited:
As a parent that has adopted, if you want to adopt, you have the means to do so, and your suitable for adoption, then you can adopt. Maybe we should just totally streamline it, remove all the background checks that take so much time, that way any married couple, no matter what their financial situation is, mental health state, criminal history, type of home, and so on can adopt the day they decide to do so. Boy that would be great huh.

As long as they are not homosexual. :2wave:


I personally have no problems with steady, loving, financial secure homosexuals couples adopting children.
 
As a parent that has adopted, if you want to adopt, you have the means to do so, and your suitable for adoption, then you can adopt. Maybe we should just totally streamline it, remove all the background checks that take so much time, that way any married couple, no matter what their financial situation is, mental health state, criminal history, type of home, and so on can adopt the day they decide to do so. Boy that would be great huh.
Its not the background checks that take so much time. They can't take any more than a week or two. *shrug*
 
Back
Top Bottom