• 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

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A local columnist in Orlando wrote an excellent article on a very expensive battle the State of Florida is fighting to keep a gay couple from adopting their foster kids.

The state encourages gays to become foster parents, but will spend enough money to raise several kids on a needless lawsuit to prevent gays from adopting.

If there are any posters here who would not allow the people in the following story to adopt their foster kids, please explain why.


State's hypocrisy on gay adoptions could tear apart this family

Frank Gill and his partner rescued two abused brothers, now ages 4 and 8, from a Miami crack house. The foster parents provided a loving home that healed physical and emotional damage.

And now the Department of Children and Families, which gave the boys over to Gill, is trying to break up the family, spending $260,000 so far on the legal effort.

-snip-

The state recruits gays to serve as foster parents because many provide nurturing shelter for Florida's growing number of abandoned and abused kids.

The state normally would encourage Gill's request to adopt the brothers.

But a 1977 law bans gay adoptions in Florida.

So we have this hypocritical situation in which the state acknowledges gays as good parents while at the same time denying them parenthood.

-snip-

...Attorney General Bill McCollum's office put on a Byzantine case against Gill's adoption request.

-snip-

The attorney general's main expert witnesses was George Rekers, a Miami clinical psychologist and Baptist minister who believes gays are immoral and has written that gay activists are trying to legalize pedophilia. He argues gays are more prone to depressive disorders, substance abuse and unstable relationships, disqualifying them as adoptive parents.

Gill's attorneys refuted the state with nationally known experts in health, adoption and child welfare from the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the UCLA School of Public Health, Rutgers University and the University of Miami medical school.

-snip-

"The state looked for credible, well-respected social scientists to testify in court on its behalf," said Bob Rosenwald, one of Gill's attorneys. "But there were no serious scientists who would take its position."

Not even for the $60,900 the state paid Rekers.

-snip-

DCF is fighting Gill because it fears a political backlash from social conservatives if he is allowed to adopt the boys. They could bring intense political pressure to ban gay foster parents. That would be devastating, particularly as the economy worsens, the number of abuse cases rises and the state's resources dwindle.



State's hypocrisy on gay adoptions could tear apart this family -- OrlandoSentinel.com
 
Last edited:
I object on the grounds that I observe that the welfare of the child in such cases is generally a minor issue. Almost always the justifications are the rights and happiness of the adopters, and those wishing to think themselves morally superior by publicly supporting purported "gay rights."
 
I object on the grounds that I observe that the welfare of the child in such cases is generally a minor issue. Almost always the justifications are the rights and happiness of the adopters, and those wishing to think themselves morally superior by publicly supporting purported "gay rights."

You may want to read the article. The foster parents in this case have taken in needy, troubled kids and have given them normal lives. Think about an abused kid lousy with ringworm, who wouldn't talk, had never seen a book...

Why shouldn't the people who took that kid into their home and turned his life around be allowed to adopt him? Regardless of who they sleep with?
 
I'm certain that there are good examples. But I don't think it's a good idea in general.

Ultimately, this is a case of performing social experiments on children.

For what it's worth, I similarly oppose most single parent adoptions as well, and I've enforced that position in my own life.
 
Do you object, then, to gay couples raising their own biological children, or do you think the State has an obligation to intervene?
Are you aware that about half of all lesbians have children?
 
Do you object, then, to gay couples raising their own biological children, or do you think the State has an obligation to intervene?
Are you aware that about half of all lesbians have children?
I object to them conceiving, to be honest. and if they do, I think they'd show more love to the child by giving up for anonymous adoption.

Of course, I could be wrong, my opinions in this matter are not extremely firm, but they stand as they are at this point.

If gays, wish to raise children, then I believe that they should be willing to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle and marriage.

Please understand, I do not accept the premise that people can have even a majority of the things they want in life. This includes children. I accept a vision of life in which most people get rather little of the things of situations that they might desire, and that this is right and proper.

But I do firmly believe that the needs of the young child should come before the needs of the parents in any family. This includes the need adults might feel to live in a homosexual relationship.
 
I object to them conceiving, to be honest. and if they do, I think they'd show more love to the child by giving up for anonymous adoption.

Of course, I could be wrong, my opinions in this matter are not extremely firm, but they stand as they are at this point.

If gays, wish to raise children, then I believe that they should be willing to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle and marriage.

Please understand, I do not accept the premise that people can have even a majority of the things they want in life. This includes children. I accept a vision of life in which most people get rather little of the things of situations that they might desire, and that this is right and proper.

But I do firmly believe that the needs of the young child should come before the needs of the parents in any family. This includes the need adults might feel to live in a homosexual relationship.
Then the question arrises, what then is the best model for child rearing and why?
 
Then the question arrises, what then is the best model for child rearing and why?
I favor a traditional family with a mother and a father and preferably several siblings, for a number of reasons.

In truth I'd like to see, in our country anyway, fewer and larger child rearing families. I think we'd be best served by having only the most committed raising children.
 
In truth I'd like to see, in our country anyway, fewer and larger child rearing families. I think we'd be best served by having only the most committed raising children.

That's one way to bottleneck the gene pool, I guess.
I happen to think there's more strength in diversity.
 
I favor a traditional family with a mother and a father and preferably several siblings, for a number of reasons.
What about finances? Religious affiliation? Urbanites?

Oftencold said:
In truth I'd like to see, in our country anyway, fewer and larger child rearing families. I think we'd be best served by having only the most committed raising children.
Larger families have huge financial obligations. If a family is as committed to child raising they'd have to be fairly well off to put forth all that time and commitment - sounds awfully similar to eugenics movement slogans.
 
I dont object to it in a moral way its just the school i went too i would be endlessly bullied and beaten up because of it.Kids are cruel.I dont think its ok to please adults at the sake of children sometimes.
 
Larger families have huge financial obligations. If a family is as committed to child raising they'd have to be fairly well off to put forth all that time and commitment - sounds awfully similar to eugenics movement slogans.

What?

Larger families mean more financial support later on though because their are more people around.
 
Wouldn't larger families create more diversity? There'd be more children to reproduce with more children.

Larger and fewer, was what he said. He did not specify how much larger, how much fewer.
I believe we'd start having some of the sorts of problems we see in polygamous cultures, or in tight-knit clans which rarely marry outsiders, such as the Ashkenazi Jews and the Hmong.
These problems would include birth defects and genetic mutations.
 
Larger and fewer, was what he said. He did not specify how much larger, how much fewer.
I believe we'd start having some of the sorts of problems we see in polygamous cultures, or in tight-knit clans which rarely marry outsiders, such as the Ashkenazi Jews and the Hmong.
These problems would include birth defects and genetic mutations.

I don't know about fewer or not marrying outsiders but I'd personally welcome larger kinship groups, it might help stem the progressive slid into atomism.
 
That's one way to bottleneck the gene pool, I guess.
I happen to think there's more strength in diversity.
The belief that diversity inherently creates strength is a common misconception.

In humans, there is far more than enough genetic variety in a somewhat smaller breeding population to prevent questions of degradation of inherited traits from becoming an issue.

At the risk of being thought a proponent of Eugenics, which I am not, did you think that fine livestock was created by allowing all memebers of the herd to breed? You would be quite incorrect if you did.

I do not favor much genetic selection of humans though, except to eliminate disease. I prefer selection based on willingness, even above ability, of the parents to provide for the childrens' needs across a very wide spectrum.
 
Last edited:
If the gay couple is vetted by the service and found just as capable as a straight couple of raising the child, then I don't see why not. Fostering safe and stable homes for these kids is all that matters. Its not like the adoption process is quick and easy.
 
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that children raised by same sex parents turn out worse than those raised by opposite sex parents. I fully support gay adoption, being gay myself. My state recently made it legal for single women and lesbians to have access to IVF treatment, so I am looking foward to becoming a single mother by choice (yeah yeah, berate all you like) with the blessing of the state government.
 
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that children raised by same sex parents turn out worse than those raised by opposite sex parents. I fully support gay adoption, being gay myself. My state recently made it legal for single women and lesbians to have access to IVF treatment, so I am looking foward to becoming a single mother by choice (yeah yeah, berate all you like) with the blessing of the state government.

I have a very close friend who, as a lesbian years ago, adopted 2 children, one girl and one boy. Her children have gone on to great success and are two very well rounded, mature heterosexual adults. IOW she was a great parent and I personally don't believe that because someone is either hetero or homo precludes parenting skills.
 
I have a very close friend who, as a lesbian years ago, adopted 2 children, one girl and one boy. Her children have gone on to great success and are two very well rounded, mature heterosexual adults. IOW she was a great parent and I personally don't believe that because someone is either hetero or homo precludes parenting skills.

Of course not! I am very happy for your friend and wish her all the best in the future.:cool:
 
What about finances? Religious affiliation? Urbanites?

Larger families have huge financial obligations. If a family is as committed to child raising they'd have to be fairly well off to put forth all that time and commitment - sounds awfully similar to eugenics movement slogans.

I know a number of families with several children and modest incomes who care for their kids quite well. Prioritizing has a lot to do with this. Again, I'd like to see people unwilling to make the commitment remain childless.

I grew up in a fairly large family of modest means. We found ways to thrive. The motivation to produce fully actualized adults drove my parents to find the means. It's really very simple.

It is not my place to make public pronouncements abut which religious groups should have children except that people should be aware that procreation can be used as a weapon.

What about Urbanites?
 
There is no such thing as a 'traditional' family.
If that is the sort of thing you wish to believe, then I leave it unto you.

You are also free to believe that there is no such things as nice weather, fine flavor, a pleasant afternoon or beauty, all of which are also terms which only confuse the overly clever.
 
Last edited:
If that is the sort of thing you wish to believe, then I leave it unto you.

You are also free to believe that there is no such things as nice weather, fine flavor, a pleasant afternoon and beauty, all of which are also terms which only confuse the overly clever.

They are all subjective terms; only the underly clever believe they have some sort of objective or universal application.
 
Back
Top Bottom