• 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!

Should SSM couples be permitted to adopt children?

Should SSM couples be permitted to adopt children?

  • Total voters
    79
JANFU said:
Discrimination by some based upon sexual orientation.
Discrimination by some, based upon Religious beliefs.
Discrimination based upon those that believe it is unnatural.
And as Justice Roberts may rule in favor of SSM, discrimination based upon sex.
Click to expand...
All of which kinda makes my point.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A child needs both a mother and a father. To intentionally deprive a child of this is indefensible.
Click to expand...

And here I was thinking intentionally depriving a young child from any sort of parents at all was a horrible thing to do. Let's keep all the young children on welfare until straight couples adopt them!
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A child needs both a mother and a father. To intentionally deprive a child of this is indefensible.
Click to expand...

Children who are up for adoption have already been deprived of a mother and a father-- a gay couple adopting them is two parents they wouldn't have had otherwise.
 
Ontologuy said:
I would have voted "other" in the poll, had that option been present.

Same-sex couples should be permitted to adopt .. but, they must conform to the same state-by-state regulations as any other couple.

Thus, if a state says the couple must be married, then either the state must change their statute to additionally say "or homarried" (or whatever word that state has employed to differentiate marriage (meaning "a man and a woman as husband and wife") from what obviously isn't "marriage" (like a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a non-romantic domestic partnership, or whatever)) or the couple must conform to existing state statutes or not adopt.

Regardless, however, a same-sex couple should be discouraged from adopting.

This is because that parental gender role modeling significantly teaches a child subliminally how to behave in a romantic relationship as an adult and the great majority of the time a same-sex couple will damage a child thusly.

In a marriage, the man and the woman as parents model how a man and a woman would behave in a romantic relationship, so if their children are either a boy or a girl, and if their children are straight (it is a roughly 94+ percent likelihood statistically that a child is straight, not homosexual, transsexual, or "bi"-sexual), then the children receive the proper and positive gender-appropriate role modeling.

But in a homarriage, two men as parents present negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a female straight child, and two women as parents present a negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a male straight child.

Two men in a same-sex romantic relationship are frequently physically rough with each other in a way that a man and a woman simply aren't, and thus a straight female child raised by these men would likely internalize that roughness as a "desirable" trait in her relationship .. and end up in a relationship with an abusive man where she could get severely injured or killed.

Both married and homarried couples are equally apt percentage-wise to bring a similar degree of dysfunction into their relationship which will harm their kids, so this is a wash comparing either type of couple.

But a homarried (same-sex) couple introduces an additional significant dysfunction inculcation into their children as I've just presented, which occurs the overwhelming vast majority of the time (the rare exception being a gay boy raised by two men partners and a lesbian girl raised by two women patners).

The severity of the damage done to such children cannot be rightly and intelligently overlooked and dismissed.

Though we know that homosexuality is an epigentic anomaly inculcated in a prenatal human during gestation, we as yet don't have a definitive lab test to determine if an infant, toddler, or young child is straight or gay or trans or the so-called "bi". If we did have such a test, we could direct gay boys to be adopted by male same-sex partners and lesbian girls to be adopted by female same-sex partners, as either of these adopted by either the opposite gender same-sex partners or a straight couple would be significantly harmed gender role-modeling-wise.

Arguably, going without a parent in foster care is worse than the harmful gender role modeling I've presented here .. and I do stress the word "arguably".

But there are many opposite-sex couples seeking to adopt .. and I would advise that until all qualifying opposite-sex couples adoptions have been satisfied, that qualifying same-sex couples be placed at the end of the line, for understandably good reasons I've presented here.

I'm not saying that same-sex couples not be permitted to adopt.

I'm simply saying that we need to be sensitive to the very real needs of the children being adopted first.

It's simply stupid to be compelled into doing known harm to children merely because one has been sucked into a victim mentality acting-out state regarding the current issues projected onto same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Wow....this post is full of so much BS I couldn't even start breaking it down to comment on it. Dude...you seriously have no clue if you actually believe even a fraction of what you posted.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A child needs both a mother and a father. To intentionally deprive a child of this is indefensible.
Click to expand...

So you honestly think it's better that children remain completely parentless in orphanages than to be raised by homosexuals? That's some really, really hateful **** man. I can not believe you call yourself a christian.
 
OrphanSlug said:
There is no reason to hold same sex marriages to a different standard than traditional marriages, in any regard including adopting children. Again, this entire thing is about equality not special conditions.

We all agree there are plenty of terrible parents out there, but there is no real reason to look at sexual orientation as the method of assigning a positive or negative association with being a capable, loving, supportive, and strong parent.

The fact that this is even a question tells us we have much work to do in this regard.
Click to expand...




I agree with what you say, but must add, that the fact that this is even a question shows how far we have come as a society in a very few years.

I can't say exactly when the tide seemed to turn. Early 90's? Even in college in the 70's, the general response to the Gay lifestyle by the general public was one of revulsion at the most extreme and exclusion at the least extreme.
 
Ontologuy said:
I would have voted "other" in the poll, had that option been present.

Same-sex couples should be permitted to adopt .. but, they must conform to the same state-by-state regulations as any other couple.

Thus, if a state says the couple must be married, then either the state must change their statute to additionally say "or homarried" (or whatever word that state has employed to differentiate marriage (meaning "a man and a woman as husband and wife") from what obviously isn't "marriage" (like a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a non-romantic domestic partnership, or whatever)) or the couple must conform to existing state statutes or not adopt.

Regardless, however, a same-sex couple should be discouraged from adopting.

This is because that parental gender role modeling significantly teaches a child subliminally how to behave in a romantic relationship as an adult and the great majority of the time a same-sex couple will damage a child thusly.

In a marriage, the man and the woman as parents model how a man and a woman would behave in a romantic relationship, so if their children are either a boy or a girl, and if their children are straight (it is a roughly 94+ percent likelihood statistically that a child is straight, not homosexual, transsexual, or "bi"-sexual), then the children receive the proper and positive gender-appropriate role modeling.

But in a homarriage, two men as parents present negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a female straight child, and two women as parents present a negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a male straight child.

Two men in a same-sex romantic relationship are frequently physically rough with each other in a way that a man and a woman simply aren't, and thus a straight female child raised by these men would likely internalize that roughness as a "desirable" trait in her relationship .. and end up in a relationship with an abusive man where she could get severely injured or killed.

Both married and homarried couples are equally apt percentage-wise to bring a similar degree of dysfunction into their relationship which will harm their kids, so this is a wash comparing either type of couple.

But a homarried (same-sex) couple introduces an additional significant dysfunction inculcation into their children as I've just presented, which occurs the overwhelming vast majority of the time (the rare exception being a gay boy raised by two men partners and a lesbian girl raised by two women patners).

The severity of the damage done to such children cannot be rightly and intelligently overlooked and dismissed.

Though we know that homosexuality is an epigentic anomaly inculcated in a prenatal human during gestation, we as yet don't have a definitive lab test to determine if an infant, toddler, or young child is straight or gay or trans or the so-called "bi". If we did have such a test, we could direct gay boys to be adopted by male same-sex partners and lesbian girls to be adopted by female same-sex partners, as either of these adopted by either the opposite gender same-sex partners or a straight couple would be significantly harmed gender role-modeling-wise.

Arguably, going without a parent in foster care is worse than the harmful gender role modeling I've presented here .. and I do stress the word "arguably".

But there are many opposite-sex couples seeking to adopt .. and I would advise that until all qualifying opposite-sex couples adoptions have been satisfied, that qualifying same-sex couples be placed at the end of the line, for understandably good reasons I've presented here.

I'm not saying that same-sex couples not be permitted to adopt.

I'm simply saying that we need to be sensitive to the very real needs of the children being adopted first.

It's simply stupid to be compelled into doing known harm to children merely because one has been sucked into a victim mentality acting-out state regarding the current issues projected onto same-sex couples.
Click to expand...




These are interesting patterns of behavior that you are describing.

How do you know that these described patterns of behavior are accurate and pervasive in the couples to which you attribute them?
 
CRUE CAB said:
So that gives them the right to screw up some kids life?
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen parents and their children interact and witnessed the parenting skills of the hetero folks herding their kids through the world? Like everyone, by the time they know what their doing, their done. Not an indictment of any particular group. It's a tough job and the opportunity to screw it up is ongoing.

Absent the display of parenting skills of hetero couples, evidence of the failure of hetero parenting competence is presented all around us in every place, everyday in the capabilities and incapabilities of those that were raised by heteros.

What gives them the right to screw up some kid's life?

However, we must be mindful that if the couple is comprised of two women, then Mother's Day is made much more challenging. :)
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A child needs both a mother and a father. To intentionally deprive a child of this is indefensible.
Click to expand...



The thread is about adaption.

The child has already been deprived "of this".
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A child needs both a mother and a father. To intentionally deprive a child of this is indefensible.
Click to expand...

Since you can't prove this contention, it is nothing but ignorant opinion. Ignorance of all the evidence that shows that children really do not "need" both a mother and a father.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you honestly think it's better that children remain completely parentless in orphanages than to be raised by homosexuals? That's some really, really hateful **** man. I can not believe you call yourself a christian.
Click to expand...

Almost always those who are the quickest to call themselves "Christian" know the least about what it is to actually be one.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A child needs both a mother and a father. To intentionally deprive a child of this is indefensible.
Click to expand...

Having a penis or a vagina has a role in creating a child. However, the penis and vagina are the least important things when it comes to raising a child.
 
I suspect the state wasn't part of the "we" in the OP.
 
Ontologuy said:
I would have voted "other" in the poll, had that option been present.

Same-sex couples should be permitted to adopt .. but, they must conform to the same state-by-state regulations as any other couple.

Thus, if a state says the couple must be married, then either the state must change their statute to additionally say "or homarried" (or whatever word that state has employed to differentiate marriage (meaning "a man and a woman as husband and wife") from what obviously isn't "marriage" (like a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a non-romantic domestic partnership, or whatever)) or the couple must conform to existing state statutes or not adopt.

Regardless, however, a same-sex couple should be discouraged from adopting.

This is because that parental gender role modeling significantly teaches a child subliminally how to behave in a romantic relationship as an adult and the great majority of the time a same-sex couple will damage a child thusly.

In a marriage, the man and the woman as parents model how a man and a woman would behave in a romantic relationship, so if their children are either a boy or a girl, and if their children are straight (it is a roughly 94+ percent likelihood statistically that a child is straight, not homosexual, transsexual, or "bi"-sexual), then the children receive the proper and positive gender-appropriate role modeling.

But in a homarriage, two men as parents present negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a female straight child, and two women as parents present a negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a male straight child.

Two men in a same-sex romantic relationship are frequently physically rough with each other in a way that a man and a woman simply aren't, and thus a straight female child raised by these men would likely internalize that roughness as a "desirable" trait in her relationship .. and end up in a relationship with an abusive man where she could get severely injured or killed.

Both married and homarried couples are equally apt percentage-wise to bring a similar degree of dysfunction into their relationship which will harm their kids, so this is a wash comparing either type of couple.

But a homarried (same-sex) couple introduces an additional significant dysfunction inculcation into their children as I've just presented, which occurs the overwhelming vast majority of the time (the rare exception being a gay boy raised by two men partners and a lesbian girl raised by two women patners).

The severity of the damage done to such children cannot be rightly and intelligently overlooked and dismissed.

Though we know that homosexuality is an epigentic anomaly inculcated in a prenatal human during gestation, we as yet don't have a definitive lab test to determine if an infant, toddler, or young child is straight or gay or trans or the so-called "bi". If we did have such a test, we could direct gay boys to be adopted by male same-sex partners and lesbian girls to be adopted by female same-sex partners, as either of these adopted by either the opposite gender same-sex partners or a straight couple would be significantly harmed gender role-modeling-wise.

Arguably, going without a parent in foster care is worse than the harmful gender role modeling I've presented here .. and I do stress the word "arguably".

But there are many opposite-sex couples seeking to adopt .. and I would advise that until all qualifying opposite-sex couples adoptions have been satisfied, that qualifying same-sex couples be placed at the end of the line, for understandably good reasons I've presented here.

I'm not saying that same-sex couples not be permitted to adopt.

I'm simply saying that we need to be sensitive to the very real needs of the children being adopted first.

It's simply stupid to be compelled into doing known harm to children merely because one has been sucked into a victim mentality acting-out state regarding the current issues projected onto same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "homarriage". Same sex marriage is legal in 37 states now. Not one of those states has rename the union "homarriage". Maybe it's time to drop that term?

The rest is just conjecture.
 
Manc Skipper said:
I suspect the state wasn't part of the "we" in the OP.
Click to expand...

If SSM is denied in some for, or another by SCOTUS, which I doubt, then States laws would and should apply. And for Roberts the so called swing vote, I bet a dollar to a doughnut he will use sexual discrimination as part of his ruling in favor of SSM.
As some states recognize SSM, I have no idea if SSM couples can adopt?
I was interested in peoples opinions. Odd how those against SSM, for the most part avoided this thread like a Vampire and Holy Water.
As in the end it has been public opinion dramatically changing in the past 10 years that forced State Govts. to legalize SSM, and that has brought this case to SCOTUS.
 
No, they should not. As clearly delusional and defunct person's there is no way that they should be around children.
 
code1211 said:
The thread is about adaption.

The child has already been deprived "of this".
Click to expand...

And they will adapt regardless of being deprived...
 
disneydude said:
A child doesn't care what genitals their parents have.
Click to expand...

Stupid kids never learn... if they took notes at conception they would know!! What is it the education system now-a-days??
 
LaylaWindu said:
Of course
"Sexual Orientation" straight, gay, Bi should never be a reason alone that impacts adoption, only an asshole would think it is.
Click to expand...

If the asshole was used then there would be no orphan... why don't people plan better!?!?
 
Bodhisattva said:
No, they should not. As clearly delusional and defunct person's there is no way that they should be around children.
Click to expand...
"Delusional" is poor word choice.

As a bi male, I can recognize that anything not heterosexual is not normal and based in some sort of behavioral deviation, but I have no reason to believe this deviation is any more "harmful" (or harmful at all in relation to the children's mental health) than the myriad of mental issues any single person likely has, e.g. a narcissistic personality or some level of emotional retardation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom