• 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
Most people would slap you if you stated that their family was not a 'traditional' one...
Click to expand...

Most people I know would slap you if you suggested their family was a 'traditional' one.
Traditional does not equal good, normal, natural, or anything of the sort.
It equals "conservative", and I doubt it sounds appealing to anyone but conservatives.
It's become a catchphrase appropriated by the radical Christian Right.
"Traditional Family" "Traditional Family Values". Etc.

It means males are heads of household, females don't work outside the home, and any contraception other than the notoriously ineffective "rhythm method" is taboo.

Who the hell wants to be "traditional"?
It's teh suck, if you ask me.
 
Cristina said:
It's true. What would say to those single parent families, foster families, adoptive families, etc? They are not 'traditional' in your sense of the word - unless you are going to claim that as long as there's a mother and a father, it's all good?

Would you call these families 'non traditional'? How about abnormal? Unnatural? Most people would slap you if you stated that their family was not a 'traditional' one - because as I said, there are so many different families that there is no such thing as a 'traditional' family.
Click to expand...
I would call the families you describes as non-traditional, yes. Of course "traditional" is not a rigid term. I refer to a married heterosexual couple in general, and one with a good record of behavior and history of stability. I have very little interest in justifying adoption based upon the affect that it has on the adoptive parents.

Parenthood should naturally be beneficial to the well being of the parents, but this must be a decidedly secondary concern.

Very few people would slap me, as I am a rather large, and often unpleasant man.
 
Most people I know would slap you if you suggested their family was a 'traditional' one.
Click to expand...
Are they like you?

Traditional does not equal good, normal, natural, or anything of the sort
Click to expand...
It means it has existed in a society for some time, this means it will tend to be part of the fabric of society with its own functions and ideational factors. It may well have latent functions and likely be somewhat interdependent with over institutions, there could well be unintended consequences from its rash removal.

A stable society should certainly feel the traditional has a moderate goodness or naturalness about it.
It equals "conservative", and I doubt it sounds appealing to anyone but conservatives.
Click to expand...
It sounds appealing to me and I'm not a conservative.

It is not to those who take their political principles from Enlightenment philosophes, Jacobins and Bolsheviks who hate it so much and wish to completely destroy it. Those who combine a morbid subjectivity and atomism and a wish to destroy anything traditional, settled, decent, sacred or old and with a paradoxical levelling and extreme egalitarianism, universalism and rationalism.
 
Last edited:
The news article is OBVIOUSLY a LIE in how it is presented and so BIAS as to have NO VALUE for any opinion. The article states:

"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."

To take that as literally true, Gill and his partner are a licensed MD doctor and PhD child psychologist, who burst into a crack house on their own - kidnapping the two children. Then, from their home, the gay doctor performed surgeries and medical procedures while the gay child psychologist successful fully solved the children's psychological issues.

HOW ABSURD. Who "rescued" the children would have been the state/CPS and the evaluation of the foster parents is unsubstantiated in anyway and a declaration by an obviously grossly bias author.

I OPPOSE gay foster parents primarily because I don't want child stuck in the middle of rabid gay rights politics for which any consideration of placing or removing children with a gay couple would be amidst gay activists screaming that anyone who opposed the placement or supported removal is a homophobic bigot - and - like the article - willing to tell any lie to obtain their goal.

I support single parents being foster parents.
 
Last edited:
Unrein said:
It's not orientation that is the issue it's gender.
Click to expand...

Since...?

Descriminating marriage for interracial couples is exactly like this. You cannot control your race nor can you control your gender. Saying homosexuals have an equal right to marry is like saying "black people have an equal right to marry the same race, just like white people have the same right to marry the same race, etc."

Seperate but equal is not equal.
Click to expand...

You are trying to continue to argue your position from a position that I find untenable, illogical. Comparing race with sexual orientation is not logical. Maybe I'll never find a point when I can find these two comparable.
 
rsixing said:
Since...?



You are trying to continue to argue your position from a position that I find untenable, illogical. Comparing race with sexual orientation is not logical. Maybe I'll never find a point when I can find these two comparable.
Click to expand...

Race and sexual preference are not the same at all.
 
1069 said:
Most people I know would slap you if you suggested their family was a 'traditional' one.
Traditional does not equal good, normal, natural, or anything of the sort.
It equals "conservative", and I doubt it sounds appealing to anyone but conservatives.
It's become a catchphrase appropriated by the radical Christian Right.
"Traditional Family" "Traditional Family Values". Etc.

It means males are heads of household, females don't work outside the home, and any contraception other than the notoriously ineffective "rhythm method" is taboo.

Who the hell wants to be "traditional"?
It's teh suck, if you ask me.
Click to expand...


I think that you are adding too much to it.
"Traditional Family" simply means a husband and wife with kids, that is all.

The far right and christian radicals can't hijack the term. The "values" is what cheapens the term.
Traditional Families are just ones that are "Traditional" and these are obvious and non-debatable.
"Traditional Families" are cross cultural and timeless.

A family can be a melding of many things, but just as I was railed on by so many... they just aren't "Traditional".
 
Oftencold said:
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."
Click to expand...

I've been arguing this point for years.

The pro-gm argument is about self gratification and ligitomising the gay identity in the public eye. The welfair of the children and family takes a distant 3rd place at best, when it's even mentioned at all.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that you are adding too much to it.
"Traditional Family" simply means a husband and wife with kids, that is all.

The far right and christian radicals can't hijack the term. The "values" is what cheapens the term.
Traditional Families are just ones that are "Traditional" and these are obvious and non-debatable.
"Traditional Families" are cross cultural and timeless.

A family can be a melding of many things, but just as I was railed on by so many... they just aren't "Traditional".
Click to expand...

Even with incest, it's still husband and wife with kids, not brothers.

Even with poligamy, it's husband and wives with kids, not a big group of men looking for a discount on medical insurence.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
The news article is OBVIOUSLY a LIE in how it is presented and so BIAS as to have NO VALUE for any opinion. The article states:

"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."

To take that as literally true, Gill and his partner are a licensed MD doctor and PhD child psychologist, who burst into a crack house on their own - kidnapping the two children. Then, from their home, the gay doctor performed surgeries and medical procedures while the gay child psychologist successful fully solved the children's psychological issues.

HOW ABSURD. Who "rescued" the children would have been the state/CPS and the evaluation of the foster parents is unsubstantiated in anyway and a declaration by an obviously grossly bias author.

I OPPOSE gay foster parents primarily because I don't want child stuck in the middle of rabid gay rights politics for which any consideration of placing or removing children with a gay couple would be amidst gay activists screaming that anyone who opposed the placement or supported removal is a homophobic bigot - and - like the article - willing to tell any lie to obtain their goal.

I support single parents being foster parents.
Click to expand...

The story I posted is a follow-up to the one in the link below. There is more detail below about how the two boys were brought to Gill and Tom.

You will probably think this story is all lies too. But, to me, proof that this type of thing can happen, that the state of Florida would spend a fortune to prevent good, caring people from adopting, is contained above in the angry, hateful, prejudiced, and paranoid post you wrote.


State once turned to capable father figure, now fights him as Dad -- OrlandoSentinel.com
 
I think that you are adding too much to it.
"Traditional Family" simply means a husband and wife with kids, that is all.
Click to expand...

No, that's a "nuclear family", and there's actually nothing traditional about it at all.
That didn't even become a standard family model until the post-WWII era, which wasn't very long ago.
 
1069 said:
No, that's a "nuclear family", and there's actually nothing traditional about it at all.
That didn't even become a standard family model until the post-WWII era, which wasn't very long ago.
Click to expand...

Actually it is the core of what has for millenia been the family in the west. It is simply that it was once more extended and has been progressively worn down by our atomistic, statist society.

Who needs large kinship groups when big brother will provide all....
 
Last edited:
rsixing said:
Since...?
Click to expand...

Since gay marriage has been an issue.

You are trying to continue to argue your position from a position that I find untenable, illogical. Comparing race with sexual orientation is not logical. Maybe I'll never find a point when I can find these two comparable.
Click to expand...

Sorry I thought for a moment you might actually attempt to address the substance of the argument.

I thought I told you the comparison was between race and gender not race and sexual orientation?
 
Unrein said:
Since gay marriage has been an issue.
Click to expand...

IMO this debate has never been about gender but about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle by society as a whole and the demand by the homosexual community to be accepted by society for their sexual orientation, not their gender. Just as I find that societies rejection of same-sex marriage is based on the same thing, the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle.

Sorry I thought for a moment you might actually attempt to address the substance of the argument.

I thought I told you the comparison was between race and gender not race and sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

I am simply being honest with you, that IMO comparing race with sexual orientation is untenable and illogical. It's simply I find no reasonable connect between the two posits. If you find that to be in any way avoidance let me reassure you that is not the case as I have no reason to avoid this discussion with you.
 
Last edited:
I fully support the right of same sex couples to adopt. I voted the wrong way in the poll because I answered the thread topic's question instead of the poll's question.
 
Since being gay is genetic thing rather than learned behavior. It does not matter.

I met a gay man and his pardner who were raising a son, and the son came out a perfect Hetero.

some people are gonna be gay no matter what. Some people will be hetero no matter the parents are.

I think there is to much time spent on something which only genetics control.

People can be as gay as they want as long as they don't do it in my bedroom.
 
Last edited:
I fully suport gay couples adopting.

I fully suport brothers and sisters adopting together.

I fully suport fathers adopting with adult doughters, and mothers adopting with adult sons.

Any of these couples could rais well balanced children just as well as any unrelated heterosexual oposit-sex married couple.

I support people comming together to help children in need, but that doesn't mean I support those couples getting married.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Continued...

Lesbian parents vs. Biological parents. Both are equally competent and unburdened. Styles may be different, but no other differences.

That's SIX (and a rather nice six, I might add).

Lesbian parents vs. heterosexual parents. No differences except that the lesbian parents exhibited more parenting awareness.

That's SEVEN.

Gay male couples vs. heterosexual couples. The gay couples were happier and more equitable in their parenting tasks. Other than that, no significant differences.

That's EIGHT.

The impact on the children of gay fathers based on 4 concerns. No negative impact.

That's NINE.

Children's sexual identity when reared by lesbian mothers vs, heterosexual mothers was explored. No difference in boys; few in girls. Mostly, both groups were similar.

That's TEN.

Children in lesbian households vs. those in single-parent heterosexual households on sexual identity. No significant difference. In fact, no difference on any emotional/behavioral scale.

That's ELEVEN.

Had enough, yet? No? OK.

Children of lesbian mothers vs. heterosexual mothers in regards to developmental, intellectual, and emotional functioning. No significant difference.

That's TWELVE.

Links used:

Lesbian & Gay Parents
Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children
Empirical Studies Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children

Links to original posts:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057543399-post326.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057543400-post327.html


Now, admittedly, I composed this post nearly a year ago. There may be more studies released since then. I suppose if need be, I could go look, but I believe both the studies I have posted and the links provide enough information to both support my position and give y'all information to read.
Click to expand...

Yea im still not really happy with any of these studies i wanted something more like liklihood of children commiting suicide or bullying of children with same sex parents.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Continued...

Lesbian parents vs. Biological parents. Both are equally competent and unburdened. Styles may be different, but no other differences.

That's SIX (and a rather nice six, I might add).

Lesbian parents vs. heterosexual parents. No differences except that the lesbian parents exhibited more parenting awareness.

That's SEVEN.

Gay male couples vs. heterosexual couples. The gay couples were happier and more equitable in their parenting tasks. Other than that, no significant differences.

That's EIGHT.

The impact on the children of gay fathers based on 4 concerns. No negative impact.

That's NINE.

Children's sexual identity when reared by lesbian mothers vs, heterosexual mothers was explored. No difference in boys; few in girls. Mostly, both groups were similar.

That's TEN.

Children in lesbian households vs. those in single-parent heterosexual households on sexual identity. No significant difference. In fact, no difference on any emotional/behavioral scale.

That's ELEVEN.

Had enough, yet? No? OK.

Children of lesbian mothers vs. heterosexual mothers in regards to developmental, intellectual, and emotional functioning. No significant difference.

That's TWELVE.

Links used:

Lesbian & Gay Parents
Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children
Empirical Studies Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children

Links to original posts:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057543399-post326.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057543400-post327.html


Now, admittedly, I composed this post nearly a year ago. There may be more studies released since then. I suppose if need be, I could go look, but I believe both the studies I have posted and the links provide enough information to both support my position and give y'all information to read.
Click to expand...

...what...nothing on related couples or polygamists? :stooges
 
Gay people shouldn't have pets. :roll:
 
tryreading said:
The story I posted is a follow-up to the one in the link below. There is more detail below about how the two boys were brought to Gill and Tom.

You will probably think this story is all lies too. But, to me, proof that this type of thing can happen, that the state of Florida would spend a fortune to prevent good, caring people from adopting, is contained above in the angry, hateful, prejudiced, and paranoid post you wrote.


State once turned to capable father figure, now fights him as Dad -- OrlandoSentinel.com
Click to expand...

I'll accept the story of the link, but one story doesn't make a point. There are examples of a very young sibling raising young children, certainly examples of polygamists successfully raising children etc. Do you support 13 year-old and polygamists adopting if I can point to examples of those doing good foster or adoptive parenting?

Your calling my post "angry, hateful, prejudiced, and paranoid" is exactly a prime example of why I don't want the selection of foster or adoptive parents to put children into the middle of the rabid, screaming gay rights movement. The only message on this thread that appears "angry and hateful" is your response to my message. It was impossible for you to make a disagreeing message without an intense personal attack against me for pointing out the obvious flaws in the story you had posted. While "angry" is arguable, there was nothing hateful, prejudiced or paranoid about my message.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom