- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,945
- Reaction score
- 69,027
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
The statistics suggest otherwise.
What statistics? The over 100,000 orphans waiting to be adopted?
The statistics suggest otherwise.
How many are waiting to adopt?What statistics? The over 100,000 orphans waiting to be adopted?
Regardless of qualification, right?....First come, first serve.
How many are waiting to adopt?
The statistics suggest otherwise.
How many are waiting to adopt?
Regardless of qualification, right?
Interesting tactic, comparing oranges to apples like that.There are at minimum some 100 million orphans worldwide at any given time. Yet only around 1% (at best) of American household's choose to adopt in a given year.
....
And I would argue that gay couples are less qualified, simply because they don't have a father figure and a mother figure. They are only slightly more qualified than a single parent.Dude, read what I wrote. I said all things being equal and both being equally qualified - they should get the same consideration.
Good question. I would like to see the # or qualified adopters v the # of children waiting to be adopted.How many are qualified candidates?
The drug dealer down the street could waiting to adopt.
And I would argue that gay couples are less qualified, simply because they don't have a father figure and a mother figure. They are only slightly more qualified than a single parent.
I believe that cost is the biggest factor.There are at minimum some 100 million orphans worldwide at any given time. Yet only around 1% (at best) of American household's choose to adopt in a given year.
Like I say, I am speaking as an adoptive parent. My wife an I are in the process of adopting again. We know the process, we know how it works, we know the statistics. Unfortunately, the vast majority of married households that could adopt for a variety of reasons choose not to adopt.
The statistics suggest otherwise.
Regardless of qualification, right?
I believe that cost is the biggest factor.
And I would argue that gay couples are less qualified, simply because they don't have a father figure and a mother figure. They are only slightly more qualified than a single parent.
My argument is that everything else being equal, a stable man-woman marriage is better qualified to raise a child than any other form of relationship. You appear to be building a straw man of that argument.Please cite peer reviewed sources which state that heterosexual couples are universally needed in order to raise a healthy child.
I'll save you the time, they don't exist.
But keep on dreaming.
If the statistics suggested otherwise then wouldnt there be alot less children in the system?
.....
I have yet to see an objective review.You are aware that sexual orientation is the least of concerns when looked at through objective eyes, right?
Unless of course you can provide evidence that a homosexual couple is incapable of raising children as well as heterosexual couples?
Two Dad's who have great jobs, a loving mindset, and a welcoming home can and will provide just the same if not more support and nurturing than their hetero counterpart.
Not to mention gays are more likely to teach a higher level of tolerance due to their own life experience.
Two guys can't possibly raise a child as well as a normal married couple, again all else being equal.
I'd like to see the figures how many families are willing to adopt rather than take your word for it.And well more qualified than the State. Maybe you'd have a point if we didn't have over 100,000 orphans in America alone, but we do so you don't. There are not 100,000 families looking to adopt, if there were then there wouldn't be as many orphans.
As explained earlier, by me, in this thread.Why can't they?
My argument is that everything else being equal, a stable man-woman marriage is better qualified to raise a child than any other form of relationship. You appear to be building a straw man of that argument.
As explained earlier, by me, in this thread.