Adoption by Homosexual Couples

Pages: 123... 36
So today in philosophy we had a debate, *title* and it shocked me that even in the younger population which was born in a society that continuously raises awareness for equality there is such a large group of homophobes. I'm a guy and I'm 13 so I don't think that being a male contradicts the fact that I can support this. But this isn't how most people see it.

But, of course after witnessing such thing I started pushing the theme in the conversations with other groups of people and I've never realized until now that only very little people support homosexual couples, much less adoption of children by this couples. But this isn't what the media sells us. I have a thesis to explain this: Only the intellectuals go on TV and openly support this but the intellectuals are still a minority in today's society.

There was this one girl that was on my side, the rest were all against it. I provided lots of founded arguments only to hear as a response: "It's wrong because God said so." or "It's written in the Bible that if you're gay you got to Hell" and so on and so forth.

But nevertheless, What's your opinion?
People may have what ever sexuality they want but I feel like to have children you should be male and female. I feel like the children will have a rough child hood and the fact the children will become confused on sexuality when they are growing up.
I say that it doesn't matter what we think- the state has no right to dictate the definition of a marriage in legal terms to conform to religious standards. Also, Giblit, there isn't a single study or even a shred of evidence to support that. None whatsoever. It's just another propagated myth, like how vaccines cause autism and how winter proves that global warming isn't a thing.

Anyway, back to the topic, the state has no right to dictate whether a couple is "fit" to adopt a child based on gender- it has no issue saying that singles can adopt, so why must couples of the same gender be barred? The only things that should dictate the validity of an adoption are the criminal history of the parents, as well as their state of mind. Last I checked, homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Last edited on
One of the arguments that were presented was the absence of male or feminine figure would should change the child's mentality towards the world and I replied, as Ispil, what would be the difference between that and single parents.

But, on the other side you have to consider the other kids at school. If the parents aren't supportive, chances are they have raised their kids the same way so it is reasonable to think that child in question might go through verbal abuse due to sexuality of their adoptive parents but in that matter it isn't the adoptive parents that should be blamed for having adopted the child but the parents of the children who make fun of the child whose parent's are gay(homosexual is too long of a word).
Pretty much my stance on this is "As long as you aren't affecting me, cool."
I doubt children would be confused over their instinctual drive to screw a member of the opposite sex. Of course I'm going off the basis that true homosexuality is not a choice. I mean I don't choose to be straight. I just am. The only thing I can foresee is the bullying,especially if two males adopt a boy(males tend to be more homophobic...towards other men anyway...hot lesbians get a pass).
People may have what ever sexuality they want but I feel like to have children you should be male and female.


So many kids these days are growing up in single parent homes, with abusive parents and/or with parents that simply do not properly care for or look after their children. It seems pointless to say "You should be male and female" when that doesn't make the damn difference in comparison to all these (far too commonplace) things.

I feel like the children will have a rough child hood and the fact the children will become confused on sexuality when they are growing up


As for this point, are you suggesting homosexuality is a choice?

@OP - Did you consider to point out to your classmates all the things the bible says is wrong that they were not doing. For example, they might be wearing cloths made of more than one type of cloth, they may cut their hair/beards or perhaps they wear jewelery. All of these are forbidden by the bible!
jonhy31 wrote:
But nevertheless, What's your opinion?
Anything done purely in the name of religion is a waste of time.

It is better to have kids raised in a loving family than being bounced around the system, no matter what the makeup of the family.
@ Mats: Let me start off by thanking you for filling out your profile. My blood dropped by a few scovilles once I read that you are not American and so you can't be standing up for the worthless schlock that CPS has turned into. If you question that assertion then you should also question the 80% false report rating that they encourage by establishing federal laws to protect those who waste their time so that they have a platform to weasel more money out of the government. After all who would question those who are only trying to help the children?

As for this:
As for this point, are you suggesting homosexuality is a choice?

What the hay; let's start a riot. Being gay has nothing to do with being "the way god made you". It's a god-damn fetish. A man can't help that he's attracted to other men? Whooped-de-doo! I can't help that I like Latina's. Does that mean that you and I are psychologically different? Does this mean that we are genetically predisposed? No, you and I are nothing special. Stop digging for physical causes of people's differences, they do NOT exist.
If you question that assertion then you should also question the 80% false report rating that they encourage by establishing federal laws to protect those who waste their time so that they have a platform to weasel more money out of the government. After all who would question those who are only trying to help the children?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, mind re-phrasing?

Also, insinuating homosexuality is a fetish is not only demeaning, it's ignorant.
I'm standing up for the supposed "abusive parents". I'm probably a bit biased because of the more or less resent trouble with NYS CPS department, where their judgements have an unreasonable over-turn rate and they still fail to do their jobs where kids die due to their incompetence. An ex I'm still close with is a social worker and she is the one who gave me that 80% figure.

As for the fetish thing. Which "demeaning" about it? The negative connotation? Or the literal meaning? It's a social preference, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that a few edgy wanna-be's think that they are something special because of it doesn't change that. I will promise not to respond if you tell me not to, but I sincerely want your opinion: Why do you think they have this difference?
@Computergeek01

Clearly you are in need of genetic education. Read a proper book on genetics, like this excellent read: http://www.amazon.com/Genetics-Molecular-Approach-Terry-Brown/dp/0748743707

Then tell me that physical causes of differences don't exist.

As for CPS, I guess it might be Child Protection Service in the USA? Anyway, I have no idea about wtf is CPS in the USA or of its agendas or performance.

@Canis Lupis - Yes definitely! On both counts!
Computergeek01 wrote:
As for the fetish thing. Which "demeaning" about it? The negative connotation? Or the literal meaning?
Both, there are few (if any) definitions of fetish that I wouldn't consider demeaning or at the very least insulting.

It's a social preference, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that a few edgy wanna-be's think that they are something special because of it doesn't change that.
AFAIK all science points to sexual preference being hard wired and certainly NOT a social preference.

I will promise not to respond if you tell me not to, but I sincerely want your opinion: Why do you think they have this difference?
If the difference you refer is their sexual preference, I have no idea what makes people gay. If that's not what you mean, then I have no idea what you mean.
Oh, baseless assertions about the nature of homosexuality being a "fetish." I'd love to hear more, but I'm too busy informing myself so that if other arguments were to come up, I would actually have evidence.

Anyway, damn this topic got heated in the first page. Then again, discussion on this topic tends to do just that. Point is, the state shouldn't care whether people are screwing those of the opposite sex, same sex, or the local sewage pipe; a fit parent has nothing to do with "fetishes," sexuality, or anything of the like. As long as you aren't screwing the children that you are adopting, of course.
@ Everyone: I'll withdraw the comment about CPS in this context since no one seems to know what I'm talking about. It's probably more of a local tragedy then anything else.

@ Mats: There was once a very famous Austrian, one of Times people of the year in fact, who held a similar opinion that genetics and heritage influenced our lives and disposition more then anything else. At the time he had sighted the American trend toward scientific studies of racial differences and their outcome of the Eugenics laws in California as justification for his opinion and actions; he had gained quite a following because of it. Maybe this should show you that not everything you read in a published scientific book is 100% true.

To state my objection more clearly, I don't give a damn about what people do in their own homes. My entire gripe is with this Lady Gaga kiss ass pop-culture wanna-be acceptance that there must be something special about these people just because of who they want to sleep with. There is nothing special about them, or you, or anyone else. Welcome to reality.

EDIT: @ naraku9333: Thank you for your response. For lack of further solicitation I will default on my end of the bargain and not respond.
Last edited on
I never understood why people cared whether or not being gay is a choice. Really, what difference does that make? By perpetuating that, it seems like our culture continues to demonize homosexuality... but then turns around and says "it's okay... they can't help it... they didn't choose it"... like it needs justification. Screw that.

You don't have to justify to me the reasons why you're gay. Maybe you were born that way, maybe you chose it. Maybe you're just experimenting. It really doesn't matter to me. Your personal life and sexual preference make absolutely 0 difference to my life -- nor anyone else's. So I don't get why everyone feels the need to judge it.


Regarding the whole thing with gay parents being bad because they'll raise gay kids... I certainly don't think that's true.... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. So what? Again, you're demonizing homosexuality.. as if raising a child to be gay is somehow worse than raising him to be straight. Fuck that.


Homosexuality is completely natural. And by "natural", I mean "exists in nature". This is undeniable and has been observed numerous times by many independent parties.


And sure... there's always the Bible side of this. But I don't know how many of you have actually read Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.


Strictly speaking... that is only condemning bisexuality in males. It is not condemning bisexuality in females or homosexuality in either gender. Though they later "revised it" to specifically say homosexuality... even though that's not what it originally said. You'd think if God was infallible he would have got it right the first time... so either the Bible is not infallible or the new version is wrong.


But that's a side point. I bring up the Bible because it also condemns tattoos. From Leviticus 19:28:

'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.


Yet I don't see any outrage over people with tattoos getting married. Funny how people decide to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they consider infallible and which parts they ignore.




So yeah. As far as I'm concerned this is a non-issue. I don't understand why there is so much opposition to gay rights. There really is no downside to it.
*Applause*
Is that sarcasm Mats? A little while ago you and everyone else were trying to say that they are genetically different but now you're changing your opinion?
Oh no. They are definitely genetically different. I am not sure if it's 100% genetic (not enough research yet), but it definitely appears from early studies to be strongly genetic. The applause was because Disch raises many excellent points rather well.

Edit: And for the record, I couldn't care less how someone is identifying themselves. The thing that matters is if you are positively contributing to society and the world or not.
Last edited on
There is already technology to allow birth of child whose DNA comes from two males instead of a male and a female, and female and female combinations are in the works. Therefore, I don't really see the genders of the parents mattering for adoption.

I have no further opinion on this topic :)
Pages: 123... 36