Adoption by Homosexual Couples

Pages: 1234... 36
I think you can chooses what you would like, and you can adopt. It`s fine, you are still a parent
@YellowPyrmid

The obvious issue here, is regarding the childrens future sexuality could be affected as a result of the homosexual couples. In majority countries such as all countries in Asia, Africa , they despice the phrase homesexual couples and are hated there, they even kill such couples as they are extremely religious therefore it is most likely not going to ever be allowed in majority of Human world.

That being said, as these countries have large immigration base population set in foreign countries it is pretty safe to say there will be riots and protects regarding this matter. In fact homosexuality is still a controversial topic.

I personally am not against homosexuality as its too shallow to think bad of them especially seeing as this is 21st century and humans must learn to ignore these swallow points and think of something more important such as human starvation. Its too futile to think of homosexuals as being bad as they will also have feelings.
<more ranting>

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.


What age group are we talking?

Kids still in their teens or probably their early 20s are probably still just echoing the voice of their upbringing. They likely haven't formed their own thoughts on the matter yet.

The millennials and late Gen-X'ers are the ones really turning the tide in this area. They're just now getting into their 30's... so their kids are still young (5-6). In another 10+ years the kids of the millennials will be the ones in HS and college and there will be a considerably more laid back attitude towards sexual orientation.

Of course it will depend a lot of where you live, as well. More progressive areas of the country will have a more accepting outlook.


And I really hate the term "homophobe". A phobia is a fear of something. The people are not afraid of homosexuality, they merely condemn it and/or are prejudiced against it. Can't we just call them "bigots" since that's what they are?

We don't call racists "melanophobes"... we call them racists.

There's so much shame spread around to people who don't exhibit strict heterosexual tendencies. How about instead of shaming them... we shame the people who deserve it?
Last edited on
disch wrote:
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.
Some of us here are strongly atheist so we don't make our opinions based off the bible or any holy book at that.
@giblit:

I'm assuming that anyone who opposes gay rights is that way because of religious beliefs. Because that is literally the only reason I have ever heard (aside from blatant bigotry).



EDIT:

I might not be the most level-headed in this debate. But this really does just get under my skin. I have several friends and family who aren't strictly "straight". And I personally have what some might consider "abnormal" sexual preferences.

Sexuality is an extremely complex topic and anyone that thinks it's as simple as "men<->women" is flat out wrong. Worse... anyone that condemns people for falling outside of that traditional view is an asshole. I have a very low tolerance for it.
Last edited on
Like Disch said, I have friends who condemn gays and lesbians but they are not scared of them nor do they hate them. The term is too extreme.
While I believe you can think homosexuality is wrong. The only part that truly disturbs me is that idea that some try to restrict others in rights based on their own beliefs, despite the idea of homosexuality has little negative effect, if any at all. I would imagine it to be frustrating that someone hates against me for some action or belief that doesn't effect them at all.

With that, I have no issue with homosexuality as I don't find it harmful at all, nor any reason that it would be harmful in the future.
As long people's religious beliefs are respected I have no problem at all with homosexuality or homosexuals getting married or adopting kids. I just don't want it to get to the point where we trample others rights in the process of giving homosexuals the rights they should have.

For example I don't want the government to mandate that religious institutions are required to provide a service/product (One example making a church marry a homosexual couple) to homosexuals even though it goes against their beliefs.

Basically as long as others religious beliefs aren't trampled on in the process I have no problem supporting any laws that might be passed to allow adoption or marriage for homosexual couples.
CodeGazer:

I agree with that in principle. But as a blanket rule it is too broad... and that philosophy makes things hairy.

Case in point, Arizona passed (or is trying to pass?) a law which would allow businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs. Which is paramount to allowing them to refuse service to homosexuals if they say homosexuality is against their religion.


Maybe a better way to put this is that if you are doing charity or not-for-profit work you should be able to do whatever you want. But if you are doing something that turns a profit, you should absolutely not be able to refuse service to anyone merely because they're gay.

The question then becomes... what is considered "not-for-profit"? I'm sure a church charges money to perform wedding ceremonies, so would they still qualify as not-for-profit?
As long people's religious beliefs are respected I have no problem at all with homosexuality or homosexuals getting married or adopting kids. I just don't want it to get to the point where we trample others rights in the process of giving homosexuals the rights they should have.

For example I don't want the government to mandate that religious institutions are required to provide a service/product (One example making a church marry a homosexual couple) to homosexuals even though it goes against their beliefs...


I hope you're not American? Are you aware of The First amendment?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,
Last edited on
Disch wrote:
Case in point, Arizona passed (or is trying to pass?) a law which would allow businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs. Which is paramount to allowing them to refuse service to homosexuals if they say homosexuality is against their religion.


Normal businesses being allowed to refuse homosexuals a service or product I don't agree with. They are not a religious institution even though the owners might have religious beliefs their business is not religious.

So no I wouldn't agree with that law. Specially since it violates the no discrimination laws that are already in place (Which many states I believe have expanded to include the LGBT community).

Interestingly there was a case recently in Oregon I believe which was about just this concern. A baker couple refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple citing that it went against their religious beliefs. The court ruled in favor of the lesbian couple because Oregon discrimination laws.


I am talking a strictly religious institutions (Churches, Non-profit religious organizations, ect.). Obviously a law which has these protections would have to put thought into what constitutes a religious organization (There are a few obvious ones but would have to work out the edge cases and also make sure it doesn't stretch to broadly).


EDIT:
Mats wrote:
I hope you're not American? Are you aware of The First amendment?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,


I am American and know plenty about The First Amendment otherwise I wouldn't know you are missing a few words ;p.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There is also The Fourteenth Amendment.

IE. Separation of Church and State.
Last edited on
And I really hate the term "homophobe". A phobia is a fear of something. The people are not afraid of homosexuality, they merely condemn it and/or are prejudiced against it. Can't we just call them "bigots" since that's what they are?
In general use -phobia just means fear, hatred, or dislike for the subject it has the more precise meaning in technical use such as in psychiatry (an irrational, disabling fear) or chemistry (chemical aversions).

We don't call racists "melanophobes"... we call them racists.

Anglophobia – fear/dislike of England or English culture
Germanophobia – fear/dislike of Germans
Hispanophobia - fear/dislike of Hispanic people, Hispanic culture and the Spanish language
Islamophobia – fear/dislike of Muslims
Judeophobia – fear/dislike of Jews
Negrophobia – fear/dislike of black people
Nipponophobia – fear/dislike of the Japanese
Polonophobia – fear/dislike of the Polish
Russophobia – fear/dislike of Russians
Sinophobia – fear/dislike of Chinese people
Turcophobia – fear/dislike of Turks
Xenophobia – fear/dislike of foreigners or extraterrestrials

We have lots of words for lots of things, some more precise and targeted than others. I have no problem with the word homophobe, there is nothing extreme about it.
On the topic of that law in Arizona, it passed and was veto'd by Brewer. Her response to it was truly hilarious, in case you are wondering. In a nutshell, it was "This term, I was hoping to focus on education and the rights of children. Instead, this is what lands on my desk."
Last edited on
Are we on the topic of adoption by homosexuals, or the topic of homosexuality and law? If the latter, I have strong opinions against laws being related to anything religious such as marriage (which also means I am against benefits from marriage, which also happens to be a contributing factor for why people are pushing to "legalize" 'gay marriage').
Last edited on
"Sexuality is an extremely complex topic and anyone that thinks it's as simple as "men<->women" is flat out wrong. "

Sexuality? Sure. Reproducing? No.

Homosexuality will probably never be seen as "normal" because humans and all living beings instinctively feel the need to procreate. The human race has two genders solely the purpose of reproducing. Being gay is not compatible with how humans sustain their existence.
Cody0023 wrote:
...because humans and all living beings instinctively feel the need to procreate. The human race has two genders solely the purpose of reproducing. Being gay is not compatible with how humans sustain their existence.
I don't feel the need to procreate, I have no intension or interest in procreating...and being gay is no barrier to reproduction if you really want children.
The human race has two genders solely the purpose of reproducing. Being gay is not compatible with how humans sustain their existence.


A Playstation 4 isn't compatible with how humans sustain their existence either, or television and yet many people perceive them as normal. Let's get rid of everything that isn't about food, shelter or procreation! Or in other words, terrible argument.
@Mats

What??? If this is how the gay rights debate is going to be argued I give up all hope. Let's just throw out random comparisons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Last edited on
The human race has two genders
There are 5 genders Male, Female, Merm, Herm, and Ferm. Though this is pretty much off-topic.
Cody0023 wrote:
Homosexuality will probably never be seen as "normal" because humans and all living beings instinctively feel the need to procreate.


Not all. Read up on asexuality sometime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

And while some people may be asexual and have a desire for children.... there are lots of people (asexual and not) who don't have such a desire. I consider myself among them ... I have absolutely no desire to ever have children.

Apparently Canis Lupus feels the same way.

The human race has two genders solely the purpose of reproducing.


Some people are born without any distinctive genitalia.
Some people are born with both sets of distinctive genitalia.
Some people are born with a Y chromosome but are otherwise still considered female due to their genitalia.
Some people are born with physically male traits but produce so much estrogen that they mentally identify as female (and vice versa)
Some people are born physically sterile.

Again... sexuality and gender is more complex than just man<->woman. There is a lot of gray area.

And it's not exactly uncommon. People that fall outside the norm are definitely in the minority, but it's not like they're abnormal freaks of nature.

Being gay is not compatible with how humans sustain their existence.


Being gay is irrelevant to how humans sustain their existence. Yes, homosexual sex will not result in a pregnancy. But as Mats showed, you can say that about a lot of things.

You seem to be under the assumption that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation, which I would argue is simply not true. Especially in modern society.

Some people will procreate, others will not. You can be a gay man and still have sex with a with a woman to procreate (or through modern science, you can use artificial insemination). Orientation and/or preference means absolutely nothing.


@Canis Lupus
We have lots of words for lots of things, some more precise and targeted than others. I have no problem with the word homophobe, there is nothing extreme about it.


I have a big problem with it. It sugar-coats something extremely vile. Like calling a slave trader an "HR manager"
Last edited on
Pages: 1234... 36