Adoption by Homosexual Couples

Pages: 12345... 36
Whoops, I missed CodeGazer's response.


@CodeGazer:

The problem is that identifying things as a religious institution is not clear cut. Sure, you and I both agree that a church is clearly a religious institution, but the law doesn't really work that way. There have to be rigid definitions about what does and doesn't qualify.

So what makes a church a religious institution? Is it that they have mass every Sunday? Then couldn't a store hold some kind of small celebration every week just to get itself identified as a religious institution and then use that as grounds to refuse service?
@Mats what you wrote was way off base. I'm talking about instinctual desires for sex, which induce the reproductive process,a method which allows species to continue existing. In which case being gay inhibits that process.

I am offering another paradigm other than religion in which people will see Homosexuality as not "right". I personally don't care about any anti-gay agenda and don't support it.

@Canis I don't want kids either but that doesn't mean I don't want sex. Which is the body's instinctual urge to have a baby momma.
I'm talking about instinctual desires for sex, which induce the reproductive process,a method which allows species to continue existing. In which case being gay inhibits that process.


This is more of the assumption that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation. I would disagree with that.

And if this were true, why wouldn't condoms/birth control/etc be as persecuted as homosexuality is?

I don't want kids either but that doesn't mean I don't want sex. Which is the body's instinctual urge to have a baby momma.


This seems contradictory to me. Some people genuinely get a desire to have a child that is distinctly different from the desire to have sex. Like they will see a kid and it will make them feel happy like they want to have a kid of their own.

That feeling is completely different from sexual desire. You seem to say this much -- you have one desire (sex) and not another (children), which, to me, is a clear sign that these are biologically 2 very different things. Reaffirming that sex is not solely about procreating.
I'm pretty sure there are studies showing that, so long as there are two parents fulfilling somewhat-traditional gender roles, it doesn't matter psychologically what the actual genders of the persons filling those roles are. Gay and lesbian couples typically have the same dominant/submissive dynamic that heterosexual couples have, and it's that masculine/feminine dichotomy that children need. Worse than homosexual couples are single parents and relationships where the dominant and submissive line is blurred -- which is the case in quite a lot of heterosexual couples because of the homogenisation of gender (feminisation of men and masculinisation of women) that's been taking place since the "sexual revolution" that started in the 60s.

That said I don't think it's fair to call someone homophobic for believing in traditional gender roles and the "nuclear family". That doesn't mean they fear, hate or discriminate against gay people. Behaviour, not thought, is discriminatory. Don't punish hate crime.
Last edited on
Disch wrote:
I have a big problem with it. It sugar-coats something extremely vile. Like calling a slave trader an "HR manager"
Arh, I see. When you said "Can't we just call them 'bigots'..." I see that as a more sugar-coated word.

______________________________
Cody0023 wrote:
@Canis I don't want kids either but that doesn't mean I don't want sex. Which is the body's instinctual urge to have a baby momma.
but you were talking procreation not sexual intercourse.
chrisname wrote:
Worse than homosexual couples are single parents and relationships where the dominant and submissive line is blurred -- which is the case in quite a lot of heterosexual couples because of the homogenisation of gender (feminisation of men and masculinisation of women) that's been taking place since the "sexual revolution" that started in the 60s.


Do you have a link that discusses this? I'm not asking because I doubt you, I'm just genuinely curious.

Canis Lupus wrote:
Arh, I see. When you said "Can't we just call them 'bigots'..." I see that as a more sugar-coated word.


Really?

*shrug*
Really?

yes, because everyone is bigoted to some degree.

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

I treat homophobics with contempt because of their opinions, so I am bigoted.
I'm referring to instinct, not higher order conscious desires. I may have confused some by the way I worded my points but it is highly supported that sexual urges come from an instinct from our less intelligent ancestors to pass on their genetic material to further grow the gene pool.

closed account (iAk3T05o)
They want to have children yet they are homosexuals. Why don't they try it by themselves. If everyone was that, who would be procreating? It's so . . .
That's like saying "My wife is unable to have kids... we should still try, even though it will never happen"
Disch wrote:
Do you have a link that discusses this? I'm not asking because I doubt you, I'm just genuinely curious.

That part is mainly conjecture I'm afraid but I can give you studies that show that marriages where the man does more stereotypically-feminine chores are (1) more likely to end in divorce and (2) more sexless:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9572187/Couples-who-share-the-housework-are-more-likely-to-divorce-study-finds.html
Choice quote:
Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores, a Norwegian study has found.


2. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housework-have-less-sex/
Choice quote (from the researchers, not the article -- the original article containing this quote is a 404):
Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage,” said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.

Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks — such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance — report higher sexual frequency.

...

The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity


This strongly suggests that if you want a sexual relationship to last, you're best off letting the man be a man and the woman be a woman. In my personal experience, the opposite is currently in effect. Part of what opened my eyes to the shallowness that is modern new age philosophy and sexual liberation was the book Atomised (that's the UK title: in the US it's The Elementary Particles and in the original French it's Les Particules élémentaires; I'm not sure why the English publisher/translator decided to mess with the title) by French author Michel Houellebecq.

As for how it relates to child development, it's not hard to see how an unstable home life with unhappy parents messes a child up. Children need stability and a dainty man and square-jawed woman won't provide that, as the evidence shows.
There are children that need to be adopted and there are people that want to adopt. It's so ...
closed account (iAk3T05o)
@fredbill: "wife" being the keyword.
@canis: they do need adoption. But that adoption?
Last edited on
Cody0023 wrote:
I'm referring to instinct, not higher order conscious desires. I may have confused some by the way I worded my points but it is highly supported that sexual urges come from an instinct from our less intelligent ancestors to pass on their genetic material to further grow the gene pool.


I'll agree with that.

I just don't agree that it's the one-and-only contributing factor and/or explanation.

Sex is known to have all sorts of health benefits. In addition to serving as a means of reproduction, maybe it's also something our body just needs to function properly. Like sleep.

chrisname wrote:
This strongly suggests that if you want a sexual relationship to last, you're best off letting the man be a man and the woman be a woman.


This is very interesting to me. I'll check the articles when I find the time (possibly this weekend). Thank you for supplying them!

Though my gut reaction is that there is a more likely explanation. The 'traditional' gender roles of a husband and wife is essentially oppressive. The reason the sexual revolution came about in the first place was because women were effectively second-class citizens and they were sick of it.

It seems logical to me that a more "traditional" wife would be more hesitant to leave a bad relationship than a "modern" wife would. So the correlation to divorce rates doesn't really tell me much. Though the correlation to sexual activity is interesting... but could be attributed to the same thing.


Maybe all of this is not so much a testament to how the elimination of gender roles is wrong... and more of a testament to how the institution of marriage in general is wrong. The idea of a life-long monogamous relationship is extremely rare in nature (and strictly speaking... considering the amount of couples that cheat... I'd say humans don't even really practice it).

Maybe we've just been doing it for so long that we think that's how it's supposed to be.

Nathan2222 wrote:
@canis: they do need adoption. But that adoption?

What's wrong with "that" adoption?
Last edited on
Nathan2222 wrote:
But that adoption?

Why not? What makes a good parent? At what point do you stop discriminating? Should mixed race couples be banned from adopting? Should religious beliefs be taken into account? How about age? or obesity?

Someones sexuality is a crap reason to deny them the opportunity of adoption.
@Everyone

In programming, would you have separate MalePerson and FemalePerson classes? Or one Person class with a gender field?

The point I am trying to prove here is open to interpretation.
Last edited on
Well played L_B, taken to heart.
closed account (iAk3T05o)
I have no problem with people from a different race. I wish they'ld stop discriminating against people just because of their race.
We have the child, the father and oh, the other father. Where is the mum.
My wife hates that I have this stance in religion. She is Christian and believes the Bible. Me on the other hand, I always say, If God created us to have freewill, the so too must he be able to have freewill and grow and evolve. Therefore, the scriptures in the bible were written for a different time and most of it may no longer apply to current times. This is of course under the assumption you believe the bible was written by disciples following Jesus.

In terms of same sex marriage, those who argue it is a sin against God. I say, who cares?! It will be their sin and they will have to take it up with Him when they die. Let them get married and get over it. "It breaks the sanctity of marriage." Divorce and cheating breaks it too and that goes on regularly.

In terms of same sex adoption, I say allow it. After all, my sister is happily married and her oldest daughter is a lesbian. Having gay parents can't screw you up anymore than having straight parents.

One last thing I say, they need to make up their minds. They've taken God out of schools and are trying to take religion out of Christmas (Happy Holidays) yet they are using God as a reason why same sex couples can't be married. You can't have it both ways.

One day this will all no longer be a topic of discussion. In some states it was illegal to have interracial marriages even into the 90s. That passed, and so to will this.

I approach all these topics from the view point of, "How would I feel if my son came to me when he is older and said he was gay and wanted to marry his partner." Sadly, some of my friends, when I posted this hypothetical question to Facebook, said they would disown them. I wouldn't, I would just wish the best for him and to do whatever makes him happy. Same with adoption.
My problem with some of these problems is this: people seem to be missing out on the real meaning of some of these arguments against homosexual marriage. For example, @BHX remarked:
BHX Specter wrote:
"It breaks the sanctity of marriage." Divorce and cheating breaks it too and that goes on regularly.
The thing is, the fact that they do doesn't make a difference: its not like divorce and cheating are good things either - as the saying goes, to wrongs don't make a right.

Also, my understanding of the Bible is this: it doesn't matter if people have a homosexual orientation, that is fine. It is actually acting on those desires that is a sin. The thing that a lot of people seem to miss with Christianity, though, is that we all sin anyway, and there is nothing that we can do about it. However, a fundamental part of Christianity is that we have already been forgiven.

This means that we (Christians, or at least most protestant denominations) are not avoiding sinning because we think that we can get into heaven because we were good: the moment we do something wrong we have already failed. However, God's grace allows us into heaven due to us putting our faith in him. We are a flawed race, imperfect. However, sinning hurts God, so why should we want to do it? This is why we try to avoid it as best as we are able (though of course we ultimately fail).

What is my point here? Its this: I'm fine with people being homosexual, I may not like it, but we have a right to free will, and we can choose what we want to do. However, I am not fine with homosexual marriage: Marriage is a Christian thing, and according to the bible is between a man and a women. You can have good, healthy relationships outside of that, but it is not marriage.

However, this isn't really related to the original question, is it? I'll throw another thing out, then: I am fine with children being adopted by same sex couples. I'm even more fine if that couple isn't married, but I'm still fine as long as the people doing the adopting won't negatively affect the child. This is because a child should be taken care of, and it doesn't matter whether the people doing the 'taking care of' bit are a traditional couple or a homosexual couple or had been previously convicted for murder or anything, as long as the child isn't negatively affected I am fine. Look at it this way: should it be fine for some people who happen to live together but aren't in any romantic relationship of any sort to adopt children? As long as they can provide a stable support for the child, it should be fine.


Also, some other things:

BHX Specter wrote:
One last thing I say, they need to make up their minds. They've taken God out of schools and are trying to take religion out of Christmas (Happy Holidays) yet they are using God as a reason why same sex couples can't be married. You can't have it both ways.
Just because you are calling all those groups of people 'they' doesn't mean they are the same group of people. Probably the group of people using God as a reason for same sex marriage were against the people taking religion out of Christmas or schools.

Disch wrote:
Sex is known to have all sorts of health benefits. In addition to serving as a means of reproduction, maybe it's also something our body just needs to function properly. Like sleep.
I'm pretty sure that there have been studies that show that intercourse has health benefits.
Pages: 12345... 36