I’m not going to provides evidences since I don’t support this position. But it’s so widespread that it has to be adressed. “Cite?” might be good enough on this board, but won’t necessarily be to convince voters or decision-makers.When the homosexual marriage law was passed in Spain, it was a harshly debated issue, not only as an arguent against gay marriage in itself but also as a separate issue (“Should married homosexual couples be allowed to adopt).
Also, even if it makes its way into law, it doesn’t mean that it will have any practical result. If gay marriage (with adoption rights) was to become legal in France tomorrow, i’m pretty sure that gay couples still wouldn’t be able to adopt because the social workers in charge will in all likehood dismissthe gay couple’s requests on the basis of the “role model” issue and on the basis that children of a homosexual couple will be discriminated against (by their peers, other adults”). And the equivalent of “cite?” in real life will get you the following answer (not exact words, but something like that) :
“Look, moron. I’ve been working with orphans, adopted children and adoptive families for X years. I know my job, the children, the issues involved in adoption. I know better than you’ll ever be. Keep your intellectual reasonning for armchair discussion. I’m dealing with real children, not concepts. I’ve a duty to do everything to make sure the kids will be happy in a stable family. And I’m not going to take any risk. Even in the unlikely case you would be right, one doesn’t use real people, especially children, for a social experiment. Even if the risk was unproven (and it is not, read the books on your own bookshelves* to begin with), by not doing so, I’m 100% sure that I don’t take any risk altogether. There are enough problems with adoption as it is without adding some more just to fulfill everybody’s agenda”.
(* : library specialized in social issues and psychology in particular regarding children)
Um, yeah. That is what the studies are for. You know, the ones showing that there is no psychological reason why a kid should not be raised by two dads. The ones talked about on the first page. Now, you might protest that this will not convince concerned parents. You might as well ask to convince people who assault the teaching of evolution. No matter how much evidence is in favor of gay adoption, some people will never be convinced. The best I can do is to show that their feelings are not supported by the facts.
smiling bandit, you’re a homophobe. I find that attitude to be wrong and despicable, sir. But in your favor at least you’re open and honest with your bigotry instead of hiding it.
Last I checked, there was an overwhelming surplus of orphaned or unwanted babies in the world, all of whom would be better off with even a single loving parent. Are the no-gay-adoption advocates really saying those kids are better off staying in an orphanage than with *two * loving parents, if those happen to be of the same gender? Where’s the compassionate conservatism there?
Ah, but it isn’t homosexuality I care about. I oppose all sexual encounters which cannot result in children. Chastity, for me, is an inherent virtue from which humans should deviate as little as possible. I feel the same way about Zoophilia and numerous other sexual desires, and for the same reasons. A life devoted only to God is a life well spent.
To be a homophobe, I would have to fear or hate homosexuals. I do not. I consider their desires pointless and distracting from God, without sanctification the blessed fruit of a marital union (children).
Then why in the world would you start the argument with me that you did? The entire point of my initial response to the OP was that it was a poor argument to keep homosexuals from marrying. If you are stating that social workers would naturally put homosexuals further down the list, then you have no argument with me that I can see, other than the fact that you thought my response was from a selfish standpoint. I’ve already indicated that that is impossible in this case, since I have absolutely nothing to gain.
Once again, the entire crux of my argument is that if one thinks homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they would then be allowed to adopt, and that that was bad for the children, as they wouldn’t have a male/female role model, the only rational stance is for those same people to be against single persons adopting. They weren’t, so their stance was anti-homosexual. It seems quite clear to me.
Note: I’m aware that the OP has since recanted (good on you!) and I’m only bringing it up as my response to that is what I’m being called to task for.
Insert something here about infertile couples, the elderly, foreplay, etc.
Then you better take up the issue with God because he’s the one who implanted the desires.
Are you also opposed to infertile heterosexual couples having sex? How about old people?
Welcome to Great Debates!
[QUOTE}Yes you are (a homophobe). You wish to restrict homosexuals from having the same rights as heterosexuals…[/QUOTE]
And in being so, join an esteemed crowd of other gay marriage opponents, such as NY’s 2 Senators; Hillary Clinton & Chuck Schumer. Unless of course, support for civil unions is akin to supporting same sex marriage
OK, I admit I overeacted and that my argument didn’t have much merit.
That’s the best argument for atheism I’ve ever heard.
Where do pride and arrogance fit into this grand scheme of things? Pride being the belief that you are one of the Chosen People and your beliefs and your religion are the correct ones; arrogance being the belief that those who don’t follow your beliefs are living less than wholesome lives and violating their spirit, leading them to evil.
I’m curious, because the desire to have homosexual intercourse waxes and wanes naturally, but to build up a heady level of pride and arrogance takes some real work – that kind of attitude sticks with you forever.
More seriously, and without trying to be insulting and condescending: why sex? Of all the ways humans seek pleasure, relaxation, and/or closer personal bonds with other people, why is sex the only one that’s taboo? Playing video games, for example, is pretty pointless and “distracting from God,” at least as far as I comprehend what you mean by that term. Is XBox a sin? What about secular music? Books other than the Bible? Dancing? Flying a kite? Getting a good backrub? What is it about having sex just because it feels good that makes it more sinful than all the other things we do just because they feel good?
I’m trying to come up with a non-hateful way to say “Your sex life is unholy and morally equivalent to zoophilia,” but I’m not coming up with anything.
Oh come on. What’s so hateful about someone accusing you of liking to have sex at the zoo? Me? I like sex everywhere, so of course I like having sex at the zoo! 
“Welcome to the Monkey House.” (Kurt Vonnegut) 
I’m pretty sure that each of these has, at one time or other, been on someone’s list of things that are sinful because they’re “distracting from G-d” or because they’re imagined to lead to some more garden-variety sin. Isn’t that the whole basis for asceticism, that earthly pleasures of any sort detract from one’s relationship with the Almighty?
Well, yes, but I’m pretty sure smiling bandit isn’t an ascetic. For instance, I know he plays video games, which is why I used that specific example in my question to him.
That’s a sentence I never thought I’d read.