my opion would make a lot of people mad but this is what a debate is for. Gays should not adopt , should not marry, should not even be allowed to vote. IF I had a child who became gay I would do as my father would have done to me his A$$ would be red for a month and when he healed I would take my belt to him again. After gays gave us things such as HIV and AIDS. Our government in america even promotes it sometimes I think. My best friend turned gay and he also lost ALL his friends including me his mother wont speak to him and he is about to lose his job for putting crabs in the bathroom ( I hope he loses it ). Gays are not moral people I have met many in the ceramis bussness and they all care for themselvs before anyone else. I have yet to see one help another person out of a jam. Being a parent is about being responcible for the child and teaching it morals of life. Something as homosexuality is not moral so how can a person who is not moral teach morals?? When I was young my father tought me that it was worse to run from a fight all your life then take an A$$ whooping and git a broke nose. And gays turn gay because they run from self confidence none of the girls in school would give them a chance to they took each other. I myself would rather git told a no by the beutiful girl in math class then never know for sure. I am 24 y/o now my life has been hell but I am here and I am proud because I didnt back down I fought and fought hard to be where I am despite being born with nothing and living most my life with nothing but the clothes I wear and I am a better man because of it. The moral of this story is people who run from life cannot teach life. Being a parent is teaching life. People who are gay are not of sound mind and not fit to adopt childeren.
<<<<<<<<<<<I wont answer to any arguments anyone puts up tp ridicule me because I said what I said and I stand firm. I am not running , in your ridiculing me for being aginst gays you only prove my point by upholding them.>>>>>>>
You’re hiding behind your upbringing as a way to justify your position. Just like Trent Lott. And we’ve all learned that is an unacceptable thing to do, as a politician or not. Do you really believe that gays are gay because they have no self confidence? Saying “because my dad told me so” isn’t a good excuse. You’re 24, you need to decide for yourself if what you’ve been told is crap or not.
Aside from your view that gays have no self confidence (not true, look at people like Versace who were around skantily clad, often naked women all the time), how did “gays give us HIV and AIDS”? They’re gay, they can’t give you AIDS. They didn’t think up AIDS as a way to piss everyone off. And only you can put yourself in high-risk situations.
Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to vote? Your complains don’t seem to provide a very convincing reason. Gays aren’t the only ones who have crabs, I hope you know.
You must not like Jews either.
Wow. How open minded.
Let’s see how long this sterling character lasts.
Rebel, it would take a lot of time and trouble, which you apparently are not interested in taking the time to read, to tear your post apart and answer the points you are trying to make. But in one quick response, do you realize the amount of generalizing you are doing? If somebody were to make similar and similarly insulting judgments over some category, say people in their twenties, that you belong to, would you not be offended at being lumped with a bunch of others? To take just one example, Fr. Mychal Judge, the Franciscan friar who lost his life ministering to firemen at the World Trade Center, admitted to being gay – because the sexual desires that he was abstaining from as a good celibate priest were for other men. Do you claim that he was immoral? And do you realize that extensive research has shown that while the occurrence of gay sex increases in situations where men are deprived of women (Navy sea duty and prisons, for example), there is a group of people who are not “choosing men because they can’t get women” (or the reverse, for Lesbian women), but who affirm that from as early as they can remember their sexual orientation was towards other people of their own sex?
That means there is a correlation, but does marriage cause a stable relationship, or is marriage a result of a stable relationship? If it’s the latter, then gay couples who are not married - and cannot legally marry - are no less stable than married heterosexual couples. And if it’s the former case, it’d make much more sense to allow same-sex marriages and allow those couples to adopt.
I totally disagree with Rebel, and find his comments laughable. But I see that he has subsequently been banned. Is this because of his opinions? I would have thought that it would be more constructive to keep him onboard so that he might become enlightened. Or am I just being unrealistic?
And I hope I don’t get banned for this, but I think any kid who has two gay dads is likely to get teased and bullied at school to the point of serious depression or worse. This is a potential, indirect ill effect of such an arrangement. Otherwise, I don’t see why not.
Yes.
Yes.
No. A private religiously-based adoption agency should be permitted to discriminate based on sexual orientation, or for that matter on religion. (“We place all babies in good Christian homes.”)
(Question [which could turn into a hijack]: What about private adoption agencies discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity? Should a racist single mother be permitted to go to the Aryan Adoption Agency, Inc., and be assured that her baby will go to a good “pure-blooded Aryan” couple to be raised? What about a different racist single mother going to the Afrocentric Adoption Agency, Inc., in order to be sure her baby will only go to fellow “children of Shabazz”? What is the current law on this?)
Yes.
No. I would say there should be no disadvantage for sexual orientation as such, but it would be reasonable to prefer married to non-married couples. I would also advocate legalizing homosexual marriage, on a fully equal basis with heterosexual marriage. Whether or not marriage is a cause or an effect of greater stability, it’s probably at least one indicator of it, and it makes things legally tidier.
Based on the search I did on his user name, so it would seem.
Although perhaps his references to beatings may have had something to do with it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d have to disagree. Sexual orientation, like any other aspect of the potential adoptive parents’ lives, should be considered when it comes to adoption. The job of adoption agencies is to discriminate, quite literally. They are using whatever criteria they have available to figure out which couple will be the ideal parents for a particular child, or children. They must take everything into account.
If a child is severely homophobic, it’s probably a bad idea to place them with a gay couple. Such barriers would make an already difficult adaptation process insanely tough. On the flip side, if a kid is in the process of coming to terms with their own sexuality, an open and accepting gay couple might be just what he or she needs most. Most kids, of course, would fall into the grey area between these two extremes, and so the issue would be less relevant.
Other than that, I agree with MEBuckner.
Rider, it’s true, the adoptive kid might face teasing and ridicule because their parents are gay. But the same might happen if their parents are black, or white, or drive the wrong car, or have dated fashion sense, or hug their child in public, or any number of the million and a half things that kids tease each other over. And yet, somehow, all these types of people are allowed to adopt.
Conversely, I do happen to agree that if an area is particularly homophobic, a caseworker may be wise to put off placing kids in gay adoptive homes. It would make sense to start gay adoption in areas which display a more accepting attitude toward homosexuals, and then help it to spread, on a local basis, from there. Much like it’s happening right now.
This is a joke post, right, with all the misspellings and hick colloquialisms?
I don’t think this necesarily follows. Kids will find something to pick on about you if they want to. If it’s not because YOU are fat, it’s because your Mom is… or because your dad runs the local bowling alley, or because your sister is a punk. Yes, it probably will be a source of teasing for the outcast in the first place, but no more than anything else they might get you on. If the kid happens to be born with the Cool gene, then it would’t matter if they and their Mom were both 900 pounds, they had three dads, and their primary means of emplyment was as street mimes.
" If the kid happens to be born with the Cool gene, then it would’t matter if they and their Mom were both 900 pounds, they had three dads, and their primary means of emplyment was as street mimes."
I think that the average class of kids has only one or two kids like that. The majority have to survive on their wits. Having gay parents would be just another thing to have to deal with as regards treatment at school. Sure, there’s plenty of minor things to get picked on for, but having gay parents would be a major drawback for a kid…from the playground to the Prom. It could very well make a kid a target where he might not otherwise be one…and I don’t think that kids belong in the frontline for the battle for gay rights.
[Administrator Hat ON]
If you have any question about the reasons for banning, please email an admin or, if you must, post in the BBQ pit. In this case, while a poster is allowed to be bigoted against gays, s/he should not be an incoherent, poorly-reasoning bigot who preemptively refuses to respond to other posters–not if said posters wishes to continue posting. If you appear to be stupid and virulently ignorant and refuse to debate in a debate forum, I’m gonna boot you.
[Administrator Hat OFF]
Fair stance, Gaudere, and I can surely understand it. I’d have liked to see what Rebel might have had to say to some of our questions, but I suspect he probably would have abided by his refusal to debate.
Rider, one doesn’t get booted for having unpopular opinions, but for breaking rules wilfully and intentionally. While I realize that it is not fair, I think your point about the sort of abuse that a kid might get for having gay parents is well made; a few posters who have gay parents have noted that the problem does exist but is not as bad or as widespread as one might think at first impulse. (I’d dig up the link but am short on time; search for it in this forum if you’re willing.)
I simply don’t buy the argument that we shouldn’t let gays adopt because they kids might grow up to be gay.
(1) There’s no proof that this is the case.
(2) Even if it was true, to call that “bad” is putting a value judgement that being gay is wrong and to be avoided, which is assuming what you are trying to prove.
Just a reminder that it was Gaudere who prepared the way for White Nationalists to come here and debate. She did so by specifying rules of behavior that applied to both sides. Yes, it was a little messy at times, but eventually the bigots tucked tail and ran away in defeat.
My point is that the administration (and particularly she) has demonstrated a willingness to hear even the most absurd bigots so long as they are willing to defend their points of view in civil debate.
You can’t accuse her of banning people for their opinions.
Wasn’t accusing…just asking.
Don’t you think that’s a decision that belongs in the hands of the individual adoption agency trying to place an individual kid in an individual home? Wouldn’t it make sense to weigh the kids’ options, taking into account this possibility? Don’t you think there are some kids out there who’d be happy to endure a little teasing, to get out of the foster care system and into a warm, supportive, loving home?
I admit, there will be some cases where a kid won’t be placed in a gay adoptive home because of societal pressures. But don’t you think that the option should be there, for areas that don’t have that sort of ingrained homophobia, or for kids whose need for a family supercedes their vulnerability to teasing?
Sure, it would be a bad idea to place kids without taking this into account. Just as it’s a bad idea to eliminate all gay adoptive parents because some kids would get teased.
Don’t you think there’s a kid out there who’d put up with this kind of teasing to be able to go home to a family every day?
“Don’t you think there’s a kid out there who’d put up with this kind of teasing to be able to go home to a family every day?”
I’m sure there are many, but is a child’s desperation a good criterion for such a placement?
As for areas that don’t have ingrained homophobia, I very much doubt there is one in the USA that covers an area that fills a large high school. Sad to say that, but I think it’s true, for the time being.