adoption by gay couples?

[Arkteia]

Date: 7/1/2010 10:53:18 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 6/30/2010 3:44:25 PM
Author: somethingshiny
I believe this is the most frustrated I've ever felt on PS.


Everyone has an opinion on this subject and everyone is entitled to it without being forced into the 'other side.' I don't want or try to change people's beliefs, especially when it comes to moral rights and wrongs. But, I absolutely despise it when people use Christianity as a reason to hate anyone. Being Christian isn't about being right. It's about being forgiven and being loved and understanding that those are the two most important things.

For me, opinions have NOTHING to do with the basic issue at hand. You can think being homosexual is wrong or gross or whatever - but when a group of people votes to CONTROL another group based on their opinions - that to me is where it gets truly vile. You can have an opinion that it is wrong and I can have an opinion that you're wrong. Those are just opinions. But as soon as we vote to control the opinions and morals of OTHER people - that's a problem.

Cehra,

I am totally with you on it. I wish I could express it as well as you did.

 

[missy]

Date: 7/2/2010 3:19:10 AM
Author: Imdanny

Date: 6/29/2010 8:08:53 PM

Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM


Author: ericad


So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

Steal, you said everything you needed to say in this post. You believe in discriminating against gay people, whether they are the biological parent or not.


As soon as a gay person is a member of a couple, according to you, they become disqualified from being a fit parent.


You can rationalize your anti-gay views however you want to, but I for one am not fooled by all of your talk about biology, nature, and idealism.


Gay people have biological parents, are part of nature, and have ideals, just like anyone else.


There is no reason that someone who is gay cannot be a fit parent (and especially to their own child). I think it's offensive for you to suggest otherwise. Other people can disagree with me, but that's how I feel about it.

Unfortunately this is so insidious that some people may not even see it for what it truly is.

Discrimination against anyone for reasons based on gender, sexual preference, sexual identity, religion, race, disability is WRONG. No matter how one may sugar coat or rationalize it. Open your eyes and see it for what it truly is.

I hate to say I am intolerant of intolerance because I see the absurdity in that statement but I think many of us here can agree with the statement anyway. Religion is the source of so much intolerance and hate and the my way is better than your way mentality that it makes me sick. I am a spiritual person in every way and do not practice organised religion for this very reason. But I digress.

Discriminating against any person/persons for these reasons is just plain and simple *WRONG*

It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups. The United Nations explains: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."

 

[Cehrabehra]

steal - did you say in all of that that you are okay with a SINGLE homosexual raising a child?

 

[ksinger]

Date: 7/1/2010 4:25:00 PM
Author: kenny
Discussing why gays are denied equal rights without the R-Word is like discussing bread making without the F-Word, flour.

I laughed outright at this Kenny. I kept thinking along the lines of calling Voldemort "He Who Must Not Be Named".

I bet talking to you in person is a hoot.

 

[Steel]

ImDanny, you are killing me here. You don't seem to understand my language. You might be looking to read something from my posts and so you are reading them in your own way. You are happy to paint me as the anti gay unreasonable discriminatory bitch. You are not listening to me because you don't want to. I say I object to a gay person adopting and you have a reaction to that. I understand and as said recently I am sorry that it offends you. But that respect for your feelings does not alter my views. So however you wrap up your objections to my thoughts and whichever terms you choose to throw at me we will inherently disagree. I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.

I get that we would never agree. I get that you would never choose to see my 'side' why would you? To accept that I have any sort of a point is to attack your own beliefs and I do not expect you to do that. Neither do I expect the gay adoption supporters to do similarly.

But what I did not expect is the random extension and misinterpretation which occurred. It does not offend or bother me. But it cheapens this discussion. Discuss the matter at hand, do not extend. If you do not have, what you deem to be a suitable reproach then just disagree with me. That is ok.

Seemingly this thread is dead. But you know where I am and you know my thoughts. So if you would like a frank discussion you know that I will be honest, even if it is not popular. Not many can say that.

 

[E B]

Date: 7/2/2010 10:23:38 AM
Author: Steal

I get that we would never agree. I get that you would never choose to see my 'side' why would you? To accept that I have any sort of a point is to attack your own beliefs and I do not expect you to do that. Neither do I expect the gay adoption supporters to do similarly.

But what IS your point, exactly? I went back to read your last few posts to see if I'd missed anything, and I couldn't find a single point at which you explained why a heterosexual couple is an ideal fit other than they're more 'natural,' because a man and a woman can have a child and a heterosexual couple matches this "ideal." On the outside. But what does genitalia have to do with a couple's ability to raise a child? Do you have data backing you on this? What makes you think that a heterosexual man and woman are better equipped to raise a child than two men or two women? You still haven't answered this, despite being asked again and again. Earlier, you said "The reason I would 'fail' a gay couple is not simple..." and went on to simplify it by saying, in MANY more words, that they would fail because they aren't a heterosexual couple.

I'm not expecting an answer to my questions, because I and others asked the same questions long ago and they were never addressed. I write this because it seems as though you've danced around the REAL why, leading people to speculate. It hasn't been much of an 'honest' conversation with you at all.

 

[cara]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:08:53 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM
Author: ericad
So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

Steal, this was the statement that got me too. If you want to have an actual discussion here (which I am definitely for), please explain why you would be okay with a bio-parent single-parenting their child, but object to that same person co-parenting their child with their same-sex partner.

The reason I went

to your post is because the only reasons *I* can come up with for such a position is that you believe that mere exposure to a same-sex relationship is somehow harmful to the child. Or that such relationships are just so wrong that they shouldn't exist or something, and that those harms or the mere evilness of being gay more than make up for all the benefits of having two compentent people parent a child rather than one. If you have a different reason for objecting to a same-sex partner helping to raise a child BESIDES this kind of strong anti-gay feeling, let's hear it because without your explanation other readers are left making up their own explanations for your beliefs.

(Of course single parents can do a great job, but most people in our society would grant that it is less ideal than having two competent parents raising a child. Single-parenting can just be hard, and often single parents have significant time and resource limits.)

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 7/2/2010 11:10:10 AM
Author: E B

Date: 7/2/2010 10:23:38 AM
Author: Steal

I get that we would never agree. I get that you would never choose to see my ''side'' why would you? To accept that I have any sort of a point is to attack your own beliefs and I do not expect you to do that. Neither do I expect the gay adoption supporters to do similarly.

But what IS your point, exactly? I went back to read your last few posts to see if I''d missed anything, and I couldn''t find a single point at which you explained why a heterosexual couple is an ideal fit other than they''re more ''natural,'' because a man and a woman can have a child and a heterosexual couple matches this ''ideal.'' On the outside. But what does genitalia have to do with a couple''s ability to raise a child? Do you have data backing you on this? What makes you think that a heterosexual man and woman are better equipped to raise a child than two men or two women? You still haven''t answered this, despite being asked again and again. Even you said ''The reason I would ''fail'' a gay couple is not simple...'' and went on to simplify it by saying, in MANY more words, that they would fail because they aren''t a heterosexual couple.

I''m not expecting an answer to my questions, because I and others asked the same questions long ago and they were never addressed. I write this because it seems as though you''ve danced around the REAL why, leading people to speculate. It hasn''t been much of an ''honest'' conversation with you at all.

As always, ditto E B! Particularly the highlighted part. I had no idea genitalia had such a significant effect on child raising capabilities.

I''d love to see studies/research/information saying that homosexual couples negatively affect children. Since being gay is, in fact, natural, that argument doesn''t really fly.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Honestly Steal - I may not agree with you, but I don''t have a problem with what you think or what you believe. The only thing I am VEHEMENTLY against is the vote to control others. If your beliefs go to the point that you vote to control the legal actions of others, that I have a problem with. Discussion of opinions and beliefs can be purely academic but laws inhibit people from living their *own* beliefs. That crosses the line for me.

 

[Steel]

EB I find that you are still asking this question annoying. I have answered it many times. But you are missing the obviousness of my answer.
I regret that you are burdened by the wordiness of my answers, regrettably this answer will indubitably have even more words so bear with me.

# Let me say at the outset that my thoughts are my own. I have not conducted any surveys or research. What I have done is respect the natural order.

# As to the why I believe a gay couple does not meet the requirements:
That their sex organs are identical is as moot as it is not. In that the fact that they could not create a child means that without intervention nature provides that of themselves they could never have a child. To place a child with such a couple is a step which is artificially taken.
Now obviously it is artificially to place a child into the care of foster or adoptive parents be they heterosexual or homosexual. However the material difference to me is that only one is a biological impossibility. I understand that often a heterosexual couple has issues conceiving and turn to adoption or fostering but that is not what I mean by biological impossibility. This references only that sperm x2 or egg x2 cannot create a child. For whatever creation purposes we were designed not as hermaphrodites, we require both sexes to create a child. This is where I take my issue. An innocent which for usually lamentable reasons cannot be with its biological parents must be placed in the best level of care possible. I have said all this before. Skip to the bit where I say that those ideals mirror what has been preordained. A man and a woman are required by natural order to make a child so that is the ideal. Less than that is not ideal.

Is that point really so hard to understand?

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 11:14:31 AM
Author: cara

Date: 6/29/2010 8:08:53 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM
Author: ericad
So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

Steal, this was the statement that got me too. If you want to have an actual discussion here (which I am definitely for), please explain why you would be okay with a bio-parent single-parenting their child, but object to that same person co-parenting their child with their same-sex partner.

The reason I went

to your post is because the only reasons *I* can come up with for such a position is that you believe that mere exposure to a same-sex relationship is somehow harmful to the child. Or that such relationships are just so wrong that they shouldn''t exist or something, and that those harms or the mere evilness of being gay more than make up for all the benefits of having two compentent people parent a child rather than one. If you have a different reason for objecting to a same-sex partner helping to raise a child BESIDES this kind of strong anti-gay feeling, let''s hear it because without your explanation other readers are left making up their own explanations for your beliefs.

(Of course single parents can do a great job, but most people in our society would grant that it is less ideal than having two competent parents raising a child. Single-parenting can just be hard, and often single parents have significant time and resource limits.)

I think it is a biological absurdity for a gay person to found a child but it does happen for many and complicated reasons.

Really that section of how the child came into being is a whole other topic. But being that this situation exists and will continue to exist I would consider it ideal that the child stay with the biological parents. However assuming a heterosexual relationship existed, it probably has broken down if the individual has subsequently come out as gay. I don''t have any issue with the child being raised by either or both of the biological parents. End of. But I would consider it lamentable if one or both of the biological parents found same sex partners in the future. Lamentable, and I would raise an eyebrow but I would not object. Because there is no way to object to it. I would never want to take a child from its parents even if those parents subsequently came out as gay as outlined above. My eyebrow would raise because I would consider it unfortunate that this couple were not true to their identity or feelings which is not the same as regular marital breakdown. In this situation the couple would have inherent and foundational issues. To create a child in those circumstances would cause me to raise an eyebrow.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 6/30/2010 7:42:13 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/30/2010 7:15:48 PM

Author: packrat

Kenny! Move here to Iowa by ME! You can marry legally here. I''m pretty sure it''s legal to be left handed here too. hehehehe. We''re progressive here in the Corn State you know. I dunno about being gay AND left handed tho. That might be just a little *too* outrageous for us fancy pants hipsters.

But is the Corn State ready for an Octavia?

That is the ultimate test.

ROFL!!!!!!

This thread is way beyond where I am comfortable to post on but that is funny!

 

[Beacon]

Steal - not at all hard to understand. Impossible to believe.

For conception of the child yes, it''s true. For raising of the child, irrelevant.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 11:21:47 AM
Author: elledizzy5
As always, ditto E B! Particularly the highlighted part. I had no idea genitalia had such a significant effect on child raising capabilities.

I''d love to see studies/research/information saying that homosexual couples negatively affect children. Since being gay is, in fact, natural, that argument doesn''t really fly.

Please read what I am saying you are completely missing the point.

Being gay is natural, obviously. Who is disputing that? But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

I tisk tisk at your intimation that I am saying being placed with a gay couple would ''negatively affect children''. Please read what I said earlier about twisting my words.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal


Being gay is natural, obviously. Who is disputing that? But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Steal-"The natural order" does some things that are not very nice. I abhor the saying, "God doesn't give you more than you

can handle", because it is so obvious that He often does. An overwhelmed mother who abuses and kills her children has been

given more than she can handle! (I am a social worker.) I am afraid that that situation is very much a part of, "the natural

order". Nature can be very cruel. A look at the animal kingdom will show you that. Or Hurricane Katrina. Or the earthquake

in Haiti. I do not think that the ideal society models itself after nature and am not sure why something being "natural" is

your only yardstick.


Deb/AGBF

 

[indecisive]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 11:21:47 AM

Author: elledizzy5

As always, ditto E B! Particularly the highlighted part. I had no idea genitalia had such a significant effect on child raising capabilities.

I''d love to see studies/research/information saying that homosexual couples negatively affect children. Since being gay is, in fact, natural, that argument doesn''t really fly.

Please read what I am saying you are completely missing the point.


Being gay is natural, obviously. Who is disputing that? But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.


I tisk tisk at your intimation that I am saying being placed with a gay couple would ''negatively affect children''. Please read what I said earlier about twisting my words.

you say "But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order."

but then how is that any different from a woman that cannot conceive or a man that cannot father a child? For that matter I would hope you would raise an eyebrow at a couple that vaccinated their child had surgery because these things are not the natural order as well.

 

[merilenda]

First of all, as a social worker who has first-hand knowledge of the issues in our foster care system, I find "ideal" to be a pretty ironic term to use. I would find it difficult to believe that anyone who has actually worked in the field would oppose a child being placed into a home with two loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

I also find the discussion of sex/gender in this thread to be very narrow. It''s just not as simple as male/female. In nature, it is actually not so straight-forward. Steal (and others), I would be curious as to your thoughts regarding individuals, say, with androgen insensitivity syndrome. These people are born with XY chromosomes (genetically male) but their bodies are unable to respond to male sex hormones. Therefore, they tend to have external female sex characteristics, but may exhibit signs of both male and female sexual development.

These people are essentially male (by sex) and female (by gender). This condition occurs naturally in humans, and individuals affected by it are biologically incapable of having children. Does such a person not have the right to ever raise a child? They don''t fit into the neat categories of male/female or sperm/egg, etc.

This is just one example of the complexities in sex and gender.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:02:02 PM
Author: Beacon
Steal - not at all hard to understand. Impossible to believe.

For conception of the child yes, it''s true. For raising of the child, irrelevant.

Responding only to your second sentence because you have a point...

Who/what says it is irrelevant? Isn''t that the crux of my ''issue''. I think it is relevant and is the only relevance. Others here think it is not.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 7/2/2010 11:44:26 AM
Author: Steal
EB I find that you are still asking this question annoying. I have answered it many times. But you are missing the obviousness of my answer.

I regret that you are burdened by the wordiness of my answers, regrettably this answer will indubitably have even more words so bear with me.

# Let me say at the outset that my thoughts are my own. I have not conducted any surveys or research. What I have done is respect the natural order.


# As to the why I believe a gay couple does not meet the requirements:

That their sex organs are identical is as moot as it is not. In that the fact that they could not create a child means that without intervention nature provides that of themselves they could never have a child. To place a child with such a couple is a step which is artificially taken.

Now obviously it is artificially to place a child into the care of foster or adoptive parents be they heterosexual or homosexual. However the material difference to me is that only one is a biological impossibility. I understand that often a heterosexual couple has issues conceiving and turn to adoption or fostering but that is not what I mean by biological impossibility. This references only that sperm x2 or egg x2 cannot create a child. For whatever creation purposes we were designed not as hermaphrodites, we require both sexes to create a child. This is where I take my issue. An innocent which for usually lamentable reasons cannot be with its biological parents must be placed in the best level of care possible. I have said all this before. Skip to the bit where I say that those ideals mirror what has been preordained. A man and a woman are required by natural order to make a child so that is the ideal. Less than that is not ideal.


Is that point really so hard to understand?
I actually am having problems understanding it. Every set of adoptive parents I know did so because they were biologically unable to have children, even after fertility treatment. If the standard is the ability to have children, which they cannot, then are you excluding heterosexual couples for whom biological children are an impossibility?

 

[kenny]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal
But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.

So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?
Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?
Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.
I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .

Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:28:58 PM
Author: indecisive

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 11:21:47 AM

Author: elledizzy5

As always, ditto E B! Particularly the highlighted part. I had no idea genitalia had such a significant effect on child raising capabilities.

I''d love to see studies/research/information saying that homosexual couples negatively affect children. Since being gay is, in fact, natural, that argument doesn''t really fly.

Please read what I am saying you are completely missing the point.


Being gay is natural, obviously. Who is disputing that? But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.


I tisk tisk at your intimation that I am saying being placed with a gay couple would ''negatively affect children''. Please read what I said earlier about twisting my words.

you say ''But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.''

but then how is that any different from a woman that cannot conceive or a man that cannot father a child? For that matter I would hope you would raise an eyebrow at a couple that vaccinated their child had surgery because these things are not the natural order as well.

Go back and read what I wrote referencing 1. sensationalism 2. random extensions and 3. infertility. Or don''t bother, whichever suits you. But I am not restating.

 

[E B]

Date: 7/2/2010 11:44:26 AM
Author: Steal
A man and a woman are required by natural order to make a child so that is the ideal. Less than that is not ideal.

Is that point really so hard to understand?

Actually, yes. The words make sense as words, but it''s far too simple and superficial a reason for me to understand.

And if that''s truly all there is, then I guess we''ll have to agree to (strongly) disagree.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Steal,

You say your main concern is to preserve the "natural order" of things when it comes to choosing adoptive parents for a child. According to you, this is the reason why you believe that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt a child, correct?

In that case, may I ask how you would feel about interracial adoption? For example, a white couple cannot "naturally" produce a child who is any race other than white. So, in your opinion, if a white couple is seeking a child to adopt, should they be limited to adopting only a white child and not allowed to adopt a child of any other race? What about an interracial couple? Should they only be allowed to adopt an interracial child who is of the same racial background as their biological child would have been?

 

[Laila619]

Steal, to clarify your position...I think you are saying that because nature/biology does not ever allow a same sex couple to conceive, by default nature does not intend for them to ever raise a child either? Correct?

And that hetero couples who conceive with the help of fertility treatments *are* still meant to be parents, because biology did intend for, and allows them, the ability to conceive?

 

[Steel]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:39:24 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal
But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.

So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?
Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?
Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.
I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .

Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

"I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset."

ETA: Same goes for Laila & IrishGrrrl.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 12:39:24 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM
Author: Steal
But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.

So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?
Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?
Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.
I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .

Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

Why are you saying all this Kenny?

Did you see my earlier post?

''I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have ''jumped on the bandwagon'' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.''

ETA: Same goes for Lailia & IrishGirl.

Oh, make no mistake . . . I do not think you''re crazy. I think you KNOW you have unfair double standards and you refuse to answer questions like these because you don''t want to admit it.

 

[merilenda]

I would also like to argue that a same-sex couple can make a child. A situation that DOES come up (probably more often than you would think) is that a "normal" male/female couple has a child. One of the partners is transgender and undergoes surgery/hormone treatment to live as the other sex. Say the father chooses to become a woman. Therefore, this same-sex couple has a biological child. Are they no longer fit to raise the child? And where is the line crossed where they become "unnatural" or unfit parents?

 

[kenny]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:43:20 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 7/2/2010 12:39:24 PM

Author: kenny

Date: 7/2/2010 12:04:32 PM

Author: Steal

But as a gay couple cannot procreate how can placing a child with them be in line with a natural order.

Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.


So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?

Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?

Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.

I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .


Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

Why are you saying all this Kenny?


Did you see my earlier post?


'I lament that rather than a discussion, the gay adoption supporters have 'jumped on the bandwagon' to slur my argument. Rather than discussing, they have chosen to attempt to prove my unreasonableness; asking my views on this or that to see if I can be adjudged crazy. If crazy then my views can be discounted. I am somewhat surprised nobody thought to mention I have four cats; surely outright that makes me the crazy cat lady so you can choose to write off my opinions at the outset.'

You have not answered the question.

You are arguing that because gays can't make a child it is wrong to let them raise one, all becuase of "natural order".

Since houses are not natural, I suppose your family lives in a tree, or maybe a cave.
You never cut your hair since scissors are not natural.
I could go on.

The answer we are all hearing is, you just hate gays.
I'd respect you more if you just admitted it instead of dancing around.

You are not alone, far from it.
Clearly the majority of Americans hate gays - they prove it in the warm, safe, comforting privacy of the voting booth where they don't have to explain away their hate with lame stuff like "natural order".

 

[merilenda]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:40:52 PM
Author: Laila619
Steal, to clarify your position...I think you are saying that because nature/biology does not ever allow a same sex couple to conceive, by default nature does not intend for them to ever raise a child either? Correct?


And that hetero couples who conceive with the help of fertility treatments *are* still meant to be parents, because biology did intend for, and allows them, the ability to conceive?

I know you''re just making an assumption about another person''s position, so I''m not trying to attack you personally or anything. But this viewpoint is really, really illogical.

My FI''s mother was unable to conceive a child. She tried for years. She and FI''s dad (they''re now divorced) adopted him when they were told she could never have a child naturally. Biology did not intend for or allow her the ability to conceive. Was she not meant to be a parent?

What about the same-sex couple who does have a biological child (nature obviously intended for them to conceive). What about the people who are not strictly male or female and are unable to ever conceive a child. Even if you were a person who sees homosexuality as a choice, you cannot argue that this person chose to have such a medical condition. Biology does not allow them the ability to conceive, so they can''t ever parent, period?

There''s just a lot of holes in that viewpoint, is all I''m saying.

 

[Laila619]

Date: 7/2/2010 12:58:53 PM
Author: merilenda

Date: 7/2/2010 12:40:52 PM
Author: Laila619
Steal, to clarify your position...I think you are saying that because nature/biology does not ever allow a same sex couple to conceive, by default nature does not intend for them to ever raise a child either? Correct?


And that hetero couples who conceive with the help of fertility treatments *are* still meant to be parents, because biology did intend for, and allows them, the ability to conceive?

I know you're just making an assumption about another person's position, so I'm not trying to attack you personally or anything. But this viewpoint is really, really illogical.

My FI's mother was unable to conceive a child. She tried for years. She and FI's dad (they're now divorced) adopted him when they were told she could never have a child naturally. Biology did not intend for or allow her the ability to conceive. Was she not meant to be a parent?

What about the same-sex couple who does have a biological child (nature obviously intended for them to conceive). What about the people who are not strictly male or female and are unable to ever conceive a child. Even if you were a person who sees homosexuality as a choice, you cannot argue that this person chose to have such a medical condition. Biology does not allow them the ability to conceive, so they can't ever parent, period?

There's just a lot of holes in that viewpoint, is all I'm saying.

Merilenda,

I think even though your FI's mother didn't end up conceiving a child, she still had the *potential* to be able to do so since she was in a hetero relationship. Whether it happened or not, the biological ability is still there. Therefore, I think Steal is saying it's okay that she raised a child. Again, just speculation.