Lots of children grow up in families that are less than ideal, without a father or a mother. But is it really appropriate to deliberately create such families, when all kinds of empirical evidence shows that children do best in traditional families with a mother and a father who are married to eachother?
-
Except you have no evidence63% Voted for by Crooked Teeth, Forty-Two, Kazrith, The Blind Bandit, cosmosis. (14 total)
You have NO basis for your argument, I must say. I know plenty of people who have single parents. One of my best friends' parents are divorced. She lives with her mom, and hardly ever sees her dad. She is one of the most well-adjusted, happy people I know.
The following comes from a joke list called The Top Ten Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong. This is number nine:
"Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children."
Who's to say that gay couples are not better at raising children than straight ones? We haven't given it a try yet. We have no idea. There is NO precedent for the situation. To base it off of divorced families is entirely flawed logic.
A child DOES NOT NEED a mother and a father. A child NEEDS A LOVING ENVIRONMENT.
-
Simply13% Voted for by lilsocy, aria94, ExpensiveThinker.
YES...anyone who would say no is not worth my time
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Of course they should be able to
-
I agree
If a child be raised in a family by a loving couple then gender should not be an issue,
-
Gender in the least can still be an issue regarding the influence of gender roles upon the individual, but this does not make it impossible, only that the parents need to be aware of maybe including external influences from adults who are of an opposing gender to themselves, particular if the child is as well.
Yet remember that this will also be an issue for single parents, so it is not really an argument against homosexual parents adopting children, but rather some of the things that they need to remember. There will obviously be some minor sociological issues for the child that need to be addressed. -
NO, And people who say yes are not worth anyones time. Adobt children, absolutely not!! Get a puppy
-
-
why not dwn. why are gay couples not allowed to raise a child?
-
-
Thats rather simple, kaz, It is imposible to establish good moral foundation from moraly corupt parents. And I've heard all the arguements, you know that as well as I, when its all said and done the fact remains.
-
fact? there is no fact here, mearly misunderstanding due to thousands of years of hate. face it dwn, your generations idea's of what is proper is fading. the new generation is one of acceptence.
-
-
This generation is a generation that accepts the de-generation of society. I am not as vehement as Dwn with the idea that a gay couple cannot raise children, but the flawed notion of acceptance (biastly) being pushed within modern society is a lie unto itself, where we are no better in the eyes of absolution to generation's past.
-
-
are you implying that acceptence is a bad thing?
acceptance isnt being pushed. you cannot push acceptance, acceptance is learned. in the past people were ignorant of certain things that are common knowledge now. -
-
Are we going for an absolute here? I am sure I have demonstrated time and time again the immediate flaws in the concept of absolute acceptance. Society today does not push absolute acceptance, it just wants everyone to BELIEVE it does so as to leave it morally untouchable, while really all it is embracing is its own manufactured selectivity due acceptance simply for what benefits itself at the time - there is no moral code that can exist within such a society without extreme hypocrisy and irrationality (yet the many rarely realise).
-
-
-
-
-
Why should society......ruin a couples dreams of adoption because their relationship isnt socially acceptable? Its selfish.9% Voted for by intangableenigma, looking4realtruth.
Its the couples choice whether or not they want to adopt a child, not societys'.
And just because the family is not ideal, it doesnt mean the child wont be happy or have a screwed up life.
And it is quite rare to find an ideal family. So, no matter what anyone tries to do, you cant make homosexual couples ideal to society.Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Im not sure I agree totally with your argument, but true, there are not a lot of 'perfect' families. I would consider it better for the child to have good, decent loving parents than abusive ones or none at all.
-
-
The trouble is not...when there is a child growing up with only a mother or a father, but when the child is growing up with 2 mothers or 2 fathers. When the child is raised up by either two mothers or two fathers they are eitherVoted for by dollar.
1 ) getting smoothered with too much of a feminine atmosphere from two mothers.
or
2 ) getting too much of a male atmostphere from two dads.
This can be psychologically damaging to the child far more than it would be for the child to grow up with only a mother or a father.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
What about having older sisters, aunts, and/or grandmothers raising you with or without the father around? We should probably ban this as well. Because all kids raised under these atmospheres turn out horrid and estrogenized!
-
lol
That is a different story. I'm talking about two male or two female people actually trying to be the childs loving biological parents. -
And what was I talking about? I actually know a number of people that were raised by their older sisters, or mother and aunt, or mother and grandmother, or mother aunt and grandmother. Not "practically raised by", but lived with and grew up with and raised by. Just because they didn't say "call me mom" doesn't make them less of a "parent". They played the same role. Loving, nurturing, disciplining, arguing, advising. There every second. They didn't have the immediate biological connection or adoption papers, so suddenly it's different?
-
ya got any conclusive psychological studies on this, or is it just an oppinion/hypothesis.
-
There is a difference between the child being raised by the grandmother, older sisters, aunt ect...
than the child being raised by either two homosexual Mothers or two homosexual Fathers who really wanted to adopt a child to feel complete.
Since the homosexuals child can't be biological (or at least biological to both persons in the homosexual marriage) both (either the mother and the mother or father and the father) will give the child the love as if it were both their biological child.
See weydon the thing is these homosexual couples are trying to "practically raise" these children which is a different story then lived with.
Also another issue... Why do homosexuals feel they need a child in their lives in the first place? Naturally a child would come in time with a heterosexual relationship.
Also, just a scenario, What if their were no children up for adoption? What would homosexual couples do then?
There is just so many things unnatural about the whole homosexual thing its ridiculous people can't see or they see but they just like going with what the majority says. Currently a good majority says nothing is wierd about homosexuality. Are you on this bandwagon or are you making a choice of your own?
Then people use the excuse..."oh some animals do it so its completely normal." and humans are supposed to be superiorly more intelegent then animals...
Wake up to reality people. The way you get a child is through a heterosexual relationship. Nature had no intention of giving a child to a homosexual couple. If you choose to be homosexual then don't expect to have a child. Its as clear and simple as that. -
"Since the homosexuals child can't be biological (or at least biological to both persons in the homosexual marriage) both (either the mother and the mother or father and the father) will give the child the love as if it were both their biological child."
THE HORROR!
"See weydon the thing is these homosexual couples are trying to "practically raise" these children which is a different story then lived with."
No. In the situations I described and which happen constantly, they were raised by AS WELL (and implied...) as living with. I lived with my brothers and sisters. I didn't raise them and they didn't raise me.. People lived with their aunts and grandmothers and sisters and WERE raised by them.
"Why do homosexuals feel they need a child in their lives in the first place?"
Why do heterosexuals? I'm straight and don't want kids.
"Naturally a child would come in time with a heterosexual relationship. "
So all kids just "come up"? No heterosexual dreams of having kids someday? None try to have one and are happy when they get one? No heterosexuals adopt kids when they can't naturally have one "come up"--or even if they can and they just want to help some "unwanted" kids? We should stop these monsters that are purposely choosing to have and nurture kids before it's too late. Kids are supposed to be accidents that just sorta come up in straight relationships, and then we deal with them.
"What if their were no children up for adoption? What would homosexual couples do then?"
Be sad? Are you supposed to be implying some sort of violent homosexual uprising where they kill parents and steal babies? We should probably genocide them now then.
Let's propose a reverse scenario. What if there were no homosexuals? We'd have more kids despairing in orphanages. Let's genocide orphans AND homosexuals, just so we can be safe.
"There is just so many things unnatural about the whole homosexual thing"
There's so many things unnatural about sitting in front of a computer and driving a car. There's so many things natural about a lion eating you.
"its ridiculous people can't see or they see but they just like going with what the majority says."
Yeah, pretty much. Me hardly think about choices at all. Me scream what majority says. One day me scream this, the next me that.
"Currently a good majority says nothing is wierd about homosexuality. Are you on this bandwagon or are you making a choice of your own?"
My eyes are open! I've been defending homosexual "rights" when really they have NONE! The filthy animals...
"Then people use the excuse..."oh some animals do it so its completely normal." and humans are supposed to be superiorly more intelegent then animals..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You JUST made the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore bad. Yet when people "claim" that homosexuality occurs naturally all the time, we're supposed to rise above natural/unnatural and create a morality outside of it. Which is it?
"Wake up to reality people. The way you get a child is through a heterosexual relationship."
This argument is about whether or not it's okay for gays to adopt. Not whether or not anal sex can create babies.
"Nature had no intention of giving a child to a homosexual couple."
Perhaps you should reference that thing you just said 3 lines ago about ""oh some animals do it so its completely normal." and humans are supposed to be superiorly more intelegent then animals..."
"Its as clear and simple as that."
I fail to see how demanding I "wake up" and stop "copying" whatever I see other people doing, combined with contradicting stances on natural/unnatural in relation to morality, is "clear" or "simple". -
Your twisting my words around.
"No. In the situations I described and which happen constantly, they were raised by AS WELL (and implied...) as living with. I lived with my brothers and sisters. I didn't raise them and they didn't raise me.. People lived with their aunts and grandmothers and sisters and WERE raised by them."
You fail to see what i'm getting at. The love the homosexual couples are giving is one of trying to love the child as mother and mother or father and father.
Grandmothers, sisters, ect... raising the child is a different story.
"No heterosexual dreams of having kids someday? None try to have one and are happy when they get one? No heterosexuals adopt kids when they can't naturally have one "come up"--or even if they can and they just want to help some "unwanted" kids?"
Um yes heterosexuals want kids ect...
You using this as an excuse to make homosexual adoption look normal?
"Kids are supposed to be accidents that just sorta come up in straight relationships, and then we deal with them."
Are you implying children raised up in homosexual environments are getting more love than thoes in heterosexual environments?
"Are you supposed to be implying some sort of violent homosexual uprising where they kill parents and steal babies?"
Maybe I am. Many homosexual couples feel they need a baby to be complete but why if you choose the life that won't get you one?
"Let's propose a reverse scenario. What if there were no homosexuals? We'd have more kids despairing in orphanages."
Least they won't be despairing in a homosexual atmosphere. It would be best to wait for a heterosexual to adopt the child.
"There's so many things unnatural about sitting in front of a computer and driving a car. There's so many things natural about a lion eating you."
I agree but sexuality and what kind of parental environment a child grows up in is not something we should unnaturalize if in our power.
"Yeah, pretty much. Me hardly think about choices at all. Me scream what majority says. One day me scream this, the next me that."
i'm happy for you.
"My eyes are open! I've been defending homosexual "rights" when really they have NONE! The filthy animals..."
I'v never said homosexuals have no rights. I say if a child is brought into this world through a hetero relationship then it should remain in this atmostphere.
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You JUST made the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore bad. Yet when people "claim" that homosexuality occurs naturally all the time, we're supposed to rise above natural/unnatural and create a morality outside of it. Which is it?"
I never said homosexuality occures naturally all the time. Its clear to see a good 90% of all animals are heterosexual. I'm saying if humans are supposed to be so intellegent to stop justifying your claims homosexuality is natural on a 10% or less homosexuality rate in nature. Also how many of these homosexual animals have babies they raise up?
We don't need to "rise above natural/unnatural and create a morality outside of it" to see its clear nature didn't intend for homosexuality.
-
"The love the homosexual couples are giving is one of trying to love the child as mother and mother or father and father."
--> and that is somehow, bad?
""No heterosexual dreams of having kids someday? None try to have one and are happy when they get one? No heterosexuals adopt kids when they can't naturally have one "come up"--or even if they can and they just want to help some "unwanted" kids?"
Um yes heterosexuals want kids ect...
You using this as an excuse to make homosexual adoption look normal?"
--> what weydon is saying, it is natural to want to have a child in which to raise.
"Are you supposed to be implying some sort of violent homosexual uprising where they kill parents and steal babies?"
Maybe I am. Many homosexual couples feel they need a baby to be complete but why if you choose the life that won't get you one"
--> when will this world realize that you DO NOT choose to be homosexual? answer another thing. there is technowlogy being explored now where a sperm can be made out of the (i believe) marrow of a womans bone, thus no need for adoption. another, serigocy (sp?).
"least they won't be despairing in a homosexual atmosphere. It would be best to wait for a heterosexual to adopt the child."
--> what the (if only i could swear). despairing in a homosexual atmosphere. why would a child be despairing? what is the bloody difference between a homosexual atmosphere and a heterosexual atmosphere? besides for the off chance of not having to fear being rejected by your parents if you are gay.
"'v never said homosexuals have no rights. I say if a child is brought into this world through a hetero relationship then it should remain in this atmostphere."
well its solved then. all the brats brought into this world though a heterosexual relationship are screwed and all we have to do is make our own through serigocy.
"Also how many of these homosexual animals have babies they raise up?"
-->many. there is a penguin that was raised in the NY zoo by two gay penguins.
black swans raid the nests of other swans to steal their young to raise themselves.
"nature didn't intend for homosexuality."
--> if nature didnt intend for homosexuality, then homosexuality wouldnt exist.
-
^
Actually Weydon, anal sex can create babies- where do you think lawyers come from? -
LOL @ anal sex creating lawyers. Now on to the matter at hand, being aware that what I'm gonna address was mostly addressed at someone else...
"Also another issue... Why do homosexuals feel they need a child in their lives in the first place? Naturally a child would come in time with a heterosexual relationship.
Also, just a scenario, What if their were no children up for adoption? What would homosexual couples do then?"
Why do heterosexuals feel they need a children in their lives in the first place? If there were no children up for adoption, I guess the homosexual couples would find some other means or go into withdrawal. So if you wanna play this "what if" game, I can too. What if only homosexual couples were allowed to adopt children since most heterosexual couples can breed their own children?
"There is just so many things unnatural about the whole homosexual thing its ridiculous people can't see or they see but they just like going with what the majority says. Currently a good majority says nothing is wierd about homosexuality. Are you on this bandwagon or are you making a choice of your own?
Then people use the excuse..."oh some animals do it so its completely normal." and humans are supposed to be superiorly more intelegent then animals..."
Could we please, pretty please stop trying to compare what humans and animals do in this regard? The point is, there are times where's it's foolish to compare ourselves because we're not gonna be like them. I'm getting really tired of the "natural = right, unnatural = wrong" argument being used for so many things by so many people. Nature does its things, we do our things, what else is there to it? The point is, humans are NOT animals, at least we don't behave like them. Humans are NOT designed to live like animals do, since we lack fur, have much weaker senses then other animals, and more. In my case, I don't always go with what the majority says simply because their the majority. If my view point is part of a minority (which is pretty common), then so be it. Last time I checked, the majority were very much against homosexuality and wouldn't want "those poor children" to be adopted by "those evil anal sex loving, devil worshiping homosexuals who plan to turn the child gay".
"Wake up to reality people. The way you get a child is through a heterosexual relationship. Nature had no intention of giving a child to a homosexual couple. If you choose to be homosexual then don't expect to have a child. Its as clear and simple as that."
See above for the nature argument. So is anything bad because it doesn't work out as intended? Who decides what's intended anyway? On the whole people choose to be a homosexual argument, it's seems like you're the one who needs to wake up to reality. I mean seriously, think about it, why would most homosexuals choose to be gay if they could just as easily choose to be heterosexual? Why would they choose to go through all of the bull that society throws at them? Have you not seen the select group of gay people who don't want to be gay? Have you not seen them deny it, fight it, turn to their religion, and otherwise attempt to be heterosexual when in their heart their homosexual? What I'm getting from these comments is that you seem to have some blind hatred against homosexuals without even thinking about what it would be like in their shoes.
As a transgender person who has to put up with a crap load of crap from people like you out of hatred, ignorance, and stupid, it's rather hard for me to keep my cool. I know I most certainly didn't one day decided... "I'm bored, so I wanna get a sex change to become a woman who is into other women. I'm gonna look up tons of information on the Internet, tell my mother about it while arguing the great misunderstandings, possibly lose friends, look for support groups, plan to spend lots of money for this one way process, and get hatred even more then homosexuals. Yup, lot's of fun, it's not like my life isn't hard enough already dealing with Autism and more." Think, who would go through all this trouble when they likely have other difficult life problems on top?
"Um yes heterosexuals want kids ect...
You using this as an excuse to make homosexual adoption look normal?"
Then explain this. Back when I thought I was a heterosexual male, I had no desire to have kids. Also explain to many heterosexuals who want no kids that do in fact want kids. As for the normal argument, since when does something being considered normal matter toward it's moral and ethical value? Life isn't so black and white that normal = right and that non-normal = wrong, well, at least not to everyone.
"Are you implying children raised up in homosexual environments are getting more love than thoes in heterosexual environments?"
So a kid automatic gets more love in a heterosexual environment then a homosexual one regardless of what's actually happening?
"Maybe I am. Many homosexual couples feel they need a baby to be complete but why if you choose the life that won't get you one?"
See above about people choosing to be gay.
"Least they won't be despairing in a homosexual atmosphere. It would be best to wait for a heterosexual to adopt the child."
So it's better for a child to get no love at all and sit around for a heterosexual couple to take them in then say get the option of being taken in much sooner by a homosexual couple?
"I'v never said homosexuals have no rights. I say if a child is brought into this world through a hetero relationship then it should remain in this atmostphere."
So if life is born a certain way, it should remain that way? I guess going by that logic, children should remain naked because they were born that way, urinating all over the place and being really cold in many cases. What about the children not born through a heterosexual relationship? Just because a child comes from a man and woman doesn't always mean it was a heterosexual relationship.
"I never said homosexuality occures naturally all the time. Its clear to see a good 90% of all animals are heterosexual. I'm saying if humans are supposed to be so intellegent to stop justifying your claims homosexuality is natural on a 10% or less homosexuality rate in nature. Also how many of these homosexual animals have babies they raise up?
We don't need to "rise above natural/unnatural and create a morality outside of it" to see its clear nature didn't intend for homosexuality."
Once again, see above for nature arguments. -
-
i like to add normal does not = norm.
-
-
“Your twisting my words around.”
You’re doing that yourself.
“You fail to see what i'm getting at. The love the homosexual couples are giving is one of trying to love the child as mother and mother or father and father. “
Yes. And? They’re orphans. Parents would be good for them.
“Grandmothers, sisters, ect... raising the child is a different story.”
Why, because they have different names? They play the same role. My friend gets his sister a Mother’s Day card every year, because she basically was one to him for most of his life.
“Um yes heterosexuals want kids ect...
You using this as an excuse to make homosexual adoption look normal?”
Well, at least you’re starting to catch on to the point. Heterosexuals want kids. Sometimes they adopt them because they can’t have them. ….Homosexuals want kids. Sometimes they adopt them because they can’t have them. WHY do any of these people want kids? I don’t know or particularly care. It’s really none of my business, and will do these parentless kids in crowded orphanages a world of good—especially considering that (unlike natural birthing and parenting), in order to adopt a kid you need to go through extensive background checks.
“Are you implying children raised up in homosexual environments are getting more love than thoes in heterosexual environments?”
I’m implying “kids are only loved when they come up naturally” is a stupid notion.
“Maybe I am.”
WOW… You DO know gay people are human beings, right? You ever meet someone, gay or straight, that’s old and never had kids? That’s because they didn’t abduct one from its murdered parents. Maybe they never wanted kids, maybe they did and are kind of sad about it. But few of them kidnap and murder.
“Many homosexual couples feel they need a baby to be complete but why if you choose the life that won't get you one?”
Why fall in love with an impotent or barren person if that can’t get you a baby? You can’t help who you fall in love with—and doing as such shouldn’t stop you from having a kid if you want one, and a kid wants a home with a loving family to grow up in. It’s not like adoption agencies are a waste of space. Empty, dusty offices. Once in a blue moon someone will decide they don’t want there baby, so a social service officer quickly hands it off to a straight couple that can have kids but wants another. Plenty of kids need homes, plenty of couples—gay and straight—want kids even though they can’t have them. It’s a wonderful equalizer that you are corrupting with hate.
“Least they won't be despairing in a homosexual atmosphere. It would be best to wait for a heterosexual to adopt the child.”
Strange how this kind of talk is tolerated as completely reasonable on the site, but I would get in trouble for cursing you out.
“I agree but sexuality and what kind of parental environment a child grows up in is not something we should unnaturalize if in our power.”
If you do less hate mongering and more research, you’d see that kids raised in gay homes usually turn out straight (and well-balanced). And if you’re too lazy for research, how about a little dose of common sense? Where do gay people come from to begin with? Could it be straight couples? Is that where they came from?
“I'v never said homosexuals have no rights. I say if a child is brought into this world through a hetero relationship then it should remain in this atmostphere. “
Yeah, children should always stay in their immediate “natural” atmosphere. Blacks with blacks. Asians with Asians. Abused with abusers. It would be unnatural and therefore wrong…in…in THIS sense…but not in like…other senses…really anything gay.
“I'm saying if humans are supposed to be so intellegent “
Intelligent…
“to stop justifying your claims homosexuality is natural on a 10% or less homosexuality rate in nature.”
So nature is doing these things unnaturally?
“Also how many of these homosexual animals have babies they raise up?”
A few. But wait…shouldn’t we be “intellegent” enough to rise above what animals do or don’t do?
“We don't need to "rise above natural/unnatural and create a morality outside of it" to see its clear nature didn't intend for homosexuality.”
Nature sure is a big screw-up.
-
I completely agree with the original post. It's nice to see someone agree with me. Also I'd like to just add that it would be psychologically damaging for a child to be raised in a gay household because the child will be taunted, picked at and made fun of at school and everywhere in society. ALSO, being gay is a CHOICE, you are NOT BORN gay so if you TURN gay, that's a firm decision and you should realize that raising a child in a gay household is UNNATURAL.
-
-
LET A RELATIONSHIP THAT GIVES BIRTH KIDS TAKES CARE ITS kIDS.LET A RELATIONSHIP THAT GIVES BIRTH KIDS TAKES CARE ITS kIDS.Voted for by likewhatitis100.
Let no one deprive the relationship that brought up kids the right to raise its kids and let no one deny the kids their natural right to be raised in relationships they were born from.
It takes a relationship to bear kids and the relationship is heterosexual.That relationship has the right to raise its kids and kids born from heterosexual relationships have the right to be raised in those relationships.Those relationships are natural to them.Unnatural relationships will never become natural to kids born from heterosexual relationships.
Heterosexual relationships are very capable of raising their kids.They are naturally equipped to give birth and raise kids.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
I agree.
Yes it is the truth of things. -
no one is denying the fact that kids should be raised by loving parents.
the point is, not all heterosexual relationships are LOVING. people give their child up for adoption because they feel they cannot give the child the love they deserve.
anybody notice that the people you want to take these kids in have a larger tendency to want to create their own kid instead of getting someones unwanted one?
stopping homosexuals adopting is worse than giving your kid up for adoption. you are prohibiting healthy love a child needs to survive. -
THE GAY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON DESTROYING RIGHTS OF OTHERS(KIDS)
THE GAY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON DESTROYING RIGHTS OF OTHERS (KIDS)
The fact that there are some heterosexual relationships that are not loving can not justify denying the kids right to be raised from their natural relationship, they were born from.
Denying kids, this natural and basic right, and give them up for adoption to homosexuals to please homosexuals, is not only selfish, it is tantamount to abuse.
We can not sacrifice the kids natural right to be raised from relationships they were born from, on the alter of appeasing or promoting gay cause.
Children rights come first.
The gay rights should not be built on destroying the rights of others.
-
i see where you are coming from, but you just distroyed your whole argument by yourself.
it is a kids right to have loving parentss right?
but you insist on limiting the sexual orientation of the parents, which means you are taking away the right of the child by limiting the love that they could receive.
this isnt one wrong against one right. it is two rights that would strengthen the world we live in.
-
-
THE GAY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON DESTROYING RIGHTS OF OTHERS (KIDS)THE GAY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON DESTROYING RIGHTS OF OTHERS (KIDS)Voted for by likewhatitis100.
The fact that there are some heterosexual relationships that are not loving can not justify denying the kids right to be raised from their natural relationship, they were born from.
Denying kids, this natural and basic right, and give them up for adoption to homosexuals to please homosexuals, is not only selfish, it is tantamount to abuse.
We can not sacrifice the kids natural right to be raised from relationships they were born from, on the alter of appeasing or promoting gay cause.
Children rights come first.
The gay rights should not be built on destroying the rights of others.Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
we can do this here too
i see where you are coming from, but you just distroyed your whole argument by yourself.
it is a kids right to have loving parentss right?
but you insist on limiting the sexual orientation of the parents, which means you are taking away the right of the child by limiting the love that they could receive.
this isnt one wrong against one right. it is two rights that would strengthen the world we live in. -
Heterosexual relationships are very capable of raising their kids.They are naturally equipped to give birth and raise kids.
The love the kids want is available in this relationship.
This relationship is self-sufficient. -
and when these "superiour" relationships are not available, we do what? throw them into a group home where all the love they get is just enough to keep them off the streets?(ie people giving them food water and shelter)
have you ever met a homosexual couple? -
It seems like besides not being born from gay parents, it sounds like you have no other argument for why children being raised by gay parents is wrong. How are gay couples less able to raise kids then a heterosexual couple? Let's take this argument further. What about single parents? Should they not be allowed to adopt children? What about children being raised by a heterosexual couple that decide to break up? Should those children be forced to be adopted by another heterosexual couple since their no longer living with two parents or guardians?
-
KIDS ARE FROM HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP
KIDS are of heterosexual relationship. So they belong
to this relationship and this relationship is natural
to them.
So if the heterosexual couple raising the kids decide to break up,and the kids have to be adopted, they should be adopted by another heterosexual couple. Because they are of heterosexual relationship. -
and when these "superiour" relationships are not available, we do what? Thats no excuse to abuse the kids.
-
abuse? how are they being abused?
still waiting on why straight relationships are better -
HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS GUARANTEE LOVE
Raising kids under a relationship they are not designed for kids can constitute abuse. Kids are very vulnerable because they can’t speak for themselves. So, we will have to rely on reason to give a reasonable solution. We will not go by your claims that there is love in homosexual relationships.
From a reason stand point, it takes a relationship to bear kids and the relationship is heterosexual. Kids are born from heterosexual relationships. So, heterosexual relationship is the kids’ natural relationship and kids are of heterosexual relationship. So, the relationship of kids and heterosexual relationship is logical.
Although, love might not be in every heterosexual relationship, heterosexual relationship guarantees love.
In math, a formula guarantees an answer but it doesn't give the answer. Heterosexual relationship guarantees love.
So, in math the formula is logical and that’s what guarantees the answer. So, by the same token, the logical relationship of kids and heterosexual relationship guarantees love. So, heterosexual relationship is the formula for love.
Although, you claim there is love in homosexual relationship the connection between kids and homosexual relationship is not logical, which makes it an unlikely source of the love that the kids want.
Since, it’s unlikely to produce love, it stands to reason that it is very likely to be a fertile ground for abuse.
So, heterosexual relationship remains the only relationship that is natural to kids, that guarantees love, and that has been tested and withstood the test of time.
-
"HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS GUARANTEE LOVE"
Oh shut up. Heterosexual couples can be abusive on many levels to their kids--and where do you think these kids in orphanages come from?? The "guarantee" of love seemed to fail and the kids were given up for adoption or taken away by social services because of extreme abuse and/or inability to take care of the child.
"Raising kids under a relationship they are not designed for kids can constitute abuse."
To those that embrace prejudice, sure.
"Kids are born from heterosexual relationships. So, heterosexual relationship is the kids’ natural relationship and kids are of heterosexual relationship."
Why is natural, right? Kids are born naked. Therefore, being naked is their natural state. Clothing them is unnatural and wrong!
"Although, love might not be in every heterosexual relationship, heterosexual relationship guarantees love."
You know what...I'm not even gonna bother anymore. -
"HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS GUARANTEE LOVE"
Then explain why my father raped both my sisters.
"Raising kids under a relationship they are not designed for kids can constitute abuse. Kids are very vulnerable because they can't speak for themselves. So, we will have to rely on reason to give a reasonable solution. We will not go by your claims that there is love in homosexual relationships."
Who is this "we" you speak of? How is there not love in a homosexual relationship? Why should I go by your claims that there is guaranteed love in a heterosexual relationship?
"From a reason stand point, it takes a relationship to bear kids and the relationship is heterosexual. Kids are born from heterosexual relationships. So, heterosexual relationship is the kids' natural relationship and kids are of heterosexual relationship. So, the relationship of kids and heterosexual relationship is logical."
You do realize that not all kids are born from a heterosexual relationship right? Just because they came from a man and woman doesn't mean it was a loving relationship. How do you explain teenagers fooling around when they have a child by mistake and don't share the love for each other that a general heterosexual couple is expected to have? How do you explain children born as the result of rape? Where's the love in that?
"Although, love might not be in every heterosexual relationship, heterosexual relationship guarantees love."
So basically, a heterosexual relationship without love guarantees love? WTF?! Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
"In math, a formula guarantees an answer but it doesn't give the answer. Heterosexual relationship guarantees love."
What does math got to do with this? Are you some kind of broken record here?
"So, in math the formula is logical and that's what guarantees the answer. So, by the same token, the logical relationship of kids and heterosexual relationship guarantees love. So, heterosexual relationship is the formula for love."
See above.
"Although, you claim there is love in homosexual relationship the connection between kids and homosexual relationship is not logical, which makes it an unlikely source of the love that the kids want."
Define logical and why a kid wouldn't want love from a homosexual couple when they most likely were not exposed to society's belief of homosexual being wrong.
"Since, it's unlikely to produce love, it stands to reason that it is very likely to be a fertile ground for abuse."
Then how do you explain the many kids who are loved by their homosexual parents?
"So, heterosexual relationship remains the only relationship that is natural to kids, that guarantees love, and that has been tested and withstood the t
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
Why is this even up for grabs?
YES! They should be able to adopt children. I don't care how ungodly it is in some religons, it is called freedom. And why are we focusing on Gay marrige when there is war a famine all over the world. As Lewis Black once said, "Gay marrige, on our list of problems, is on page 30 under 'Are we eating to much garlic as a people?'"March 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
likewhatitis100
July 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
LET A RELATIONSHIP THAT GIVES BIRTH KIDS TAKES CARE ITS kIDS.
Let no one deprive the relationship that brought up kids the right to raise its kids and let no one deny the kids their natural right to be raised in relationships they were born from.
It takes a relationship to bear kids and the relationship is heterosexual.That relationship has the right to raise its kids and kids born from heterosexual relationships have the right to be raised in those relationships.Those relationships are natural to them.Unnatural relationships will never become natural to kids born from heterosexual relationships.
Heterosexual relationships are very capable of raising their kids.They are naturally equipped to give birth and raise kids.
dollar
July 6, 2007
Then why don't we adopt some of our children to the local zoo.
Kazrith
July 7, 2007
thanks
Weydon
July 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
Ievianty
July 7, 2007
Edit | Reply
Don't think I could have said it better myself.
I pretty much agree with the opinion, but I have comments for the comments."The mother figure can provide for all of the child's needs, but the father figure provides a sense of safety."
Who's to say it can't be the opposite, one of them doing both or neither? Coming from someone who's father that I no longer live with, I can say that I actually feel more safe without him. Why, because I was worried about how he might punish me if I messed up or did something he didn't like (which happened quite often), not to mention nowadays if he had his way, I would be at a lot more risk in life and troubles then what I am now.
likewhatitis100
July 9, 2007
What constitute a heterosexual relationship is woman and man.Thats all.Nothing like a loving relationship, I never said that.
Kazrith
July 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
Weydon
July 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
The manner you specified was being in a heterosexual relationship.
The TRUE specified manner for guaranteeing a loving relationship is LOVE, devotion, trust, nurturing, putting them first, compromise, balanced discipline (for kids) etc. Has nothing to do with being gay or straight.
Weydon
July 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
"likewhatitis100, you stated that very well!"
Oh come on
likewhatitis100
July 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.Heterosexual relationship is not a relationship for the destruction of life. It is pro-life. It produces kids. To be pro-life is to give support that enhances life. Love enhances life of kids, so it caters for that. So, this is what heterosexual relationship does and it true that it stands for what it does. So, it is true that it will always do what it stands for. To stand for what it does is a pledge.So, heterosexual relationship pledges love to raise the kids that shall be produced by man and woman in a relationship.Therefore, it guarantees love for kids.
Homosexuality is not for producing kids. It is a fact that it stands for what it defines it and what it does. What defines it and what it does has nothing to do with kids. It does not pledge love for kids. Therefore it does not guarantee love for kids.
likewhatitis100
July 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.Heterosexual relationship is not a relationship for the destruction of life. It is pro-life. It produces kids. To be pro-life is to give support that enhances life. Love enhances life of kids, so it caters for that. So, this is what heterosexual relationship does and it true that it stands for what it does. So, it is true that it will always do what it stands for. To stand for what it does is a pledge.So, heterosexual relationship pledges love to raise the kids that shall be produced by man and woman in a relationship.Therefore, it guarantees love for kids.
Homosexuality is not for producing kids. It is a fact that it stands for what it defines it and what it does. What defines it and what it does has nothing to do with kids. It does not pledge love for kids. Therefore it does not guarantee love for kids.
likewhatitis100
July 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.Heterosexual relationship is not a relationship for the destruction of life. It is pro-life. It produces kids. To be pro-life is to give support that enhances life. Love enhances life of kids, so it caters for that. So, this is what heterosexual relationship does and it true that it stands for what it does. So, it is true that it will always do what it stands for. To stand for what it does is a pledge.So, heterosexual relationship pledges love to raise the kids that shall be produced by man and woman in a relationship.Therefore, it guarantees love for kids.
Homosexuality is not for producing kids. It is a fact that it stands for what it defines it and what it does. What defines it and what it does has nothing to do with kids. It does not pledge love for kids. Therefore it does not guarantee love for kids.
likewhatitis100
July 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.
A RELATIONSHIP PLEDGES WHAT DEFINES IT AND WHAT IT DOES.Heterosexual relationship is not a relationship for the destruction of life. It is pro-life. It produces kids. To be pro-life is to give support that enhances life. Love enhances life of kids, so it caters for that. So, this is what heterosexual relationship does and it true that it stands for what it does. So, it is true that it will always do what it stands for. To stand for what it does is a pledge.So, heterosexual relationship pledges love to raise the kids that shall be produced by man and woman in a relationship.Therefore, it guarantees love for kids.
Homosexuality is not for producing kids. It is a fact that it stands for what it defines it and what it does. What defines it and what it does has nothing to do with kids. It does not pledge love for kids. Therefore it does not guarantee love for kids.
Weydon
July 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
Xelgaroth
November 26, 2007
Edit | Reply
um, does that mean, since I'm fully capable of pulling out a gun and shooting everyone at my school, that I am defined by what I'm capable of? I'm also capable of helping people and nurturing them. I'm capable to do both, so which, pray tell, defines me? It is not what I am capable of, nor is it what I am deep down inside, or what someone thinks I am, or what someone thinks I ought to be, that defines me, but what I am DOING. That is what defines me.
Xelgaroth
November 26, 2007
Edit | Reply
um, does that mean, since I'm fully capable of pulling out a gun and shooting everyone at my school, that I am defined by what I'm capable of? I'm also capable of helping people and nurturing them. I'm capable to do both, so which, pray tell, defines me? It is not what I am capable of, nor is it what I am deep down inside, or what someone thinks I am, or what someone thinks I ought to be, that defines me, but what I am DOING. That is what defines me.
...or do we just lock up everyone because they are "capable" of being mass murderers?
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free