The debate "Should gay's be allowed to adopt" was started by
September 10, 2015, 7:33 pm.
82 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
sloanstar1000 posted 4 arguments, Neaa posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 14 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
goldfox1987 posted 16 arguments, Ryan posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Neaa, PsychDave, countrybumpkin, sloanstar1000, Bodaciouslady16, sidhant, Yuki_Amayane, Katerina, dotdotdot, DanielleR123, Riley, wayneSPEC, Katana_MC, abby1212, invincible_01, kayla, historybuff, desght, darkthoughts, hogan, Skeetc15, Specimen, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, lolly1706, athinus, WaspToxin, shawncola, fuckthehatersss, srishti_pinkleaves, Cherryblossomcat, adreonnasky, debaterjr, AngryBlogger and 49 visitors agree.
AstroSpace, ReedSchneider, sabrina, Cross, Kamal, Ryan, hendra24, Hellrazor, goldfox1987, gouthamabi, bigB, wmd, brokuk20, josejose, sannia, hmd, ezza16, Alex, Zooei96 and 14 visitors disagree.
Apparently your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired when you read the sentence "children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households" and interpret it to mean a comparison with single parents. How does "children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as most other family structures, and the advantage of heterosexual married couples is due to higher socioeconomic status" and interpret it to mean that same sex parents are less capable?
The studies do compare same sex couples with different sex couples. Perhaps you should reread the articles, or at least the abstracts, before trying to discredit them.
as I tried to show, the evidence put forward by dave only drew comparisons between homosexuals and single parents. thus since there is no study between two parent homosexual couples with children and traditional familes, the extension was made. yes there is a small stretch, but since these are the comparisons put forward and the only bridge between studies is single parent heterosexual parents, the comparison was made. seriously read closer and check sourse studies.
But first of all, that's not even a study about children raised by same sex parents, that's about single parents. You can't just say that there's a comparable standard between single parents and homosexual couples raising children and say that this is evidence.
single parents are six times more likely to be in poverty than married couples. poverty is also a good source for cognitive, emotional and social problems. not to mention those people born into poverty seem to stay in poverty, so you can't just blame single parenthood. You especially can't extrapolate studies done on single parent families to make them represent a homosexual couple's ability to raise a child.
So do you think homosexual couples are in the same poverty level as single mothers?
That is an incredibly flawed comparison. Single parent households are more likely to be below the poverty line as they only have one parent, while same sex families have double the potential earning power. This difference in socioeconomic status would account for the differences you mention. Do you have any research that actually supports your argument without making unsupported assumptions about same sex couples being equivalent to a single person when raising a child?
pew research center as well as several other organizations have done studies showing the difference in childhood development between two parent households and single parent households (which have been compared to extensively though in small sample numbers) by the studies you put forward.
the pew research center found first off that nearly 66% of children raised in single parent homes live below the poverty line. as compared to only about 10% in two parent households.
Studies conducted by Dr. Paul Amato, Professor of Family Sociology and Demography at Pennsylvania State University show that children who grow up with both biological parents in the same household are less likely to experience a variety of cognitive, emotional and social problems.
thus, if you have drawn from studies showing a comparable standard between single parent and homosexual parents, then this study would cast a very dim light on the idea of homosexual adoption by comparison.
I presented evidence supporting my stance, could you now do the same? You say you will stand by your argument, but so far it is purely based on your opinion and religious bias.
I agree that the studies had limited scopes, but as it would be immoral to run a controlled experiment in which we take children away from their parents and place them in control families, the best evidence we will be able to find on the subject is correlational. This is the same method used for all other research into psychological effects of upbringing, so while there has not been extensive research into the subject, what research has been done seeks to be firmly opposed to your position.
I complement your finds of seemingly unique evidence. but, both are weak in the spine and knees.
the tufts study was based on a plethora of small scall studies, ( more than 26). the problem with these studies is that all but 1 had no control of any traditional familes, negating all with any relevance to this topic. the one that had a more traditional family control only had 16 couples in the study. this is a pitiful number and an insult to a topic as important as this.
the Stanford study was much more honest about its shortcomings. they admit that school progress is the only measure they can accurately.
I am impressed that people have made the attempt, but I still can stand by my previous argument that homosexual parents are not as good as traditional families in all areas.
all that aside, I will be trying to read and look for additional studies on the topic...who knows someone might put together a pretty good study someday.
Child well being in same sex families - Wendy Manning et al 2014
We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.
Promoting the wellbeing of children whose parents are gay and lesbian - Tufts University 2013
Many studies have demonstrated that children?s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents? sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.
Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school - Stanford University 2010
Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures? the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).
my argument for best is that they are able to exemplify the roles, feelings, standards, ethics, and can provide for the child in any stage of development, and provide a loving atmosphere and safety in explaining every new challenge posed by the children no matter gender, age, or position in life. a homosexual couple would not be able to show a child how a man treats a woman in the home as a wife, nor how a woman treats her husband. these are areas that homosexuals cannot fulfill because they are two of the aame gender no matter how feminine or masculine one of them may be.
now, what evidence would you put forward to say that homosexuals would make as good of parents as traditional parents? beyond love...
Do you have any research or evidence to back up the claim that a gay couple cannot provide as caring and nurturing a home as any other couple? Your entire argument is that a traditional family is better than a nontraditional family but you have yet to demonstrate that this is so beyond your assertions.
I would argue that if my criteria were met, there would not be a single child left without a home. it should be our duty to provide the BEST for the children, our children, and our best calls for the traditional family. homosexuals simply cannot provide the best. I do not hate them, I am pointing out a sociological and developmental norm
And if there are still children in the system once everyone who meets your criteria and wants to adopt has, would you let gay people adopt, or would you prefer the remaining children remain in the system?
alternative not evasion. we are not bound to two options in this way. the best of the children needing homes and the best for loving familes (traditional) wanting to adopt. the outcome would be better than the other two options
That is an evasion, not an answer.
what I am saying is trading one bad option for another bad option is not progress. maybe instead of debating gays adopting or leaving the child in fostercare we could reduce the cost of adoption so that barren couples can afford to adopt, or familes can raise an adopted child with their born children. I tell you this, if adoption did not cost so much my wife and I would adopt.
Are you actually saying that if the alternative is a gay couple raising a child with love and support, you would rather the child feel unloved and grow up without a family?
And I'm sure in your mind what matters are Christian values. The truth is a loving home that doesn't abuse their children is massively better than foster care. and that is the discussion. are they better off in foster care or a home that loves them. some foster parents are great. but there are a lot of abusive or neglectful foster homes too.
love is not enough. I am not a proponent of the foster system there is more to raising a child than just love
Having parents who love them rather than bouncing around the foster system feeling like no one wants them.
tell me this then, outside of the traditional one man one woman model, what would serve a child best?
No it is exactly the point. you think people who don't match your image a family should not be allowed to raise children. that is what you are arguing. I just extended the argument a little. and at that point it is a pretty repugnant and aweful thing to say. your argument is no different.
the china argument is to say that one peoples law do not apply to another. if you don't like Jewish law, leave rhe people. if you don't like Christianity, fine go somewhere else. that is your right. but I digress. the point being that adoption, the willing choice to have a family take in a child that does not by law or blood yet belong to them, should be reserved to a man and a woman who are married. the idea that we must take children from familes who do not fit this model to extenuating circumstances is a side issue and an injustice to the question.
your China argument is way off base, we're not talking about two different governments in different countries . you're talking about one God that said it was okay to kill homosexuals at one point. it's wrong to kill gay people for being gay whether you're in China, the United States, or in ancient Israel. how do you not understand that?
So by your logic then single parents also shouldn't raise children. there isn't one mother and one father so they must be unfit? You need balance right? so if your wife or husband devorces you, take away the children. if you spouse dies, take away the children. This is the logical extension of your logic. if you must be a conventional couple go be a good parent then no one else should be allowed to have kids right?
the problem isn't the love, the problem is that the quintessential family unit is the express model for life on this planet. what children see they impersonate (if you don't believe me have a child and then swear once in front of them and listen to how much they repeat it). not to mention that two dads or two moms will never be the same as one mom and one dad. children need the inherent differences of both parents of both genders. balance and love
btw sloan, do the laws of the USA apply to people in china? no. the same thing goes in the Bible. God's laws for God's people. if you don't want to follow His law that is fine, but if you follow God you follow His rules. just like we follow the law in the USA. same concept different context.
OK bottom line past any of the religious mumbo jumbo. There is no evidence that having a gay parent affects a child's chance of being gay. lots of gay children are raised by strict religious parents. Clearly upbringing is not the critical factor in being gay. Why shouldn't a child be in a loving family environment over foster care or an orphanage?
here's a more direct argument for things that were acceptable to god. In Leviticus, god commands us to kill gay people.
don't say that it's ok because that was in the old testament either. god still thought that was the right thing to say.
What are you talking about? those people did not brake God's law on marriage. Abraham stepped outside God's law, and look where that got us as a world. but what steps did you take to get to your question? my point was to show me the text in the Bible that says those things were acceptable? and to that I am still waiting.
So you believe that Abraham, Isaac and Moses' parents were all wicked? These are some of the cornerstones of the religions. Why would they have been depicted as being devout followers of the Lord if He saw them as wicked?
show me the text where it states that these things are not only acceptable but prove a man righteous. having read the old testament, I have yet to see these texts. in fact if you read the Bible, you see a Loving Father reaching for His children and having to put rules in place because His children don't want to obey simple rules like Love. Please, read the Bible, not just what is written about the Bible. On top of that Lot was not visited by angels because he was righteous, he was saved because of Abraham (see Gen 19:29)
You reach the conclusion that anything other than one man and one woman is wrong FROM THE SAME TEXT that accepts incest between parents and children, capital punishment for wearing two different fabrics or planting two crops in the same field, or selling your child into slavery. Lot offered to let an angry mob rape his daughters to prevent them from attacking angels and this showed him to be a righteous man. You cannot pick and choose which lessons remain written in God's hand and are therefore inviolate and which are obsolete simply because you feel like it. Logically you must either accept that the Bible is the word of God, or accept that it was written by men, meaning the morals are malleable with changes in history.
support incest? no. as an interesting note, that period of the Bible and in fact human history itself, there were not that many people on the planet. there was no laws or codes about who you can or cannot marry. that being said, there is a huge difference between MARRYING your cousin and sleeping with your daughters. I think everyone everywhere can universally condemn a father sleeping with his child.
as for the lessons? Marriage between one man ans one woman is a divinely created sacrament. any deviation from this model is wrong. again, focus on the context and the examples will make more sense.
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that Lot is not held as a positive role model? Abraham married his half sister, his brother married their niece, Moses' parents were aunt and nephew. The Bible is full of incest in the same sections you cite as being cause for righteous indignation against gay people. Why does one lesson remain true while you have discarded the other? (unless you support incest, in which case there is no conflict)
You do realize that Lot was not the ideal upon which to base any morals right? and read in context the Bible does lay out the best moral code for humanity. a great example of adoption is St. Joseph, fister father of Jesus. strong, dedicated, protector, hard working. this is a man held up to follow
Obviously, if we are to take moral guidance from the literal text of the Bible on these matters, drunken incestuous sex is better than a consensual relationship between two people who are of the same gender. Therefore men who have sex with their daughters should be able to adopt before gay people as they are more righteous.
In reality I am pointing out the inherent flaw with using the Bible for a moral compass in modern society. People who use it as a way to attack others rarely appreciate that such tactics leave them open to responses using the same text they exploit.
Also it was Lott and his daughters, not Lott and his sons!
The story would have been very different if he hadn't had daughters to have sex with and impregnate.
Ok here's all I've got to say is God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
I would argue that children need to be brought up in a home with one mom and one dad for the sake of their development. human beings are made to follow a certain social structure, one not made by humans, but was given by God. the family is the core of society. the strength of a cultures familes is the strength of the culture. when a nations familes are strong, the nation follows. when the family is sabotaged, destroyed, changed (to something outside God's law) the nation crumbles. morals are built within the family, as well as faith and self identity. beyond all this, the future of the species is based on the family. when we destroy the fundamental family, we destroy the species.
I am not just attacking homosexuals. I say this to divorced heterosexuals, and polygamists as well. look at history. the Assyrian peoples of antiquity had five husbands and five wives, a very "open" culture. we see their buildings but not rhe nation. the greek empire was also very open and spread wisdom and knowledge throughout the known world, yet today the greek people are but a faint and very distant shadow of their former greatness. the roman empire was equally open and vast in land and culture. yet today italy is only a glimmer of the people who once ruled the world. these nations all embraced "open" family cultures and all we see of them today are faint hints of former peoples and stone buildings.
on the other hand, the jews have held to the traditional meaning of marriage and family (not without occasional falls through history as I know will be pointed out, but as a general rule lets agree they hold to it generally), and not only is the nation growing, but they are strong culturally and militarily. they have the vigor of life still in them as a nation.
the point is, for this post, that the needs of a child, a family, and a people depend on the unboken bond of one man and one woman for life. this is true for natural born children as well as adopted ones.
The people that disagree is that because ur Parents put it in ur head that gay's r bad or they told u that something's wrong with them for being humans,is it because of ur religious beliefs or is it because ur just dumb......OR IS IT THAT YALL R JUST LISTENING TO UR FRIENDS... PLZ TELL MR Y U PUT DISAGREE!!!!
I don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to