Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/16/05 05:11 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: If I've said it once, I've said it one hundred times: I'm only looking out for the best interests of the child... That's all.

Since Maus already commented on the other part of what you said, let me bring up this point. Don't you think that they invesitage a couple before letting them adopt a child? As far as government intervention goes, adoption in general requires jumping through infinately more hoops than a heterosexual couple just having a kid. I would think that they would only let loving and stable people actually adopt a child.

People tend to dance around the straighforward answers, so let's make this clear.

Chorus , let's get a clear opinion on this point. Which is a better environment for a child to be raised in?
A) An orphanage
B) A family with same-sex parents

At 3/16/05 05:42 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: People tend to dance around the straighforward answers, so let's make this clear.

Chorus , let's get a clear opinion on this point. Which is a better environment for a child to be raised in?
A) An orphanage
B) A family with same-sex parents

Actually he already answered that, he would perfer for the kids to live with the same-sex parents. To quote VCV:

At 3/16/05 01:26 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: loving heterosexual couple > loving homosexual couple > loving single-parent household > up for adoption > abusive single-parent household > abusive heterosexual couple > abusive homosexual couple

At 3/16/05 05:42 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: People tend to dance around the straighforward answers, so let's make this clear.

Chorus , let's get a clear opinion on this point. Which is a better environment for a child to be raised in?
A) An orphanage
B) A family with same-sex parents

VCV already stated that he considers a loving same-sex couple better than a federal institution. Given the fact that he's pretty much the only "opposition" in this thread, I think we have a consensus.

At 3/16/05 05:42 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: People tend to dance around the straighforward answers, so let's make this clear.

Chorus , let's get a clear opinion on this point. Which is a better environment for a child to be raised in?
A) An orphanage
B) A family with same-sex parents

Yea, I know you were addressing Chorus, but I gotta point out he's already acknowledged gay couples would make for better parents than federal institutions.

At 3/16/05 01:26 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/16/05 01:20 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Just one question: where does "Federal Institution" fit into your little less-than greater-than scheme?

I've said before that gay adoption wouldn't improve the adoption situation in America, but you asked a fair question, so here is what I believe (and I'm adding a new group):

loving heterosexual couple > loving homosexual couple > loving single-parent household > up for adoption > abusive single-parent household > abusive heterosexual couple > abusive homosexual couple

He's just arguing now to prove he's against gay adoption despite the obvious benefits.
VCV shot down every realistic argument of his with that post.

At 3/16/05 05:42 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: People tend to dance around the straighforward answers, so let's make this clear.

Welcome to the Gay Adoption topic... Glad you decided to join us, Ted.

Chorus , let's get a clear opinion on this point. Which is a better environment for a child to be raised in?
A) An orphanage
B) A family with same-sex parents

Why don't you try reading my posts where I actually addressed this?

Well, there is a three month waiting list to adopt a child in america. But for the moment I will go along with your theory that there are only two options. I believe A is a better answer. Then B, for the following reasons.

1. Children need a mother and a father. kids without one or the other are at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives. This has been proven true in a number of studies.

2. Homosexual couples have the highest demographic rate of "Spousal abuse" this is for both gay and lesbian couples. Again supported by numerous studies.

3. It is easier to explain to a child why they were put into adoption than why they have two fathers.

I do apologize, it seems I missed a post. I've been following the thread but apparently skimmed over one.

However, having been chastised by four different people I am thoroughly ashamed.

At 3/16/05 05:52 PM, Mcdubs wrote: Well, there is a three month waiting list to adopt a child in america. But for the moment I will go along with your theory that there are only two options. I believe A is a better answer. Then B, for the following reasons.

1. Children need a mother and a father. kids without one or the other are at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives. This has been proven true in a number of studies.

Ok, so if these studies are so numerous and decisive lets see them.

2. Homosexual couples have the highest demographic rate of "Spousal abuse" this is for both gay and lesbian couples. Again supported by numerous studies.

See previous post.

3. It is easier to explain to a child why they were put into adoption than why they have two fathers.

And what gives you the authority to say that? How can you be so sure that a kid would rather grow up beliving that nobody loves them vs. they have two moms/dads?

I would very much like to see these "numerous studies" showing high rates of spousal abuse among same-sex couples.
Secondly, ease of explanation should hardly be a deciding factor in whether a child is raised in an orphanage or by a same-sex couple. The explaining should be for the parents to do, not for the government to "spare" people because they think it may be difficult to explain.

At 3/16/05 05:52 PM, Mcdubs wrote: 1. Children need a mother and a father. kids without one or the other are at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives. This has been proven true in a number of studies.

Give me links to these studies. I'd honestly like to see them.

2. Homosexual couples have the highest demographic rate of "Spousal abuse" this is for both gay and lesbian couples. Again supported by numerous studies.

What? You have to give me a link for that. I think you're making things up.

3. It is easier to explain to a child why they were put into adoption than why they have two fathers.

"Child, you've been left in an instituion for a large perecentage of your life. Now, I know it's bad in here, sure. I know there is no one who really loves you, like family. I know your only role models are people who simply come in, and do nothing more than carry a job, that they get paid for, everyday. I know you have no real Home, other than a hard, literal one.
But look on the bright side. At least you aren't being raised by a couple fags."

That's perfectly logical, then?

At 3/16/05 10:34 AM, Maus wrote:

At 3/16/05 10:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: Straight people, not perfect, just straight.

What you said is that you think gay people have a chemical imbalance. That gay people cannot provide the 'proper' gender role models (plural) for kids. But you'll let a single straight person adopt, even though THEY cannot provide both roles. When I asked "what about single parents?' You specified 'yeah, no gay single parents, either.'

It's not a matter of single or married/together, it's a matter of gay or straight.

And thyroid? A blown thyroid gland doesnt alter your thoughts and/or beliefs, it alters your body weight.

Can a morbidly obese person provide all the parenting and interaction a child NEEDS? I say no. In fact, i say that a parent that is unable to participate in their child's life because they are too fat/too tired is worse than one that provides different gender roles, but is able to participate.

Well shit, if the person is morbidly obese to the point where they can't even walk down to the adoption agency, then hell no, they shouldn'y adopt.
But take someone like my sister-inlaw, shes got a bad thyroid and weighs about 225, but she combats it by being active and eating proper foods and whatever else her doctor has her doing to combat it. She is a very active part of her kids lives.

Maus, do they allow mentally retarded (at any stage) people to adopt? (I'm asking because I don't really know)

Are you seriously comparing being gay with being retarded as far as parenting skills?

No, and I was going to put that I wasn't comparing the 2, but I didn't. "shrugs" sorry.

At 3/16/05 07:36 PM, bcdemon wrote:

Straight people, not perfect, just straight.

What you said is that you think gay people have a chemical imbalance. That gay people cannot provide the 'proper' gender role models (plural) for kids. But you'll let a single straight person adopt, even though THEY cannot provide both roles. When I asked "what about single parents?' You specified 'yeah, no gay single parents, either.'

It's not a matter of single or married/together, it's a matter of gay or straight.

And that's the problem, maybe? It's just a matter of 'gay or straight', to you. That's the mentality I've been arguing against, in this thread, IMO.

At 3/16/05 08:13 PM, Tal-con wrote: Listen VerseChorusVerse, it's obvious you're only against gay adoption is because you follow The Bible, and I understand that, because I'm a Chrisitan too.

I've said that I incorporate my faith in my reasoning in a previous post.

If you want to debate why you're wrong and The New Testament really teaches that gays should not be discriminated against, then I'd love to do so.

I believe we have. I have plenty of biblical support saying that practicing homosexuality is, indeed, sinful behavior; show me ONE verse that says it's sexually acceptable... just ONE.

You're not making Christians look good with your pig-headed propaganda that say that gays shouldn't have equal rights, because The Bible says so.

(sigh) You must have a limited vocabulary because you've only called me "pig-headed" about twenty times. Christians will NEVER look good in the sight of the world; that's part of the package, dude. I'm standing up for what I believe to be right, and if you can't accept that fact... then you just need to shut up. When these priveleges (such as adopting) could negatively affect the wellbeing of an innocent child, then you are DAMN right I'll oppose it. At least I haven't given in to political correctness... unlike you. Your eagerness to please everyone has apparently skewed your Christian judgement.

But The Bible doesn't say that at all.

Umm... Yes, it does. God made His stance on homosexuality "quite" clear.

So stop being a fucking facist,

Nice language, Mr. Christian. I guess if I don't completely surrender myself to the radical left-wing agenda, I must be a Nazi or some crap. I suppose I am a fascist because I strongly oppose bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and necrophilia, too. I believe they ALL qualify as sexual immorality... You probably wouldn't want to "offend" people with such sexual preferences, would you, Mr. Christian?

and realize that gays WILL have equal rights, and they DO deserve the same liberties as you and me. And THEY ARE HUMANS TOO.

I never said they weren't.

There is absolutely no bad reason to have gay adoption, you base your entire argument on The Bible,

Have I given any biblical reason (up to now) for my opposition to gay adoption? No.

don't think you can fool me because I can see through your real reasoning,

OMG! You found me out! I don't know how you ever figured out my hidden agenda... I thought I had you all figured out. But NO! Tal-con has exposed my deep, dark secret.

P.S. In case you hadn't noticed, I am mocking you. :P

no one would be stupid enough to deny a child a loving home unless he/she had an alterior motive.

Good grief. I have freaking addressed this before. Are you illiterate or just plain LAZY?

At 3/16/05 04:37 PM, Mcdubs wrote: ...Gays and lesbiens have the same rights as you and I, They can marry a partner of the opposite sex and have or adopt children! outside of this, tough luck

Oh well, now that you spin that way--

Heterosexual people have the right to marry members of their same sex if they want to!

Wow,
Look how witty that sounded. That was like something that came out of Bill Cosby's ass, or something...

At 3/16/05 09:30 PM, fli wrote:

At 3/16/05 04:37 PM, Mcdubs wrote: ...Gays and lesbiens have the same rights as you and I, They can marry a partner of the opposite sex and have or adopt children! outside of this, tough luck:

Heterosexual people have the right to marry members of their same sex if they want to!

No, they don't. Whereas Mcdubs statement is essentially true.

At 3/16/05 09:34 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: No, they don't. Whereas Mcdubs statement is essentially true.

What I was trying to sa--

Oh never mind.
I'm done and done...

At 3/16/05 08:55 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/16/05 08:13 PM, Tal-con wrote: But The Bible doesn't say that at all.

Umm... Yes, it does. God made His stance on homosexuality "quite" clear.

Ok, now here is the cyclical reasonling I was trying to show you the other day. You say god makes a clear stance on homosexuality in the bible. So God here is being supported by the bible. You then turn around and say that the bible is completely accurate because God wouldn't let it be tampered with. Thus God is supporting the bible. So you can say how the bible says what god believes and that the bible is right because god made it so but without any additional evidence your claim doesn't stand. Your argument sounds strong because your main points support each other but in reality they only support each other. In order to make a logical argument you must base it on a solid, set in stone fact.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

I can already say you will probably find something along the lines of...
A cannot be the proof for B if B is the proof for A

im not against gay marriages, but gay adoption.......well bleh. the kids will be tormented at school, thats most likely a fact. and because of this the kid might do alot of things. worst case scenario would be a school shooting or a suicide attempt. and another question is will the parents force or influence the child to be gay too? im not against gays. but i am against not giving the children a choice.

this post probably makes no sense.....

At 3/16/05 10:22 PM, Tal-con wrote: Well ya know dude, that sorta implies that God doesn't exist, but I believe in God, I just don't believe that God should be used for discrimination.

Not really, there are many forms of inductive reasoning you can use to at least prove that god most likely exists. For example could go into theoretical science and see how many very large concepts that as humans we don't have a clue about. You could even go as far to examine questions like, "what was the universe like before the big bang. Basically use the imense complexity of our universe as support for the theory of intelligent design which then implies that there is a god.

Why should or do you care if a homosexual person wants to adopt a child? Gays make GREAT parents (this is what I have heard) because they are loving and caring. Don't get me wrong, mostly all parents are loving and caring, so why should gays be any different? Gays don't bother you about adoption or your life, so why should you bother them about theirs?

At 3/16/05 10:25 PM, Apathetic_Tragedy wrote: this post probably makes no sense.....

Correct!

Just because a kids parents/gaurdians are gay, doesn't mean that the kids will turn gay too.
As can be proven by the many same sex couples with straight kids in other parts of the world.

At 3/16/05 10:35 PM, SkyCube wrote: Just because a kids parents/gaurdians are gay, doesn't mean that the kids will turn gay too.
As can be proven by the many same sex couples with straight kids in other parts of the world.

Very true.
Both my parents are straight, and hetrosexual (Well duh...)
And yet look at me.

The sexual orientation of children is determined as they get older, and on their own.

At 3/16/05 10:35 PM, themonkeyonNG wrote: Why should or do you care if a homosexual person wants to adopt a child? Gays make GREAT parents (this is what I have heard) because they are loving and caring.

You do realize that you're making a rash, ridiculous, and unsupported generalization, don't you?

Don't get me wrong, mostly all parents are loving and caring, so why should gays be any different? Gays don't bother you about adoption or your life, so why should you bother them about theirs?

This debate isn't about the "rights" of homosexuals; it's about the welfare of innocent children.

At 3/16/05 10:11 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Don't believe me? Look it up.

And what, exactly, is this "absolute" that ALL science is based on?

At 3/17/05 01:41 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: And what, exactly, is this "absolute" that ALL science is based on?

Hu? I've already stated that I wasn't trying to disprove the existance of god or even the credibility of the bible. I was saying that in that example, you were using circular reasoning. If you are wondering what I mean by cold hard facts, I mean physical, measurable tangables. Numerical data and scientific fact instead of theology my friend.

Summary

Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers' adult friends--both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded.

I'd trust what the American Psychological Association has to say about this.

At 3/17/05 01:55 AM, Maus wrote: I'd trust what the American Psychological Association has to say about this.

Oddly enough I was just looking for that. I used it as a source in a research paper I did on gay marriage last semester. Well now that something credible is on the table, it's late and I'm going to sleep. I'll pick up this thread sometime tomorrow.

At 3/17/05 01:48 AM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 3/17/05 01:41 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: And what, exactly, is this "absolute" that ALL science is based on?

Hu? I've already stated that I wasn't trying to disprove the existance of god or even the credibility of the bible.

I wasn't saying you were, my brotha (~.^). You basically said that, in order for something to be considered "evidence", it must be grounded in hard fact. I am asking you, "Show me evidence that suggests SCIENCE is reality, and that evidence cannot fold back on itself."

I was saying that in that example, you were using circular reasoning. If you are wondering what I mean by cold hard facts, I mean physical, measurable tangables. Numerical data and scientific fact instead of theology my friend.

Science can never be proven as FACT, so should we abandon it? In my opinion, there are two methods of reasoning: inductive (faith) and deductive (logic). Both are legitimate forms.

At 3/17/05 02:01 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

Science can never be proven as FACT, so should we abandon it? In my opinion, there are two methods of reasoning: inductive (faith) and deductive (logic). Both are legitimate forms.

OMG...
Are you hearing yourself?
Science aims at trying to prove things factually. If it cannot make things into fact, they will try to best explain something with the best information and knowlege, which is called theory. Scientists try to prove or disprove theories because they're trying to make things into fact.

Now I didn't open Maus' link cause I'm going to bed at this second. But fact is that there has been more then a few studies, which could be researched in JAMA, that suggest that offspring raised by homosexual parents are no different from offspring raised by hetrosexual parents. To me, it's an obvious, "well, a-duhhhh..."

Funny. I'm recalling you making posts about "evidence" (a scientific thing you've done)about how homosexual parent creates all these problems-- and yet you never posted any evidence. And now you're just saying, "well, science can't prove anything. Faith and deduction only..."