Gay adoption is good for children

fantôme profane;1081826 said:

Nature does not intend.

Nature is not something that has intentions, or plans, or desires. Nature is nature.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why that's so hard for people to grasp.

MidnightBlue said:

I don't understand why that's so hard for people to grasp.

Click to expand...

Because while the majority of people have a tendency to anthropomorphise, some of them aren't bright enough to realise that's what they're doing.
However, in some cases I believe it's just a dishonest substitution of 'nature' for 'my version of God', because they've already tried to sell the latter and realised no-one else is buying, so they hope that the substitution will give their argument the validity it so sorely lacks.

On reflection, I think that possibly what rheff may have been trying to say is that nature uses a male and a female to procreate because that is also the best parental arrangement for raising children, that it is no accident that you need a mommy and daddy to get pregnant, since you also need a mommy and daddy to raise the baby.

If so, one problem with this argument is the many, possibly the majority, of species that do require a male and female to reproduce, but in which only one parent (usually the female) does the child-rearing.

Autodidact said:

On reflection, I think that possibly what rheff may have been trying to say is that nature uses a male and a female to procreate because that is also the best parental arrangement for raising children, that it is no accident that you need a mommy and daddy to get pregnant, since you also need a mommy and daddy to raise the baby.

If so, one problem with this argument is the many, possibly the majority, of species that do require a male and female to reproduce, but in which only one parent (usually the female) does the child-rearing.

Click to expand...

Another problem is that before the development of modern medical intervention, the act of childbirth often killed the mother, leaving the child without half of the "ideal" parenting arrangement.

Or perhaps this is just an indication that nature/God/etc. "intended" children to be raised by men alone a significant portion of the time. :sarcastic

kdrier said:

Hmm, I've never really gave the subject much thought.

My instinct disagrees with it I must admit. I'm not against queers or anything, whatever floats their boat, as long as they keep to themselves. but I don't think they would be good for raising children.

First of all the homosexuals are not suppose to have kids, I guess it's like some kind of genetic defect or something, but people who are attracted to the same sex are obviously not ment to reproduce, therefore they are not ment to have children. Not only that but the child would be ridiculed and made fun of most of their life for it, which would probably lead them to depression and all kind of mental disorders. Gay people are usually really sensitive to feelings and things of that nature, and it would probably rub off on their children way to much. Parents have more influence on their children than anyone else.

Click to expand...

I think some of us have over-reacted to Kdrier's comments. After all lets not forget that most gay people have these ideas beforethey realise that they're gay. Before I realised I was gay I had many of these prejudices and I'm sure that I have many miss-conceptions about other people; so I'm not sure who should cast the first stone today.

People who are attracted to members of the same sex are not going to re-produce but this is the problem with this debate. It is not about gay couples vs. straight couples. It's about orphanages/children's homes/ irresponsible parents vs. gay couples who have been vetted. I've got nothing against young single mums but I'd much rather be brought up by a gay couple who are desperate to be able to contribute and have been through a rigorous selection procedure than a lone 16 yr old girl who got nocked up after 10 vodka shots by a lad who couldn't be bothered to use a condom.

OK, call me prejudiced but I feel that all other things being equal, a mixed sex couple would be better. (There's more diversity in a mixed-sex couple. lol.) But it is a small factor considering the divorce rate and how many mindless parents there are out there. I say 'all other things being equal' because it is the least of my worries.

Kdrier, you say that gay people are more sensitive than other people but I often find the opposite to be true. A lot of people such as myself end up very cold.

Kdrier, you said in another post: "all the gay guys I've met are very flamboyent and just overly feminine". You meet gay people every day. Unfortunately you can only notice the ones who shout about it. Same with other groups, the loudest most extreme elements get all the attention and then people see those people as representative. Look at these fundamentalist Muslims for example.

fantôme profane;1081826 said:

Nature does not intend.

Nature is not something that has intentions, or plans, or desires. Nature is nature.

If I wanted to use this argument however I could certainly say that nature intended same sex couples to raise other people children. I could say that nature intends gay adoption. Why else would nature create loving couples who are capable of providing for a child but not able to have their own. Obviously nature intends gay adoption.

As I say I could make that argument, and it wouldbe much more sound given the available data than the nonsense you are trying to push. But I can’t in all good conscious make such an argument, it would be a fallacy.

Nature does not intend.

Click to expand...

So it's your contention that we are all here by accident?

rheff78 said:

So it's your contention that we are all here by accident?

Click to expand...

It would be hubris to say otherwise without good reason.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

It would be hubris to say otherwise without good reason.

Click to expand...

Not really. There's no evidence dis-proving me. Where's your evidence?

rheff78 said:

Not really. There's no evidence dis-proving me. Where's your evidence?

Click to expand...

You don't think that an unsupported claim that the universe was created specifically for us involves a huge amount of ego? I'd have thought that this would be self-evident.

Now... to make myself clear, I'd consider someone who was completely convinced of the truth of the Bible to have good reason to say that we were created on purpose. However, my point is that unless a person accepts your initial position (i.e. the main points of your faith), then you can't assume that he or she will necessarily come to conclusions that depend on that initial position for support (i.e. that we're not here by accident).

rheff78 said:

So it's your contention that we are all here by accident?

Click to expand...

Red herring anyone? Is it possible to resolve the question of whether gay adoption is good for children without raising the ultimate foundational issues of existence?

Now would you like to address the arguments and questions that have been posed to you?

Well, I am against whatever God is against. God created man and woman.. they had children.

Homosexuals are not able to reproduce without man's intervention.. science.. technology.

Autodidact said:

Red herring anyone? Is it possible to resolve the question of whether gay adoption is good for children without raising the ultimate foundational issues of existence?

Now would you like to address the arguments and questions that have been posed to you?

Click to expand...

True, dicussion for another forum.

ABLATT said:

Well, I am against whatever God is against. God created man and woman.. they had children.

Homosexuals are not able to reproduce without man's intervention.. science.. technology.

Click to expand...

Direct reproduction isn't required for adoption... that's kind of the point, actually.

ABLATT said:

Well, I am against whatever God is against. God created man and woman.. they had children.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell us that you know what God is against? How?
Are you trying to maintain that God is against lesbianism? If by God you mean the God that Christians worship, (after first managing to persuade us that He exists) why then did He never prohibit it?
What it is very clear that God is against is remarriage after divorce. Isn't that who you should be advocating against being allowed to adopt? Do you agree that previously married couples should be barred from adopting?

The question is not what you are against; religionists tend to be against all kinds of things that are beneficial, such as advancement of knowledge and scientific progress. The question is, what is good for children. I guess my question should be, why should your religious beliefs be allowed to deprive children of a loving family, when that is what's best for them?

Homosexuals are not able to reproduce without man's intervention.. science.. technology.

Click to expand...

I think you need to brush up on your biology. I speak from direct experience when I say that (and please excuse the rather X-rated bluntness here) the only technology involved was placing the sperm in a receptacle prior to delivery.

In any case, what relevance does this have to whether it is good for children to allow gay people to adopt them?

ABLATT said:

Well, I am against whatever God is against. God created man and woman.. they had children.

Homosexuals are not able to reproduce without man's intervention.. science.. technology.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum ABLATT, and good luck. :help:

rheff78 said:

Welcome to the forum ABLATT, and good luck. :help:

Click to expand...

Yes, with neither facts nor logic on your side, you're going to need it. Or, maybe Christians don't need luck; God will provide.

So rheff, should infertile couples be allowed to adopt?
If so, then why not gay couples?
If not, who is left to adopt?
What about previously married couples? What is God's will there?

Autodidact said:

So rheff, should infertile couples be allowed to adopt?
If so, then why not gay couples?
If not, who is left to adopt?
What about previously married couples? What is God's will there?

Click to expand...

let's see:
yes
because gays lack the capacity
are they re-married or not?

rheff78 said:

because gays lack the capacity

Click to expand...

Using similar logic, it's wrong for non-winged people to fly in airplanes. Do you agree?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Using similar logic, it's wrong for non-winged people to fly in airplanes. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

And people should also not scuba dive because they are using an artificial means do do so. If God had wanted us to breath underwater, he would have given us gills.