Conquer Club

Gay Adoption

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Should Homosexual couples have the right to adopt?

 
Total votes : 0

Postby V.I. on Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:47 pm

Homophobic bigots have no leg to stand on. There is zero statistical evidence to suggest that a child raised in a stable, dual income homosexual home turns out to be anything other than just that: an average child raised in a stable, dual income home.

Numerous studies (at least here in the U.S., likely the same across the pond) compiled by scientists and academics who are funded by conservative foundations have attempted to create a case against homosexual adoption, however the data is horrifically skewed and is discounted by the majority of accredited studies as unscientific in data collection and presented findings.

Any child development professional worth a salt would conclude that having two parental figures raising a child is preferable to just one, regardless of sexual orientation.

The remaining question of whether a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple can provide "better" child-rearing is too generalized for statistical research. It’s the same as asking whether a white couple or a black couple is "better" at raising a child. Entirely too generalized for legitimate empirical research.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant V.I.
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:23 pm
Location: City of No Illusions

Postby jiminski on Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:50 pm

Napoleon, You could have simply asked the first question:

Should Homosexual couples have the right to adopt?
1. Yes
2. No
3. No opinion

But you expanded the question to qualify it and add doubt to the voter:

Yes, in all circumstances, treated just as heterosexual couples are in applications

No, a heterosexual couple is preferable

No opinion

in doing so you made it a 'reasonable doubt' question : .... "if you have any doubt as to the innocence of the Gay couple, based on years of built up prejudice then vote No!"

You tipped those who have even the smallest of doubts as to the perversity of Queers .. and the unknown, to vote No for safety.

You made it a choice between principle and the welfare of a little child.

no one can chose personal principle over an innocent child... it goes against every fiber of our bodies.

No one unless they paused to resister a trap set by the questioner!
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:01 pm

jiminski, you forget to mention the "preferable" part of the second option. It doesn't add anything except for people to notice that a person growing up with two heterosexual parents would have less problems regarding acceptance. (As in, being bullied because their parents aren't "normal".)

I mean, someone was asking for a Yes, but heterosexual is preferable- option!
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby jiminski on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:07 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:jiminski, you forget to mention the "preferable" part of the second option. It doesn't add anything except for people to notice that a person growing up with two heterosexual parents would have less problems regarding acceptance. (As in, being bullied because their parents aren't "normal".)

I mean, someone was asking for a Yes, but heterosexual is preferable- option!


No i did not forget that part of the question Snorri ... that was the knockout punch after all!
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Postby meme on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:11 pm

Add me to the list of bigots. I believe that kids should be raised by a father and mother. It's worked well for centuries and now people are trying to change it so they can think of themselves as enlightened.
User avatar
Private meme
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:12 pm

Postby jiminski on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:15 pm

meme wrote:Add me to the list of bigots. I believe that kids should be raised by a father and mother. It's worked well for centuries and now people are trying to change it so they can think of themselves as enlightened.


Nah if we were enlightened we would allow the children to raise us.
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Postby bradleybadly on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:21 pm

meme wrote:Add me to the list of bigots. I believe that kids should be raised by a father and mother. It's worked well for centuries and now people are trying to change it so they can think of themselves as enlightened.


Never thought I would be called a bigot for recognizing what is naturally good, but I guess you can count me in too. I think it's natural for kids to be raised by a father and a mother so I'm a bigot. Woohoo!
User avatar
Corporal bradleybadly
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:53 pm
Location: Yes

Postby suggs on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:24 pm

havent bothered to read the rest of this thread because the answer is YES, next.
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class suggs
 
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: At the end of the beginning...

Postby got tonkaed on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:25 pm

it would be interesting to see if this poll would change any if it was a little more balanced.

I have a feeling some who may be on the fence would probably respond that heterosexual couples is preferrable but may consider having gay couples adopt in other circumstances.

However, i have a feeling it wouldnt change too much because i think the people who are voting the second option are as much voting no for gay couples as they are yes for heterosexual preference.

*it doesnt do a tolerance movement any good to call people who disagree bigots, thats not very tolerant*
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby suggs on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:31 pm

tonk, i see as usual you are trying to be balanced-thats admirable.
But sometimes you have to take a stand, otherwise you end up in moral cul-de-sac. I do call people who disagree with the assertion "yeah, being gay is fine, obviously"-because they are bigots.
likewise, undoubtedly Hitler had a rough childhood-but lets not be too balanced eh?
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class suggs
 
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: At the end of the beginning...

Postby got tonkaed on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:35 pm

suggs wrote:tonk, i see as usual you are trying to be balanced-thats admirable.
But sometimes you have to take a stand, otherwise you end up in moral cul-de-sac. I do call people who disagree with the assertion "yeah, being is fine, obviously"-because they are.
likewise, undoubtedly Hitler had a rough childhood-but lets not be too balanced eh?


i did take up the charge a bit earlier in the thread, but as the numbers continue to go in a certain direction, im reminded that it doesnt do any of like minded thinkers (to me at least) any good to end up becoming the things we speak out against.

it was similar to this documentary i was watching on fred phelps last night. The fact of the matter is, most people who stop at the protests end up sounding worse than the westboros (in a way, not the message, but their tone and debate). However, 30 some percent isnt terrible i guess, you just keep chipping away at such things, social acceptance is never easy.

Ill never forget the day a few years back when my state passed an amendment against gay marriage. I saw two individuals who were talking and the professor was consoling the student. Im not sure i was supposed to see it, because they were talking very quietly but she told him, someday they will change. It might not be tommorow, and it might not be in time for us, but someday they will change.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby jiminski on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:36 pm

bradleybadly wrote:
Never thought I would be called a bigot for recognizing what is naturally good, but I guess you can count me in too. I think it's natural for kids to be raised by a father and a mother so I'm a bigot. Woohoo!


Come on man the question has skewed the result and purposely contorted the debate.

Stright-forward question:
Should Homosexual couples have the right to adopt?

the answer would be very different without the qualifications:

Yes, in all circumstances, treated just as heterosexual couples are in applications

No, a heterosexual couple is preferable

No opinion


It cleverly changes the goalposts to 'is one thing preferable' where in the first instance it asks an ultimatum question as to 'whether it should be possible at all'!

this shepherds those who may think it is acceptable but not preferable to vote that that it should not be acceptable at all.
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Postby got tonkaed on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:38 pm

jiminski wrote:Come on man the question has skewed the result and purposely contorted the debate.

Stright-forward question:
Should Homosexual couples have the right to adopt?

the answer would be very different without the qualifications:

Yes, in all circumstances, treated just as heterosexual couples are in applications

No, a heterosexual couple is preferable

No opinion


It cleverly changes the goalposts to 'is one thing preferable' where in the first instance it asks an ultimatum question as to 'whether it should be possible at all'!

this shepherds those who may think it is acceptable but not preferable to vote that that it should not be acceptable at all.


i have a hunch if you ran the poll without the qualifiers you wouldnt get much dissent.

Like i said a couple of posts ago, i think it as much a vote of no for gays as it is a vote of yes for heterosexuality.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby jiminski on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:40 pm

Indeed.
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Postby jm_jazzman on Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:10 pm

Getting back to the meat of the topic here, if you don't mind...

Napoleon Ier wrote:Being raised by two gay men is unnatural! It also tramples the rights of children!


I believe your idea here is that all children have a right to have both a mother and a father, yes?

I can understand how many people would consider this to be the "ideal". However there are many unfortunate kids who don't have both a mother & father, and some who have neither (remember, there's a reason these kids are being ADOPTED). Who could deny a child without parents the opportunity to live in a loving home with a caring couple (gay or otherwise)? I don't know exactly what the statistics are in America, but here in Canada it can be difficult to find enough couples willing to adopt.

I don't see a good reason to refuse any capable couple the opportunity to care for a kid without a family. In my mind, that would be a far bigger infringement on a child's rights.
User avatar
Corporal jm_jazzman
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:15 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Postby Neoteny on Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:36 pm

I refuse to vote due to the wording of the poll, but I keep running into the same responses on these gay/straight debates. "Natural. Traditional. Right." With the exception of natural, these are all relative to the current zeitgeist, and I think that "natural" does not always mean moral. It is natural to have sex with as many people as we can to spread our seed as much as possible and have as many kids as possible. Nobody (should) thinks that's a good thing, and rightly so. I'll say again, what is traditional is not necessarily right (sacrificing virgins), and neither is what is "right" at any given time (slavery).

And for those talking about being bigots, if you think restraining the rights of a population that is different than you is a good thing, whether you think they are "right" or "wrong," then you unfortunately fit the term. I really don't like that people are religious, and I hate their religion, but I would not, in any way, want to restrict their rights.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Neoteny on Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:39 pm

Additionally, (forgive my double post) I have two moms and two dads. So if a mom and a dad are required to raise a healthy child, I should be extra healthy. Obviously, that is absurd (particularly if you think a good dose of religion is healthy).
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby rambos poodle on Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:39 pm

I am lesbian as a few of you know with a nearly 15 year old daughter
that is very much heterosexual in her out look on life ,she has boy friends and lots of mates that stay over with us and she stays with there parents for stay overs .

And the only difference i can see in my daughter and her mates is that she and her mates are less likely to stereo type people just for there sexual
orientations or beliefs .

And just a point to remember in this most homosexuals start of in a heterosexual house hold of two parents , and it does not make us heterosexual.
User avatar
Private 1st Class rambos poodle
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:48 am

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:40 pm

Neoteny wrote:I refuse to vote due to the wording of the poll, but I keep running into the same responses on these gay/straight debates. "Natural. Traditional. Right." With the exception of natural, these are all relative to the current zeitgeist, and I think that "natural" does not always mean moral. It is natural to have sex with as many people as we can to spread our seed as much as possible and have as many kids as possible. Nobody (should) thinks that's a good thing, and rightly so. I'll say again, what is traditional is not necessarily right (sacrificing virgins), and neither is what is "right" at any given time (slavery).

And for those talking about being bigots, if you think restraining the rights of a population that is different than you is a good thing, whether you think they are "right" or "wrong," then you unfortunately fit the term. I really don't like that people are religious, and I hate their religion, but I would not, in any way, want to restrict their rights.

Qft.

Yeah people seem to miss the meaning of 'bigot'. They think it's some swearword for religious people or something.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby btownmeggy on Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:44 pm

I think it's important for a child to be raised in an environment that provides love, attention, and social instruction from both men and women. It helps the child learn the gender roles that are expected from our society. So, gay couples with children need to be particularly careful to include someone of a different gender than the parents in the child's upbringing. Same applies with single parents. My sister, a single mother with two little girls, lives next door to my parents. My dad, though elderly and not the typical "father figure", provides a good role model to my nieces of how a man should behave towards his family and community. His influence will hopefully aid my nieces in having healthy, happy relationships with men throughout their lives.

It's also important, I believe, for children to have people in happy, functional romantic relationships involved in their upbringing, hopefully learning by example how to experience positive romantic love. When a parent or parents are unable to provide that example, they need to be conscious in keeping friends or family who can active in the child's raising.

It takes a village.
User avatar
Corporal btownmeggy
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

Postby vtmarik on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:03 pm

I think it takes one or two parents, of any gender or combination of genders, to create a child-centered environment to nurture and encourage the child to grow as a human being. I do not believe couples should be barred from raising a child in need solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I'd rather a child grow up in a home with parent(s) that love each other and the child, rather than a home with parent(s) that spend more time arguing with each other than caring about the child they're supposed to be raising. I don't care if it's a homosexual or heterosexual couple or single parent. If the child is not receiving the love and care in a home that the child requires then that isn't the right place for the child, end of story.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Skittles! on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:16 pm

No, they shouldn't, cause that means more people will recognise that homosexuality is natural and will accept it!

That is unacceptable in Christianity society!

:roll:
User avatar
Private Skittles!
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 am

Postby Guiscard on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:18 pm

rambos poodle wrote:I am lesbian as a few of you know with a nearly 15 year old daughter
that is very much heterosexual in her out look on life ,she has boy friends and lots of mates that stay over with us and she stays with there parents for stay overs .

And the only difference i can see in my daughter and her mates is that she and her mates are less likely to stereo type people just for there sexual
orientations or beliefs .

And just a point to remember in this most homosexuals start of in a heterosexual house hold of two parents , and it does not make us heterosexual.


=D> =D> =D>
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:22 pm

Your daughter is just fooling you. She obviously caught the GAY. :roll:
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby Guiscard on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:28 pm

btownmeggy wrote:It takes a village.


Yeh this is an important point. Although I can only comment from study at undergrad level (and that was fairly minor) social historians trace the nuclear 'mother, father, children' family group back only somewhere between 200-300 years. Previous to that (i.e. for millennia) kinship groups were the norm. The whole 'you need a mother and father' thing was wide of the mark. Everyone in the community or group had a contribution to upbringing.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users