Homosexual Couples and Adoption

[Sir Suomi]

Can anyone give me a logical answer to why a homosexual couple can be turned down for adoption, just due to the fact that they are homosexual? Seriously. I'm not saying that I like homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't receive any less of equal treatment to heterosexual couples.

[Sugaree]

Can anyone give me a logical answer to why a homosexual couple can be turned down for adoption, just due to the fact that they are homosexual? Seriously. I'm not saying that I like homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't receive any less of equal treatment to heterosexual couples.

Because it revolves around whether or not the adoption agency feels that a homosexual couple is fitting for the children they care for.

[Elysium]

I don't see any reason why a homosexual couple isn't just as capable of caring for a child as a heterosexual couple.

[workingatperfect]

A main reason I hear is that the child will be bullied for having gay parents. I think it's stupid. If someone wants to bully a kid, they will find any and all reasons to do so. The problem is with the bullies, not the family. I don't see how people can over look the fact that that's a child who otherwise would have no fucking family at all.

Another big one is what Bethany pointed out down below - "they need a mother AND father influence." To which I will again say: better than no parents at all isn't it?

[Cygnus]

I am undecided on what to think about adoption in this case. I feel like a homosexual couple could give as much love to a kid as a normal couple, however there will be a lot of social issues. As mentioned before, the child can be bullied, have social issues with a specific gender or group, grow to be homosexual without a second thought (no offense to anyone), and more. I think this subject needs to have a really close analysis before it is approved. Homosexual marriage needs to be approved first before this happens though.

[Bethany]

It's ridiculous when so many children need loving homes.

I seem to see the following arguments repeatedly:

A mother/father household is best for children - first of all, I've never seen that proven, and second of all, even if this were true, it seems as children with homosexual parents would be much better off than children shuffled from foster home to foster home

The adopted children will be "turned gay" by the adopted parents - utterly ridiculous and homophobic argument

Kids with a gay couple as parents will be bullied - yeah, so? If they're not bullied for that, they'll be bullied for something else! That's the fault of the bullies - the kids shouldn't be punished and refused loving, caring, gay families because of that

[Jess]

It's ridiculous when so many children need loving homes.

I seem to see the following arguments repeatedly:

A mother/father household is best for children - first of all, I've never seen that proven, and second of all, even if this were true, it seems as children with homosexual parents would be much better off than children shuffled from foster home to foster home

The adopted children will be "turned gay" by the adopted parents - utterly ridiculous and homophobic argument

Kids with a gay couple as parents will be bullied - yeah, so? If they're not bullied for that, they'll be bullied for something else! That's the fault of the bullies - the kids shouldn't be punished and refused loving, caring, gay families because of that

This

Also some opponents thinks the child/children will be "ruined" forever, being adopted by gay parents. Utterly ridiculous

[Atonement]

Just to throw this in because I read it the other day:

At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.

But now that it has been given the status of marriage and given facilities for adoption, children will be affected. Everyone needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them shape their identity.

Not my opinions, but they're interesting to consider in the discussion.

[Korashk]

Not my opinions, but they're interesting to consider in the discussion.
They aren't particularly interesting. One assumes that a child would rather move from adoption agency to adoption agency and foster care home to foster care home than be teased at school and the other has been mostly disproved by scientific studies.

[Jay1]

It's ridiculous when so many children need loving homes.

If that were true there might be a case for allowing gays to adopt - as in we can't find a mother/father for this kid so we'll give him to homosexual couple. Thing is it isn't true - there are many more people wanting to adopt than there are kids for adoption.

Adoption should be 100% about what's best for the child - problem is allowing gays to adopt is not about the child atall it's about what the adopters feel they're entitled to. Basically gays want to adopt and who cares whether it's good for the child or not.

That is totally wrong.

[workingatperfect]

If that were true there might be a case for allowing gays to adopt - as in we can't find a mother/father for this kid so we'll give him to homosexual couple. Thing is it isn't true - there are many more people wanting to adopt than there are kids for adoption.

Adoption should be 100% about what's best for the child - problem is allowing gays to adopt is not about the child atall it's about what the adopters feel they're entitled to. Basically gays want to adopt and who cares whether it's good for the child or not.

That is totally wrong.

Oh come off it. Do you really think with how expensive adoption can be, there's enough straight couples to adopt every. single. abandoned child in the world? Don't be naive. If that were true, we wouldn't have kids spending their entire childhoods in orphanages or in and out of foster homes. And I suppose you're completely against single parents as well?

[Jay1]

Oh come off it. Do you really think with how expensive adoption can be, there's enough straight couples to adopt every. single. abandoned child in the world? Don't be naive.

Actually I know there is - my older sis is a social worker who puts kids through adoption and she says there are always more potential parents than there are kids, the adoption agencies can afford to be very choosey. Obviously I can't speak for the whole world.

Are you saying that gay couple couples should only be allowed to adopt if a mother/father can't be found for a kid?


And I suppose you're completely against single parents as well?

Single parents are nothing to do with whether gay couple can adopt - totally different subject.

[workingatperfect]

Actually I know there is - my older sis is a social worker who puts kids through adoption and she says there are always more potential parents than there are kids, the adoption agencies can afford to be very choosey. Obviously I can't speak for the whole world.

Are you saying that gay couple couples should only be allowed to adopt if a mother/father can't be found for a kid?

Exactly, you can't speak for whole world, and I doubt your sister can't speak for much more than her area.


Single parents are nothing to do with whether gay couple can adopt - totally different subject.

Single parents also don't offer the mother/father influence that so many people against gay adoption think is a valid reason to deny someone a child. But single parents can adopt and no one seems to have a problem with that.

[Jay1]

Exactly, you can't speak for whole world, and I doubt your sister can't speak for much more than her area.

OK so is the reason you favour gays being allowed to adopt because there are not enough mother/father couples willing/able to adopt?


Single parents also don't offer the mother/father influence that so many people against gay adoption think is a valid reason to deny someone a child.

That's the problem you say "deny somebody a child" as if people have a right to a child - nobody has a right to a child, whether they're gay or straight. The only thing that should matter in adoption is the interests of the child, never the adopters "rights".

Using children to further other people's rights is totally wrong.

[workingatperfect]

OK so is the reason you favour gays being allowed to adopt because there are not enough mother/father couples willing/able to adopt?

No, I'm in favor of lgbt adoption because there's no explicit affect on the children.


That's the problem you say "deny somebody a child" as if people have a right to a child - nobody has a right to a child, whether they're gay or straight. The only thing that should matter in adoption is the interests of the child, never the adopters "rights".

Using children to further other people's rights is totally wrong.

But it doesn't have a negative affect on kids. Sure, they might get bullied, but like I said, if not for that, they'll be bullied for something else. You can't prevent bullying on the victim's side. It's wrong to deny a child a family because other parents aren't raising their kids to be respectful. It's also wrong to use bullshit reasons to hinder people's rights.

[Jay1]

No, I'm in favor of lgbt adoption because there's no explicit affect on the children.

But you have absolutely no evidence for this - you're just saying it because you want it to be true. This is the usual liberal thought process
1 - i want something to be true
2 - me wanting it to be true makes it true
3 - anyone who disagrees must be bigoted/racist/homophobic

What if it was proven there were negative effects on the child would you still be in favour of gay adoption?


Sure, they might get bullied

So you think the adopter's rights are important enough to let a kid get bullied for a preventable reason? Presumably you don't care how the kid would feel when he's being bullied?


You can't prevent bullying on the victim's side.

Well in this case you can - a kid won't get bullied for having gay parents if you don't adopt him with a gay couple. Totally 100% fool-proof method of prevention.

It's wrong to deny a child a family because other parents aren't raising their kids to be respectful. It's also wrong to use bullshit reasons to hinder people's rights.

Do you think the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the adopters?

[Korashk]

OK so is the reason you favour gays being allowed to adopt because there are not enough mother/father couples willing/able to adopt?
Most people favor allowing gay couple to adopt because there is no legitimate reason to keep them from adopting. Studies have shown that there are no significant differences between children raised by homosexual couples and children raised by heterosexual couples.

Your arguments against this sound a lot like the ones people use against gay marriage.

[Jay1]

Your arguments against this sound a lot like the ones people use against gay marriage.

Wrong. If a gay couple want to get married they're not directly effecting anyone else - it's matter for the two of them. If a gay couple want to adopt there's also a child involved.

See the difference?

[workingatperfect]

But you have absolutely no evidence for this - you're just saying it because you want it to be true. This is the usual liberal thought process

I'm saying it because I've seen kids raised by gay couples. My cousin is a lesbian and has two kids by her ex-husband. A boy and girl. They grew up just fine, are great people, and have good social lives. My cousin being gay has not affected their lives.




So you think the adopter's rights are important enough to let a kid get bullied for a preventable reason? Presumably you don't care how the kid would feel when he's being bullied?

Did I say that? Hmm, let's see... Nope, don't see that anywhere in my posts.


Well in this case you can - a kid won't get bullied for having gay parents if you don't adopt him with a gay couple. Totally 100% fool-proof method of prevention.

Once again, you're incredibly naive if you think that will stop a kid from being bullied. A bully will find any reason they can to bully someone. Instead of punishing orphans and gay couple, people should be teaching their kids more respect and tolerance.


Do you think the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the adopters?

I think they're equally important, but the kids' rights aren't being violated by giving them a family.

[Jay1]

I'm saying it because I've seen kids raised by gay couples. My cousin is a lesbian and has two kids by her ex-husband. A boy and girl. They grew up just fine, are great people, and have good social lives. My cousin being gay has not affected their lives.


So because your cousin had kids with her ex and theyve turned out fine no kid would suffer by being adopted by gay parents. Quite a long leap of logic.

If it was proven that kids do suffer by being adopted by gay parents would you still be in favour of allowing gays to adopt?


Did I say that? Hmm, let's see... Nope, don't see that anywhere in my posts.

You said you were OK with a kid being bullied for having gay parents.

Presumably in your world there is also no benefit for a kid having a mother and a father?

I think they're equally important, but the kids' rights aren't being violated by giving them a family.

That's probably one of the scariest thoughts I've ever heard. You actually think the rights of a gay couple are as important as the rights of a child.....words fail me.

Don't you think the rights of the child should be MORE important?

[xmojox]

There are no logical reasons to prevent same-sex parents from adopting.

[Bethany]

If that were true there might be a case for allowing gays to adopt - as in we can't find a mother/father for this kid so we'll give him to homosexual couple. Thing is it isn't true - there are many more people wanting to adopt than there are kids for adoption.

Adoption should be 100% about what's best for the child - problem is allowing gays to adopt is not about the child atall it's about what the adopters feel they're entitled to. Basically gays want to adopt and who cares whether it's good for the child or not.

That is totally wrong.

That's true for babies in some areas, but I'm not "totally wrong". There are more older children and special needs kids in the US waiting to be adopted than couples wanting to adopt them.

[workingatperfect]

You said you were OK with a kid being bullied for having gay parents.



Once again, I didn't say or even imply that. If you're going to put words in my mouth, I'm done debating with you.

[Jay1]

Once again, I didn't say or even imply that. If you're going to put words in my mouth, I'm done debating with you.

You acknowledged it's likely a kid would be bullied for having gay parents
You are still in favour of gay adoption even though you realise it may cause the kid to be bullied.

That is 100% stating you are OK with kids being bullied for having gay parents. If you were not OK with it you would not favour gay adoption.

Can't have it both ways.

[Korashk]

You said you were OK with a kid being bullied for having gay parents.
Kids get bullied. It happens. I'd think they'd be able to handle it better with a family than they would without one.

Presumably in your world there is also no benefit for a kid having a mother and a father?
According to most available, reputable, evidence, no. Children do not benefit from having a mother and a father. They benefit from having a good familial relationship regardless of the sex of their parents.

That's probably one of the scariest thoughts I've ever heard. You actually think the rights of a gay couple are as important as the rights of a child.....words fail me.
Adoption agencies aren't supermarkets, you can't just walk in and pick out a kid. Why the hell do you think we're advocating that the government force children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

Don't you think the rights of the child should be MORE important?
No, their rights should be at least equally as important, but practically less important because they're minors. That's how the law works.

I'm legitimately curious as to how you interpret anything that we said the way that you did because what we said and what you're claiming we said are two WILDLY different things.

Regardless of what you may think, (http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf) there is evidence proving that children (page A-6) (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf) raised by homosexual couples develop no differently (http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf) than children raised by heterosexual couples. (http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf)

[Jay1]

That's true for babies in some areas, but I'm not "totally wrong". There are more older children and special needs kids in the US waiting to be adopted than couples wanting to adopt them.

OK, I'll buy that.

Are you saying gays should only adopt kids when a straight couple can't be found?

I meant you (or anyone else) is "totally wrong" if you consider the rights of people wanting to adopt to be as important as the rights of a child.

[Harry Smith]

OK, I'll buy that.

Are you saying gays should only adopt kids when a straight couple can't be found?

I meant you (or anyone else) is "totally wrong" if you consider the rights of people wanting to adopt to be as important as the rights of a child.

Everyone has equal rights, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, 99 or 12. You can't try and say one group should have more rights.

Your argument about Bullying is completely wrong, people will find literally anything to bully someone. Someone in my class has Lesbian Parents, and no-one even mentions it at all, we live in a modern Society,a society where I and everybody have universal rights

[Bethany]

OK, I'll buy that.

Are you saying gays should only adopt kids when a straight couple can't be found?

I meant you (or anyone else) is "totally wrong" if you consider the rights of people wanting to adopt to be as important as the rights of a child.

No, I'm not. I don't believe a gay couple trying to adopt should be treated any differently than a straight couple trying to adopt. My point is that even if one doesn't personally support gay marriage, they should acknowledge that a gay couple adopting a child is better for the child than the child being shuffled from family to family in the foster care system.

The people wanting to adopt and the child being adopted have equal rights. Actually, the people wanting to adopt have more rights, as they are not minors.

[workingatperfect]

You acknowledged it's likely a kid would be bullied for having gay parents
You are still in favour of gay adoption even though you realise it may cause the kid to be bullied.

That is 100% stating you are OK with kids being bullied for having gay parents. If you were not OK with it you would not favour gay adoption.

Can't have it both ways.

And you are 100% great at making far fetched assumptions. In fact, that seem to be just about all you do.

I acknowledged it is possibly. I then said we should be working on eliminating hate by raising kids to be respectful and accepting. So yeah, I guess you're right. In wanting to effectively end bullying, I'm condoning it.

[Jay1]

Everyone has equal rights, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, 99 or 12. You can't try and say one group should have more rights.

I can and do say that the rights of a kid up for adoption should be more important than the rights of a gay couple to adopt a child. Nobody should have a right to a child but a kid should obviously have a right to parents.

In adoption the only thing that should matter is the best interests of the child. As you probably know this is the basis social services works on and I'm amazed you (and others here) don't seem to accept it.

I wouldn't dispute that a kid is probably better off being adopted by gay parents than no parents. This is a benefit to the child.

Problem is I don't think you would say gay parents should only adopt when a suitable straight couple is not available. You're basically using kids as political footballs to further the rights of gays.

[Korashk]

Oh look everybody, he's completely ignoring my post which basically invalidated everything he's saying. Surprise, surprise.

[xmojox]

It almost seems that someone is intentionally making far-fetched outlandish statements interspersed with somewhat more sensible ones just to see how others react....

Like a research project or something.

[Harry Smith]

It almost seems that someone is intentionally making far-fetched outlandish statements interspersed with somewhat more sensible ones just to see how others react....

Like a research project or something.

I know, it does seem very similar. Maybe it would be best if everyone just ignored him

[randomnessqueen]

its because homosexual couples are too happy.

[crepesuzette]

I don't see any reason why a homosexual couple isn't just as capable of caring for a child as a heterosexual couple.

i agree, and studies have shown that their parenting styles do not differ much from that of heterosexual couples.

[Jay1]

And you are 100% great at making far fetched assumptions.

It's not a far fetched assumption - I was responding to what you said. Let me try and explain this a different way. I smoke cigarettes - there's fairly convincing evidence that smoking increases the risk of dying of cancer. Would you say
1/ the fact I smoke means I'd be happy to die of cancer
or
2/ the fact I smoke means I don't want to die of cancer but I accept the risk in exchange for the pleasure of smoking

Hopefully it's obvious the correct answer is no/yes. You accept that a child adopted to gay parents is likely to be bullied for having gay parents - yet you think it's worth putting the child through this bullying because gays have a "right" to a child.

I don't think the rights of gays to have a child is important enough to run the risk of a child getting bullied. You obviously do. Now do you understand my point?

[naglfari]

Your arguments are no different than those used to say we shouldn't have interracial marriage back in the 60s or whenever it was.

should we keep poor people from adopting because kids get made fun of for being poor too

Maybe fat couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Or couples who are to affectionate around your classmates and embarrass you

[Jay1]

What is so wrong in thinking 100% about best interests of the child and forget the rights of the adopters?

In this whole thread I've not heard anyone talk about the interests of the child - every point has been about the interests of people who want to adopt.

[naglfari]

Its a copout the bullying would be insignificant in most places since most people our age believe in gay rights. And the more normal it becomes the less any bullying around it will occur. You're just looking for an excuse to hold onto your homophobic position.

Finally a little bullying is small price to pay to get out of the orphanage. If you actually cared about those kids you'd be totally for gay adoption

[Jay1]

Finally a little bullying is small price to pay to get out of the orphanage.

Amazing. You don't even know orphanages do not exist any more and yet you feel qualified to discuss the best interests of children.

That's like me discussing science and saying the world may still be flat.

[naglfari]

Child services whatever its the same thiiiiiiiiiiing

Wanna address the actual point I made instead of playing the semantics game? Oh right you can't because its obvious to everyone you're just a stupid homophobe

[Jay1]

Child services whatever its the same thiiiiiiiiiiing

It's not the same thiiiiiiing. Where do you think kids up for adoption actually live while they're waiting to be adopted?

Oh right you can't because its obvious to everyone you're just a stupid homophobe

This is brilliant - you think kids live in orphanages but I'm stupid.

My point was you have no clue about children so you shouldn't be making any points. Go away and get some actual knowledge then, when you know what you're talking about, come back and make a point.

I know on the internet everyone has the right to be an idiot sometimes - but you're abusing that right.

[naglfari]

It's not the same thiiiiiiing. Where do you think kids up for adoption actually live while they're waiting to be adopted?



This is brilliant - you think kids live in orphanages but I'm stupid.

My point was you have no clue about children so you shouldn't be making any points. Go away and get some actual knowledge then, when you know what you're talking about, come back and make a point.

I know on the internet everyone has the right to be an idiot sometimes - but you're abusing that right.

it's irrelevant child services sucks

[TheDeepestDepths]

Of course I think Gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Personally, I think refusing a Gay couple the right to a child to love and look after is the same as refusing a child two adults who are prepared to love and take care of him/her.

As for the argument against it due to the risk of bullying; you're being ridiculous.
A child could be bullied for having two same sex parents. However, a child could also be bullied for having blond hair (or any other physical feature), does that mean we should forbid all people with blond hair from having/adopting a child, simply because the child could be bullied?

It comes down to what you were born with and what you have no control over. Gay/Lesbian people have absolutely no say in their sexuality, just as people have no say in what they look like, do we deny them (therefore denying a child) someone to nurture, guide, and teach because of this?

Studies done by the APA, ABA, and the AMA show that there is no harm done to the child through having same-sex parents. In fact, statistics show that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to excel in school and more likely in art and music.

As for the whole religious argument, what is more important to the overall health of the child, the approval of a God (or the main figure in any religion) or a loving and nurturing home-life? And, just something I wanted to point out, before Christianity nobody cared about the sexuality of people, look in any mythology and there are many indications of homosexual relations between people, even gods. Greek mythology can be especially blatant.

Lastly, to those who claim being raised by two Gay people will "turn" a child Gay. Pull your head out of your ass and listen to reason. With all the discrimination against LGBT, if homosexuality was a choice, who in their right mind would choose it? It's as though you are saying people want to be hated and scorned. Bullshit, claiming homosexuality is a choice is simply enabling society's narrow-minded and harmful view or what is right and proper.

[workingatperfect]

It's not a far fetched assumption - I was responding to what you said. Let me try and explain this a different way. I smoke cigarettes - there's fairly convincing evidence that smoking increases the risk of dying of cancer. Would you say
1/ the fact I smoke means I'd be happy to die of cancer
or
2/ the fact I smoke means I don't want to die of cancer but I accept the risk in exchange for the pleasure of smoking

Hopefully it's obvious the correct answer is no/yes. You accept that a child adopted to gay parents is likely to be bullied for having gay parents - yet you think it's worth putting the child through this bullying because gays have a "right" to a child.

I don't think the rights of gays to have a child is important enough to run the risk of a child getting bullied. You obviously do. Now do you understand my point?

You're still not paying attention to my biggest point about bullying. They can get bullied no matter what. You can't just eliminate every single reason a kid will get bullied. You have to fix it from the other end - the bullies. My mom is a biker, someone MIGHT bully me for that, so I guess my mom doesn't have a right to be my parent, right? Because there's a small possibility I'll get bullied because of her? And someone else mentioned fat people. See how idiotic your point is? People used to get bullied even worse for being mixed race. But we allowed that, and people got used it.

[xmojox]

The argument that having same-sex parents will make a kid gay is absurd. If it were true, wouldn't having opposite sex parents make a kid straight? If that were true, we obviously wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

[RinkyDink]

The argument that having same-sex parents will make a kid gay is absurd. If it were true, wouldn't having opposite sex parents make a kid straight?

certainly, from what I see and read more than 90% of kids are straight.

[xmojox]

certainly, from what I see and read more than 90% of kids are straight.

If the sexuality of the parents determined that, it'd be 100%

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Homophobia in socitety might be the only problem. But that doesn't turn an adoption down... It just makes fun of it.

[RinkyDink]

If the sexuality of the parents determined that, it'd be 100%

Nooooo, nothings 100%. If 100 law abiding decent people had kids you couldn't guarantee 100% of the kids would be decent and law abiding. 90% would be good enough

probably fair to assume the % of kids brought up by gay "parents" who turned out gay would be much higher than the % of kids born by normal means

[Ace of Spades]

Nooooo, nothings 100%. If 100 law abiding decent people had kids you couldn't guarantee 100% of the kids would be decent and law abiding. 90% would be good enough

probably fair to assume the % of kids brought up by gay "parents" who turned out gay would be much higher than the % of kids born by normal means

That is complete BS. People aren't brought up to be LGBTQ, they're born LGBTQ.

[RinkyDink]

^^ sorry to sound dumb but what does LGBTQ mean?

[Ace of Spades]

^^ sorry to sound dumb but what does LGBTQ mean?

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans* Queer

[RinkyDink]

^^ Thanks. Why the Q?
I'd have thought the LGBT covered all the bases

[xmojox]

Nooooo, nothings 100%. If 100 law abiding decent people had kids you couldn't guarantee 100% of the kids would be decent and law abiding. 90% would be good enough

probably fair to assume the % of kids brought up by gay "parents" who turned out gay would be much higher than the % of kids born by normal means

First, I think most kids are born by normal means. Second, the fact that you enclosed the word parents in quotation marks is insulting. Third, based upon what would it be fair to assume that? Made-up statistics aren't really arguable. Sorry.

[Ace of Spades]

^^ Thanks. Why the Q?
I'd have thought the LGBT covered all the bases

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual, heteronormative, gender-binary, or who do not associate with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans*.

[RinkyDink]

First, I think most kids are born by normal means.

So do I, maybe missing your point with that

Second, the fact that you enclosed the word parents in quotation marks is insulting.

Insulting to who? There's a big difference between natural parents and adoptive parents. Without giving you sex ed lessons I hope you know a gay couple cannot have kids thus they cannot be real parents, best they can ever be is parents in quotes.

Third, based upon what would it be fair to assume that? Made-up statistics aren't really arguable. Sorry.

Call it an educated guess, I doubt there's stats to prove either way.

[RinkyDink]

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual, heteronormative, gender-binary, or who do not associate with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans*.

Bloody hell, you'll have to add an extra letter on the end of that when you get people who don't like the umbrella term Q :)

Thanks for the explanation though

[Ace of Spades]

Bloody hell, you'll have to add an extra letter on the end of that when you get people who don't like the umbrella term Q :)

Thanks for the explanation though

You're welcome

[TheDeepestDepths]

Actually the definition of a parent is:

One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.

A parent is classed as someone who either is involved in the conception of a child, raises it, or both. Gay parents can still be referred to as parents.

Bloody hell, you'll have to add an extra letter on the end of that when you get people who don't like the umbrella term Q

Also, please refrain from sounding so scornful in the future.

[RinkyDink]

Also, please refrain from sounding so scornful in the future.

Were I come from the term "bloody hell" conveys surprise not scorn.

[workingatperfect]

Nooooo, nothings 100%. If 100 law abiding decent people had kids you couldn't guarantee 100% of the kids would be decent and law abiding. 90% would be good enough

probably fair to assume the % of kids brought up by gay "parents" who turned out gay would be much higher than the % of kids born by normal means

That's bullshit. The only thing that will happen is they'll be brought up more accepting of other people's lifestyles. Your parents can't affect what sex you're naturally attracted to.

[RinkyDink]

That's bullshit. The only thing that will happen is they'll be brought up more accepting of other people's lifestyles. Your parents can't affect what sex you're naturally attracted to.

Do you mean the parents that gave birth or parents that brought you up? Obviously they'd be two different couples in an adoption situation

[workingatperfect]

Do you mean the parents that gave birth or parents that brought you up? Obviously they'd be two different couples in an adoption situation

What difference does it make? No one can change who you find attractive.

[xmojox]

So do I, maybe missing your point with that



Insulting to who? There's a big difference between natural parents and adoptive parents. Without giving you sex ed lessons I hope you know a gay couple cannot have kids thus they cannot be real parents, best they can ever be is parents in quotes.



Call it an educated guess, I doubt there's stats to prove either way.

I don't need sex-ed lessons from you. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't patronize me. Being adopted myself, I'm interested to know what you consider the difference to be, beyond the obvious.

[RinkyDink]

What difference does it make? No one can change who you find attractive.

If you're trying to say the sex (as in your own or the other) of the person you find attractive is decided at birth I call bullshit

[Ace of Spades]

If you're trying to say the sex (as in your own or the other) of the person you find attractive is decided at birth I call bullshit

Why?

Please, if you would indulge us, tell us of the time when you chose to be heterosexual.

Also, this quote comes to mind: "All those who claim that being gay is a choice have automatically admitted that they have chosen to be straight and therefore they are suppressing their homosexual urges." - Unknown

[RinkyDink]

Why?

Please, if you would indulge us, tell us of the time when you chose to be heterosexual.

There wasn't a time.

Assuming your profile pic is acually you I'm guessing you're bi - when did you decide to go both ways?

[RinkyDink]

I don't need sex-ed lessons from you. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't patronize me. Being adopted myself, I'm interested to know what you consider the difference to be, beyond the obvious.

I'm going to try and phrase this carefully as you're obviously very sensitive, so apologies if I say something that offends you.

I think the differences would be in how you see your parents. In your case I'd guess you see them as your mother/father just as much as if they'd given birth to you

[xmojox]

I'm going to try and phrase this carefully as you're obviously very sensitive, so apologies if I say something that offends you.

I think the differences would be in how you see your parents. In your case I'd guess you see them as your mother/father just as much as if they'd given birth to you

I've never met an adopted person who sees it differently.

And, no, I'm not overly sensitive. I just don't enjoy being patronized. I don't find it to be amusing at all. :)

[RinkyDink]

I've never met an adopted person who sees it differently.

I've met several who do see it very differently, for all sorts of reasons. Without getting personal it would be only natural to wonder about your "real" mother/father. If you're going to say you never have I'll call bullshit again

And, no, I'm not overly sensitive. I just don't enjoy being patronized. I don't find it to be amusing at all. :)

OK. Sorry for treating you with kid gloves :)

[Alexwellace]

There wasn't a time.

Assuming your profile pic is acually you I'm guessing you're bi - when did you decide to go both ways?

Assuming that your being so assuming to troll, when did you decide to start trolling?

Because that statment is incredibly offensive, what about that picture crystalizes the obvious sterotype of bi-sexuals you have in your head?

I see a pritty girl with blue/green eyes and nice hair, where do you see the big flaming sign saying im a bi-sexual? Im honestly confused.

Also it has been scientifically proven that people with more natural testosterone are more sexually active, making them more likely to be gay or bi-sexual. There, proof that sex CAN be chosen from birth, go hide under your bridge, your done here.

@ the actual topic. I CAN see a reason why hetrosexual couples are chosen ahead of homosexual ones. To bring as much normalness as possible to the childs life. Until the day and age when homosexuality is accepted fully children should go to social majorities by default, then minorities by allocation. Homosexual couples should go down to adoption agentcy and do the interview like everyone else, but they should have to be able to show they can look after the child and keep that sense of normalness. While a hetrosexual couple has to do less to keep the normalness. Until homophobes learn to be less bolt headed, homosexual couples and there children will be hounded. And until then, hetrosexual couples should get a leg up on the list for the sake of the child.

[xmojox]

I've met several who do see it very differently, for all sorts of reasons. Without getting personal it would be only natural to wonder about your "real" mother/father. If you're going to say you never have I'll call bullshit again



OK. Sorry for treating you with kid gloves :)

I wonder about my dad. We lost him when I was about a year and a half old. We lost our mom 5ish years ago, so all I wonder is what things would be like if we hadn't. However, that information was only to indulge you, as I fail to see how wondering has to do with how people see their adoptive parents regardless of the sexuality of said parents, no quotation marks needed.

And, quite frankly, I couldn't care less how many times you call bullshit. I would venture, however, that you are an expert....

[workingatperfect]

If you're trying to say the sex (as in your own or the other) of the person you find attractive is decided at birth I call bullshit

That is what I'm trying to say. I firmly believe that it's nature, not nurture. And of course, this is for your true sexuality, not what you say you are.

Also, as someone else said, why the hell are you assuming that Rachel is bi??

[RinkyDink]

I wonder about my dad. We lost him when I was about a year and a half old. We lost our mom 5ish years ago, so all I wonder is what things would be like if we hadn't. However, that information was only to indulge you, as I fail to see how wondering has to do with how people see their adoptive parents regardless of the sexuality of said parents, no quotation marks needed.

An Oscar Wilde quote might come to mind there, good thing I ain't a smart arse :)

Being honest if you were adopted by a gay couple would you not have all sorts of questions about why/how etc?

[xmojox]

An Oscar Wilde quote might come to mind there, good thing I ain't a smart arse :)

Being honest if you were adopted by a gay couple would you not have all sorts of questions about why/how etc?

No, I honestly don't think that I would have. Why? Would you?

[RinkyDink]

That is what I'm trying to say. I firmly believe that it's nature, not nurture. And of course, this is for your true sexuality, not what you say you are.

OK. As this forum is anonymous it's safe to admit as a guy that I've sometimes wondered why I bother with girls when my best (guy) friend is so understanding. I bet as a girl you've sometimes thought why bother with guys messing you around when life would be so much easier with your best girl friend?

So what's the difference between wondering about same sex and actualy saying yea I'm gay? I think it's a gradual choice rather than decided at birth.

Also, as someone else said, why the hell are you assuming that Rachel is bi??

I'm not assuming. I'm just saying if that is her in her picture then as a betting man I would stake money that she's bi. I might be wrong in which case she'll no doubt tell me and I'll apologise.

[Ace of Spades]

There wasn't a time.

Assuming your profile pic is acually you I'm guessing you're bi - when did you decide to go both ways?

Why the hell would you think I'm bi??
You evaded my question.....again.

[RinkyDink]

No, I honestly don't think that I would have. Why? Would you?

Heck yes I would.

Sorry about the Wilde crack mouth before brain

[Ace of Spades]

Just to clarify, I'm not bi.

[RinkyDink]

Why the hell would you think I'm bi??
You evaded my question.....again.

I answered your question best I could. There wasn't a time, best I can say. Hopefully if there's other straight people in this thread they can back me up and say that's a fair answer.

As for the bi thing it's a guess. I might be wrong

[Ace of Spades]

I answered your question best I could. There wasn't a time, best I can say. Hopefully if there's other straight people in this thread they can back me up and say that's a fair answer.

As for the bi thing it's a guess. I might be wrong

So you're saying that there wasn't a time when you chose to be straight? Hmmmm, that's odd, I could have sworn you said that being gay was a choice...

Why would you say I'm bi?? You made a baseless claim in an effort to dodge a question you couldn't answer.
By the way, you're wrong.

[TheDeepestDepths]

So what's the difference between wondering about same sex and actualy saying yea I'm gay? I think it's a gradual choice rather than decided at birth.

There's quite a big difference between wondering why you bother with the opposite sex when your best friend of the same sex is so wonderful and being gay.

Of course I compare guys I'd date to someone I know extremely well and am very close to. I'd want to date someone who sees me on the same level, who knows me just as well as my best friend and I can still have lots of fun with. That certainly doesn't mean I find her sexuality attractive like I do with guys. There's a massive difference. You don't date platonic friends.

[Sir Suomi]

I've met several who do see it very differently, for all sorts of reasons. Without getting personal it would be only natural to wonder about your "real" mother/father. If you're going to say you never have I'll call bullshit again



Bullshit. I've never met my father, and I never WANT to see that asshole in my life ever. If I ever get the chance, I'm going to kick his balls up into his throat.