Gays should not be allowed to adopt >>>MOD ALERT<<<

I'm not going to convince you...because I think you are reaching for a non-reality. Certainly in this reality--children without fathers do much worse. Of course we don't have a large enough statistical sample of children without mothers---so we don't have data showing the repercussions on that. But who's to say? Perhaps because we don't have the data---we should take a risk and advocate for it? Maybe if mothers were out of the picture and the majority of the children were raised by fathers---they would do just fine with less risk of prison, bad grades, promiscuity, drugs etc.

I think children deserve a family that isn't an experiment. I think they deserve what has been proven a sound foundation for them and for our society. They aren't asking to be born---they deserve more then to be baggage.

 

Interesting how you ignored my last post just above, but continue to bloviate about how kids need a mother and father. I'll ask again, how is not allowing gay adoption going to ensure that more kids will have a mom and a dad, vs. kids not having a permanent, stable home with legal ties to two parents regardless of gender? Can you deal with that issue honestly?

 

Ok, so you believe a child has the best chances of success in life if they have a mother and father. Fine.

Please explain what a maternal parent provides to a living child that requires the possession of female genitalia, and what a paternal parent provides that requires the possession of male genitalia.
Who says that a woman in a lesbian relationship can't provide the same values/morals as a male parent?
Who says that a man in a gay relationship can't be as nurturing and caring as a female parent?

 

What data? You haven't provided any data or any real explanations for your personal opinions.

 

This is an argument from ignorance. What we do know is that having two parents is better for raising children than having just one parent. Unless you disagree?

An experiment implies that there is some sort of data being collected, and since you asserted that "we don't have data" then you are just contradicting yourself. If we don't have the data then we don't have an experiment.

 

I'm really shocked you think its up for debate. We are well past that.

But here is a start--simple googling:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm

http://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistics

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=family-structure

There really isn't anything that I can find...showing single parenting as better or equal. Sure in an abusive situation--but that is not the majority of these cases.
But a father---is important. Research shows that.

 

I noticed you've completely dodged answering the question I asked:

 

I didn't dodge your question---I simply didn't read it. You quoted articles and data showing the importance of fathers and you have dismissed it. If you want to believe that genders are meaningless--that's fine. Believe it. I think the evidence shows otherwise--but to each its own.

 

Sure, your articles indicated there is a benefit to having a "father figure"... I was just wondering why this role necessarily had to involve a penis.
I don't believe biological gender necessarily makes a person good or bad (as a person, or as a role model). I think evidence shows otherwise.

"To each his own" is a refreshing stance to see from you. Perhaps you could apply it more broadly and allow other people to have their relationships (which have no impact on you or yours) recognized in the same way as you would expect yours to be recognized.

 

Have your relationships. I won't get in the way.

 

It's not my relationship we're discussing, since I'm heterosexual and have been married for almost 18 years...
It's about the same recognition my marriage receives being afforded to all committed relationships between consenting adults.

 

I hope that you don't mind if I but in here. I didn't see where this all started but I'm going to assume that your opposed to gay marriage and/or adoption because "children need and deserve a mom and a dad" Right? Consider this......regardless of what children need, there will always be children who do not have both a mom and a dad. Can we agree on that? Please explain how not allowing gays to marry and/or adopt is going to change that. As I see it, its a Non sequitur . Regardless of the validity of your premise , there is a disconnect between it and your conclusion regarding marriage and adoption. I've pointed that out many times before and have never gotten anything close to an answer that makes sense. I'm starting to think that there is no answer that makes sense. Just sayin' LOL

 

I agree, it's better for kids to be with both parents of those parents are decent. Some parents abuse their children, some children lose their parents, some children are thrown out into the street. It would be better if their biological parents could love and care for them but sometimes that doesn't happen.

Perhaps those children should just be left in the street to die, that would be less cruel to execute them. But if gay people want to adopt these children of broken homes why stop it? Are there enough happily married couples ready to adopt and make life easier on the children, to my knowledge there wasn't.

 

I agree- happily married to my lovely wife for over 20 years. I just want homosexuals to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

 

In the U.S. 400,540 children are living without permanent families
in the foster care system. 115,000 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 40% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

Source: AFCARS Report, No. 19

Each year, over 27,000 youth “age out” of foster care
without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. This number has steadily risen over the past decade. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Over three years is the average length of time a child waits
to be adopted in foster care. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally.

http://www.ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43

Look at those statistics.

Tell me why, when kids on average have to wait three years to be adopted, that excluding homosexuals as adoptive parents is a good thing for kids.

 

Absolutely!! I will back that up 100% It's not about the kids. They don't give a hoot about them. It an excuse to discriminate. I keep challenging people to prove that we are wrong about this still and mostly they don't even try. They just slink away, or defiantly repeat the lies and distortions without addressing the facts that are presented to them

Consider this also......regardless of what children need, there will always be children who do not have both a mom and a dad. Can we agree on that? Please explain how not allowing gays to marry and/or adopt is going to change that. As I see it, its a Non sequitur. Regardless of the validity of your premise about children’s needs- there is a disconnect between it and your conclusion regarding marriage and adoption. I've pointed that out many times before and have never gotten anything close to an answer that makes sense. I'm starting to think that there is no answer that makes sense.

Here are some fun facts:
There are more children waiting to be adopted than there are traditional, opposite sex couples willing and qualified to adopt. http://www.fostercareadoption.us/custom1.php

Including same sex couples-there are an estimated 2M-will go a long way towards correcting that imbalance. In 2008 there were 129,000 children waiting to be adopted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that two million gay or lesbian individuals said they had considered adoption . The Urban Institute found that a national ban on gay or lesbian adoption would result in 9,000 to 14,000 children never being adopted. The national financial burden of caring for these children would range from $87 to $130 million and could cost states anywhere from $100,000 to $27 million. Additionally, these children would eventually age out of the foster care system. This means that at age 18 or 21, they are turned out of the system with no official family and no resources.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2veb5tgKI

http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2vb55w73S

Not allowing gays to adopt on the pretext that children need/deserve two parents of the opposite se, or any other reason only ensures that more children will not have either a mother or a father

When we talk about adoption by gay people, most often we are not referring to situations a single person or a couple go to an adoption agency to adopt an unrelated child. Rather, the more likely scenario is where a child is already living with a gay parson-usually a biological parent- and that person wants to allow their partner to adopt as a second parent. Not allowing adoption will not change the fact that the child has same sex parent figures. However, It will mean that the child will not have the protections and benefits of having two legal parents. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/second-parent-adoption

 

No, its exclusively about extending marriage to gay couples, NOT "all committed relationships between consenting adults". only gays are in need of more "respect and dignity" according to the courts.

 

I am fine with saying that my position in this thread is that I believe that gay couples deserve the same rights and recognition as my wife and I enjoy.

 

Oh Christ....Dixon is back! So much for the slightest chance of having a meaningful, productive and intelligent discussion here.

 

We could just ignore what he tries to derail the thread with, and just post our positive positions. That is what I am going to try to do.

 

Me too. Lets just do it and stop feeding into it

 

as opposed to "all committed relationships between consenting adults". only gays are in need of more "respect and dignity".

 

I was responding to Logician0311 who had already derailed the thread to the subject of marriage.

 

If gays are the only ones not receiving equal legal recognition of their committed relationships, then I agree that they are the only ones in need of more "respect and diginity" in regards to marriage equality.

 

I am fine with saying that my position in this thread is that I believe that gay couples deserve the same rights and recognition as my wife and I enjoy.