Instead, well meaning, but hoplessly bigoted people seem to think that gay = pedophile or something like that.

Talk about bigoted. To think that such a view is the same voice as anyone opposed to gay marriage or gay adoption is just as ignorant as any attempt to paint the other side as such.

Preventing two people who are capable of providing a loving home from doing so just because you do not agree with their personal life is an act of hate.

Oh, it is not. The fact of the matter is, we have no case studies or long-term evidence that children being raised in gay households is equal or harmless relative to traditional homes.

Throwing kids willy-nilly into such a sweeping social experiment is worse than hate, if you ask me.

And just to state my view on the matter, I'm not anti-gay, at all.
I'm pro-best-interests-of-the-kids. I know it's politically correct and abiding by the liberal code to think "all kids need is love", but that's over-simplity run amok. To suggest a second "father" figure can provide that which only a female "mother" can is the greatest insult to woman-kind, and vice versa, and is cheating children. The worst part is, to what extent, we do not yet know. We'll only know after all caution is thrown to the wind in the interests of forwarding the gay agenda at all costs.

I have a gay brother, and I've been a staunch defender of the gay lifestyle and ending gay predudices in the professional world and society in general. However, I don't subscribe to the over-simplied, ultra-tolorance concepts of "affirm every drop or you're a hater". I also don't subscribe to the notion that information always defends the gay position, when there is no scientific, long-term evidence that supports that kids are not loosing out here.

Absolutely none.

Knowledge is power.

I agree.

And it really bothers me that as a lesbian there will be things I will very likely never be able to do in this country simply because someone who never met me decided they don't like me.

Despite the fact you enjoy liberties, freedoms and civil protections unlike any other country has ever extended to it's gay community through most of the history of global civilization, especially western civilization. And I agree with this trend, and I'm not necessarily opposed to gay couples being extended the same social benefits (while I'm not necessarily in totally in favor of it either), I find pause before stepping through the doorway of total parental/sexual irrelevance, relative to the interests of children. Before someone assumes what I'm saying wrongly, I'm NOT saying that children are being directly harmed,but I am concerned that they're being robbed of what they deserve in birth as what should be considered the standardized socially-endorsed, lowest common denominator.

If such a perspective makes me a hater, well, all I can say is the other side needs to come up with a better argument against it. For starters, a truthful one. I hate nobody concerning their sexual orientation or personal lifestyle. But, I cannot discard these other considerations based on some Beatles-esque "feel the love" idealism.

that does not either exist already, or involve giving a parentless child some form of stability?

I don't think it's fair to imply that every adopted child is a success story, and unfavorable stories from same-sex adoption doesn't get, how shall I say it, "full media representation" as such, for the very reason of PC attitudes such as this thread, that if you're not in-line with it, "you're a hater."

We do not prohibit heterosexual couples from raising children simply because a possible divorce might leave an emotional scar. Or potential abuse.

Being that you pointed it out, domestic violence and infidelity rates are higher in the homosexual community, as is drug abuse, depression, rates in suicide, etc. Not to mention voting democrat.



(I'm all for levity)

However, I'm not indicating that that means "no to all gay couples to adopt". I am saying, however, being PC alone isn't going to sweep it under the rug either... or shouldn't.

Oh, perhaps we remove the children from the parents AFTER they have proven to be incapable of providing for them.

The act of selecting who gets to adopt is not the same vien as taking away children from their birth parents.

In my opinion, children have very little relevance in the issue of homosexuality.

That is the way supporters of gay adoption would like to gloss over the issue, by pretending the inevitable results are a mere by-product of other agendas. Sorry, when discussing the issues of equal marriage, the issue of children become inseparably connected.

Not all marriages result in children, nor do all children result from marriage, but when discussing what a society endorses as the ideal situation of a home with children, it needs to be what is in fact in the best interests of the children.

So would you argue for disallowing children any exposure with a parent because the parent entered a gay relationship?

What have I said anywhere that would indicate that I would think that? I'm not talking about removing children from their birth parents.

you seem to be arguing in favor of doing just that.

I'm arguing on the side of what is proven best for kids. And I'm not in favor of blanket, small-minded incrimination of those who might disagree with a view in whole or in part as being something as impossibley inane as "haters."

If that's the best various-gay-rights supporters can come up with, they're doing more harm than good. They're stretching the divide. They're distancing themselves from good sense and a positive resolution, if one is ever to be attained.

Let's face it, homosexuality is still a controversial issue and flapping one's fingers with their thumbs in their ears at any other school of thought (regardless of it's concerns or moderation) is not helping a damned thing for anyone anywhere.

JediUnit,

Just so I am clear on your position, you seem to say that there is a "reasonable" concern for placing children in gay homes simply because we "just don't know yet what the harmful effects might be"?

This isn't a new drug or some kind of group therapy thing we're taking about. There is no hard and fast rule to raising children that can be "studied" and then make sure that gay people are living up to.

If this is indeed your position then it gives me the chills, being that it's VERY 1984-ish.

Please correct me if I am off base.
order abortion pill morning after pill price where to buy abortion pill

you have the right to your POV, but know that you will always have people like me working to make sure that people who speak on the subject as you do (and the more hard-core right-wing standing just behind you) are challenged and not allowed to push this off the stage.

Push YOUR views off the stage? Remember who's post was labeling the opposing views as that of "haters."

And your statement goes right back in reverse. Posts like yours will earn the moderating attention of those like myself and perhaps a few behind me too, but I only speak for myself.

There is no hard and fast rule to raising children that can be "studied" and then make sure that gay people are living up to.

Especially when there seems to be such a rush to bypass the opportunity to do so first.

If this is indeed your position then it gives me the chills, being that it's VERY 1984-ish.

If you think that's scary, you outta hear my views about how all the lib-dems need to be locked up and lobotomized.



Come now, let's not be so dramatic here. Well, I suppose I should be the one who knew better. It's funny how if one rants out of controll and call someone a Nazi, he's a freak. But package the same thought in an artsy-fartsy poem and one gets a pat on the back.

No offense.

The point being that I fail to see how an imperfect adoption can be worse than a group home

The point is that the information we DO know about how the average gay home stacks up to the average straight home should not be swept aside as being irrelevant under the wieght of forwarding the gay agenda.

I've encountered that argument before and I am always baffled when I see it applied. Being as how gay marriage and lasting healthy homosexual unions are not promoted or encouraged in society, it seems unreasonable to to judge them for not being lasting and healthy

Just because a society doesn't officially endorse something or ban it doesn't mean the citizens have no right to base an opinion about it's future by virtue of what it is and does on it's own.

Every case made for adoption should be scrutinized. Closely

I thought that's what I've been saying too.

But I see no reason to scrutinize homosexual couples under the basis of homosexuality.

Well, I'll put it to you this way. It matters less than everything, but it does matter more than nothing.

There are far more important factors that should be examined other than sexual preference.

Agreed, and never suggested otherwise.

The point being is that we do not require testing or severe examination when allowing heterosexual couples to procreate

And the reason we don't is because on a very natural basis, hetrosexuals have never needed aid or approval from anyone else to have familes.

We KNOW that group homes can often be an unhealthy environment. Some people THINK that homosexual parents MIGHT be imperfect.

To flip an old saying around, "the devil I don't know is better than the devil I do know?" Interesting roadmap for the future you have there.

In your own words then. You cannot point that children raised by a homosexual couple will be endangered in any definitive way that is greater than what exists currently within heterosexual families.

...unless you wish to notice ALL of what I've said, including the glaring statistics I stated as well.

you admit to be unwilling to test.

I what? I don't see how anyone could have missed what I've been saying.

I know you did not state this specifically, but your line of thinking leads to this inevitable conclusion.

No, YOUR's does. The act of removing a child from a home they came from is not the same thing whatsoever to do with the caution proceeding the act of introducing a child to a home they didn't come from. At all.

order abortion pill http://unclejohnsprojects.com/template/default.aspx?morning-after-pill-price where to buy abortion pill

The point is that the information we DO know about how the average gay home stacks up to the average straight home should not be swept aside as being irrelevant under the wieght of forwarding the gay agenda.

But you make the argument yourself, as quoted below:

"we have no case studies or long-term evidence that children being raised in gay households is equal or harmless relative to traditional homes."

What little information we have is based upon an inaccurate model, as I already pointed out. Furthermore, what relevance does a homosexual household have in comparison to a heterosexual household when we are discussing children who have neither?

Just because a society doesn't officially endorse something or ban it doesn't mean the citizens have no right to base an opinion about it's future by virtue of what it is and does on it's own.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that does not mean the opinion automatically has value. To point to a sub-culture of our society that is discouraged to embrace virtuous ideals as one that is lacking virtuous ideal, and then use that lack of virtuous ideals as a justification for continuing to discourage the adoption of virtuous ideals is completely circular, and has no real merit and should not be seriously considered.

Well, I'll put it to you this way. It matters less than everything, but it does matter more than nothing.

Why? When we look at the choice between allowing unwanted children to live in overcrowded foster homes or allowing gay couples to adopt, why does homosexuality have any real significance?

And the reason we don't is because on a very natural basis, hetrosexuals have never needed aid or approval from anyone else to have familes.

True on one point. But why? Just because they can we should allow it? And of course, your point is only true under certain circumstances. If they want to adopt, they absolutely require approval. And when they do, there sexual preference is not an issue.

As for aid, many people require financial aid to have children.

To flip an old saying around, "the devil I don't know is better than the devil I do know?" Interesting roadmap for the future you have there.

Yes. If a individual is on fire, I might throw him in the lake. Perhaps he cannot swim. But it's not like I won't be watching just in case.

...unless you wish to notice ALL of what I've said, including the glaring statistics I stated as well.

These statistics do not seem to consider all important factors. A corrupted examination is really valueless.

I what? I don't see how anyone could have missed what I've been saying/

You seem to be unwilling to test. As seen by your own statement here:

"Throwing kids willy-nilly into such a sweeping social experiment is worse than hate, if you ask me."

What did I miss?

No, YOUR's does. The act of removing a child from a home they came from is not the same thing whatsoever to do with the caution proceeding the act of introducing a child to a home they didn't come from. At all.

Ridiculous. The children that you would prohibit from being adopted by homosexual couples already live in a home they did not come from. If homosexual parents are a dangerous and damaging influence on children, then they are such regardless of whether or not they (or one of them, anyway) is the birth parent.

To heap my concerns in the same vein as racists is beyond insulting.

Regardless to whether or not you take offense, the point remains tangible. The sentiments you echo are identical to arguments from previous decades. I'm not holding you up as a racist or a bigot. I believe your concerns are well meant. But if you take offense at the similarity between your own argument and the ones attempted to prevent interracial marriage, then perhaps you should take a closer look at your own position.where to buy abortion pill http://blog.bitimpulse.com/template/default.aspx?abortion-types buy abortion pill online