Gallup: In US Most Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt.

Right to adopt children outpaces Americans' acceptance of same-sex marriage

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. What say you OT?

There is a shit load of kids in foster care. If someone wishes to accept a child into their family treat them as their own kid by supporting their childhood and loving them like any child should be.

WHY IN HELL WOULD YOU denied a child that?

Oh all the things that people are for/against this one I don't understand. Why deny a child without a family a chance at a loving home straight/gay or whatever. Even for straight couples it's very hard to adopt.

It's sad that people who don't want it can't take care of a kid or even themselves have a child that suffers because of it. Then their are people who choose to take care of a child and have so many hoops and costs to go through and maybe get denied because they are not perfect.

@Master_Live: Thats basically what the survey told me haha

@AutoPilotOn: Most people who are against same sex couples having the right to adopt are against same sex marriage in general and feel that by adopting children they will raise them to think it is okay.

In other words, they would rather have children grow up in a foster home than to grow up being taught pro-homosexuality ideas. Not much you can do to change their minds and the best thing to do is focus on making the law say what you want.

Pretty much this

I mean seriously, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt

"Because it makes me feel persecuted! Waaaah"

The only type of couple that should be allowed to adopt children is the type that is comprised of both the sexes necessary to produce children in the first place, regardless of whether one or all of its members is/ are infertile. Evolution has developed the qualities necessary to raise children only in couples of this type.

lol pretty much

~ on a side note, SWEET GIF in sig

I have to agree with you on this. There are certain elements that a man and woman bring to parenthood that can't be replicated by same sex couples.

oh yeah, it's much better to let them be raised in foster care rather than give them to a family that can provide a good and supportive home

You're a moron

This is why you are unlikable

You know, for the people that keep asking why would someone be against allowing gay couples to adopt children I answer: two wrongs do not make right. I realize that we will most likely disagree on at least one of the wrongs pertaining to the subject matter, but you may at least understand why someone might be against granting gay couples the right to adopt children, rather than reiterating the "because bigots" reason.

If foster homes in some countries are overflowing with kids, then may be these countries need to address that issue instead of using such an awkward and frankly sloppy solution as allowing a child to have two fathers or two mothers. Because let me tell you, there are numerous other countries where foster homes are virtually nonexistent. Furthermore, I do realize that a foster home is far from being an ideal environment to raise a child, but who is to say that a household of same sex couples is? It may be worse on the long run for all we know. Because neither sides of the isle has any decisive evidence to ascertain his disposition, I choose to take the side of both nature and historical-social status quo of our species which dictate that a child is the offspring of a male and a female and he is to be raised as such. Contrary to what's in circulation these days, the burden of proof lies on those who choose to go against that not the other way around.

But at the end of the day, they're your kids do with them whatever you want. They are the citizens of the future and their societies will reap what they sow, whether what they sow be the fact that their foster homes were filled with parentless children or that gay couples were allowed to adopt children.

@jasean79: I think that a home with the biological parents with good parenting, morals, love, discipline would be best. Since that almost seems a rarity anymore I don't see how any loving caring family couldn't be 2nd best. There are plenty of unfit straight parents that have children that really have no business with them other than they managed to conceive them.

Usually when a participant of a debate resorts to attacking an opposing party instead of attacking said opposing party's argument, they lack a valid counter-argument. Hence, I will interpret your insult as a concession.

Um actually if you're not going to allow gays to adopt children you would need to present a justifiable reason that it is harmful to the child. So the burden of proof would lie with you

the stupid...it burns...

What if I told you, if the entire world turned gay overnight tomorrow, humans could still have babies as normal.

no, it's that your point is just terribly stupid. so you're saying only a family with both a mother and a father should be allowed to raise children?

There's no doubt that same sex couples can provide a good home for children, but no matter how much they provide for the child, they still cannot provide one very important element that I think is necessary for child development - a mom and a dad.

I see my point flew over your head. I'll take that as a lack of any actual argument on your part.

Neither do a lot of homes, so what?

I see my point flew over your head. I'll take that as a lack of any actual argument on your part.

You know what I love about GS forums rules? This comment is totally fine to post, but if i post "Gay people need to die" not only would everyone that is a member would shit on my face, but I would be instantly banned by mods.

Further proof that things are in favor, set up to protect, and promote pro-gay belief and anyone anti gay is automatically the scum of the earth, has no heart, and isnt capable of love.

But you wont see a mod agree with me. What you are gonna see are mods attempted to make a case to why I am "wrong".

Which I don't agree with either - being raised by a single parent. I think the child misses out both ways.

So maybe you need to address the issue of why you have a shitload of parentless children in the first place rather than claiming that granting gay couples the right to adopt children is conducive to the solution of the initial problem.

Two separate issues. One of which is not being argued at the moment. This thread is about if gays should be able to adopt children, not why does foster care suck or why are there so many adoptable children

I see you are unable to come up with your own replies now.

I was just putting it in the correct place

My post concerned adoption and not rearing children in general. However, since you've raised this issue (as a result of an erroneous inference), I shall address it. Ideally, only a two-parent heterosexual couple should raise children. However, there are instances in which a heterosexual couple which has produced children no longer remains intact, as a result of numerous causes such as a break-up or one of the partners dying, etc. Hence, if a single parent is such only as a result of the other parent becoming absent due to the aforementioned reasons or ones that are equally acceptable, then they should be allowed to raise their child(dren). In other words, a heterosexual single parent should be allowed to raise a child only if they are a single parent involuntarily.

So it's fine to raise children with out a mother or father, as long as you're not gay?

Makes total sense /s

Considering how you all are basing your arguments on the notion that foster homes cannot give children the quality of life and the appropriate environment to grow and that how gay couples are willing and supposedly capable of giving those, I think it's quite relevant.

Without the issue of the parentless children of foster homes, those who are in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt children will pretty much have nothing to work with and to back their stance on the matter. No one can disagree with the fact that ideally a child needs a father and a mother. In which case the cause of granting gay couples adoption rights would be entirely moot. But because parentless children are in abundance and because foster homes cannot provide them with what they need in order to grow, the cause of granting gay couples adoption rights gains a semblance of legitimacy.

He doesn't need a counter argument to your derisive and banal reasoning to deny same sex couples from adopting children. You're a woefully uneducated man on all fronts.

Your and his problem are that you both are too emotional about this subject to discuss it in a mature and impersonal manner. You two are so biased that you will attack anyone who opposes your view. My education level has nothing to do with my opinion. How exactly do you educate someone in regard to constructing opinions? Ridiculous. What I stated is a fact; evolution has accommodated only heterosexual couples in regard to developing children, because they are the only type that can produce them.

ITT: BRHD is an idiot

Amazed at how immature and biased this forum is in regard to myself. I'm not the only person who's against homosexuals adopting children, but I'm the only one who's being called names.

That's because you consistently post stupid shit.

Shame on you for having an opinion which doesn't reflect the majority of the members' in this thread! :D

Yes, I guess I get worked up over treating our fellow man with respect and equality. Then I see posts like yours invoking 'nature' and 'evolution' as a means to deprive a loving couple and a child from a home, while being wildly uneducated on anything biology/science related.

To put it short; you're a fucking idiot and every post you make reinforces this point. Your education level has plenty to do with it. You've never taken a post secondary biology class. So please refrain from using the term 'evolution' to push your bullshit.

Don't post stupid bullshit and you won't get called out on it, plain and simple. Everyone can have an opinion, but that doesn't mean we can't ridicule it for being egregiously wrong and bigoted.

Stupid shit = that which doesn't mimic certain member's opinions?

Everyone posts stupid shit at one point or another on here. But, BRHD actually raises some good points in this thread. The fact that you and a few others don't agree with him does not make it any less important or relative.

ITT, BRHD is being enlightened

What was stupid about anything he posted?

His assertion that both sexes are required to produce a child, therefore only adoption should be granted to couples of the opposite sex. The entire premise is shit. How about we just round up the children of single parents while we're at it.

Yeah, but that's his opinion. The fact that you don't agree with him does not make it "shit".

So, let me understand this - if he were to post something that you agree with, then he's revered as being open-minded and contributing to the thread. BUT, if he posts something that you don't agree with, then its, bigoted, stupid bullshit and has no place in this thread.

That makes total sense.

Yeah...no...this has proven to be false time and time again.

I posted in your book thread bro

Why not let them adopt

pretty standard.

Until I can find some conclusive evidence that gender roles mean anything, I'll be on board the gay adoption train.