Webbo Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I don't have a problem with it as long as churches/religious organisations aren't forced to officiate or use their premises against their wills. If they are willing then that's up to them. We should always have freedom of conscience, people should always be allowed to disagree.
skinnydipper Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I voted no because I personally don't think it is right. Also, if a person really wants a child (ie Elton John), he should of married of woman. I don't think God intended on the same sex to be together, hence why you can have your own children if you marry the same gender. So given that this God has provided for asexual reproduction too (i.e offspring from a single parent) is it safe to presume that there is divine approval for self abuse ? http://www.buzzle.com/articles/asexual-reproduction-in-animals.html I don't have a problem with it as long as churches/religious organisations aren't forced to officiate or use their premises against their wills. If they are willing then that's up to them. We should always have freedom of conscience, people should always be allowed to disagree. I disagree
GLC Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I think it should be allowed, we're in 2012 now! Also, Why shouldn't gay couples have kids? who said they wouldn't make better parents then most of the rag tag groups that can't afford to have a child but have one anyway?
skinnydipper Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 That's not allowed. Ok, in that case I agree. You're the boss
Zingari Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I don't believe in imaginary friends any more. That's a whole other debate though. ........and if i did they certainly wouldn't be the type of imaginary friend that would condemd me to eternal damnation for every transgression of his rules. my imaginary friends are usually very sexy ladies
jonlcfc1990 Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 God- Has sex with Mary gets her pregnant and never calls back. Seems to me that he isn't a big fan on morals he teaches to us mere Apes either that or he's the Biggest LAD in the universe
Captain... Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I voted no because I personally don't think it is right. Also, if a person really wants a child (ie Elton John), he should have married of woman. I don't think God intended on the same sex to be together, hence why you can have your own children if you marry the same gender. Marriage is largely a religious act, and you are right that it is frowned upon in the eyes of God, but do you not think it is time for the church to get with modern times and accept that their are homosexual christians, and they should honour them as christians and guide them as best they can, ultimately god will decide their fate. On the child thing 3 points: Do you think a single man should be allowed to raise a child in the event of the mother dying? Do you think a gay man who has children naturally, either whilst aware of their sexuality or not, should be allowed to raise and look after their child? Do you think a child is better off in an orphanage or with 2 loving parents (albeit of the same sex). I will kill you in your sleep if you make that mistake again. It's should HAVE boy, not should of. +1 Too easy. P.S we need negative rep points for comments like these. No we don't, we need to engage in rational debate with those that think differently, -1
skinnydipper Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 God- Has sex with Mary gets her pregnant and never calls back. Seems to me that he isn't a big fan on morals he teaches to us mere Apes either that or he's the Biggest LAD in the universe He didn't have sex with Mary It was a virgin birth Lots of girls at my school had these
jonlcfc1990 Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Marriage is largely a religious act, and you are right that it is frowned upon in the eyes of God, but do you not think it is time for the church to get with modern times and accept that their are homosexual christians, and they should honour them as christians and guide them as best they can, ultimately god will decide their fate. On the child thing 3 points: Do you think a single man should be allowed to raise a child in the event of the mother dying? Do you think a gay man who has children naturally, either whilst aware of their sexuality or not, should be allowed to raise and look after their child? Do you think a child is better off in an orphanage or with 2 loving parents (albeit of the same sex). +1 No we don't, we need to engage in rational debate with those that think differently, -1 Talking to people who believe in a "god" is like banging your head against a brick wall you might be able to do it for a bit hell you might even chip a bit off but eventually you have brain damage and the wall wins.
Babylon Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Do you think a child is better off in an orphanage or with 2 loving parents (albeit of the same sex). But it's very unlikely they are going to want older children which are the ones who end up in homes. They will want young babies like most do, and with that in mind do you think it's better of for a child to go to into a male/female home rather than a same sex home?
Fox92 Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Marriage is largely a religious act, and you are right that it is frowned upon in the eyes of God, but do you not think it is time for the church to get with modern times and accept that their are homosexual christians, and they should honour them as christians and guide them as best they can, ultimately god will decide their fate. On the child thing 3 points: Do you think a single man should be allowed to raise a child in the event of the mother dying? Do you think a gay man who has children naturally, either whilst aware of their sexuality or not, should be allowed to raise and look after their child? Do you think a child is better off in an orphanage or with 2 loving parents (albeit of the same sex). I understand this and it's a very fair comment obviosuly. I agree a single man should raise a child when the mother's dies but the last two I am thinking of from the point of the child, a human being. Isn't he/she going to be bullied throughout life? That is all I meant. No we don't we need to engage in rational debate with those that think differently, -1 +1 Oh, and jonlcfc, there is no need to bang your head against a wall. You can if you want, but never once did I state my views on God. Never once did I say I do or don't believe in him. Don't jump to conclusions, or else you may regret banging your head on the wall.
skinnydipper Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 But it's very unlikely they are going to want older children which are the ones who end up in homes. They will want young babies like most do, and with that in mind do you think it's better of for a child to go to into a male/female home rather than a same sex home? I think it's best for that child to go to a home where there are committed and capable carers. What do you think ?
Babylon Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I think it's best for that child to go to a home where there are committed and capable carers. What do you think ? Of course, but there are many people who want new borns / young babies. I'm no expert but I would imagine there is a rather long waiting list of male / female couples who are "committed and capable carers", if they weren't they wouldn't be on the list. Do you think a same sex couple should ever be ahead of a mixed gender couple? Personally I don't think they should be. If we are ever in a postion where there are more babies up for adoption than mixed couples wanting them then there is no problem for me.
Captain... Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 But it's very unlikely they are going to want older children which are the ones who end up in homes. They will want young babies like most do, and with that in mind do you think it's better of for a child to go to into a male/female home rather than a same sex home? Depends on the people involved, I would rather a child was adopted by Elton John and David Furnish, than Fred and Rosemary West. I think that all applications for adoption should be judged on merit and the lifestyle and security they can offer the child and not on the sexuality of the parents. There is a very fair argument that a child adopted by 2 men will miss out on a mother's influence and this could impair the child's development, but this could also be said to be true of a single father raising a child, and nobody would say there is anything wrong with that. The other argument for same sex couples being allowed to adopt is that if they aren't then they may make arrangements to have birth naturally with a gay couple of the opposite sex, this is not a desirable solution due to the problems this may cause in access rights to the baby if there are any problems and also deprieves an orphan of the chance of a family.
Babylon Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Depends on the people involved, I would rather a child was adopted by Elton John and David Furnish, than Fred and Rosemary West. Well it's rather unlikely to be Fred and Rose West, more likely to be John and Sandra Smith down the road in a Semi Detatched doing normal jobs. Are we saying the baby should go to the richest person?
Captain... Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Well it's rather unlikely to be Fred and Rose West, more likely to be John and Sandra Smith down the road in a Semi Detatched doing normal jobs. Are we saying the baby should go to the richest person? Nope, the most suitable and the one that can provide the best life for the baby, it is not just about wealth, but I think wealthy, time rich gay parents with a good support network of friends and family would provide a better quality of life for a child than straight parents who are on JSA or have no real job security, or who both have to work full time to make ends meet, or who don't have a support network, or who live in an area with a high crime rate and a strong gang culture.
skinnydipper Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Of course, but there are many people who want new borns / young babies. I'm no expert but I would imagine there is a rather long waiting list of male / female couples who are "committed and capable carers", if they weren't they wouldn't be on the list. Do you think a same sex couple should ever be ahead of a mixed gender couple? Personally I don't think they should be. If we are ever in a postion where there are more babies up for adoption than mixed couples wanting them then there is no problem for me. I don't think that they should be ahead but nor do I think that they should be behind The sole criteria should be the ability to provide for the physical, emotional and educational needs of the child, predominantly throughout childhood but also beyond As I understood your original concern it was that a child of a same sex couple might be bullied. You might be right but so might a child who is overweight, wears glasses, has a different accent etc It can't be right to give in to the meatheads or the bully where in all respects a same sex couple can provide a stable, secure and loving home I think that you've got to consider prospective adopters as individuals and assess their positives and negatives as such So it's about finding parents that are best equipped to meet a child's needs as opposed to finding parents equipped with a particular match of genitalia Edit Within any matching process there will be variations in the abilities to meet identified needs (e.g health, relationship stability, support networks) . It's a rare situation in which there would be nothing to choose between two or more sets of prospective adopters. We disagree in that you think that sexual orientation is one of the determinative factors in the decision making process whereas I do not.
Webbo Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 So it's about finding parents that are best equipped to meet a child's needs as opposed to finding parents equipped with a particular match of genitalia But don't you think that a child needs a male and a female parent? Surely we learn/experience different things from our mothers than we do form our dads?
Corky Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Exactly, you need the female nagging in life to prepare you.
Zingari Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Exactly, you need the female nagging in life to prepare you.
Finnegan Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 But don't you think that a child needs a male and a female parent? Surely we learn/experience different things from our mothers than we do form our dads? Don't really think so tbh. Plenty of people raised with either only one parent or by parents who don't conform to stereotypical male/female roles. I don't think there's a single argument against gay adoption that's really strong enough to stop it. The bullying one seems to be a lot if people's default argument but kids will pick on each other regardless and they're never going to see it as normal or acceptable until it is more common place. A generation or two of gay adoption and no kid would be batting an eyelid.
Rincewind Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 A child should be raised to respect and care for others and know ri9ght from wrong. As long as the parents are capable of doing this does it matter if they are the same sex?
Zingari Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 surely a kid with 2 dads can say to a bully " my two dads could beat your dad"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.