What I think Joder and John are trying to say in the few posts above is that even if they don’t use modern technology to procreate, homosexual's do so just the same...

What about a guy (or woman) who has been 'in the closet' and to conform to the people around them they did the get married and have kid’s thing. When they realise they need to be 'happy' and have enough courage to 'out themselves' they then start openly admitting their homosexuality but have had kids prior to 'coming out' which ends their marriage but the kids are still of their own gene pool.

The above is just an example and not to be taken literally but you get the idea. Please excuse my 'coming out' and 'closet' references if they wind anyone up the wrong way, they were not intended to - they are the best I can come up with at 3.25am...

Here's where everybody has missed the boat: The question was, "Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt?" Certainly, homosexuals and bisexuals have procreated, by natural or artificial means, and where there is a biological connection the law is clearer, though demonstrably not always fairly applied. But what about where there is no DNA connection?

I was rather hoping that by comparing homosexuality to a disability it would illustrate a point rather than cause knee-jerk reactions. Think about this: A disability is considered something that impairs an individual's function within "normal" society. I compared homosexuality to deafness because in each case a group that has trouble "fitting in" has had an entire subculture created around it. Now, in the case of deafness, there has not been a social stigma built around it, and in many cases deaf couples have requested and sometimes received preferential treatment in adoption of a deaf child. Yet the question will be raised with an adoptive couple where both partners are deaf when adopting a hearing child: How will the child be raised? The fact is that in the case of disability, while in the strict sense of the law all should have equal protection, disparity will still occur. So, if one equates homosexuality to a disability, there will still be questions regarding the rearing of the child, inundated in that subculture built around the disability.

I've intentionally left my opinion out, for the most part, thus far. To me, a loving couple is just that. A former minister of mine, openly gay, has been a foster father to over a hundred kids, and a good one. While some argue that kids with two mommies or daddies will have a hard go of it growing up, the same could be argued of interracial couples. A "gay lifestyle" is another argument against, to which I would say that the lifestyle of any prospective adoptive couple should be examined closely. Can a homosexual couple be good adoptive parents? I'd say they have about as good a shot at it as their heterosexual counterparts. But you'll be hard pressed to find many that share that opinion.

But here we go again with the far left trying to shove down our throats that homosexuality is some perfectly normal, OK thing, and once again the far right wants us to condemn all homosexuals as sinful, evil creatures. Personally, I don't give a rip what people's sexuality is, long as I don't have to see or hear about it, gay or straight. I don't judge people I know that are gay any more than those that are straight. But I don't think that homosexuality's some normal thing, either; nor will I pretend that it is. I think that if more people took that middle road it would be far easier for homosexual couples to adopt.

I've yet again left some big gaping holes, feel free to jump in.

tim

I really aint bothered, I can not see why being homosexual has any bearing, as long as they are able to meet the criteria any couple needs to meet in order to adopt I don’t see the problem.

I am sure there are people who will argue about the possible name calling and possible anti social stigma that may accompany living with homosexual parents but would this be any worse than say, a straight couple who can afford to buy decent cloths (I assume the reference was refering to name calling from other kids, thats what I am going to mention anyhows...they would probably both get called names in the playground, just different ones).
I can understand the reference to disability but other than not finding members of the oposit sex attractive (or at least in a lustful way) is hardly a disability but I get your point about the social stigma and culture, however it would be much easier to identify a man in a wheelchair than a gay man just by looking or talking to them (I don’t have gaydar )

There’s a load more to be said on this but I am now officially knackered (done it again, not slept!!!).

This post should run and run mate.

Let me spell it out for you in small words. Natural selection works by breeding. It ONLY works by breeding.

You failed high school, didn't you?

Originally Posted by serandfae

Think about this: A disability is considered something that impairs an individual's function within "normal" society.

You mean like living in the south? Poverty in North Carolina and illiteracy prevent the place from functioning as a whole member of normal society in the United States. A quote "North Carolina ranks in the bottom 11 states in terms of reading proficiency". Backwoods prejudice cuts both (all) ways.

Now I know from my Bible (book of Abominations, Chapter 13 vs 69) that God hates illiterate hillbillies a lot more than he hates two men kissing.

It saddens me as a Christian to see so many people in this thread saying "I know God is real, because he hates exactly the same people I hate". People are inventing new ways to express their hatred. One troll in this form has appended the "God is real because God hates people" idea with "and science also hates the same people as God, for all you atheists reading this".

The God who created our universe and engineered mankind, isn't ignorant like many of the responders to this thread. It's offensive to say otherwise. God is not a bigot.

Originally Posted by serandfae

I compared homosexuality to deafness because in each case a group that has trouble "fitting in" has had an entire subculture created around it.

Emo kids? Illiterate North Carolinans fighting child mortality? Mormons? Left handed people? Mountain men from Deliverance? All religious people, like Hitchens wants?

You're playing with Pandora's Box. As you encourage people to discriminate against each other, they might find better targets than gay people.

Originally Posted by serandfae

So, if one equates homosexuality to a disability, there will still be questions regarding the rearing of the child, inundated in that subculture built around the disability.

And if one equates the American south east with cromagnon men, the rest of what you wrote is also true. In both cases, your logic depends on a person to equate two things in a very unflattering manner. From this "premise" you argue discrimination can follow.

Originally Posted by serandfae

But here we go again with the far left trying to shove down our throats that homosexuality is some perfectly normal

What we have in reality is the right twisting a question into painful contortions. What we see is a lot of people willing to punish a child in need to spite gay people. Again, we have millions of children in state run (that's secret code for "big government"!) orphanages, qualified people ready to adopt them, and right wingers saying "No, the children must suffer rather than be adopted".

Originally Posted by serandfae

I've yet again left some big gaping holes, feel free to jump in.

I've felt compelled, rather than free, to jump in and shine the light on these dark places.

Well, I tried to shed a different light on this topic, but it would seem that there are those insistent upon knee-jerk reactions in lieu of real discussion. Consider:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Now I know from my Bible (book of Abominations, Chapter 13 vs 69) that God hates illiterate hillbillies a lot more than he hates two men kissing.

And almost in the same breath:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

The God who created our universe and engineered mankind, isn't ignorant like many of the responders to this thread. It's offensive to say otherwise. God is not a bigot.

No, He isn't, but you are. It's obvious you didn't read my post in its entirety. Let me know when you're ready to dispense with name-calling and have a grown-up discussion. Until then, know that until this point I still had respect for you. Your prejudicial, hypocritical diatribe has negated that this day.

tim

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

God is not a bigot.

Maybe not your god, but my god is!(bigoted against all but my immediate family) So is the god of the Christian bible. According to the old testament, he was bigoted against all people non-Jewish. In the new testament, things got toned down a little so as to hate the behavior, not the individual (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Since we can't agree on whether god exists, it seems rather silly to debate what God's real opinion is on gay adoption. Besides its off topic. What we can say is that the bible condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms, Christians base their beliefs on the bible, and 80% of America is Christian.

Regarding hating people, I'm not sure anyone here has said they hate anyone. Most everyone I know, left and right, has a gay friend or acquaintance, whether they know it or not. Why resort to calling people racists, haters, or hillbillies when they present an opinion that differs from yours on a topic such as race or sexuality? Pointing out that the bible condemns something does not make a person a hater, especially when it comes from someone non-religious.

to start of, im not gay anyway I think gay couple can adopt a son/daughter as long as they are going to support him/her.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Regarding hating people, I'm not sure anyone here has said they hate anyone. Most everyone I know, left and right, has a gay friend or acquaintance, whether they know it or not. Why resort to calling people racists, haters, or hillbillies when they present an opinion that differs from yours on a topic such as race or sexuality? Pointing out that the bible condemns something does not make a person a hater, especially when it comes from someone non-religious.

Didn't you know that it is now the common practice of the far left to call someone a "hater" if they can't win a logical debate? If you have even the slightest thread of conservative leaning, you are a hater, hillbilly, or redneck. By using such diversionary tactics, ultra-liberals can avoid the "ickier" questions and avoid any real debate. Come to think of it, they are in my experience the biggest group of racists and closet homophobes there are, and just use PC jargon to hide it, though badly.

tim

Originally Posted by jv17

to start of, im not gay anyway I think gay couple can adopt a son/daughter as long as they are going to support him/her.

I think that the gender doesn't have anything to do with one's opinion. Theres no thing as women thinks that no and men like to say yes... what ever your gender is doesn't affect your opinion in this...