Marriage Rights

[jesterhawk]

Here's my question regarding the adoption debate, which leads into homosexuals being able to be the cornerstone of fully functioning multi-generational families:

Based on all the emperical evidence I supplied stating that homosexual couples make just as sufficient parents as heterosexual couples- why should homosexuality even be taken into consideration during the adoption process? ESPECIALLY with emperical evidence backing their competency, it just furthers the solid proof that it exists solely out of stereotyping/discrimination and for no other viable purpose. If there is no evidence proving they are not competent, what makes this any different than holding race, gender, or religious beliefs against someone during the adoption process? You're born with race and gender (for the most part), just as one is with a predisposition to be attracted to the same sex. Is it really fair to judge someone and remove this opportunity from their life AND the life of the child who may now sit in foster care/at a shelter for 17 years without parents solely based on the activities of two individuals in a bedroom?

You take adoption over abortion- support the obvious side that can lead to adoption being more viable.

Yeah.. I'm quoting myself because I still want an answer.

The answer, as to why heterosexual are preferred, is simple. There is a higher rate of "divorce" among same-sex unions then there are among non-same-sex unions. Studies done in Denmark over a 15 year period since the inception of same-sex unions being allowed showed that heterosexual marriages increased and homosexual divorces increased (Arguments concerning divorce rates). There was even a book published about it that won the author some very prestigious awards. And this is not the only study, one done in Sweden in 2004, revealed that Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. And this is with just a quick internet search. I am sure with more in depth study you would find even more showing the homosexual unions are much more unstable then heterosexual unions as a whole. Is this the case for everyone, of course not. But this is the trend.

And I can attest to this in my life. I know three homosexual people (1 male, and 2 females) and they have had between them now in the four years that I have known them eight partners and the ones they are with now are supposedly the "ones" whereas I know a lot more marriage people who have been together with one person a lot longer. Granted, I am in a good church and that will skew the results on the marriage couples and I would admit that.

JH

[porkenbeans]

Because at a theoretical level it seems to me apparent that gender role confusion can arise from such a situation. Think about it, who's going to be more capable of rearing a child: a father and a mother, or just one of the above? What is a better simulation of a natural and normal childhood environment: a mother and a father, or a father and an "uncle"? Certainly if you can find no one better, OK, it might be preferable to letting a child stay in an orphanage: but I have difficulty seeing that as preferable in anything but the most dire of circumstances.

Now, the supposed empirical evidence, I need to review. However, given the obvious theoretical contradictions, it seems a bit like someone claiming they've found empirical evidence confirming that say, you can't resolve a force into vectors.

Gender role confusion can arise in any family situation (and has been for millenia).

http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb_for_printer.cfm?article_ID=ZZZZK946W7C&sub_cat=269

The term "GENDER ROLE" is just another attempt to pigeon hole people, and force your views upon them. This dance around the real issue here, is obvious to anyone with a free thinking mind to see. You say that a gay couple will pass on their views and such to their children. So what. You do the same thing with your children. What your really saying is, "Do as I say". You Dick Cheeneys' of the world need to mind your own business, Glass houses and throwing stones would be an appropriate lesson to study. ...Amen.

[lgoasklucyl]

Because at a theoretical level it seems to me apparent that gender role confusion can arise from such a situation. Think about it, who's going to be more capable of rearing a child: a father and a mother, or just one of the above? What is a better simulation of a natural and normal childhood environment: a mother and a father, or a father and an "uncle"? Certainly if you can find no one better, OK, it might be preferable to letting a child stay in an orphanage: but I have difficulty seeing that as preferable in anything but the most dire of circumstances.

Now, the supposed empirical evidence, I need to review. However, given the obvious theoretical contradictions, it seems a bit like someone claiming they've found empirical evidence confirming that say, you can't resolve a force into vectors.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form going to disagree with the fact that a 'mother and father' couple would be better than just a mother or father, but will disagree to the grave that having no parents whatsoever is a more viable solution. My parents divorced when I was 4- I might as well have been raised by a single father (yeah, father- weird, usually custody goes to the mother). I sure as shit would have rather lived with my father than dropped into an orphanage.

Human beings cannot be compared to a solid mathematical theorum. There is no 'obvious theoretical contradiction'.

[Napoleon Ier]

Because at a theoretical level it seems to me apparent that gender role confusion can arise from such a situation. Think about it, who's going to be more capable of rearing a child: a father and a mother, or just one of the above? What is a better simulation of a natural and normal childhood environment: a mother and a father, or a father and an "uncle"? Certainly if you can find no one better, OK, it might be preferable to letting a child stay in an orphanage: but I have difficulty seeing that as preferable in anything but the most dire of circumstances.

Now, the supposed empirical evidence, I need to review. However, given the obvious theoretical contradictions, it seems a bit like someone claiming they've found empirical evidence confirming that say, you can't resolve a force into vectors.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form going to disagree with the fact that a 'mother and father' couple would be better than just a mother or father, but will disagree to the grave that having no parents whatsoever is a more viable solution. My parents divorced when I was 4- I might as well have been raised by a single father (yeah, father- weird, usually custody goes to the mother). I sure as shit would have rather lived with my father than dropped into an orphanage.

Human beings cannot be compared to a solid mathematical theorum. There is no 'obvious theoretical contradiction'.

Oh absolutely. But unless you're talking about the most extreme cases in which there's a serious shortage of prospective adopting parents (which is not the case in the West today)...

[lgoasklucyl]

Because at a theoretical level it seems to me apparent that gender role confusion can arise from such a situation. Think about it, who's going to be more capable of rearing a child: a father and a mother, or just one of the above? What is a better simulation of a natural and normal childhood environment: a mother and a father, or a father and an "uncle"? Certainly if you can find no one better, OK, it might be preferable to letting a child stay in an orphanage: but I have difficulty seeing that as preferable in anything but the most dire of circumstances.

Now, the supposed empirical evidence, I need to review. However, given the obvious theoretical contradictions, it seems a bit like someone claiming they've found empirical evidence confirming that say, you can't resolve a force into vectors.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form going to disagree with the fact that a 'mother and father' couple would be better than just a mother or father, but will disagree to the grave that having no parents whatsoever is a more viable solution. My parents divorced when I was 4- I might as well have been raised by a single father (yeah, father- weird, usually custody goes to the mother). I sure as shit would have rather lived with my father than dropped into an orphanage.

Human beings cannot be compared to a solid mathematical theorum. There is no 'obvious theoretical contradiction'.

Oh absolutely. But unless you're talking about the most extreme cases in which there's a serious shortage of prospective adopting parents (which is not the case in the West today)...

I just feel they should be in the best home period, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. The development and well being of the children should be taken over something a few individuals feel is 'taboo'. In some cases, yes the heterosexual couple will be better. I just feel if the same-sex couple is as much or more qualified they should receive equal treatment.

[PLAYER57832]

The answer, as to why heterosexual are preferred, is simple. There is a higher rate of "divorce" among same-sex unions then there are among non-same-sex unions. Studies done in Denmark over a 15 year period since the inception of same-sex unions being allowed showed that heterosexual marriages increased and homosexual divorces increased (Arguments concerning divorce rates). There was even a book published about it that won the author some very prestigious awards. And this is not the only study, one done in Sweden in 2004, revealed that Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. And this is with just a quick internet search. I am sure with more in depth study you would find even more showing the homosexual unions are much more unstable then heterosexual unions as a whole. Is this the case for everyone, of course not. But this is the trend.

And I can attest to this in my life. I know three homosexual people (1 male, and 2 females) and they have had between them now in the four years that I have known them eight partners and the ones they are with now are supposedly the "ones" whereas I know a lot more marriage people who have been together with one person a lot longer. Granted, I am in a good church and that will skew the results on the marriage couples and I would admit that.

This is no mystery. Even in Denmark, a generally much more tolerant country than the U.S. , homosexuals are not as fully accepted as here. And, while it is accepted reasonably well there, it is not the "favored" lifestyle of anyone. Stress contributes to divorce.

This is one reason why I believe even prominent homosexual activists within the U.S. (well, most ... I am positive there are exceptions) will admit that IF all other things are equal, a heterosexual couple probably is the better placement. BUT, the thing is those perfect matches with "perfect" parents are often imaginary. The real truth is that even adopted infants can have serious medical issues (drugs, poor nutrition, in the womb, etc.), and older children almost always do. The truth is that which parents are ideal for which child is not as easy or as obvious as picking out a grapefruit inteh store. The real truth is that many kids wind up spending their lives in the foster care system for all sorts of reasons.

Abortion was mentioned. I am not sure that is really a fair comparison, but the comparison to being in "permanent" foster care is fair.

What children need is a stable home with adult(s) who love them and guide them. Is a mother/father couple best. Of course. But that option is unavailable to many. Further, it is far better to place a child with a stable, well educated and financially secure family headed by a same-sex couple than it is to place them with a heterosexual couple who does not meet those criteria.

[porkenbeans]

The answer, as to why heterosexual are preferred, is simple. There is a higher rate of "divorce" among same-sex unions then there are among non-same-sex unions. Studies done in Denmark over a 15 year period since the inception of same-sex unions being allowed showed that heterosexual marriages increased and homosexual divorces increased (Arguments concerning divorce rates). There was even a book published about it that won the author some very prestigious awards. And this is not the only study, one done in Sweden in 2004, revealed that Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. And this is with just a quick internet search. I am sure with more in depth study you would find even more showing the homosexual unions are much more unstable then heterosexual unions as a whole. Is this the case for everyone, of course not. But this is the trend.

And I can attest to this in my life. I know three homosexual people (1 male, and 2 females) and they have had between them now in the four years that I have known them eight partners and the ones they are with now are supposedly the "ones" whereas I know a lot more marriage people who have been together with one person a lot longer. Granted, I am in a good church and that will skew the results on the marriage couples and I would admit that.

This is no mystery. Even in Denmark, a generally much more tolerant country than the U.S. , homosexuals are not as fully accepted as here. And, while it is accepted reasonably well there, it is not the "favored" lifestyle of anyone. Stress contributes to divorce.

This is one reason why I believe even prominent homosexual activists within the U.S. (well, most ... I am positive there are exceptions) will admit that IF all other things are equal, a heterosexual couple probably is the better placement. BUT, the thing is those perfect matches with "perfect" parents are often imaginary. The real truth is that even adopted infants can have serious medical issues (drugs, poor nutrition, in the womb, etc.), and older children almost always do. The truth is that which parents are ideal for which child is not as easy or as obvious as picking out a grapefruit inteh store. The real truth is that many kids wind up spending their lives in the foster care system for all sorts of reasons.

Abortion was mentioned. I am not sure that is really a fair comparison, but the comparison to being in "permanent" foster care is fair.

What children need is a stable home with adult(s) who love them and guide them. Is a mother/father couple best. Of course. But that option is unavailable to many. Further, it is far better to place a child with a stable, well educated and financially secure family headed by a same-sex couple than it is to place them with a heterosexual couple who does not meet those criteria.

This argument is a bunch of gobbledygook. It is preferred this, and it is preferred that. What a load of crap. A child raised in a wealthy family does much better in life than one raised in a poor one, so, should poor people not have children ? Or maybe they should adopt them out to the wealthy. These kind of arguments only muddy the water. They take the focus off of the fact that some want to rule the roost, and dictate to others, how they are to live their lives. Dont let yourself get caught up in this distraction.

[luns101]

See now, I would make the counter argument that gays are homophobic...which could lead to a whole new classification of laws needed to prevent self-discrimination.

[Snorri1234]

The answer, as to why heterosexual are preferred, is simple. There is a higher rate of "divorce" among same-sex unions then there are among non-same-sex unions. Studies done in Denmark over a 15 year period since the inception of same-sex unions being allowed showed that heterosexual marriages increased and homosexual divorces increased (Arguments concerning divorce rates). There was even a book published about it that won the author some very prestigious awards. And this is not the only study, one done in Sweden in 2004, revealed that Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. And this is with just a quick internet search. I am sure with more in depth study you would find even more showing the homosexual unions are much more unstable then heterosexual unions as a whole. Is this the case for everyone, of course not. But this is the trend.

And I can attest to this in my life. I know three homosexual people (1 male, and 2 females) and they have had between them now in the four years that I have known them eight partners and the ones they are with now are supposedly the "ones" whereas I know a lot more marriage people who have been together with one person a lot longer. Granted, I am in a good church and that will skew the results on the marriage couples and I would admit that.

This is no mystery. Even in Denmark, a generally much more tolerant country than the U.S. , homosexuals are not as fully accepted as here. And, while it is accepted reasonably well there, it is not the "favored" lifestyle of anyone. Stress contributes to divorce.

They need to peform the study in those countries where homosexual marriage (!) is actually legal. Like sweden and the netherlands. The bias against gays is fairly small here, at least compared to other countries, though it has been rising again due to immigration and rebellion amongst youths. (Calling someone gay is still a big insult, I got beaten up over it.)

[FabledIntegral]

Your evidence sucks - that's just as much saying you have to prove that heterosexual couples are as fit for adoption. Or single mothers shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because it's not traditional either. You are highly mistaken when you say "they need to prove they are competent parents," etc. etc. because their sexual preference is irrelevant. How about a SINGLE gay woman raising a child that she adopted? Is that any different except for the fact there will only be one figurehead instead of two? How does sexual preference play into the equation whatsoever? I'm sure there are plenty of homosexuals that would make shitty parents, but there are probably a relatively equal proportion of heterosexuals to complement it.

Absolutely amazed that you think sexual preference can somehow screw up the way someone is raised.

I want to clarify one point. I am the one who first said that people have to prove they are fit parents in adoptions. I was speaking of the actual current law/adoption process.

People DO have to provide "fitness". In all states, prospective parents have to show that they are emotionally stable, financially able to support a child, etc. To a point, this is not only reasonable, but very good. Who wants your local junky or pimp adopting? Many states do allow single individuals to adopt, but often they do have to through more intensive screening. Also, they don't necessarily get equal consideration (depends on the agency and state).

Homosexuals, to contrast, are outright forbidden from adopting in many jurisdictions (Florida, for example). In some cases, they can foster children, but not adopt. In all jurisdictions, they will generally be scrutinized a bit more than a heterosexual couple. Sometimes that scrutiny is well-intended. A homosexual couple does have extra roadblocks and knowing they can deal with them is important. However, a lot of times it is plain bigotry. I believe as you have indicated that this is wrong, but it is the reality. And it is part of why homosexuals want the law to be changed to allow same sex marriages.

I do believe, as I think most do, that a stable husband/wife household can ideally provide the best home, but people are rarely ideal. What is important is that every child gets a loving family and has a parent or parents to support him/her. Sadly, that often doesn't happen, and its not because those parents are homosexual. It is far, far better for a child to get a home with a homosexual couple than to sit in our foster care system until 18.

I never said they don't have to provide fitness. They have to do it on an INDIVIDUAL basis, however. Per couple/parent has to prove they can be a suitable parent. Which they can do with homosexuals as well. But to group them together is no different than saying "black people need to prove they can be suitable parents before we allow them to adopt." That's clumping blacks as a whole. That's what I was saying is wrong.

[lgoasklucyl]

Here's my question regarding the adoption debate, which leads into homosexuals being able to be the cornerstone of fully functioning multi-generational families:

Based on all the emperical evidence I supplied stating that homosexual couples make just as sufficient parents as heterosexual couples- why should homosexuality even be taken into consideration during the adoption process? ESPECIALLY with emperical evidence backing their competency, it just furthers the solid proof that it exists solely out of stereotyping/discrimination and for no other viable purpose. If there is no evidence proving they are not competent, what makes this any different than holding race, gender, or religious beliefs against someone during the adoption process? You're born with race and gender (for the most part), just as one is with a predisposition to be attracted to the same sex. Is it really fair to judge someone and remove this opportunity from their life AND the life of the child who may now sit in foster care/at a shelter for 17 years without parents solely based on the activities of two individuals in a bedroom?

You take adoption over abortion- support the obvious side that can lead to adoption being more viable.

Yeah.. I'm quoting myself because I still want an answer.

The answer, as to why heterosexual are preferred, is simple. There is a higher rate of "divorce" among same-sex unions then there are among non-same-sex unions. Studies done in Denmark over a 15 year period since the inception of same-sex unions being allowed showed that heterosexual marriages increased and homosexual divorces increased (Arguments concerning divorce rates). There was even a book published about it that won the author some very prestigious awards. And this is not the only study, one done in Sweden in 2004, revealed that Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. And this is with just a quick internet search. I am sure with more in depth study you would find even more showing the homosexual unions are much more unstable then heterosexual unions as a whole. Is this the case for everyone, of course not. But this is the trend.

And I can attest to this in my life. I know three homosexual people (1 male, and 2 females) and they have had between them now in the four years that I have known them eight partners and the ones they are with now are supposedly the "ones" whereas I know a lot more marriage people who have been together with one person a lot longer. Granted, I am in a good church and that will skew the results on the marriage couples and I would admit that.

JH

Sweden and Denmark also have a grand half the divorce rate of the United States (among heterosexual couples). You cannot compare studies done in these countries when the statics don't even almost correlate with the country within which the social policy is being discussed. That's like comparing the average life span in Africa to Japan, or Poverty in Denmark to poverty in the US.

[FabledIntegral]

...why should homosexuality even be taken into consideration during the adoption process?

Yeah.. I'm quoting myself because I still want an answer.

If there is a good reason to consider sexual orientation during the adoption process, I am unaware of it.

Would you consider a single person adopting acceptable?

More than acceptable. It's a better life most likely than an orphanage.

Nah, actually... I think all single mothers/fathers should have to have their child taken by the government and given to an orphanage as it's unacceptable.

[Snorri1234]

...why should homosexuality even be taken into consideration during the adoption process?

Yeah.. I'm quoting myself because I still want an answer.

If there is a good reason to consider sexual orientation during the adoption process, I am unaware of it.

Would you consider a single person adopting acceptable?

More than acceptable. It's a better life most likely than an orphanage.

Nah, actually... I think all single mothers/fathers should have to have their child taken by the government and given to an orphanage as it's unacceptable.

And then they should be killed. Single people are unacceptable.

[Napoleon Ier]

...why should homosexuality even be taken into consideration during the adoption process?

Yeah.. I'm quoting myself because I still want an answer.

If there is a good reason to consider sexual orientation during the adoption process, I am unaware of it.

Would you consider a single person adopting acceptable?

More than acceptable. It's a better life most likely than an orphanage.

Nah, actually... I think all single mothers/fathers should have to have their child taken by the government and given to an orphanage as it's unacceptable.

Well, clearly not if they are the biological mother/father, since that's a far more, dare I say, natural scenario than an orphanage. Otherwise, it's obviously unacceptable to have child reared by a single parent when it could have been reared by two. Are saying that a child who never had a father or a mother is in no way psychologically or developmentally affected?

[MeDeFe]

We should all eat Irish babies.

[Frigidus]

We should all eat Irish babies.

That stuff always gives me gas...we could always just get some Chinese babies.

[StiffMittens]

We should all eat Irish babies.

That stuff always gives me gas...we could always just get some Chinese babies.

Too much melamine in Chinese babies. How about some nice Thai babies?

[Snorri1234]

Well, clearly not if they are the biological mother/father, since that's a far more, dare I say, natural scenario than an orphanage. Otherwise, it's obviously unacceptable to have child reared by a single parent when it could have been reared by two. Are saying that a child who never had a father or a mother is in no way psychologically or developmentally affected?

Yes, it would certainly be far better to have a child raised by two parents than just one.


However, that only implies all else being equal. I know kids who were raised by a single mother who turned out far better than other kids who had both a mother and a father because there is a huge difference between how people raise their kids. Even looking at it from a purely theoretical standpoint without any evidence like you love to do, it strikes me as obvious that the difference between a child who grows up with a homosexual couple and a child who is raised by a heterosexual couple is negligble when looking at all the other factors like poverty, bad parenting and a shitty environment. Those factors are all far more bad for a kid's development compared to having two gay parents.

I mean, hell, a kid adopted by a gay couple has at least one of the "gender examples" you so love and another caring parent. And seeing as how adopting parents are generally higher educated and are less likely to not give the kid enough support, it's pretty silly to deny kids that because of an outdated concept like "gender roles".

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, clearly not if they are the biological mother/father, since that's a far more, dare I say, natural scenario than an orphanage. Otherwise, it's obviously unacceptable to have child reared by a single parent when it could have been reared by two. Are saying that a child who never had a father or a mother is in no way psychologically or developmentally affected?

Yes, it would certainly be far better to have a child raised by two parents than just one.


However, that only implies all else being equal. I know kids who were raised by a single mother who turned out far better than other kids who had both a mother and a father because there is a huge difference between how people raise their kids. Even looking at it from a purely theoretical standpoint without any evidence like you love to do, it strikes me as obvious that the difference between a child who grows up with a homosexual couple and a child who is raised by a heterosexual couple is negligble when looking at all the other factors like poverty, bad parenting and a shitty environment. Those factors are all far more bad for a kid's development compared to having two gay parents.

I mean, hell, a kid adopted by a gay couple has at least one of the "gender examples" you so love and another caring parent. And seeing as how adopting parents are generally higher educated and are less likely to not give the kid enough support, it's pretty silly to deny kids that because of an outdated concept like "gender roles".

`Yes, and until adopted, all boys found not playing with barbies will be caned, whilst girls will be forced to pit GI Joe dolls off against Action Man on a Bob the Builder set of their design, which the boys will then have little cuddly-toy tea parties on when the girls go out for rugby/gym training.

[Snorri1234]

Well, clearly not if they are the biological mother/father, since that's a far more, dare I say, natural scenario than an orphanage. Otherwise, it's obviously unacceptable to have child reared by a single parent when it could have been reared by two. Are saying that a child who never had a father or a mother is in no way psychologically or developmentally affected?

Yes, it would certainly be far better to have a child raised by two parents than just one.


However, that only implies all else being equal. I know kids who were raised by a single mother who turned out far better than other kids who had both a mother and a father because there is a huge difference between how people raise their kids. Even looking at it from a purely theoretical standpoint without any evidence like you love to do, it strikes me as obvious that the difference between a child who grows up with a homosexual couple and a child who is raised by a heterosexual couple is negligble when looking at all the other factors like poverty, bad parenting and a shitty environment. Those factors are all far more bad for a kid's development compared to having two gay parents.

I mean, hell, a kid adopted by a gay couple has at least one of the "gender examples" you so love and another caring parent. And seeing as how adopting parents are generally higher educated and are less likely to not give the kid enough support, it's pretty silly to deny kids that because of an outdated concept like "gender roles".

`Yes, and until adopted, all boys found not playing with barbies will be caned, whilst girls will be forced to pit GI Joe dolls off against Action Man on a Bob the Builder set of their design, which the boys will then have little cuddly-toy tea parties on when the girls go out for rugby/gym training.

Stop acting like a complete moron.

[FabledIntegral]

More than acceptable. It's a better life most likely than an orphanage.

Nah, actually... I think all single mothers/fathers should have to have their child taken by the government and given to an orphanage as it's unacceptable.

Well, clearly not if they are the biological mother/father, since that's a far more, dare I say, natural scenario than an orphanage. Otherwise, it's obviously unacceptable to have child reared by a single parent when it could have been reared by two. Are saying that a child who never had a father or a mother is in no way psychologically or developmentally affected?

Oh really? A biological mother is a far more natural situation than someone who was adopted at 1 month? It's not "obviously" unacceptable, in fact, I would say that comment is absolutely ridiculous and quite the opposite that a child should be stuck in an orphanage until 2 parents are found. And are you saying that a child who had to stay in an orphanage because he wasn't allowed to be adopted by a single or homosexual couple wouldn't be more psychologically or developmentally affected than he would have otherwise?

You place significantly too much emphasis on the nuclear family.

[Napoleon Ier]

Quite apart from the fact that there is no shortage of prospective parents, to the extent that interracial adoptions don't go on in this country (even in this age of PC madness), just think about what you're saying. Imagine the life of that child who was raised by gays. I mean, n one would take him seriously.

[MeDeFe]

Why not? What's the big deal?

[kentington]

Kids still get made fun of for being fat and many other childish things. How much more do you think it will be for a kid with gay parents?

[FabledIntegral]

Quite apart from the fact that there is no shortage of prospective parents, to the extent that interracial adoptions don't go on in this country (even in this age of PC madness), just think about what you're saying. Imagine the life of that child who was raised by gays. I mean, n one would take him seriously.

Apparently YOU wouldn't. Hell - I have no problem taking a gay person seriously, so why would I have a problem with taking someone seriously who has had a gay presence throughout his life? It's not as if all homosexuals are flamboyant with their gayness, many you can't even tell are homosexual until you find out they have a same-sex partner.

There are children already raised by gays, and I've seen a few documentaries on them. EVERY single child said that none of their friends cared AND that they didn't see anything wrong with it. The only way it could be traumatizing to the child is if people like you continue to hold your prejudices and have the mentality to not take them seriously. Other, mature people, wouldn't think any differently of the person. It's not as if it made the child gay or lesbian.

And my younger brother's best friend is black and was adopted by a white couple. They got divorced shortly after, and now is being raised by a single white father. Obviously this is preposterous, I believe he should get sent to an orphanage.