Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] Well I said if we as a nation don't universally accept something as being morally right or wrong. Your just one person. And divorce isn't as controversial as same sex relationships. Silenthps

Sure, but I honestly would not want to be that child. It would be strange growing up. And I can't fathom the harassment that he/she will get.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="xaos"] So it would have been A-OK to ban interracial couples from adopting 30-40 years ago? By the way, you absolutely weaseled out from the term "universal" in your response to Sun Tzucomp_atkins

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Yes it does. You make a vou of till death and to stick it out no matter what. Too many people rush into marriage.

Pirate700

I say yes.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]For the safety of the child yes. Imagine all the terror the child of the interracial couple would have to go through if the majority of people in their neighborhood was against it. Silenthps

By your logic, we should. If a group of students at one school won't accept another group of students based upon their ethnicity, we shouldn't integrate them, since they could potentially face persecution in the new school.

Of course, I'm sure this situation is somehow different. :roll:

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] are you serious? should we ban schools from being integrated because minority students will be ridiculed in their newly integrated classes??chessmaster1989

By your logic, we should. If a group of students at one school won't accept another group of students based upon their ethnicity, we shouldn't integrate them, since they could potentially face persecution in the new school.

Of course, I'm sure this situation is somehow different. :roll:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] Well I said if we as a nation don't universally accept something as being morally right or wrong. Your just one person. And divorce isn't as controversial as same sex relationships. Silenthps

So, by that very definition, shouldn't -Sun_Tzu-'s objection make it not universal? :?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]no

Silenthps

By your logic, we should. If a group of students at one school won't accept another group of students based upon their ethnicity, we shouldn't integrate them, since they could potentially face persecution in the new school.

Of course, I'm sure this situation is somehow different. :roll:

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]no

Silenthps

By your logic, we should. If a group of students at one school won't accept another group of students based upon their ethnicity, we shouldn't integrate them, since they could potentially face persecution in the new school.

Of course, I'm sure this situation is somehow different. :roll:

So, if you'd been alive in the '60s, you would have opposed the integration of schools, by that logic.

I really don't see why having one of each gender as a parent should matter. It's about how the child is raised, not about who the parents are.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I'm sorry, but what the hell do you think universally means? O_o

chessmaster1989

So, by that very definition, shouldn't -Sun_Tzu-'s objection make it not universal? :?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

By your logic, we should. If a group of students at one school won't accept another group of students based upon their ethnicity, we shouldn't integrate them, since they could potentially face persecution in the new school.

Of course, I'm sure this situation is somehow different. :roll:

chessmaster1989

So, if you'd been alive in the '60s, you would have opposed the integration of schools, by that logic.

i know people who grew with same-sex parents and they're perfectly fine..:|.. so yes for me.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]i think it means adj. 1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key). 2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. See synonyms at general. 3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy. 4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic. 5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad. 6. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses. 7. Logic. Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.Silenthps

So, by that very definition, shouldn't -Sun_Tzu-'s objection make it not universal? :?

:lol:

Oh, come on, I can't wait to hear this one explained. Please do explain.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] By my logic we shouldn't. Silenthps

So, if you'd been alive in the '60s, you would have opposed the integration of schools, by that logic.

I assume you are familiar with the Little Rock 9. Wouldn't it have been better, by your logic, to not allow integration, and thus not put them through the suffering of the extreme verbal abuse and harrassment they underwent?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, if you'd been alive in the '60s, you would have opposed the integration of schools, by that logic.

chessmaster1989

I assume you are familiar with the Little Rock 9. Wouldn't it have been better, by your logic, to not allow integration, and thus not put them through the suffering of the extreme verbal abuse and harrassment they underwent?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, if you'd been alive in the '60s, you would have opposed the integration of schools, by that logic.

chessmaster1989

I assume you are familiar with the Little Rock 9. Wouldn't it have been better, by your logic, to not allow integration, and thus not put them through the suffering of the extreme verbal abuse and harrassment they underwent?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, by that very definition, shouldn't -Sun_Tzu-'s objection make it not universal? :?

chessmaster1989

:lol:

Oh, come on, I can't wait to hear this one explained. Please do explain.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]nopeSilenthps

:lol:

Oh, come on, I can't wait to hear this one explained. Please do explain.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]nopeSilenthps

:lol:

Oh, come on, I can't wait to hear this one explained. Please do explain.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] No I wouldn't.Silenthps

I assume you are familiar with the Little Rock 9. Wouldn't it have been better, by your logic, to not allow integration, and thus not put them through the suffering of the extreme verbal abuse and harrassment they underwent?

A red herring is a red fish... well, that's one definition, at least. I think your post shows your familiar with the other ;).

Well, I was merely extending your logic behind not allowing same sex couples to adopt children to integration of schools.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

:lol:

Oh, come on, I can't wait to hear this one explained. Please do explain.

FUBAR24

No, definitely.

If a kid had two fathers, he'd never hear the end of it. It'd be social suicide.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] No, not really; he has logically extended your premises to their obvious conclusion and you have yet to explain why this should be any different.xaos

No, guys, please, this is too fun :lol:.

Okay, Silenthps, have it your way. I'll explain myself. Here is a quote by -Sun_Tzu-, as well as your response.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
I feel that divorce is morally wrong. Does that mean we should ban divorced single-parents from raising children? Silenthps

Now, the definition of universal:

1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.

Hence, to be universal, everyone in our nation must accept divorce as being morally right or wrong. I have no objection to divorce, so I would say it morally right/acceptable. -Sun_Tzu- disagrees. hence, not everyone agrees, hence it is not universal.

I guess I'll just add... quod erat demonstrandum.

[QUOTE="FUBAR24"][QUOTE="Silenthps"] I think your the one who needs to do the explaining. Silenthps

There's no reason why Same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

The only disadvantage of same sex couples raising children is the possible lack of a solid mother or father figure.

However, this disadvantage is very minor because plenty of children grow up to be completely normal without a father or mother figure.

I think single parents should be allowed to adopt. Since gays can't marry anyway, I see no legal problem with them adopting.

Actually, I think qualified heterosexual couples should gain priority over single individuals and then homosexual couples. Being raised by a homosexual couple is better than say, being in a foster home.

Genetic_Code

agreed.

Ideally, both heterosexual and homosexual couples would have equal right, but the simple fact is that homosexuality is not "normal" and as a result the child will face discrimination throughout school, even throughout his or her life. its tough enough for a kid to have big ears, be a fat kid, and more...having homosexual parents would just be horrible for the kid from a social standpoint.

I dont like it, but thats the world we live in.

[QUOTE="FUBAR24"][QUOTE="Silenthps"] I think your the one who needs to do the explaining. Silenthps

Yes, you are. By your own logic (applied in the case of same sex couples adopting children), you should be against the integration of schools. You are for the integration of schools. Contradiction. Quod erat demonstrandum.

No, definitely.

If a kid had two fathers, he'd never hear the end of it. It'd be social suicide.

Dutch_Mix

God, no. Can you imagine? A child? Ewewewwwwww.

Yes. But I can't help but feel it's wrong.

I can't really say.

I want to say yes, but at the same time, i don't know.

God, no. Can you imagine? A child? Ewewewwwwww.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

God, no. Can you imagine? A child? Ewewewwwwww.

Serraph105

My reaction exactly :P.

[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"] ive gone over this so many times before. kids will make fun of other kids whether they have two moms, two dads, or a dad and a mom. so the social aspect is out of the question as a kid with a mother and father can be made fun of just as much as one with two moms or dadsFUBAR24

No, definitely.

If a kid had two fathers, he'd never hear the end of it. It'd be social suicide.

Well i think a girl would come out pretty normal if she was adopted by a male gay couple

Most of you have blinders on, you have obviously never met a child with same-sex parents. They are perfectly fine.

Most of you have blinders on, you have obviously never met a child with same-sex parents. They are perfectly fine.

fiscope

I think single parents should be allowed to adopt. Since gays can't marry anyway, I see no legal problem with them adopting.

Actually, I think qualified heterosexual couples should gain priority over single individuals and then homosexual couples. Being raised by a homosexual couple is better than say, being in a foster home.

Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

[QUOTE="FUBAR24"] why? he isnt contradicting himselfFUBAR24

I like how Silenthps decided to leave the thread :P.

Yes, there is absolutely no reason not to allow it.

I know a girl who grew up with with her mom and her mom's female life partner (long story on the pregnancy) and she is perfectly fine with it, and so is her brother. Both of them are actually huge advocates of gay marriage.

Yes they should. :)