Interesting topic

Visual Novel Community Off Topic
#1

the other day i was watching tv (wich is weird indeed) and i found out this show in wich was being disscused if Gays Couple Should or Should Not be able to adopt childens…
The disscution was a normal one overall, with people saying what they tought one the topic, etc, etc…
But one person caught my atention… it was an old man… He was on the ‘Should not’ group, he said ‘Why should we allow people who ‘naturally doesnt want to have kid’ adopt kids’.
I was pretty much surprised by such a comment, altrough it has many flaws in concept, it was something that left me thinking deeply in a topic that i dont really care about…
He said that homosexual people ‘Doesnt want to have kids’ (i mean the ‘normal’ -man/woman- way)…
I want to hear some opinions.
In my particular case, i agree with that man, but in the fact that i dont think that it’s good for a children to grown up in a place where they have 2 dads or 2 moms…
i dont know, its a deep-tought topic and this can end in People flaming at each other (and that’s something i dont really want…)

I hope my english were good enough to make myself 100% clear in this ‘serious’(??) topic…

#2

The only insight I can offer in this topic is that a kid being in a homosexual family situation wouldn’t automatically make it homosexual.
Where did the homosexuals come from? That’s right, regular family situations.

#3

I think the real question here is whether being raised by homosexuals will increase the chance, statistically, that a child (not genetically related) will be homosexual when he/she grows up. If not, then the issue is moot. If so, how significant is the connection? Is homosexuality something that society should discourage in the first place?

#4

Well; the guy on the television is an idiot. People adopt who can’t have kids; that’s how it’s supposed to work. Or is he saying that, for instance, parapalegics should be denied the right to adopt? How about people who went sterile because of chemotherapy or other illness? How about a woman who had a hysterectomy?

As for whether or not homosexuals ought to be allowed to adopt kids - there is NOT a mountain of evidence to the effect that “homosexuals are worse parents”. The “2 dads” or “2 moms” thing is in my mind wholly irrelevant.

Besides which, most societies permit parents to do FAR more damaging things to their children.

* Drunkards don’t have their children taken away
* Neither do drug addicts
* You don’t have to have a steady job in order to have children
* You are not required to take an exam to get a license that demonstrates you know how to take care of kids, before having them
* In many cases parents who are known to be abusive (sometimes sexually) successfuly win custody back in court cases
* Poverty has significant negative impacts on the lives of everyone it touches, but we don’t bar the poor from having children on grounds they’re condeming their kids to a bad life.

There are many more examples of the sort of behavior we do not, in general, prohibit. I could go on, but I don’t think I need to. That’s not my point.

My point is, all of these things have known, predictable, large negative effects. Far larger than the ambiguous and contradictory evidence indicating there might be a small effect if homosexuals adopt. We choose to ignore the others - it therefore makes no sense to single out homosexuality for this treatment.

If we can discriminate against behaviors people have every right to engage in, because some people think it’s “bad for the children” - then we should start with the items on my list. But I don’t think you really want to do that. [Edit: Well, the fourth item is something most people would agree ought to be stamped out - the point being that it’s probably not terribly productive to worry about homosexuality’s influence on kids when items like 4) can happen.]

[This message has been edited by Nandemonai (edited 01-26-2005).]

#5
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
Well; the guy on the television is an idiot. People adopt who can't have kids; that's how it's supposed to work. Or is he saying that, for instance, parapalegics should be denied the right to adopt? How about people who went sterile because of chemotherapy or other illness? How about a woman who had a hysterectomy?

As for whether or not homosexuals ought to be allowed to adopt kids - there is NOT a mountain of evidence to the effect that "homosexuals are worse parents". The "2 dads" or "2 moms" thing is in my mind wholly irrelevant.

Besides which, most societies permit parents to do [b]FAR more damaging things to their children.

* Drunkards don't have their children taken away
* Neither do drug addicts
* You don't have to have a steady job in order to have children
* You are not required to take an exam to get a license that demonstrates you know how to take care of kids, before having them
* In many cases parents who are known to be abusive (sometimes sexually) successfuly win custody back in court cases
* Poverty has significant negative impacts on the lives of everyone it touches, but we don't bar the poor from having children on grounds they're condeming their kids to a bad life.

There are many more examples of the sort of behavior we do not, in general, prohibit. I could go on, but I don't think I need to. That's not my point.

My point is, all of these things have known, predictable, large negative effects. Far larger than the ambiguous and contradictory evidence indicating there might be a small effect if homosexuals adopt. We choose to ignore the others - it therefore makes no sense to single out homosexuality for this treatment.

If we can discriminate against behaviors people have every right to engage in, because some people think it's "bad for the children" - then we should start with the items on my list. But I don't think you really want to do that. [Edit: Well, the fourth item is something most people would agree ought to be stamped out - the point being that it's probably not terribly productive to worry about homosexuality's influence on kids when items like 4) can happen.]

[This message has been edited by Nandemonai (edited 01-26-2005).][/b]


This was the kind of answer i was waiting for...
Actually, this person made reference to the people who dont want to (it's a little hard for me to explain it in english)
Let's put it like this....
He/she who is homosexual obviously is not going to have any children in the 'natural' way (man over woman -or in any other kind of position [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]-), so why give them the right to adopt when there's people who cant have kids for reasons beyond the normal (a person on wheelchair i.e.), and when they want to adopt they find themselves in many twisted situations about the 'can/cant' adopt...
He remarks this because he says that homosexual people 'unconciously'(??) is making already a decision of not having children...

Overall, i agree with nandemonai (hope i wrote it right) but i was just surprised at such comment...

[This message has been edited by The Unholy Avenger (edited 01-27-2005).]

#6
quote:
* You are not required to take an exam to get a license that demonstrates you know how to take care of kids, before having them

These days, it should be necessary to have one. Parents don't parent anymore these days, they think they can leave that up to the schools. And then we see horrible children/teenagers like VirgoFenix and crackers that don't care about people's property. The parents of today are ruining our future!
#7
quote:
Originally posted by The Unholy Avenger:

He/she who is homosexual obviously is not going to have any children in the 'natural' way (man over woman -or in any other kind of position [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]-), so why give them the right to adopt when there's people who cant have kids for reasons beyond the normal (a person on wheelchair i.e.), and when they want to adopt they find themselves in many twisted situations about the 'can/cant' adopt...
He remarks this because he says that homosexual people 'unconciously'(??) is making already a decision of not having children...

Is there some sort of critical shortage of children to adopt? I don't believe there is, since orphanages exist all over the place. Therefore this point is moot. That bigot better find some better points to make, because he's losing ground fast.

#8
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
These days, it should be necessary to have one. Parents don't parent anymore these days, they think they can leave that up to the schools. And then we see horrible children/teenagers like VirgoFenix and crackers that don't care about people's property. The parents of today are ruining our future!

I agree that a lot of people are horrible parents and shouldn't be in charge of kids. But really, how are you going to do this? Who's going to administer the tests? The government? And how are you going to make sure people dont' go and have kids without a license?

Yeah ... that sounds like a WONDERFUL idea. :D

#9
quote:
Originally posted by The Unholy Avenger:

This was the kind of answer i was waiting for...

*snip*

Overall, i agree with nandemonai (hope i wrote it right) but i was just surprised at such comment...

[This message has been edited by The Unholy Avenger (edited 01-27-2005).]

When debating politics, I do my best to stick to pure logic. I find it much more productive than getting into a big flamefest.

#10
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
When debating politics, I do my best to stick to pure logic. I find it much more productive than getting into a big flamefest.

WHO SAYS I'M ENJOING THIS!?!?!?!?!? [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by The Unholy Avenger (edited 01-27-2005).]

#12
#13