The only negative I predict is possibly some sort of short-term social stigma on the child. It might be pretty rough at school, as this stuff is still pretty new.
The only negative I predict is possibly some sort of short-term social stigma on the child. It might be pretty rough at school, as this stuff is still pretty new.
Perhaps you explain how a man, sorry 2 men are going to help a young girl reaching purbety? They are going to relate? They will know from experience? Absolutely obsurded and completely selfish. Men are incapable of bearing children for a reason, whether you believe it's God or nature. Giving a child to 2 men to raise may look cute in a hollywood movie but it's a crime to the child.
Don't be stupid.
What about a single father with custody of his children or if his wife died? Are you saying he isn't capable of raising a girl? He should have his girls taken away?
A child will have female influences. Aunts, grand mothers, close female friends. It's a ridiculous statement on your part.
Muscle Asylum Project Athlete
So I am being stupid for pointing out the obvious? In every custody case the mother has the side on her and it would take extreme measures for a mother to lose that main custody status, like drugs or mental disorder or a Britney Spears personality.
A child needs more then an occassional female influence and ignoring this fact and calling my statement ridiculous shows your out of touch with reality on this issue. Seroiusly, do you think 2 guys could replace your mom?
I think it is a rare and unfortuante case and certianly should not have his kids taken away and in a strong family unit the extend family will step up to the plate and help. It is not a manufactored situation like what you are proposing. Where do the kids come from for a gay couple?
Interesting thought...what happens if we notice that the rate of homosexuality of these adopted children to gay couples is significantly higher than compared to children of heterosexual couples?
That would F sh!t up, big time. I personally still wouldn't care because I'm all about personal freedom but it could really damage the "homosexuality is not a choice" campaign.
Then you have not read up on the subject which comes as no surprise. Social science evidence agrees that the best environment for the well-being of children is a household with both a mother and a father. A homosexual environment, on the other hand, can model homosexual behavior to children. In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Based on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that “by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children’s sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.” The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children. Although gay advocates say that some children will be “languishing in foster homes,” if willing, any homosexual could apply to adopt these hard-to-place children. This is because single persons — including a homosexual — can already qualify to be an adoptive parent (this is already occurring, primarily in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas). Therefore, the push for homosexual couples to jointly adopt children is actually a back-door strategy to gain the rights and benefits of homosexual “marriage.” In addition, unmarried heterosexual couples living together should not be allowed to adopt because how can they commit their lives to a child when they refuse to commit to each other in marriage? California needs to continue the current policy where children are adopted by married couples first, and second by singles whom case workers judge to have a healthy home.
Personally, I don't really see this as a federal issue. It should definitely be handled at the state level. With that said, I'm all for glb adoption. I see nothing wrong with giving thousands of foster kids a loving family even if it's not an "ideal" situation, as some would have you believe. In fact, I see many potential positive attributes to glb adoption. Economically speaking, it would save the state millions of dollars by not having support thousands of children without a family. I would also speculate that with increased adoption rates, incentive to have an abortion would decrease. All of this, while giving glb equal rights.
This is actually a good point. Although I don't see it as the parents influencing the childs sexuality, I could imagine that there would be a greater number of homosexual children to glb parents as compared to straight parents. I say this simply because with glb parents the social stigma would be all but removed from the childs upbringing and the child would be much less "ashamed" and confused about who he/she is.
Can you explain to me how this effects your life and why we shouldn't be teaching acceptance?
think about all the gay jokes the kids make at school. now imagine you have two gaymen as parents......this kid is gonna get picked on and beat up and will never even have a chance at popularity. imagine when he gets to highschool....... i am just glad it isnt me, lol.
Haha, I know man. Honestly, I just don't care what people do in their private lives. Considering we allow every shaniqua, tammy, loo-anne and Margarita squeeze out children irresponsibly and leech off OUR tax dollars and medical system I don't see how this can be any more damaging.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)