Gay Adoption

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by piffi, Aug 9, 2001.

  1. Deadwood Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    You are right to submit that I would feel differently if it were my own parents. Definitely. Our childhood does have a huge impact on how we live our lives. But I don't want people thinking that I grew up in some souped up Christian doctrine camp. Because thats simply not true. I went to chruch pretty much on and off and read my bible a bit as well. It is in fact my choice to believe, not my parents. But my parents would accept me either way. Just as I would accept them either way, Christian or non-Christian. Gay or not gay, I would certainly accept them.

    But since this is about gay-adoption, it would be a lie for me to say that I would want or wouldn't mind going to gay parents. I am just being honest on the sci-forums. If I could choose between either gay or straight parents I would choose straight parents any day. Another factor that comes into why is because I can not stand that gay accent. Its ok for a little while but after that it gets really irratating.


    I might be Christian, but that doesn't mean I am a gay hating maniac or anything of the like. If there was a gay person on the street I would treat them the same as everyone else. Not better, not worse. Jesus said Love you neighbour, and that is what I intend on doing. I don't see myself as homophobic and certainly am not a 'true' homophobic. But if you can show me why I am then I would definitely see this as something worth fixing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    I got a box of tools but I don't think the wrenches will fit.

    After rereading this I thought that maybe I should add a little. I don't think that anything I am reading here needs fixing. What's one's cup of tea isn't anothers.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2001
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rambler Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    509
    Deadwood

    you wrote:
    "I don't see myself as homophobic and certainly am not a 'true' homophobic. But if you can show me why I am then I would definitely see this as something worth fixing"


    now let me show you (another gem from you):
    "Another factor that comes into why is because I can not stand that gay accent. Its ok for a little while but after that it gets really irratating"

    and the comment further up about knowing your gay friend before he was gay.

    Statements like this without clarification:
    "If I could choose between either gay or straight parents I would choose straight parents any day"

    or can I assume that the reason is the accent???


    And:
    "Just as I would accept them either way, Christian or non-Christian. Gay or not gay, I would certainly accept them. "

    Contradicts the "if I had a choice..." statement

    From your statements in this thread it is clear that you are not accepting of gay people and your poor attempt to say otherwise seems an obvious way to dogde the consequences of being ignorant. Yeah yeah now your going to tell me that I shouldn't be telling you what you are thinking...however I put it to you that your posts speak for themselves.

    BTW:
    please define Homophobic, and TRUE homophobic, whats the difference, I can only assume that one is fear due to ignorance and the other is pure hate...(even I don't believe you fail to understand that people can be different and their sex lives aren't YOUR business out of pure hate...so that only leaves ignorance)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    my opinion

    I'm certainly not gay but let me say this.

    The rest of society is screwed up. This also applies to the way we think about gay parents. There is nothing wrong with them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  8. piffi Nixed Price Rack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    69
    Christianity and most of the ancient world.
    They created morals based on primitive observations...
    they remain true beacuse mostly what's human sticks with us. They were observers.
    Now, Christians will tell you (or mean to tell you) that if you do not follow the sum total of their morals and tenents you cannot somehow have love...peace and goodwill are independent of silly human institutions..they are in our consciousness instincitivly.

    All people transcend morals at birth and have them impressed upon them. Obviously. if a child is raised, from the start, as a Christian, they will have Christian morals and believe them to be right. Now if a child is raised an atheist, they will have atheist morals and believe them to be right.
    (yes atheists have morals just wait until i explain them)
    You say Gay Adoption is immoral because you were raised to believe that. A child raised by gay parents would not...most likely. Its your word against mine..yes, and your morals are only as equal as mine..
    I say my morals are correct
     
  9. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    I never said gay adoption was immoral?!??!? I said it was fine, did you even read my post??
     
  10. piffi Nixed Price Rack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    69
    lol

    No, No, No! I wasn't replying to your post. I was just making a point in general...not accusing you of blasphemy....sorry maybe i should be more srticulate in the future...haven't posted in a while.

    It seems a lot of people don't get the whole point of the arguememnt, which is not petty parlor-trick arguements tht achieve nothing, but rather a basic fact of human nature. It's simply a matter of who feels they can speak for the world, and whether or not an institution such as a nation or a religious body can try to dictate human nature... if we are arguing about just gay adoption, we are not argguing enough.
     
  11. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    Sorry, my fault piffi, i misinterprited.
     
  12. Badfish Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    This whole issue is moot. It looks like we are all pretty much in agreement. Sexual preference should not be a determining factor when judging a person's (or a couple's) ability to raise children. And I don't think Deadwood is so far to the right. He is well in touch with how he feels on this issue, and it doesn't sound so extreme. Probably how the majority feels, but won't admit.
    Parenting should be about love and guidance, about intelligent choices with regard to right and wrong, about nurturung and discipline, honesty, integrity, and being a descent human being. It's not about what my parents do in the bedroom. It's like saying people with red hair shouldn't be parents. Remember back in the 70's when inter-racial couples were the big stink? It's time we grew up about this.
     
  13. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    My opinion is:
    If a gay person can take better care of a child than a straight person, what is the problem?
    Although:
    "I'm not gay, however I don't see a problem with this. The only problem is societies views on the gay community, it is this homophobia that races such controversies."
    Someone stated this earlier. My problem with that is that last year when SF had its annual gay day parade i was there watching it. All i seen was gay people running around buck naked acting like freaks. Now why do gay people have to do that? I know plenty of gay people who are also great people, but when they go public to make a statement, they act like fools. And then wonder why people think their weird. I know, I know, their not all like that. But it makes a straight person think.
    Thats all.
     
  14. Yang´s_Matrix Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    69
    I think it would be perfectly okay if gay couple would adopt a children, it´s atleast better than single parenting, I believe.

    Sometimes when I hear peoples opinions on how gays are bad, that they should be "healed" and forced to be heterosexual or when I saw a document about Ku-klux-klan, it just depresses me alot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  15. JesusSaves There is a God Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    I am going to get griped out for this....I can see it coming

    Seriously,
    Is it really this big of a deal? Some people are homophibic....
    I'm not sure where I stand.....
    I have a really good friend who is gay, but since we are of the opposite sexs, it has never really bothered me.
    But on the topic of gay marriges and adoptions......I have lived my whole life with straight parents (and I'm straight to....) and I just can't imagine it being any other way. I'm sure that if I had been raise in a family w/ same sex parents I wouldn't mind it a bit, but at this point in time, the thought kinda freaks me out. Not that I am necessarily (sp?) a "homophobic" it's just that I am not used to being around that many gay people, so I'm not sure how I'd react.
    Rambler,
    Please don't freak out at me like you did at Deadwood

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    milk and cookies,
    JesusSaves
     
  16. Salient Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    child's best interest paramount

    My opinion on gay people goes like this:

    I do not understand how men can be attracted to men or women to women. I am aware things such as environmental ubringing and personal experiences that may have significant effects on an individual. Some say that it's in the genes, I'm not quite sure what to believe. But one thing that I know, men were created for women. It's logic. That's how things work. Opposites attract, no questions about it. The world is a cycle...

    I would not personally discriminate against gay peope but I do believe that there's something not right about it.
    Allowing, a child to adopted into a gay environment, will increase chances of psychological damage on the child.

    If you wanna be gay, be gay, but don't involve an innocent life into it. Don't rob them of a chance grow in the 'right' kind of environment.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Salient ....

    First and foremost, let me state that when I take issues, I have none with this paragraph, and which is telling in its own way toward those issues I present.
    While I get what you're after, it's worth noting that the separation of hetero and homosexual is, in its own right, a form of discrimination. This is not, however, the discrimination in question. (Separating vanilla and chocolate is discrimination at this level, so it's not an issue in and of itself.) Your next sentence, however, gives me some sense of tone and perspective on the prior.
    That's both definitive and assumptive.

    * Definitive: "... will increase chances ..." Well, okay. I'll meet you halfway: while I charge that "will increase" is too definitive to be accurate, I also understand restricting the idea to the chance or odds of damage. At this level, however, I must remind that allowing a child to be adopted into a religious environment increases the chances of psychological damage and dysfunction. (Consider that in Christianity we have symptoms for which people applying a different form are institutionalized: on the cruel assessment, hallucinations, voices, imagined friends. To this end, recall an episode of The Simpsons when Marge is on trial (I think for shoplifting). While in court, Marge begins to pray, whereupon the judge asks, "Mrs Simpson, who are you talking to?"

    The gist of which being that Marge was talking to an invisible person who is everywhere and sees everything. For the humorous point, the jury found this to be a condemning notion.

    But not just to pick on Christianity: on the one hand, any coherent idea that demands the idea before the person runs this risk.

    A difference worth noting, of course, is that ideas like Capitalism, Libertarianism, or any paradigm that becomes defining of a person, is a choice. I've watchd dogs have gay sex in the yard, and I've seen video of female apes performing something that looks suspiciously like cunnilinguis. So in the case of homosexuality, I don't accept the "choice to be gay" argument to be any more significant than whether you prefer chubby or twiggy, blonde or brunette, ad nauseam, in relation to your own tastes.

    Hence, as I see it, any psychological damage comes comparatively in the face of social bigotry. The psychological damage of being young in a gay household comes from children of heterosexuals who tease, beat, and otherwise harass kids. The psychological damage comes from learning to obsess on the guilts assigned the differences 'twixt people. Is the evidence of harm if a child enters sexual activity and ends up with a partner of common gender? What if that child grows up into a hetero wife-beater? Is that more healthy?

    It's just that given all the psychological harm we inherently do to children, I don't accept focus on a stress that arises from such artificial sources as bigotry. Would you rather your 13 year-old son kiss a boy or get dragged into the public spotlight after knocking up his schoolteacher? Which is more damaging?

    * Assumptive: Please show the "harm" inherent to a gay-parented family. It seems you're assuming the harm.
    In what context do you mean this? In the mundane sense that an innocent child is hurt by the presence of gay people, well, it's a crock. In the more severe sense of visiting sexuality upon a child ... if your daughter is ever raped by a man, will you be thankful to God that at least it was that, and not your son being taken by a man? Seems to me that having sex with a child of either gender is pretty stupid, and whether it's with a chld of your own or the opposite gender doesn't really change a whole lot.
    What is the "right" environment, and why? I mean, what ... we could look at the proportion of child molestations and then laugh at the assertion (made by Phillip Ramsdell of the OCA in 1992) that 95% of child molestations are committed by gay men. Let's see ... if a male rapes a female, he must be homosexual? In that sense, then, how many children are being sexually corrupted by their heterosexual parents?

    What is the "right" environment? Is the gender of the parents the only criterion?

    And honestly? My opinion on gay people goes like this:

    They're people. Get over it.

    A little straightforward, but it's nine years since a ridiculous homophobia debate in Oregon served as someone's justification to firebomb a house and kill two people for the crime of being gay. I well understand that homophobia in society manifests itself in diverse degrees of separation, but I personally think that the social prejudices against homosexuality are one of the last bastions of the out-of-hand, post-Victorian nightmare of comparative morality. Homophobia employs the notion of morality as a weapon to hurt people.

    Some maintain that homosexuality is a choice. So is it a choice to subscribe to a philosophy that promotes social division and hatred. Consider the decisions of, say, hundreds of thousands of Oregon Christians to revoke the civil rights of gays in the state: they're only being hypocrites for denying people self-determination.

    I'm not going to tell you to reserve your judgements until you go out and have gay sex; that's kind of a ridiculous standard. But I would hope that you would be a little more tolerant, trusting, and accepting of people in practice than your rhetoric indicates.

    Or could I instead ask that you demonstrate the consistency of psychological damage that results directly from the fact of homosexual parentage? I honestly think that when you enumerate it, you'll find two relevant trends: those damages that are common to all families in various manifestations, and those damages that come only from a person's choice to damage another. In other words, a gay-parented family will have many family stresses common with their heterosexual neighbors, as well as those family stresses that are induced by those who would choose to create stress, such as the homophobic bigots who would look a person in the eye and say that the latter individual does not deserve to be a member of society based on issues that the former will not discuss openly. (To this last point, let me invoke again Mr Ramsdell, who once published a list of sexual fetishes including coprophilia, watersports, rimming, and other practices in the 1992 voters' guide; only the homophobes were shocked by the list--they were the only ones who it had not occurred to that heterosexuals do these things too, and it was generally held to be a non-issue since what everyone was worried about was the gays.)

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Thats telling it!! like it is..

    I hate biggots, anywere from being a biggot about race, creed, or gender, and of course homosexuals. I've find that these people lack education, compassion, tolerance, reason, & logic.

    They choose to hurt, redicule, discriminate & at the same time they feel a sence of rightiousness! as if they were the judges of how society should be!!.

    Prety much how some these theists view religious choices, apparently we've got that too!!. Discrimination of creeds, beliefs, and down right hatred to non-believers (atheists)!

    Is that about right?.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    I tend to think so, but ...

    I tend to think so, Godless, but I measure it in degrees. When the religious righteously hurt, ridicule, and discriminate, it is based on a stake than runs deeper than any other. These people have been brainwashed into accepting that deeper stake.

    A blatant example is the assertion sometimes floated at Sciforums that the Communist persecution of religions was an atheist-sponsored atrocity. Well, let's take a look at it: Marxism asserts that religion is the opiate of the masses. Take everything bad claimed about opiates, and there you have the Marxist assessment: addictive, debilitating, and socially detrimental. Furthermore, one of these opiates (Christianity) makes claims of transcension; the Christian transcenscion of boundaries: empires, families, &c .... Add that to Christian transgressions of the laws--contraband, rabble-rousing, &c.--and an image starts resolving. Christianity appeared a political opposition, and one who by proxy of their commitment to God and salvation, hold their cause to be more valuable than their lives. How do you reason with someone whose sense of reason has transcended reasonability? Of course the Bolsheviks mowed down the churches: it doesn't make it right, but such considerations do shed some light on the evil atheist conspiracy to raise communism solely as an effort to destroy religions.

    But that deeper stake: one can say, "Relent your position or I'll kill you." What happens when one is brainwashed to believe that better things await after death? The stake of someone's life is less significant; some will even thank the tyrant for speeding them along their journey to be with God. (This is important to consider whenever one mentions Roman persecution of Christians at the Colossea; Ignatius of Antioch, for instance, writes that he is pleased to be martyred, and that his tyrants are doing him a favor. Origen, I believe, had written once that it was his shame that he wasn't martyred by the lions.)

    And as we examine this device throughout history, we need to scale it down a little. On the rhetorical level, beneath the historical lights, the seeming fanatacism that implies Christians will rush headlong into cruelty in order to facilitate their salvation, tames itself somewhat.

    Due to the pervasive presence of post-Christian morals in American society, at least, we should note the manner in which the prejudices that hurt, ridicule, and discriminate are not inherently intentional. One can go their entire life believing in the benefit of an action without ever considering its ramifications for fear of "questioning God". Take the wife-beater who is also one of the flock: authoritarian conditioning tells him this is right; this is the way the proper people in his life behaved, ergo it must be proper. The prejudice against women need not be expressed as it was in 2 Timothy, but can simply exist without a person realizing it.

    And that's the hard thing with religion: how many people can you point out a paradox of behavior to and see the light click on: "Oh, I hadn't realized ...." This doesn't happen with most Christians, at least--and I should start broadening this back out to theism in general. I'd rather limit myself to the redemptive religions, but very few religions omit an afterlife, so make of that what you will. The reason this doesn't seem to happen with most Christians is that their principles are given them by God: the stakes run beyond this life. They have no obligation to abandon a close principle for the betterment of humanity: what happens in this life is unimportant compared to Heaven.

    And so when I approach the bigotries of the redemptive theist, I do so bearing in mind that it's not the prejudices themselves, but the choice to make them into bigotries by choosing an unflexible, divisive racketeer to award their allegiances.

    I think the compassion, tolerance, reason & logic will come with education. Right now I'd assert that most theists don't understand the reasons for their faith, and that's what makes it so dangerous. Do what thou wilt is perfectly acceptable as long as one makes it sound like the Bible at least doesn't directly condemn it. (This is one of the reasons, I'd assert, that our Christian posters so rarely recognize the difference between the book and the people who believe it: nobody wants to admit how much liberty the faith takes with God's word.)

    Hold the religion responsible, though, not the poor f--kers who never have a chance to escape it from the moment they rip their mothers open. If a theist openly refuses reason, I encourage you to keep in mind that this is expected. When that theist becomes hostile, at least then nobody can say you didn't try. And then you can feel better about laying into them.

    In the long run, I think there's a functional difference, too: instead of despising someone for the label of Christianity, one can despise another for the choice to be despicable. For instance, if we look at my current fight with KalvinB: I can despise him for being a Christian, or I can despise his hypocritical abuse of people. In the case of the former, I'm picking an issue with an idea whose best measure is perhaps the fact that nobody who believes it understands it. In the case of the latter, there is at least the substantive issue of his conduct toward our posters, and the juxtaposition of that against his claim to be Christian. One need not despise the label, merely know what it implies, and not be surprised when that implication is realized.

    Such theism is dangerous at least, and annoying to boot. But it must be overcome with something better, not merely replaced by the same old with a new label. Don't go after the theism per se, but rather the arrogance a theist assumes with their theism. On the one, you're striking agaisnt the actual problem; to the other, the residual has an effect on the theist.

    Thanks much, sir ... you've given me an excellent platform from which to leap screaming into the quagmire.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Salient Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    WOW! that was a long reply. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

    I'll be straightforward. The point is, as I've said before:
    Men were created for women, vice versa. Together, they reproduce. Thus, the human population will continue to grow and humankind will continue. It's a cycle. It doesn't work otherwise. It's logic! It's not about being prejudice or discriminatory, it's about being realistic. To be a homosexual is against nature.

    Human was created by God. The woman was taken out of the man's ribs. Thus, Eve was created for Adam. It was not STEVE created for Adam!

    You may choose not to believe it BUT I do for very good reasons. IF you would like to know why, you are more than welcome to ask me. Look around and it's all out there. Think about it.
     
  21. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Let me get this off my chest!

    How would you act if you were gay and weer raised in a family with such "natural" and "righteous" ideas that they would do anything to "protect" they child from "becoming" homosexual?
    I know some gay people (some are friends , some are not) and those who are gay in such an overt and somewhat annoying way come from such families as I described above.

    Furthermore, I wonder: how many of you have thought about what it must be like to read this thread if you are homosexual yourself?
    I do not have an opinion on gay people. I do not have an opinion on people between 35 and 40 years of age. I do not have an opinion on Arabs, Chinese, Europeans, vegetarians, etc.(well sometimes I play I disapprove of vegetarianism but everybody knows it's just playing).

    What's the issue? You are born the way you are.
    I am a man, blue-green eyes, dark curly hair, somewhat dyslexic (which explains my lousy typing), long, heterosexual, somewhat large hands and feet. Most of you differ from me on some, if not all, mentioned traits.

    A question to the religious "I think it is just not right to be gay"-sayers:
    Why would God create homosexuals if it were not right?
     
  22. Salient Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    God never created homosexuals. NO where in the Bible does it say that "In the beginning god created gay people". Homosexuality like other things such as adultery, stealing, lying is a form of human sin. It's an act of human rebellion.

    The world is not perfect and God created it that way so that us, mere humans would acknowledge his great power and control over us. However, in doing so he has created suffering and sin. We have tor realize just how sinful we are, so that we may acknowledge God's undying love and immense GRACE.

    It's not an easy concept to understand and sometime it requires more than just facts of the world. To really understand, you need a little more than just logic. YOu need FAITH.
     
  23. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    I have faith in that being completely the opposit of REAL Christianity.
     

Share This Page