JCC Why isn't Gay Adoption a bigger political issue?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Condition2SQ, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    First of all, I want to preface this by saying that I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality and I'm not just saying that as some token innoculation ("I have black friends but..."). I'm just genuinely confused as to why the topic of gay couples adopting children doesn't have more salience in the political discourse. In my view, actually, it's far, far more important than gay marriage is. Aside from the esoteric debate about to what degree marriage is a religious or secular practice, it's still a relationship between two consenting adults. Ethically, that's all that matters. With adoption the dynamic is a bit different. A favorite among anti-gay marriage advocates is that "it's not natural". Well, the fact that men sometimes become sexually attracted to men means that, in fact, homosexuality is natural, however perverse you find it, so that argument is ridiculous. But in this case, it's simply a fact that it's not natural that a child not have a Mom.

    Again, I am not on some self-righteous crusade; indeed, the reason I am posting this is because I want to hear contrary opinions expressed so that I can think about the issue more clearly. And I can anticipate some of the counter-arguments already (social concept of "gender" and how it relates to actual sex; the ubiquity of single parent families, etc.). I just want to have an honest discussion about this. As it is now, I certainly agree that a loving, committed gay couple is a better option than nothing at all, but I think straight couples should be first in the pecking order, as it were.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Jan 28, 2013
  2. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    Any people who raise their kids in a loving, supportive environment get my support.
  3. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    I would like to point out that by your logic, being attracted to animals, children, and women's shoes is natural. So, if by natural, you mean, it exists in nature, then sure, yeah, it's natural. Everything, including shooting heroin with dirty needles, is natural.
  4. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    I'm glad we have that definition clarified.
    V-2 likes this.
  5. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    I really hate the logic some people use to be against gay adoption. "Gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids!" Sure, because straight parents always raise straight kids. Right....
    Jedi Merkurian and V-2 like this.
  6. Aytee-Aytee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2008
    star 5
    Because homosexual couples adopting babies are not a sexy attention-grabbing headline. It's almost as blase as teachers who let their students run a train on them.


    Now when you get a football coach touching little boys, or a bunch of dead kids riddled with bullets....that's REAL NEWS baby! And real news sells advertising space!
  7. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    I think, more offensive than that, is the implication that homosexual children are less valuable or worthwhile than heterosexual children.
    V-2 likes this.
  8. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Children deserve what ever parents they can get. Having them is better than not having them.
    Jedi Merkurian and Juliet316 like this.
  9. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    Bull****.

    [IMG]
    Point Given likes this.
  10. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Adoption is definitely a big issue, but it's smaller than Marriage because only a few states have banned gay couples from adopting.

    From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States
  11. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    :rolleyes:

    Degenerate scum bags who abuse kids are not parents. Their filth.

    But considering my statement which assumes the parents in question are actually parents, meaning they love and take care of their children, I stand by it. I challenge you to find me a child who would be better off living on the streets by his or herself than with parents that love him/her.
  12. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    Josef loved his daughter.
  13. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    I work in a homeless shelter for kids aged 11-22... I can show you plenty of them.
    Last edited by harpuah, Jan 28, 2013
    V-2 and jp-30 like this.
  14. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    No he didn't and if you think that you have no idea what love or parenting is.

    If struggling to survive on the street is better than having parents who love them and take care of them then I don't know what to tell you.


    A parent loves and takes care of their child. They do not harm, abuse, mistreat them in any way mentally, physically, or sexually. They provide for them and raise them in a way that allows them to grow into adults. THAT is what parents do. If kids are better off without that then I give up on this world.
  15. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    Wow... all it takes is reality for you to give up on the world?
    Ender_Sai likes this.
  16. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    You're probably right.
    V-2 likes this.
  17. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    You've got to be kidding me. Having legitimate loving parents who can take care of them IS BAD for some kids?
  18. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    Except, that's not what you said...

    V-2 likes this.
  19. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    What if heroin addicts legitimately love their kids and can take care of them?

    Look, we all know what you're trying to say, you're just making things too black and white. The real world doesn't work that way, and there are 'legitimate' situations where kids may be better off removed from their parents.
    V-2 and Ender_Sai like this.
  20. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    And I stand by that, but if you require further clarification here goes.

    Children deserve whatever parents(sentient beings who love and provide for them according to the accepted cultural norms of society and do not abuse, mistreat them in any way be it mentally, physically, or sexually, put the needs of the children before their wants and desires, are capable of providing the basic daily necessities for them) they can get.

    If you know what I'm saying then why make a big deal about it? Do I need to always need to make every statement look like it's been written by a team of lawyers and taking into account every single possible exception when I'm making a general point?

    And IT IS a black and white issue if it's either 'children having parents per the definition I provided' and 'living on the street alone' Which is the point I was making.
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    What if the children are orphaned and taken in by a billionaire to help him fight crime? Is that ok?

    Or, what if a 10 year old, born out of wedlock to a father who clearly has issues, and a mother who is a professional killer, is trained as a sidekick to his father? yes, the kid's a total asshat, and needs to be smacked around, but is that ok?
    Last edited by Ender_Sai, Jan 29, 2013
  22. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    No, but clearly there's some scope for you to take the feedback on board and consider how you're delivering your messages?
    V-2 and jp-30 like this.
  23. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Getting back to the original topic: If a gay man or woman or couple feels that they are capable of raising a child, then I don't see any reason why you'd want to bar them from adopting one (besides some of the same reasons - some of them bull**** that are used to deny straight couples/people from adopting a child)
    Last edited by Juliet316, Jan 29, 2013
    Summer Dreamer, V-2 and GenAntilles like this.
  24. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    Because a good proportion of what you say is ill thought out cliche at best, and incredibly offensive at worst.

    The initial point, the backtrack, the redefinition, or the revisionist history of this thread?
    Last edited by jp-30, Jan 29, 2013
    V-2 and Ender_Sai like this.
  25. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    I think the point you are missing is that love is not a requisite for being a parent. And the unfortunate reality is a lot of parents do not fit your idealized definition. Whether you feel parents who abuse, neglect etc their children are scum or not, they are still parents.
    Last edited by Spider-Fan, Jan 29, 2013
    V-2 likes this.