Issue: Personal Liberty: Homosexual adoption

[SeanEdwards]

Ron Paul has stated that he supports all voluntary arrangements between individuals, and prefers the government having no role in defining marriage.

However, what's less clear is his position on non-traditional family structures and adoption, and whether these non-traditional families should have the same status as heterosexual couples in regards to adoption and child-rearing.

Should two gay men be deemed equally suitable adoptive parents as a heterosexual couple? What about a polygamous family? Or a polyfidelitous communal association? Does government have a role at all in protecting orphan children or managing adoption?

What do you think?

[micahnelson]

Why are people adopting homosexuals?

[AnotherAmerican]

Why are people adopting homosexuals?


When you adopt a child at a young age, you have no way of knowing whether the child will turn out to be homosexual or not. Maybe they needed one to complete the set?

[BravoSix]

Why are people adopting homosexuals?

It's an off-shoot of the Adopt-an-Iowan campaign. Homosexuals vote too.

[SwordOfShannarah]

Ron Paul has stated that he supports all voluntary arrangements between individuals, and prefers the government having no role in defining marriage.

However, what's less clear is his position on non-traditional family structures and adoption, and whether these non-traditional families should have the same status as heterosexual couples in regards to adoption and child-rearing.

Should two gay men be deemed equally suitable adoptive parents as a heterosexual couple? What about a polygamous family? Or a polyfidelitous communal association? Does government have a role at all in protecting orphan children or managing adoption?

What do you think?

I'd have to say Ron Paul would say this is up to the states! ha.

Constitutionally there is nothing that I know of that would allow society to discriminate in this way.. unless there is a homosexuality clause in the constitution I don't know about. If they want to argue it's bad for society they would have to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty. You can't just say something is harmful because it's different and if you are going to take away someones rights you need to prove there is harm done. Not proving harm is done is how we ended up making marijuana illegal. I know a lot of people would be tempted to say no to this, but it's American to support their rights.

[Churchill2004]

Ron Paul did vote against gay adoption in DC, right? (Congress has Constitutional authority over DC, the 'DC Government' such as it is, has only those powers granted to it by Congress)

As a full-out libertarian, my answer is 'get the government out of it'. As long as the government is involved, however, I think they should certainly only place children with families that can properly raise the child. I'm not sure if I'd agree, though, that homosexuals couples (or single people, for that matter) are incapable of properly raising a child.

I'd certainly like to hear Dr. Paul explain his vote on adoption in DC, but at the same time I know that he would say that the feds shouldn't be involved in formulating any sort of nation-wide policy on the issue.

[SeanEdwards]

I'd have to say Ron Paul would say this is up to the states! ha.

Constitutionally there is nothing that I know of that would allow society to discriminate in this way.. unless there is a homosexuality clause in the constitution I don't know about. If they want to argue it's bad for society they would have to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty. You can't just say something is harmful because it's different and if you are going to take away someones rights you need to prove there is harm done. Not proving harm is done is how we ended up making marijuana illegal. I know a lot of people would be tempted to say no to this, but it's American to support their rights.

Organizations that administer adoption have typically preferred placing children with presumably stable married (hetero) couples. Single parents have a much more difficult time adopting, even if they have the financial means to support the child. So, there is already an element of discrimination in the process, based on a notion of trying to provide a good environment for the child.

And this is not really addressing the full scope of the question. If all voluntary arrangements between adults are permissible, then you can have all kinds of 'weird' families popping up. I used to know a bunch of people that had formed a kind of commune where essentially a whole bunch of men and women all lived as a giant married family. They were sexually promiscuous within their 'tribe' but supposedly not with people outside of it. They had rules that insisted that the men had to get a vasectomy before joining the tribe, because they recognized that raising children in such an environment could be problematic. When there's 24 parents, who has custody? What if someone decides to leave the commune, do they get to take a kid with them? These are valid concerns, and in the case of placing adoptive children, the adoption agency presumably does have some responsibility for looking out for the best interests of the child.

My own opinion is that nature requires a man and women to procreate, and that therefore adoption agencies should have a preference for trying to place children in traditional (man/woman) family units. However, if a person already has a child, and then later forms a non-traditional family, then the ties of blood should override these considerations.

I'm all for allowing people to form whatever voluntary relationships they like, but I do think the state may have some role in protecting the rights of orphan minors. I do not think that a commune of 24 men and women, or a gay biker club, are equally suitable for the raising of children as that familial unit that is required by nature for the creation of children.

Along these lines, I'm not real keen on two lesbians getting artificial insemination in order to reproduce. Or single women for that matter. Biology demands that a single male and single female are required to create the offspring, and to me, that natural law implies that children need both a mother and father.

This is a personal issue for me as well. My mother was a single-parent, and I have no relationship whatsoever with my father. And that's come to bother me. I think a lot of people who had 'normal' family upbringings don't really understand what it's like to have an abnormal family structure, and they therefore regard any complaints about it as insignificant. But never knowing my dad is not insignificant to me. I can't know how my life might have been different, but I do feel I was cheated, or victimized, in a way.

[hard@work]

I think we have 50 states in this country all with the power to make these decisions.

[jorlowitz]

Thanks for that really honest and balanced post about your thoughts on this issue. I think adoption is a very complicated political situation which challenges the notion that limited government is sufficient to protect minors; for even if their lives are not at risk by non-traditional adoptions, some would say their development is.

It was particularly revealing to hear you describe your childhood. I wonder, still, if the lack in a family is necessarily about the number or gender of parents? What do you think a child raised in a two-father or two-mother family can't get, besides a traditional experience? This is perhaps a tough question, and feel free not to respond, but might you have preferred to have another parent (regardless of gender) rather than just one?

I admit I'm in that two-parent, traditional, hetero-sexual family mold, so I'm not sure if there's a bias to what I'm suggesting. Still, it seems to me that heterosexual families can be horrifically damaging or dysfunctional, single parent families could be warm and nurturing, and two-father or two-mother families could span that same spectrum. In short, I see the natural law suggestion as rooted in some pretty reasonable facts about biology but not necessarily about child-rearing. Any thoughts?

Jake

[SwordOfShannarah]

Organizations that administer adoption have typically preferred placing children with presumably stable married (hetero) couples. Single parents have a much more difficult time adopting, even if they have the financial means to support the child. So, there is already an element of discrimination in the process, based on a notion of trying to provide a good environment for the child.

And this is not really addressing the full scope of the question. If all voluntary arrangements between adults are permissible, then you can have all kinds of 'weird' families popping up. I used to know a bunch of people that had formed a kind of commune where essentially a whole bunch of men and women all lived as a giant married family. They were sexually promiscuous within their 'tribe' but supposedly not with people outside of it. They had rules that insisted that the men had to get a vasectomy before joining the tribe, because they recognized that raising children in such an environment could be problematic. When there's 24 parents, who has custody? What if someone decides to leave the commune, do they get to take a kid with them? These are valid concerns, and in the case of placing adoptive children, the adoption agency presumably does have some responsibility for looking out for the best interests of the child.

Well for starters I strongly feel that it could be argued in court (if it got that far) that this environment would be harmful to the child. I think a lawyer could argue this and win, so this is not something to worry about. I do not think it can be proven or should be assumed that homosexuals as parents would be harmful to a child. I also think it should be noted that you just compared a homosexual couple to an orgy cult of 24 members. I also think it's odd to use an example where the tribes men get vasectomies to avoid pregnancy as adoption candidates. But hey, that's just me.. :p


My own opinion is that nature requires a man and women to procreate,

True, but does it require a man and a woman to give a child love? Lets keep in mind that this is a child who will be raised in an orphanage otherwise.



and that therefore adoption agencies should have a preference for trying to place children in traditional (man/woman) family units. However, if a person already has a child, and then later forms a non-traditional family, then the ties of blood should override these considerations.

I'm all for allowing people to form whatever voluntary relationships they like, but I do think the state may have some role in protecting the rights of orphan minors. I do not think that a commune of 24 men and women, or a gay biker club, are equally suitable for the raising of children as that familial unit that is required by nature for the creation of children.

And lets not forget a harangue of cyborg bi-sexual lesbian sluts with pickle shaped noses. We wouldn't want them rasin no kids neither none..


Along these lines, I'm not real keen on two lesbians getting artificial insemination in order to reproduce. Or single women for that matter. Biology demands that a single male and single female are required to create the offspring, and to me, that natural law implies that children need both a mother and father.

This is a personal issue for me as well. My mother was a single-parent, and I have no relationship whatsoever with my father. And that's come to bother me. I think a lot of people who had 'normal' family upbringings don't really understand what it's like to have an abnormal family structure, and they therefore regard any complaints about it as insignificant. But never knowing my dad is not insignificant to me. I can't know how my life might have been different, but I do feel I was cheated, or victimized, in a way.

Well well, that's interesting. I've never met my father either. So doesn't that support then the idea of letting the ability to love be the guiding factor here? I went on to be adopted by family, but I often think what would have happened without them. Would I have been ok with two gay guys as parents? Rather than none at all I'd have to say yes without question. I mean ideally sure it's best to be raised in as "normal" a situation as possible, but when you consider that all people are capable of love no matter what their personal characteristics.. and when you consider how much children need love.. isn't it the right thing to do? It would be a horrible and lonely thing to be raised by an institution.

[Syren123]

Adoption should be an APOLITICAL issue. The Federal govt should keep its santimonious nose out of it.

What works here in CA - where i know several gay couples who've adopted children and it's working out FINE, btw - may not fly in Iowa. No need to let children who need homes with two parents (people) who love them go to the dismal foster care revolving door in places with too many unwanted children - like California.

Best left to states. I don't want the likes of Trent Lott and Lindsay Graham telling my gay friends they're not worthy of raising children.

[SeanEdwards]

It was particularly revealing to hear you describe your childhood. I wonder, still, if the lack in a family is necessarily about the number or gender of parents? What do you think a child raised in a two-father or two-mother family can't get, besides a traditional experience? This is perhaps a tough question, and feel free not to respond, but might you have preferred to have another parent (regardless of gender) rather than just one?

It's a hypothetical that's difficult to answer. Whatever I feel about the matter is colored by who I am, so it's virtually impossible to be truly objective. For my situation I think what bothers me the most is specifically not having a male father figure. I didn't lack for material needs as a child. My mom worked really hard to provide for us and she had some help from her mom. But, at least from my perspective as a male, I think there might be a real potential value to having an adult male caregiver playing the role of dad.

Of course this is all contingent on events. I'm sure there's plenty of kids in abusive households that would be better off without having a bad father around. But, I'm thinking that ideally, kids are probably better off with a traditional family arrangement. But I don't know, I'm in the middle of this thing, a generation of fatherless sons. It's hard to step back and say one thing is better than another.

I have had a kind of disturbing notion about all this. I'm middle aged now, and I have no family of my own and I've never been married. I've begun to wonder if maybe the fact that as a child since I had no direct experience of a male role-model as a familial caregiver I may have missed out on a crucial influence in my development that would have made me interested in becoming a father myself.

It's a wierd thought, because it's not as if I want a family. I really don't. I'm pretty happy without the responsibility. But I'm wondering if I'm kind of broken in a way, without even realizing it. I hear people say that raising kids is such an important experience in their lives, and I like kids ok, it's just that I don't feel I got the "make family" programming or something. It's disturbing for me to wonder if something I thought was a choice (not raising a family), was actually predetermined. And of course I'll never know the answer.

In terms of policy and governance I think there can be a strong argument made for the state acting as a guardian for those minors who don't otherwise have anyone to look out for their interests. I guess I see that as a last resort, but there has to be some way to address the reality of abandoned babies, and orphans and so forth. For those children that need such protection or adoption placement, I've got to say that the state is totally justified in preferring to place that kid with a traditional family, and should not look upon non-traditional families as equally suitable. I know that sounds bigoted, and I'll probably get flamed for being so insensitive to homosexuals, but that's how I feel. I should point out though that I'm expressing that bigotry towards all non-traditional family arrangements, not just homosexual ones. I've come to the conclusion that governance on this matter should strive to reflect the natural law, and so I'm prejudiced against anything else.

Having government involved should totally be a last resort, and as I think about it I've got to respect the right of people to arrange for IVF fertilization so lesbian couples can have children. Nobody is being forced into the arrangement, and basically I figure the parents have a right to try psuedo-experimental child rearing techniques if they want. I have a suspicion that some of these arrangements might be bad for the children, but I think my only legitimate response to that is persuasion.

[SeanEdwards]

Well for starters I strongly feel that it could be argued in court (if it got that far) that this environment would be harmful to the child. I think a lawyer could argue this and win, so this is not something to worry about. I do not think it can be proven or should be assumed that homosexuals as parents would be harmful to a child. I also think it should be noted that you just compared a homosexual couple to an orgy cult of 24 members. I also think it's odd to use an example where the tribes men get vasectomies to avoid pregnancy as adoption candidates. But hey, that's just me.. :p


Well, what's the basis of making that determination that this or that family arrangement is harmful? The orgy cult people were nice folks, mostly. :D They were different, but they weren't irresponsible, and they were damn good capitalists. I met them because they hired me to work at the multimillion dollar computer business they had built. I think a very good case could be made to say that this particular voluntary grouping of orgy cult capitalists could have been much better parents than other individuals.



Well well, that's interesting. I've never met my father either. So doesn't that support then the idea of letting the ability to love be the guiding factor here? I went on to be adopted by family, but I often think what would have happened without them. Would I have been ok with two gay guys as parents? Rather than none at all I'd have to say yes without question. I mean ideally sure it's best to be raised in as "normal" a situation as possible, but when you consider that all people are capable of love no matter what their personal characteristics.. and when you consider how much children need love.. isn't it the right thing to do? It would be a horrible and lonely thing to be raised by an institution.

Would an institution necessarily be that bad? :D Imagine battalions of babies crawling in formation to the mess hall! :p I didn't think there was orphanages any more. I thought kids got placed in foster homes.

[Electrostatic]

I believe this poll could have been worded better, seeing as it asks for our opinion on the matter itself (not specifically the regulation of it), and "I don't think government should have any role in this matter." could be a valid view in addition to any of the other views.

[Brutus]

The person giving the child up for adoption could select an adoption agency with whatever requirements she wants. Those requirements would then be unassailable as a matter of contract. If the relinquishing parent contracts with an orphanage which only adopts to Hell's Angels, then that settles the question.

Government can't keep a degenerate culture from self-destructing, and efforts to do so merely keep the negativie feedback from properly correcting the culture.

When one considers the number of people eager to adopt (I know several married couples in my small circle of friends going thousands of miles overseas to adopt) vs the supply, the stalking horse of Little Orphan Annie's orphanage as the only alternative to adoption agencies being forced to adopt to anyone with a pulse is pretty funny. Also, privately run orphanages can be successful when run as a ministry, if not optimal.

[Brutus]

"It's a hypothetical that's difficult to answer."

No, it really isn't. Want to see what happens to boys raised by women only without the cultural expectation of fathers? Look at any inner city area where fathers aren't present. Sure, some of them make it, but it is a much smaller fraction.

Boys without the cultural norm of fathers see no place for themselves in a family and hence no lasting significance, so they become pure nihilistic predators. Women become the enemy to be taken advantage of sexually and abandoned, rather than someone to partner with to form a lasting bond with a permanent significance via children. Without the reward for responsible behavior of a wife and children there is little reason to go through the disciplining required to gain employable job skills.

Ultimately, though, these failing cultures are only propped up by stealing from the successful cultures. And that is why you get the antagonism from the traditional families -- they are made to pay the costs for themselves and others.

[Brutus]

The Constitutional answer is, naturally, that the Federal government has no authority to do anything with adoption laws. It is exclusively the jurisdiction of the states.

[SeanEdwards]

The person giving the child up for adoption could select an adoption agency with whatever requirements she wants. Those requirements would then be unassailable as a matter of contract. If the relinquishing parent contracts with an orphanage which only adopts to Hell's Angels, then that settles the question.


Works for me. :D

[SeanEdwards]

The Constitutional answer is, naturally, that the Federal government has no authority to do anything with adoption laws. It is exclusively the jurisdiction of the states.

Certainly.

But, the role of the state government in this case was what I was more interested in, and hearing people's views on the subject.

Most Ron Paul supporters, with their libertarian orientation, are amenable to gay civil unions/marriage, whatever you call it. I just think that many of them had not thoroughly considered the implications in terms of child-rearing, and the socially sensitive topic of non-traditional families and adoption rights.

[Douglass Bartley]

Why are people adopting homosexuals?

Too funny.

[angelatc]

This is a personal issue for me as well. My mother was a single-parent, and I have no relationship whatsoever with my father. And that's come to bother me. I think a lot of people who had 'normal' family upbringings don't really understand what it's like to have an abnormal family structure, and they therefore regard any complaints about it as insignificant. But never knowing my dad is not insignificant to me. I can't know how my life might have been different, but I do feel I was cheated, or victimized, in a way.


Hugs. HOwever, even those of us from the "security" of those stereotypical 2 parent homes that look like utopia to some have our scars too. Different scars, but not necessarily any less deep.

The most we can hope for is a few people that love us. If a child can get that from a grown-up who holds a job and can stay out of jail, then it's all good.

[Nathan Pannbacker]

I come from a single parent home - my father raised me. I know my mother though. She couldn't have done better. Having them both together would have been even worse. I am glad to be out of my home and away from my family.

As for the question, I don't think sexual orientation is a valid "broad brush" criterion for evaluating a family's stability. Yet at the same time I do not feel this is a valid judgement for the federal government to make. Therefore, though I answered with the first option, I believe this is properly a state issue.

[SwordOfShannarah]

Well, what's the basis of making that determination that this or that family arrangement is harmful? The orgy cult people were nice folks, mostly. :D They were different, but they weren't irresponsible, and they were damn good capitalists. I met them because they hired me to work at the multimillion dollar computer business they had built. I think a very good case could be made to say that this particular voluntary grouping of orgy cult capitalists could have been much better parents than other individuals.

Well if that's the case and on this individual basis it can be shown they could provide a good family then I would be behind it. The way you were describing it before it did not sound like they would be good. But again this is a matter for a court of family law to decide on a case by case basis. It's not for us to have a general blanket law restricting the rights of gays to raise children simply because they are gay.




Would an institution necessarily be that bad? :D Imagine battalions of babies crawling in formation to the mess hall! :p I didn't think there was orphanages any more. I thought kids got placed in foster homes.

It is worse than a family yes. Foster homes are often homes that are in it for the money. Children are constantly changing families. YES- absolutely it is best for a child to have a life long relationship and NO these institutions are better than the streets but they are not better than a family. Gay or otherwise. Children need love and the institutions do not provide it. There are exceptions as some foster families adopt permanently but overall it's a lonely way to grow up.

[SeanEdwards]

Well if that's the case and on this individual basis it can be shown they could provide a good family then I would be behind it. The way you were describing it before it did not sound like they would be good. But again this is a matter for a court of family law to decide on a case by case basis. It's not for us to have a general blanket law restricting the rights of gays to raise children simply because they are gay.


My concern about the subject is not so much about the sexual orientation of the parents as it is about providing male and female parental role-models so that the kid has a chance to develop "normal" expectations for their own reproduction and relationships. If the child is deprived of either parental gender, then how can they form their own normal expectations for what a family should be?

Single-mother families have exploded all over the country. Isn't it possible that all these women exercising their rights to raise sons by themselves have in the process reduced the probability of their sons forming families of their own? The media likes to blame this rise of single-motherhood all on deadbeat dads, but I'm seriously wondering if the rise doesn't have more to do with all these men running around who just do not see themselves as nurturing father figures, because they did not experience a nurturing father figure during their early development.

So, my objection has nothing really to do with gayness, or love, it's all about providing a develomental framework for the child's own reproductive choices that recognizes the significance of the biological requirements of our reproduction. If a baby boy has two great gay fathers, where is he supposed to learn that his future role in life, in terms of reproduction, should involve forming a committed relationship with a woman? Is he supposed to pick this up from TV? What he is directly experiencing is the reality that human reproduction and family structure requires two homosexual men. See the problem? These gay parents may be fabulous loving people, and rich. But they're not creating a normal, human biology based, developmental environment for their children.

[Brutus]

"wondering if the rise doesn't have more to do with all these men running around who just do not see themselves as nurturing father figures"

Exactly. And what are the alternatives? Most of them aren't very socially constructive.

[Nefertiti]

As for the question, I don't think sexual orientation is a valid "broad brush" criterion for evaluating a family's stability.

What does sexual orientation have to do with childrearing at all unless the parents are having sex with their children?

It's not the issue of sexual orientation that is troubling about two men or two women raising a child, it's that the child is not exposed to both sexes in the home. In our lives we must deal with people of the opposite sex and a child should be prepared for that at home if at all possible.

An appropriate set of parents consists of a man and a woman, regardless of who they like to sleep with. Whether you believe in science or religion, evolution or creation, it takes a man and a woman to make a child and so that must be what is best for them as parents.

I'm wondering how Ron Paul's views on the rights of the unborn child would extend to the rights of the young children who can't make decisions for themselves.

[Nefertiti]

Foster homes are often homes that are in it for the money. Children are constantly changing families.

This is why I think it is BS that people say they must go to China or Korea or wherever to adopt a child. There are so many foster kids already in this country who those people should be looking at first.

[SwordOfShannarah]

My concern about the subject is not so much about the sexual orientation of the parents as it is about providing male and female parental role-models so that the kid has a chance to develop "normal" expectations for their own reproduction and relationships. If the child is deprived of either parental gender, then how can they form their own normal expectations for what a family should be?

Single-mother families have exploded all over the country. Isn't it possible that all these women exercising their rights to raise sons by themselves have in the process reduced the probability of their sons forming families of their own? The media likes to blame this rise of single-motherhood all on deadbeat dads, but I'm seriously wondering if the rise doesn't have more to do with all these men running around who just do not see themselves as nurturing father figures, because they did not experience a nurturing father figure during their early development.

So, my objection has nothing really to do with gayness, or love, it's all about providing a develomental framework for the child's own reproductive choices that recognizes the significance of the biological requirements of our reproduction. If a baby boy has two great gay fathers, where is he supposed to learn that his future role in life, in terms of reproduction, should involve forming a committed relationship with a woman? Is he supposed to pick this up from TV? What he is directly experiencing is the reality that human reproduction and family structure requires two homosexual men. See the problem? These gay parents may be fabulous loving people, and rich. But they're not creating a normal, human biology based, developmental environment for their children.


This still doesn't work as an argument. How does the child learn role model attributes when they have NO parents? At least with 2 gay fathers they can learn one gender role- better than none. Sexual orientation is not learned, if the adopted child is straight the attraction to the opposite sex will be natural, it's worked for tens of thousands of years that way. No I don't see the problem.

[SwordOfShannarah]

What does sexual orientation have to do with childrearing at all unless the parents are having sex with their children?

It's not the issue of sexual orientation that is troubling about two men or two women raising a child, it's that the child is not exposed to both sexes in the home. In our lives we must deal with people of the opposite sex and a child should be prepared for that at home if at all possible.

An appropriate set of parents consists of a man and a woman, regardless of who they like to sleep with. Whether you believe in science or religion, evolution or creation, it takes a man and a woman to make a child and so that must be what is best for them as parents.

I'm wondering how Ron Paul's views on the rights of the unborn child would extend to the rights of the young children who can't make decisions for themselves.

But no one is arguing it isn't best for the child to have a man woman parent relationship. They are saying that if one is not available a same sex parenting relationship is acceptable, because the alternative is no parents at all.

[SeanEdwards]

This still doesn't work as an argument. How does the child learn role model attributes when they have NO parents?


Watching TV? Don't form them at all?

Keep in mind this all about probabilities and not absolute outcomes. I think it's pretty well documented, that statistically, children from traditional family arrangements have better life outcomes than unplaced orphans and children of single parents.



At least with 2 gay fathers they can learn one gender role- better than none. Sexual orientation is not learned, if the adopted child is straight the attraction to the opposite sex will be natural, it's worked for tens of thousands of years that way. No I don't see the problem.

You're asserting a false dilemma. There's plenty of traditional families looking to adopt. They're going abroad to do it. This isn't about giving kids homes, it's about people who can't naturally reproduce demanding the right to reproduce. It's about individuals claiming they have a right to reproduce, in defiance of the natural laws of their own biology, and without regard to the effect that their choice has on the upbringing of the kid.

Sure, some kids are deprived of parents naturally, and have been throughout history. But the numbers of those unfortunate children throughout history were insignificant compared to the numbers of children today being deprived of a mother or a father because of the choices of self-absorbed parents.

And again you seem focused on sexuality. I'm not saying gay parents will make a kid gay. I don't know anything about that either way. I'm saying that the kid is not getting exposed to parental role-models compatible with the kid's own reproductive biology. This is an inferior arrangement to the traditional male/female parent setup. Sorry if that offends gay folks, but it's the truth. Two lesbians can never be a dad for their kid. No matter how nice or caring they are. I fully support the rights of gay people to do their thing, but I'm just expressing my opinion that if you choose that lifestyle you probably should think twice before embarking on raising children.

[SwordOfShannarah]

Watching TV? Don't form them at all?

Keep in mind this all about probabilities and not absolute outcomes. I think it's pretty well documented, that statistically, children from traditional family arrangements have better life outcomes than unplaced orphans and children of single parents.



You're asserting a false dilemma. There's plenty of traditional families looking to adopt. They're going abroad to do it. This isn't about giving kids homes, it's about people who can't naturally reproduce demanding the right to reproduce. It's about individuals claiming they have a right to reproduce, in defiance of the natural laws of their own biology, and without regard to the effect that their choice has on the upbringing of the kid.

i'm not sure how this makes my dilemma false. If straight couples are going overseas and gays are willing to adopt here at home then gays will be filling a huge need- which completely supports my whole point. No one is demanding to reproduce. If you want to argue natural laws then we can go back to arguments like "We dont have wings so we shouldn't fly".


Sure, some kids are deprived of parents naturally, and have been throughout history. But the numbers of those unfortunate children throughout history were insignificant compared to the numbers of children today being deprived of a mother or a father because of the choices of self-absorbed parents.

And again you seem focused on sexuality. I'm not saying gay parents will make a kid gay. I don't know anything about that either way. I'm saying that the kid is not getting exposed to parental role-models compatible with the kid's own reproductive biology. This is an inferior arrangement to the traditional male/female parent setup. Sorry if that offends gay folks, but it's the truth. Two lesbians can never be a dad for their kid. No matter how nice or caring they are. I fully support the rights of gay people to do their thing, but I'm just expressing my opinion that if you choose that lifestyle you probably should think twice before embarking on raising children.

I agree a man and woman is best because that is the norm and it's always best to be as close to the norm as possible when raising children. If I had a choice between also having gay couples adopt children as a norm compared to unwanted children being raised in foster homes I would choose the former.

It's better than nothing and unless someone can prove this is a harmful relationship on a fundamental level (that exists across all cases) then there is no constitutional argument for preventing this. These denials are all based on opinion and in this country we can't (morally or legally) take away rights based on our opinions. We must prove harm or we can make no law.

[Kuldebar]

It's simply not a federal issue, meaning the fedgov has no rightful authority over this issue.