A male/female couple looking to adopt isn't some elusive dream. If there was a shortage of couples looking to adopt then perhaps gay adoption would be worth some more consideration, but as it stands there's a pretty large supply of enthusiastic heterosexual couples.

Yes, but the thing is, the ideal situation would be adopting children out to a wealthy married couple with perfect parenting skills. That's not going to happen too often, so really we have to ask ourselves, is it necessary to limit it to "the ideal" if no harm is done by the less than ideal?

I guess what I'm suggesting is that gay adoption could potentially cause harm, and is a long way from ideal.

My "ideal situation" would be a married couple with enough income to support the kid and decent (as in, in the top 50%, maybe?) parenting skills. That's not terribly unrealistic.

Seems more like a "suitable" situation, rather than an "ideal" one, I guess.

Anywho, what I'm getting at is, if it does in fact not cause any harm, I think it shouldn't be outlawed just because it's not "ideal".

Really? There's a difference between not causing harm and giving the kid the best chance he has to be well adjusted and what not. No, I'd say just as (as far as I know) a poor person can't adopt a kid, neither should a gay couple, unless if the differences between gay and straight adoption are negligible. With things like adoption you should aim for the ideal- the best situation possible- rather then going "oh well they'll be right". I think I'm basically agreeing with you on this though. Maybe?

I guess it's a question of what is actually ideal. We don't know yet, but I suppose I'm saying that just because male/female parents are the norm doesn't necessarily make them better than same sex.

@Caspian

You might be interested in this essay: http://www.cornerpoetry.com/essays/adoption.html, where the availability of suitable homes for the great number of children in foster homes is contested.

I quote a short extract from that essay from further down the page that addresses your concerns:



It goes on like this for several more paragraphs. There is a bibliography at the foot of the page; unfortunately the quotes are not linked.

My own opinion agrees with the essay.

Saying that a kid needs the "right" amount of masculine/feminine influence is a moot point. As most homosexuals and people who's gender identity conflicts with their born sex organs are raised in the "normal hetero mother/father" setup. IMO the ONLY thing a child needs is love, and to be cared for. Anything else is purely superficial, and not necessary. The sexual orientation of a child's parents should be waaaay down on the list of things that would be a bad "influence" on that child's upbringing.

What has that got to do with anything at all? I'm not saying being raised by a gay couple is going to make them more likely to be gay. The male/female influence that I've been raving on about is also so that the kid has an advantage with relationships with other people, the way he/she sees the world and what not.

@ Greysnow- that's the kind of stuff I was hoping someone would bring up good work on providing me some proof (well, some sort of proof)instead of just arguing . I'd still say that I'd much rather a male/female parent group then a gay couple, but if adoption really doesn't harm the kid, i guess maybe it's not such a bad idea.

I really dont believe that is the case at all. Currently, the majority of children are brought up in households with both male and female influences coming from the parents. However, that fact in itself doesnt stop many of these children from having, or developing later on, things like depression, and great difficulties holding down relationships with other people. What I'm trying to say is, you could have say 50 different children, all brought up in the exactly same way, but not necessarily turning out the same.

While I'm not saying it entirely makes no difference, i think that difference is very much overstated, and not as big of a factor in how a child turns out as some would like to believe. I think how a child is TREATED by their parents, and how they see their parents interacting with others and each other, has a far bigger impact on how that child will turn out than the gender or sexuality of the parents. The fact plenty of children from single parent households turn out very well-adjusted, and view relationships in a healthy way would in itself prove that. There is no conclusive evidence to support the notion that the traditional hetero mother/father setup greatly advantages a child in any way. People are fooled into believing this, because it's the culturally accepted "norm". Rather than it being an actual fact. I firmly believe as long as a child knows it is loved and cared for, whether by a male and a female, a single parent, or 2 people of the same sex, then that is the most likely thing to make a child turn out well adjusted and more likely to have healthy relationships with other people.

Of course, school plays a big role in a child's upbringing as well. And even if a child has a happy home life, if they have a hard time at school, then that is likely to screw them up as well. In fact, i think school life has a far bigger bearing and influence over how well-adjusted a child will turn out to be later in life, than the gender/sexuality of parents.

My thought about homosexuality is simple:

If all people on the Earth were gay, human race would dissapear in 100 years. That means that we should fight versus homosexuality and try help gay people to became normal, beause homosexuality isn't normal. It should be threatened like a disease, and try to cure those who are afected.

First of all I think it would be good for humanity to die off, but thats beside the point, there would still be artifical insimination and people may still breed for procreation.

Why aren't you doing more to help this cause out, then?

Simply becuase its a waste of time.

Why?

Becuase its unlikely to happen becuase I do something about it, if I were to take illegal measures I would most likely be caught and that would be dull, and I may aswell concentrate on other things that are more interesting.

First, you can further that cause without taking illegal measures, just wanted you to know.

Also, why do you think it would be a good idea, then? Do you also remain inactive realizing any other "good ideas" you may have? Seems counterintuitive.

I follow up on 'good ideas' I may have if they are practical, worthwhile and benefit myself in some way. And of course illegal measures aren't the only way. This is straying from homosexuality though, why the questioning?

Because I think it's ridiculous to believe that human's dying off is a good idea, and I'm wondering why you don't do more to help the cause if you think it's such a brilliant proposition. You could easily do more to help the cause that would be practical and worthwhile. Educate people on abstinance, that's one out of the many.

It's really not that good of an idea, by the way. As the highest achievement of biological evolution as we know it, to simply throw it all away is incredibly stupid.

But you're right, it's off topic. I just wanted to know how someone could have such a ridiculous belief that's as extreme as that one and not do anything about it.

But such a thing would never happen, and to suggest so is completely irrational (and to base an argument / conclusion from it even more so). The fact that you consider homosexuality a disease disgusts me.

My opinion is that homosexuality is equally as fine as heterosexuality.

As MusicalFreedom said, that will never happen, so to use that as an arguement against homosexuality is just a complete nonsense. Even if there was NO homophobia in the world at all, there would still be a lot more hetero people than gay people. And exactly how is homosexuality "not normal"? You can't choose who you're attracted to. To a gay person, being attracted to someone of the same sex is as natural as being attracted to a woman is to you, or being attracted to a man is to me. And they probably find the idea of intimate contact with the opposite sex to be disgusting. Just ask yourself, could you "choose" to start being attracted to men? Unless the answer to that is yes, then i think you should realise how absurd it is to say that being gay isnt normal.

And the state of humanity anyway, the human race dying off wouldnt be a bad thing really...

Am I the only one who thinks statements such as this are amazingly silly?

Please expand on this idea, I want to know why things are so bad in our current time that the human race should cease to exist.

How is it amazingly silly? As a race, we leave an awful lot to be desired. We do far more damage to other creatures, and the planet, than any other living thing. So, probably out of all living species on the planet, we are probably the ones who are most surplus to requirements. Countless animal species are extinct, and many more are on the brink of it today, purely because of man.

And most humans that are suffering in the world, are suffering because of man-made problems. The people starving in developing nations, for example. That problem is largely preventable, and is a disgrace that it even exists in the first place. The distribution of wealth in our world is grotesque. Where some people have an obscene amount, more than they could ever actually need, and others have nothing at all. Even in the western world, homelessness is a problem in rich countries such as the USA and UK. Something that is man-made, completely preventable, and disgraceful that that should be the case at all in this day and age.

Just the fact this thread exists at all, just shows up the prejudice in our world. Which is present in most of our society in some form. The countless oppressed people in our world. All the wars and slaughter that have happened throughout our history mostly for pointless, stupid reasons.

I'm not saying the human race SHOULD cease to exist, just that if it did, i don't think it would really be a bad thing.

I'm glad to hear that. I would also like to add the point that I have a friend in college who is heterosexual and desires to adopt a child. But this person is a very strict and very outspoken athiest. This is in Arkansas USA. It would be not unlikely here that he might be refused adoption by a judge because of his belief system. People out here would argue that a child needs an 'ideal situation' to be reared in, referrig specifically to Christian faith.

Oh I see, then It would be good to have an allready overblown 6 billion population all turn hetero and keep producing children until there are no resources left, because you certainly cannot stop everyone from breeding with ideology. On the other hand, us gays can be contributing members to society who need not be boggled down by raising children or continuing the population explosion that is wasting away our planet.

Also, reproducing would still not be impossible by any means, even if 100% of the human population was homosexual. I'd like you to define normal too, Lord_Sauron.

Homosexuality is wrong, not from any religious stand point. Your brain tells you to be attracted to women and women parts. Obviously, gay people must be screwed up in the brain.

Not really. It goes back tot he nature or nurture arguement and I believe it is a como of both. There are already circumstances laid out for a person to lean a certain way and then certain social and environmental factors are the final arbitor on wheather that person is gay or not.

Terrible reasoning.

Hey, our brain doesn't naturally tell us to wear clothes! Better ban clothes!

Yeah, and our brains don't naturally tell us to post here. So, Bansheekiller may have a massive hole in his logic.

And what if I was a Woman? You say my brain tells me to be attracted to women, yet you use that as an anti homosexuality argument. Though that's just a smartass response, so has little weight.

Here's what I think bansheekiller was getting at:

The reason, and perhaps the only reason, men like women and enjoy sex with them is because it encourages reproduction. A man who enjoys heterosexual sex is favored in the evolutionary process over men who do not. Homosexuals are 'screwed in the brain' in the sense that they are betraying their ancestry - they 'should' be programmed to like women, because that's the kind of programming which led them to be born.

Yes, indeed. The mistake people make is thinking that this means homosexuality should be looked down upon, but it doesn't mean that at all. It is "wrong" in the most objective sense possible, but we are all still people and nobody really deserves prejudice simply for being.

You could use that arguement for most of the animal kingdom, and i think you'll find homosexuality is found there too. Even if what you're saying is true that they "should" be programmed to like women, the fact is, they are not. What i'm saying is, if homosexuality is not a choice, which i don't think it is, then it cannot called abnormal, even if what you are saying is true. Fact is, they are programmed to be attracted to their own sex. If you're born with something, and its in your biological make up, then it's natural. No matter how many "but they can't reproduce" theories you come up with. Lots of heterosexual people only have sex purely for personal pleasure, not for the purpose of re-production. By your logic, that is just as "unnatural" as homosexuality.

I wasn't making any moral judgments. All I was saying was that homosexuality will always be abnormal, meaning there will always be a minority who are engaging in it. The reasons are obvious. Your statements that attraction to one's own sex is natural, and normal, I also agree with. I do doubt, however, that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdoms and I'd like to see evidence of this. I'm aware that male-male coupling occurs, but I think if you put the same males with females then they will couple in all instances, when given the opportunity.

Hmmm...you seem to contradict yourself there. On one hand you say "homosexuality will always be abnormal", yet you also agree with me that being attracted to your own sex is natural and normal...I can see why some people would say it's not, but again, if it's part your biological make-up, then it cannot be abnormal.

As far as i know, homosexuality is very prelevant in the animal kingdom. Though my knowledge of the subject is pretty limited, seeing as ive only seen a couple of documentaries where it was highlighted. I'm sure there's a fair bit of info about it on the net though. There is certainly evidence to suggest that some animals (individuals of course, not entire species.) have options to couple with either sex, but choose their own sex rather than the opposite sex.

The degree to which homosexuality is determined by genetic factors is still not conclusively known:

Wikipedia about possible biological causes of homosexuality

However, homosexuality has been documented in about 500 animal species and observed in about 1,500:

Wikipedia about animal homosexuality

Your hypothesis that animals engage in homosexual behavior only because a partner of the opposite sex is not available appears to be wrong for at least bonobos and sheep. Bonobos have promiscuous sex with just about everyone of their local group, while there seem to be about 6-10% of rams who actually prefer males over females even when given the choice.

If there is indeed a genetic component to homosexuality, it would seem that it has not been selected against in millions of years. This means that it can't be detrimental enough to its bearers to severely reduce their chances of reproduction. Firstly, carrying a gene does not automatically cause an individual to display the traits "caused" by this gene, i.e. it can be recessive. Secondly, genes are as a rule not monofunctional, i.e. they don't determine just one trait of the individual and one only, but normally play a role in determining a number of factors; AFAIK, the view that genes can be identified that are individually responsible for a defined phenotypal trait in the individual does not correspond to what really goes on. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, it is possible that a gene that includes homosexuality among its effects may also be responsible for immunity to a widespread disease, singly or in combination with other genes.

From a political and semantic perspective, the use of the words "wrong" and "abnormal", whatever the evolutionary story of homosexuality, is dangerous in my opinion. First of all, homosexuality has been observed in all human groups (even disregarding the animals) and is therefore clearly not abnormal but belongs to the statistical panoply of observable human behavior. (IMO the word "abnormal" itself is not a very helpful word in discussing human behavior because it is semantically loaded and implies something pathological.)

Empyreal above labeled such widespread and non-detrimental (in a social sense) behavior with the word "wrong" for biological reasons that may not be as clearcut as both of you think. Employing the word "wrong", however, while not as strong as "abnormal", opens the semantic possibility of making things "right"; that is, it makes it possible to think of homosexuality as a defect that can be treated or, in more extreme thinking, ought to be done away with for eugenic reasons. You know as well as I do what cruelty this label of "homosexuality is wrong" led to in our not too distant past.

Personally I strongly advise against labeling homosexuality with this word, because, to summarize, the application of "wrong" is probably factually wrong itself, or at least not helpful in any way, and the way of thinking that it makes possible (I'm not implicating it does this in you, as I'm sure you will have gathered) tends to cause a lot of suffering.

I hate homosexual men, but i love homosexual/bi-sexual women

Sheesh...

Out of all homophobic statements, these ones are the most ridiculous. I can understand some men being attracted to 2 women being together, while not being for 2 gay men. But i cannot for the life of me understand why some guys think men being gay is wrong, but its okay for women to be gay. Its simply they're attracted to one, but not the other. Which is a pathetic reason to negatively judge anything. If women can be attracted to each other, then it just makes logical sense that would also apply to men.

Good sir, I believe you have the intelligence to rival a sack of hammers. Dumb ones.