Gays should not be allowed to adopt >>>MOD ALERT<<<

People who adopt children are carefully screened.. Gay couples would be as well.

 

I question that. When you look at the NY cop who adopted boys just so he could engage in gay sex with them, it makes me question just how much screening is actually done.

 

You cannot just pick-out one case/exception, and come to a conclusion such as you have. That's ridiculous.

 

Beyond checking to see if you have a criminal history, the accommodations are adequate and verifying stable employment and financial resources to support a child, not much. They usually take your word on everything else because most agencies don't have the funding or resources to do do more. And really, beyond that, what more could they do anyway?

 

clearly they gave the guy a free pass or something because he was a cop. That's crap. This time it was for sex. Maybe the next cop needs the kids for target practice.

 

Doubt it.

 

That's a good question and not being in the "industry" I could not answer it. But, from the perspective of a reasonable person, taking boys from foster care or whatever and handing them to a single guy who makes them his sex slaves clearly shows a flaw in the vetting process

 

Similarly, I'm sure we can depend on ICE to only let the benign terrorists into the country.

 

Just as much as handing kids over to fundamental christians who beat them to death or to mothers who want to be on the dr. phill show.

Unless you can see the future there is no way to know what someone might someday do and being homosexual does not make a person a higher risk for perpetrating child abuse.

 

If the choice is gay parents or a succession of foster parents, I think the interests of the child would be to have a stable home. I'm not particularly pro-gay, but it's common sense. (Yes, I agree that the ideal way to raise kids is a male/female stable marriage, but if nobody in that situation wants the kid.......)

 

why are posters here who are homosexual always wanting to see a bogey man? Nowhere did I say or even imply that having gay sex makes you more liable to be a child molester. I don't buy that any more than fisherman or hunters are more likely to be molesters.

My point has been, and continues to be that the vetting process is broken.

 

I wrote two posts. You chose not to read either of them...but read what was on the chalkboard ingrained in you head instead.

Makes discussions a little tough when a person is talking to hisself but responding to me.

 

Yeah, "always".

Maybe you could learn to assert an opinion, that doesn't start out being completely BOGUS?

 

MK7 , I do believe that you have hit the nail squarely on the head with your post.

It's one thing for society to allow same-sex couples to co-habitate , that is their choice as adults , but another matter entirely to raise children .

In my opinion , children deserve better than that .

 

In the opinion of many who have done the proper research, homosexual parents do as good a job of raising children, as heterosexuals.

That isn't up for real 'debate'... it is an established FACT.

 

Children deserve a parent, or parents, who love them and who care provide for them. The gender of that parent, or parents is not relevant.

 

Johnny-C by now you should know that the right love anecdotal "evidence" to justify positions. More often than not they cannot produce scholarly, researched and verifiable data or facts to support their positions. Invariably they trot out an anecdote that proves nothing and is both statistically and intellectually meaningless. This technique is nonetheless affective in eliciting an emotional response.

Ronald Reagan was a master at this. His famous "Welfare Queen" (a black woman who drove herself to the welfare office in a brand new Cadillac), was an example using an anecdotal stereotype to reinforce racism and prove nothing, but it won thousands of votes. His sincerely delivered attack on law suits and greedy lawyers gave the anecdotal example of the telephone company being sued when a driver hit a telephone booth injuring a man making a call. This example supposedly illustrated how the tort system was out of control in attacking the poor, innocent phone company. Of course Reagan neglected to mention that the phone booth's door jammed preventing the caller's escape, that the phone company knew of the door-jam well in advance of the accident and had failed to either fix it or place the booth out of order. The president was being deliberately disingenuous, but he was affective. Increasingly since that time lawyers have been attacked and tort reform (limiting cash damages) has been the battle cry of Republicans.

Ridiculous though it is, this technique will endure because its all they have and it works. Sad!

 

point proven, thanks

 

As a matter of fact I did read both of your posts and after re-reading them my observations remain the same. Words have meaning and if your words did not convey the meaning you intended that rest on you. You maintain that a child is best off with a two-parent family comprised two genders.

I said that for your position to be rational one had to assume that there was a heterosexual couple willing to adopt every child in need of a family. I further noted your position of a child needing nurture from both genders, which would exclude single parenting adoptions regardless of sexual orientation.

I questioned, based on your original assertion of the need for two parents/opposite genders, if children should be removed from a parental household consisting of just one parent. If as you maintain, "children should be placed in a traditional family" and assuming there were enough willing adoptive parents to fit that description, you logically would support removing the child.

My whole point, was not to attack you (though you seem to assume that was what I was doing), but to assail your logic. I think I know what you meant to say, but your words did not say it, and contrary to your assumption the chalkboard in my head has nothing on it concerning your position on adoptions, so I'm left with your words alone.

 

What point has been proven?

Let me go after your slogan regarding returning America to Greatness. This illustrates that you know nothing of our history and that you rely on information, not from reliable sources, but rather the jingoistic, corporate propaganda machine that is Talk Radio and faux television news. They have presented you with the BIG LIE and you have swallowed it in toto. I'll bet you still think Sadam was complicit in September 11th.

Let me present you with just one little FACT to chew on. The United States of America in its Declaration of Independence and with the ratification of its Constitutional government became the most LIBERAL political entity in the entire of history of the world. The conservatives or Tories stood in opposition to its establishment. So rather that cause the nation harm Liberalism is the bedrock of its foundation. Try reading factual history instead of listening to the twisted version put forth by the likes of pill-popping, cigar puffing, over-stuffed, oft-married, snake oil pushers who make more in a month than you'll make in a lifetime. Try seeking a political reality that benefits you and not the LINTBAG.

 

I would be more than willing to return to that form of "liberalism"

how about you?

 

No part of your post makes any sense. You must be suffering a psychological defect of some sort.

What does "proud to have all the morons laughing with you" mean? Are you lashing out because you think someone stated something funny at your expense?

As for "compelled to fantasize about your intellectual superiors" are you implying that I might fantasize about you? If that's your concern rest easy. There is nothing remotely titillating about anything you've said or appear to be. While I find intelligence to be stimulating to the libido, your writings alone disqualify you from that category.

Regarding your expression of boredom, there is another expression that says that "only the boring are bored."

 

Trust me, I never harbor any particular expectation that I will make sense to people like you.

If you insist on harboring the illusion that making an observation is "lashing out', I don't suppose I can do anything about it.

As I said, I have no doubt that your wit is greatly appreciated by morons.

There is no need to speculate, since your own testimony indicates clearly that you did just that.

 

You are the one who is conducting himself as though he were a moron. Most assuredly I have no fantasy concerning the likes of you. If you've read that into anything I've posted then you're not only moronic, you're delusional as well.

 

I am decidedly somnolent of people who insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and society as a whole will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. They take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.
Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd. Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and outright shameful to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.