CDZ Should Homosexual People Be Allowed To Legally Adopt Children?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Absolutely not! I've read no findings that gay couples' kids grow up well adjusted. Just the opposite. These kids are not isolated from the ration they ultimately get from peers once they learn their background. Nor do these kids have traditional (in the sense) home environment with parents who parent differently because of what they are, homosexuals. The parents' influence is so powerful and kids are undoubtedly affected.

Here, go to town: Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

Some highlights: "We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.” -

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. "

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts… Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated… Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”

“Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”

Now you have read such studies.

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

More thoughts on adoption.

Adoption is not a right in the sense that marriage is. However, that does not mean that gay people can be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to qualify as adoptive parents, simply because they are gay.

While marriage, including same sex marriage is well established by case law as a right, I believe that adoption is more of a privilege, similar to the privilege of driving. At the same time, the common denominator is that they both involve the issue of equal protection under the law. The law cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously applied to some and not others, regardless of whether it involves a constitutional right, or a privilege. That is known as the rule of law

While both rights and privileges can be denied or revoked, there are significant differences. Rights are distinguished by the fact that people can assume that they are free to something barring any extraordinary circumstances. People-at least heterosexual people-could always assume that they could marry. They do not have to “qualify” except to meet a very minimal criteria such as not being married to someone else, or not being too closely related or under age. Once married, the government cannot revoke it, only the parties to the marriage can dissolve it providing that it was legal in the first place.

Your freedom is also a right. We all can assume that we have our freedom. It can only be denied under the most extraordinary circumstances such as the commission of a serious crime. Even then, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt-the highest standard of evidence- that you committed that crime.

Now let’s take driving-a privilege. To get a driver’s license, you must learn the rules of the road and gain the skills needed to control a vehicle. You then must take a test and pass it. Most will pass but some will not- it cannot be taken for granted like you freedom can be. In addition, your driving privileges can be revoked much more easily than your freedom can e denied. If you become a bad driver, or develop a medical condition that renders you dangerous on the road, you can lose your license by administrative action.

Yet at the same time, the government must apply a rational and clearly stated criteria and apply it equally and fairly to all in order to deny or revoke driving privileges. For instance, let’s say that a state decided to deny licenses to left handed people because they decided that left handed people have a propensity to also drive with their left foot, and cars are not designed for that. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that left handed people will drive with their left foot, even if some did, banning all left handed people from driving constitutes discrimination against an entire group. If left handed people had to sue a state for the right to drive, there is little doubt that they would prevail and that the state would be required to come up with a less restrictive means of achieving their goal-such as making left footed driving illegal.

Now back to adoption-another privilege. As with driving, people must qualify to become adoptive parents and can’t take approval for granted. And as in the case of driving, the criteria must be rational, clearly stated and applied equally to all concerned. Just as some left handed drivers may be bad driver for reasons unrelated to their left handedness, some gay people may be bad parents for reasons unrelated to their gayness, while others are quite capable of excellent parenting and providing a stable and secure home.

Therefore, rules and criteria cannot arbitrarily exclude one entire group, but rather, each applicant must be assessed on their own merits. To exclude gay people from becoming adoptive parents based on an arbitrary requirement-especially when that rule is based on vague and unsubstantiated fears and prejudices- is discrimination

 

[paddymurphy]

Absolutely not! I've read no findings that gay couples' kids grow up well adjusted. Just the opposite. These kids are not isolated from the ration they ultimately get from peers once they learn their background. Nor do these kids have traditional (in the sense) home environment with parents who parent differently because of what they are, homosexuals. The parents' influence is so powerful and kids are undoubtedly affected.

Here, go to town: Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

Some highlights: "We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.” -

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. "

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts… Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated… Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”

“Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”

Now you have read such studies.

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Absolutely not! I've read no findings that gay couples' kids grow up well adjusted. Just the opposite. These kids are not isolated from the ration they ultimately get from peers once they learn their background. Nor do these kids have traditional (in the sense) home environment with parents who parent differently because of what they are, homosexuals. The parents' influence is so powerful and kids are undoubtedly affected.

Here, go to town: Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

Some highlights: "We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.” -

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. "

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts… Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated… Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”

“Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”

Now you have read such studies.

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Yes.

Both my parents are straight, but I'm bi. If logic is consistent, gay parents should raise straight children.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Here, go to town: Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

Some highlights: "We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.” -

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. "

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts… Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated… Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”

“Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”

Now you have read such studies.

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Being unequal in and of itself does not make something unconstitutional. Unequal treatment with no rational reason or compelling government interest does. Got it?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Yes.

Both my parents are straight, but I'm bi. If logic is consistent, gay parents should raise straight children.

or who raises you has no influence on your sexual preference.

 

[Asclepias]

There MUST be a biological balance and harmony. If homosexuals can produce a child then it is considered natural. As harsh as it may sound this is the reality. Man + Woman = child. Mother and father provide different and unique love and are naturally able to produce a child by their natural harmony with the bio system in place.

Who told you that and why did you believe them?

 

[paddymurphy]

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Being unequal in and of itself does not make something unconstitutional. Unequal treatment with no rational reason or compelling government interest does. Got it?

Trying to explain the Equal Protection Clause to some folks is a waste of time. You get that nonsense. He also did not comment upon the due Process clause. Pretty clear he has no idea what that means.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Here, go to town: Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

Some highlights: "We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.” -

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. "

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts… Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated… Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”

“Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”

Now you have read such studies.

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Complete and utter bullshit! Love the way with the Internet one can dig up "studies" to validate whatever hogwash suits them. Valid research is something entirely different. Liars can figure and figures can lie. If you want to believe these lies, knock yourself out. As for me, I prefer to rely on scientifically based research rather than random case studies involving tiny ill-chosen samples.

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

 

[playtime]

You don't understand.

It's incumbent upon you to justify denying gay Americans their rights.

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

"Gay" parents have been around raising their children for ions. You just didn't "know" they were gay.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

regardless of my personal opinion on this matter, where is there a right written in the constitution that covers adoption.

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

"Gay" parents have been around raising their children for ions. You just didn't "know" they were gay.

and either did their opposite sex spouse. or their kids, or their neighbors.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

as long as you try to dictate from emotion instead of solid fact you will never understand what exactly it is Im saying and which side of things I am ultimately on.

 

[waltky]

Hmmm...

... Wonder what would happen if a county clerk...

... wouldn't issue the adoption certificate...

... based on religious objections?

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

Oh boy, it is quite apparent that you missed my point entirely. Do you know what an analogy is.....like A is to B as C is D type of a thing? The post is about how the law works. Not what you are for or against. Oh well I tried.

I was trying to be nice. your analogy sucked, it really had little to do with the conversation or the reason for people to be cautious about gay adoption.
you cant just jump into something that may or may not be in the best interest of the child.
do you at least understand that?
I would have less issue with lesbians adopting than gay males right now. women have more of a natural nurturing instinct then men. The man is not the one that's important in a child's development, its the woman.

You think that it sucks because you didn't understand my point. Again, its about the law and equal protection under the law. You can't use the theory that same sex parenting is, or even may be harmful to make a legal case against gay adoption IN THE ABSENCE of ANY credible evidence to support that. THAT is the point that you can't seem to get . I have tons of definitive evidence from controlled empirical studies-AS WELL AS my personal experience in the child welfare field to back up my position. Neither you or anyone else here have anything.

as long as you try to dictate from emotion instead of solid fact you will never understand what exactly it is Im saying and which side of things I am ultimately on.

Facts are not emotional. They just are. Too many people have been raised by gay couples and I cant recall any of them being serial killers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

"Gay" parents have been around raising their children for ions. You just didn't "know" they were gay.

and either did their opposite sex spouse. or their kids, or their neighbors.

The majority of your good friends are gay? The majority? That strikes me as a little strange. In any case, I have to wonder if they know that you have such reservations about their suitability as parents. I my self would be outraged.

 

[playtime]

The equal protection clause and the due process clause.

we could use the same clause to prove that taxing someone at a higher percentage based on income is not equal.
basically, anything we can imagine can be made constitutionally acceptable if we really put our mind to it.

Nothing to say about my left handed driver analogy? ( post #41)I know, it's a tough one to get your head around. Take your time. Maybe you will actually come to understand how things work. Then again, maybe not. You don't seem to really want to, because if you did, you could no longer justify discrimination

I know this is going to be really tough for you to get your head around too.
1, I am not in the least against same sex marriage.
2, the majority of my good friends are gay.
3. driving with the left foot does not affect or have a chance of affecting a child in a negative way, and so far there is not sufficient data on gay parenting to prove either way how it could affect a child.
and as far as that goes, I am a firm believer that there are many same sex couples that should not be allowed anywhere near a child let alone breed on their own.

Once determined that there is no more chance of harm to a child development with a set of gay parents verses straight parents, then I will have no reservations about gay adoption.

"Gay" parents have been around raising their children for ions. You just didn't "know" they were gay.

and either did their opposite sex spouse. or their kids, or their neighbors.

That had no effect on their parenting; only their marriage. If I'm understanding your posts correctly & molestation is your concern, there is no greater threat in a "gay parent" household than there is an a straight parent household.