gay people raising children

This is pretty black and white for me:

There are so many children out there that are put up for adoption, so many children who are "unwanted" by their biological parents - so what if two adults want to pool their resources to raise a child?

It doesn't matter what their sex is. The child would grow up accepting their parents - and the parents would love their child. Moreso than the heterosexual couple who cared so much about the child that they just got rid of it.

So yes, if two people, man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman, want to adopt a child because they can give it a better life than it will have in an orphanage or whatnot, I'm all for it. End of story.

I don't care what the bible says about it. I don't care if there are people out there who think its a disease. All that matters is that a child has parents who will watch over and protect them and treat them as family. That is what is best for the child.

Carlos D wrote:

I can see it from the point of view that gay parents are better than no parents to me a man and a woman should raise kids.I know being a man and a woman doesn't automatically make you good parents but that's just the way I think it should be.I just think for the most part this is about gay people wanting the right to raise kids rather than thinking about the kids' point of view.

I'm with darkcrow on this.

I really dont know honestly. When someone decides (i know its not a "im gonna be gay" decision) to live a gay lifestyle, having kids is a physical impossibility to do naturally, so maybe that should be a sacrifice you make if you live a gay lifestyle.

Like you said it's not that kind of choice. But, they can have a child if one of the guys has good sperm, all they need to do is find a woman that wants to carry it for them.

Collin wrote:

Like you said it's not that kind of choice. But, they can have a child if one of the guys has good sperm, all they need to do is find a woman that wants to carry it for them.

but why should they (just like hetero couple that cant concieve) be going to these lengths have a child in an unatural fashion, when there are thousands of children available for adoption?

Skitch Patterson wrote:

but why should they (just like hetero couple that cant concieve) be going to these lengths have a child in an unatural fashion, when there are thousands of children available for adoption?

Beats me, I'm all for adoption.

It seems to me that the only problems that children raised by homosexual people will have, is the ignorant comments and bullying that comes from ignorant adults teaching there kids backward ideas.

All any child needs to grow up happy and healthy is a loving adult or two.

angelica wrote:

I don't know one single family that raises their children ideally. Even the idealists I know. We're people and we do the best we can with what we've got. 2% of the population is considered self-actualised and even these people are considered very aware of their human flaws, and feel great remorse when they make mistakes. They make them none the less. The point is, as parents we all know we make some big mistakes. And we all know love is healing and is what binds a family together.

Some of the greatest gifts I've had to offer my children has been the understanding that we can overcome what is not ideal. Now that they have that to take into the world, they are equipped with the ability to deal with the imperfection all around, so that they may be free to outlet their dreams.

I understand what you're saying. I certainly am not a perfect parent (although I am a damn good one:D ). And if you notice, I havn't said here "absolutely not! Never! Gay couples should never raise children!" I havn't said that. I've only said that I don't believe it isn't necessarily the best option. Honestly, I have my hands full with my own children. I don't have the energy or interest to raise anyone else's. Nor do I have the expertise needed to write an advice column on parenting.

rightondude wrote:

What makes a gay man gay? Gays are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce. Period. Nature would select them out. If you don't inderstand that I can't debate it with you as you're missing some key knowledge.

When a gay man mates with a hetero woman he in introducing this flaw into the gene pool...that's obvious. I'm not making this stuff up. That is nature that is evolution. Unless you wnat to start debating the laws of nature and evolution.

People who oppose this are using emotion over logic. Evolution is cruel but it has brought us thus far. Study the Thomsons gazelle. Ever wonder why the all look the same? Why most animals all look exactly the same? Because nature has made them perfect. Now look at all the screwed up genetic flaws size shapes, and mental diseases in people. Coincidence? Nope... human emotion has introduced much of these mutations by keeping alive things that would die in nature and they reproduce into the gene pool. Don't take my word for it learn something...read about it... ps the human condition is a useless argument in this case.

i guess it all comes down to if you truly see it as a 'flaw' or not. i mean, it happened along the way somewhere....is it a flaw, or perhaps some blip in your genetic make-up to keep population in check?

i've read your other posts....and you actually seem like you take zero issue with homosexuals actually RAISING children - which IS the actualy thread topic - just moreso take issue with their 'breeding'...? i hope i am understanding you correctly. further posts seem to suggest that even heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally on their own, should not either? so may i surmise that your true issue lay with the idea of assisted reproduction?...and not truly with homosexuals being parents? if so, that's an entirely different subject i won't even touch here....and just to stay with the topic then, you aren't acctually opposed to homosexuals being parents as long as they adopt. i may not agree with that, but i simply want to understand where you're coming from.

again, as far as homosexuality being an evolutionary dead-end, sure...it is. of course, you already gave the example of gay men mating with hetero women, lesbian women mating with hetero men, etc...and i am sure this happened a LOT....when homosexuality was not nearly as accepted, and thus many 'hid' in the guise of a hetero couple, and yes, procreated. however, i do not think there has been proven any facts of homosexuals passing on their 'gay genes'...so i really can't see them as 'flaws'. many a hetero couple has produced homosexual offspring...so doe that mean the parents, seeming 'normal'...are truly 'flawed'...? i just don't view it that way.

cornnifer wrote:

There has been alot of talk in this thread about wheteher or not a gay couple would be capable of raising a child. Of course they would be capable. Is it ideal? No.
There has been alot of talk about homosexuality, parenting and evolution. I don't really no exactly where evolution fits into the original question, but, I'll say this. Whether you believe humanity came into existence by evolutionary accident, or humanity is a divine creation, it seems obvious that heterosexuality is the way nature or God (depending on what you believe, it doesn't really matter) intended things to work. Its quite obvious we were evolved/created for heterosexuality. I am not saying this out of any hatred or fear of homosexuality. I assure you I have neither. But elementary biology, you know, birds, bees, pistils, stamens (choose your favorite analogy and insirt it here) is quite clear on this. Is homosexuality wrong? Not for me to say. Should gay couples raise children? Also not for me to say other than I don't think it is ideal. But there is really no question as to whether or not its natural. It simply isn't. Its not the way nature/God intended things.

while i understand your point/reasoning here..i don't think it's the full picture. human beings are NOT the only species to ever have homosexual tendencies...there HAVE been other species to be documented with homosexual practices/acts. is it the norm of all? of course not, b/c sure...they would eventually extinct themselves. but who is to say what nature 'intends'...? how is it to possibly be fully 'known' if homsexuality is merely nature trying to exert influnece over a species population? even within hetero couples, some cannot reproduce simply b/c they cannot....so they too are evolutionary dead-ends.....does that mean they have no purpose in the whole scheme of existence? i don't pretend to know these things...so i certainly do not look at homosexuals in such a light.

in regards to ideals of parenthood....in my mind, the ideal is two loving and supportive parents. for me, it ends there. i ceetainly respect anyone's right to disagree with that...but it's where my mind is at....and one can throw around all the evolution and what nature 'intends' all they like....b/c who knows? since all else in our society is not 'ideal'....why put such a standard on parenthood....ideal is no single parents...no parent who dies before their child...no abusive parents....etc. all worthy to try for ideals, and i think the ideal is two loving parents, i am unconcerned with their gender.

IndianSummer wrote:

well then this sounds like a nice compromise -

let the hosexual couple ADOPT kids. that way, they wont toy around with the life of a child yet to be born (by deciding to "have" a newborn) and will also bail out a child unfortunate enough to have been abandoned by his/her parents.

also, since the homosexual couple cant have a child between them in any case, they will always have to raise someone else's child. at the most one parent can be from this couple. so they may as well raise an orphan child.

Wow. you're going to "let" them adopt kids. Why do you feel you can decide their reproductive fate? Do you feel the same way about infertile hetero couples?