I'm not saying you want it more complicated, I'm saying you're just fine with it as it is today.

I've never understood why people just...can't get that? I mean even if you grow up with a male/famale parent...even your own maybe it does anything but gurantee you'll grow in a "safe, stable environment" but still many people see that as a better option than growing up with a gay couple. The reason for it is beyond me.

Answer to Krem's point that we should be scrutinizing data:

There is no problem with scrutinizing the data. The problem is that as soon as somebody finds something negative, the anti-gay groups are just itching to use it to prevent gay couples from raising children. And when you run sample sizes of 44, it's not hard to find something negative. However, the whole argument is flawed. Using this argument, any negative study is grounds for regulation. That means there should be tight controls not only on homosexual couples, but on single moms, single dads, grandma and aunt, Uncle, bitter divorcees, grandparents, godparents, legal guardians, adoptive parents, step-parents, Brady-Bunch families, poor parents, parents that don't speak English, "urban" parents, parents with handicapped children, parents who adopt foreign children, and anything else that is not their perfect vision of MomDad2.2kids+dog+SUV. After all, these are ALL "legitimate demographic issues" that could affect upbringing negatively, when somebody scrutinizes the data. Oh, uh, I guess we can we disallow parents from raising daughters too.

As for adoption:

The government might be able to "save" kids from being adopted into an evil gay environment, but what about those poor souls who are biological children of the gay parent? Are they doomed?

No, IM not saying im fine with the way it is today. I think alot of things need to change, because the state it is in now isnt the best.
But elminating all government assistance from adoption is, well...I dont see how it would work.



Is there an actual LAW that states homosexuals cannot adopt children?

That's why it is important that this study was much more comprehensive than the ones before it.

What if the study DID show that kids adopted by gays are 50% more likely to become gay themselves? Would you say it'd be a legitimate concern then?

Believe it or not, the government already regulates all those too. The best demographic for adoption is usually a married couple in their late twenties-thirties, who have been married for at least 3 years. Race, income, etc. do come into play also.

Look, I'm not saying that it matters if someone is gay or not to me. But it matters to other people. The proper way to go about it is to continue to move forward toward a more understanding society, not to shove your worldviews down their throats by abusing the court system.

If you want to see gay adoption to be acceptable, then you HAVE to see eye-to-eye with its opponents and try to convince them that your point of view makes more sense. Calling those people dumb because you don't understand their reasoning is not the wisest way to go about promoting your cause.

And I never said that we should eliminate government support for children who are in custody of the government.



Obviously not, since homosexuals DO adopt chidlren.

Well then, why in some states is it not allowed?

It is only explicitly prohibited in Florida: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa ... record=399

Each state has a right to regulate its own affairs.

*reads post over*

I don't think i called anyone dumb

It's just not very understandable to me.

I was extrapolating your comment ;-)

And once again, if you genuinely want to advance your cause, then you have to understand what the opponents are thinking. You don't have to agree with them on anythig, but a simple rational discussion would go a long way.

Thats what I thought. I was just making sure though :wink:
But Krem, if you had no support from the government in Adoption, anyone could adopt and a child could go ANYWHERE, which is not good. Also, alof of group homes, foster homes ect...get their $$ from the government. No money, no place for kids.
Although I don't really notice a disdain for gay couple adopting among foster agenicies, and people who actually matter. Just people who have nothing to do with it and are to busy trying to save souls and push their agenda upon others.

Not true. There are plenty of non-governmental organizations that could take care of homeless kids.

And what you have to realize is that is these people that in the end set the policy, by voting for the government they want. To dismiss them as a bunch of ignorant fools only makes the problem worse.

@First Response
Not true, and don't say churches because we both know that wouldnt work out.

Well, that's the problem, lol, I don't understand at all.

I mean I know they maybe truly believe it is better for a child to live in a stable home with a female and male parent...but it's not like gay couples are taking those kids who ARE in STABLE straight households away.

What's wrong with churches?

And no, not just churches.
http://www.justgive.org/guide/showChari ... =&offset=0

OK? Thats great. I think its wonderful that there are these types of organizations. But they are not that spread out. At least here In Kentucky actualy "charities" that provide the same things the government can provide are few and far between.

I'll play the devil's advocate:

If children are allowed to grow up with gay parents, then we'll have more gay children, who are also immoral and unruly.

Is that with or without churches? And maybe it's not such a huge deal in Kentucky anyway, how am I supposed to know?

I smell a sitcom!

Ill play! ~~


Prove it

'Growing gays"

EDIT: Or, even better, "The Gays of Our Lives"

I don't have to! It's common knowledge.

Oh, and also, I'll make sure to vote for a legislature who will make sure that gays cannot adopt children.

NYAH!

From the article

Estimates of the number of teens living with same-sex parents are hard to come by. As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children were living with a gay or lesbian parent, says the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families ...
The study sample included 44 children, 12 to 18 years old, parented by same-sex couples and an equivalent number of peers with opposite-sex parents. The two groups had an equal number of girls and boys and other similarities, including ethnic background, family income, and parents' level of education.

How in the world can anyone say this is a scientifically relevant and statistically significant study with such a small sample? This is like reaching into a 55-gallon drum of M&M's, pulling out two and saying all the M&M's must be those two colors!

But hey it makes for great PC and liberal agenda-pushing headlines.

A) It's not common knowledge, If you cannot support your argument in any way than you lost this argument(even if you are playing devils advocate )