Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?

Post by **Ryoki** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:03 am

Lol, the 'omg think of the children' angle.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:06 am

lol yeah, that was stated in the very first post 9 pages ago.

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:29 am

Ryoki wrote:Lol, the 'omg think of the children' angle.

Rallying cry of paternalists.

Post by **R00k** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:43 pm

Law wrote:Perhaps it does and I'm more than happy to live with that, but unless someone has done a decade long survey on the treatment of children at school who have been adopted by gay parents there isn't much I can offer other than my opinion.

Here we have it straight from the horse's mouth -- law doesn't believe gay adoption should be legal - unless it's already been legal for 10 years.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:19 pm

Actually I'm pointing out that there's no surveyed evidence.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:27 pm

Law wrote:Actually I'm pointing out that there's no surveyed evidence.

I've already pointed out that there is.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:30 pm

http://miami.craigslist.org/pol/144959909.html

murrrrrrrrr

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:34 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Law wrote:Actually I'm pointing out that there's no surveyed evidence.
I've already pointed out that there is.

You pointed out a decade long survey showing the treatment from peers of school children adopted by gay male parents? Cool link me up.

Post by **Transient** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:50 pm

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM

and

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

and

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/ ... _final.doc

Murrrrrrrrr.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:53 pm

murrrrrrrrrrrr

Post by **bikkeldesnikkel** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:56 pm

your argument on which you base your belief is flawed, but you still believe. wouldn't you call that stubborn?

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:55 pm

Transient wrote:http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM

and

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
and

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/ ... _final.doc

Murrrrrrrrr.

None of those reports are done on the treatment of the children by their peers, nor over a ten year period.

Murrrrrrrrrrr indeed.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:56 pm

bikkeldesnikkel wrote:your argument on which you base your belief is flawed, but you still believe. wouldn't you call that stubborn?

I don't believe it's flawed.

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:56 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:murrrrrrrrrrrr

That suits you.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:50 pm

Law wrote:
bikkeldesnikkel wrote:your argument on which you base your belief is flawed, but you still believe. wouldn't you call that stubborn?
I don't believe it's flawed.

know one cares what u believe...the fact is ur wrong...and a moron...next...

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:55 pm

10 pages of this thread would display otherwise.

Post by **Foo** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:03 pm

And you deduce the length of the thread defines the validity of your argument how?

Post by **Freakaloin** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:13 pm

Law wrote:10 pages of this thread would display otherwise.

jesus..an idiot beyond help...someone ban this nerd...again...

Post by **LawL** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:16 pm

Foo wrote:And you deduce the length of the thread defines the validity of your argument how?

I don't associate it with the validity of my argument, just pointing out that if noone cared what I believed this thread wouldn't have reached 10 pages.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:39 pm

MORON ALERT!!!...

Post by **Cold_Fire** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:42 pm

I think this arguement would be mute if they simply sterilized the vast majority of hetrosexual men that produce children that they then abandon. :/

Post by **Foo** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:45 pm

Or moot.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:47 pm

Law, you MIGHT have a case to argue for banning adoption if research showed that such kids suffered tremendously.

What you're doing right now is reversing the burden of proof.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:56 pm

its so funny when haters think they r not...