USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
luukje
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by luukje »

It is not worse for the children?
How can it be worse?

Children are growing up all over the world in orphan houses, as child soldiers, being raised by single addicted parents, in refugee camps, being beaten to death, working als child labor.

Covered g a y people have been raising children for thousands of years, they just couldnt tell anybody they were homosexual. So they just got married and lived an unhappy life. Did they "ruin" those children?

What hapenned to not guilty unless proven otherwise?

As long as it can not be proven that homosexual people are in fact bad parents (wich will never happen), they should be able to adopt.

And its not like homosexuals will start adopting children like crazy. Here in belgium g a y people can do an adoption, in the first year there 15 request on a total cap of 10.000.000 peolpe. The weird thing was, only lesbian couples got children (most of the time women adoting the child from their partner, so a child they were allready raising). No male couples got approvement.

So it isnt a big deal, but for those who want it, who want it more than anything in this life, who will take any child from any sitiation, it could be worse for the kid?

Im sorry for having this discussion, I just find this really imporant.
(and happily married to a female person,lol)

User avatar
I__CHAOS__I
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 3007
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:55 am
Location: ??

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by I__CHAOS__I »

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
Yes, when it's not worse for the children, which we don't know if it is or not, so we shouldn't let them suffer it without knowing if it is harmless or not.[/quote]

I don't agree with that pov.
innocent until proven guilty.... that's how it should be.

And we do know that kids raised by divorced parents can suffer a lof from it... why not ban divorces in that same logic?
Image
Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness. - Sophocles
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient. - Aristotle

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

Children are growing up all over the world in orphan houses, as child soldiers, being raised by single addicted parents, in refugee camps, being beaten to death, working als child labor.
That's not the point. It's the difference between normal heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
Did they "ruin" those children?
Not ruin, but maybe the kids deserved to be in a normal home. The same way I'd want, maybe they'd want too if they could choose.
it could be worse for the kid?
Worse than being adopted by normal parents? That's what we don't know.
What hapenned to not guilty unless proven otherwise?
They can unconsciously affect the child. That's all, there's no guilt or anything. It's like doing scientific experiments on humans, there's no proof that it will be harmful, but as it can be harmful, people don't do it (It's a very bad example but the idea behind it is more or less the same).

User avatar
luukje
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by luukje »

How can they "affect" it? By showing homosexuality to their children as "normal"?

Homosexuality is not a disease. They are normal people.

You are born either hetero or homosexual.

G a Y parents love their children and will not impregnate their views on their children. They know from first hand the discrimination g a y people suffer. They will want to see grandchildren.

From expcerience I have seen that all kinda things can influence a child/adolescent. And yes, if you put a child in an all g a y world, it will try to fit in.

But children from homosexual parents dont live in that kind of world. They live in a heterosexual world, their schoolfriends, their grandparents, uncles and aunts, nieces, friends on the sportsclub, neighbours, television, books, all will provide them with data that "hetero" is how natures works.

And Homosexuals will have to explain their kid, why they as parents are just a little different. Just as any other parents has to explain to his kid, why they are white and the neigbours are black, why they have red hair and others blonde, why they are lefthanded and other ighthanded.

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

And we do know that kids raised by divorced parents can suffer a lof from it... why not ban divorces in that same logic?
We're talking about adopting. When adopting, there should be given the best environment for the child.

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

I gtg now, I'll answer to your post later luukje. It's being a nice discussion :p

User avatar
luukje
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by luukje »

My neigbours are homosexual (they have no interest in adopting as far as I know). They have g a y been their whole live I guess. They have been toghether for fifteen years or longer. They are kind, normal people with normal jobs (a photographer and a teacher). They do not go out late, consume drugs or alcohol, have wild parties or anything. I havent heard them shouting or arguing or being aggressive.

I would not doubt one moment in them looking after my kids if I had any.

I have no doubt they would make great parents.

They would give a child in need a safe home. What you define as "best environment".

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

[quote=""luukje""]Some serious issues being discussed here.

Homosexuals are just people like you, me and everbody else. They dont choose to become homosexual, you are born that way. Most homosexuals are raised by heterosexuals and denying the nature of their sexuality only leads to depressions, suicide and wasted human lives. It just happens, just like being being lefthanded or having red hair. Nobodoy chosses to be g a y.

Can they raise children. Of course they can. In an ideal world every child would live a happy life with mom and dad. But how many children are raised by single parents, or have to go through several divorces, or have parents with drugs addiction, alcohol, or are born in total poverty. If a single mom or dad can raise a child, why cant two moms or dads? I don’t think it has any influence on what sexuality these children will have later. Most homosexual people will want their children to lead a happy life according to their own desires.

In a modern society people can accepts differences and give everybody a chance to life a live according to their own desires, interests and wishes. Homosexuals have those rights to. The can have long term relationships to they can marry. For the law. They can buy houses together. They can adopt children.
For the not so g a y minded, we will talk again when one of your family turns out to be homosexual (about 10% chance for male, 5% for female?). You will want them to live a happy life.

).

I believe everybody is born free. Free to do what he wants an as he chooses. But at the same we live together with other humans, on an organised way, we call it society. The basic rule of society is that we share common rules and values, created to give anybody the opportunity on a free happy life.

Governement is a way to organise your practical, legal issues. It is of common interest everybody accepts these rules. We have a system called democracy, where every human has 1 vote to define those rules. My rule for society is "your freedom ends where the freedom of another peron begins". Thats how I live my life.

Religion is a way to organise moral issues and values. These values are much more of personal than communal interest. They will have a much bigger influence on your life than governement and laws will ever have. Because of that more personal impact, people have many different views on religion / moral issues. History has learned that imposing 1 set of values is almost impossible and wil always lead to the oppresion of individuals and groups with a different view on life. (look at the difficulties at defining basic human rights - people in eastern or arabic countries sometimes have different views on basic human rights, because they are defined by our western world standards).

So we have given individuals the freedom to choose their religion, to define their own values.

I find it very worrying and threatening that some moral majorities, or religions or individuals around the world refuse to accepts this and will do anything to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.

There is nothing wrong with religion, but for me it is a private matter. As are other issues such as abortion, being homosexual. In some of these cases, the governement has to make a stance on these issues, because of vastly different views between members of society. Differences that can lead to violence, murder. For me people should be free to choose for abortion, IVF, and even death within the limits set by the government. I don’t know when life begins. At the moment of conception? After a few months in the womb? When a baby can live on his own? From birth? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows. We can all have an opinion. And we should try and find some common ground on this.

And sometimes you have to accept that your opinion isn’t accepted by the vast majority of society. If a religion chooses not to give homosexuals marriage they can do that. Religion is a personal individual choice matter. (I was raised a catholic and went from 3-18 years to a very strict catholic school, so I know my bible things). But if society decides to accept g a y rights, religion has to accept this. No person has a claim to being more "correct" than another because he thinks he gets his views from the bible or koran.

Respect your neighbour as long as he respects you.[/quote]


Dear God thank you Luukje, it was refreshing to read your post and hear somebody else who understands what I've been saying.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

FWIW, if this were the biggest/only issue facing our country, then we'd be really, really lucky.

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

[quote=""sportinglisbon""]
Unbalanced for the child, I'm not judging themselves!
[/quote]

This is the what you tell yourself you believe, but in reality judging homosexuals is EXACTLY what you're doing. You assume that just because they are two men or two women that they are incapable of properly raising a child in a loving environment. You are making a JUDGMENT based on no proof whatsoever.

Think about it man.

[quote=""RascalJones""]FWIW, if this were the biggest/only issue facing our country, then we'd be really, really lucky.[/quote]

Yea, no kidding. It just happens that social issues like this one tend to create good arguments / discussions. :P Discussing abortion leads nowhere, and everybody seems to agree about Iraq, generally speaking.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

sportinglisbon wrote:

Unbalanced for the child, I'm not judging themselves!

This is the what you tell yourself you believe, but in reality judging homosexuals is EXACTLY what you're doing. You assume that just because they are two men or two women that they are incapable of properly raising a child in a loving environment. You are making a JUDGMENT based on no proof whatsoever.
I think I have to start to quote myself.
Quote::
But there is NO proof at all that it's not possible for two mothers or two fathers to properly raise a child in a loving, nurturing, supportive environment.
I've already said that's not the point. The point is that living with homosexual parents my unconsciously affect the child's mind while it wouldn't be affected by heterosexual parents, I'm not saying that homosexual parents can't provide support.
They would give a child in need a safe home. What you define as "best environment".
It would be even better if they were heterosexual, as some people here admitted it was more balanced for the child. What if the child grows up and starts to think that he could have had a better life if he had a mother/father too? When adopting, it should be for the best of the child.

Yea, no kidding. It just happens that social issues like this one tend to create good arguments / discussions. :p Discussing abortion leads nowhere, and everybody seems to agree about Iraq, generally speaking.
+1 ^^

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Who cares about what the child might wonder when he grows up? The fact is, there are probably many same sex couples who could do just as good if not a better job at raising a child as many opposite sex couples. Honestly, if a person grows up in a loving, nurturing, supporting, and responsible environment I don't see it as very likely that they would regret things.

Maybe they'd wonder what it would have been like if they had a mother and a father. But everybody grows up differently and everybody can wonder about what their life might have been like if some things had been different. What's important for that person is that they had parents to raise them to begin with. Many children in the USA and around the world don't have that privilege. We should be willing to provide those children with any good home we can give them.

Also, as Luukje said, the right to raise children of your own is something that every responsible person should have. Why should homosexuals not have that right?
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
DrWho42
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:57 am
Location: Sunny Southern California

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by DrWho42 »

A nice civil discussion and some good points made.

I think we can all agree that the "ideal" family for raising children would be a loving mother and father in a stable economic and social environment. However, I think that we all know that this ideal is very difficult to acheive and that too many children are raised in dreadful conditions. Will allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt make this situation worse? I don't think so, and for some children it may be better.

Our standard for adoption is (and should remain) to consider the best interests of the child. In our country we have more children needing adoption than we have couples seeking to adopt. Would an orphan be better off placed with a loving homosexual couple than staying in an institution? Quite possibly.

I think that the issue of homosexual marriage and adoption will eventually resolve itself in favor of greater liberty and equality for those citizens. It wasn't that long ago that state laws prohibitted inter-racial marriage and adoption. These laws had been created by bigotry and supported by a selective interpretation of religious texts. Most of us can look back and see how wrong those laws were.

I agree with RascalJones- we would be lucky if this were the most serious problem our country faced. LOL! Sadly, our country has many serious issues that need to be faced. As I mentioned in my earlier post, homosexuals, abortion, etc. distract us from the more pressing problems.

My hope is that the next president will provide leadership in the bigger issues and leave many of these social issues to resolve themselves through a civil dialogue amoung the American people.

Cheers.
Image

"Any hussar who isn't dead by thirty is goldbricking." General Lasalle

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Well said, DrWho.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

Who cares about what the child might wonder when he grows up?
Thank you for supporting my point about the child not being able to choose if he or she would like to have a normal family like other adopted kids had.

Post Reply