what do you think?

1)should same sex couples be allowed to adopt children?

2) should same sex marriages be legalized?

vote here atBellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Absolutely same sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

They should be given the SAME right to marry as well.

Saying any different is saying they are LESS then human.

With regards to 1);

I believe that serving the best interest of the child takes precedent over any social and/or political correctness. There are decided social constructs that would concern me - the child's exposure to undue harassment and prejudice and the proven commitment of the couple involved as opposed to some trendy thing that all of the other gays are doing - those sorts of things.

Do not bother flaming me for the trendy comment. People are eternally subject to social morays and trends towards the cute, irrespective of their sexual persuasions, truth. That's the sort of thing you have to protect baby chicks against on Easter, lest you think me exaggerating.

Having said, I've always found it extremely ironic that you have to have a license to fish, but absolutely anyone can have a child. There are scores of unfit and dysfunctional people out there procreating, and that doesn't make me happy, either.

Where it's simply a question of love and integrity, it would be insulting to assume that sexual persuasion has anything at all to do with that.

As regards 2);

Whatever is consensual between two adults is their business and theirs alone. I'm never sure what the argument is - marriage is a /legal/ institution. Fundamentalists may argue that it is sacred, but the very act of it needing to be legalized in the first place throws the argument out the window.

It's more of a business partnership than anything. Churches that do not ascribe to its sanctity simply do not have to participate in any ceremony, nuff said.

We could argue whether it's moral, but there again - I am not a 'legalize morality' sort of wench.

I assume you are aware that the divorce rate among heterosexual couples is higher then that of Gay couples in the states where their union is allowed? In my opinion children are better off in a two parent household, statistics show that is MORE likely to happen in a gay family.

Statistics also show that when children are molested, its by heterosexual parents, not gay ones.

By using this excuse, that children will get LESS harassment in a heterosexual family, you are allowing MORE discrimination to be heaped on a group for no real reason. Until the good ole USofA pulls its head out of the Victorian period and accepts Gay and Lesbian couples for real live human beings with needs, wants, emotions and yes EVEN RIGHTS, this country is going to struggle.

What shocks me is how unashamed people seem to be to express their prejudice.

I'm not comfotably familiar enough with which states allow legal union of Gay marriages, but confident that the data at best is very recent as only within the last twenty years or thereabouts has it even become socially acceptable to admit to being an actual couple, whereas divorce statistics predate back as far as one cares to look. Curious though - where are your statistics coming from?

I never voiced a concern as to whether molestation would be more prevalent, but again - the scarcity of gay couples as compared to heterosexual ones with children would make me question averages. Your argument seems to be that Gay people are more responsble in some way than heterosexual ones which I find flawed - people are people. Why would sexual orientation play into any inherent responsibility factors?

And my concern as stated is not an 'excuse'. That's terribly overbroad and assumptive. It's a concern which has nothing at all to do with any ascribed morality, just a personal point of reference which being human, I am entitled to regardless of who likes it or not. Which is inevitably the point of forums such as these - to engender discussion of pivotal issues where we all can learn and benefit one from another, without prejudice and with some modicum of kindredness and respect.

As an aside: I'm a strong advocate for Gay rights and abhor any perspective that seeks to intrude upon the liberties of consenting adults, period. The rights of children are an entirely different matter when it comes to lifestyle choices - and yes, where it's only a question of love and commitment, I see no reason why Gay people should be treated any differently than any other couple seeking to adopt. But to base credibility and/or commitment upon sexual orientation to me is in itself flawed at best. They are no more special than heterosexual couples or less, simply oriented different sexually. It's just that simple.

Yes, I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt a child or children, provided they meet the standards of a safe and loving household.

There are too many children stuck in foster care. If a couple meets all the standard requirements for adoption, then how could that child NOT be better off? Every family has it's issues. Though I agree that a child with same sex parents may be a target for harassment, the same can be said for any child with a biracial or ethnically unique family. A child with a different appearance, religion, or name may be a victim of teasing as well. That's not a strong enough reason to keep a loving couple from adopting.

The single sex couples I happen to know who have children are fantastic parents.

IMO a child needs a mother and father to thrive. That said, I believe that children available for adoption should be placed with eligible heterosexual couples. If these are not available, however, then I believe an eligible same sex couple should be considered. Last in line should be eligible single people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

No matter what the makeup of the home, it is my most fervent belief that the red tape which shackles children to horrid birth parents who have no interest in reclaiming the parent-child relationship (and which keeps the kids in foster care indefinitely) should be severed a lot sooner and a lot more decisively; similarly, I believe that the steep price tag attached to an adoption needs to be reduced to make it affordable for more couples.

With respect to marriage: I believe that gay marriage should only be legalized if polygamist marriage (in all its incarnations) is given legal status as well.

An excellent point.

I believe if the child will be cared for properly, loved, and protected anyone should be allowed to adopt. There are many heterosexual couples who should not be parents. There are people with a lot of money who could provide for a child, it doesn't mean they should, unless they are willing to give the child the time and love that it takes.

There are so many children in the "system" who are not being properly cared for, that it makes me crazy to think that there could be loving parents out there somewhere, but society does not want to allow it. Simply ridiculous.

The complication with polygamist marriages, open relationships, polyamoury and polyandry is - that at one point or another - one member of the arrangement grows dissatisfied.
I watched a very serious and well-researched programme about 6 months ago, about polyamory. They interviewed and closely followed seven different groups of people who had decided to enter into polyamorous relationships, for a whole year. Without exception, discord had arisen somewhere. Jealousy, resentment,and a general state of malaise or dissatisfaction was evident , to one degree or another in every single case.
One man admitted, finally, that he exercised his right, as per their agreement, to have more than one partner other than his 'legal' wife, but forbade her from doing the same. So this, in effect, was bigamy, or having a mistress, rather than polyamoury, as they had both initially insisted it was.
In another situation, where a woman had two partners (very different in temperament and looks)it turned out that although they all lived under the same roof, the two guys hated each other. One of them tried to cultivate a relationship with another woman - and ended up leaving, because he realised it was all a sham for him....
The programme concluded that if relationships like this are to survive, and eventually become accepted, Human Beings will have to undergo a radical change in the way they perceive sex, marriage and fidelity.
'Traditional' values and prejudices are still very strong, and an evolutionary metamorphosis may be required before these kinds of relationships can ever survive in the long-term, let alone introducing children - naturally or adopted - into them.

And of course, this never happens with heterosexual, monogamous couples.

What is the divorce rate now - over 50 %?





Polyamorists, please weigh in here.

Personally, I do not think man (that is, mankind - women inclusive) are by nature monogamous. Nothing in our genetic predisposition suggests anything other than a want - dare I say /need/ for variety.

Interestingly enough, you and I had a previous discussion on the merits of Matriarchy and the Mosu. Synchronously, most matriarchal societies are decidedly polyamorous.


That's rather unfair. Not entirely unsurprising either.

I think it's a sort of 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality. I'm still holding my opinion as regards nature, in any event.



Very obviously so. And I may argue that it is more natural to be attracted to multiple partners, but this may not be in the best interests of society - my verdict is still out on that, largely due to honesty issues and such.

Do research the Mosu though. Their social structure has worked quite well for centuries.

That's the one where the women take the active role in choosing the men they want to sleep with then sending them back home to their mothers in the morning. Women are the tribal heads and the children are raised with the mothers - the men as I recall all share the duties and roles of fathers to all children. Children are never role-dependent on who biologically concieved them in that sense.

Not an entirely bad thing, when you think about it.

With regards to 'single sex couples being fantastic parents' - is this not more akin due to the individuals they are as opposed to the fact that they are Gay?

Or did I miss something somewhere where being sexually aligned in a particular way makes you more virtuous and capable than all other persuasions?

Lisbeth, I remember our discussion of old. I am entirely in agreement with you. This was in fact the point of my post. And if indeed, single-partner heterosexual couples are messing it up, it denotes a social inherent nature that we just haven't cracked it. I think people just don't know what they want. Or rather, perhaps they do, but Morally, Religiously, Socially - I think we're still stuck in the dark ages! We're a sorry, confused messed up bunch, really!!


Precisely! And isn't that the way it's been ever since Eve took the apple and Adam said 'she made me do it!'?? whadda jerk! *giggle*


Again, I'm in complete agreement with you. I feel very much the same way.


Where do I sign up.....?

Why should that even be an issue?

I had 4 children there father was never there 4 them, never did things with them, and beat us often. my kids had a father and a mother. did that make it a balanced family for them NO. I met my girlfriend when i was raising my grandson, we did every thing together, and went every where to gether she came to parents meetings at his school now he was in a stable home. with a gay grandmother and her girlfriend, he is doing well and is attending college.

Which only underscores my initial assessment in my first reply:

"Where it's simply a question of love and integrity, it would be insulting to assume that sexual persuasion has anything at all to do with that."

Congratulations on a fine job at the central issue of the wellbeingness of children: Providing Love.

Love and caring and providing should be the basis for when children are adopted. My parents got divorced when I was in 4th grade but they both loved me and still to this day love me regardless that I am a lesbian. As long as your parents love and cheerish and care for you it shouldn't matter if you have a mom and dad or two moms or two dads.

Dead on Lorel!

Love is love, and there are too many kids that need it. There are so many stories of child abuse and babies being thrown away (literally). How can that be better than being loved by anybody?

And kids are gonna be cruel - they'll find a reason. My 10 yr old daughter came home in tears one day because some boys were teasing her and saying she was "fat and ugly". You can see the child's spine, so this os obvisouly not true. But the boys were being cruel, and this got to her.

Ok, I was adopted so let me put a spin on this from my view point.
Yes, it's important that children should be loved and all and be in a loving home, but here's the issue.
To many times, people take a child into their homes whether loving or not and try to manipulate that child into being the way that the parents are and don't tell me that it doesn't happen. It does.
A kid can get just as messed up in a heterosexual family as it could in a gay family. It's bad enough when kids walk in on mom and dad when they are little. How do you explain it when it's mom on mom or dad on dad, and don't call me a gay basher because I have many gay friends that are men, and I have no problem with their lifestyle, but just stating the obvious. Parents, no matter who they are tend to pressure a child no matter the age into accepting their ways of things and not allowing that child to be a free thinker.

Is it no freakin wonder that everyone in this world is screwed up. POINT MADE

Oh and by the way, for all of you who try so say well maybe I'm screwed up. Yes, you're right. I came from adopted parents that wanted me one way, and I chose the other way and became a disappointment. Do I care? No I don't