Decent people are sympathetic to the feelings of others and this is a very good thing. When someone crys loudly enough that he wants something there is an inclination to give it to him.

But if what that person wants has a fair possibility of causing harm to another (or himself) it is imperative to say “no”.

Further, it is also a good thing to ask questions about what is being sought. If the response to those questions are accusations of bigotry or if it appears the answers to them are not honest, then that shows for a certainty it was right to ask the questions and the suspicions on which those questions are based are founded.

I’m not going to take you literally but simply guess at what I think you mean. Single parenthood is not a desired state. A single person seeking to adopt a child ought to be rejected as a general rule don’t you agree?

Well you didn’t have a problem putting words in my mouth did you?

My point was that those stereotypes are not representative of the gay population

Which gets us to the issue at hand namely that it’s not about “orientation” but behavior and the ability to control one’s urges.

If there is a male homosexual that does not see males as sex objects — i.e. shows he can restrain any urge he may have to have sex with males — that person may be someone who is not automatically disqualified as an adoptive parent.

Is this possible? The Catholic Church thought not so long ago that orientation was not a disqualifying factor in ordaining priests. They’ve changed their position, as I understand it.

Regardless, this is a question for objective study but I don’t think the endowed chair at UCLA is capable of doing such.

I think they would reject any evidence that goes against their bias regardless of how well founded which was a point in my first post (#5).

Concerning lesbians, I think it is fair to express a concern that they do not understand nor particularly like males and masculinity. Would they make a young boy play quietly like a young girl? Would they be able to discipline a male teenager? Are these fair questions? Can we expect honest answers from UCLA? I doubt that we can.

This whole thing was started when tribune expressed frustration witht the idea of giving tax breaks to gay couples that would not rear any children. I became interested in if it would be okay to give tax breaks to only to couples with children including gay couples however they may come about having children.

I just do not understand why not having two successful heterosexual role models would be an unexceptable or even unusual burden on a child. Should we round up all the children of single mothers or single fathers as they certainly are not being role models for the institution of marriage. Perhaps we should also remove children from unhappy couples that provide very poor lessons to their children for what a healthy heterosexual relationship should be. I suppose in some idealized world where marriages were always happy and always lasted an argument could be made that children deserve nothing short of the ideal. The fact is that the ideal is not at all the rule and to hold gay people to that standard and automatically disqualify them despite any other merits seems a tad bit unfair.

I also do not understand why having gay parents would disrupt a child’s interaction with a predominantly heterosexual world. Especially since the children would probably be heterosexual anyway. I certainly did not learn about heterosexual relationships from my parents. I learned from my own experience and the experiences of my peers. As far as I know that is a fairly typical thing. What would prevent these kids from going through similar experiences?

The bottom line is what a child needs is a loving, supporting, and nurturing home. As long as they have that they will be well equipped to develop themselves and decide what kind of life they want to lead. I was getting the feeling that some here thought that it was not possible for a gay couple to provide such an environment.

Tribune

I did not at all imply that there were no gay people that matched those stereotypes. My point was that those stereotypes are not representative of the gay population so to penalize the entire gay population because of the actions of a few would be grossly unfair.

Well then what about artificial insemination and surrogate mothers? Should these practices be made illegal for gay couples?

These are not adoptions. I’m only concerned with adoption and the state interest in placing the child in the best possible situation.

Sixty or more years ago being sired by black parents assuredly put more of a burden on a child then being raised by responsible gay parents today.

So what? That doesn’t mean it’s okay to unnecessarily burden adopted children.

The only burden necessarily resulting from being raised by gay parents is the bigotry of other members of society.

Not true. The child only has one gender for a parental role model and there is also no heterosexual role model. Given that society is predominantly heterosexual with equal proportions of both genders the child is deprived by role models unrepresentative of the adult society he or she will become part of. I consider those the greater burdens.

Or is the right to be a bigot more important then the right to raise a child?

The only child anyone has a right to raise is their own and that right can be taken away even from natural parents for negligence.

DaveScot’s solution would not be acceptable to homosexualists. Homosexualists want to alter the very premises that would lead to traditional values; they will stop at nothing less. It’s not a matter of fairness, or a matter of respect for what is repugnant and foul; it is more. It is a fight to the finish in defense of no God, or a redefined God.

In a very similar way the evolutionists want to do the very same thing; it is a fight to the finish. It is like Djihad.

There are additional threats that demand sharp rebuke. Arguing (jmcd) on the side of the _bien-pensants_ is the argument that offers bloodless defeat, then subservience (and misery) under the victor. History shows it is the mainstream herd that destroys.

And so it goes also on the evolution side. Alongside those basic premises goes the freedom of scientific inquiry.

What is reasonable is not the only spoil of freedom against bondage.

DITTO THAT

“All” is a loaded word just like “none.” Are you saying no female homosexuals dislike (my word) males and that no male homosexuals “see other men as sex objects (my words)”?

Frankly, I think the claim that “no male homosexuals see other men as sex objects” is laughable on its face, but that seems to be what you are implying.

The anecdotal cases of homosexuals raising children that I am personally aware of indicate that it is certainly possible for two homosexuals to create a loving and supportive environment to raise a child in.

It’s not about the possible. It’as about taking unnecessary chances. Here’s something that says homosexual adoption is an unnecessary chance.

Anyway, it’s not about what’s comforting to those wanting to adopt — it’s entirely about what’s best for the child.