According to The American Psychological Association, there was no noticeable difference between kids raised in gay households and straight households. And I think a foster kid would rather have a family in their own country.
An environment with both a mother and a father would be preferred. There are a large number of such couples who are forced to adopt from overseas and they would be the best option.
Whether homosexuals are capable of adopting and raising children is not relevant. That is not the situation civil marriage was created for nor is it the environment society believes to be ideal. Civil marriage exists for a reason. The conditions and requirements attached to it are reasonable and related to that purpose. One of those requirements is one man and one woman.
Homosexuals are capable of adopting and raising children.
And it doesn't regulate pro-creation. You think that unmarried couples will simply start screwing all over the place? My parents didn't. And 40-50% of the American public divorces. Is that ideal for the kids?
I gotta give you credit for making an argument based on reasoning. You are one in a mil. But the fact of the matter is, the anti-gay crowd doesn't give a crap about the kids. They simply used them as targets for the fence sitters.
I would suggest you read the studies rather than the political statements of professional associations.
I have no idea what you mean re: foster kids and their own country.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
According to The American Psychological Association, there was no noticeable difference between kids raised in gay households and straight households. And I think a foster kid would rather have a family in their own country.
Savior20061 2 years ago
An environment with both a mother and a father would be preferred. There are a large number of such couples who are forced to adopt from overseas and they would be the best option.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
No purpose. Wouldn't gay marriage provide an adopted child with a good environment or no? Or is foster with it's 2/5 success rate better?
Savior20061 2 years ago
Are you a big fan of government institutions that serve no purpose?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Except the purpose and the condition aren't really necessary.
Savior20061 2 years ago
No, procreation is a purpose, not a requirement.
I could not care less about civil unions. As best as I can tell they serve no societal purpose at all.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Civil marriage exists for a reason."
Right, it is a requirement to pro-create, obivously.
But seriously, fair enough. How do you feel about civil unions?
Savior20061 2 years ago
Whether homosexuals are capable of adopting and raising children is not relevant. That is not the situation civil marriage was created for nor is it the environment society believes to be ideal. Civil marriage exists for a reason. The conditions and requirements attached to it are reasonable and related to that purpose. One of those requirements is one man and one woman.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Homosexuals are capable of adopting and raising children.
And it doesn't regulate pro-creation. You think that unmarried couples will simply start screwing all over the place? My parents didn't. And 40-50% of the American public divorces. Is that ideal for the kids?
I gotta give you credit for making an argument based on reasoning. You are one in a mil. But the fact of the matter is, the anti-gay crowd doesn't give a crap about the kids. They simply used them as targets for the fence sitters.
Savior20061 2 years ago