Why would homosexual couples want to raise a child?

You are so correct, I believe. And too, it's odd how they're willing to accept the in-born feeling planted in them by evolution, which makes it natural to want to have children to raise and love- but they're not willing to accept the in-born and evolution-intended fact that they should have sexual feelings for the OPPOSITE sex and not the same sex.

- - - Updated - - -

You needn't fear him being correct.

If homosexuality is the world's biggest blunder and a self-fooling belief, it's better that that fact be revealed.

If homosexuality is fine for people, then you needn't fear the disagreement.

 

I think we shouldn't deprive children of homes with parents who want to take them out of foster homes and orphanages

Each year, over 27,000 youth “age out” of foster care
without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. This number has steadily risen over the past decade. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Over three years is the average length of time a child waits
to be adopted in foster care. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally.

I think telling children that it is better for them to rot in foster care than be adopted by two men or two women who can provide a financially stable and loving home is just wrong.

 

It has nothing to do with correct/incorrect. It has to do with what business of his is it. He's not worried about the kids. He's worried about gay people getting the same rights as himself.

 

ok, I'm generally considered a conservative on these issues, but the obvious problem in your reasoning or confusion is that infertile heterosexuals can adopt - maybe you'd like to expand on your op?

I read an article a way back that was interesting. It tried to assess the scholastic differences between children raised by homosexual and heterosexual couples. A lot of people blindly assert that there's no difference, and would object to the finds of the study, but the study found that children raised by homosexual couples actually underperformed (relative to children raised by heterosexual couples) in all categories except for social studies, where the difference made the net 'change' essentially null. I can't remember if the net difference went one way or the other, but it was insignificant.

 

... because he thinks it isn't good for the children. You don't need to deliberately mischaracterize his opinion so that anyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe. I find few things less valid or conducive to valuable discussion than that, deliberate mischaracterization of arguments and (direct or indirect) character assassination.

You could instead have chosen to go about it multiple ways. You could have chosen to instead tried to show him that there really is no evidence that kids are worse off being raised by homosexuals (I noted a study I saw a while back, and will try to find it). You could also have skipped that and gone the route that it doesn't matter what the 'average' parenting skills of a homosexual v. a heterosexual are, because the average of a group isn't justification for denying an individual. That'd be like an employer saying, "well, the average person in your racial group doesn't even have a high school diploma so, despite your own PhD, I can't offer you this job."

 

This really isn't a valid argument. The contention the op has is that homosexuals aren't suitable parents, and you come back saying that kids wait a long time to be adopted, and those in foster care don't do as well? That'd be like the op saying, "pedophiles shouldn't be able to adopt" and you coming back and making the same notation. And no, before you or anyone else tries to jump at it, I'm not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, I'm pointing out the absurdity of your point. Your point, in no way, is a response to the objection made by the op. Respond to the objection made, don't just parrot some common arguing point.

As I've already stated, the objection made in the op needs elaboration because on the face of it it is inaccurate - but your response has nothing to do with the objection made.

 

^_-

Again, this line of reasoning seems odd. The op asserts that homosexuals aren't as fit to be parents, and you counter by saying every child deserves a home - would you then be willing to compromise with the op and say that homosexuals can adopt children over x age (let's suppose six) who are in foster care?

I doubt you would, but the line of reasoning you've put forth would suggest that that or something similar would be an acceptable compromise. You reject it on principle, am I right? And so if you reject the op's assertion on principle, quibbling over how many kids don't have an actual home is acquiescing to his point.

 

You didn't miss the point here because it went over your head. You missed it because you wanted to miss it. So what point is there in even trying to further explain this to you?

 

I would imagine that folks, gay and straight, want children for the same reason. Some folks seem to have a need to have children, to raise children. Some folks find it fulfilling, and it brings joy into their lives.

 

It works for me. The opinion of the OP was unsubstantiated and purely opinion.

And in my opinion- telling children that no home is better than a home with two loving and financially stable homosexuals is just wrong.

 

As others have pointed out- homosexuals can already adopt. And they do.

I reject it both on principle for both the children and the potential adoptive parents.

For the homosexuals you are saying "Well we can't find any heterosexuals willing to take the children that their heterosexual parents abandoned- so homosexuals can have the ones no one else wants."

For the kids you are saying "Good news kids, now that you have reached age X, and we still haven't found any heterosexuals that want you, we will let you go to the homosexuals we didn't approve of when you were less than age X."

On a practical level- if the goal is to move children from foster homes and orphanages to permanent stable homes- then we want the largest pool of permanent stable homes to draw from to move those kids into.

And of course- all prospective adoptive parents- heterosexual or homosexual, single or married, need to be thoroughly vetted and there should be follow up visits to ensure to monitor their progress.

 

I'm straight and want nothing to do with having kids. What does that make me in the eyes of the OP? Am I too a bad person?

As an aside, it's awesome that my girlfriend is of the same mindset. Other people's kids are okay to hang around in small chunks but (*)(*)(*)(*) that raising them business. We both got (*)(*)(*)(*) to do.

 

Why would sterile heterosexual couples want a child when it is physically impossible for them to conceive?

 

I touched on that earlier.

 

I've never understood why anyone would voluntarily eat Brussels Sprouts. Different strokes. It's not necessary that you understand it.

 

Because if it weren't for unfortunate circumstances, they'd otherwise be able to procreate.

- - - Updated - - -

Me either, but then brussel sprouts and homosexual couples adopting have fuhq all to do with each other.

 

On the face of it, you are correct. But the OP was "Why would someone who has a different sexuality than me want kids?"

The answer is it doesn't matter. If they do, they do.

 

most people have a desire to help others, especially help a child grow up and succeed in life, many adopt for this very reason, some do it for attention or cause it's a fad, but most do it because they want too

I think if they are good people, they should be able to adopt, I think their genders should not play into it


.

 

"I've never been able to understand why a gay couple would want to raise a child,"

No you haven't. But the rest of us have. As a happily married man, with a lovely wife and a child of my own, the reasons are crystal clear.

Luckily it isn't really that important that you can't understand why people want to have children.

 

If I haven't made it abundantly clear, I don't take issue with your conclusion/opinion, but you haven't responded to the 'thrust' of the op's point/question/whatever it was. No, it wasn't substantiated, he was putting forth an opinion.

You should respond in kind, because your points were - given his issue with gay couples adopting - not relative to the point of discussion.

ok - why should they choose between their orientation and raising a child?

 

I don't understand why an infertile heterosexual couple would want to raise a child. It's impossible for them to conceive, so this seems strange.

Well, good thing you backed up your anti-gay-parent opinion with facts.

So, if straight people weren't allowed to adopt, you wouldn't see a violation of rights either?

 

If I responded in kind I would end up ranting.

I am comfortable with the point I made.

 

"And I don't expect liberals to be logical about this since they don't even think children have the basic right to life to begin with. So it's on the rest of us to look out for them and their well-being."

Quit with your diversions, your point was clearly identified.

 

i was raised by a single parent, my mother and no father, and i turned out just fine. i think as long as the child is getting love and care it doesnt really matter. and tbh i think there are more dead beat heterosexual fathers and mother out there who'd be glad to give their child away, so why not give the child a nice stable home?

 

A lot of foster families are a joke, and so is this thread.