Hell no! See what are society is becoming. This country needs Jesus.
2007-02-14 03:28:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
7⤋
I think the most important person in the debate is the child. If a child is going to be loved and given every opportunity to develop and become a balanced human being then that is the most important thing. What if the child were both deaf and mute would it know who it's parents were and how would you tell that child that it's parents were a same sex couple. There are a lot of heterosexual couples out there who should never have had kids. I don't think the fact that people are gay or straight gives them the tools necessary to raise a child. I think that begins with unconditional love. I know of a gay couple that took on a child with extreme mental and physical retardation, most straight people I guess would never have considered that child for adoption, but it is loved unconditionally. Who am I to judge??
2007-02-17 03:17:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dr Paul D 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think as long as the home is stable and loving a child who needs a home will benefit. I see someone posted studies from narth.com, a biased anti-gay site. There are no reputable studies to show that children are any worse for being raised in same sex households. Children who come from situations were they needed to be adopted are already suffering the effects. Plenty of children are raised in single parent households and plenty are raised in not loving and dysfunctional two parent not same sex households. If it were a perfect world everyone would have a picture perfect family like leave it to beaver. It would be a very dull and homogenous world though. Loving family is what children really need regardless of the makeup of the household.
2007-02-14 03:34:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Zen Pirate 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Studies have shown that there are huge benefits to having a mom and dad in the home, so of course that's the ideal I wish for every child.
but if the choice were between a child being raised in an orphanage or bouncing around between foster homes, I think a stable same gender couple is still better than that. I would just strongly urge them to make sure the child has someone of the other gender who is a consistent, positive, role model in their life, like a uncle or aunt, or something. (good advice for single parents too).
2007-02-14 03:37:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by daisyk 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well I don't see a problem as long as some things are done, such as the child is brought up understanding about sex between man, and woman, and all is explaned and the child has a free mide to do want it wants, the only problem here is, is the child gong to be right i the middle of things and only know one way of life?
2007-02-14 06:11:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by ringo711 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Any child brought up with two loving parents is lucky. How many children do you know with divorced or unhappy parents? At least same-sex parents have made a conscious decision to have a child. I'm interested to know why you don't agree with this.
2007-02-15 04:50:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I just saw a documentary program about two male nurses who work in a pediatric aids ward. They adopt the untouchables, babies with aids. They lived in Florida, when one child they raised for years came up negative on an aids test, they tried to take that child away from them. The couple had to move to Oregon to keep the child who wanted to stay with them.They are good parents and their adoptive children love them.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2002_April_30/ai_85281818
To answer your question, loving qualified parents are just that, loving qualified parents. I would rather a child be with parents who fit that description than hateful bigots who fear their adoptive children with threats of hell.
2007-02-14 03:34:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sara 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
i dont think its that big of a deal when you consider that there are millions of children around the world with no home or parents, i think it would be a quick fix to that problem, however i wonder if allowing gay parents to raise a child might cause some kind of damage to that child. not saying that gay people will do crazy stuff to their kids, but that might be odd to explain, when a child notices that all the other kids have a mommy and daddy and he has two daddies, or mommies. WIERD!!!
2007-02-14 03:33:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by david 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Not a lot,children should be brought up in a natural enviroment, a child's early life experiences stay with him/her forever,the child should be led by the example of a mother and father,not two people of the same sex!!!
2007-02-14 07:37:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I can come up with several sociological reasons that you should have role models of both sexes. So I think that it is preferable that they go into a standard family model. That said there are a hell of a lot of kids that would be way way way better off in a stable gay family than the situation they are in with foster care or the children's homes.
2007-02-14 03:30:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
I agree with you but from a purely social science point of view. A child needs both male and female role models to become well adjusted and develop both their male and feminine sides. If they only receive one side then they will have problems adjusting to a male and female environment when they grow up plus, as with religion, I think a child should be able to choose so a hetrosexual upbringing until the child is old enough to choose for itself.
2007-02-14 04:27:16
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋