Welcome to Gaia! ::

Similar to the discussions popping up about how all of those unwanted fetuses could be harbored for adoption (dispite what the social sciences say about the woman's wholistic health in relation to adoption) I now turn to the issue of gay rights and adoption. How does a homosexual's right to adopt matter into this whole issue of pro-life vs. pro-choice, you ask?

1) Since pro-life is for saving all the unwanted fetuses, they are gonna have to go somewhere. Adoption is a rather favored position.
2) There are gay couples who want to adopt. Note that the APA (American Psychological Association) does not see homosexuality as a devient or pathological sexual lifestyle.
3) So it would seem important for pro-life to weigh in the possibility of gay couples adopting. Afterall, the more potential caretakers in the pool, the merrier, right?

(As an aside, it would REALLY be interesting to get pro-life's position on gay couples adopting. what do they feel about it?)

choice #1) if they do not mind gay couples, then I can see no big problem from this because pro-life would seem to be more open-minded and accepting of people of diverse backgrounds, which leads to a bigger adopting parents pool.
choice # 2) if they DO mind however, then they would seem to agree to cut down the pool of potential adopting couples, which puts strains on what is going to be done for the unwanted fetuses, which ultimately puts strains on the validity of the pro-life position.


Sadly, because a lot of pro-lifers come from religious backgrounds (and are infact very influenced by their religious beliefs to have such a position), their same religious beliefs that disregard women's rights are probably just as insensitive to gay rights.

- The bible has very clear, distinct passages which are intolerant of gays. There is no skirting around this issue because I can pull up ALL the quotes on homosexuality here. The christian right, a fundamentally religious organization that is an influential voting bloc in the country, clearly opposes gay rights. Seeing also that 3/4's of Americans consider themselves to be Christian (courtesy of pbs.org), one has to wonder just how much influence the bible has on people and their decision-making skills.
- One also has to take into account how educated pro-lfe people are about gay people. Also, how much life experience pro-life people have had in interacting with gay people. Ignorance about gay people certaintly wouldn't help pro-life make an informed decision about gay people and their right to adopt. Limited interaction with gays + intolerant religious belief go hand in hand with homophobia.


Ok, I'm done for now. whoa, what a mouthful. xp But please comment, someone. My last topic was a little lonely. ^^;

Well, the only 'credible' argument might be that a child needs both masculine and feminine influences at home, something not all same-sex couples can provide (unless one or the other is overwhemigly 'different' enough to qualify as the 'missing' personality).

same argument used about single parents, i think.

thanks for the first response whee

I've heard that argument before. This argument would assume that the sexes are inherently unique, with inherent roles they give out. Biologically, there is little difference between a man and a woman. Gender is socially constructed. As long as gender roles are aimed to be strictly traditional, that argument has some validity to it.

Otherwise, anyone who has both so-called "masculine" and "feminine" qualities ought to be a sufficient caretaker?

I've created so many topics I think my mind has run dry...maybe it;s cos school and college and university has just kicked off again...people have other things to do...

well we could have a guild specificly for members of the two guilds...this has been discussed before but has seemed to vanished into the cave of obscurity...

my parents rarely spend time with me neutral
and I've never had some crazy shrink say I need more masculine and feminine influences in my life

Also
in my opinion
religion should not be allowed to become involved with goverment 3nodding
I believe that any politician who is being swayed in his views of something by his religion should be discharged from his position 3nodding

thanks for the response!

Yes, it's important to realize that there are many viewpoints within a belief system. Not all christians hate homosexuals. It's my personal opinion though that the closer one wants to follow their religious book, the more "too the book" (or legalistic) the person will be in living their life. For the people who heavily rely on the bible, this may include living out beliefs that are repungent, absurd, and/or intolerant to our day.

A Christian belief about the books of the law (taken from Paul) is that Jesus has fulfilled the law, therefore Christians are now free from following the books of the law.

Other christians, like the Messianic Jews, basically merge two belief systems to come out believing that Jesus is the messiah, yet follow the jewish rules/laws.

fundamental Christians seem to have the belief that christians don't have to follow the books of the law, but they point out that the sins in those books are still sins today. Amusingly, some passages are ignored while others are extolled, as you all know.

If I'm being inaccurate in any of those generalizations above, feel free to correct me smile

Usually there's more than enough influence from the family in these situations. For example, in single parent families, grandparents would more than likely be very involved in the upbringing of the children, not to mention aunts/uncles and family friends.

A gay couple adopting would be roughly the same - there would be grandparents, other family members and plenty of family friends. To say that a child wouldn't have both masculine and feminine influence in both situations is just, well, plain silly.

Ignoring that, why does it matter that a child has both influences? I know plenty of people who were raised by oen parent with minimal contact from the opposite gender to their parent, and they've turned out just fine.

The only thing I can think is this: while stereotypical, many pro-lifers are rather conservative and may disapprove of homosexuality anyway. Therefore, because they don't support the lifestyle itself, they wouldn't support anything granting rights to homosexuals.