Gay Marriage and Homosexual Adoption

[Star]

i've never heard of nambla so i googled it too. OMG!! that is sick!! this is an organization to boot???? they're child molesters!! OMG!! I'm shocked!!

[Luba]

I didn't know what Nambla was either, and when I looked it up and read the first few paragraphs, I felt ill...

[Ayla]

I too had to google NAMBLA to find out what in the world it was. I think that was the Ewww heard round the world!

I know that gay people may be icky to non gay people...but that something between two ADULTS...and I personally think comparing homosexuals addopting children to a NAMBLA couple adopting is like...I'm at a loss for words.

[sweetbilly]

I'm glad you are all disgusted, so am I. However, my question is still a valid one: How is the law, which is supposed to be blind to discrimination, supposed to validate one form so-called love for one group and deny another group their so-called "loving relationship" at the same time?

Just as homosexuals have claimed, science cannot prove that homosexual relationships are in any way different or devoid of morality from hetrosexual realationships, so how could a relationship between an adult and a child be any different? Of course we all know the difference but like i said the law is blind and will not disceminate any difference. No one can prove there is any difference between the relationships between these two groups, they both "love" the child, right? It is a given that when homosexuals get the right to adopt, these types of people will be right behind them asking for the same rights afforted homosexual couples.

These people are out there and have been pushing for this kind of action in our courts for a long time, they want homosexual adoption to happen!! (in fact i read, somewhere, that NAMBLA was donating funds to the homosexual groups to help get this issue into our court systems) and when we validate homosexual marriage/adoption etc... they will come out of the woodwork and demand to have the same rights as well. I agreee a relationship between two consenting adults is a somewhat different issue but what happens when the child is also deemed to be knowledgeable enough to be consenting.... like in hetrosexual marriages when the parents get divorced and the child is asked who he/she wants to live with. Will be there anyone there to say that a child isn't wise enough to understand?

We all know that children aren't old enough to know what an adult is planing to do but they rely on us to help them with the tough issues and make the rigt choice; they don't know when an adult has alterior motives. I think we agree that this dosen't have anything to do with civil rights but if we alow it to be that way, and once again, out of political correctness, allow the minority to become the majority in this country, it will become a civil rights issue and our children will pay for our decisions.

sweetbilly, being a (sexual) abuser is probably something that will prevent anyone, whether homosexual or heterosexual to adopt children.

I agree we can and do make that distinction but here is the problem with that thought: There isn't any scientific evidence anywhere, medical journals etc..., that says sexual abuse is in any way destructive to children!! And i have researched this before so i know they don't exist. Besides with the way people believe everything a doctor says today a court would never question weather it was or wasn't true what ever a Dr. say goes, and it wouldn't take alot of money today to distort facts with the right lawyer and doctor. In fact this is the very argument which NAMBLA has used in the past to try and forward their agenda, i.e. sexual relationships are not damaging to children. Why do you think the Catholic church never stopped the molestation, here wasn't anything in the bible saying it was wrong in their opinion? They have been abusing children since, well... forever. Because there wasn't anyone saying it's wrong no one did anything to stop it. Not until it bacame a major issue, after years and years all the reported molistations, did they do anythng about it. In fact, not until the past hundred years or so, was there any condemnation of this behavior by the Catholic church. The church actually at one time actually endorsed these types sexual relationships with children!! So, like i said, we know the difference, but the law is not allowed to make that distinction. So what do we do now that all the facts are on the table? Do we take the chance everything will work out, given the evil, selfish nature of humans, or do we do something this time to protect ourselves before someone else has to pay the price for a bad decision?

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by sweetbilly

No one can prove there is any difference between the relationships between these two groups, they both "love" the child, right? It is a given that when homosexuals get the right to adopt, these types of people will be right behind them asking for the same rights afforted homosexual couples.

But homosexuals will not challenge the whole idea of consent, as necessary for consensual sex. NAMBLA does. Homosexuals will not demand a physical expression of "love" from their children. We have good reason to believe that people who believe in the ideas of NAMBLA, do. Etc.

I agreee a relationship between two consenting adults is a somewhat different issue but what happens when the child is also deemed to be knowledgeable enough to be consenting.... like in hetrosexual marriages when the parents get divorced and the child is asked who he/she wants to live with. Will be there anyone there to say that a child isn't wise enough to understand?

If I am not mistaken there are degrees of that in different states. In general the older the child the more "valuable" its judgement about where he or she wants to stay.
Consenting in these cases is different from consenting from sexual relationships. If parents divorce when the child is three, does not grant decision power to the child on sexual matters at the age of three. That is only at the age defined for that by the respective States, and holds for all children, regardless of background. Which is 16 in most States, I think?

I think we agree that this dosen't have anything to do with civil rights but if we alow it to be that way, and once again, out of political correctness, allow the minority to become the majority in this country, it will become a civil rights issue and our children will pay for our decisions.

Nonsense. To qualify for adoption there are many things that will be considered by all these agencies. Experience and / or quality of child-rearing skills. Not all heterosexual or homosexual parents will qualify. But I doubt people who hold beliefs like those of NAMBLA would ever qualify.

I agree we can and do make that distinction but here is the problem with that thought: There isn't any scientific evidence anywhere, medical journals etc..., that says sexual abuse is in any way destructive to children!!

There is plenty of evidence. Albeit probabilistic evidence. In it, that children who are sexually abused run higher risks, to become destructively aggressive, alcoholics, basically the whole gamut of problems anyone can experience. It does not happen in all the cases. Given that the child is sexually abused, it is scientifically speaking reasonable to expect less than average adjustment compared to a person of whom we do not know. The expectation may be wrong in some cases, but are lower nonetheless.

Imagine for instance, a person being shot in the belly. Chances of survival are good. But that does not mean that being shot in that way, does not increase the chance of dying or does not increase the chance of developing other problems later on. We cannot be certain of problems developing or a person dying, but given that a person has been shot in the belly, these expectations become more plausible.

In fact this is the very argument which NAMBLA has used in the past to try and forward their agenda, i.e. sexual relationships are not damaging to children.

You cannot be certain that it is damaging. However, chances that it is not damaging, considering what I described above, are slim.

They have been abusing children since, well... forever. Because there wasn't anyone saying it's wrong no one did anything to stop it. Not until it bacame a major issue, after years and years all the reported molistations, did they do anythng about it. In fact, not until the past hundred years or so, was there any condemnation of this behavior by the Catholic church. The church actually at one time actually endorsed these types sexual relationships with children!!

Different times, different values. At one point in time, stoning was acceptable. Charging of interest not. Working on a Saturday not acceptable. Et cetera. Times change. And with that, habits, customs, and opinions on what is moral, and what is immoral.

So, like i said, we know the difference, but the law is not allowed to make that distinction.

No it may not make that distinction. But, it is well documented that sexual abuse decreases chances of children becoming well-adjusted (non-alcoholic, non-violent, et cetera). And it is a reasonable assumption the law-maker can make that these problems are not beneficial to the children to exercise their duties as citizens and their pursuit of happiness.

That is why it is possible for law-makers to exclude categories of people who would not qualify to raise a child as a well-adjusted child. And if I recall correctly, the financial situation of the prospective parents is also checked for. The reason being, that financial stability is a must for a child to be raised appropriately.

As with people who hold ideas regarding child-rearing that are questionable, I do not see why people who hold views like that should be allowed to adopt children, nor do I see the legal problem of making a law that makes that impossible.

And I do not see why homosexual people, who do not hold questionable ideas concerning child-rearing, and otherwise would also qualify to adopt (financially and whatever else is required) should also be included in such a category.

[Duke]

Not to mention it's just sick and utterly wrong. I'm sure that no government agency would be stupid enough to allow this kind of relationship to parent children. All a law would be doing is feeding the predator more new victims.

I really don't believe this is an apples to apples comparison at all.

[Star]

i don't believe that these two are comparible either. not by a long shot. homosexual couples are not diddlers by any means. this other group are child molesters. that's like comparing apples to oranges. it's not even close to being a comparison.

i agree with duke. no government in their right mind will ever allow that to happen. it's abuse to children.

[sweetbilly]

I just wanted to point out that the numbers are not imaginary, and it's not comparing apples to oranges if one is the cause of the other, is it?

http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_fil...ngStraight.PDF

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/may/02053107.html

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A408_0_2_0_C/

http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/sexabuse.html

http://www.afec.org/issues/homosexuality/agenda.htm

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals.(2)

Though probably less than a majority of mass murderers are homosexual, given that no more than 3% of the populace is gay, homosexual murderers show up much more frequently than one would expect (even Richard Speck engaged in homosexuality). Along with serial murder, there appears to be a connection between homosexuality and murder. Evidence from before the gay rights movement is limited. Of 444 homicides in one jurisdiction from 1955-1973, investigators noted 5 clear "sexual motivation" murders. Three of the 5 involved homosexuality and 2 involved heterosexuality. (3)

Here is part of the report i was talking about, the following was from---> http://www.fathersforlife.org/gay_dv.htm

I also thought this was interesting... http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/sexabuse.html

I think this is probably the most convencing argument of them all.. http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...ualAbuse.shtml

Another lovely example...ewwww http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/aids2.html

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/.../dr2216ea.html


This is just what i was able to find in twenty minutes, i'm sure there are plenty more reasons to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt children. Is this really the world we want to throw an innocent child into?

[Duke]

I don't really understand the homosexual world so it's really hard for me to go pro or con on this issue. I know that murder/rape/molestation can be traced to homosexuality but the problem is that it can also be traced to heterosexual people as well. At least this is the argument I would expect to see made to back up a pro case.

The Chester Molesters are a different breed entirely though IMHO. To me, anyone that has physical intimacy with a child is a sick lunatic and a predator For this reason I can't see the connection really to gays/bi's.

[Vautrin]

Sweetbilly, even if homosexuality caused such behavior (which it does not) explain to me, why the US alone holds not millions of mass murderers.

Likewise, even if there is a connection between homosexuality and deviant behavior, we must investigate how it is brought about.
Compared to Europe, the US is more restricted on the issue of homosexuality, and it is not hard to imagine that homosexuals face less problems in Europe on average than in the US. (Possibly SF and NYC are the exceptions to that rule.) Over here the serial murders are practically non-existent, and if they do hit the news, it is heterosexual men, who kill women or small girls. Likewise, the results in Europe could serve to deny heterosexual people the right to have children, in any way imaginable ...

If social exclusion causes behavior like that, and homosexuals are excluded more from social things than heterosexuals it is no surprise that homosexuals would be overrepresented in such a sample. And yes, anyone can blame heterosexuals, or even better those who are in office of power and deny homosexuals the same rights and treatment to homosexuals, for that. It does not solve the issue, which is brought about by the intolerance of the moral majority.

Likewise, explain to me, why only heterosexual politicians (in the West) have declared war on other nations in the past 50 years. If you believe that War (without a purpose) is evil, should heterosexuals be banned from offices, which would allow them to declare war otherwise? Great idea ...

Your sample of 518 is already stained - research has even shown that if a man murders a woman the chances of conviction are not the same with the genderroles reversed, even though the actual crime and motives are exactly the same. The chance a guy gets convicted for the rape of an 18-year old are lower than the chance a guy gets convicted for the rape of an 8-year old. So even stats of conviction / suspects (if available) should not be used lightly as proof.

Sexually thinged mass murder, is a very specific group of people who commit these crimes. Given that it is a sample of 44 murderers, and the US had a population of roughly 200 million people, chances are high that roughly 10 million of those were homosexual. 10 million does not even come close to 19. There is a problem of generalization, to say the slightest. If I were to interview 19 people in Houston, Texas, it does not mean that the views of these 19 people are the same of those who live in Anchorage, Alaska, or Boston, MA. And that is true for basically anything.

Likewise, the group of Republicans that voted Democratic in the last Presidential election, is by no means representative of either the Democrats or the Republicans.

So the question is, if you would set 1 million homosexuals loose in a scientific experiment, how many would become massmurderers? And, assuming that the ratio is 9 to 1, you would also need to set roughly 9 million heterosexuals all over the country loose to follow them closely and determine what causes it. Now that is unrealistic, but that is basically the idea you need to have any form of proof, that sexual preference would cause that.

Right now, I would go more with the idea of social exclusion, from which heterosexuals suffer far less, because their sexual preference is condoned as "good" in many cases, while homosexuals' sexual preference is condoned as "evil, as "eww..."
And without doubt, if you are going to look into detail in the past of all these people, you will see a pattern there.

Rich people are more prone to commit fiscal fraud, on a larger scale than poorer people. Does that mean, the tax services, should watch every penny they spend? Poor people are probably more prone to shoplift. Does that mean, they should be followed 24/7, to make certain they do not commmit that crime?

[Ayla]

The entire concept of a *HYPOTHETICAL* NAMBA couple ever adopting a child is just preposterous. I still say attempting to compare the idea of them adopting to homosexuals adopting is just as foolish.

First, the largest diffrence that stands out to me is the fact that in the NAMBA couple one of them IS a child. How then can a child adopt another child? Ridiculous.

Since we're grasping at straws here let's take it one step farther...I saw on T.V. once where a man MARRIED his horse. Following the lines of this debate... is letting two gay men adopt an unwanted child just paving the way for beastality couples (for lack of a better title) to then also adopt children? I think not. Just like it's not going to cause NAMBA couples to adopt.

Yes, the law does have to be non-discriminate. IT'S ILLEGAL TO HAVE SEX WITH MINORS. That's something that is ALREADY a law and isn't likely to change no matter how much those perv's object to it.

Once again...it's apples and oranges. NO...more like apples and carrots.

*please note...the above is my honest individual opinion and not meant to represent the opinion of this forum