Search results

I do agree here, it is very well-known that the Guardian is a leftist newspaper. But that does not make the facts included in the article any less valid, if they were honestly scientifically proven.

I hate having to do that ;) But thanks for the friendly debate :)

I am not quite sure what you mean exactly. The perfect home would be the child's natural parents who love them and can support them, but obviously that is out of the question as the child is being adopted. A permanent home with a stable homosexual family is much better than two years of...

Yes, still if the child eventually gets placed with a heterosexual couple. They grow attached to where they are, and are taken from it to be placed with someone else. And during the whole process you don't even know if they will eventually be placed with another couple, or if they will have to...

I think the instability of the situation and the child knowing that it is going to lose its "parents" is more damaging than being placed with a homosexual couple.

:tup:

I'm back to being a bit offended again. Gay couples are actually relatively high in the pecking order, they come right after heterosexual couples and before unrelated single parents of either sex, and I do think that that is as it should be.

I have calmed down a bit, then. Your original post said that they should not be allowed at all, and that is the big evil to me.

I have no issue with your ranking, but they should still be allowed to be used as a viable option, yes?

By gay couple are you referring to only homosexual males? What about a gay female couple?

A child can't always have a mother, and that does not mean we should be disregarding stable, loving homes just because of the sex and orientation of the parents. There are far too many children in need out there.

If the father is capable of taking care of his child, then of course. But just being biologically related to the child does not make you a suitable parent. It is always the first option to try and place the child with relatives, whether they are the child's parents, aunt and uncle, etc. but...

I would vote for the heterosexual couple, because I do think that it is good to have an influence from both sexes, but it has nothing to do with them setting a "good example" by being the right kind of couple, nor do I think that having two fathers or two mothers would be detrimental to the...

Not entirely; you can be born with a gene that makes it very likely that you will develop breast cancer, just as you can be born to be more prone to mental illness. This is the case that I see for homosexuality (keeping in mind that in no way is homosexuality recognised as a disease), that it...

Of course I can, that is what a debate is. And I do have proof that there is a strong case for genetics being involved in homosexuality. And I already posted them.

Oh that's an entirely different can of worms that I don't want to open here. But from the studies I have read, the evidence linking biology to homosexuality is the much stronger argument, and so that is the one I am going with. If something comes out one day that honestly proves me wrong...

Nice. I went to a lot of events, but was never a full-fledged member. I cannot say that they definitely are, but I can say that I imagine it is highly likely, given the studies I have read and what has been researched and proven. And that is what I am saying.

Oh I do love you, you big racist.

To me, I would just find it very interesting to find out. But whether or not it is genetic has no affect on how I think people should be treated.

Just because they have not found something yet does not mean it is not out there. It is recognised that there is no conclusive evidence to dictate one way or the other, but there are studies that do also suggest that there is likely a link between genetics and the tendency to be homosexual...