A Good straight couple always > then a good gay couple when it comes to raising a kid. A kid should be raised by Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "There are thousands of orphaned children living in the hell known as the American foster care system or orphanages that would love to be brought into a good home. "

No there aren't compared to the willingness of many homes to take them in. This isn't a Dickens novel. It is much more difficult to be a willing parent than there available children, by some margin.

I've posted more than I should, but the more I read this thread I think a lot of people don't know what the hell they are talking about or have been misinformed.

Again, depends on what age group you're talking about.

WeAreNC wrote: A Good straight couple always > then a good gay couple when it comes to raising a kid. A kid should be raised by Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve

Bullshit. I know a lot of Adams and Steves who have made very good parents.

WeAreNC wrote: A Good straight couple always > then a good gay couple when it comes to raising a kid. A kid should be raised by Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve

You'll have to elaborate unless you want just make an empty statement. All other things being equal, why does straight necessarily trump gay???

I hope the parents teach them sex ed.
On another note what odd questions gay parents must get from their adoptive children. I could only imagine what the questions are concerning a wide variety of topics. I'm not prepard for the questions me and the woman will field from the kid when he grows up and learns about the birds and the bees so to speak.
I agree with NC good straight couples before the gay couple. Being gay is still a major sub culture.

GoPens wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "There are thousands of orphaned children living in the hell known as the American foster care system or orphanages that would love to be brought into a good home. "

No there aren't compared to the willingness of many homes to take them in. This isn't a Dickens novel. It is much more difficult to be a willing parent than there available children, by some margin.

I've posted more than I should, but the more I read this thread I think a lot of people don't know what the hell they are talking about or have been misinformed.

Again, depends on what age group you're talking about.

A fair point, but from our experience, there isn't much of a shortage in any age group, but to your point most definitely no shortage in the case of toddlers/infants. When you have people spending upwards of $50,000 plus for private/foreign adoptions, there is a significant resource issue for adoptive parents of all ilks.

Edited for unwarranted attack on NCF and derailing good debate - justincredible

Editing for responding to above in inappropriate manner - justincredible

ouch!

xnds1fan wrote: No reason to get nasty The NCF. I thought it was a good question, maybe you and your "brother" wanted to adopt.

Not what you meant but that was a good try.

^is this a cock fight? lol

We like to call them sword fightss!

This is not going well now.
X dude and NCF are always battling.

I will NCF

No !!!!!

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Life treats us all different. I'm sure there are people raised by single parents for whatever reason (divorce, death, etc.) and have turned out well. I'm sure that there are people raised in poverty that turned out great due to superior parenting, so economics isn't necessarily a deciding point.

But adoption isn't life as it happens, it is discretionary. Why don't you want the best for the child available? What happened to "diversity"? What happened to being exposed to both paternal and maternal parenting? Does all of a sudden this doesn't matter?

Does anyone raised by a loving father and loving mother believe that they'd be better off being raised by a single parent? I'm not getting your point. My point is that there are plenty of loving father-mother couples ready to adopt.

It's interesting that you preach diversity, yet are so opposed to a diversity in style of family. This is especially interesting since there IS in fact all kinds of families in this very diverse country of ours. There are single-parent homes, "traditional" (mom and dad) homes, mixed families (steps), extended families, gay families, etc. Yet your position is that adoption should be limited to only one kind of these families. What I'm saying is that if a family, no matter their orientation, can provide a good home for a child in need they should be able to do so. If there was such a shortage for kids like you are claiming we wouldn't have all of these children in foster care or orphanages. Fact is that we do and maybe it's the system we should both be arguing against. The system is inefficient in getting children in need out to families that want them. You're right, there are plenty of loving father-mother couples ready to adopt. There are also plenty of single people and gay couples that are loving and ready to adopt. They should all be judged and prioritized based on their ability to provide a good home for the kids, not on what their orientation or marital status is!

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I've posted more than I should, but the more I read this thread I think a lot of people don't know what the hell they are talking about or have been misinformed.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. At least there's something we agree on.

Maybe gay couples should only be allowed to adopt gay kids?

Ok you might not be the same "person" but you both have the same bad sense of humor. That can not be denied.

WeAreNC wrote: Maybe gay couples should only be allowed to adopt gay kids?

Who wants to adopt a teenager?

By the way, all ya "good ol' boy" homophobes out there. Sad to say but you guys are a dying breed along with the racists, sexists, and the religious intolerant. My generation and those just before it have already started the shift that's only going to continue in succeeding generations. It's only a matter of time before you guys die off and such intolerance is no longer the majority belief in this country.

newarkcatholicfan wrote:

gerb131 wrote: This is not going well now.
X dude and NCF are always battling.

No we are not he started with a little bitch slap I landed a haymaker and will not pollute this topic with any more trash directed at that poster. I will allow him/her to carry on in that direction.

Thats cool but I swear you guys have gotten into it before a few times.

gerb131 wrote:

newarkcatholicfan wrote:

gerb131 wrote: This is not going well now.
X dude and NCF are always battling.

No we are not he started with a little bitch slap I landed a haymaker and will not pollute this topic with any more trash directed at that poster. I will allow him/her to carry on in that direction.

Thats cool but I swear you guys have gotten into it before a few times.

I am sure I responded to the words she/he has sent my way in the past but I have made sure not to stoop to her/his level in a long time.

No

krazie45 wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I've posted more than I should, but the more I read this thread I think a lot of people don't know what the hell they are talking about or have been misinformed.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. At least there's something we agree on.

Have you ever tried to adopt? Educate me.