Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
Of course you didn't say it using those words. But whever you said something like "shouldn't a child be taken in by a loving couple instead of ..........." (which you seem to say it as much as I say choice  ), to me, that only implies that, not allowing a gay couple to adopt implies that the child will probably never find a loving home etc. |
I think I made my words pretty clear over the two threads we are talking about this. I repeated myself enough. If you want to quote me, please do.
Naturally, a child should be with his birth mother and birth father. That is the ultimate and perfect situation.
UH OH! SHOCKING! Heterosexual breeders are not automatically great care-givers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
The same goes to the question you asked ivionkey. Asking a question like "what would you choose, a gay couple with the means, or a poor couple...?" seems extreemly limited, and goes to prove nothing apart from that you think there are a lot of children without good homes, so they're given to couples that are unable... I think for the converstation, it would have been better to ask something along the lines of "If you had a choice between two couples that you know would be very loving and caring, and are financially stable etc. One couple is gay, and the other is a standard husband and wife"... which would you choose?"
|
I gave ivionkey an option on two potential adoptive parent situations THREE TIMES. One was a well-to-do lesbian couple, and one was a heterosexual, lower-middle class couple.
Not once did he answer that question directly.
....
But I am not afraid to respond to your question.
The perfect situation is for a child to be raised by his birth mother and his birth father.
If that isn't possible, what is wrong with another loving couple picking up the pieces?
---
Christ. Why is this even an issue?
Are you opening your home to children that need one?
So a lesbian couple wants to give a homeless kid a home...
Who are WE to say that is wrong?