Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
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!
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?
|
You have said many times, something similar to what is below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
I think gay couples are thinking only about the sake of the child. Shouldn't a child with no parents have someone to love them and take care of them? Isn't that better than hopping from foster home to foster home or living in an orphanage?
|
When reading that, to me, it's telling me that you believe that if homosexuals adopt, then it will sort out the orphanage issue. This is why, I asked you, do YOU believe that... And then, I went to say, I don't believe that homosexuals adopting will resolve the issue.
No one will deny that. Of course it's best for the child to be with his birth parents... as long as they are capable of raising a child.
What's with that sarcastic comment? Who said that hetero's are automatically great carers?
ivionkey replied to that question by saying it's unrealistic, and makes no sense to ask it. Why would there only those two options? And tbh, he made pretty clear, that both those options are unacceptable to him.
I'm not talking about birth parents... I'm talking about two couples wanting to adopt... Both financially stable, and both very caring and loving... One coupple is gay, the other is Hetero... which would you choose?
lol, that's a poetic way of looking at it... Do you really think that homosexual couples give a home to child to save them from poverty? Please, that's ridiculous. If that was the case, then why did we even mention selfishness??. They might say it's the reason, but that's extreemly unlikely... But then again, we're not talking about exceptions... If it was really an extreme situation where the child will be in poverty unless he's adopted by a gay couple, then of course. by all means, let the gay couple take him in. They'll be saving a life. Nothing wrong with that. But in reality, this is hardly the situation. It's very uncommon to say the least.
I think you should stop using extreeme situations. The majority of the time, those situations you mentioned are extreemely rare. And in those situations, of course the bottom line is, the child needs to be saved and given a chance to live. I don't think anyone would argue with your situations...