Adopted Children Forced Into Gay Lifestyle

[MHz]

It took me aback a bit, because there have been quite a few adoptions in my family, and there is always that tough time where the mom pours over files full of info on various families who want her child, trying to decide which would be best. It's always been her decision in the end. I've never seen it done any other way.

I'm not trying to be cruel here, but I'm assuming that the pregnancy was 'not planned' and that is why adoption was the route followed, rather than get pregnant so a child can end up being adopted.

 

[karrie]

karrie:

We're not gonna fall into the black hole of exegesis, are we?

Pangloss

You seriously think you can just spew bull about me saying closed adoptions don't exist when I clearly didn't, and then expect me to not explain why I said what I did? If you're going to stretch my statements out of context, you can darn well expect me to go back and explain to you why you're wrong. Call it a black hole if you like, but you'll be back there again the next time you try to attribute such a stupid blanket statement to me. Now, would you care to address the actual topic at hand?

 

[El Barto]

It shortens the page when you've got some on your ignore list.

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

Ever since the Conservative abandonment of the definition of marriage more same-sex couple are beginning to adopt heterosexual babies and forcing them to accept the gay lifestyle.

Mothers who give their children up for adoption will never know the extreme psychological pressure that their birth children will go through, as they will be raised to be gay.

Since all marriage rights have been extended to same-sex couples adoption agencies cannot look at gay lifestyles as immoral.

Fifteen to twenty years from now adopted children from gay families will need a lot of psychological counseling to deal with their problems resulting from this governments refusal to protect children’s rights.

Backward arsed bigot

 

[Pangloss]

Karrie:

Never mind. Really. If I wanted to get unreasonably yelled at I'd 'phone my mom.

Pangloss

 

[MHz]

MHZ - Do you work at being wrong?

I wouldn't call it 'work' LOL

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the ability to produce offspring - fertility does. A lesbian friend asked if I would donate sperm - I declined, but only because the only child I will father is the one I will take part in raising - anyway, another friend was willing, and now she and her spouse have an awesome son - and I'm an "uncle." This happens all the time, invalidating your argument. But hey, why use logic?

I already covered that several posts back. That isn't the same as two childless gay people going through what 'adoption' usually requires. I would assume she was smart enough to have the 'father' sign away all claims to the child, just in case.

Using scripture to buttress your argument only works if your audience is of the same faith, actually the same denomination of the same faith. It looks like most of us are not. . .so why keep posting stuff that gets ignored and takes up space?

Pangloss

If I was ever in a thread that should be void of Scripture this is it.
Since you missed something in your reading it was in answer to this,

"Originally Posted by Zzarchov
Well, you think god defined a man and a woman (singular) being marriage, I'd like to find one quote in your bible."

Would larger text help you avoid the same error in the future?

 

[karrie]

Karrie:

Never mind. Really. If I wanted to get unreasonably yelled at I'd 'phone my mom.

Pangloss

yelled at?

Now, is it too cliche to say 'this isn't yelling... if you were getting yelled at, you'd know it' ?

lol.

 

[tracy]

Why do you think the bio-parents have to sign some forms that specify they are giving up all parental rights? Why do you think those forms are sealed?
It isn't the same 'as if', it means the 'natural parents' can renege on their decision to not be the person who is going to raise that child. Did that 'new certificate' state the birth-date as being the day the adoption was 'finalized' or the date the child was actually born?
.

Once the adoption is finalized, the birth parents have NO rights. None. That's because the adoptive parents have become the only parents to that child under the law. The birth parents can't come back when a child is 4 and say they want it back unless the adoption was never official. That's why adoptive parents aren't caretakers for someone else's child: no one else has any legal standing as parents to any child that they have legally adopted. That's not the same as a case of just raising a family member's child as a favor.

My records weren't really sealed btw and my birth date was unchanged on my birth certificate. According to my birth records for the province, my parents are my adoptive parents. I don't have to check any special "adopted" box or anything for any provincial or federal legal forms that ask for parents names because of that. My adoption was finalized when I was less than a year old. All my paperwork from then on is done with my parents as my parents. My birth parents don't exist as relatives to me as the law is concerned.

You have two people who gave you life and two different people that were responsible for what has happened during your life, so what?
.

I was just answering your question (Didn't I ever hear of adoptive children finding their biological parents? Yes, I am one).

 

[Zzarchov]

MHz, your quote still doesn't adress my point, the bible shows marriage as between man and WOMEN (plural) hence my quote with singular in brackets.

So, seeing as you aren't arguing that polygamy needs to be brought back, and that Gay weddings as a rule don't involve the bible (unless that faith allows it), I fail to see how you think your faith enters into their lives in this odd selective way you choose.

I am a heterosexual married man, and the bible had no part in my wedding. So I fail to see why a gay couple would need to obey it.

 

[MHz]

Once the adoption is finalized, the birth parents have NO rights. None. That's because the adoptive parents have become the only parents to that child under the law. The birth parents can't come back when a child is 4 and say they want it back unless the adoption was never official. That's why adoptive parents aren't caretakers for someone else's child: no one else has any legal standing as parents to any child that they have legally adopted. That's not the same as a case of just raising a family member's child as a favor.

You are missing my point, any child is a result of a man and a woman conceiving. That is who the parents are, that never changes. I'm not arguing letter of the Law, it is a matter of DNA, two different subjects. A normal birth certificate is issued at birth, for everybody, a later one only changes some of what is written on that certificate. That original one is not 'void' it is only 'hidden away'. With a gay couple one field should not be able to be filled out, either the birth mother or the birth father. I would think a child adopted into such a situation wouldn't have to be a 'rocket scientist' to know he was adopted. Depending on the genetics of a 'normal adoption' the child would never know unless specifically told or some medical exam revealed that fact. Say something happened that required something that only a natural parent could supply, bone marrow or whatever, you know your adoptive parents would be pretty adamant about getting those records opened PDQ. As part of your own search I assume there was also a bit of curiosity in finding out if you had any 'natural' brothers and sister. (I do hope that your search did end up being beneficial to everybody involved)

My records weren't really sealed btw and my birth date was unchanged on my birth certificate. According to my birth records for the province, my parents are my adoptive parents. I don't have to check any special "adopted" box or anything for any provincial or federal legal forms that ask for parents names because of that. My adoption was finalized when I was less than a year old. All my paperwork from then on is done with my parents as my parents. My birth parents don't exist as relatives to me as the law is concerned.

That is part of the adoption process. Good thing there isn't a check box for adopted, perhaps under parents it should just have "2" LOL

I was just answering your question (Didn't I ever hear of adoptive children finding their biological parents? Yes, I am one).

Like I said above, I hope that turned out well for you and everybody involved.

 

[Pangloss]

MHZ:

any child is a result of a man and a woman conceiving. That is who the parents are, that never changes. I'm not arguing letter of the Law, it is a matter of DNA, two different subjects.

Sorry, MHZ, but that ain't necessarily true any more. Fertility treatments have resulted in two females supplying the DNA, there is cloning, and if I'm not mistaken, I've read that male DNA could fully replace the female DNA for a male cloning.

Pangloss

 

[MHz]

MHz, your quote still doesn't adress my point, the bible shows marriage as between man and WOMEN (plural) hence my quote with singular in brackets.

Actually it does specify that a 'wife' is a 'woman' (singular), apparently when building a nation all women end up having a husband, even if it means sharing. The first one can be hated but she is still the first and has more right (at least as far as her 1st male child) in who gets what when ;the father' passes on.

So, seeing as you aren't arguing that polygamy needs to be brought back, and that Gay weddings as a rule don't involve the bible (unless that faith allows it), I fail to see how you think your faith enters into their lives in this odd selective way you choose.

I can assure Scripture does not 'allow' that, nor does it promote brothers and sister having sex.

I am a heterosexual married man, and the bible had no part in my wedding. So I fail to see why a gay couple would need to obey it.

Then it's a contract, you might as well went to a lawyer (how romantic is that thought,eh). It doesn't matter if 'you think' the Bible had no part or not, you don't have any say in God's contracts with men. And like I said before, it is not a sin that comes under the heading of 'unforgivable'. At worst they miss out on the thousand years. Claiming to be a Christian and then not following His two Laws brings a much worse punishment than being gay.

 

[MHz]

Sorry, MHZ, but that ain't necessarily true any more. Fertility treatments have resulted in two females supplying the DNA, there is cloning, and if I'm not mistaken, I've read that male DNA could fully replace the female DNA for a male cloning.
Pangloss

Priceless info LOL, so I guess gays can stop trying to conceive on their own then cause that method was batting 0 ROFLMAO

I really, really hope Monsanto is at the forefront of that technology.

 

[Pangloss]

Priceless info LOL, so I guess gays can stop trying to conceive on their own then cause that method was batting 0 ROFLMAO

I really, really hope Monsanto is at the forefront of that technology.

Damn you're dumb.

Pangloss

 

[MHz]

Like your opinion matters, LOL

 

[Zzarchov]

Well MHz, I think you should read again, many biblical figures have multiple wives with the blessing of god. Incest is also in the bible (though more ambigous, heavily implied wrong). Pick your morals, biblical or secular..don't pick and choose from both.

As Mark Twain pointed out, the best biblical evidence against polygamy is that a man cannot serve two masters.

 

[Pangloss]

Nice Twain quote - took me a second. Very funny.

Pangloss

 

[MHz]

What does how many wives somebody had in the OT have to do with serving two masters, one of which is God, the other 'wealth'?
Mammon
a Chaldee or Syriac word meaning "wealth" or "riches" (Luke
16:9-11); also, by personification, the god of riches (Matt.
6:24; Luke 16:9-11).

Oh, I get it, you thought it meant mommy.

 

[tracy]

You are missing my point, any child is a result of a man and a woman conceiving. That is who the parents are, that never changes. I'm not arguing letter of the Law, it is a matter of DNA, two different subjects..

What we seem to be arguing about is what makes a parent the real parent. My parents are my real parents in every way that matters including legally. DNA isn't what makes a parent as far as our society is concerned. Sperm donors and egg donors and deadbeat dads and bio parents who aren't involved... none of them are parents. They are genetic donors. Parents are the people who raise the children. Calling them caretakers for someone else's children is demeaning to adoptive families.

 

[tracy]

MHZ:

any child is a result of a man and a woman conceiving. That is who the parents are, that never changes. I'm not arguing letter of the Law, it is a matter of DNA, two different subjects.

Sorry, MHZ, but that ain't necessarily true any more. Fertility treatments have resulted in two females supplying the DNA, there is cloning, and if I'm not mistaken, I've read that male DNA could fully replace the female DNA for a male cloning.

Pangloss

This won't be an issue in Canada for some time since those should be illegal under our reproductive technology legislation passed in 1994. We don't even allow surrogates or egg donors or sperm donors to receive any compensation.