Every year about 6000 more children end up in foster homes than the year before.Based on data take from the past several years, there will about about 436540 children in foster homes with no parents. I would rather have 2 dads or 2 moms or than no parents at all.
Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. This is because of the fact that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. People who say that the children might be influenced into being homosexual if they have homosexual parents are both admitting that they think homosexuality is wrong, and that it's a choice. It is neither.
I believe people who identify as homosexual deserve the same rights as people who identify as heterosexual. Therefore, I do not see a problem with homosexuals adopting children. I find it sad that we still have groups that have to fight for the freedom and rights in this day and age.
Do not lose site of the purpose of adoption. Adoption allows a child that does not have a home to be in a home. To deny the child of this great opportunity just because of the sexual orientation of the couple adopting the child is wrong. You are punishing the child for nothing.
Without a doubt, there's nothing wrong with homosexuals adopting children. Sometimes, such couples make far better parents than heterosexual couples after all. Homosexuals are no different than other types of couples, and yet many people refuse to believe that fact. These types of couples can raise successful children all the same.
Yes they should be allowed to adopt children. Just because a person is gay, or straight, or any other preference type does not mean they are a bad parent. It just means they like differently than maybe some of us do. there is nothing wrong with that at all and we shouldn't punish kids over that.
Just because someone may think differently about who they want to have a relationship with does not mean they should be discriminated against this. A gay or lesbian couple should be able to adopt because they're people too, they have feelings, and they can have a family just like anybody else can. Tell me what makes them different? And who can tell anybody what to do anyway, I don't see them breaking any laws so what's the big deal.
Homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children as long as they still meet the same qualifications that straight couples need to meet (except for marriage obviously). Many children would rather be with a loving gay couple than in a group home or in a foster home situation. They just want love.
For a couple to go out of their way and adopt a child (which is a very arduous task, mind you) must mean that they are willing to put forth the most amount of effort they can to be good parents. And more and more foster children are needing good and loving homes. The more children raised in same-sex marriage households, the more society will see that homosexuals are not monsters and are a benefit.
The terrible tragedy with the system of caring for children without families is that it doesn't always work. At the end of 2011, there were approximately 407,000 children in foster care. The number has declined more than 20% since the end of 2002, but it is still 407,000 children who are subjected to the many proved disadvantages of foster-care, restricting their opportunities immensely. Worse, more than ten percent of children exiting foster-care do not end up in a permanent home. Those opposed to homosexual adoption say that it does not provide a good family environment. However, the alternative of not allowing adoption by homosexuals provides a worse family environment. It is the right of the CHILD to have a stable home environment in order to maintain equality of opportunity.
Therefore, regardless of one's stance on homosexuals, prohibiting adoption by homosexuals is a restriction of the rights of children.
The question assumes homosexual behavior is an acceptable practice. Thus, same sex couples adopting kids would seem like the next logical question to ask. However, I disagree that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and as such, not worthy of being bestowed "family status and privileges". The primary purpose of a family is to raise and train the next generation with the skills and values they will need to succeed in life and in their own family.
The fundamental fault of homosexuality is that it can NOT raise its OWN family naturally. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is one built around receiving personal satisfaction (on several levels) in ways and means not encouraged by nature. Homosexuality, as a practice, is an evolutionary dead end. There is no continuing of the species and no raising/training of the next generation. That is NOT natures way.
So to provide kids to homosexual couples who will teach them homosexuality is okay, sends the wrong message that our society is attempting to go against nature. That is only going to last so long as technology and society allows. If everyone on planet earth turned strictly homosexual and technology vanished, the human race would die in one generation unless you "cross bred". But wait, that is NOT allowed because that is not allowed HOMOsexual behavior. So, training and teaching kids that homosexuality is okay and should be continued is NOT a wise policy for the future of mankind.
I am not a bigot because I hate gay people. I'm not a homophobe because I'm not afraid I'm being brave standing up to the homosexual agenda. We cannot allow the gays to corrupt our children because if we do it will end society. Once homosexuality is universally accepted everyone will be gay and the human race will die. Gays are also against Jesus. As a christian I believe that the bible says that homosexuals are immoral and should not be allowed to partake in that activity. And everything in the bible is true. All 100%. So you gays who believe in equal rights need to stop. Ok!
Children have a right to be raised by a family. Adoption is not the right of the parent, but, instead, the right of a child to be adopted. When it comes to a family unit, evolutionist should point out that the millions (or billions) of years that humans have been around, the only way a family unit was formed was from a male and a female producing, together, an off spring. Thus, we have to conclude this is the ideal setup for child rearing. Priority should be in order of dual parents of opposite gender; then a single parent who is straight (as this is significantly more likely to join with a member of the opposite sex). Then single bisexuals (as they could pair with opposite sex). Dead last (if at all) should be gay people since they will never provide or have a chance to provide a complete parental set of opposite genders. Evolution got us to one male and one female as the proper child rearing pair and we should do everything we can to make sure each child is given the best opportunity to be raised by the ideal set of adults. Inserting a couple with only one gender must mean than women aren't needed to raise children and/or men aren't needed to raise children.
Those two guys are very unattractive. I don't know, maybe if they were both about 24 with a six pack and blonde hair. They're just so unattractive. And now that I look at it, that girl in the photo is unrealistically happy for any child. She is definitely on meth.