What's your stance on same-sex marriage and adoption?

[SkittleDash]

I'm cool with this. I have a few friends that are gay/lesbian and they are wonderful people. If marriage makes them happy then go for it. Love is love no matter what gender the couple are.

 

[slaphappygamer]

Love is love. It’s all good. Marry the one you love. Makes sense to me. On adoption, not everyone has the ability (physically) to have/carry a child. So adoption is a great option for someone to become a parent. There a lot of kids all over the world that need homes/able parents.

 

[lolboy]

That is not what he said. There wasn't any generalizing in that statement.

If anything, it is the other way around that some people keep saying. That a straight couple is automatically better than any other family unit/configuration.

I correct myself. I did not read "or no parents at all." part. My mistake.

 

[VinsCool]

I correct myself. I did not read "or no parents at all." part. My mistake.

If I could word it differently, I'd just say let people live their lives and be happy.
They're human beings, not objects that should necessarily be sorted by specific attributes.
As for the adoption, once again, I'd rather have good human beings as parents instead of shitty ones, regardless of their status, gender, identity, belief, etc.

If that makes a bit more sense

 

[the_randomizer]

People do what they're gonna do, what right do I have to stop them or try to stop them? If people want to be happy, let them.

 

[dpad_5678]

Love is love and that's all that matters. It doesn't concern anybody else.

And why shouldn't any loving couple be able to raise a kid? Who the fuck is anyone to say otherwise? Sorry, but I don't respect homophobes. It's only their fault that they're scared of gay people.

 

[Clydefrosch]

Pro on both. No argument against either makes sense or is in any way carried by valid data.

 

[SG854]

I support gay marriage and adoption.

 

[spinal_cord]

I'm not a fan of either - it's not what nature intends and as a christian it's against my values.

Jesus had 2 dad's...

 

[Localhorst86]

I think you're missing the point. The question wasn't "What's your stand on [other people and] same-sex marriage and adoption?" Now, I presume that was the actual intent, but if you actually believe that it is in fact a right to marry or adopt regardless of sexual orientation, then it's not really something for which you can be pro or anti meaningfully. But just because you do or don't marry/adopt doesn't necessarily make you pro or anti either--the reason that marriage and child raising are considered rights is part of what makes a person irregardless of their willful desire or rational deduction. It's sort of like asking if you're pro or anti breathing and eating.

but that's the issue, isn't it? Same sex couples are actively being denied the right to marry and adopt children because someone, somewhere is against it.

 

[chaoskagami]

Jesus had 2 dad's...

Technically speaking, Jesus has one dad (God) that NTR'd the other. If the Bible is to be believed, anyways. What's that you, say? The bible forbids adultery? Uhhhh...apparently God is exempt from that one. Yeah. Let's go with that.

My wife's a kindergarten teacher and nearly half of her class this year are fucked up by their parents' drug issues. Autism spectrum, behavioral/maturity problems, motor impairments, unable to speak normally or control bathroom functions, etc. One kid appears to probably be 'normal' but due to neglect talks like a 2 year old and had no idea how to use a spoon or fork and would only eat with his hands. Regardless of 'for or against,' this topic is waaaaaaaaaaay down the list of issues that should be on anyone's radar.

As someone on the Autism spectrum, please kindly fuck off with calling that a "problem." I mean this in the kindest way possible.

And no, civil rights issues should be on people's radar. The fact is, they're important to the entire country. If everyone were to look away like that, we'll be in a very bad state down the line.

 

[Exannor]

I personally don't care for it if its a couple raising their adopted child normally with proper discipline, its actually probably better for the child to have a more sustainable family, same-sex or nuclear. Same goes for same-sex marriage, I don't care for it all that much.

The kid is bound to have the same or similar views as the parents when the kid gets older, but its when it's forced at an early age is where it crosses the line. Let the kid think for theirself and be a proper kid, playing house, batman, jump on the trampoline, etc. while they can and when the kid does get into trouble such as bullying, stealing, etc. then discipline should be introduced.

 

[kuwanger]

but that's the issue, isn't it? Same sex couples are actively being denied the right to marry and adopt children because someone, somewhere is against it.

Actually, what you said is precisely the point. People are being actively denied their rights. Sometimes that comes in the form of denial of legal recognition of marriage and whatever privileges that entails. Sometimes that comes in the form of illegal restraint in prison or even murder. It's not a question of whether you're "pro" same-sex marriage or adoption.

It's really a question of whether you're one who conspires to illegally withhold the rights of others. That it might take hundreds or thousands of years after your death for people to realize it was fundamentally illegal? Yes, that's the sad state of human progress on most rights. Too often people think it's the business of themselves to define rights merely as a basis to suppress them.

 

[eherrera322]

Pro on both sides. Put it this way, does a same sex marriage interfere with your day to day life? Does a same sex couple adopting a child interfere with your everyday life? Exactly, it doesn’t affect in any way. Heck, adopting is awesome but only do it if you have the right necessities and income to do so. And only get married if you are really sure about that individual. Sure people are gonna do whatever they want, but simply put, let people marry whomever they want, it’s their life, their choice, and I’m being nice here, their problem. Let everyone else worry about their life choices, it’s not affecting you in any way, shape or form.

 

[FAST6191]

Gay marriage. If the gays want to be as unhappy as every married cunt I have ever met then so be it. I would rather get rid of marriage as any kind of legal affair/status entirely but pending that day then in the modern world I see no reason why it should logically be denied to those looking to fumble matching genitals.

Adoption by the gays. There are arguments against it that I would say hold some water from a logical or scientific perspective, however they are all utterly obviated by "foster care sucks, being adopted by some gays is orders and orders of magnitude better than that and still produces good outcomes, oh look there are loads and loads in foster care".
The more interesting question is whether I would support the rights of various agencies to choose to consider it (there are race and religion based ones, the latter I have very serious misgivings with) or have it count as a negative in determining things, and to what extent it might count as one. There is also the one for courts in the case of familial or directed adoption and challenges or decisions there. I am not able to get to it being a complete non factor in decision making there, ultimately it would be a fairly minor one but still one. To go one further I would probably say while I happily support the job/school/housing/... parts of legal frameworks dealing with discrimination I would oppose, pending proper studies, a similar line for court adoption proceedings. In the case that the child is able to make a reasonably informed decision then non factor.

Kids should ideally be brought up in a household with a Man and women and other kids + pets. That way they can fully develop as nature intended.

That is a curious one.

If I look at all the other apes, no small number of primitive tribes and a fair few less primitive ones as well then there is a rather more communal aspect to things. The household unit as you describe is a rather more modern invention (as in quite some time after the industrial revolution and the move to cities). That is possibly a bit abstract though so a question that works here is "a kid you kind of know is crying, do you try to sort it yourself or try to find its parents? Same question if we remove the "kind of" part?". The answers I have had to that have been eye opening to me, and that is before we discuss the sex of the person in this hypothetical but that is a different topic again. In my case the mere fact it was a question that had different answers beyond "obviously I would help" was somewhat enlightening to me when it was posed, though it explained a lot.

If I have accidentally done the whole strawman bit there then I will walk it back but I would similarly call for a clarification/distinction on your part as the modern world has changed a few things.

 

[gnmmarechal]

Technically speaking, Jesus has one dad (God) that NTR'd the other.

That made me laugh

 

[Taleweaver]

I voted yes to both.

Personally, I think marriage is an outdated ritual instilled by a cult that caused fear more harm than good in the world (despite its intentions), so I don't understand why anyone of any gender wants to do it. Nonetheless : I respect people's decision to disagree with me (heh... My own parents are married, so it's not all bad).
The topic is pretty much a non issue here in Belgium, as everyone's allowed to marry anyone (okay : 18+...but that's not the topic).

Adoption... Iirc that's not an issue here either. And frankly : it's pretty stupid to be against adoption as supply is larger than demand. As such the question isn't about the backward issue of whether a child needs two be raised by two genders but whether it has someone raising him /her in the first place.

 

[Song of storms]

Yes to both. If a gay couple wants to ruin the rest of their life, they're free to do so. But I'm against "renting" someone's uterus to have a baby.

 

[The Catboy]

Yes to both. If a gay couple wants to ruin the rest of their life, they're free to do so. But I'm against "renting" someone's uterus to have a baby.

Why though? If a woman wants to carry a child for a same-sex couple, why would that be an issue? It's not like they are forced into it. Some couples want a biological child, just like everyone else and they should have that right to do so. If someone else is willing to carry that child for them and willing to put their own body through that, why would that be issue?