Putin orders ban on adoptions by foreign same-sex couples

I think you're referring to illegitimate children, rather than orphans. Hardy the required understanding for such imperious trumpeting on the subject.

 

no wonder Putin is worried

 

Good lord, Hillary is not aging well.

And this is one of the pictures with makeup.

 

Never once did I say orphans. Where did I say orphans?

 

Indeed that was precisely the point I was making above. It flew over the head of FreshAir and God Tom.

 

Heterosexuals are the reason there are kids in orphanages. Not because of bad or good homosexual couples.

 

You referred to 'orphanages ' rather than to ' group homes, children's homes, refuges, rehabilitation centers, night shelters, or youth treatment centers '. Orphanages generally- although not exclusively- are associated with orphans. That being the case, your suggestion that irresponsible heterosexuals were to blame for the children in orphanages seemed incorrect. The point is though that homosexual couples cannot offer children a normal , heterosexual , environment.

 

What strange reasoning powers you have, Tom.

 

He is technically correct. Orphans do not originate from homos.

 

Perhaps her soul is rotting her, from the inside out...

 

Then please explain to me how I am wrong. It's not gays and lesbians abandoning kids to orphanages.

 

Beyond stupid.

That may have to do with homo's not being able to get pregnant.



- - - Updated - - -

Do men have wombs?

Can a lesbian naturally impregnant another lesbian?

 

You're so ignorant Jack you don't even know you're proving MY very point..

Of course some heterosexual couples are gonna be irresponsible parents, and I guarantee you there's some irresponsible homosexual couples. But to paint a broad brush that all heterosexual couples are normal and responsible, is just plain false.

 

Tom,

Just for you, and lord knows how many times.

No one is saying being hetrosexual alone means you will be a great parent.

No one.

Do you understand this Tom, as I am not making the point again later?

 

Then why label all homosexuals couples , potentially, as bad parents or unfit to take care of a child?

 

Because first of all they tend not to endure in relationship, as their lifestyle does not lend itself to endurance, therefore, the risk of the adopted child being caught up in a break up is higher.

And in any society that I know of, the said child would be subjected to addtional pressures, due to having two adoptive parents of the same sex, and i don't think this would be good for them.

Lastly, there is no precedent of same sex couples, or at least enough of them, making good parents.

 

All of that is speculative and not factual.

they used the same tactics against inter racial couples in the 1950s.

 

I am sure they did Tom, but the fact remains that they were still two people of different gender.

 

I can't change your opinion. But what I do know is twenty years down the road people will accept gay couples and gay adoption, just like they accept inter racial marriage and adoption today.

 

We shall see.

Just because a society may accept a thing, does not always mean that thing is good or not destructive, Tom.

There are many things I wish we had been less accepting on. Too late now, damage is done.

 

Do you believe Putin didnt go far enough? He only banned foreign same sex couples. do you believe he should ban all same sex couples from adoption?

 

So do you believe homosexuals are bad and destructive to the societies they live in?

 

Are these the types of Normal heterosexuals that should be allowed to adopt?? the grandchild would be better off in an orphanage or with a same sex couple then in this home.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Davies-granddad-29-Kelly-John-granny-30.html

 

I think that was mooted somewhere in the OP.

Yes I would ensure that children could only be had by those that nature intended to have children, that being a man and a women.

There is no denial of that one fundamental fact, else we would all be dual gender, and able to make anyone pregnant, male or female.

However, alongside that, there is certainly a strong arguement for saying we need better parenting all round, less unwanted pregnancies, and a shift back to the days when men and women were more inclined to date, fall in love, get married, and have a family, that they put first.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that was mooted somewhere in the OP.

Yes I would ensure that children could only be had by those that nature intended to have children, that being a man and a women.

There is no denial of that one fundamental fact, else we would all be dual gender, and able to make anyone pregnant, male or female.

However, alongside that, there is certainly a strong arguement for saying we need better parenting all round, less unwanted pregnancies, and a shift back to the days when men and women were more inclined to date, fall in love, get married, and have a family, that they put first.

 

Your are defaulting back to the the same flawed logic as before, Tom.