Why would a homosexual couple want to raise a child?

A thread asking this question was posted here not long ago; but since the OP, at least, made no pretense of answering it, I figured I'd take a whack at it.

A certain poster has opined that "every child a homosexual couples has is a desired child", which, I suppose, is fine as far as it goes; but when one stops to consider that desire is not a synonym for love, one realizes it doesn't go very far at all.

A quote from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein comes to mind: "A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs", the mad doctor rhapsodizes in contemplation of his ghoulish endeavor. On the one hand, perhaps no parent can claim to be entirely innocent of such a dubious motivation; but on the other, surely there is some reasonable expectation of gratitude from the child in those who have been willing instruments of the bestowal of the gift of life, which gift constitutes a blessing to the extent the parents have taken the utmost care to ensure that the circumstances attending the child's birth are in its best interest. To be sure, not all hetero parents have taken such care, as evidenced by the illegitimacy rate alone; but just as surely, no homosexual parents have ever taken such care, since by design the arrangement deprives the child of either a mother or a father.

So having factored genuine love out of the homosexual parenting equation, what's left? The desire for love from children who, unlike the mad doctor's monstrosity, are more comely than their parents, whose approbation as innocents serves as balm to guilty souls, and who, because they are both dependent on their parents and loathe to contemplate the possibility that they've been born into a loony bin, can be expected to figuratively eat what tastes like dirt and pretend they're eating ice cream.

Thoughts?

 

For the same reasons any other person would like to raise a child or children of course.

 

Thanks for nothing.

 

I suppose you're not really making a case about homosexual adopting per se, but adopting in general. There can be love with adopted children also, and there's no difference when with that when it comes to straight or gay couples.

 

You suppose incorrectly, presumably because you somehow failed to comprehend the OP.

There most certainly is, as I explained in the OP.

 

Gays want to adopt children to indoctrinate them into their LGBT Army. In 20 years they will be old enough to wage war and commit genocide against heterosexuals.

 

Gay men are scared of a woman's vagina, hence adoption.

 

I usually take every opinion seriously, but are you for real? The LGBT army? If you are I have serious fear for the future children of America, which has nothing to do with who adopts them.

 

Wrong.

Other people like to raise their children because their children are a part of them, of them, and from them. They are naturally defensive of them, truly love them, and want, ideally, the absolute best of them.

That doesn't translate to homosexuals. Sorry. While there are exceptions, no doubt, the rule is most of them want human accessories at best, and smaller sexual partners at worst.
It's more of "We're gay. If they can do it, why can't we? That's prejudice."

The West has lost their minds letting these people adopt children, homosexual men especially who are always deviants.
My soul screams for every child that gets thrown into that monstrous a `household` to satisfy a new political constituent.

If the conservative right does not absolutely CRUSH homosexual adoption, by WHATEVER MEANS and LANGUAGE necessary, than the conservative right is utterly and hopelessly WORTHLESS.

 

They just want votes, even the Conservatives in the UK have gone down this road.

Conservative, Liberal, Democrat - all the same to me

Why can't these men just grin and bear a 5 minute session with a woman in order to make a real kid - if they can't do that then why would they bother looking after someone else's anyway

 

Nothing explains why the Conservative right is so utterly and hopelessly WORTHLESS than that post.

 

You're as blind as a bat. Do you not see the facking Canadian Flag? I'M NOT AMERICAN.

Also it was sarcasm. Duh.

 

So it's clear to me how gullible Americans are. They will believe anything they read without questioning the authenticity. Probably why you fools were tricked into supporting Iraq war. And the rest of the world wasn't.

 

Republicans are reactionaries who live in a bubble. Their handlers and propagandists want to keep them stupid and afraid. They're lied to constantly and lap up every willing drop that's given them. Ignorant and frightened people are easier to control which is why they obediently march in goose step behind breitbart, the blaze, Glen Beck, Fox News, Limbaugh and the moronic Palin.

Canada has had gay marriage for years and the sky didn't fall there, did it?

 

I was calling you gullible.

 

I can't quite figure out how you have factored genuine love out of the equation unless your assumption is that genuine love is impossible unless the persons involved share genetic material. If that is your assumption then love between husband and wife or between same sex couples is impossible and the only love could be between a parent and biological child. Love of God is impossible, love of adopted children is impossible platonic love is impossible, etc.

 

When the idea is simple and plainly stated, cogitation cannot be anything but an impediment to - or a defense against - realization.

That might be a reasonable inference had I given any indication that the contribution of a father or mother is purely genetic; but were that the case, absent fathers and mothers would be just as beneficial to their children as present fathers and mothers, the former having made his maximum contribution during insemination and the latter during gestation and childbirth.

 

A person's innate sexual desires has nothing to do with their innate desire to have a child to care for and raise. A good parent should be judged on an individual(s) basis.

 

There is nothing intelligent about the repetition of pro-perversion dogma which takes no account of anything in the OP.

 

Sorry about that. I am new here. I didn't pay attention to the flag. I didn't know what they meant. I also have a hard time figuring out who is being serious and who is not. There are some people that are pretty far out here. I do live in the US though and if there are people that truly hate and feel that way about other human beings I am sure that we are all in trouble.

 

That's rich....LOL....You are a paranoid buffoon...Thanks for the laughs champ.

 

The 4th American who proved they cant handle sarcasm.

 

I thought the pro-perversion dogma was the OP.

 

Of course you did, because as a stereotypical liberal you see upside down and backwards.

 

Thoughts? Yes, doesn't the simple fact that a child is in need of adoption suggest to you that it is already lacking a parent or two? I'm surprised this escaped you. What would you prefer, that a child languishes in a government institution, is passed from foster home to foster home until the rules say it isn't a child any more and is unceremoniously dumped into an uncaring world, or that it is brought up within a caring and nurturing home?

And don't for a second suggest that gender has any bearing on how a child developes within a caring home. I, a mere man, brought my daughter up alone with no help from a woman. I know plenty of other men who have successfully done the same, and their gender or sexual orientation played no role whatsoever.

Your not so tacit suggestion that gay/lesbian couples adopting children is akin to a lifestyle accessory is laughably inept. I don't know about America but in Britain the adoption process is slow, convoluted and involves extremely careful vetting of the potential adoptive parents as to their suitability.