Same-sex couples Co-adoption : Portuguese Parliament says NO

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Whatever the Portuguese Parliament said on the issue is irrelevant. Portugal recognises equal marriage. Hence, as per a previous ruling of the ECHR, legally-married same-sex couples are under the same legislation that is applied to legally-married other-sex couples. Co-adoption included.

YUUUUROOOOOOOOPAAAAA, FUCK YEAH!

[European Socialist Republic]

You didn't went full potato, you went an entire cassava. -_-

Do you realize this is about a bi guy/girl having a natural kid, then marrying again, then the other biological parent of the kid dying or disappearing or going arrested and then the stepparent manage to get all full legal rights it might need as a parent in the case of emergencies, courts and whatnot, right?

I do. But like I said before, co-adoption would lead to full adoption. And God knows what other incurable, permanent depravation all for the sake of "People have rights".
No, not everything is for everyone.

Slippery slope fallacy...

[Wisconsin9]

You didn't went full potato, you went an entire cassava. -_-

Do you realize this is about a bi guy/girl having a natural kid, then marrying again, then the other biological parent of the kid dying or disappearing or going arrested and then the stepparent manage to get all full legal rights it might need as a parent in the case of emergencies, courts and whatnot, right?

I do. But like I said before, co-adoption would lead to full adoption. And God knows what other incurable, permanent depravation all for the sake of "People have rights".
No, not everything is for everyone.

How does being adopted by gays in any way negatively impact kids?

[Novo Portugal]

Whatever the Portuguese Parliament said on the issue is irrelevant. Portugal recognises equal marriage. Hence, as per a previous ruling of the ECHR, legally-married same-sex couples are under the same legislation that is applied to legally-married other-sex couples. Co-adoption included.

YUUUUROOOOOOOOPAAAAA, FUCK YEAH!

Told you so

[Hurdegaryp]

And why would a woman, and society for that matter, allow another man in a prehistoric society, to have sex with her, carry his kid, and then hand that kid over to him to be raised by two men in a time where 99.9% of people believed that families could only be successful with a man and a woman? And if archaeological evidence is anything to go by, why would that same woman allow a precious commodity such as her people's future heirs, be handed over to someone they would view as strange and contrary to their society's culture and beliefs?

Because many societys worked this way? There are instances of entire villages parenting the children born there. The nuclear family isn't as ancient as you may have been led to believe.

Indeed. The concept of the nuclear family as we know it is a product of the industrial age.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

YUUUUROOOOOOOOPAAAAA, FUCK YEAH!

Told you so

I thought you were referring to single parent adoption.

[Vashta Nerada]

An intelligent rant? Wow, give the guy a gold star.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the meaning of intelligence. Next time try using a dictionary instead of the Bible.

I find it strange that whenever someone opposes homosexuality, the first thing you blame is the Bible. Most Russians and Chinese oppose gays in nearly all areas, and yet their countries are ranked as some of the most irreligious in the world. And its not the poor, uneducated masses are the only ones opposing it. You have large numbers of the elites and the highly educated, more drawn by modern society and not of tradition, who oppose homosexuality. How do you explain that?

[Lashistan]

I do. But like I said before, co-adoption would lead to full adoption. And God knows what other incurable, permanent depravation all for the sake of "People have rights".
No, not everything is for everyone.

Slippery slope fallacy...

Pointed that out in my earlier post.

I already demolished their arguments. They don't read replies, though. They're not here to reason: the homophobes are here to preach at people.

@Homophobes: Buy a pulpit. Get out of here. Address my reply (from page 6) or GTFO.

[Lashistan]

Any arguments made for banning gay adoption can be made for banning "straight" adoption.

The Argument From Nature is flawed. Homosexuality has been documented in animals from dolphins to bonobos to birds. Saying that it is "unnatural" is stupid.

The Argument From Extinction is plain stupid. In observed animal species, homosexuality or bi-sexuality involves less than 5-7% of the population. If animals in nature haven't gone extinct, there is nothing to fear for humans.

The Slippery Slope Argument is so wrong, you're not even wrong. You're not even using the same sort of mental process we call Reason. Paedeophilia - true paedeophilia - is a psychological disorder, and has been observed across all sexuality spectrums.

Ephebophilia or Teliophilia is not paedoephilia. Attraction to reproductively-ready humans is, from an evolutionary standpoint, logical and expected. It's natural, right? You have to keep the species alive. Right?

See? Your logic is flawed.

I for one, will fight for equality. Allowing non-hetero partners to adopt should be enshrined in law.

[Novo Portugal]

Also it was only for 4 votes that the Yes won, even members of parliament belonging to the majority coalition didn't vote yes, so it's just temporary. Don't worry, we are not homophobes.

[Hurdegaryp]

I do. But like I said before, co-adoption would lead to full adoption. And God knows what other incurable, permanent depravation all for the sake of "People have rights".
No, not everything is for everyone.

Slippery slope fallacy...

That's what you get when you replace common decency with the cripple bronze age laws that can be found in the Bible.

[Big Jim P]

Any arguments made for banning gay adoption can be made for banning "straight" adoption.

The Argument From Nature is flawed. Homosexuality has been documented in animals from dolphins to bonobos to birds. Saying that it is "unnatural" is stupid.

The Argument From Extinction is plain stupid. In observed animal species, homosexuality or bi-sexuality involves less than 5-7% of the population. If animals in nature haven't gone extinct, there is nothing to fear for humans.

The Slippery Slope Argument is so wrong, you're not even wrong. You're not even using the same sort of mental process we call Reason. Paedeophilia - true paedeophilia - is a psychological disorder, and has been observed across all sexuality spectrums.

Ephebophilia or Teliophilia is not paedoephilia. Attraction to reproductively-ready humans is, from an evolutionary standpoint, logical and expected. It's natural, right? You have to keep the species alive. Right?

See? Your logic is flawed.

I for one, will fight for equality. Allowing non-hetero partners to adopt should be enshrined in law.

Keep trying.

[Vuuhn]

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the meaning of intelligence. Next time try using a dictionary instead of the Bible.One tells the meaning of words, the other the history of Creation. I'll use the Bible.

I find it strange that whenever someone opposes homosexuality, the first thing you blame is the Bible. Most Russians and Chinese oppose gays in nearly all areas, and yet their countries are ranked as some of the most irreligious in the world. And its not the poor, uneducated masses are the only ones opposing it. You have large numbers of the elites and the highly educated, more drawn by modern society and not of tradition, who oppose homosexuality. How do you explain that?

[European Socialist Republic]

We can't let heteros marry! According to the slippery slope, this would lead to gay marriage! And you don't want that to happen, do you?

[Vashta Nerada]

And why would a woman, and society for that matter, allow another man in a prehistoric society, to have sex with her, carry his kid, and then hand that kid over to him to be raised by two men in a time where 99.9% of people believed that families could only be successful with a man and a woman? And if archaeological evidence is anything to go by, why would that same woman allow a precious commodity such as her people's future heirs, be handed over to someone they would view as strange and contrary to their society's culture and beliefs?

Because many societys worked this way? There are instances of entire villages parenting the children born there. The nuclear family isn't as ancient as you may have been led to believe.

I never mentioned the nuclear family anywhere in that post, so I don't know what in the world your talking about. What I was talking about is that many prehistorical cultures were more concerned with surviving and ensuring the continuation of their people as a unit, not individual families, as the whole community regarded itself as one big family. So of course no nuclear families would exist then. Rather, the women wouldn't waste their reproductive energy and their lives (as pregnancy was a hit or miss mortality wise), producing children for gay couple as that would be regarded as unnatural in their societies, and a waste of reproductive and generational potential.

[Desperate Measures]

I find it strange that whenever someone opposes homosexuality, the first thing you blame is the Bible. Most Russians and Chinese oppose gays in nearly all areas, and yet their countries are ranked as some of the most irreligious in the world. And its not the poor, uneducated masses are the only ones opposing it. You have large numbers of the elites and the highly educated, more drawn by modern society and not of tradition, who oppose homosexuality. How do you explain that?

Closet Christians. Every last one of them. *nods*

[Wisconsin9]

I find it strange that whenever someone opposes homosexuality, the first thing you blame is the Bible. Most Russians and Chinese oppose gays in nearly all areas, and yet their countries are ranked as some of the most irreligious in the world. And its not the poor, uneducated masses are the only ones opposing it. You have large numbers of the elites and the highly educated, more drawn by modern society and not of tradition, who oppose homosexuality. How do you explain that?

Alleged, unproven, and extremely suspect history of creation.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

Actually Europe is getting back on the right track. The straight track.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... l-Families

[The Tarantara Dominion]

Well, then I'll be damned. If a piece of online crap is worth more than someone's use of logic, then humanity's going down a spiral. Here you go:

When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and
Measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much
Applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

-Walt Whitman

If your position is so logical, then prove it.

I'm bisexual, but they are right.

For any society, culture and humanity to survive there must be people capable of reproducing... we could clone everybody but I doubt that we will be allowed to do so for a while.

[Desperate Measures]

Because many societys worked this way? There are instances of entire villages parenting the children born there. The nuclear family isn't as ancient as you may have been led to believe.

I never mentioned the nuclear family anywhere in that post, so I don't know what in the world your talking about. What I was talking about is that many prehistorical cultures were more concerned with surviving and ensuring the continuation of their people as a unit, not individual families, as the whole community regarded itself as one big family. So of course no nuclear families would exist then. Rather, the women wouldn't waste their reproductive energy and their lives (as pregnancy was a hit or miss mortality wise), producing children for gay couple as that would be regarded as unnatural in their societies, and a waste of reproductive and generational potential.

So... they would pass up gay male sperm because...what? Icky? If everyone was caring for the children anyway, why would this be a problem? And are there couples with children raising them on their own or not? You seem to want to have it both ways.

[Ermarian]

Actually Europe is getting back on the right track. The straight track.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... l-Families

Ugh, Breitbart. That's the guy whose followers were so nuts they claimed Obama killed him with a magical heart attack.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Actually Europe is getting back on the right track. The straight track.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... l-Families

France already has same-sex couple adoption, and Scotland just received royal assent to have its epic marriage equality law instated later on this year.

[Freechrist]

Guy's please, keep things respectable. Equality and Conservatism, is all opinionated. So be sure to keep it that way, rather than telling other they are wrong or despicable. -_-

[Lashistan]

Any arguments made for banning gay adoption can be made for banning "straight" adoption.

The Argument From Nature is flawed. Homosexuality has been documented in animals from dolphins to bonobos to birds. Saying that it is "unnatural" is stupid.

The Argument From Extinction is plain stupid. In observed animal species, homosexuality or bi-sexuality involves less than 5-7% of the population. If animals in nature haven't gone extinct, there is nothing to fear for humans.

The Slippery Slope Argument is so wrong, you're not even wrong. You're not even using the same sort of mental process we call Reason. Paedeophilia - true paedeophilia - is a psychological disorder, and has been observed across all sexuality spectrums.

Ephebophilia or Teliophilia is not paedoephilia. Attraction to reproductively-ready humans is, from an evolutionary standpoint, logical and expected. It's natural, right? You have to keep the species alive. Right?

See? Your logic is flawed.

I for one, will fight for equality. Allowing non-hetero partners to adopt should be enshrined in law.

[Hurdegaryp]

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the meaning of intelligence. Next time try using a dictionary instead of the Bible.

I find it strange that whenever someone opposes homosexuality, the first thing you blame is the Bible. Most Russians and Chinese oppose gays in nearly all areas, and yet their countries are ranked as some of the most irreligious in the world. And its not the poor, uneducated masses are the only ones opposing it. You have large numbers of the elites and the highly educated, more drawn by modern society and not of tradition, who oppose homosexuality. How do you explain that?

Still religious doctrine. That the passing of homophobic laws in Russia and the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox church coincide is not a coincidence. And even though some people look modern, that doesn't mean their minds aren't infected with obsolete dogmatic concepts. Consistent rationalism leaves no room for such bigotry, but unfortunately many people lack the capacity for it.