Quantcast

Do You Agree With Arkansas' Same-Sex Adoption Decision?

News 2011/04/08 22:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
While the federal government teetered on the brink of a shutdown over budget issues, including Republicans' opposition to abortion funding, Arkansas went in the opposite direction this week.

It's Supreme Court ruled that the state law barring same-sex couples from adopting violated individuals’ right to privacy.

The Huffington Post reported that the court overturned Act 1, a 2008 voter-approved ballot measure that prohibited unmarried couples who live together from adopting children, which, in essence, shut out gay and lesbian couples because they are not allowed to marry in the state.

"Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of 'opposite-sex and same-sex individuals' who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children, should they choose to cohabit with their sexual partner," read the court ruling. "The pressure on such couples to live apart, should they wish to foster or adopt children, is clearly significant."

In making its decision, the court argued that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Sheila Cole, was forced to make a “pernicious choice” when trying to adopt her granddaughter, who was put in foster care because Cole was not allowed to adopt her.

"[Cole] can either give up her fundamental right to sexual intimacy in her home free from investigation by the State into her sexual practices in order to adopt or foster or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering," the court wrote. "We hold that the burden inflicted on her is direct and substantial."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the case on behalf of a group of same-sex couples, arguing that it wouldn’t allow a relative, gay or straight, from adopting or fostering a child who they are close to as long as they were unmarried and living with a partner.

Angry about the ruling, the president of the Act 1 boosting Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) lamented that the ruling was an act of “judicial tyranny” and that the act was passed only to ensure that children were placed in the best possible homes. The FCAC is likely to appeal.

Do you agree with the same-sex adoption ruling?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Simmering Frog 2011/04/09 05:52:47 (edited)
    No
    Simmering Frog
    +37
    child abuse

    No because it's a decision that's designed to push the homosexual agenda at the expense of the child. The laws of adoption should favor what's in the best interest of the child, which is the different inputs of a father and mother, not the parents pushing a misguided agenda designed to make the abnormal appear normal. It's child abuse.

    And I might add it's sick leftists who find it appealing to make the abnormal appear normal.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Vitalani 2012/04/19 08:22:27
    No
    Vitalani
    YES I meant YES!
    Same sex couples have just as much of a right now adopt as anyone else.
  • Homunculus 2011/08/16 20:05:06
    Yes
    Homunculus
    As long as its a stable loving home who gives a fk?!

    Im not talking some san fran hedonists throwing queer orgies on the weekend, but stable gay dudes or dudettes deciding to go off and be miserable together, and then chosing to provide a stable loving home for a child. How can that be bad for America?
  • Morpheus 2011/06/17 00:08:54
    Yes
    Morpheus
    +1
    Yes, it IS the right decision!
  • dropdeadfugly 2011/06/12 06:02:20
    Yes
    dropdeadfugly
    +1
    Definitely
  • tecknotron BN-0 RP2012 2011/04/24 22:51:36
  • Skippy tecknot... 2011/05/05 18:37:13
  • Gracie ~Gun Totin' Gracie~ 2011/04/18 05:19:38
    No
    Gracie ~Gun Totin' Gracie~
    +1
    I sure don't!
  • $$*gat*$$ BL39 2011/04/13 17:55:48 (edited)
    No
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    +2
    I don't think this may be the best idea, in a decade we will find out, but we used a lot of children as test tubes to satisfy the gay community and the PC crowd. I do not think this will end good for many children, will some be ok sure, but if you ever lived in a gay building with many gay men as I have in NYC, well, the abuse is off the chart, the yelling screaming, hitting, beating, fighting, never seen anything like it, it is very disturbing. So I really worry for some children
    PS: it was so bad the cops got sick of showing up and would take forever and a day to come and end the beating, so freaking sad.
  • Homunculus $$*gat*... 2011/08/16 20:15:53
    Homunculus
    +1
    I instinctively want to agree. Ive lived in Seattle, lots of queers. Most are pretty kool, but thier lifestyle definatly abberant to mainstram society.

    But im still left wondering if I have the right to paint the entire community with a generalization, even given what ive observed. If the home is stable and loving, what really is the difference?
  • just me 2011/04/12 20:43:55
    Yes
    just me
    +3
    I was adopted so can say personally much rather be raised by loving parents of any sexual preference than to be raised without love.
  • Homunculus just me 2011/08/16 20:10:16
    Homunculus
    +2
    Yeah thats pretty much what im thinking.
  • $$*gat*... Homunculus 2011/08/16 23:03:36
    $$*gat*$$ BL39
    +1
    I agree, but the key is loving
  • URBAN_Sapphic 2011/04/12 13:42:08
    Yes
    URBAN_Sapphic
    +3
    Absolutely agree! Finallly these children will have an opportunity to experience b eing LOVED as opposed to what heterosexuals do to thier children.
  • SudhirSinghania 2011/04/12 10:50:46
  • Huh 2011/04/11 21:34:10
    Yes
    Huh
    +6
    If it means another child is given the chance to get in to a good home. Whether that home be with parents who choose to be homosexual or parents who choose to be heterosexual. Then i support it.
  • AdrianMcTiernan 2011/04/11 20:54:48
    Undecided
    AdrianMcTiernan
    I am undecided about the question, as I don't know to which court's ruling you refer. If you mean that of the Arkansas Supreme Court, then I disagree. I personally don't have much experience in living in a home where both 'parents' are of the same sex, but I feel very concerned about my ex-wife's experience, where she lived next door to a couple of youngish women who had a lesbian relationship. However, not content with that, they proceeded to sexually abuse the young son of one of them, and she had the heartrending experience of hearing the young lad pleading with his mother over the abuse, crying "No, mummy, don't do that". The police wouldn't get involved, as they were keeping an eye on the house for drug dealing, and it would have spoiled the result. Some help, huh?

    I feel if people would realise that 'gay' feelings are part of normal development, and usually are of a transient nature, unless social development is hampered, or there is undue pressure on the individual, usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment.

    when problems of sexual identity occour as the individual is so pressured, development can be delayed or retarded, o...

    I am undecided about the question, as I don't know to which court's ruling you refer. If you mean that of the Arkansas Supreme Court, then I disagree. I personally don't have much experience in living in a home where both 'parents' are of the same sex, but I feel very concerned about my ex-wife's experience, where she lived next door to a couple of youngish women who had a lesbian relationship. However, not content with that, they proceeded to sexually abuse the young son of one of them, and she had the heartrending experience of hearing the young lad pleading with his mother over the abuse, crying "No, mummy, don't do that". The police wouldn't get involved, as they were keeping an eye on the house for drug dealing, and it would have spoiled the result. Some help, huh?

    I feel if people would realise that 'gay' feelings are part of normal development, and usually are of a transient nature, unless social development is hampered, or there is undue pressure on the individual, usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment.

    when problems of sexual identity occour as the individual is so pressured, development can be delayed or retarded, or the individual may stay with the label they have so as to have a quieter life, or they may be very shy or lack confidence, and may end up in an abusive relationship out of fear, enduring the equivalent of rape on a regular basis. A similar thing happens to some children of heterosexual parents. The whole thing stinks, but I agree that a test for suitability for being a parent should be given to any prospective parenting couple, and a dilligent enquiry into their past behaviour and any usuitable actions towards children should immediately put a stop to their move to adopt. If I were in the situation where a child of mine was to be put to adoption, I would make it an absolute condition that it would only be allowed to be placed with a married man and woman of good character (to be assessed) I know from divine proscription that same-sex active relationships are outlawed by heaven, and I wouldn't want my child to be in an environment where he or she would be exposed to such a relationship, with perhaps the idea implanted that such a relationship can be 'all right', for it is not, inherently.

    You can love someone without having a sexual relationship with them - I think that people who have those feelings would do best if they decide not to follow them, but to mix and get to know many people of both sexes in a safe moral environment, so they can assess thier own feelings without being pressured. Restraint is a wonderful thing. If you never do the harmful thing, the harm doesn't come.
    (more)
  • JadedBa... AdrianM... 2011/04/12 09:35:51 (edited)
    JadedBarbie
    According to your statement you would have to put a lot more stipulations on how they'd raise the kid: "white Christian heterosexual family of median income with absolutely no pride." Depending on who you ask, "blacks are outlawed by Heaven" (Curse of Ham), "the rich are outlawed by Heaven" (greed), "pride is outlawed by Heaven" (sins of Sodom) and "other religions/no religion are outlawed by Heaven."

    Sounds like the best thing to do would be for you to raise the child yourself. Wouldn't want to risk your chance at eternity.

    " usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment. "
    - I would love to see your source on this. Because it's outrageously inaccurate. If it were true, such behavior could be easily corrected through psychiatry, but as has been proven empirically, it's not something one gets "cured" from. It is not a learned behavior. A "learned behavior" is to repeat that nonsense.

    And you shouldn't use such an anecdote to mire your decision. A heterosexual couple kidnapped a young girl and raped her repeatedly. She was held hostage for years during this abuse. Yet I still believe heterosexual couples should be able to adopt kids.
  • AdrianM... JadedBa... 2011/04/12 21:46:16
    AdrianMcTiernan
    As this is a short-message forum, I haven't included the background for the statements I made. Your quotes in quote marks are not familiar to me. If you really want to know why I made these comments, I can send you a much fuller response, but I have condensed for clarity of feeling on this site. You say, responding to my remarks -

    " usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment. "
    - I would love to see your source on this. Because it's outrageously inaccurate. If it were true, such behavior could be easily corrected through psychiatry, but as has been proven empirically, it's not something one gets "cured" from. It is not a learned behavior. A "learned behavior" is to repeat that nonsense."

    My source on this is from my own contacts and experience, from my own common sense, and I wonder why you say "Because it's outrageously inaccurate", and then go on to say "if it were true -- could easily be corrected through Psychiatry --- proven empirically, and mention a 'learned behaviour'. and being 'cured' from.

    Which definition of empirically are you using - see below - (websters dictionary)

    Definition of EMPIRICAL
    1
    : originating in or based on ob...








    As this is a short-message forum, I haven't included the background for the statements I made. Your quotes in quote marks are not familiar to me. If you really want to know why I made these comments, I can send you a much fuller response, but I have condensed for clarity of feeling on this site. You say, responding to my remarks -

    " usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment. "
    - I would love to see your source on this. Because it's outrageously inaccurate. If it were true, such behavior could be easily corrected through psychiatry, but as has been proven empirically, it's not something one gets "cured" from. It is not a learned behavior. A "learned behavior" is to repeat that nonsense."

    My source on this is from my own contacts and experience, from my own common sense, and I wonder why you say "Because it's outrageously inaccurate", and then go on to say "if it were true -- could easily be corrected through Psychiatry --- proven empirically, and mention a 'learned behaviour'. and being 'cured' from.

    Which definition of empirically are you using - see below - (websters dictionary)

    Definition of EMPIRICAL
    1
    : originating in or based on observation or experience
    2
    : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
    3
    : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
    4
    : of or relating to empiricism

    If you wish for more detail, and risk learning more than you have now, email me, and I will give you more, and links to help you understand why I say these things. Cured is a bit vague, but many people who start out believing they 'are gay' have had help to overcome this, and have come to understand and see themselves differently. Currently, there is a movement to try and prevent therapists helping those who wish to move towards 'being straight', with claims it cannot be done - yet is has been and is in process of being done - see definition 3, and the fact it is being successfully done is according to this definition, something you can get "cured" from, and therefore a revision of ideas is in order - a deeper understanding is needed. You tend to splash a few conclusions around as if you know what you speak of - I should also like to see your sources. However, from my perspective of the ideas you are displaying, It is part of the push to have 'gay' relationships normalised in this society, which is not a good idea in my book, and such ideas can take a lot of overcoming by someone with those feelings who desires not to have them. Thank you for your comment - it has given me pause for thought, as they say. Hope to hear from you via email
    (more)
  • rugrat1411 2011/04/11 20:25:44
    Yes
    rugrat1411
    +4
    If the child is going into a loving home and being taken care of who cares if the "parents" are gay or straight? Mind your own business...
  • wpsark 2011/04/11 20:21:43
    Yes
    wpsark
    +6
    two mom's or two dad's are better than none..
  • Tori 2011/04/11 20:21:21
    Yes
    Tori
    +5
    What's important is that children have parents who love them and truly want to raise a child. Gay parents can be just as good of parents as straight parents.
  • swistzwatch 2011/04/11 20:19:11
    Yes
    swistzwatch
    +1
    My vote sould have been no not yes this is discusting at best they sould never ever ever be able to adopt children this is down right a sin against humanity in which this nation will be judged this is nothing short of child abuse the children have no choice and of course the sodommites have all the rights sick sinful and down right discusting makes me want to puk!
  • iKNOWmoreABOUTbatmanTHANyou 2011/04/11 20:09:29
    No
    iKNOWmoreABOUTbatmanTHANyou
    +3
    What are they trying to do? Breed gays? Great way for a kid to get beat up after school!
  • Tori iKNOWmo... 2011/04/11 20:18:41
    Tori
    +3
    There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that being raised by gay parents means a child will be gay.
  • JadedBa... Tori 2011/04/12 09:24:57
    JadedBarbie
    +1
    Especially since a lot of gay kids come from straight families. "Well gee, how'd that happen?!"
  • iKNOWmo... Tori 2011/07/11 11:34:38
    iKNOWmoreABOUTbatmanTHANyou
    That's because there isn't enough data to do the research. So tell me, IF research did prove that kids being raised by gay parents were more likely to turn gay than if raised by straight parents, would your opinion about 'gay parents' change?
  • Tori iKNOWmo... 2011/07/11 12:31:16
    Tori
    Oh, BS. There've been all kinds of studies and surveys trying to prove that being raised by gay parents will make a kid gay but nothing of the sort ever turns out to be true. So your question is really pointless, since it will never happen, but no. My opinion would not change. I don't see anything wrong with being gay.
  • Cordingly iKNOWmo... 2011/04/12 01:11:31
    Cordingly
    So you encourage raising kids to beat up other kids but not for people to have gay parents?
  • iKNOWmo... Cordingly 2011/07/11 11:36:51
    iKNOWmoreABOUTbatmanTHANyou
    I think you miss-read my comment. I was simply saying that kids being raised by gay parents were MORE likely to get beat up and bullied.
  • Brady 2011/04/11 20:02:22
    Yes
    Brady
    +4
    No question about it. Everyone should have the right to adopt a child. Potential adopters go through a rigorous screening process. Two men or two women can be just as good of parents as a man and woman.
  • IlliniRob 2011/04/11 19:59:07
    Yes
    IlliniRob
    +5
    Absolutely correct decision. There is no evidence that being raised by two people of the same sex has any kind of negative effect. Additionally, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence that there is more abuse in homes where the parents drink alcohol, or are alcoholics. Perhaps they should outlaw booze?
  • JadedBarbie 2011/04/11 19:55:20
    Yes
    JadedBarbie
    +4
    This country is a Republic, not a Democracy ("And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,").

    What that means, in "simple" terms is that vulnerable minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It means that a voter majority shouldn't be able to institute things like slavery (outlawed in the Constitution) or institute another ban on interracial marriage. 40 years ago people thought it was "disgusting" (drawing from other comments on this topic) for a black person and a white person to marry and that it was against God's will. Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

    It boggles my mind when people talk up the Constitution and then think that these blatant violations are Okay. Regardless of what you think, the Constitution is there for a reason. If you think it's sick, that's your business. Guess what, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is sick but it's their Constitutional right to be so offensive. They believe they're following God's will, so if you're really so "disgusted" by two men (or two women) adopting a child because "God said so," keep in mind that that you've got your share of sick creeps dancing on soldiers' graves because they think "God said so." Keep in mind also that God said that greed is no better than homosexuality, and tha...

    This country is a Republic, not a Democracy ("And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,").

    What that means, in "simple" terms is that vulnerable minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It means that a voter majority shouldn't be able to institute things like slavery (outlawed in the Constitution) or institute another ban on interracial marriage. 40 years ago people thought it was "disgusting" (drawing from other comments on this topic) for a black person and a white person to marry and that it was against God's will. Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

    It boggles my mind when people talk up the Constitution and then think that these blatant violations are Okay. Regardless of what you think, the Constitution is there for a reason. If you think it's sick, that's your business. Guess what, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is sick but it's their Constitutional right to be so offensive. They believe they're following God's will, so if you're really so "disgusted" by two men (or two women) adopting a child because "God said so," keep in mind that that you've got your share of sick creeps dancing on soldiers' graves because they think "God said so." Keep in mind also that God said that greed is no better than homosexuality, and that when you prattle on about the Liberal Agenda being against God, the Conservative agenda of defending excessive greed is just as full of fault "in God's eyes." So let's just keep our religion where God said to keep it, private.

    As has been proven through years of study, a child raised by a same-sex couple is just as well-adjusted as one raised from a heterosexual couple. The sex of the parents DOES NOT MATTER, only that there are TWO of them. This is fact. Your own preferences do not matter. If you don't want same-sex couples adopting babies, put your money where your mouth is and adopt all of those children so that there are no children left for same-sex couples to adopt, because all you're doing right now is hurting the children with your bigotry.
    (more)
  • Donny JadedBa... 2011/04/12 07:54:53
  • sjalan Donny 2011/04/16 00:21:09
    sjalan
    +1
    Guess you don't really understand our government or the ideals it is founded upon.

    You can eat your picture now with a spoon.
  • sjalan JadedBa... 2011/04/16 00:20:22
    sjalan
    +1
    I think James Madison said it best when introducing the Bill of Rights to Congress for approval.

    In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be leveled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper.
    But I confess that I do conceive that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body.

    The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies,

    namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power.

    But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government,

    but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority."

    James Madison truely understood the power of a majority when it could easily focus on a minority and that was his greatest concern in introducing the Bill of Rights to be included in the US Constitution.
  • JadedBa... sjalan 2011/04/16 21:33:27
    JadedBarbie
    Very well-put.
  • sjalan JadedBa... 2011/04/17 06:17:17
    sjalan
    Thank you, Not my words but most definately my sentements.
  • bigbear 2011/04/11 19:52:51
    No
    bigbear
    +4
    Hell no!! these people are Fruitcakes!!!!!!!!!
  • SeniorS... bigbear 2011/04/11 21:05:03
    SeniorSkeptik
    +2
    Did you know that 100% of "fruitcakes" were conceived and raised by heterosexuals?
  • bigbear SeniorS... 2011/04/12 16:33:31
    bigbear
    +3
    They are fruitcakes...sicko's!!!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 84 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/24 19:25:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals