A consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.
Several professional organizations have made statements in defense of adoption by same-sex couples. The American Psychological Association has supported adoption by same-sex couples, citing social prejudice as harming the psychological health of lesbians and gays while noting there is no evidence that their parenting causes harm.The American Medical Association has issued a similar position supporting same-sex adoption, stating that lack of formal recognition can cause health-care disparities for children of same-sex parents.
Paige, R. U. (2005). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 2004. Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from the World Wide Web http://www.apa.org/governance/. (To be published in Volume 60, Issue Number 5 of the American Psychologist.)
"Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage", Study finds gay moms equally-good parents, July 2004.
^ "Position Statement: Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples", American Psychological Association, November 2002.
H-65.973 Health Care Disparities in Same-Sex Partner Households "AMA Policy regarding sexual orientation"
laoshan2 發表評論於
3. Since when do people tailor their activities based solely or even primarily upon what they imagine the biological ends to be? Who gets married solely to have children and not to pursue a meaningful and intimate relationship with someone they love? Who eats food solely in order to ingest nutrition and not to enjoy the social and psychological experiences that accompany a good meal?
laoshan2 發表評論於
2. Even without those conclusions, the premise itself has a number of flaws. It contains the idea that there is an essential disconnect between homosexuality and children, but this is mistake. Gay couples are not universally childless. Some have children because one or both partners were earlier involved in a heterosexual relationship that produced offspring. Some gay male couples have children because they have made arrangements with someone else to act as a surrogate mother. Some lesbian couples have children because they used artificial insemination. Finally, some gay couples have children because they have adopted.
Whatever the reason, more and more gay couples are not childless — and if marriage, whether in “nature” or as a legal institution, exists to promote and protect both procreation and the raising of children, then why can’t it do so for gay couples as well as straight couples?
laoshan2 發表評論於
回複過路人路過的評論:
Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is for Having Children
1.First, if we were to take this premise seriously, we would have to radically change marriage laws. No infertile couples would be allowed to marry — this would include both younger people who are infertile due to health issues as well as older people who are infertile due to age. Who would agree to that?
It is curious that the opprobrium heaped upon gays who want to marry is not also directed upon elderly people who want to marry, indicating that the problem cannot possibly stem from people’s disapproval of a couple that won’t be having children. Consider people’s reactions when someone gets married for reasons other that love, like citizenship, money, or social status. This indicates that society regards love as the basis for marrying, not producing children.
If we were to enforce the idea that marriage exists for the sake of having and raising children, wouldn’t we prohibit couples from remaining childless voluntarily? Even if we didn’t outlaw both contraception and abortion, we would have to take steps to ensure that all married couples not be childless: if they won’t produce their own kids, they will have to adopt some of the many orphaned and abandon children currently without stable homes and families. Since we don’t see anyone arguing for such outrageous measures, we must conclude that opponents of same-sex marriage don’t take that principle as seriously as they seem; and because such measures are so outrageous, we have good reason not to take it seriously either.
反對同性婚姻,和當年的反華法案, 種族製度,法西斯的反猶一樣,都是一群百姓被煽動搞跨另一群百姓.,按這樣的分類,總有一天會輪到別人搞掉你.
讀了半天聖經,你的愛心呢?芸芸眾生,個體千差萬別,當別人尊敬你即使你貌醜,智障,狐臭,你也應學會放下偏執,尊重別人的選擇,因為 its none of your god dam business
