Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

seamus

The_Snapper wrote: »

Just look at the instability & delinquency around you with a lot of, not all, single parent families.

Some Facts

Correlation != causation

What proportion of lower-income families are single-parent versus middle and upper income families?

What proportion of lower-income juveniles in two-parent families are "delinquent" versus middle and upper-income families?

The Heritage Foundation are also a conservative U.S. lobby group, so I would take their "facts" with a pinch of salt, not least because of the obvious effect of confirmation bias.

Here's an interesting counter-point:

Children brought up by lone parents are more likely to start offending than those who live with two natural parents, however once the attachment a child feels towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in single parent families are no more likely to offend than others. (Graham & Bowling: 1995 p. 35) Conflict between a child's parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent. (Walklate: 2003 p. 106)

Which lays out a fair argument that the number and types of parent is immaterial, it's the relationship which is important.

cowzerp

cowzerp wrote: »

Basically there choosing the life where having children is not an option.

Because being gay is a choice and all

Micky Dolenz

cowzerp wrote: »

Its an honest topic of debate and in my opinion people who choose to be in a gay relationship where its impossible to have children don't deserve the right to adopt, it's not the same as a couple where 1 partner cant because something is not working.

Basically there choosing the life where having children is not an option.

Eh?

I don't think gay people "choose" their life style. It just happens to be that way.

p.s. choosing the life of being with a partner who can't conceive, well, that's your own fault and you shouldn't be allowed to adopt

Wolfe Tone

bluewolf wrote: »

p.s. choosing the life of being with a partner who can't conceive, well, that's your own fault and you shouldn't be allowed to adopt

rubbish

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

rubbish

exactly the same as what he said.

Ellis Dee

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The state should strive to place a child in as ideal a home as possible. Two loving, caring parents are better than one. Add in one being a man and the other parent being a woman and you have the ideal.

I agree with that aspiration, which would certainly be achieved in an ideal world. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

And as for the State, I assume you're talking about this one -- Ireland.:rolleyes:

Its record with regard to placing children in happy homes isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm not sure it's moved on all that much from the days when poor waifs were sent to a hell on earth in the gulag run by the RCC and various religious orders ---

Read the Ryan Report http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/ and ask yourself would the poor little things that were sent to Daingean, Letterfrack, Artane and various other evil institutions of that kind have been worse off if they had been placed in homes with two same-sex parents who loved them, fed and clothed them well, played with them and didn't bugger them?:rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I agree with that aspiration, which would certainly be achieved in an ideal world. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

And as for the State, I assume you're talking about this one -- Ireland.:rolleyes:

Its record with regard to placing children in happy homes isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm not sure it's moved on all that much from the days when poor waifs were sent to a hell on earth in the gulag run by the RCC and various religious orders ---

Read the Ryan Report http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/ and ask yourself would the poor little things that were sent to Daingean, Letterfrack, Artane and various other evil institutions of that kind have been worse off if they had been placed in homes with two same-sex parents who loved them, fed and clothed them well, played with them and didn't bugger them?:rolleyes:

So its a choice between gays and gulags is it?

I'm talking about now, and the future.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yeah I know, but the state should try and put a child in an ideal a home as possible.


AFAIK there is a shortage of kids available for adoption, and in my book gays are at the back of the line as the kids should be placed in the best home possible, which is the "traditional" one.

Of course if there are no "traditional" families with loving parents, a man and a woman, then of course single parents and gays should be allowed adopt.

Have to be careful with that argument. Studies have shown children from same-sex female couples are more successful. ie live longer, earn more, lower rates of drug abuse, suicide etc

So by your own logic female couples should be at the front of the adoption queue.

Micky Dolenz

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Have to be careful with that argument. Studies have shown children from same-sex female couples are more successful. ie live longer, earn more, lower rates of drug abuse, suicide etc

.

are more successful. ie live longer, earn more, lower rates of drug abuse, suicide etc, then whom?

Children raised in a traditional family unit?

Wolfe Tone

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Have to be careful with that argument. Studies have shown children from same-sex female couples are more successful. ie live longer, earn more, lower rates of drug abuse, suicide etc

So by your own logic female couples should be at the front of the adoption queue.

One would assume they would get donor sperm rather than try to adopt. AFAIK there is a shortage of kids up for adoption, wouldn't really be fair for them to adopt would it? (if one or both of them were able to have kids)


I would question that study and who did it btw, as we both know there are studies out there that can "prove" pretty much anything.

Seachmall

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

One would assume they would get donor sperm rather than try to adopt. AFAIK there is a shortage of kids up for adoption, wouldn't really be fair for them to adopt would it? (if one or both of them were able to have kids)

I think that's a valid point but I'd say getting kids into a loving home ASAP takes priority over couples who want, but can't have, kids regardless of the genders involved*.

*Assuming there's no evidence to suggest same-sex couples are less effective(?) parents.

Ellis Dee

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So its a choice between gays and gulags is it?

Only you seem, disingenuously, to see that as the only choice. In the days I am referring to, the poor kids didn't even have a choice. They went to the gulag. End of.:rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm talking about now, and the future.

I, too, am talking about now and the future, but I believe we should never forget the past nor fail to learn from it.:)

Our society failed utterly in its duty to protect its weakest and most vulnerable members in those dark days, when it placed its trust in those who were spouting so much about what is right and wrong in our society. Those people were wrong then, and now we should bear in mind that the views of their successors and those who still believe in their pronouncement on right and wrong - not least their extreme homophobia - deserve to be taken with a liberal pinch of salt.

Adoption placement decisions should be based on careful consideration on a case-by-case basis, with no room for the arbitrary definitions of family that various organisations would like to force us to accept.;)

Bottle_of_Smoke

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

are more successful. ie live longer, earn more, lower rates of drug abuse, suicide etc, then whom?

Children raised in a traditional family unit?

average straight couples. for kids brought up by gay men compared to straight couples. there was no difference.

I remember thinking it was more likely correlation than causation, though never know, perhaps there may be some advantage to two mothers in today's world. Maybe it more emulated our evolutionary background when human females may have looked after children communally. Traditional family unit ain't all that traditional.

Seachmall

For anyone interested here is a study done on same-sex couples with kids Vs. traditional couple with kids:

Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents [PDF].

Table of results on Page 7.

Sample of 88 families (44 same-sex, 44 traditional), not a huge sample but a start.

Ellis Dee

Seachmall wrote: »

For anyone interested here is a study done on same-sex couples with kids Vs. traditional couple with kids:

Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents [PDF].

Table of results on Page 7.

Sample of 88 families (44 same-sex, 44 traditional), not a huge sample but a start.

Thanks for posting that. The "Discussion" bit at the end is quite interesting, and informative. Here's an extract (boldfacing mine):

"The results of the present study, which is the first based on a large national sample of adolescents living with same-sex couples, revealed that on nearly all of a large array of variables related to school and personal adjustment, adolescents with same-sex parents did not differ significantly from a matched group of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents.

"Regardless of family type, adolescents were more likely to show favorable adjustment when they perceived more caring from adults and when parents described close relationships with them. Thus, as has been reported in studies of children with lesbian mothers (e.g., Chan et al., 1998), it was the qualities of adolescent – parent relationships rather than the structural features of families (e.g., same- vs. opposite-sex parents) that were significantly associated with adolescent adjustment (Golombok, 1999; Patterson, 2000). These results are important both for their relevance to theories of development (Golombok & Tasker, 1994) and for their potential bearing on policies regarding foster care, adoption, and child custody by lesbian and gay parents (Patterson et al., 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001).":)

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

For anyone interested here is a study done on same-sex couples with kids Vs. traditional couple with kids:

Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents [PDF].

Table of results on Page 7.

Sample of 88 families (44 same-sex, 44 traditional), not a huge sample but a start.

Not doubting that study but would like to know who paid for it and authorised it ? Where was it carried out and who decided the criteria for the survey ?

Biggins

tayto lover wrote: »

Not doubting that study but would like to know who paid for it and authorised it ? Where was it carried out and who decided the criteria for the survey ?

Golombok & Tasker - The University of Cambridge

The Centre for Family Research is a multidisciplinary research centre within the Faculty of Politics, Psychology, Sociology and International Studies of Cambridge University. It has an international reputation for its research on families, and attracts visiting scholars from all over the world. The Director of the Centre is Professor Susan Golombok.

http://www.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/CFR/about/about.php

tayto lover

Biggins wrote: »

Golombok & Tasker - The University of Cambridge


http://www.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/CFR/about/about.php

Thanks for that Biggins.

Biggins

tayto lover wrote: »

Thanks for that Biggins.

Welcome.

Lady Chuckles

Adopt AND get married if they so wish
That's where I stand. All love is good love.

rochey84

ninty9er wrote: »

What is the benefit to the child of not allowing it? There is a better case for allowing it on the basis that it is not proven to be detrimental and proven not to be a detrimental factor


How about the couple be assessed irrespective of sexual orientation. I think that's more pro child to be honest.


If our secondary schools are now an environment where someone can be openly gay, why would another person's parents being gay be an issue? Sure someone would make an issue of it, but as with all the bullying, the best way to make it go away is to show it's not getting to you. Taking a slagging with a pinch of salt is something that's more likely as a child of gay parents, the slagging then has no value, therefore it is wasted and the idiots move on to someone else.


I know of plenty of people whose mothers died when they were under 10. Are they broken?


Hazard a guess? Well as someone who is gay if I ended up under a bus it wouldn't matter to me who raised my kids, but my preference would be for a close friend or family member. In that case it's more important that it's someone the kid already knows more than a couple decided by some pen pusher.


Funny, but not really. I know...... I don't know why this comment is bugging me.


I don't think anyone said that. But if you look at it in reverse....


Ireland is now socially very liberal. That was hammered home to me when my mass-going 62 year old granny started giving out about the "feckers in the papers tormenting that poor Steven Gately over marrying his boyfriend"

That's 10 years ago. Ireland is only as backward as we let it be and it's by no means as backward as many might think.


You've disproved your own argument. "should" is a theoretical situation, and if one gay couple is suitable, then theoretically, we all are.;)

I've skipped 7 pages, but I assume the circle is still being redrawn and I haven't missed anything substantive.

I've been reading this thread logged out cause my work doesn't lend itself to the ability to remain active and logged in, but wow, well put and should end the thread there, very well constructed post IMO

rochey84

ch750536 wrote: »

2. I have wide experience of gay people and they generally have issues that need resolving themselves before they attempt to have a child though to be fair this kinda applies to anyone.

3. Many (I'd say 70%) gays see being gay as a valid excuse to be promiscuous. Many admit this. Constant arguing and battles is not a good environment.

Understand I'm not judging the people, more the situation. It would be like saying 'should reformed alcoholics adopt children'. I'd argue no to that too even though there is nothing wrong with a reformed alcoholic. The situation of a child living with 2 reformed alcoholics just isn't suitable in my opinion.

you might not be judging the people but talk about generalisations, so based on you're experience (of how many gay couples exactly???) 70% of us are promuscuous and believe this right, damn it I've missed out!!!!

Despite you're claim to the contrary you're post isn't extremely judgmental and reminds me of the old "I'm not racist but...." arguments, its absoluting shocking to see this attitude!

Spread

rochey84 wrote: »

...............................................

Despite you're claim to the contrary you're post isn't extremely judgmental and reminds me of the old "I'm not racist but...." arguments, its absoluting shocking to see this attitude!

You shouldn't toss that old "I'm not racist but ......." chestnut around. Does that phrase exclude his point of view? And why? If I'm discussing (let's say) murder. I'm not a murderer so should all listening assume that I may be a murderer because I put a but after the phrase. That is a very little girly way of diverting an argument. Take it at face value (until you know more and don't assume) that the "I'm not racist/sexist but....", is a valid statement.

DjFlin

People who say gay parents would screw a kid up need to take a reality check.

Everyones childhood was messed up in one way or another. I've got friends with divorced parents, dead parents, and abusive parents, and they all got by, but if one of them happens to have two daddys, they're going to be seriously messed up? I think not...

dvpower

Spread wrote: »

That is a very little girly way of diverting an argument.

I'm not a feminist but...

rochey84

Spread wrote: »

You shouldn't toss that old "I'm not racist but ......." chestnut around. Does that phrase exclude his point of view? And why? If I'm discussing (let's say) murder. I'm not a murderer so should all listening assume that I may be a murderer because I put a but after the phrase. That is a very little girly way of diverting an argument. Take it at face value (until you know more and don't assume) that the "I'm not racist/sexist but....", is a valid statement.

So an offensive and judgemental post is ok as long as it is prefaced with "Understand I'm not judging the people" what I said is valid what he/she said is offensive and judgemental and deserved pointing out that his qualifying statement didn't make it any less offensive or judgemental

ch750536

rochey84 wrote: »

you might not be judging the people but talk about generalisations, so based on you're experience (of how many gay couples exactly???) 70% of us are promuscuous and believe this right, damn it I've missed out!!!!

Despite you're claim to the contrary you're post isn't extremely judgmental and reminds me of the old "I'm not racist but...." arguments, its absoluting shocking to see this attitude!

Be shocked or read the rest of the thread. Not answering twice.

Spread

rochey84 wrote: »

So an offensive and judgemental post is ok as long as it is prefaced with "Understand I'm not judging the people" what I said is valid what he/she said is offensive and judgemental and deserved pointing out that his qualifying statement didn't make it any less offensive or judgemental

Oh dear! There is little I can do to explain. If you feel offended by the issue, then perhaps your sensitive side is a little bit prominent. Only you and no one else can stop yourself from being so easily offended. I trust these few lines don't cause a relapse.

rochey84

Spread wrote: »

Oh dear! There is little I can do to explain. If you feel offended by the issue, then perhaps your sensitive side is a little bit prominent. Only you and no one else can stop yourself from being so easily offended. I trust these few lines don't cause a relapse.

I never said that I was offended personally but that the post was offensive, I was attacking the post and not the poster, something you should remember to do. And for the record if my sensitive side "is a little bit prominent" that would not take away from the offensiveness of the post, I don't go around claiming that 70% of straight people are homophobic, even if that had been my experience I'm intelligent enough to know the difference between my small sampling of society and society at large!

Spread

rochey84 wrote: »

I never said that I was offended personally but that the post was offensive, I was attacking the post and not the poster, something you should remember to do. And for the record if my sensitive side "is a little bit prominent" that would not take away from the offensiveness of the post, I don't go around claiming that 70% of straight people are homophobic, even if that had been my experience I'm intelligent enough to know the difference between my small sampling of society and society at large!

If you did not feel offended how can you guage that the post was offensive. You can articulate others private emotions?

rochey84

Spread wrote: »

If you did not feel offended how can you guage that the post was offensive. You can articulate others private emotions?

Is that the best argument you can come up with, really???? Its called empathy mate, it isn't hard to gauge how a highly generalised post could be deemed offensive.

Edit: By the way, we're both doing a really good job of dragging this post OT, believe in empathy or not this isn't the issue!

Reloc8

Gary4279 wrote: »

I also think it could leave the child confused as to how relationships work and asking question as to why he/she has two dads where as everyone else has one mother and one father.

Hmmm.

Seems to be based on the notion that you'd just let one gay couple adopt one child, putting him/her in that position versus 'everyone else'.

Also seems to be based on the notion that every other child would be in a stereotypical nuclear family with no one dead, divorced, separated remarried or having it off with their secretary while the child keeps sketch.

Well...you know what I mean.

That's rather quaint of you is all.

enniscorthy

ABSOLUTELY NOT

rochey84

enniscorthy wrote: »

ABSOLUTELY NOT

Care to elaborate on why not?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ch750536 wrote: »

Be shocked or read the rest of the thread. Not answering twice.

Are you the guy who admitted to pulling that statistic out of your head? Is that gey men in a relationship or not?

Reloc8

rochey84 wrote: »

Care to elaborate on why not?

Probably a waste of time.

"hello monkey, why do you like bananas"

Could you be bothered ?

Stinicker

I am against gay adoption and gay marriage but wouldn't go as far as the Indian minister for Health.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0705/india.html

christina_x

As long as a child has two people in its life that will take care of it, love it and support it, I fail to see an issue.

rochey84

Reloc8 wrote: »

Probably a waste of time.

"hello monkey, why do you like bananas"

Could you be bothered ?

So effectively you're saying that the reason you are against it is lack of education and ignorance? or are you just saying that you are a homophobe? Either way I commend your veiled honesty!

token101

No problem with gay couples adopting. Better to have two good parents than sh*t parents or none at all. But all things being equal, finance, etc, etc, if it came down to a direct choice between a gay couple and a straight couple, it should be the straight couple every day of the week. It's the natural family unit and should always be the ideal. For people to say otherwise is just ridiculous really.

Coal1978

No bloody way in hell should queers be given a child! They are so slutty and bitchie, have you seen them fight and bitch about each other, poor kid stuck in the middle with two drama queen weirdos who lose all interest in the child once the novelty wears off, or something better comes along!

KeithM89_old

Coal1978 wrote: »

No bloody way in hell should queers be given a child! They are so slutty and bitchie, have you seen them fight and bitch about each other, poor kid stuck in the middle with two drama queen weirdos who lose all interest in the child once the novelty wears off, or something better comes along!

Banned

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Coal1978 wrote: »

No bloody way in hell should queers be given a child! They are so slutty and bitchie, have you seen them fight and bitch about each other, poor kid stuck in the middle with two drama queen weirdos who lose all interest in the child once the novelty wears off, or something better comes along!

Ha! I see the ban stick was waved, so I will just say that you get the same with hetrosexual parents and leave it at that.

Oh, and this little gem to put your parenting evaluations into persepctive .

Kev_2012

I wish a decision was made on gay marriage and adoption when I was about 5 so I wouldn't have to be looking at discussions on it the whole time. I honestly don't care about it. I've seen a gay couple raise kids and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. If transvestites are roped into these laws, then I would be very VERY against it.

I'm not a fan of homosexuality, I will never say that it is right, but life is too short to be pissed off the whole time, and I will happily chat away to gay people as long as they acknowledge my heterosexuality. But I genuinely think that transvestites needs to get their heads examined themselves before even thinking they can have kids.

hondasam

Coal1978 wrote: »

No bloody way in hell should queers be given a child! They are so slutty and bitchie, have you seen them fight and bitch about each other, poor kid stuck in the middle with two drama queen weirdos who lose all interest in the child once the novelty wears off, or something better comes along!

was it you posting on boards while in labour? novelty of the baby wore of already?

jimpump

No i dont think they should adopt, i know children get bullied anyway but if they had gay parents that they would be really tormented by the bullies. I have 2 family members who are gay and they even say its not fare on the child

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I wish a decision was made on gay marriage and adoption when I was about 5 so I wouldn't have to be looking at discussions on it the whole time. I honestly don't care about it. I've seen a gay couple raise kids and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. If transvestites are roped into these laws, then I would be very VERY against it.

I'm not a fan of homosexuality, I will never say that it is right, but life is too short to be pissed off the whole time, and I will happily chat away to gay people as long as they acknowledge my heterosexuality. But I genuinely think that transvestites needs to get their heads examined themselves before even thinking they can have kids.

A lot of straight men are parents and transvestites, or did you mean transsexuals? They tend not to be married, as far as I know, but I don't think it would have any bearing on their parentign abilities.

Sonics2k

jimpump wrote: »

No i dont think they should adopt, i know children get bullied anyway but if they had gay parents that they would be really tormented by the bullies. I have 2 family members who are gay and they even say its not fare on the child

I was raised by a gay couple, I can tell you outright that as a child, I think I was bullied maybe 3-4 times because they were gay.

The rest of the time it was because of the usual stuff, I was a nerd, bit of a loner and a sarcastic little shíte.

So... yeah.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jimpump wrote: »

No i dont think they should adopt, i know children get bullied anyway but if they had gay parents that they would be really tormented by the bullies. I have 2 family members who are gay and they even say its not fare on the child

I always think that's a smokescreen, or that you're being incredibly tolerant of bullying. Do you want to ban McDonald's because fat kids get bullied? What abotu kids with red hair? Should we ban them, too?