Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

jaffacakesyum

I'm bisexual but will more than likely end up in a gay relationship (if I'm lucky enough to end up in a relationship!).

And I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt but that straight couples should be considered first. Call it discrimination, but if you have a perfectly good straight couple and a perfectly good gay couple (i.e. they are both loving, caring, have had background checks, financially stable etc.), I think the straight couple should get the baby. Why? Simply because I think a loving mother figure and father figure is the ideal situation.

I know I will have to eat my hat if/when I end up 20 years down the line wanting to adopt with my partner, but I believe when it comes to children, ego's and PC talk should be left aside. It's about what's best for the baby.

Kev_2012

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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.

Ya sorry I meant transexuals.

Turtwig

token101 wrote: »

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.

You are making the common assumption that something that is natural is good for you. Poison and death are naturally occurring. Cancer is naturally occurring. 8/10 fertisilised eggs will die due to natural causes. There's so many things that occur in nature that aren't good for us. Heck you using whatever device you are to using to read this post isn't natural. Nor is the fact that you are probably wearing clothes. But I don't see any objections there.

To assume the natural order is the ideal order is ignore much of history and, indeed, reality.

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

I'd rather have two people (or more) in my life that deeply cared for me and loved me - than none at all.

In Ireland there is no shortage of parents willing and legally able to adopt in Ireland at the moment. So the real question is would heterosexual couples get precedence over homosexual couples with all other things being equal?

Zillah

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I will happily chat away to gay people as long as they acknowledge my heterosexuality

What an outlandish thing to say.

herisson

Gay people should be allowed to adopt kids!

What is so wrong about that?

They have two parents that care for them and will bring them up in good manner then what is the big deal?
I think as long as they have some form of influence from both genders growing up and during puberty then its fine.
And if worse comes to worse and they dont then that is ok too. They have loving parents who will do their best to raise them.

By this i mean if two men adopt a girl and she has a female influence through the figure of a family friend or an aunt, then she has this influence for when she hits puberty. She has someone to talk to about the changes occurring. She doesnt have to talk to her fathers about this stuff. Tbh, they wouldnt have the exact same experience to puberty as the daughter would.

Karpops

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!

Heterosexual couples fight and bitch too. Sometimes they can be REAL drama queens, always looking for attention. I totally get what you mean about the losing interest in the kid part though..I was on this website this morning..and I swear there was a chick posting updates all the way through her labour, and right after. I'm guessing the novelty of her baby wore off fairly quick.....I mean..who allowed her to have a kid???!:eek::eek:

token101

Jernal wrote: »

You are making the common assumption that something that is natural is good for you. Poison and death are naturally occurring. Cancer is naturally occurring. 8/10 fertisilised eggs will die due to natural causes. There's so many things that occur in nature that aren't good for us. Heck you using whatever device you are to using to read this post isn't natural. Nor is the fact that you are probably wearing clothes. But I don't see any objections there.

To assume the natural order is the ideal order is ignore much of history and, indeed, reality.

I didn't object, you didn't read what I said properly. I didn't say that gay parents shouldn't adopt, they should. None of what you said contradicts the idea that a mother and a father is preferable to two fathers or two mothers with all other circumstances being equal.

Lionel Messy

No, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. **** sake, some people need to get real.

JupiterKid

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!

Oh dear Coal1978...all the trauma of that difficult labour must have turned you into a rabid homophobe.:( Morto for you.:rolleyes:

suicide_circus

Jernal wrote: »

You are making the common assumption that something that is natural is good for you. Poison and death are naturally occurring. Cancer is naturally occurring. 8/10 fertisilised eggs will die due to natural causes. There's so many things that occur in nature that aren't good for us. Heck you using whatever device you are to using to read this post isn't natural. Nor is the fact that you are probably wearing clothes. But I don't see any objections there.

To assume the natural order is the ideal order is ignore much of history and, indeed, reality.

What a horribly clunky argument.
If you take completely two equal loving couples, one gay and one straight, competing for the right to adopt the same child, the straight couple should take precedence. Two parents of different genders simply gives the child a more diverse outlook and upbringing,. it gives something extra which a same sex couple, by their nature, will not provide.

JupiterKid

I find the question/title on this thread a tad misleading - by asking should gay couples adopt, does that mean that gay couples MUST adopt a child - be compelled to?:pac:

Surely the question should be - should gay couple be allowed to adopt?

And I think that yes, they should be allowed. The amount of heterosexual couples that have brought children into the world and then neglected/abused them suggests to me that no-one should be in a position to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt children.

Unless they think that, for some reason, gay couples are in some way a threat to children?:mad: Is that the reason people are opposed to same-sex adoption?

suicide_circus

JupiterKid wrote: »

Unless they think that, for some reason, gay couples are in some way a threat to children?:mad: Is that the reason people are opposed to same-sex adoption?

I imagine they oppose it because billions of years of evolution has come to the.conclusion that a.male and female are required to produce an offspring and the logical conclusion from that is that this same male/female team are the ideal guardians and providers for said offspring. Its not that wild and outlandish if you think about it without the liberal baggage at the back of your mind.
Then again, some people are just bigots.

Sonics2k

suicide_circus wrote: »

What a horribly clunky argument.
If you take completely two equal loving couples, one gay and one straight, competing for the right to adopt the same child, the straight couple should take precedence. Two parents of different genders simply gives the child a more diverse outlook and upbringing,. it gives something extra which a same sex couple, by their nature, will not provide.

Read my last post, as the son of a gay couple I got exactly the same life and chances as the child of a straight couple.

Oh, and just so people know. A gay person already can adopt in Ireland, it's just harder as a couple.

suicide_circus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Read my last post, as the son of a gay couple I got exactly the same life and chances as the child of a straight couple.

Well you had parents of the same gender so by definition you did NOT get the exact same life as the child of a straight couple. I'm not saying you were disadvantaged but in objective terms in the scenario I outlined, I feel a straight couple should take precedence because it offers the child a broader spectrum.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

enniscorthy wrote: »

ABSOLUTELY NOT

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!

Lionel Messy wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. **** sake, some people need to get real.

Here, take three minutes to just do a little research before you post... Three minutes. That's all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

CreepingDeath

Can gays bring up an adopted child, the minimum criteria being to keep them alive and fulfil normal parental duties? Yes

But if there's a normal heterosexual couple who can provide them with a much more balanced and natural upbringing in line with the vast majority of the population then that has to be given precedence.

So what does that leave?
How is this ultimately going to play out?
Probably with gay couples adopting foreign babies from Russia or Africa and taking them from their own countries back here.

So the kids will be bullied for being foreign, adopted and raised by a gay couple.

Sonics2k

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well you had parents of the same gender so by definition you did NOT get the exact same life as the child of a straight couple. I'm not saying you were disadvantaged but in objective terms in the scenario I outlined, I feel a straight couple should take precedence because it offers the child a broader spectrum.

Not really a 'broader spectrum'.

Growing up in the 'alternative' community as some would call it actually opened my eyes far more to the world than say, my cousin. I see no difference between straight or gay, just physical and emotional attraction, which is basically the most minor detail of a person and who they are.

In terms of growing up, day to day life, going to school, first crushes and all that shíte kids go through, my life was exactly the same as any of my friends.

suicide_circus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Not really a 'broader spectrum'.

Growing up in the 'alternative' community as some would call it actually opened my eyes far more to the world than say, my cousin. I see no difference between straight or gay, just physical and emotional attraction, which is basically the most minor detail of a person and who they are.

In terms of growing up, day to day life, going to school, first crushes and all that shíte kids go through, my life was exactly the same as any of my friends.

Thats all fair enough. I still stick to my view. Given your background I doubt I can convince you so I wont try

planetX

suicide_circus wrote: »

I imagine they oppose it because billions of years of evolution has come to the.conclusion that a.male and female are required to produce an offspring and the logical conclusion from that is that this same male/female team are the ideal guardians and providers for said offspring. Its not that wild and outlandish if you think about it without the liberal baggage at the back of your mind.
Then again, some people are just bigots.

it's very doubtful through human evolution that it would have been 1 male, 1 female. Probably a dominant male with a harem of females, only to be eventually usurped by a younger man.
this is the kind of thinking that had babies taken from single mothers to be given to a 'nice' couple to raise.... in the Ideal Environment. Thought we'd progressed past that:mad:

Sonics2k

suicide_circus wrote: »

Thats all fair enough. I still stick to my view. Given your background I doubt I can convince you so I wont try

But, that's my point.

I am the background. I am the child raised by a gay couple (though not adopted). I am one of millions of adults who were raised by a gay couple, and we are absolutely the same, and no more messed up, than any other child.

Sure, a couple of us may have ended up bad, but no more than the children of a straight couple.

What you think is wrong. I am the proof.

suicide_circus

planetX wrote: »

it's very doubtful through human evolution that it would have been 1 male, 1 female. Probably a dominant male with a harem of females, only to be eventually usurped by a younger man.
this is the kind of thinking that had babies taken from single mothers to be given to a 'nice' couple to raise.... in the Ideal Environment. Thought we'd progressed past that:mad:

Obviously not. And I imagine it may take longer than you hope. I do not oppose gay peoples right to adopt, I just think a straight couple is preferable, I am aware that this is discriminatory

Pedant

Kev_2012 wrote: »

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.

Why are you bringing transvestism into this thread? Most transvestites and other transgender people are straight, not gay. This thread is about parenting and sexual orientation, not parenting and sexual identity.

suicide_circus

Sonics2k wrote: »

But, that's my point.

I am the background. I am the child raised by a gay couple (though not adopted). I am one of millions of adults who were raised by a gay couple, and we are absolutely the same, and no more messed up, than any other child.

Sure, a couple of us may have ended up bad, but no more than the children of a straight couple.

What you think is wrong. I am the proof.

I am not wrong actually. You see, we are dealing with opinion not fact. Diversity is beneficial and having one male and one female parent is, in genetic terms, more diverse than two same sex parents. Im not coming at this from a bible bashing angle. I do think gay couples should be free to adopt but all things being equal I think a straight couple should take precedence.

Morag

And then there are kids who are being raised by bisexual parents.

beks101

This is such a fucking stupid question.

I hear this debate being argued again and again and the Obama comment that has sparked the gay marriage debate in the U.S and all the ugly, hillbilly views that come along with that and I swear to God I wonder what century we are living in.

Of course gay people should be allowed to adopt. Of course gay people should be allowed to marry. What the hell is wrong with people? Are they a different species? Does their homosexuality hinder their mental capacity or emotional capacity to give love any more than heterosexuality does? Are they all still sexual deviants who are living in sin, despite the fact that homosexuality is traceable as far back as 5,000 years in human history?Why is their competency to do normal, every-day life things still being questioned - things that scumbags on the street do every day and we don't bat an eyelid because they happen to be straight?

And the argument about leaving a child 'confused' about how a relationship works. Some of the most confused people I know came from run-of-the-mill families, with parents who didn't give a fuck about each other but happened to be straight. Or parents who treated their parental duties as an afterthought. It's a lack of love, compassion and care that ****s a child up, not that fact that both parents possess the same type of genitalia.

I wish this whole argument would give over. I wish some of the smartest, kindest people in my life wouldn't have to face this continuous struggle to do the simple things that the rest of us do without question, without judgement. Homosexuality is not a handicap. It does not make somebody less human. It does not make somebody, or a pair of people, 'less' in any way. When are we going to accept that?

Sonics2k

But genetics has nothing at all to do with Adoption. Either way, the parents will have no blood connection with the child.

The whole idea of the 'nuclear' family unit has been discredited, and it has been proven that a gay couple can raise a child exactly the same as a straight couple.

An adopted child should not be given to a couple based solely on their sexuality, but on their personality, etc.

suicide_circus

Sonics2k wrote: »

But genetics has nothing at all to do with Adoption. Either way, the parents will have no blood connection with the child.

The whole idea of the 'nuclear' family unit has been discredited, and it has been proven that a gay couple can raise a child exactly the same as a straight couple.

An adopted child should not be given to a couple based solely on their sexuality, but on their personality, etc.

Agreed, sexuality should not even come into it. I'm saying having a male and female role model is preferable to have two male or two female role models.

Pedant

suicide_circus wrote: »

Agreed, sexuality should not even come into it. I'm saying having a male and female role model is preferable to have two male or two female role models.

Based on what? You can't base the methodology of selection on mere assumptions. There is a library full of studies which indicate that children raised in families with same-sex parents are at no less disadvantaged than children raise in families with opposite-sex parents of similar socioeconomic standing.

The only other reason behind denying same-sex couples the legal facilities to adopt would be the notion of "traditional families", which is itself isn't a reasonable argument.

Also, to all concerned, no-one has a "right" to anyone else's child, let's get that straight. Adoption isn't, nor ever should be, a right. What gay/lesbian couples want is to be treated as fairly in the adoption process as any straight couple is.

Wompa1

I'd let gay couples adopt. I don't know what the Irish adoption laws are like but I would think parents that adopt have annual or bi-annual check ins from the agencies to give the biological mother peace of mind that the child is being cared for?

Also isn't there an in depth look at the type of lifestyle the parents lead. So no matter whether the couple is straight or gay. They would only get the kid if they are the most suitable candidates.

Varied

Any couple that can give a child a better life should instantly be allowed to adopt regardless of sexual orientation. The fact that people want it banned sends a dangerous message that homosexuality is wrong.

Wompa1

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

Fair play for admitting that. Over here at the moment LGBT are jumping on the bullying bandwagon and kind of diluting the argument. Trying to champion their own cause whilst then neglecting all of the other people that get bullied. I got a bit bullied myself and I think if people think back most probably did. It's a bit annoying when people are trying to tell you that it's worse when it's because of sexuality of perceived sexuality.

Pedant

Varied wrote: »

Any couple that can give a child a better life should instantly be allowed to adopt regardless of sexual orientation. The fact that people want it banned sends a dangerous message that homosexuality is wrong.

Not only that but not allowing gay/lesbian couple to adopt limits the choice of the biological parents. Furthermore, if a gay/lesbian person who has full custody of child enters into a long term relationship with another gay/lesbian person, the law does not allow that other person to adopt the child if the couple decide to get marriage/civil partnership, which I find disgusting.

Wompa1

Varied wrote: »

Any couple that can give a child a better life should instantly be allowed to adopt regardless of sexual orientation. The fact that people want it banned sends a dangerous message that homosexuality is wrong.

Pedant wrote: »

Not only that but not allowing gay/lesbian couple to adopt limits the choice of the biological parents. Furthermore, if a gay/lesbian person who has full custody of child enters into a long term relationship with another gay/lesbian person, the law does not allow that other person to adopt the child if the couple decide to get marriage/civil partnership, which I find disgusting.

I gotcha. Dangerous or not though, The catholic church teach it as a sin and if it's to go through democratic processes right now, I'd imagine the motion would be defeated.

In 15 or 20 years I'd imagine it would pass easily, when the bible worshippers have withered away and died.

Good oul Democracy eh!? "DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK!"

Pedant

Wompa1 wrote: »

I gotcha. Dangerous or not though, The catholic church teach it as a sin and if it's to go through democratic processes right now, I'd imagine the motion would be defeated.

In 15 or 20 years I'd imagine it would pass easily, when the bible worshippers have withered away and died.

Good oul Democracy eh!? "DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK!"

I entirely agree with you, there are major problems with democracy and that should never be understated. Democracy should never enter the realm of individual rights.

languagenerd

The way I see it, if you have a child whose biological parents can't raise them for whatever reason and a couple that are willing and financially able to raise that child in a loving home, then why the hell wouldn't you let them?!

Yes, children should have both male and female influences, but there are plenty of people who grow up in single-parent households or (sadly) in houses with a negative influence from either side. As long as they have an aunt/uncle or a grandparent or a family friend of the other gender as a role model... They'll meet people of the other gender in school and in society too.

And as for the "they'll be bullied!" excuse: does that not just show that we need to work harder to stamp out bullying and teach our kids about tolerance??? That's a real cop-out answer, it's akin to saying "Let's cut out everything that kids might bully someone over instead of cutting out bullying". Would you be keen to discourage all difference and tell smart kids to play dumb, make kids go without glasses, dye their red hair and suppress anything else that makes them a target of bullying, yeah?

I don't really get why people would prefer a child grow up in an orphanage rather than let them be adopted by a couple who want to look after them, love them and bring them up in a family home!

CreepingDeath

Pedant wrote: »

Democracy should never enter the realm of individual rights.

Being able to take custody of someone elses child is not a right.
I don't like that word "right" being thrown around so flippantly in this thread.

Plenty of heterosexual couples would likely be rejected by adoption agencies for being handicapped, or too old or for not having a stable income.

The state isn't there to provide a supply of children to gays who can't convince some woman to be a surrogate for them.

cowzerp

Only Gay children!

Immaculate Pasta

cowzerp wrote: »

Only Gay children!

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7969/55721010151446030360277.jpg

:cool:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pedant wrote: »

Why are you bringing transvestism into this thread? Most transvestites and other transgender people are straight, not gay. This thread is about parenting and sexual orientation, not parenting and sexual identity.

I fairness, he pointed out he meant trassexual, not trasnvestite.

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7969/55721010151446030360277.jpg

:cool:

Thirty years later....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-3cuCEt9k8

nozzferrahhtoo

token101 wrote: »

It's the natural family unit and should always be the ideal. For people to say otherwise is just ridiculous really.

Ah the old "call anyone who disagrees with me ridiculous" trick

"Natural" is not synonymous with "better" or "ideal" or "moral" or anything else of that sort really. Quite often the "unnatural" option is the better one.

I see nothing "ideal" about straight parents over any other parental configuration except that those who espouse it as the "ideal" seem to think that if they say it enough, it will become true by magic.

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.

That is not quite how bullying works and you assume too much on behalf of bullies and their motivations. Bullies rarely select their targets based on some "abnormality" about them which gives them material.

Bullies are, above all, cowards to their core. They select their target first, based on how vulnerable they are, and they choose the material they will use during the bullying secondary to that. If the target has gay parents then so much the better for the bully, but if not then said bully will find something else to work with. They always justify their bullying to themselves some how.

Take Sonics anicdote in post #500. A loner, sarcastic nerd. That is the kind of target bullies pick. Sonic claims sometimes the bullying was about the gay parents, but I warrant were there no gay parents then the bully would have still done the same thing just using different material.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I think a loving mother figure and father figure is the ideal situation.

I however do not. I see no requirement for that any more really. Gender roles are becoming more dilute in recent times and show every sign of continuing to do so. I am not sure the concept of "father figure" or "mother figure" holds that much weight or meaning any more unless one wanted to maintain such gender roles which I see little reason to think worth maintaining.

suicide_circus wrote: »

I am not wrong actually. You see, we are dealing with opinion not fact. Diversity is beneficial and having one male and one female parent is, in genetic terms, more diverse than two same sex parents.

I am sorry to say that this is a patently ridiculous evolutionary argument for a number of reasons.

The child adopted by gay parents has already benefited from the genetic diversity of opposite sex parents as much as it ever will. After the moment of conception the genetic make up, diverse or otherwise, of the parents has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the child's life. So genetics really has nothing to do with it.

Secondly the diversity between males and females genetically is not exactly great to begin with. Both have essentially the same genetic make up which is mediated by a single difference in a single genetic marker indicating sex.

CreepingDeath

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see nothing "ideal" about straight parents over any other parental configuration except that those who espouse it as the "ideal" seem to think that if they say it enough, it will become true by magic.

And that's only your opinion.
Which is heavily outweighed by millions of years of successful heterosexual parenting in practically every species on the planet.

Giving a child good heterosexual role models will help them to fit into normal cultural gender roles and follow in the success of billions of other heterosexual people.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Gender roles are becoming more dilute in recent times and show every sign of continuing to do so.

No.
Sexual equality in the workplace may be more dilute, but that's got nothing to do with home life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Secondly the diversity between males and females genetically is not exactly great to begin with. Both have essentially the same genetic make up which is mediated by a single
difference in a single genetic marker indicating sex.

You've a remarkable ignorance in biology there.
A single gene can be a master switch for a huge cascade of genetic and hormonal changes in the foetus which can change their brain development significantly.

Having male and female parents definitely benefits a childs psychological development.

Women tend to have better social and language skills, they nurture the child and would have a better emotional connection with them.
Men tend to challenge kids to learn and improve themselves, enforce discipline and provide a more level headed, wider, and more logical view of the world.

Exposure to a diversity of personalities will help a child see different views of the world. Whereas a gay couple would tend to only have half of that psychological diversity to teach the child.

Yes, let's enforce "normal" gender roles

smash

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Having male and female parents definitely benefits a childs psychological development.

You know what would benefit a childs psychological development even more?
Having parent that aren't bigots!

martic

Would love to hear mick the bulls opinion on this

Fromthetrees

What pisses me off is there is constant talk about non biological parents right to adopt a child yet every child born outside of marriage in this state has absolutely no legal relationship with his or her father and these rights have to be granted by the state, lets get the ****ing basics right here first.

Kev_2012

Zillah wrote: »

What an outlandish thing to say.

Not really. I am not gay in any way, shape or form so the last thing I want is a gay person to try it on with me. Fair enough if they don't know I am straight but, if they still try it, then we have a problem. This is what I meant.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And that's only your opinion.
Which is heavily outweighed by millions of years of successful heterosexual parenting in practically every species on the planet.

Just because we have been doing something for millions of years doesn't mean we are doing it in the best way. We are a complex, evolving species, and the current state of our evolution is that of empathy and intelligence. And intellgience tells us that orientation has no connection to paretning abilities.

In other words, someone is NOT a better parent SIMPLY because they are straight.

Giving a child good heterosexual role models will help them to fit into normal cultural gender roles and follow in the success of billions of other heterosexual people.

Why so? What if the child does turn out to be gay and has no homosecual role models?

You also seem to gloss over the fact that kids have plenty of role models both inside and outside the family. A child raised by gay parents is not going to be shut off from every other adult in the community. It takes a village to rasie a child, or so they tell me.

No.
Sexual equality in the workplace may be more dilute, but that's got nothing to do with home life.

Perhaps it should? Being "gay" is not something we hush-hush about when the kids are around any more. That's ignorant and homophobic.

You've a remarkable ignorance in biology there.
A single gene can be a master switch for a huge cascade of genetic and hormonal changes in the foetus which can change their brain development significantly.

Having male and female parents definitely benefits a childs psychological development.

Women tend to have better social and language skills, they nurture the child and would have a better emotional connection with them.
Men tend to challenge kids to learn and improve themselves, enforce discipline and provide a more level headed, wider, and more logical view of the world.

Exposure to a diversity of personalities will help a child see different views of the world. Whereas a gay couple would tend to only have half of that psychological diversity to teach the child.

Again, it's a moot point, because of the variety of role models open to the child. If you were right, then kids being raised by single parents would be at risk as well.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Not really. I am not gay in any way, shape or form so the last thing I want is a gay person to try it on with me. Fair enough if they don't know I am straight but, if they still try it, then we have a problem. This is what I meant.

Do you have gay men repeatly hitting on you a lot?

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And that's only your opinion.

I was not aware there was an onus on it to be anything else. However it is more than mere opinion because it can be argued and defended too. We know what a child requires to be brought up well.... education, security, love, understanding, protection, nutrition.... to name but a few and nothing on that list is predicated on the parental configuration providing it.... single, straight, gay or other.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Giving a child good heterosexual role models will help them to fit into normal cultural gender roles

The concept of gender roles is diluting with time. The archaic impression of men as the worker and women as "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" has long been eroded in many areas. If the sole argument supporting a bias against gay parenting is gender roles then it is on weaker ground than I thought. Such roles are not worth maintaining. There is not much left of the Gender Roles you imagine and in fact if gay parenting helps erode further this archaic sexist pigeon holing of people by nothing more than their gender then this is an argument FOR gay parenting, not against it.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You've a remarkable ignorance in biology there.

As easy throw away sentence to write but that does not make it so. In fact Evolutionary Biology is one of the areas of science I know most about and study in great detail. However one does not even need to know much science AT ALL to know the fact is the argument the user made on genetic diversity is ridiculous because from conception the child has already had all the genetic input it is going to get from the parents. An upbringing by gay parents has literally nothing to do with genetic diversity in the child. I am not sure where the user is coming from at all, but it sounds like one is imagining parents somehow giving their child genetics throughout its life. I am agog to hear what the mechanism for THAT is.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Having male and female parents definitely benefits a childs psychological development.

Oh well if you typed the word "definitely" it must be so. Oh no wait, it does not work that way. I would love to see any scientific citation from actual peer reviewed journals suggesting one needs women to nurture a child, teach it language, or have emotional connections. Or men to provide challenge, discipline or logic. Even if one could successfully show that one sex does tend towards any of these things more than the other, this does not in any way auto-conclude that therefore you need that sex to pass such things on to children. This is baseless sexist nonsense with no offered support at all.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Exposure to a diversity of personalities will help a child see different views of the world. Whereas a gay couple would tend to only have half of that psychological diversity to teach the child.

More baseless sexist nonsense. Personalities are diverse by person, not by sex. No two personalities are alike and two men or two women will be just as diverse as one of each.