Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

SeanW

Gary4279 wrote: »

Valid point, but I think that greater emphasis should be put on adoption to straight couple that can't have children for medical reasons.

There are virtually no adoptions in Ireland anymore, and I think its such a shame that a lot of kids end up in temporary homes.

I know most gay couple would try their hardest to care for a child but at the end of the day would it not be better to give a child the best start possible. I don't think that could be achieved with a gay couple.

I'd also like to point out that my argument isn't anti-gay, its pro-child.

Let me put it bluntly.

If a child could be placed in only one of two places:

1. An orphanage.
2. Adoption by a responsible homosexual couple.

And that, for whatever reason, adoption by a 'gold standard' straight couple were not possible.

Which would you prefer?

Also what religion are you?

Coeurdepirate

cowzerp wrote: »

No, if i was in the majority then i'd believe i was right, if not the majority is right and i was wrong and the people would get what they want, that is how democracy works-all people have a choice if they want to procreate or not, to say otherwise is false.

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Just because people want something does not mean they should have to get it.

cowzerp, please stop ignoring my posts.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

No, if i was in the majority then i'd believe i was right, if not the majority is right and i was wrong

Jesus, you've taken the argumentum ad populum fallacy and made it a philosophy!

KamiKazeKitten

cowzerp wrote: »

No, if i was in the majority then i'd believe i was right, if not the majority is right and i was wrong and the people would get what they want, that is how democracy works-all people have a choice if they want to procreate or not, to say otherwise is false.

Now hang on. Surely you believe your viewpoint is right regardless of whether or not you're in the majority? Because otherwise this sounds very much like bandwaggery (I likes making up words :P )

cowzerp wrote: »

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Sure, doesn't mean you're not born to raise children though.

MadameGascar

The argument of having an absent role model of whatever gender is silly, I'll suppose the same people are against single parents?

Once there are children out there who are dealing with abuse in their house or without any home at all, there should be nothing stopping someone more capable of providing the care a child needs from adopting. Doesn't matter if they're a gay or straight couple, or a single parent.

Having gay parents won't destroy anybody's life, children can be bullied for anything and they are. At the end of it what's most important for a kid is a loving home- this is the most helpful thing for growing up secure and happy so yeah, its backwards not to let gay couples adopt.

Sonics2k

cowzerp wrote: »

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Don't be silly. Of course they were still born to procreate if they wish, just like a straight person.

You're basically saying that if someone is born sterile, then they were not born to have kids.

And once again, we're discussing adoption.

Pushtrak

Sin City wrote: »

Can I asked those who wish to deny gays to adpot for their reasoning?

They have already presented it. It's the same old canard about it being weird, which I understand as not for them. Rights should not be selective. Rights were denied by some criteria and have been amended.

More and more of us who recognise that "not for us" is not an argument against something. And in time, humanity will course correct. Blinkered people might not be reasoned with, but it is still worth discussing this for those who are on the fence. It is good for the prejudiced and bigoted to mouth off and show how baseless their assertions are, and for people to demonstrate just how baseless the assertions are. This is how progress is made.

Sin City

Pushtrak wrote: »

They have already presented it. It's the same old canard about it being weird, which I understand as not for them. Rights should not be selective. Rights were denied by some criteria and have been amended.

More and more of us who recognise that "not for us" is not an argument against something. And in time, humanity will course correct. Blinkered people might not be reasoned with, but it is still worth discussing this for those who are on the fence. It is good for the prejudiced and bigoted to mouth off and show how baseless their assertions are, and for people to demonstrate just how baseless the assertions are. This is how progress is made.

But surely it wont effect them unless in fact the are gay and want to adopt

So I fail to see the problem , with sound reasoning behind it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sin City wrote: »

Can I asked those who wish to deny gays to adpot for their reasoning?

Good luck with that. How many pages has this been going?

cowzerp wrote: »

No, if i was in the majority then i'd believe i was right, if not the majority is right and i was wrong and the people would get what they want, that is how democracy works-all people have a choice if they want to procreate or not, to say otherwise is false.

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Just because people want something does not mean they should have to get it.

Democracy works by treating people equally. You are trying to contradcit this.

A lot of people are born not able to procreate. A lot of people are born able to procreate but lose that ability for a wide variety of reasons.

Have you actually made a point as to WHY you would vote no? Because all this is time wasting bull**** if you haven't.

Pushtrak

MadameGascar wrote: »

The argument of having an absent role model of whatever gender is silly, I'll suppose the same people are against single parents?

The point is that children brought up in single parent homes can be brought up quite well. A blow to the concept that the idyllic family dynamic is that of one man, one woman. If one man, one woman is not necessary, then wouldn't two of same sex have a chance of being better than one parent of one sex?

OldNotWIse

[QUOTE=cowzerp;78674137]No, if i was in the majority then i'd believe i was right, if not the majority is right and i was wrong and the people would get what they want, that is how democracy works-all people have a choice if they want to procreate or not, to say otherwise is false.

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

Just because people want something does not mean they should have to get it.[/QUOTE]

So... wait 'til I get this...you think that the majority is always right? So even if you were against something, and the majority were voting for it (and therefore by your logic are "right) you would still vote against it...even though (by your own admission) you would be wrong? I can't believe some people who are afforded the right to vote...

"If born gay then your you're not born to procreate" so agin, should an infertile couple (such as my parents) have been denied the right to adopt? Take the argument further (and dont slate me becasue you introduced this line of "logic") If a two year old is diagnosed with leukemia, should he/she be denied access to medical treatment because they were obviously "destined" not to live a long healthy life? No of course not, only a monster would think this way. I am not likening a gay couple to a sick child of course (I suspect this will be the next accusation hurled at me) - I am simply testing your argument. One good way to test an argument is to take the line of logic, apply it to a different scenario and see does it still make sense. If it does, great. If it doesn't, then it's what's known as "selective" arguing where you employ a paticular argument when it suits your agenda, but thats it.

"Just because people want something does not mean they should get it" - yes it was such a shame that women wanted to be able to vote, black people wanted to be able to work and vote and use public transport...

KamiKazeKitten

Sin City wrote: »

But surely it wont effect them unless in fact the are gay and want to adopt

So I fail to see the problem , with sound reasoning behind it

So do most other people on here, and I suspect so do they when the flaws are shown to them.


It's all just a rehash of the "Won't somebody think of the children" brand of logic imo.

smash

cowzerp wrote: »

If born gay then your born not to procreate, it is that simple.

No you're not. You're just born with an attraction to the same sex.

OldNotWIse

Sin City wrote: »

Can I asked those who wish to deny gays to adpot for their reasoning?

Aside from the bullying reason as that seems to be an invalid one

Are they afraid that it will destroy the family nuculos and if so how.

As for the ridiculous notion that gays knew what they were getting into when they chose to be gay, Im sure you thought the same thing during the civil rights movement that they all chose to be black.

Denying someone the right to adopt because of their sexual oreientaton is wrong
Saying that because they arent able to naturaly have kids that its ok to deny them adoption is also insane

Many straight couples cannot have babies naturaly
Should they be denied adopting?

Good luck with that one. The consensus seems to be: "gay people should not adopt because children are better off with two parents" yet at the same time, the consensus ALSO manages to be "single parents are fine because they did not choose to be single" - it would appear that the entire argument in fact hinges on whether or not one CHOSE to be alone... Interesting...

Pushtrak

Sin City wrote: »

But surely it wont effect them unless in fact the are gay and want to adopt

So I fail to see the problem , with sound reasoning behind it

Is your point straight people shouldn't care because they will not have to adopt in a same sex setting? If so, then one could say white people have no cause to care about getting equal rights regarding skin colour. Or men shouldn't campaign for equal rights of women. Not saying you are arguing for these things, just pointing out you don't need to be in the fight to see the value in campaigning for equal rights.

There isn't an outlook that would inform me that it I ought not care about equal rights for everyone. It is absurd on its face.

Sin City

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Good luck with that one. The consensus seems to be: "gay people should not adopt because children are better off with two parents" yet at the same time, the consensus ALSO manages to be "single parents are fine because they did not choose to be single" - it would appear that the entire argument in fact hinges on whether or not one CHOSE to be alone... Interesting...

Orphans or those being adopted are usualy better off when adopted by a loving family, regardless of gender or orientation.

Surely both love and protection are not gender/sexual orientation specific

Sin City

Pushtrak wrote: »

Is your point straight people shouldn't care because they will not have to adopt in a same sex setting? If so, then one could say white people have no cause to care about getting equal rights regarding skin colour. Or men shouldn't campaign for equal rights of women. Not saying you are arguing for these things, just pointing out you don't need to be in the fight to see the value in campaigning for equal rights.

There isn't an outlook that would inform me that it I ought not care about equal rights for everyone. It is absurd on its face.

I think my point was how is it realling going to effect them if gay people were allowed adopt?

Would they see their own marragies or family units as inferior to same sex families

Its more of a what are you afraid could happen arguement rather than a gay only problem

CreepingDeath

Pushtrak wrote: »

Rights should not be selective.

Again with the "rights" :rolleyes:
None of us have the automatic right to adopt a child.
Even heterosexual people are already "discriminated" by age and financial status and probably health and criminal records too.

It's a selection process dictated by adoption agencies based on the best interests of the child.

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

I think this is a pertinent question, as it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty.

AnonoBoy

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Again with the "rights" :rolleyes:
None of us have the automatic right to adopt a child.

Yeah but all straight couples have the RIGHT to apply and not be dismissed offhand merely because of their sexual orientation.

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

Yes they should.

Your silly examples are quite silly. Are you saying that gay couples should only be allowed adopt children of the same sex as them?

Seachmall

CreepingDeath wrote: »

None of us have the automatic right to adopt a child.

Most rights are automatic and then exceptions and exemptions to these rights are listed, these are preferably based on sound reason.

This is why the law lists things we can't do, not things we can do (i.e. the law is black-listed, not white-listed).

as it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty.

Much like a single father raising a daughter...

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

I think this is a pertinent question, as it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty.

Yes, of course they should

Are you saying that I, as a single father, cannot raise my daughter?
Or that my Aunt couldn't of raised my cousin as as single mother, due to lack of male influence?

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Again with the "rights" :rolleyes:
None of us have the automatic right to adopt a child.

Reality says "Hi!". I've posted this twice before. Worth repeating.

Under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Authority considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, you may apply to the Authority to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no legal rights in relation to the child. The fact you are in a relationship is relevant only when evaluating circumstances that might affect the child's welfare.

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

Yes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

I think this is a pertinent question, as it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty.

Tell me something. Should a widowed man with a daughter have the girl taken away from him? Because by your logic, the answer would be yes.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Again with the "rights" :rolleyes:
None of us have the automatic right to adopt a child.
Even heterosexual people are already "discriminated" by age and financial status and probably health and criminal records too.

It's a selection process dictated by adoption agencies based on the best interests of the child.

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

I think this is a pertinent question, as it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty.

It's easy to take this line...when you already have full access to said rights yourself.

And what exactly is wrong with two men adopting a baby girl? My mother (no offence to her) was feck all use to me about the "birds and bees" issue. "You'll get them once a month now" was the extent of it. My Father has taught me an awful lot of my values and skills in life (more so than my mum) so to say that one gender is better equiped to deal with certain issues is ridiculous. Like in the old days when a widower's daughter would come of age and the aunty would call around to give the "talk" about pads and boys and stuff - come on this is 2012. My uncle was the one who taught my cousins sex ed, not my aunt. I remember being in complete awe that their education had included not only periods (yes the male learned about periods too) and sti's but also about sexual performance issues and topics like post natal depression. They are all well rounded, high achievers with functioning love lives. Amazing.

CreepingDeath

Seachmall wrote: »

Much like a single father raising a daughter...

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Should a widowed man with a daughter have the girl taken away from him?

You cannot compare the unquestionable right of a biological father to raise their own children, against that of two gay men requesting custody of a child who is in the States care.

It's a ridiculous comparison.

On one hand, the biological father has to cope with the difficult situation and nobody can forcibly take children off a parent without good reason.

On the other hand, the State has a choice on who is best suited to guide the baby from infant to adulthood.
Obviously a woman can help guide a girl through puberty much better than a man can and would be more approachable and empathetic on typical womens problems or even the simple stuff.

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You cannot compare the unquestionable right of a biological father to raise their own children, against that of two gay men requesting custody of a child who is in the States care.

Care can be provided outside the one man, one woman paradigm. So, you have no case. I could go on, but what is the point?

bodice ripper

I think the title should have been : "should straight people be allowed to prevent gay people from adopting?"

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You cannot compare the unquestionable right of a biological father to raise their own children, against that of two gay men requesting custody of a child who is in the States care.

It's a ridiculous comparison.

On one hand, the biological father has to cope with the difficult situation and nobody can forcibly take children off a parent without good reason.

On the other hand, the State has a choice on who is best suited to guide the baby from infant to adulthood.
Obviously a woman can help guide a girl through puberty much better than a man can and would be more approachable and empathetic on typical womens problems or even the simple stuff.

So, now you're claiming that my own mother wasn't capable of raising me, because I'm a male and she couldn't understand shaving or anything else?

Seachmall

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You cannot compare the unquestionable right of a biological father to raise their own children, against that of two gay men requesting custody of a child who is in the States care.

It's a ridiculous comparison.

You made the point that because both parents were male they were less capable of raising the daughter and thus for that reason they should not be allowed to raise the daughter.

A valid comparison was made that had the same premise (no female role-model) and the same outcome (child raised with no female role-model).

Your unwillingness to apply that argument consistently to the comparison provided demonstrates it's flaw.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You cannot compare the unquestionable right of a biological father to raise their own children, against that of two gay men requesting custody of a child who is in the States care.

It's a ridiculous comparison.

On one hand, the biological father has to cope with the difficult situation and nobody can forcibly take children off a parent without good reason.

On the other hand, the State has a choice on who is best suited to guide the baby from infant to adulthood.
Obviously a woman can help guide a girl through puberty much better than a man can and would be more approachable and empathetic on typical womens problems or even the simple stuff.

You seem to be experiencing some issues with how a constructive debate works:
You make an argument (here, the example is "2 men should not be allowed adopt a girl because they will not be able to do a proper job teaching her about sex etc").
Then the other person will provide a counter argument which requires you to further substantiate your claim (in this case, the counter argument is "well if two gay men cannot do the job properly then how can one single man do the job properly?").
You reply in defence (which should have been a substantiation of your original claim that males are ill-euipped to raise females) instead veered off into "well only gay males cannot do the job properly, straight males (by nature of the fact that they are straight) can automatically do the job properly, simply because the child is biologically theirs" - would you listen to yourself? You make one claim and then jump to another when asked to defend your claim. You are essentially trying to tell us that one ejaculation will provide a male with all the knowledge and experience he needs to raise a female, and that it is not in fact about whether or not a male has the ability to raise a female, but whether or not he has the right.

If you dont want gay people to adopt because they are gay thats fine - you would get a lot more respect for being honest, please do not masquerade your homphobia as concern for the children when it is clear to see by scratching even the surface of your arguments what your underlying agenda is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You cannot compare the unquestionable right of a biological father to raise their own children, against that of two gay men requesting custody of a child who is in the States care.

I'm not. You are.

it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty

Either a man raising a girl without the preence of a woman can or can not do this - which is it? How he came to be in that position is irrelevant to the speicfic point you are making.

bbam

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You are essentially trying to tell us that one ejaculation will provide a male with all the knowledge and experience he needs to raise a female.

Brilliant. Best statement of the whole thread!
I'd say there is allot of talking but not many saying what they mean, then covering it up by making it into another point.
Like myself most heterosexuals have little exposure to gay couples and so fear the unknown. Many mix up the sordid gay scene as portraiyed by the tabloid media with long term gay relationships. I'll freely admit that my family would have a very closedind on this and I was a young adult before I realised that it was just ignorance and fear of the unknown.

CreepingDeath

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You are essentially trying to tell us that one ejaculation will provide a male with all the knowledge and experience he needs to raise a female.

That's the most ridiculous post of the thread so far I'd say.
I'd be against any single man (hetero or gay) from adopting.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Care can be provided outside the one man, one woman paradigm.

If the adoption applicants can't deal with it themselves, I'd argue they aren't suitable.

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, now you're claiming that my own mother wasn't capable of raising me, because I'm a male and she couldn't understand shaving or anything else?

Note : Most women shave too... well those outside of Cork.

I chose the "two guys raising a baby girl" scenario as I believe it represents the trickiest adoption scenario.
Slightly off-topic, but in divorce situations women are nearly always given custody of the children, but very rarely are men given custody.

Seachmall wrote: »

You made the point that because both parents were male they were less capable of raising the daughter and thus for that reason they should not be allowed to raise the daughter....ole-model).

Your unwillingness to apply that argument consistently to the comparison provided demonstrates it's flaw.

I wasn't trying to avoid saying it but here... yes, a man can bring up a girl on his own. It's not preferable though.
And in adoption cases the State has a choice in the matter.

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

If the adoption applicants can't deal with it themselves, I'd argue they aren't suitable.

Good thing I kept that tab open.. The 4th time. Try read it this time.

Under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Authority considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, you may apply to the Authority to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no legal rights in relation to the child. The fact you are in a relationship is relevant only when evaluating circumstances that might affect the child's welfare.

Note : Most women shave too... well those outside of Cork.

I choose the two guys raised a baby girl scenario as I believe it represents the trickiest adoption scenario.
Slightly off-topic, but in divorce situations women are nearly always given custody of the children, but very rarely are men given custody.

Is this to say you would feel more comfortable with a same sex couple of two women getting custody than two men?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but in divorce situations women are nearly always given custody of the children IN IRELAND, but very rarely are men given custody.

In most contries it's decided upon by the parents and a joint custody solution is found. Weird, huh?

Anyway, this point makes the pro-argument better than the anti-argument, because if shows proof of the acceptance that a child growing up without one gendered parent being present is fine. Now all you have to do is why you think the orientation is an issue.

I wasn't trying to avoid saying it but here... yes, a man can bring up a girl on his own. It's not preferable though.
And in adoption cases the State has a choice in the matter.

This is true. It's the criteria we've been discussing these last 40 pages or so.

WolfgangWeisen

Of course gay people should be allowed adopt.

Saddens me that in 2012 there's still so many people out there that want to deny others the rights they enjoy on an equal level as them simply because they were born, as naturally and through the same process as themselves, but wired ever so slightly differently.

I'd sooner deny breeding rights and parenthood to homophobes and bigots to be frank. Homophobes are no better than racists, although I'm sure that there's a large crossover between the two, and both are in no way acceptable in this era. Hell, the same people denying gay people rights now would be denying black people rights if they were given the opportunity like their predecessors did.

Paparazzo

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Saddens me that in 2012 there's still so many people out there that want to deny others the rights they enjoy on an equal level as them simply because they were born, as naturally and through the same process as themselves, but wired ever so slightly differently.

And no one has come up with a reason why they shouldn't. When people use the argument "it's unnatural" you know they're clutching at straws.

HUNK

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Of course gay people should be allowed adopt.

Saddens me that in 2012 there's still so many people out there that want to deny others the rights they enjoy on an equal level as them simply because they were born, as naturally and through the same process as themselves, but wired ever so slightly differently.

I'd sooner deny breeding rights and parenthood to homophobes and bigots to be frank. Homophobes are no better than racists, although I'm sure that there's a large crossover between the two, and both are in no way acceptable in this era. Hell, the same people denying gay people rights now would be denying black people rights if they were given the opportunity like their predecessors did.

This image seems applicable

CreepingDeath

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Homophobes are no better than racists, although I'm sure that there's a large crossover between the two

Please provide peer reviewed studies to back up this view, otherwise you must clearly be a small minded bigot to hold that point of view. :rolleyes:

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Please provide peer reviewed studies to back up this view, otherwise you must clearly be a small minded bigot to hold that point of view. :rolleyes:

Homophobia and racism are all the same thing. Perhaps you have heard of prejudice?

NuMarvel

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Please provide peer reviewed studies to back up this view, otherwise you must clearly be a small minded bigot to hold that point of view. :rolleyes:

I'm sure he's at work and not going to go trawling through science publications for studies to back up his point right now.

Besides, it's common sense.

jenbaby31

simply put - if the straight posters on here were gay themselves they might feel differently on the topic

jenbaby31

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Of course gay people should be allowed adopt.

Saddens me that in 2012 there's still so many people out there that want to deny others the rights they enjoy on an equal level as them simply because they were born, as naturally and through the same process as themselves, but wired ever so slightly differently.

I'd sooner deny breeding rights and parenthood to homophobes and bigots to be frank. Homophobes are no better than racists, although I'm sure that there's a large crossover between the two, and both are in no way acceptable in this era. Hell, the same people denying gay people rights now would be denying black people rights if they were given the opportunity like their predecessors did.

very good point! and absolutely true!

IvySlayer

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Anyway, let me ask this... should two gay men be allowed to adopt a baby girl?

I think this is a pertinent question, as it highlights the lack of gender support for child in this instance, especially during puberty.

Should 2 women be allowed to adopt a boy?

Should single mothers have all their sons taken away from them?

CreepingDeath

Pushtrak wrote: »

Homophobia and racism are all the same thing.

If that's true, then you must have some scientific studies to back it up.
Otherwise everyone can completely disregard your small minded opinion.

And who is a homophobe here?
I don't believe two guys can be as good a parenting team as a man and a woman.

I could argue that you're holding an anti-feminist view that men can be just as good a mother as women.

IvySlayer

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I could argue that you're holding an anti-feminist view that men can be just as good a mother as women.

Are you of the opinion females are automatically better at raising kids than males?

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

If that's true, then you must have some scientific studies to back it up.
Otherwise everyone can completely disregard your small minded opinion.

And who is a homophobe here?
I don't believe two guys can be as good a parenting team as a man and a woman.

I could argue that you're holding an anti-feminist view that men can be just as good a mother as women.

hahahaha

KamiKazeKitten

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I could argue that you're holding an anti-feminist view that men can be just as good a mother as women.

And I could argue that by basically saying only women can raise a child you're being anti feminist, in a roundabout way.

But I'd prefer to just echo what Sonics said and say hahaha!

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

If that's true, then you must have some scientific studies to back it up.

Do you know what prejudice is? Lets break that down... Pre judice. Judice being under judgement. So, pre judgement. Still with me? Ok. Good. So, on what criteria might be considered when considering if one is prejudicial.. Well, lets look at the main ones. http://www.equal-check.eu/equality_lagislation_in_ie.php

The Equal Status Act 2000 provides protection against direct and indirect discrimination outside of employment on the same 9 grounds: age, gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, marital status, family status and membership to the Traveller community and
Promote Equality
Prohibit certain kinds of discrimination across nine grounds
Prohibit sexual harassment and harassment
Prohibit victimisation
Require reasonable accommodation of people with disabilities
Allow a broad range of positive action measures.

Otherwise everyone can completely disregard your small minded opinion.

If the above is small minded opinion, what does that make yours?

And who is a homophobe here?

Reading your posts... Well, there isn't a Geiger counter equivalent, but if there were I'd be thinking you may be closer to it than you'd like.

I don't believe two guys can be as good a parenting team as a man and a woman.

Right after the above, you post this. Cognitive dissonance.

I could argue that you're holding an anti-feminist view that men can be just as good a mother as women.

Yes I'm terrible. Call Joe Duffy. By implication though, I'm also saying that two women can be as good if there was no father figure in the picture.

Pedant

CreepingDeath wrote: »

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.

Did you read what I posted before that?

You do not have a right to someone else's child, that is completely obvious. It should be at the biological parent's discretion. However, that was not the "right" I was referring to.

Gay/lesbian couple cannot adopt children by law, even if the biological parent gave consent. Adoption is a legally binding voluntary agreement/contract between all parties concerned. Gay/lesbian couples do not have the right to legal recognition in this regard. They don't have a right to enter into the adoption process.

I'm not saying they should have a right to anyone's child, rather they should have the right to maintain the equal legal recognition as afforded to straight couples in the adoption process. Not allow them this is an affront to their rights.