Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

cowzerp

Otacon wrote: »

I would like to know what you believe a homosexual couples lacks that a heterosexual couple has. What criteria would a homosexual couple need to fill before they could adopt, in your opinion?

Mam and Dad

And before people say single parents blah blah, that is not ideal either-does not mean anything less than ideal should be accepted.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Mam and Dad

And what advantages does this arrangement have over same-sex couples?

And can you support these claimed advantages with evidence*?




*Assuming this isn't a bias against gay couples you do presumably have evidence to support your assertions.

NuMarvel

cowzerp wrote: »

Mam and Dad

And before people say single parents blah blah, that is not ideal either-does not mean anything less than ideal should be accepted.

That's your belief but there are studies that show that not to be so. In some cases it even seems that Mam and Mam is the best of the lot!

So if your opinion says one thing and fact says another, what happens next? Are you still going to maintain your way is right, even though it may not actually be in the best interests of the children?

nozzferrahhtoo

cowzerp wrote: »

Mam and Dad. And before people say single parents blah blah, that is not ideal either-does not mean anything less than ideal should be accepted.

See what I mean? This is just the same opinion restated. Yet you have resisted (read: Run away from) every single request to establish that this indeed the "ideal".

What is "ideal" about it other than it fits your bias and conclusions?

CreepingDeath

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The simple fact that seems apparent to people like myself, but not to people like yourself, is that the position that a "Man and a woman couple" is some how the "ideal" is baseless.

In other words, "I think this is a fact and so do other people who think the same as me"... classic. :rolleyes:

I've thought about this some more and come up with my core objection.
Since PushTrak was polite and appreciated opinions "from the other side" I have decided to make another post in this thread.

Replace the phrase "man and woman" in all your arguments with "mother and father".

In effect, you believe that a gay man can replace a mother.
That is exactly why I believe so many people are against this, since the vast majority of people were raised and raised successfully by a heterosexual couple and it's deeply entrenched in their upbringing.

No amount of pedantic and tedious surgical dissection of posts or repetitive quoting of students surveys is going to convince everyone here that a gay man is equal to, or better than a mother.

As I've said before, my argument has always been that heterosexual couples should get priority in this matter.
I didn't say gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt.
I imagine there's a huge backlog of foreign orphans looking for parents.

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

In other words, "I think this is a fact and so do other people who think the same as me"... classic.

If I had meant that I would have said that.

Actually I am not the one presenting anything here as fact. It is the people who claim that "one man one woman" is the "ideal" that are. I am merely evaluating that claim and finding it to be unsubstantiated.

You can rest assured when I make any positive claims of my own... I will back it up with evidence, argument, data and reasons. At this time I am not making a positive claim of my own. I am evaluating yours.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Replace the phrase "man and woman" in all your arguments with "mother and father". In effect, you believe that a gay man can replace a mother.

Not quite "replace" as such. The argument being presented by myself is that if you list everything a child actually needs for a healthy and successful upbringing.... there is nothing on that list I can think of that requires a mother or a father in order to provide it. Everything on that list can be provided equally well by a single father. A single mother. Both together. Two men. Two women. And so on.

The only way to establish "one man one woman" as the "ideal" therefore would be to find something on that list that is precluded every other parental configuration EXCEPT that of "one man one woman" and thus far no one has done so. In fact thus far no one has even attempted to do so, let alone actually done it.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

That is exactly why I believe so many people are against this, since the vast majority of people were raised and raised successfully by a heterosexual couple and it's deeply entrenched in their upbringing.

I wholly agree. That is why we need to discuss this subject intellectually and carefully. Peoples biases are strong and one has to point out that just because they are strongly biased towards whatever their own upbringing was.... this is NO way suggests that this upbringing was the "ideal" or that any other upbringing would not have been just as successful or healthy.

In essence therefore you are making my own point for me here! You are not only admitting a bias but explaining exactly where that bias comes from. What I am asking you to do is notice that as strong emotionally as that bias may be... it does not hold up to scrutiny and/or reason.

Seachmall

CreepingDeath wrote: »

In other words, "I think this is a fact and so do other people who think the same as me"... classic. :rolleyes:

His position is supported by a dozen or so studies posted in this thread.

That is exactly why I believe so many people are against this, since the vast majority of people were raised and raised successfully by a heterosexual couple and it's deeply entrenched in their upbringing.

So no reasonable arguments or scientific research will convince somebody their very limited experience is in anyway comparable with an alternative situation?

No amount of pedantic and tedious surgical dissection reasonable rebuttals of posts or repetitive quoting of students surveys scientific research is going to convince everyone here that a gay man is equal to, or better than a mother.

FYP.

As I've said before, my argument has always been that heterosexual couples should get priority in this matter.

And that position is based solely on the flawed idea that mother/father households are fundamentally better than same-sex households. An opinion based on nothing. Absolutely nothing.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

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.


.

The argument put forward was that a gay man cannot raise a girl because he doesn't know about girly stuff (by nature of the fact that he's male).

The counter argument provided was if a gay male doesn't know about girly stuff then why would a straight male who is the child's father? the only thing differentiating the two in this equation is the fact that the father brought about the conception of the child through an ejaculation.

The logical conclusion therefore is that this ejaculation has bestowed upon the straight male all the information he needs to properly educate his daughter about the "girly stuff".

Ridiculous statement? Perhaps, but only to highlight how utterly ridiculous this posters argument about straight male father Vs gay male father actually is

OldNotWIse

Paparazzo wrote: »

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.

Yup, that and "I dont need to substantiate my opinion" (like, whats the point of having an opinion if you're only backup is "I dont have to back it up okaaaaaaaay?")

OldNotWIse

smash wrote: »

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

Exactly. Anyway, if that was the case lesbians wouldn't have wombs...

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.

Shock horror :eek: But you are right of course, two wrongs do make a right. The fact that straight people are discriminated against is of course justification enough for discrimination against gay people. Silly me :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

The pertinent issue here is that they legally should have the rights afforded them under the law. I'm a hetero who has no plans on having kids. Just because I could doesn't mean it is my intent to go and do so. Not every person on the planet wants the responsibility of parent. Those who do, again should have the right to do so.

Exactly. Just because some people demonstrably do not wish to adopt, is not grounds for denying those rights to others. I personally intend to have children in a couple of years but I will not be adopting, for my own reasons. This does not for one second mean that my peers should not be allowed to adopt.

CreepingDeath

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.

I am in a relationship that we have lovingly labelled a "truple" as opposed to a "couple" because there is myself (male) and two girls in it. We have one daughter so far and intend to have three more children.

Given the number of people who find our relationship "wrong" and having children in that relationship as "evil" I wonder what they would think of the counter argument that at least our relationship exposes the children to a greater diversity of personalities in their parental unit than the therefore obviously inferior "couple" unit.

As such it is odd to hear you call a one male - one female dynamic the ideal when in fact the arguments (sic) you present to support that ideal actually make my relationship "more ideal" again. I wonder if you were even aware of that implication of your point when you made it.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I disagree.


However I'm fully entitled to my opinion that they're not as good as a heterosexual couple without having a prepared opinion force fed to me by some clinical snapshot questionnaires and shouted at me in huge fonts.




Although I did think it was funny how you talk about racists and homophobes being a "dying breed" in a thread were you're demanding custody of other peoples babies.

Oh my Gawd here we go again with the "I'm entitled to my opinion" lark. Yes we knooooooow you're entitled to your opinion, nobody is trying to take that away from you, we are asking you to substantiate it. Why do you have an issue with that? Why bother holding an opinion in the first place if when every time you are challenged you resort to whineing "Its my opinion ok?")

Also, whats this about "demanding custody of other peoples babies"? You make it sound like gay couples are sneaking around maternity wards, fending midwives off with multicoloured flags and wielding pink scissors to cut the umbilical cord as soon as some poor striaght woman gives birth, and will then snatch the child and bring it up in some gay sauna learning nursery rhymes about pink rights. Come off it.

ManCityChamps wrote: »

Let gays adopt children with no - or highly abusive - parents, BUT screen their backgrounds vigorously.

Shouldn't ALL prospective parents be screened, regardless of sexual orientation?

cowzerp wrote: »

Thus choosing to not procreate, nature obviously did not intend 2 men to father a baby.


To the poster who think's I am ignoring them, I'm not-just seen your post's now and I don't have the time or am I so strongly against it that I feel the need to respond, I think people feel I am a raging Homophobe!! I am not, Just think kid's ideally should be with a Man and a Woman.

Here we go with the choice malarky again...zzzz

"think people feel I am a raging Homophobe!! I am not, Just think kid's ideally should be with a Man and a Woman."

Translate: I am not a homophobe. I am a homophobe. If I preface my homophobic statement with "I'm not homphobic" then I am not actually homphobic

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

I am in a relationship that we have lovingly labelled a "truple" as opposed to a "couple" because there is myself (male) and two girls in it. We have one daughter so far and intend to have three more children.

Given the number of people who find our relationship "wrong" and having children in that relationship as "evil" I wonder what they would think of the counter argument that at least our relationship exposes the children to a greater diversity of personalities in their parental unit than the therefore obviously inferior "couple" unit.

As such it is odd to hear you call a one male - one female dynamic the ideal when in fact the arguments (sic) you present to support that ideal actually make my relationship "more ideal" again. I wonder if you were even aware of that implication of your point when you made it.

This is amazing Now I know im in 2012!

suicide_circus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This is amazing Now I know in in 2012!

Sounds less 2012 and more 1220 to me but carry on.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Exactly. Anyway, if that was the case lesbians wouldn't have wombs...

Ha - if only that was an option. I know many lesbians who would have gladly avoided the joy of menstruation once a month for 30 odd years - a fortune would have been saved from not buying tampons .

I do enjoy reading about these Ideal, Normal families and hope to meet one in real life some day.

My two of my great-grannies were single parents:
Husband of my maternal Great-Granny abandoned his pregnant bride - she had a son who she raised with no support from her family. He married and had 9 children and was a damn good father.

Husband of Paternal Great-Granny died while wife was pregnant with second child - Great-Granny emigrated to the States but left youngest (my paternal grand-mother) to be raised by her childless aunt.

One of the 9 children of man raised by single woman was my grand mother - her husband died in his early 50s leaving her with 2 children (out of 5) still in school. My two aunts were raised by a single parent.

My own father emigrated to the US when I was 4 - my mother lived with my widowed grandmother. 3 (2 girls, 1 boy) of us were raised by 2 women. When Daddy dear did return many years later he went to the pub and was rarely seen again.

My sister's husband ran off with his secretary. He has never met his son. Sister moved in with Granny and Mammy - her Man Uted loving, big, strapping, laddish carpenter of a son is getting married in Nov - he was raised until he was 11 by 3 women. My sister re-married - her husband has been a true father to my nephew ever since despite having no biological relationship to him.

My bother's marriage broke up - of his 3 daughters, 2 elected to live with him - all three are now in university. One is a lesbian, the other is straight - as is 3rd daughter who lived with her mother. His daughter's went through their teenage years being raised by single parents - 2 by a single father, 1 by a single mother.

I am a lesbian. I had one son. His 'father' was a gayman who didn't want to participate in my son's life - yes, he was given the option. My son was raised by 2 women and with the support of gay and straight male friends we had the shaving, pissing standing up stuff covered. My son (who for financial reasons is back living with me) has 2 children - a daughter and a son but because he was not married to their mother he could not prevent their mother from moving over 100km away and taking his children with her. So his two children are essentially being raised by a single parent most of the time apart from 2 weekends a month when they visit my house and have a Daddy and 2 grannies at their beck and call.

I think we are a pretty normal family to be honest. We all have good jobs, most of us have degrees up to and including MAs and PhDs - strangely enough all the MAs and PhDs are held by the Lesbians and Gays in the family - go figure! We pay our mortgages - except for stinking rich bother who buys houses with cash- do the shopping, cut the grass, watch the tele, have bbq's in the garden during the 2 days the sun shines, argue about politics, and drink a sherry together every Xmas in my grand-mother's honour. Pretty normal eh?

I do have cousins who got in trouble with the law for assault and drug offences- funnily enough, they were raised by a mammy and daddy...

nozzferrahhtoo

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sounds less 2012 and more 1220 to me but carry on.

Progress does tend to be an oscillating thing rather than a linear thing. As such it could actually be a 2012 AND a 1220 thing. Progress in our species, especially moral progress, often feels like we take 10 steps back before taking 11 forward again.

CdeC

Society is now accepting gay couples as legitimate members of the community.
If these couplings can provide a stable and supportive environment for children then I think it is for the benefit of society to allow gay couples to adopt.

Better that kids grow up supported and educated then in an orphanage or abusive home.

Logical Fallacy

I find it interesting that many of the arguments against gay people being allowed to adopt and gay couples being allowed to marry are so similar, almost a two birds with one stone approach.

George Monibot has an interesting piece in the Guardian about the marriage issue basically highlighting that the opt perceived "traditional" family concept is not so traditional and is large just that, a concept.

He is largely doing the same thing as many people in this thread, pointing out that "natural" and "traditional" as arguments dont really pass the litmus test.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years

'Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman." So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It's a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.
This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.
The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple". He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.
This theme was aggressively pursued by the church for some 1,500 years. In his classic book A World of Their Own Making, Professor John Gillis points out that until the Reformation, the state of holiness was not matrimony but lifelong chastity. There were no married saints in the early medieval church. Godly families in this world were established not by men and women, united in bestial matrimony, but by the holy orders, whose members were the brothers or brides of Christ. Like most monotheistic religions (which developed among nomadic peoples), Christianity placed little value on the home. A Christian's true home belonged to another realm, and until he reached it, through death, he was considered an exile from the family of God.
The Reformation preachers created a new ideal of social organisation – the godly household – but this bore little relationship to the nuclear family. By their mid-teens, often much earlier, Gillis tells us, "virtually all young people lived and worked in another dwelling for shorter or longer periods". Across much of Europe, the majority belonged – as servants, apprentices and labourers – to houses other than those of their biological parents. The poor, by and large, did not form households; they joined them.
The father of the house, who described and treated his charges as his children, typically was unrelated to most of them. Family, prior to the 19th century, meant everyone who lived in the house. What the Reformation sanctified was the proto-industrial labour force, working and sleeping under one roof.
The belief that sex outside marriage was rare in previous centuries is also unfounded. The majority, who were too poor to marry formally, Gillis writes, "could love as they liked as long as they were discreet about it". Before the 19th century, those who intended to marry began to sleep together as soon as they had made their spousals (declared their intentions). This practice was sanctioned on the grounds that it allowed couples to discover whether or not they were compatible. If they were not, they could break it off. Premarital pregnancy was common and often uncontroversial, as long as provision was made for the children.
The nuclear family, as idealised today, was an invention of the Victorians, but it bore little relationship to the family life we are told to emulate. Its development was driven by economic rather than spiritual needs, as the industrial revolution made manufacturing in the household unviable. Much as the Victorians might extol their families, "it was simply assumed that men would have their extramarital affairs and women would also find intimacy, even passion, outside marriage" (often with other women). Gillis links the 20th-century attempt to find intimacy and passion only within marriage, and the impossible expectations this raises, to the rise in the rate of divorce.
Children's lives were characteristically wretched: farmed out to wet nurses, sometimes put to work in factories and mines, beaten, neglected, often abandoned as infants. In his book A History of Childhood, Colin Heywood reports that "the scale of abandonment in certain towns was simply staggering", reaching one third or a half of all the children born in some European cities. Street gangs of feral youths caused as much moral panic in late 19th-century England as they do today.
Conservatives often hark back to the golden age of the 1950s. But in the 1950s, John Gillis shows, people of the same persuasion believed they had suffered a great moral decline since the early 20th century. In the early 20th century, people fetishised the family lives of the Victorians. The Victorians invented this nostalgia, looking back with longing to imagined family lives before the industrial revolution.
In the Daily Telegraph today Cristina Odone maintained that "anyone who wants to improve lives in this country knows that the traditional family is key". But the tradition she invokes is imaginary. Far from this being, as cultural conservatives assert, a period of unique moral depravity, family life and the raising of children is, for most people, now surely better in the west than at any time in the past 1,000 years.
The conservatives' supposedly moral concerns turn out to be nothing but an example of the age-old custom of first idealising and then sanctifying one's own culture. The past they invoke is fabricated from their own anxieties and obsessions. It has nothing to offer us.

Bannasidhe

How can anyone argue the ideal for raising children is always a man and a woman when things like this happen?

A "WICKED and controlling" man who murdered his "fun-loving, mischievous" stepson has been ordered to serve at least 17 years in prison.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/wicked-stepfather-who-murdered-gorgeous-little-boy-5-is-jailed-for-17-years-3109086.html

I haven't posted more from the article because I just found it too upsetting.

OldNotWIse

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sounds less 2012 and more 1220 to me but carry on.

Carry on what? I've already made my point

Pherekydes

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.

If you bothered to, you could have googled each name to see exactly what their qualifications are.

Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D.
Professor
Fitch Nesbitt Endowed Chair and Director, Frances McClelland Institute
Family Studies and Human Development
McClelland Park Room 235D
650 N Park Ave
Tucson, Arizona 85721-0078

Charlotte J. Patterson, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
P.O. Box 400400
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22904

Charlotte J. Patterson is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and in the Center for Children, Families, and the Law, and is Director of the interdisciplinary program Studies in Women and Gender (SWAG) at the University of Virginia. She is also a faculty member and research scientist at the Fenway Institute's Center for Population Research in LGBT Health in Boston. Her research focuses on the psychology of sexual orientation, with an emphasis on sexual orientation, human development, and family lives. In the context of her research, Patterson has worked with children, adolescents, couples, and families; she is best known for her studies of child development in the context of lesbian- and gay-parented families.

Jennifer Wainright
Graduate Research Analyst, 2002-2004
Jen received her Ph.D. in Psychology and is now a Senior Research Analyst working for a research firm in Richmond, VA.

Seachmall

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you bothered to, you could have googled each name to see exactly what their qualifications are.

...

And aside from all that their qualifications have no impact on the validity of the study.

That's what the peer-review process is for.

And suggesting it does simply exposes a clear bias in your thinking.


^^Directed at CreepingDeath.

cowzerp

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Here we go with the choice malarky again...zzzz

"think people feel I am a raging Homophobe!! I am not, Just think kid's ideally should be with a Man and a Woman."

Translate: I am not a homophobe. I am a homophobe. If I preface my homophobic statement with "I'm not homphobic" then I am not actually homphobic

You're an ignoramus with your accusation's-Just because someone thinks 2 men should not be able to adopt does not make them/me Homophobic

I don't really care if you think I am anyway as it makes no difference to me either way, but no point anyone having an opposing opinion if they're going to be called Homophobic just for not towing your line.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Just because someone thinks 2 men should not be able to adopt does not make them/me Homophobic

You're suggesting gay couples be treated differently than straight couples in the adoption process with no logic or evidence to suggest why this is a reasonable suggestion.

It's baseless discrimination, regardless if you want to accept that or not.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How can anyone argue the ideal for raising children is always a man and a woman when things like this happen?

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/wicked-stepfather-who-murdered-gorgeous-little-boy-5-is-jailed-for-17-years-3109086.html

I haven't posted more from the article because I just found it too upsetting.

"It acknowledged that previous incidents in which the boy was hurt had been "seen in isolation" with "minimal attempts to link concerning patterns of injuries".

No doubt because social services are so reluctant to intervene in the family setup, to the detriment of the child. How many times have we seen this? So sad. Poor little defenceless child. I get upset if people treat animals like this never mind children :mad:

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

You're an ignoramus with your accusation's-Just because someone thinks 2 men should not be able to adopt does not make them/me Homophobic

I don't really care if you think I am anyway as it makes no difference to me either way, but no point anyone having an opposing opinion if they're going to be called Homophobic just for not towing your line.

Oh dear. Insulting me and then whinging about your right to an opinion when someone asks you to substantiate it (again) - would someone please tell this poster that we are not in a playground...

OldNotWIse

Seachmall wrote: »

You're suggesting gay couples be treated differently than straight couples in the adoption process with no logic or evidence to suggest why this is a reasonable suggestion.

It's baseless discrimination, regardless if you want to accept that or not.

No it's "just an opinion" remember? Apparently asking someone to substantiate their view is a bigger rights violation than telling them that they are not fit to parent a child because of what they do between the sheets (or on them, in the summer )

Bannasidhe

cowzerp wrote: »

You're an ignoramus with your accusation's-Just because someone thinks 2 men should not be able to adopt does not make them/me Homophobic

I don't really care if you think I am anyway as it makes no difference to me either way, but no point anyone having an opposing opinion if they're going to be called Homophobic just for not towing your line.

It does actually- unless you think a straight man should not be able to adopt either (which they currently can) - in that case you are sexist.

Just like calling someone an ignoramus because they challenge your opinion makes you childish.

As a point of interest - do you also think 2 women shouldn't be able to adopt together?

nozzferrahhtoo

cowzerp wrote: »

Just because someone thinks 2 men should not be able to adopt does not make them/me Homophobic

No... but having absolutely no substantiation for that position except you really want it to be so... does.

I am not sure how often we can explain this to you but few people on here are disagreeing with you or calling you homophobic solely because you have a differing opinion to them. Differing opinions are great and we all have them. If we did not then this discussion forum likely would not even exist.

The issue is with the fact that that opinion remains entirely unsubstantiated and undefended and appears to be held contrary to the wealth of scientific citation, data, evidence, argument and reasoning that is being stacked against it.

Nothing at all appears to back up you holding that opinion except you want to hold it. It is for that reason... not simply your holding of a different opinion... that people are likely finding a tone of homophobia running through your posts.

seamus

Cowzerp, take your statement, replace "2 men" with "black people" and "Homophobic" with "racist" and tell me whether or not it's still valid.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

Cowzerp, take your statement, replace "2 men" with "black people" and "Homophobic" with "racist" and tell me whether or not it's still valid.

Allow me: Just because someone thinks black people should not be able to adopt doesn't make them racist.

paddyandy

OP A man doesn't have the maternal qualities that children need .Irrefutable .

OldNotWIse

paddyandy wrote: »

OP A man doesn't have the maternal qualities that children need .Irrefutable .

I think it has been refuted...or did I dream the last 50 odd pages of posts...

Otacon

paddyandy wrote: »

OP A man doesn't have the maternal qualities that children need .Irrefutable .

Why are single men allowed to adopt then?

Delirium

paddyandy wrote: »

OP A man doesn't have the maternal qualities that children need .Irrefutable .

What "maternal qualities" are beyond the average father?

seamus

I do feel sorry for anyone who feels that there are parenting "qualities" that men are innately incapable of providing and that only women can provide.

Presumably you have come to this conclusion due to having exceptionally cold, harsh and "macho" male role models when growing up and receiving all or most of your more tender care from your female role models.

And that's a bit sad.

cowzerp

seamus wrote: »

Cowzerp, take your statement, replace "2 men" with "black people" and "Homophobic" with "racist" and tell me whether or not it's still valid.

Black people can have kids and that's what nature intended, Don't try twist what I am saying as that would be Racist, If what I am saying is the same as racism then this whole thread is a car wreck and a waste of time.

Otacon

cowzerp wrote: »

Black people can have kids and that's what nature intended, Don't try twist what I am saying as that would be Racist, If what I am saying is the same as racism then this whole thread is a car wreck and a waste of time.

A heterosexual couple can be infertile. Should they be banned from adopting too?

bodice ripper

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I find it interesting that many of the arguments against gay people being allowed to adopt and gay couples being allowed to marry are so similar, almost a two birds with one stone approach.

George Monibot has an interesting piece in the Guardian about the marriage issue basically highlighting that the opt perceived "traditional" family concept is not so traditional and is large just that, a concept.

He is largely doing the same thing as many people in this thread, pointing out that "natural" and "traditional" as arguments dont really pass the litmus test.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years

this is an excellent article, thank you. I would like to see anyone argue with it.

seamus

cowzerp wrote: »

Black people can have kids and that's what nature intended, Don't try twist what I am saying as that would be Racist, If what I am saying is the same as racism then this whole thread is a car wreck and a waste of time.

Of course, I use racism because it's so clear cut.

However the point is, if you consider the statement that "black people should not be able to adopt children" to be racist, then logically swapping out black people for any other distinct group - like gay men - is equal discrimination, i.e. homophobic.

How would it be racism when the subject is black people, but it's not homophobia when the subject is gay men? That's logically inconsistent.

Although I suppose you could argue that it's sexism against men rather than homophobia, but that's just even more bizarre.

oldrnwisr

paddyandy wrote: »

OP A man doesn't have the maternal qualities that children need .Irrefutable .

Not really. The research that has been done in this area has entirely refuted your baseless assertion.

In fact, as Michael Lamb points out here the gender-specific characteristics of the father are less important than those which are shared by everyone:

"Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent is a mother or father. The important dimensions of parental influence are those that have to do with parental characteristics rather than gender-related characteristics."

The Role of the Father in Child Development

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Black people can have kids and that's what nature intended

Nature is not an authority on what is best, correct or good.

It's a stupid fucking argument.


Are you opposed to black people and Asians drinking milk?

unclejunior

ya its only fair that they should be allowed. if homosexuality is socially acceptable then it would appear hypocritical that homosexuals should be treated differently as parents

CreepingDeath

cowzerp wrote: »

..If what I am saying is the same as racism then this whole thread is a car wreck and a waste of time.

This whole thread is a train wreck.

Since this morning it has become a LBGT back slapping & thanks whoring frenzy as they take yet another gay pride parade down the main street of AH.

It's no wonder that less than a handful of the 313 people who voted against it are open enough to comment publicly on-thread about their opinions
when they're being targeted for constant low level verbal abuse just under the radar of the personal attack rules of AH.

smokingman

Ah that old chestnut "nature".

The personification of an abstract construct done so by dumb people to make them feel smarter.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

Black people can have kids and that's what nature intended, Don't try twist what I am saying as that would be Racist, If what I am saying is the same as racism then this whole thread is a car wreck and a waste of time.

But Cowzerp, we've been here before. If only those that are biologically able to procreate should be allowed to adopt, then you should also apply the same logic (such as it is) to infertile couples, but you don't. I know you will likely accuse me of "trotting out the infertile line" again but that's what happens when you keep making the same argument - people keep making the same counter arguments.

I would like some clarification from you because I really feel like this whole thread is going around in circles at this point.

What is your reason for not wanting gay people to adopt? Is it because you think only people who CAN procreate should adopt (which would fast become a moot point as most who can procreate would have no need for adoption), and therefore you would not have a problem exluding infertile, straight people, or do you base your criteria simply on how people "choose" to live their lives - if you "choose" to be childless (because you follow a gay lifestyle) this "childlesness" is somehow less legitimate than one who is childless against their wishes.

The only reason this thread has become a "wreck and a waste of time" is because of people like you who wade in guns blazing shouting about how one minority group should not be allowed to adopt a child, and when asked to provide some kind of basis for your views, whines about your "right to an opinion", not to mention the oul' trick of jumping from one argument to another in order to avoid having to substantiate either.

If you are willing to come onto a public forum and state your opinion loud and clear then it is not unreasonable that people challenge your views. If you are going to hide behind your "right to an opinion" banner every time, then the discussion will fast become stagnated, and you will be wasting all of our time.

Mousewar

If I try to imagine the perfect environment for a child I picture a husband and wife who love and protect the child and who themselves are well balanced individuals able to pass on the respective qualities of their gender. However, this perfect situation doesn't exist. If we are to be practical about this issue (and we must be) there are plenty of heterosexual couples who provide their children with a shameful upbringing and who should never be allowed near kids let alone to raise them.

If someone wants to argue that a homosexual couple will be unable to provide children with the 'perfect' upbringing that covers all the nuances of gender development and appreciation then they can go for it. But frankly, if, through the adoption process, they prove themselves to be decent caring people who are going to love the child and put him or her first then I suggest that they will be providing the child with a more than satisfactory upbringing and one that is far superior to that provided by so many heterosexual wasters out there.

Bannasidhe

CreepingDeath wrote: »

This whole thread is a train wreck.

Since this morning it has become a LBGT back slapping & thanks whoring frenzy as they take yet another gay pride parade down the main street of AH.

It's no wonder that less than a handful of the 313 people who voted against it are open enough to comment publicly on-thread about their opinions
when they're being targeted for constant low level verbal abuse just under the radar of the personal attack rules of AH.

Translation: 762 people voted in favour - less then half that voted against - most of whom have not had the courage of their convictions to argue their position. Those who have argued the anti position have been presented with concrete evidence to show their opinions have no factual basis and appear to be based only on their personal perceptions of gender roles, nature and because they just don't like the idea.

Consequently, this thread shall now be dismissed as an 'LBGT back slapping & thanks whoring frenzy' despite the fact that 676 of those on the pro side are heterosexual.