Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

OldNotWIse

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.

Excuse you, I do not "thank" posts on the basis of the posters sexual orientation.

bodice ripper

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.

That article is a good and cogent argument, and certainly couldn't have been written for thanks whoring on boards.ie. Nor can it be low level abuse on members. How about some of the people arguing against gay parenting address themselves to it?

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Excuse you, I do not "thank" posts on the basis of the posters sexual orientation.

I neither know nor care what people's sexual orientation is - a good point is a good point.

ChubbyRunner

I am against it. Nothing against gay people but there are some things that are not suited to certain people. Its like refusing a blind man a job as a bus driver, its not discrimination just common sense.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Perhaps I shouldn't have "thanked" your post, after all I only did it because you are on my "side" :rolleyes: I notice how all the posts, links, arguments, counter arguments and questions posted by "us gay folk" (or not in some case) have been largely evaded and ignored by those in opposition, whose only straw now is (wait for it) - we're all trying to win some kind of race by thanking each other's posts Bless...

cowzerp

seamus wrote: »

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.

Saying 2 black people should not have children would be pure racist-they are meant to have children-It's nature's way.

saying 2 gay people should not have is different but you can twist it to look the same by switching words and taking out context, my reasoning is regardless of the attacks i am getting is Nature know's best

A woman who can't have kids is not natural, it is a medical error or whatever nicer term you would like to use, Comparing this to a Gay man who could never naturally conceive with his gay partner is ridiculous.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I neither know nor care what people's sexual orientation is - a good point is a good point.

Thanked! lol

ChubbyRunner

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I am against it. Nothing against gay people but there are some things that are not suited to certain people. Its like refusing a blind man a job as a bus driver, its not discrimination just common sense.

If it's common sense you should have no problem explaining to us why

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

Saying 2 black people should not have children would be pure racist-they are meant to have children-It's nature's way.

saying 2 gay people should not have is different but you can twist it to look the same by switching words and taking out context, my reasoning is regardless of the attacks i am getting is Nature know's best

A woman who can't have kids is not natural, it is a medical error or whatever nicer term you would like to use, Comparing this to a Gay man who could never naturally conceive with his gay partner is ridiculous.

You're still avoiding the question - do you think a woman who cannot have children should be allowed to adopt? Honestly it's like trying to argue with a politician. So many words but so little to say... and so hard to get a er... straight answer

ChubbyRunner

bluewolf wrote: »

If it's common sense you should have no problem explaining to us why

Kids need both parents they need to know where they came from. Now I know there are people doing it alone etc, I am a single parent myself and its not the worst thing in the world but its not the ideal either. I always think the best thing is for a child to be raised with a mother and a father.

ChubbyRunner

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I always think the best thing is for a child to be raised with a mother and a father.

Because...?

conor.hogan.2

cowzerp wrote: »

A woman who can't have kids is not natural

You are just delightful aren't you. So kind and compassionate.

This is about adoption, not what is "natural".

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I am against it. Nothing against gay people but there are some things that are not suited to certain people. Its like refusing a blind man a job as a bus driver, its not discrimination just common sense.

Refusing a blind man a job as a bus driver would (presumably) be on the basis that he cannot fulfill the role as bus driver properly because he does not have the required set of skills to do so ie; he is blind therefore cannot see dangers such as oncoming traffic, pedestrians, red lights etc. Fine.

Refusing a gay person the right to apply for adoption is (presumably we are using the same logic here) on the basis that he/she cannot fulfill the role as parent because he/she does not have the requiress set of skills to do so ie; love for the child, willingness to protect, nurture, educate, care for etc etc said child. Is this also fine?

seamus

cowzerp wrote: »

A woman who can't have kids is not natural, it is a medical error or whatever nicer term you would like to use

Well now you're just making up your own definition of what is and isn't "natural". Shifting the goalposts much?

Basically you've constructed a comfy little bias for yourself which you will continually contort and bluster over so you can happily hold your opinion even when all of the evidence and logic in the world says that your opinion is just plain incorrect.

Such behaviour is typically called bigotry.

ChubbyRunner

bluewolf wrote: »

Because...?

Its the best solution all round ( unless one parent is violent or something ) but all things being equal I think most of us would agree that having the influence of a mother and father is the best thing. Its very hard on a child to grow up away from a parent, living that now myself and its tough and I know what my 5 yr old would prefer.

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Kids need both parents they need to know where they came from. Now I know there are people doing it alone etc, I am a single parent myself and its not the worst thing in the world but its not the ideal either. I always think the best thing is for a child to be raised with a mother and a father.

Ah. Allow me to copy and paste this pearl of wisdom to my adopted brother (who no doubt will be devastated to learn he "does not know where he came from") as well as my best friend who is doing an amazing job rearing my wonderful godson alone.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Nature know's best

NATURE KNOWS NOTHING.

IT IS NOT SENTIENT.

IT IS NOT INTELLIGENT.

IT HAS NO INTENT.

Stop making that stupid fucking argument because it's unbelievably fucking stupid.

ChubbyRunner

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Its the best solution all round

Because...?

but all things being equal I think most of us would agree that having the influence of a mother and father is the best thing.

No, we wouldn't. Studies don't agree either. If you read the thread you'll see that

Its very hard on a child to grow up away from a parent, living that now myself and its tough and I know what my 5 yr old would prefer.

They would have two parents, they'd just be the same gender.

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

NATURE KNOWS NOTHING.

IT IS NOT SENTIENT.

IT IS NOT INTELLIGENT.

IT HAS NO INTENT.

Stop making that stupid fucking argument because it's unbelievably fucking stupid.

Death is natural. Nature knows best right? Lets all go on a killing spree. IT'S NATURAL

cast_iron

seamus wrote: »

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.

That's taking logic to a new extreme. The argument isn't if black people/gay people are allowed sit on the bus or something obviously racist/homophobic like that.

The argument is fundamentally whether or not the state should actively decide to "force" a child to have two mammys or two daddys as opposed to whether the state should allow a child to have a mammy and a daddy.

OldNotWIse

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

You are just delightful aren't you. So kind and compassionate.

This is about adoption, not what is "natural".

Apparently "natural" is the holy grail now. I assume all those banging on about nature also only wear hide clothing, refrain from consuming medication and rely solely on their two legs for transport.

Just realised my own mother is "not normal" - get the fly spray quick!

conor.hogan.2

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Its the best solution all round ( unless one parent is violent or something ) but all things being equal I think most of us would agree that having the influence of a mother and father is the best thing.

I think we would all agree with that, but then if that is your main point I don't think you know what adoption is.

Adoption happens when the child has no parents or they do not or can not look after it. (awaits pedantic people)

ChubbyRunner

Well that is sad for your brother and your friend. Its not easy being a single parent. I have a great ex who is always around but even so its very hard on the kids. It should be about the kids and what is best for them not about making gay people happy.

OldNotWIse

cast_iron wrote: »

That's taking logic to a new extreme. The argument isn't if black people/gay people are allowed sit on the bus or something obviously racist/homophobic like that.

The argument is fundamentally whether or not the state should actively decide to "force" a child to have two mammys or two daddys as opposed to whether the state should allow a child to have a mammy and a daddy.

No, it's taking logic to a place that you dont like because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

That's taking logic to a new extreme. The argument isn't if black people/gay people are allowed sit on the bus or something obviously racist/homophobic like that.

The argument is fundamentally whether or not the state should actively decide to "force" a child to have two mammys or two daddys as opposed to whether the state should allow a child to have a mammy and a daddy.

Right, and the analogy is:

The argument is fundamentally whether or not the state should actively decide to "force" a child to have black parents as opposed to whether the state should allow a child to have white parents.

Your little use of force vs allow is pathetic

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Well that is sad for your brother and your friend. Its not easy being a single parent. I have a great ex who is always around but even so its very hard on the kids. It should be about the kids and what is best for them not about making gay people happy.

Sad for my brother how? careful now...

Sad for my best friend how? (you think she'd be better staying with the father who kicked her so hard in the stomach that he ruptured the placenta and nearly killed her and her child?)

conor.hogan.2

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Just realised my own mother is "not normal" - get the fly spray quick!

Unclean, unclean! But seriously, some people are just cruel and adamant that they are "clearly right" too

ChubbyRunner

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Well that is sad for your brother and your friend. Its not easy being a single parent. I have a great ex who is always around but even so its very hard on the kids. It should be about the kids and what is best for them not about making gay people happy.

And why is not allowing gay people to adopt best for the kids?
All you've done on this thread is repeatedly state it's wrong it's just common sense not to let them it's wrong i don't think it's best

how about a reason why?

seamus

cast_iron wrote: »

That's taking logic to a new extreme. The argument isn't if black people/gay people are allowed sit on the bus or something obviously racist/homophobic like that.

You're right: it's a lot more subtle and less obvious; but it's still homophobia.

ChubbyRunner

Conor I do understand about adoption thank you, do you not know that very few babies are put up for adoption in ireland now and most adoptive parents have to adopt overseas? So you can't argue there are no other places for these babies. Plenty of couples would love to adopt but can't afford to do it overseas so are childless. Lets sort them out first and then maybe if there is no other solution we can look at gay adoption but not before.

Greentopia

Yes of course let them adopt I say. Why not? they should'n't be denied the chance to be parents if that's what they want.

A longitudinal study in the U.S. (from San Francisco if I recall) has shown
that the children of gay couples not only didn't suffer or feel deprived in any way because they had two Mums or two Dads, but that they thrived. They were found to do better than average academically and grew up to be well adjusted adults.
Must try and find that study as it was really interesting.

Daith

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Well that is sad for your brother and your friend. Its not easy being a single parent. I have a great ex who is always around but even so its very hard on the kids. It should be about the kids and what is best for them not about making gay people happy.

I don't get your point. It's hard for you being a single parent? So would it be preferable that child has a single parent or two parents who happen to be the same gender?

conor.hogan.2

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Conor I do understand about adoption thank you, do you not know that very few babies are put up for adoption in ireland now and most adoptive parents have to adopt overseas? So you can't argue there are no other places for these babies. Plenty of couples would love to adopt but can't afford to do it overseas so are childless. Lets sort them out first and then maybe if there is no other solution we can look at gay adoption but not before.

Does not matter how much adoption happens in Ireland. This is extreme goal post moving.

There are plenty of children still in care, so stop talking nonsense. There are loving homes out there that can not adopt just to suit your homophobia and dislike.

Pushtrak

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.

I don't even know how many times I have posted this now.

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.

So, single parents can adopt. I just want to see the adoption process be more in favour of a child being brought in to a two parent set up. And I want to see both parents have legal rights. You are, as I've seen someone mention earlier in the thread (apologies to whomever for not remembering) farting in the wind.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

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.

One of the points in the post I replied to was you are not against two parents of the same gender bringing up a child. Precedence should go to two of the different genders. So, I asked does this mean you would vote to allow two of the same gender to adopt if a vote to that effect came about?

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.

You said it again this very post. So, to be consistent, your reply to me should state you would vote for the rights of same sex to adopt. I think that the application process should be very vigorous and all steps possible be taken for a child to find the best possible home.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Felt this post was worth quoting in case anyone hadn't seen it who wanders in to the thread.

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

What does it make them?

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I am against it. Nothing against gay people but there are some things that are not suited to certain people. Its like refusing a blind man a job as a bus driver, its not discrimination just common sense.

The contradiction shuffle.

ChubbyRunner

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Sad for my brother how? careful now...

Sad for my best friend how? (you think she'd be better staying with the father who kicked her so hard in the stomach that he ruptured the placenta and nearly killed her and her child?)

I said in an earlier post that all things being equal ie NO VIOLENCE. Of course no one should be in a home with a parent like that.

I am not going to comment on your brother, adoption is wonderful but it can cause lots of sadness for all concerned too.

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Conor I do understand about adoption thank you, do you not know that very few babies are put up for adoption in ireland now and most adoptive parents have to adopt overseas? So you can't argue there are no other places for these babies. Plenty of couples would love to adopt but can't afford to do it overseas so are childless. Lets sort them out first and then maybe if there is no other solution we can look at gay adoption but not before.

yes let's give the gays the leftovers

ChubbyRunner

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Does not matter how much adoption happens in Ireland. This is extreme goal post moving.

There are plenty of children still in care, so stop talking nonsense. There are loving homes out there that can not adopt just to suit your homophobia and dislike.

Are you gay?

tbh

cowzerp wrote: »

my reasoning is regardless of the attacks i am getting is Nature know's best

maybe cancer is natures way of culling the herd, but I'd put my house on the fact that if you got cancer (god forbid), you'd take whatever "un-natural" drugs you could to cure it. You're not being consistent, which renders your entire argument invalid. You don't like gays, that's the sum total of your argument. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't cod yourself that there's any logical or rational basis to it.

cowzerp

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You're still avoiding the question - do you think a woman who cannot have children should be allowed to adopt? Honestly it's like trying to argue with a politician. So many words but so little to say... and so hard to get a er... straight answer

I answered that ages ago, go and look back and don't expect me to do your work for you.

seamus wrote: »

Well now you're just making up your own definition of what is and isn't "natural". Shifting the goalposts much?

Such behaviour is typically called bigotry.

Seamus I never moved any goal posts-Are you trying to make out that 2 dudes having a baby together is natural as it is not nor never will be

I am no Bigot and take offence to that, I have not insulted anyone even though I am getting slated just for having a clearly unpopular opinion, you're trying to compare what i am saying as 2 black people not been allowed to have kids-it's pathetic and just playing on peoples emotion's

I'm out of here as it is the biggest waste of a debate when having a different opinion get's vilified and falsely accused of Bigotry, Homophobia etc

cast_iron

bluewolf wrote: »

Right, and the analogy is:

The argument is fundamentally whether or not the state should actively decide to "force" a child to have black parents as opposed to whether the state should allow a child to have white parents.

Your little use of force vs allow is pathetic

I kinda thought that as I was writing it actually, but then I said, hold on...it's actually correct. When the state is involved, adoption should be a way of replacing the child's natural parents with another set. The rights of gays should not in any way be a concern to the adoption agency.
That's where this racist argument is being drawn in as if to invalidate that point.

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I said in an earlier post that all things being equal ie NO VIOLENCE. Of course no one should be in a home with a parent like that.

I am not going to comment on your brother, adoption is wonderful but it can cause lots of sadness for all concerned too.

You already HAVE commented on my brother and now you are trying to backtrack? Dont you dare presume to know about my brothers state of happiness.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

I kinda thought that as I was writing it actually, but then I said, hold on...it's actually correct. When the state is involved, adoption should be a way of replacing the child's natural parents with another set. The rights of gays should not in any way be a concern to the adoption agency.
That's where this racist argument is being drawn in as if to invalidate that point.

They can also get replaced by a single person adopting.
If a gay couple can provide the best loving environment to raise a child in (which has been shown) I don't see what the fuss is about.

oldrnwisr

Greentopia wrote: »

Yes of course let them adopt I say. Why not? they should'n't be denied the chance to be parents if that's what they want.

A longitudinal study in the U.S. (from San Francisco if I recall) has shown
that the children of gay couples not only didn't suffer or feel deprived in any way because they had two Mums or two Dads, but that they thrived. They were found to do better than average academically and grew up to be well adjusted adults.
Must try and find that study as it was really interesting.

I believe this is the study you are referring to:

Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The
National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524.

http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/...-olds-2005.pdf


However, given that we are talking about adoption rather than parenting in general then I would suggest that this study is a better benchmark:

Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007

The methodology of this survey defines a nuclear family as follows:

"A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family."

cowzerp

cowzerp wrote: »

I have not insulted anyone even though I am getting slated just for having a clearly unpopular opinion,

You are not getting slated "for having an unpopular opinion", you're getting slated for being completely inconsistent, shifting goalposts, and clearly advocating baseless discrimination. You have been told on several occasions that you are more than entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to come onto the forum and declare people should be discriminated against for no reason other than their sexual orientation then yes, you will be expected to back it up. So stop the victim playing please, as it makes the rest of us lose any remaining respect for you.

ChubbyRunner

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You already HAVE commented on my brother and now you are trying to backtrack? Dont you dare presume to know about my brothers state of happiness.

I'm not. Stop getting upset, the question was asked if gay people should be allowed adopt and I answered. You mentioned your brother in the first place.

ChubbyRunner

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I'm not. Stop getting upset, the question was asked if gay people should be allowed adopt and I answered..

still waiting to hear why

Pushtrak

For those who are just trying to catch up with the thread, the first stop is here.

cast_iron

bluewolf wrote: »

They can also get replaced by a single person adopting.
If a gay couple can provide the best loving environment to raise a child in (which has been shown) I don't see what the fuss is about.

I appreciate that. However, I think the state should do better, and aim to provide the child with a replacement of the mother and father it no longer has.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

I appreciate that. However, I think the state should do better, and aim to provide the child with a replacement of the mother and father it no longer has.

What's the difference?

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Are you gay?

Relevance? ("Objection!!!" lol)