Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

Seachmall

Would Cowzerp or CreepingDeath be willing to expand on what "Natural" means and why is "Natural" inherently more beneficial than any alternative?

Really, without a clear understanding of "Natural" the argument is bogus.

seamus

cowzerp wrote: »

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

Of course you moved goalposts. On one hand you're claiming that 2 men raising a child (who was presumably conceived naturally) is unnatural and on the other hand you're claiming that a woman who is naturally infertile is unnatural.

In other words you're just making up a definition of the word "natural" to suit your argument. This allows you to argue all you like since you can redefine "natural" to include anyone you do like and not include those you don't like.

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,

Actually I said your behaviour was consistent with that of a bigot. Since you interpreted that as an insult, then I can only assume that you agree with my assessment of your behaviour.

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 not trying, I appear to have been quite successful since neither you nor anyone else has been able so far to explain to me why discriminating against someone on the basis of their sexuality is any more acceptable than racism. Except for this elusive "natural" word, which you don't seem to be able to provide a consistent definition for.

cast_iron

seamus wrote: »

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

It's discrimination, yes. To portray it as an anti-gay stance is a little unfair though. Where one believes a child is entitled to a mother and father (not a terribly unnatural belief, to be fair), to pin it up as homophobia is a little much.

NuMarvel

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.

So even if a gay couple prove to the adoption board that they will provide the best possible environment for raising a child, you still think forcing the child to be with sub standard parents will be better??

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

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



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

How in God's name is that easier than saying "yes" or "no"? You clearly did not answer the question...

Otacon

IMO the criteria required before a child can be adopted should be a loving home, where the child is fully provided for.

I have yet to see any evidence that shows a gay couple/person cannot provide the above.

ChubbyRunner

cast_iron wrote: »

It's discrimination, yes. To portray it as an anti-gay stance is a little unfair though. Where one believes a child is entitled to a mother and father (not a terribly unnatural belief, to be fair), to pin it up as homophobia is a little much.

Thank you for posting that, you have explained what I was thinking much better than I could say

I am not anti gay, I would not like to see single people adopting either but I am not against single parents

conor.hogan.2

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Are you gay?

No. I voted "not gay but in favour" in the poll.

Are you latently gay?

Also really? That is your only answer to me? You wouldn't like to actually make any valid argument instead of turning the posts upside down and making them aussie rules posts?

cast_iron

bluewolf wrote: »

What's the difference?

Adoption is where the child no longer has a mother and father, and the state steps in to assign guardians for the child. I think it should aim to replace the original couple as closely as possible.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

Adoption is where the child no longer has a mother and father, and the state steps in to assign guardians for the child. I think it should aim to replace the original couple as closely as possible.

The original couple who didn't want/couldn't have the child? If the original couple was so ideal they wouldn't have to be giving the child up What if the original couple are abusive?

Pushtrak

cast_iron wrote: »

Adoption is where the child no longer has a mother and father, and the state steps in to assign guardians for the child. I think it should aim to replace the original couple as closely as possible.

People from the same city? Same favourite sports teams? Same astrological signs? Same car (if appropriate?) Same political leanings? Same religious beliefs?

cast_iron

NuMarvel wrote: »

So even if a gay couple prove to the adoption board that they will provide the best possible environment for raising a child, you still think forcing the child to be with sub standard parents will be better??

You'll have to point out where I ever intimated a child should be forced into an environment with substandard parents.

The choice is not either loving gay parents or substandard parents. The adoption agency has a string of hetro couples on the books that can meet the same criteria of loving parents.

seamus

cast_iron wrote: »

Where one believes a child is entitled to a mother and father (not a terribly unnatural belief, to be fair), to pin it up as homophobia is a little much.

OK, I'll accept that to a certain degree. However, I wouldn't accept that to be a reasonable opinion. Understandable perhaps - "I had this growing up and it never did me any harm, therefore it must be the best".

But if someone were to examine the evidence and still persist with the "mother and father" is best line, then I can only presume that there are other motives behind their opinion.

If someone held the opinion purely on the basis of child welfare, then they would be willing to change their opinion on examination of the facts.

Seachmall

cast_iron wrote: »

Adoption is where the child no longer has a mother and father, and the state steps in to assign guardians for the child.

Fostering is when the state steps in to remove the child from the home and aims to find a suitable family [either short or long term].

Adoption is when the parent(s) opt to find an alternative family (including placing it in state care).

bodice ripper

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.

A minute ago you were all about what's best for the child. this seems to be what's right for straight adults. funny that.

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

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.

"The Backtrack and Deny"
I am aware I mentioned my brother first (when did this become a "you started it" game?) but you said the situation was "sad for him" - I'm not getting upset (I took my perspective tablet this morning unlike some people on here) I am simply asking you to refrain form commenting on the happiness of someone that you know nothing about simply because he was adopted. Is that ok with you?

Greentopia

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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."

Thank's! It was quite some time ago I read it on another online forum but I think it may actually have been the second one! sorry, I posted rather quickly here in this thread as I'm in a hurry but I'll come back to this and read both.
And try and see if I can find the link on the other forum archives I originally found it.

ChubbyRunner

bodice ripper wrote: »

A minute ago you were all about what's best for the child. this seems to be what's right for straight adults. funny that.

Best place for the child is with a straight couple. A mum and a dad. Everyone would agree with that, you can have a happy life with a single parent, widowed whatever but its never the same as having both your parents at home taking care of you, having them there when you need them.

I am sick at all the pandering we have to do for gay people.

cast_iron

bluewolf wrote: »

The original couple who didn't want/couldn't have the child? If the original couple was so ideal they wouldn't have to be giving the child up What if the original couple are abusive?

I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with anything. It was hardly my point that the adoption has to be the closest replication of the previous parents - violence and poverty in all. That would be a bit stupid.

I think the adoption agency should replace the previous mother and fathers with another set in a good caring environment that would be beneficial to the child's upbringing, as far as it can determine.

ChubbyRunner

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Everyone would agree with that,

No we don't. We've repeatedly said so. Stop lying please.

I am sick at all the pandering we have to do for gay people.

I'm sick of all the bigotry and discrimination against gay people

seamus

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I am sick at all the pandering we have to do for gay people.

I know! How dare they ask to be treated equally! They had the gall to be born gay, they should put up or shut up!

conor.hogan.2

cast_iron wrote: »

I think the adoption agency should replace the previous mother and fathers with another set in a good caring environment that would be beneficial to the child's upbringing, as far as it can determine.

So which part of this does not include letting anyone apply for adoption?

Apply, not necessarily get.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with anything. It was hardly my point that the adoption has to be the closest replication of the previous parents - violence and poverty in all. That would be a bit stupid.

So when you said

I think it should aim to replace the original couple as closely as possible.

you actually meant

It was hardly my point that the adoption has to be the closest replication of the previous parents

right so

I think the adoption agency should replace the previous mother and fathers with another set in a good caring environment that would be beneficial to the child's upbringing, as far as it can determine.

Right. We're agreed on that. Now at what point in that are you figuring a gay couple can't meet that requirement?

OldNotWIse

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Best place for the child is with a straight couple. A mum and a dad. Everyone would agree with that, you can have a happy life with a single parent, widowed whatever but its never the same as having both your parents at home taking care of you, having them there when you need them.

I am sick at all the pandering we have to do for gay people.

But clearly everyone doesn't.

Since when is affording equal status "pandering" - I'm sick of having to validate myself to biggots who are automatically afforded rights simply because they happen to like banging the opposite sex.

Logical Fallacy

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.

This would be great, but is hard to do. All around the world there are children in group homes (which many people involved in child welfare consider to be the worst situation for a child to grow up in) that would be far better off in the care of a single loving parent, or loving couple of the same sex.

I'm not going through it all again but I have outlined the issue earlier in this thread.

cast_iron

seamus wrote: »

OK, I'll accept that to a certain degree. However, I wouldn't accept that to be a reasonable opinion. Understandable perhaps - "I had this growing up and it never did me any harm, therefore it must be the best".

I'm not sure how that becomes argument. It really boils down to (for me) that every child should have a mother and father. No gays/single mothers/blacks rights come into it at all.

But if someone were to examine the evidence and still persist with the "mother and father" is best line, then I can only presume that there are other motives behind their opinion.

Perhaps, but I think where the state has two loving couples that are willing to adopt, and provide a wonderful upbringing to a child, then the child should be given a mother and father. I don't think that's over radical or overly unfair. The other couple's rights or feelings are irrelevant. It's not about them.

cast_iron

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

So which part of this does not include letting anyone apply for adoption?

Apply, not necessarily get.

I don't either understand what you are asking or see how it is relevant.

Beruthiel

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

I am sick at all the pandering we have to do for gay people.

You're right.
How dare they expect to be treated like equal human beings on this planet.
They should know their place.
They are second class citizens and should just shut the hell up and suck it up.

Seachmall

cast_iron wrote: »

then the child should be given a mother and father.

Why?

What benefits does that have over the alternative?

conor.hogan.2

cast_iron wrote: »

I don't either understand what you are asking or see how it is relevant.

You want a child to get a loving home?

What part of that means that you have to not allow gay people to apply for adoption?

The right for them to apply for adoption does not mean they will automatically get to adopt a child. ie they still have to go through the process like everyone else.

Very relevant. (you don't understand it but you know it is not relevant? wtf)

cast_iron

bluewolf wrote: »

So when you said

you actually meant


right so

Sorry, the original wording was probably technically incorrect. I meant the couple should be replaced with a mother and father it originally had. I wasn't trying to imply the violence etc. (if applicable) should be carried forward also.

Right. We're agreed on that. Now at what point in that are you figuring a gay couple can't meet that requirement?

No point at all. I don't doubt they would, and don't think I said otherwise. It's not about them however. Adoption is about the child - and I believe all children are entitled to a mother and father.

Seachmall

cast_iron wrote: »

No point at all. I don't doubt they would, and don't think I said otherwise. It's not about them however. Adoption is about the child - and I believe all children are entitled to a mother and father.

So no reason other than that's how it's traditionally done?

NuMarvel

Seachmall wrote: »

Fostering is when the state steps in to remove the child from the home and aims to find a suitable family [either short or long term].

And to expand on this, as I posted earlier in the thread (i.e. last year), the State has already placed children with gay foster parents. So the State has already determined that gay couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples, particularly with vulnerable children.

So all that really remains is that the legal relationship around adoption by gay couples be formalised. And that's for the benefit of the CHILD, not the couple.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

No point at all. I don't doubt they would, and don't think I said otherwise.

You said you think the agency should place a child:

in a good caring environment that would be beneficial to the child's upbringing, as far as it can determine.

That's your requirement.
But you are determined that a gay couple can't adopt. Therefore you must surely believe they fail to meet this requirement.

I believe all children are entitled to a mother and father.

Because...?

cast_iron

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

You want a child to get a loving home?

What part of that means that you have to not allow gay people to apply for adoption?

The right for them to apply for adoption does not mean they will automatically get to adopt a child. ie they still have to go through the process like everyone else.

Very relevant. (you don't understand it but you know it is not relevant? wtf)

Because the argument isn't "who should be allowed to apply for adoption".
It's whether you believe a child is better off with a mother and father or two fathers/mother.
The technicalities of who can apply only cloud this fundamental point.

conor.hogan.2

cast_iron wrote: »

Because the argument isn't "who should be allowed to apply for adoption"

Have you read the thread title? They currently are not allowed, this is the discussion.

So you agree they should be allowed to apply for adoption and if they are best suited to adopt a child they will be successful in adopting.

You just don't agree they are the best match ever, because of your opinion/generalization/bigotry.

Babybuff

There should be an atari jaguar option. I'm sure there are a lot of people who couldn't give a fcuk.

cast_iron

bluewolf wrote: »

You said you think the agency should place a child:
That's your requirement.

It wasn't my only requirement, and cherry picking single lines to make out that I don't understand what my point is isn't helping. I also quite clearly stated I think the child is best placed with a mother and father.

But you are determined that a gay couple can't adopt. Therefore you must surely believe they fail to meet this requirement.

If I believed that, I would say so. I don't.

Seachmall

cast_iron wrote: »

I also quite clearly stated I think the child is best placed with a mother and father.

And do you have a reason as to why you think this?

cast_iron

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Have you read the thread title? They currently are not allowed, this is the discussion.

Yes, I've read it. Who can apply is not mentioned. I don't believe they should be allowed adopt - as per question in the title.

cast_iron

Seachmall wrote: »

And do you have a reason as to why you think this?

You make it out as if it is a radical belief that makes no sense.

bodice ripper

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Best place for the child is with a straight couple. A mum and a dad. Everyone would agree with that, you can have a happy life with a single parent, widowed whatever but its never the same as having both your parents at home taking care of you, having them there when you need them.

I am sick at all the pandering we have to do for gay people.

We wouldn't all agree with that, and you are being asked to prove it. We are talking about the welfare of children here - argument by assertion just is not good enough.

I get pretty sick of the gay community too. It's no excuse for lazy reasoning.

Logical Fallacy

cast_iron wrote: »

Because the argument isn't "who should be allowed to apply for adoption".
It's whether you believe a child is better off with a mother and father or two fathers/mother.
The technicalities of who can apply only cloud this fundamental point.

You do understand that the additionally bolding i added IS a technicality as to who can apply?

AllyMcFearless

I'll just throw my opinion in here sure..

Completely for gay couples being able to adopt. Having two loving 'parents' is surely better than having nobody care. Of course it'll be viewed as odd until it becomes more common and it's just seen as a pretty normal thing to do. If the couple are prepared to tell all their friends/family what they want to do, then all that should be given is support, it's a very brave thing to do.

seamus

cast_iron wrote: »

Perhaps, but I think where the state has two loving couples that are willing to adopt, and provide a wonderful upbringing to a child, then the child should be given a mother and father. I don't think that's over radical or overly unfair. The other couple's rights or feelings are irrelevant. It's not about them.

But as much as you don't want to think so, that is discrimination. All other things being equal, the only reason you're choosing one couple over the other is on the basis of their sexual orientation. Or on the basis of their sex.

Either way, it's discrimination and just plain wrong. There is no rational basis why a man/woman combination should be chosen above a man/man or woman/woman combination.

Seachmall

cast_iron wrote: »

You make it out as if it is a radical belief that makes no sense.

I'm simply asking if you have a reason as to why you feel mother/father households should be favoured over same-sex households.

I'm not making it out to be anything.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But clearly everyone doesn't.

Since when is affording equal status "pandering" - I'm sick of having to validate myself to biggots who are automatically afforded rights simply because they happen to like banging the opposite sex.

Can I please get some form of I don't have the same rights as my fellow citizens who like to bang the opposite sex tax rebate?

oldrnwisr

cast_iron wrote: »

Because the argument isn't "who should be allowed to apply for adoption".
It's whether you believe a child is better off with a mother and father or two fathers/mother.
The technicalities of who can apply only cloud this fundamental point.

OK, this is relatively straightforward. The issue that we are dealing with is whether homosexual couples should be categorically excluded from adopting children (or any other group) for example.

Article 40.1 of the Constitution states:

"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function."

The only reason for a categorical exclusion of a particular group is a principle which fulfills what in US law is known as the rational basis test.

With regard to this issue the rational basis which has been argued by states and other entities seeking to retain a prohibition against homosexual adoption has generally been:

"Instead, the Department argues that there is a rational basis for the prohibition on homosexual adoption because children will have better role models, and face less discrimination, if they are placed in non-homosexual households, preferably with a husband and wife as the parents."

However, when examined against the sociological and physchological evidence presented, courts have struck down the argument above.

The welfare of the child is the paramount concern in this matter and this welfare is in no way enhanced by excluding homosexual couples from adopting.

blacklilly

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm simply asking if you have a reason as to why you feel mother/father households should be favoured over same-sex households.

I'm not making it out to be anything.

I do not see how it is discrimantary, it is a well documentated fact that children do better by having both a mother and father raise them. Surely this is logical? Woudl you suggest that these studies are discrimanting?

I am not discriminating when I say I do not believe a gay couple should have the right to adopt, my main concern is for the child not the parents.

I would also be against a single person adopting.

It is nothing to do with sexuality. It is the right of the child and should be at the core of this and not the rights of the adults.

cast_iron

seamus wrote: »

But as much as you don't want to think so, that is discrimination. All other things being equal, the only reason you're choosing one couple over the other is on the basis of their sexual orientation. Or on the basis of their sex.

Either way, it's discrimination and just plain wrong. There is no rational basis why a man/woman combination should be chosen above a man/man or woman/woman combination.

I think I've stated above that I know it's discrimination. Whether it's wrong or not, is a more subjective point.

When argued from the point of view that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, then of course, there is no rational argument to say they can't do the same job. I accept that.

However, any man and woman can go and have a baby, for a gay couple, they must go through through a different route (ask God why). I'm not sure the state is obliged to help them out on this one.