Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

B0jangles

CreepingDeath wrote: »

They're not studies, they're questionnaires sent out to teenagers who are generally not very self aware to start with.

Anyway, since everyone is individual how can you subjectively compare how their current life is, without comparing how their life could have been with heterosexual parents ?
If someone doesn't know any differently, then how can they comment?

It's like asking boardsies how happy they are living in Ireland, and asking English people how happy they are living in England.
There's no real comparison between them, it's all subjective.

It's not science it's an aggregation of opinions.

And yet you hold that the aggregate of their hundreds of first person experiences about the lives they have led over many years is trumped by your single, solitary outsiders belief of how it really is?

blacklilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

The right of the child should be at the center of this, not the right of the adult.

My opinion is that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman as opposed to a single man or woman or a gay couple.

This is the ideal and I really can't seem to understand the argument against this.

However I do have respect for others opinions and im not going to involve myself in a argument as my opinion will not change.

I, and presumably everyone else, will completely agree that the welfare of the child is paramount.

With that in mind, prove your assertion that a child being raised by a heterosexual couple is better than being raised by a gay couple. Because so far, no one on the No side has been able to provide any evidence, let alone anything half way convincing.

The welfare of a child being adopted is too important to leave to chance. If studies show that gay couples make just as good parents as heterosexual couples, then they should be considered on an equal basis. Anyone who disagrees needs to prove what they're saying, otherwise they're more concerned with winning an argument on the Internet than actually making sure an adopted child has the best upbringing available.

if you read over my previous posts you will see reference to some studies.

B0jangles

blacklilly wrote: »

if you read over my previous posts you will see reference to some studies.

But weren't those studies comparing two parent to single parent families, nothing to do with gay couples as parents at all?



Edit: yep, checked the précis of both studies reveals them to be focussed entirely on the dynamics of heterosexual couples. Nothing at all to say about gay couples. in fact you could argue for the legalization of gay marriage based on the result of those studies.

CreepingDeath

Sonics2k wrote: »

I see you ignored this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

Yep, I believe in making my own mind up.

Why don't you comment on some of the points I raised in the post above... Link

Or do you not have a specific study which will hand you your opinion on it?

B0jangles wrote: »

And yet you hold that the aggregate of their hundreds of first person experiences about the lives they have led over many years is trumped by your single, solitary outsiders belief of how it really is?

They may report that they are happy raised by gays.
They cannot dismiss the idea that they may have been happier with heterosexuals.

As I said, it's a subjective questionnaire.
A lot of psychology is just statistics, trying to find a trend in data.
It's not real deterministic science.

el diablo

I 100% agree with the OP.

blacklilly

Also your tone towards me is harsh to say the least. My opinion alone will not decipher if a gay couple will be permitted to adopt.
I have lots of opinions on lots of different subjects, I don't let or rely on studies to dictate the opinions i form.

Pushtrak

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Yep, I believe in making my own mind up.

Why don't you comment on some of the points I raised in the post above... Link

Or do you not have a specific study which will hand you your opinion on it?

Opinions are great, but when they make predictions which have no basis in reality, they will be called out. And when you are calling something out for having no bearing in reality, appeals to opinion aren't going to cut it. You have to go with what has been demonstrated to be true in reality.

Oh, and you keep on avoiding the question, and I'll keep asking till you answer. You said you aren't against same sex couples adopting a child, just precedence should go to parents of different genders. So, a vote comes up, how would you vote? Want to see if you were being truthful or not. Well, at least if you will remain truthful for the purpose of the thread.

B0jangles

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Yep, I believe in making my own mind up.

Why don't you comment on some of the points I raised in the post above... Link

Or do you not have a specific study which will hand you your opinion on it?



They may report that they are happy raised by gays.
They cannot dismiss the idea that they may have been happier with heterosexuals.

As I said, it's a subjective questionnaire.
A lot of psychology is just statistics, trying to find a trend in data.
It's not real deterministic science.

In other words you will only accept data which is aligned with your predetermined position, and if all the data points the other way you will simply dismiss it and "make your own mind up".

blacklilly

B0jangles wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

if you read over my previous posts you will see reference to some studies.

But weren't those studies comparing two parent to single parent families, nothing to do with gay couples as parents at all?



Edit: yep, checked the précis of both studies reveals them to be focussed entirely on the dynamics of heterosexual couples. Nothing at all to say about gay couples. in fact you could argue for the legalization of gay marriage based on the result of those studies.

Please direct me to a study that has been large enough to fully exaime the results of a child being raised by a gay couple

B0jangles

blacklilly wrote: »

Also your tone towards me is harsh to say the least. My opinion alone will not decipher if a gay couple will be permitted to adopt.
I have lots of opinions on lots of different subjects, I don't let or rely on studies to dictate the opinions i form.

My tone is not harsh, I just believe that people should back up their opinions with more that their gut-feeling and "I think" statements.

If you don't accept factual evidence as a good basis for the formation of opinions then I really don't know what to say?


^^^^ Crossposting Oldrnwisr's excellent post with links to a great many studies of gay and lesbian parenting http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

NuMarvel

blacklilly wrote: »

if you read over my previous posts you will see reference to some studies.

I see that you refer to some studies, but without links, we're left guessing as to which ones exactly you mean.

But to make it easy, and so we can be completely sure you have only the welfare of children at heart, why don't you quote the section where those studies state that heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than gay couples?

CreepingDeath wrote: »

They may report that they are happy raised by gays.
They cannot dismiss the idea that they may have been happier with heterosexuals..

Similarly, you can't dismiss the idea that children with adopted by heterosexual couples may have been happier being raised by gay couples.

Hell, for all we know, all children being taken from their natural parents at birth and being raised by gay couples may produce the best possible outcome for the world at large.

But given that it's the welfare of children we're talking about here, we'll just have to trust that an environment in which they're happy in, is the best environment for them.

blacklilly wrote: »

Please direct me to a study that has been large enough to fully exaime the results of a child being raised by a gay couple

Please direct us to ANY study that supports your assertions.

And lest anyone think I'm being facetious with my continual references to the welfare of children, I'm not. Adoption is ALL about the welfare of the child, and if a gay couple is the best option, then the child should go to them. Anyone who wants to even think denying a child the right to the best possible upbringing, had better be ready to back up what they say.

blacklilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

if you read over my previous posts you will see reference to some studies.

I see that you refer to some studies, but without links, we're left guessing as to which ones exactly you mean.

But to make it easy, and so we can be completely sure you have only the welfare of children at heart, why don't you quote the section where those studies state that heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than gay couples?

I am using my phone to post here. I will give links and quotations tomorrow when I get to a computer.
I will also check out the links that have been posted regarding pro gay adoption.
I did nothers say I ignore studies when forming my opinion, what I meant was, I don't let studies soley dictate my opinions on subjects. I am intelligent and educated enough to form my own opinions as I am sure other people commenting on this thread are.

Pushtrak

blacklilly wrote: »

I am intelligent and educated enough to form my own opinions as I am sure other people commenting on this thread are.

Honestly, it seems a lot of the people who post no to this aren't coming from an intelligent/educated opinion but rather personal dislike.

blacklilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

if you read over my previous posts you will see reference to some studies.

I see that you refer to some studies, but without links, we're left guessing as to which ones exactly you mean.

But to make it easy, and so we can be completely sure you have only the welfare of children at heart, why don't you quote the section where those studies state that heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than gay couples?

I am using my phone to post here. I will give links and quotations tomorrow when I get to a computer.
I will also check out the links that have been posted regarding pro gay adoption.
I did nothers say I ignore studies when forming my opinion, what I meant was, I don't let studies soley dictate my opinions on subjects. I am intelligent and educated enough to form my own opinions as I am sure other people commenting on this thread are.

CreepingDeath

Pushtrak wrote: »

Oh, and you keep on avoiding the question, and I'll keep asking till you answer. You said you aren't against same sex couples adopting a child, just precedence should go to parents of different genders. So, a vote comes up, how would you vote?

In someways I think it would be funny that gays would become voluntary unpaid babysitters, in others I think it's best for the child if they're raised by a normal more socially accepted heterosexual couple for their sake.

It's more likely that a heterosexual couple would have other children possibly their own, and having other children would/should increase your standing in an adoption priority list. Children would be much better off with siblings.

I only just thought of that angle now.

As I am sick of repeating, I'm not against gay adoption per se, but I believe the State has a duty of care to the child to preferentially place them with a heterosexual couple first.

B0jangles wrote: »

My tone is not harsh, I just believe that people should back up their opinions with more that their gut-feeling and "I think" statements.

This is a subjective topic, it's not a black & white area.
Trying to brow beat the other 332 people with Web page links isn't going to work.
Just because you have maybe 100 people who wear white coats and carry a clipboard behind you doesn't mean you are right in this matter.

Here's a study which shows it's 14 times safer to have an abortion than give birth.
So should we mindlessly conclude that every expectant mother should play it safe and have an abortion?

No... studies are only playing with statistics.
And statistics are frequently used to try and dupe those who don't understand their nature or their limitations.

Abortion Versus Birth Study

blacklilly

Pushtrak wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

I am intelligent and educated enough to form my own opinions as I am sure other people commenting on this thread are.

Honestly, it seems a lot of the people who post no to this aren't coming from an intelligent/educated opinion but rather personal dislike.

Are you referring to me? I can only give you my word that i have nothing against gay people. If you don't believe me that's your own issue, not mine.

NuMarvel

CreepingDeath wrote: »

In someways I think it would be funny that gays would become voluntary unpaid babysitters,

Why would it be funny?

Bannasidhe

[QUOTE=CreepingDeath;78699752

a normal more socially accepted heterosexual couple

[/QUOTE]

Do you really not understand why statements like that get you called homophobic?

Being gay is normal.

Why do you say gay adoption is not accepted by society? Who is to know the children are adopted - they don't have a bloody great A stamped on their foreheads.

As a lesbian mother I can honestly say I never encountered any problems anywhere in Ireland when with lesbian partner and my son - so why should gay couples who adopted their children?

Society doesn't have a problem - you do.

B0jangles

CreepingDeath wrote: »

This is a subjective topic, it's not a black & white area.
Trying to brow beat the other 332 people with Web page links isn't going to work.
Just because you have maybe 100 people who wear white coats and carry a clipboard behind you doesn't mean you are right in this matter.

Here's a study which shows it's 14 times safer to have an abortion than give birth.
So should we mindlessly conclude that every expectant mother should play it safe and have an abortion?

No... studies are only playing with statistics.
And statistics are frequently used to try and dupe those who don't understand their nature or their limitations.

Abortion Versus Birth Study

This is a human rights issue; it should not be decided upon by way of popular vote by people whose opinions were formed by gut-instinct and the school of "my dad always said".

I've presented data, you've presented your own unsupported opinions.

Also fyi that study is totally irrelevant to the current discussion , I don't know why you brought it up.

Bannasidhe

[IMG][/img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/33941_10150871648339780_166108344779_9275563_755713860_n.jpg

We could add 'I'm legally barred from being a parent with my partner.'

EGAR

I am straight and have voted yes, they should be able to adopt. And hundreds of peeps have voted the same.

Vox populi.

CreepingDeath

B0jangles wrote: »

This is a human rights issue;

No it isn't.
You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.

B0jangles wrote: »

I've presented data, you've presented your own unsupported opinions.

Also fyi that study is totally irrelevant to the current discussion , I don't know why you brought it up

Because it highlights the abuse and incorrect conclusions from those sort of peer reviewed published studies that you hold so dear.

KamiKazeKitten

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No it isn't.
You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.

But you should have a right to be considered, instead of automatically dismissed.

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No it isn't.
You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.

You do know a single gay person can adopt a child. Why should it be different if it's a couple?

tfitzgerald

Yes I think they should have the right to adopt.
there gay not child abusers

Daith

CreepingDeath wrote: »

in others I think it's best for the child if they're raised by a normal more socially accepted heterosexual couple for their sake.

More socially accepted? What century do you live in?

Bannasidhe

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No it isn't.
You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.

'Someone else's babies'? Aw c'mon. Seriously?


Do straight couples have an automatic right to someone else's babies? - no they do not. They apply to adopt a child who legally has no parents or guardian. An application does not mean one is successful. People are saying that a Gay couple should have just as much of a chance as a straight couple to adopt a child.

The same criteria should be applied to all prospective parents regardless of their sexual orientation - which quite frankly should not even be a factor.

B0jangles

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No it isn't.
You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.



Because it highlights the abuse and incorrect conclusions from those sort of peer reviewed published studies that you hold so dear.

Not actually gay myself, I just believe that human rights belong to all of us, not just the majority.

And posting an irrelevant study demonstrates nothing whatsoever. You have posted nothing beside personal opinion and outright bigotry.

Perhaps you'd do better if you could post actual evidence to support your position instead of flailing wildly at the evidence supporting mine.

conor.hogan.2

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.
.

Do you know how adoption actually works?
They don't walk up and say "baby please" and they are just handed one.

Paparazzo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No it isn't.
You don't have an automatic right to someone elses babies.



Because it highlights the abuse and incorrect conclusions from those sort of peer reviewed published studies that you hold so dear.

What if a gay couple flew to a 3rd world country and adopted a baby from an orphanage there that would never be adopted otherwise. Baby gets a much better life, couple are happy. I'm not talking about buying babies, just the basic scenario above. Are you against that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Yep, I believe in making my own mind up.

Why don't you comment on some of the points I raised in the post above... Link

Why don't YOU comment on some of the points I raised? Specifically abotu what beahaviour you think is worthy of discriminating gay couples from adopting.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Do you know how adoption actually works?

Considering he/she has no idea how voting, democracy and homosexuality works, I'm guessing "not a clue".

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Many cases... sometimes ?
Hiding behind the vague there aren't you?

No. The reality is vague, not me.

Evolution... or at least a poor understanding of it.... allows people to output sweeping generalizations that do not actually hold very well in reality.

One of the biggest errors people make in their understanding of evolution is to think fecundity (the word biologists use to describe the quantity of off spring etc) is a measure of evolutionary success and therefore the greater it is the great ones success is.

Actually fecundity is not a measure of success in and of itself but a variable strategy. Maximizing it is one strategy. Minimizing it is another. Both work and both are just as successful. Some organisms spew out millions of off spring and this works for them.

Other organisms like ourselves actually evolve towards having LESS off spring. Our gestation period has evolved to be quite long, our nursing period too, while nursing hormones are produced that actually inhibit the woman from conceiving again, caring fathers have been shown to have reduced testosterone. And more. It all adds up to show that we have evolved to have less children but to care for them longer. This scuppers people who falsely think that evolution is all about maximizing fecundity and as I said the fact that families from earlier centuries with smaller sizes are the ones with the larger amount of surviving descendants today tells us a lot.

nozzferrahhtoo

blacklilly wrote: »

The right of the child should be at the center of this, not the right of the adult.

I think the rights of the child already are at the center of this. The child has, to my mind, the right to things like security, education, food, love, nurturing and more.

The issue for me is that if you write out that list of things the child has a right to... nothing on that list is precluded from any parental configuration whether single, straight, gay or other.

blacklilly wrote: »

My opinion is that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman as opposed to a single man or woman or a gay couple.

That is the opinion of a few on the thread. The issue is none of the people holding that opinion appear to be able to substantiate or defend it in any way.
They just throw out the word "ideal" and run. Or, like yourself, they admit that their opinion is unmovable by anything in any way. Amazing how some people admit to fundamentalism with pride.

Captain Graphite

In this day and age it surprises me how many people are still against allowing gay couples to adopt.

I personally don't ever want children, so fortunately this area won't ever effect my life. But thinking of gay or lesbian couples out there who just want to give a child a loving home, only to be told "sorry, you do not have the optimal set of genitals. NEXT", is both deeply saddening and downright insulting.

Any same sex couple (or any couple, for that matter) wanting to adopt will need to be vetted and deemed to be able to provide a good home for a child before being considered. And yet, even after all that, some people are willing to argue that they should then be rejected because of some outdated notion of a "traditional" family being ideal?

First they want the right to marry, and now THIS? Damn gheys, demanding equal human rights..... :mad:

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Do you know how adoption actually works?
They don't walk up and say "baby please" and they are just handed one.

*limp-wristedly skips into orphanage*

Oooh can I get a Chinese one? Ethnically diverse is so in these days and it would look only fabulous with my new outfit.

Deleted User

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.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This is amazing Now I know im in 2012!

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

It is both really and everything in between. There have been people like us for some time and likely will continue to be for some time to come. I do not get to meet many of them alas but we do try as it is always good to have people around you in similar situations to yourself to share experiences and problems.

But it certainly does ask questions of users like CreepingDeath who make up arguments to suit their position. In this case the user made up that children benefit from a "diversity of personalities" in their parenting and hence this means one man + one woman is "best".

The first obvious problem with that tripe is that personalities are diverse regardless of the sex of the people involved.

The second however is that I doubt he intended to argue that my relationship is "more ideal" than a couple - but given there are three personalities in mine not two that is exactly what (s)he just argued.

Ghost Buster

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Do you know how adoption actually works?
They don't walk up and say "baby please" and they are just handed one.

That only works to hungry atheists.

blacklilly

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

The right of the child should be at the center of this, not the right of the adult.

I think the rights of the child already are at the center of this. The child has, to my mind, the right to things like security, education, food, love, nurturing and more.

The issue for me is that if you write out that list of things the child has a right to... nothing on that list is precluded from any parental configuration whether single, straight, gay or other.

blacklilly wrote: »

My opinion is that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman as opposed to a single man or woman or a gay couple.

That is the opinion of a few on the thread. The issue is none of the people holding that opinion appear to be able to substantiate or defend it in any way.
They just throw out the word "ideal" and run. Or, like yourself, they admit that their opinion is unmovable by anything in any way. Amazing how some people admit to fundamentalism with pride.

Im sure you wouldn't sway your opinion bases on the studies I have referenced showing that a child being raised by married parents benefits more than that of a child being raises by a single or co habitating couple??
I can assure you I am not a fundamentalist just because I hold an opinion that you don't agree with doesn't mean I should be put into that category.

conor.hogan.2

Captain Graphite wrote: »

*limp-wristedly skips into orphanage*

Oooh can I get a Chinese one? Ethnically diverse is so in these days and it would look only fabulous with my new outfit.

This is probably what they think happens. The wording they are using is as if they will either automatically get one or start raiding places.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

That only works to hungry atheists.

What?

eviltwin

Yes they should...once they are normal, human beings and can provide a happy, stable home life for a child then why not. I don't think they should be denied just because they are gay. I

'm pretty sure most gay men have sisters, mothers etc just as lesbians have brothers, dads etc so I don't buy this argument about the lack of influence of the other sex.

I grew up in a traditional family with a mum and dad and it was a really horrible environment at times, its an insult to say a gay couple would be no better. Look at the person and what they can bring to the child because they are so much more than just "gay"

Some of the views on this thread are scary.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.



:rolleyes:



Look up what the suffix "phobia" means.

"Their behaviour is not a good example for children" - oh dear :rolleyes:

So you think being gay/straight is learned behaviour then? (Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with the "gay example" lol).

NuMarvel

blacklilly wrote: »

Im sure you wouldn't sway your opinion bases on the studies I have referenced showing that a child being raised by married parents benefits more than that of a child being raises by a single or co habitating couple??

You first represented those studies as showing that children do better with a mother and a father (here), and then referenced them (here) to support your statement that the ideal is being raised by a heterosexual couple.

And yet, from the content of your posts all they do is support the argument that marriage rights should be extended to gay couples. So, thanks for that at least.

I'm not questioning your assertion that children do better in two-parent families. I questioning that the studies show the two parents need to be of opposite sex because so far you haven't produced anything that backs that up.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Someone else's babies'? Aw c'mon. Seriously?


Do straight couples have an automatic right to someone else's babies? - no they do not. They apply to adopt a child who legally has no parents or guardian. An application does not mean one is successful. People are saying that a Gay couple should have just as much of a chance as a straight couple to adopt a child.

The same criteria should be applied to all prospective parents regardless of their sexual orientation - which quite frankly should not even be a factor.

Well said. This (shall we call it) Pink Plundering of orphanages is just another in a long list of tired old exagerations put forward by the "I'm not homphobic but..." brigade. These ideas that we want to take other people's babies against their will and raise them as gays are just some examples of the hysterical ravings employed to validate their otherwise bigotted claims.

conor.hogan.2

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

This is probably what they think happens. The wording they are using is as if they will either automatically get one or start raiding places.



What?

it's a self-irony joke about baby-eating atheists

OldNotWIse

Sonics2k wrote: »

You do know a single gay person can adopt a child. Why should it be different if it's a couple?

Double the gay I suppose... Double the traumatic effects on the child

NuMarvel

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Their behaviour is not a good example for children" - oh dear :rolleyes:

So you think being gay/straight is learned behaviour then? (Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with the "gay example" lol).

What's more, he seems to think that all gay people behave in the same way. I share a house with a gay guy and a gay girl, and the three of us couldn't be more different.

What's unfortunate though is that CreepingDeath keeps making statements that the behaviour of gay people is not a good example, but then skirts around what behaviour s/he is referring to. Maybe for the purposes of a constructive discussion, CD will be clearer in future posts.

seamus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Their behaviour is not a good example for children" - oh dear :rolleyes:

So you think being gay/straight is learned behaviour then? (Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with the "gay example" lol).

Now, let's not jump to that conclusion. Maybe CD has that old idea that all gays are sexual deviants who walk around in arseless leather pants and have sex dungeons in their sitting rooms.

OldNotWIse

Daith wrote: »

More socially accepted? What century do you live in?

Maybe the children WOULD be better off not being adopted by gay people...if they will be going to school with the children of the biggots on here... Does nobody see the irony in the fact that one of the biggest arguments being put forward (that children of gay couples will have a hard time in society) is actually dependant upon the closed-mindedness of their "straight parent" counterparts!? :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

Now, let's not jump to that conclusion. Maybe CD has that old idea that all gays are sexual deviants who walk around in arseless leather pants and have sex dungeons in their sitting rooms.

Well thats why I want to adopt a child, so that I have someone to clean the dungeon for me. I wont worry about little Johnny being bullied at school for having two moms - he'll be too busy at home polishing my leather trousers and oiling the locks on the dungeon

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe the children WOULD be better off not being adopted by gay people...if they will be going to school with the children of the biggots on here... Does nobody see the irony in the fact that one of the biggest arguments being put forward (that children of gay couples will have a hard time in society) is actually dependant upon the closed-mindedness of their "straight parent" counterparts!? :rolleyes:

Yes, apparently encouraging your children to be bullies or shrugging your shoulders at it and saying it's the other kid's fault is good parenting

ikidyounot

Absolutely gay people should be allowed adopt. Once they undergo the same evaluation processes as straight people. It beggars belief that society still is having arguments about whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have kids etc.

Mod: Re-reg banned