Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

Biggins

Resi12 wrote: »

20-odd pages in you think there would be some understanding but no it's still just full of:

Youtube video.

Its certainly has its share of disguised and undisguised hatred towards gays.
Not to mention a troll or two.

Resi12

I'm more referring to the "BUT THE KIDS WILL GET BULLIED!".

For one, when did bullying (in school no less) become a reason to stop, well.. anything? Surely we should hit the bullies straight on to shut them up rather than cower in fear that a child might get a hard doing because people are raising their kids to be like that.

Secondly, why should gay people be the ones to miss out on adopting and giving a child love and support because of bullies for a small fraction of their life? I mean surely the bullies/school should be in question rather than the parents of the child getting bullied...

Thirdly, I would also like to say to those who are parading around saying this is a big reason. Well it may be now but change has to start somewhere.

Biggins

Resi12 wrote: »

For one, when did bullying (in school no less) become a reason to stop, well.. anything? Surely we should hit the bullies straight on to shut them up rather than cower in fear that a child might get a hard doing because people are raising their kids to be like that.

Secondly, why should gay people be the ones to miss out on adopting and giving a child love and support because of bullies for a small fraction of their life? I mean surely the bullies/school should be in question rather than the parents of the child getting bullied...

Thirdly, I would also like to say to those who are parading around saying this is a big reason. Well it may be now but change has to start somewhere.

Amen. Well said.

The Assistinator

hypersquirrel wrote: »

You stated children of gay couples would be bullied. When somebody challenged you saying that we should also ban disabled people or black people from having children you said it wasn't an issue because there are plenty of disabled children in schools.

My point was very simple. There are plenty of gay children in schools as well. Why is that excuse only viable for children with disabled parents and not children with gay parents.

Do not call my posts nonsense simply because you have forgotten what you said in your own.

your point is not valid in this the whole thread is about kids with parents the same sex not about kids that are gay
disabled kids are completely different as disabilitys have nothing to do with parents wanting to adopt

ixoy

ch750536 wrote: »

2. I have wide experience of gay people and they generally have issues that need resolving themselves before they attempt to have a child though to be fair this kinda applies to anyone.

If this applies to everyone, then why are you singling out gay people here? If there is an issue it's being treated as a second-class citizen, something like this attitude isn't

3. Many (I'd say 70%) gays see being gay as a valid excuse to be promiscuous. Many admit this. Constant arguing and battles is not a good environment.

70%? Bull. Please back this up with figures that weren't plucked by your fevered imagination. Gay couples that I know are in committed relationships and are just as stable as straight couples.

It would be like saying 'should reformed alcoholics adopt children'. I'd argue no to that too even though there is nothing wrong with a reformed alcoholic.

It's nothing like that.

Resi12

martyo wrote: »

your point is not valid in this the whole thread is about kids with parents the same sex not about kids that are gay
disabled kids are completely different as disabilitys have nothing to do with parents wanting to adopt

Neither does their sexuality.

Seachmall

martyo wrote: »

your point is not valid in this the whole thread is about kids with parents the same sex not about kids that are gay
disabled kids are completely different as disabilitys have nothing to do with parents wanting to adopt

2 disabled parents want to adopt.

2 gay parents want to adopt.

If allowed to adopt the children of both parents may undergo bullying as a result.

What do you suggest we do?

Moon Indigo

Is this for real? I can understand and appreciate anyone having an opinion but really? I had to stop reading after a while. Since when should anyone get the right to dictate to someone else/a group of people? As in 'Should' gay people be allowed to adopt?
If the relationship is solid then whats the issue? I deal with kids/teenagers that have the 'normal' upbringing. Lets just say obviously something went awry! Its this type of attitude of letting and allowing people to do things that causes so much trouble. I would say I am sorry for the rant but I am not. I see straight couples that have or are trying for kids that frankly couldnt be trusted to mind a budgie. So does there gender make them automaticly better parents?
As for bullying it is almost a rite of passage for most kids anyway wonder if a study was ever done on the background of the kids who do the bullying? :mad:

Seachmall

Resi12 wrote: »

As much as I get your point, I don't like the comparing people who are disabled to gay people.

I think you might be better off to say, 2 ginger parent want to adopt as the ginger gene is easy to pass on and we all know ginger kids get bullied in school awful bad.

In both situations they may get bullied as a result of their parents situation.

It can't be argued you can let one group adopt without the other being allowed if "the child might get bullied" is your reasoning.

I think using the child's physical appearance as the reason for being bullied just complicates the analogy.

Resi12

Seachmall wrote: »

In both situations they may get bullied as a result of their parents situation.

It can't be argued you can let one group adopt without the other being allowed if "the child might get bullied" is your reasoning.

I think using the child's physical appearance as the reason for being bullied just complicates the analogy.

Oh yes, of course. Sorry I misunderstood there. Carry on.

The Assistinator

Seachmall wrote: »

2 disabled parents want to adopt.

2 gay parents want to adopt.

If allowed to adopt the children of both parents may undergo bullying as a result.

What do you suggest we do?

i made a point in a previous post then someone came out and made this point about disabled kids how can we compare both situations

Seachmall

martyo wrote: »

how can we compare both situations

Seachmall wrote:

If allowed to adopt the children of both parents may undergo bullying as a result.

.

The Assistinator

Seachmall wrote: »

.

so what is your answer here?
what do we do?

Seachmall

martyo wrote: »

so what is your answer here?
what do we do?

We stop using petty rationalizations and allow gay couple to adopt unless there is solid objective evidence that suggests gay couples adopting is a serious risk to the child.

bodice ripper

I do enjoy seeing the word "natural" bandied about when this topic comes up, seeing as adoption of an unrealated child is about as unnatural an act as one can think of. maybe "natural" isn't everything.

The Assistinator

Seachmall wrote: »

We stop using petty rationalizations and allow gay couple to adopt unless there is solid objective evidence that suggests gay couples adopting is a serious risk to the child.

petty rationalizations! i would not think there anything petty about peoples worries for kids

Resi12

martyo wrote: »

petty rationalizations! i would not think there anything petty about peoples worries for kids

There is when it's stopping them going into a house with people who care about them..

Seachmall

martyo wrote: »

petty rationalizations! i would not think there anything petty about peoples worries for kids

It's a petty rationalization if it's only applied to gay couples, it's a gross overreaction if it's applied to all couples.

Lapin

No.

Resi12

Lapin wrote: »

No.

Why?

yossarin

i'm sick of other people having disposable income.
Let them blow it on kids stuff like the rest of us.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

I've linked you to all the research you need which is a good deal better than what you've done in presenting your case.



Your counter was poor. Just because a lot of kids aren't in ideal families doesn't mean that the adoption system shouldn't aim to provide the ideal first where possible.

I never said the sexual orientation of anyone adopting should be a factor. What I've said is the ability to provide both a mother and a father should be a factor. Heck, if it were a gay man and a lesbian woman it would still provide this criteria. Therefore on that reasoning it has nothing to do with sexual orientation but rather on the ability to give a child a mum and a dad. In cases where this can't be fulfilled I think it is reasonable for it to go to single people and LGBT for as long as the law permits single people to adopt.



Honestly. If you want to stop that's your choice, I don't particularly mind. I've already answered your last question perhaps not how you'd like it but I did.

Not really. You haven't told me why you belive a parent of each gender is best. You keep telling me to go read the links you posted - most of which are out of date - which is ridiculous because you haven't read them yourself. Debate only works if you research and present your own argument, which you refuse to do, which is where the block comes from.

Regarding the ideal family, why are you assuming that the ideal family is automatically straight? What if the adoption board said the straight couple are 99% perfect, but the homosexual one is 100%?

zeds alive

bullys should adopt gays , that would solve the problem.

ch750536

Biggins wrote: »

So let me get this right, your saying that a gay relationship from its prior existence to any future supposed adoption, is one that is of in your eyes, a bad condition?

If thats what your saying, frankly every gay/bi person in the country will find that deeply insulting individually and as couples.
...And frankly, I wouldn't bloody blame them!

How is hell can you say living with two gays is like living with two reformed alcoholics?
Thats just utter stupidity, very insulting and totally bizarre!

If you try hard enough you can be insulted by anything.

ch750536

ixoy wrote: »

If this applies to everyone, then why are you singling out gay people here? If there is an issue it's being treated as a second-class citizen, something like this attitude isn't

I qualified with 'kinda' & I agree, people with issues should think twice about becoming parents. I'm not talking little issues but big furry ones.

ixoy wrote: »

70%? Bull. Please back this up with figures that weren't plucked by your fevered imagination. Gay couples that I know are in committed relationships and are just as stable as straight couples.

I'm not naming anyone but yes, 70% is the figure I got to when thinking about the issue.

ixoy wrote: »

It's nothing like that.

Tis too.

ch750536

ch750536 wrote: »

I'm not naming anyone but yes, 70% is the figure I got to when thinking about the issue.

So you made it up then

ch750536

bluewolf wrote: »

So you made it up then

Argument forum that way ->

Annasopra

ch750536 wrote: »

Argument forum that way ->

You still made it up

Seachmall

ch750536 wrote: »

Argument forum that way ->

Is that a "yes"?

ch750536

Seachmall wrote: »

Is that a "yes"?

Only if you're deluded.

Lapin

Resi12 wrote: »

Why?

It just doesn't seem natural. To me.
If it can't happen biologically then shouldn't happen artificially.

I know that sounds harsh. But its how I feel.
I don't set out to offend anyone. I'm liberal with most aspects of life and adapt a live and let live approach to most situations.

But same sex parenting just doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ch750536 wrote: »

Only if you're deluded.

Just say yes and leave with some dignity!

sensibleken

Lapin wrote: »

It just doesn't seem natural. To me.
If it can't happen biologically then shouldn't happen artificially.

I know that sounds harsh. But its how I feel.
I don't set out to offend anyone. I'm liberal with most aspects of life and adapt a live and let live approach to most situations.

But same sex parenting just doesn't sit comfortably with me.

So then infertile couples shouldnt either since they cant biologically. or single people. whats the point of adoption if its only for people who can reproduce anyway. seems a bit silly

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Lapin wrote: »

It just doesn't seem natural. To me.
If it can't happen biologically then shouldn't happen artificially.

I know that sounds harsh. But its how I feel.
I don't set out to offend anyone. I'm liberal with most aspects of life and adapt a live and let live approach to most situations.

But same sex parenting just doesn't sit comfortably with me.

I don't buy the whole natrual thing simply because there are a lot of unnatural things going on that you do partake in. Posting on an intenet forum for a start.

seamus

Lapin wrote: »

If it can't happen biologically then shouldn't happen artificially.

We should probably allow all those type 1 diabetics and those with kidney disease to die so. Insulin injection and dialysis, it's just not natural...

The "it doesn't sit comfortably with me", is another way of saying, "I have underlying prejudices against particular types of people, prejudices which I'm uncomfortable even admitting to myself, so I hide behind vague excuses rather than consider the matter honestly".

and of course artifical contraception is wrong too amirite

The_Snapper

Gary4279 wrote: »

However, I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children. I just don't think it would be fair on the child to say for example have two fathers, and no mother figure.

I agree. A child needs a male & female presence in their lives in my opinion.

Chairman Meow

Should the be allowed to adopt? Yeah, its their right.
Do i think a kid would have a better upbringing with a mother and father as opposed to two daddies? Yes.

sensibleken

The_Snapper wrote: »

I agree. A child needs a male & female presence in their lives in my opinion.

what male and female presence are these kids getting in the orphanage?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The_Snapper wrote: »

I agree. A child needs a male & female presence in their lives in my opinion.

But they will have those presences. It takes a village to rasie a child, remember? There is more than one male and one female presence in even the typical shild's live.

bodice ripper

Lapin wrote: »

It just doesn't seem natural. To me.
If it can't happen biologically then shouldn't happen artificially.

I know that sounds harsh. But its how I feel.
I don't set out to offend anyone. I'm liberal with most aspects of life and adapt a live and let live approach to most situations.

But same sex parenting just doesn't sit comfortably with me.

bodice ripper wrote: »

I do enjoy seeing the word "natural" bandied about when this topic comes up, seeing as adoption of an unrealated child is about as unnatural an act as one can think of. maybe "natural" isn't everything.

just in case you missed it.

also, you may have forgotten, but gay people generally have working genitals, it can and does happen naturally. It may come as a shock to you, but people often have sex with contraception for enjoyment, and then sometimes because they want children.

Micky Dolenz

The_Snapper wrote: »

I agree. A child needs a male & female presence in their lives in my opinion.

What about the thousands of single parent families?

ch750536

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Just say yes and leave with some dignity!

No means yes in fascist AH shocker.

Wolfe Tone

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

What about the thousands of single parent families?

The state should strive to place a child in as ideal a home as possible. Two loving, caring parents are better than one. Add in one being a man and the other parent being a woman and you have the ideal.

Micky Dolenz

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The state should strive to place a child in as ideal a home as possible. Two loving, caring parents are better than one. Add in one being a man and the other parent being a woman and you have the ideal.

We don't live in an ideal world though.

The_Snapper

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

What about the thousands of single parent families?

Just look at the instability & delinquency around you with a lot of, not all, single parent families.

Some Facts

Wolfe Tone

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

We don't live in an ideal world though.

Yeah I know, but the state should try and put a child in an ideal a home as possible.


AFAIK there is a shortage of kids available for adoption, and in my book gays are at the back of the line as the kids should be placed in the best home possible, which is the "traditional" one.

Of course if there are no "traditional" families with loving parents, a man and a woman, then of course single parents and gays should be allowed adopt.

Killer Pigeon

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yeah I know, but the state should try and put a child in an ideal a home as possible.


AFAIK there is a shortage of kids available for adoption, and in my book gays are at the back of the line as the kids should be placed in the best home possible, which is the "traditional" one.

Of course if there are no "traditional" families with loving parents, a man and a woman, then of course single parents and gays should be allowed adopt.

Since when was raising a child in a monogamous relationship ever natural?

cowzerp

histories wrote: »

The fact that this has to even be asked in 2011 is saddening. I'm not so much for gay rights as I am for human rights. If two people, be they same sex or otherwise, want to adopt they should be allowed

Its an honest topic of debate and in my opinion people who choose to be in a gay relationship where its impossible to have children don't deserve the right to adopt, it's not the same as a couple where 1 partner cant because something is not working.

Basically there choosing the life where having children is not an option.

Biggins

The_Snapper wrote: »

Just look at the instability & delinquency around you with a lot of, not all, single parent families.

Some Facts

Aaa... yes, facts supplied by the right-wing Heritage foundation! Ultra-conservative (and to my view, ultra backward!) and ultra religious founders!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

...And what about instabilities within already standard families too? Huh?